BTJ 5/2011 - Baltic Press

NETWORKINGINTELLIGENTLYWe can manage the biggest ones. Not only by usingstate-of-the-art handling technology but also at a speedand with an efficiency that are unique in Europe. To thisend Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG invests systematicallyin future technologies. This ensures that Hamburg willremain the most important hub between Asia and Europe.www.hhla.deGROWING TOGETHER.

Contents3Regular columns3 Editorial6 BTJ calendar of partnership events8 Market SMS Extended10 What’s new?12 On the roads:Simplicity of daily cut-offs54 WISTA: Steering a course throughchange55 Tall ships bid farewell to the summer56 Collector’s corner57 Transport miscellany58 Who’s who14Maritime14 Under pressure16 Is LNG-mania healthy?18 We will monitor the shipping sectorInterview with Siim Kallas,VP of the European Commission20 Incentives to act21 Ships’ sewage discharge: banned36NewslettersTransBaltic36 Getting connected38 Inland waterway transport in theBSR – Time to take actionBaltic Ports Organization40 Face to face with challengesEWTC II42 Business opportunities inrailway transport of the EWTC– Integrated rail transport | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Contents25ReportBaltic containerization25 Workhorses of the Baltic33 Fierce competition34 Kiel Canal – Strategic shortcut orbottleneck?43FocusRailways43 The industry has to keep up47 On track for the futureInterview with Johannes Ludewig,CER Executive Director50 Finding optimum52Logistics52 The importance of sustainability –Benefiting the supply chain all alongthe wayI n t h i s i s s u eIt is very difficult to quantify the exact risk of modal backshift, nevertheless,we will continue to monitor possible impacts on the shipping sector, to ensureadequate policy response in case of distortions in the logistic chain.Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the European CommissionRead more in the interview devoted to IMO’s SOx regulations, entitled: We will monitor the shipping sector, p. 18-19and receive 2 posters with BALTIC RORO/FERRY and CONTAINER mapsFOR FREE* BALTIC RORO/FERRY map is a free supplement to BTJ May- June 3/2011* BALTIC CONTAINER map is a free supplement to BTJ Sept.-Oct. 5/2011of 6 upcoming BTJ issuesof 6 upcoming BTJ issuesGo to(+5% VAT, postage costs included)www.baltictransportjournal.comand click:5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal |

BTJ calendar of eventsBTJ 5/2011 (Sept.-Oct. edition) Special: Baltic Container Map 2011 |Report: Baltic containerization | Focus: RailwaysIssue distributed at:European Transport Conference 2011, 10-12 October, UK/Glasgow, www.aetransport.orgThe European Transport Conference is the annual event for transport planning professionals organized by the Association for EuropeanTransport. ETC is a forum for transport practitioners to come together and debate on policy issues, research findings and best practice acrosstheir sector. Besides the professional discussion sessions the conference’s structure also gives an opportunity for informal meetings.TRAKO International Railway Fair, 12-14 October 2011, PL/Gdańsk, www.mtgsa.com.pl/title,lang,2.htmlThe most important rail meeting in Poland and one of the largest in CE Europe, giving the opportunity to promote agglomeration rail transport,freight forwarding and logistics, present the latest technology and hold business meetings. The exhibition is organized in partnership withPolish National Railways (PKP) together with a number of seminars, conferences and presentations.28 th International Port & Terminal Technology Conference 2011, 19-20 October 2011, DE/Hamburg,www.millenniumconferences.comAn impressive technical and well-structured programme of industry experts and market leaders will explore the latest developments,issues, trends and technology affecting ports and terminals around the globe. The conference will provide delegates an invaluable learningopportunity as well as an excellent platform for discussion, debate and networking.International Supply Chain Conference 2011, 19-21 October, DE/Berlin, www.bvl.de/isccFor the 28 th time the ISCC will bring together experts from the industry, trade and service sector as well as scientists from over 40 countries.This year participants will share their knowledge and experiences in the supply chain under the keynote: “flexible – secure – sustainable” andtopics will include risk management in supply chains, brands and marketing in logistics, agility-focused strategies and supplier integrationin global markets. The meeting is a perfect occasion to exchange ideas on up-to-date supply chain resolutions.Baltic Development Forum Summit 2011, 24-27 October 2011, PL/Gdańsk, www.bdforum.orgFor the first time Poland will host the annual BDF Summit. Baltic Development Forum will work closely together with the Polish governmentduring its EU-presidency and the European Commission in an effort to demonstrate how to combine top-down political guidance withbottom-up enthusiasm and entrepreneurship.Europort Rotterdam 2011, 8-11 November 2011, NL/Rotterdam, www.europort.nlA bi-annual event gathering over 30,000 professionals from all segments of the shipbuilding/shiprepair industry, giving an overview of thelatest technologies in the maritime industry. Construction of vessels, dredging, fishery, inland navigation, mega yachts, naval specials, offshore,sea shipping, workboats, and much more is waiting for you at the four-day exhibition and its assisting conferences.Port Finance International London, 09-10 November 2011, UK/London, www.portfinanceinternational.comPort Finance International will be organized for the 3 rd time in London. The event attracts professionals involved in port development and port finance.Some of the key topics to be covered at this year’s conference include: global trends in port finance and development, market overview, financingchallenges for ports, port financing, safe harbours in a financial storm, etc. This conference will provide all those who attend with the chance to hearfrom industry experts, learn about development plans, debate, identify risks, meet potential business partners and reconnect with industry friends.Port Development UK, 28-29 November 2011, UK/London, www.port-development.comPort Infrastructure Development UK is the first meeting focusing specifically on the challenges and opportunities surrounding UK portinfrastructure development. Given the increased demand for offshore renewable energy, now is the time to focus on marrying the needsof ports with the requirements of the renewable energy industry. The topics will include, inter alia, ports secure investment, developmentopportunities as well as the requirements of green energy.Marine Propulsion Strategies, 7-8 December 2011, DE/Hamburg, www.propulsionstrategies.comMarine Propulsion Strategies will bring together representatives from across the global shipping industry. The aim of the conference is to learnabout technological innovations and projections for investment, in order to make critical strategic business decisions to develop a long-termand enduring marine propulsion strategy. During the two-day event approaches to drive operational efficiency, meet environmental targetsand understand viable next generation propulsion options will be explored.BTJ 6/2011 (Nov.-Dec. edition)Issue distributed at:Report: Bulk transport | Focus: Road trafficRail Revenue and Customer Management 2011, 7-9 November, NL/Amsterdam, www.terrapinn.com/2011/rail-revenueThe conference gathers high speed, non-high speed and metro rail operators from all over Europe. The main theme of the event ismaximizing revenue opportunities from increased customer engagement. During the three days Europe’s leading rail operators will presentcase studies, take part in panel discussions, brainstorm sessions and debates. The main topics include increasing revenue by creatingcustomer-centric rail solutions, using customer analytics and taking advantage of new ticketing platforms. Maximizing ancillary revenue andthe growing rail market share are also key issues to be discussed.Smart Stations & Terminals World 2011, 8-10 November 2011, NL/Amsterdam, www.terrapinn.com/2011/rail-stationsThe conference is dedicated to station and terminal owners and operators to discuss new revenue and development strategies, meetwith investors, property developers, operators, infrastructure managers, designers and technology solution providers in order to deliverSmart Terminals of the future. The event will be divided into three sections: “Rail Terminal owners and operators come to Rail Stations &Terminals World and learn”, “World class solution providers attend” and “The Rail Stations & Terminals World focus.”7 th International Airports Conference 2011, 16-17 November, PL/Warsaw, www.actiaconferences.comThis two-day conference is split into three sessions with diverse lectures, discussion panels and a think-tank on the first day. The openingday is going to be dedicated to “Airports and their surroundings”. The day will end with a special event, the Awionetka Gala 2011, whichincludes the 3 rd aviation business meeting, the Baltic Ballroom, and awards presentation. The second day will feature “Non-aviationrevenues” and “Air cargo” sessions.TRANSLOG Connect Congress 2011, 22-23 November 2011, HU/Budapest, www.translogconnect.euThe event is going to offer the possibility for solution providers (limited to 100 delegates) to present their products and services directly to around500 decision makers of target clients throughout Central and Eastern Europe. During two days, service providers will meet with the leading directorsthrough a number of pre-arranged one-to-one business meetings. Several weeks before the Congress, participants will receive individualizedpasswords to access the website, where they can select key presentations, pre-schedule one-to-one meetings and confirm their presence atadditional networking activities, an option which will greatly help them to create their own itinerary prior to the Congress taking place.Intermodal Europe 2011, 29 Nov.-1 Dec. 2011, DE/Hamburg, www.intermodal-events.comAfter a 3-year break the Intermodal Europe exhibition and conference will again be hosted in Hamburg. The world’s leading event for allassociated with the container and intermodal industries dates back to 1976 (at first named CTC – the Container Technology Conference).Intermodal Europe is organised by IIR Exhibition, a part of the Informa Group. The conference will host the Baltic Transport Journal session. | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

BTJ calendar of events– continuedIssue distributed at:3 rd Annual Tanker Economics, 5-6 December 2011, UK/London, www.platts.com/ConferenceDetail/2011/pc163/indexThe event represents an opportunity to discover what strategies are being adopted by the shipping industry and other organizations to dealwith challenges faced by the liquid tanker industry. The conference will focus on the assessment of today’s tankers market and the supply anddemand situation, bunker fuels and their alternatives along with a discussion on how to minimize the risk of piracy.4 th International Ports & the Environment Seminar, 8 December 2011, NL/Amsterdam, www.millenniumconferences.comScheduled to take place in Amsterdam in December 2011, the one day seminar will deliver a varied, in-depth and informative programme,ensuring delegates an invaluable learning opportunity and platform for discussion, debate and networking. MCI Media Ltd is committed todelivering an event of the highest calibre, not only in-depth and informative, but also stimulating and enjoyable.BTJ 2012 partnershipsIssue distributed at:Transport Week 2012, 6-8 March 2012, PL/Gdańsk, http://www.actiaconferences.com/transport-week-2012.htmlActia Conferences invite you to the 2 nd edition of International Transport Week 2012 which will be held in the Polish Baltic Philharmonic inGdańsk. The event is a discussion platform for representatives from the maritime, railway and intermodal sectors. Transport Week 2012 will beaccompanied by conferences, exhibition areas, discussion panels, seminars and topped with an evening gala dinner.TransRussia 2012, 24-27 April 2012, RU/Moscow, www.transrussia.ruBeing focused primarily on cargo transportation services, the TransRussia Exhibition & Conference demonstrates a full range of industrysolutions – from transport and forwarding services to software and equipment for cargo handling. The exhibition attracts leading professionalsfrom Russia, the CIS and the Baltic Sea countries, among others. The event will discuss the most important issues in the development of theRussian transport system and new information systems, which are developed for interaction between different modes of transport.RORO 2012, 22-24 May 2012, SE/Gothenburg, www.roroex.comThe only dedicated exhibition to the roll on-roll off industry is returning to Gothenburg. The meeting will gather professionals from over 50countries, who will analyze the newest threats and opportunities accompanying the ro-ro industry, i.e. the upcoming regulations such as theEmission Control Areas (ECA) and Marpol Annex VI.Posidonia 2012, 4-8 June 2012, GR/Athens, www.posidonia-events.comIn 2012 Posidonia relocates to the Metropolitan Expo Centre situated within the Athens International Airport complex. It is expected to attract morethan 1,800 exhibiting companies from over 80 countries, highlighting the position of Greek shipping and its commitment to renewing and upgradingits fleet. The exhibition will host conferences and shipping association gatherings, chaired by industry leaders, debating and shaping the challengesfacing the industry. Apart from business meetings, the event will also hold the Posidonia Cup yacht race and the Posidonia Shipsoccer Tournament.Transfairlog, 12-14 June 2012, DE/Hamburg, www.transfairlog.com/enThe event will concentrate on optimization of local and global international freight transport and logistics. At the Trade Fair Centre Hamburgdecision-makers, experts and companies from the logistics and transport industries will participate in the showcase of products, services andsolutions for day-to-day operations of present and future logistics.5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal |

Market SMS extendedLatvian ports:45.76 mln tn handled in Latvian ports (+11.5% yoy)Port of Tallinn:24.84 mln tonnes handled during I-VIII 2011 (+2.6% yoy)Photo: Port of LiepajaFrom January to August Port of Riga handled 22.56 mln tn of goods(+14.7% yoy). Cargo turnover at Port of Ventspils totalled 18.97 mlntn (+9.2%), while at Port of Liepāja amounted to 3.18 mln tn (+16.7%).The largest ports in Latvia handled 21.52 mln tn of bulk cargo, 16 mlntn of liquid and 8.22 mln tn of general cargo.Tallinn port’svolumesRussian ports on the Baltic: 122.7 mln tn handled in I-VIII 2011 (+5.2% yoy)From January to August Russia’s ports located within the Baltic Sea saw a 5.2% year-on-year increase in theircargo turnover (122.7 mln tn). The overall output of dry bulk grew by 15.2% to 47.1 mln tn, whereas the handlingof liquid cargo fell down by 0.1% and totalled 75.6 mln tn. Stevedoring companies operating in Port of St. Petersburghandled 39.5 mln tn (+6.5%). Terminal operators at Port of Ust-Luga handled 13.6 mln tn (+80%). Cargotraffic at Port of Vysotsk decreased by 6.3%; at Port of Primorsk by 3.2% and at Kaliningrad’s port by 1.3%.I-VIII 2011 I-VIII 2011/ I-VIII 2010Liquid cargo 18.19 mln tn +7.9%Ro-ro cargo 2.45 mln tn +7.8%Bulk cargo 2.65 mln tn -31.1%Total 24.84 mln tn +2.6%Port Vysotsky LLC: 2.2 mln tn of coal handled during I-VIII 2011 (+50% yoy)Container turnover at the port went up by 26.7% to 127,504 TEU.Port of Aalborg:6,800 containers via X-Press Feeders in I-VIII 2011Since August 19 th , 2010, Port of Aalborg has handled 8,500 containerunits on X-Press’ weekly route among Rotterdam-Aalborg-Gothenburg,of which 6,800 was handled in this year alone. From January to Augustthe average output was 206 units per X-press call (+129% yoy). Theport’s aim is to have two feeder calls per week.Port of Rostock:12 mln tonnes handled inH1 2011 (+/-0% yoy)Last year the Port Vysotsky LLC, a stevedoring company operating in Port of Vysotsk, handled 2.3 mln tn of coal(-21% yoy), but given this year’s quite optimistic results, the company is planning to handle 4.5 mln tn by the endof 2011. Thanks to the overhaul of berths and the completion of a dredging project, conducted in 2008-2010,bulkers over 40,000 DWT can call at the port which was deepened from 9.3 m to 11.9 m. Additionally, the approachchannel was widened by 50 m. Since September the bulk carrier Sam Dragon (46,931 DWT) has kept itstitle as the largest vessel which ever visited Vysotsk. It loaded 44,500 tn of coal for Immingham in the UK.New passenger cars in the EU:8.9 mln new cars registered during I-VIII 2011 (-1.3% yoy)In August new car registration in theEU increased by 7.7% year-on-year(753,709), all of the biggest EU marketsPhoto: European Commissionmarked a rise – Germany (+18.3%),UK (+7.3%), Spain (+5.9%), France(+3.1%) and Italy (+1.5%). However,from January toAugust new carregistrations fellby 1.3% and totalled8,888,793.Only Germany(+11.2%) andFrance (+0.4%)w i t n e s s e dgrowth, while theUK (-6.1%), Italy(-12%) and Spain(-22.2%) have fallenbehind comparedto last year.Tallink:6.4 mln passengers carriedduring I-VIII 2011(+5.87% yoy)During the time period January-August2011 the companyachieved growth on every oneof its pax routes. The Finland-Sweden link totalled 2,257,365pax (+0.48%). Traffic on the routebetween Estonia and Finlandamounted 2,903,019 pax (+8.51%).The Estonia-Sweden connectionreached 671,083 pax (+6.48%).The Latvia-Sweden link totalled515,435 pax (+14.85%). The Finland-Germanyroute, althoughit’s the company’s smallest link,marked the biggest increase by22.63% to a total of 47,044 pax.Photo: Port of RostockThe Seaport Rostock handled 11.1mln tn of the abovementionedresult, while the remaining 900thou. tn were handled by otherRostock port facilities, such as thechemical Port of Yara and the fishingport. Seaport of Rostock handled6.6 mln tn of wheeled cargoand ro-ro traffic, achieving a 6%year-on-year rise. Other generalcargoes increased by 28% to 248thou. tn. Turnover of liquid goodstotalled 1.4 mln tonnes (-22.2%),while the throughput of dry bulkcargo stayed at the same level asin the previous year, amountingto 2.9 mln tn (+/-0%). The seaportalso handled 166,848 escortedtrucks (+7%), 57,435 unescortedtrailers (+17%) along with 38,304load units (+11%). | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

What’s new?Gothenburg’s Skandia Container Terminal taken over by APMPhoto: Port of GothenburgOver the next five years APM Terminals, global containerterminal operator and a part of the AP Möller-MaerskGroup, will invest USD 115 mln in container terminal atPort of Gothenburg, for which it has won a 25-year concessionagreement with the port’s Authority. The Skandiaterminal was the third terminal (apart from the ro-ro andcar terminals) in the port to be transferred to a privatecompany. APM Terminals’ bid won over 13 others. Theoperator will invest in three Super post-Panamax cranesfor loading and unloading container vessels; expansionof the rail terminal and 10 new straddle carriers, amongothers. Moreover, the deal is to highly benefit the City ofGothenburg, which faces major investments related tothe infrastructure as well as continual port development.The Estonian competition authorities have agreed to DFDS’ takeover of the ro-pax route betweenPaldiski (Estonia) and Kapellskär (Sweden) from Baltic Scandinavian Lines AS (BSL). DFDS and BSL willestablish a joint agency operation with an ownership share of 67% for DFDS and 33% for BSL. Accordingto DFDS, the route’s annual turnover is approx. EUR 13.7 mln.New Inspection Regime – lesser controls, better resultsThe Paris MOU New Inspection Regime (NIR), a system used by state control authorities to evaluate a vessel’srisk profile and their management companies’ performance, has been functioning since the beginningof 2011 and according to the figures, it has already proven useful. From January to July 27 Paris MOU NIRcountries performed 10,971 inspections (-22.6% year-on-year), showing that indeed lesser inspections areneeded to do the same job. In the same time period the detention rate increased from 3.6% in 2010 to 3.7%in 2011, indicating that the new system options, such as company performance, are helping to investigatetroublesome vessels. Additionally, NIR discovered a new problem – in 2010 no ships were banned for multipledetentions (“refuse of access” or “banning” provisions), while this year 11 cases have been recorded hitherto.Rail is getting stronger in PolandDB Schenker and Vestas, a companyspecializing in the wind turbinesmarket, have opened a logistics facilityspecially designed for heavy-dutywind turbines components nearLeipzig. The new facility has 5,000m 2 of space, which means that now15,000 m 2 is at DB Schenker’s disposalfor planning, managing and monitoringthe complex spare parts, componentand tool logistics for Vestas.Breaking the Finnish rail bottleneckPhoto: VestasHamburg Hafen und Logistik (HHLA) and Polzug Intermodal haveopened a new hub container terminal in Gądki near Poznań in Poland. Inthe start-up phase the hub enables daily shuttling of three to five shuttletrains between North European ports and Poznań. The new facility of a150,000 TEU annual handling capacity has four tracks of at least 610 m inlength, capable of serving an entire block train without shunting. Thanksto this Kombiverkehr has launched a shuttle train between Duisburg andPolzug’s hub. The service will run three times a week offering one of thegreatest capacities in combined transport in Europe (up to 1,800 tn). Onthe other hand PCC Intermodal has completed the first phase of constructingits new inland container hub in Kutno, Poland. At present theterminal offers 45 thou. m 2 of operating area, a 9 thou. m 2 railway site withtwo 700 m siding tracks and an annual handling capacity of 100 thou. TEU.The terminal is operated by three reachstackers with capacities of about 45tn. Ultimately, in the last stage of development, more than 200 thou. TEUcapacity will be available. Based on the Kutno investment, PCC wants to extendits existing connections from Rotterdam, Hamburg and Bremerhavenfurther on to Moscow, and establish permanent connections from Gdyniaand Gdańsk to Sopron (Hungary), Koper (Slovenia) and Trieste (Italy).Competition is rising in Ust-LugaGulftainer Group, a company from the Emirate of Sharjah inthe United Arab Emirates, has signed an agreement with Port ofUst-Luga during the Investment Forum in Sochi, Russia. The deal,worth EUR 203 mln, is aimed at developing the multifunctional terminalYug-2, most notably, its container activities.The European Union has selectedtwo Finnish rail projects for co-fundingunder 2010 TEN-T calls. At present thesingle track railway Seinäjoki-Oulu hasinsufficient capacity, which is causingbottlenecks on the north-south axisfor the whole of Finland’s rail network.The investment will focus on increasingthe section’s effectiveness in axle loads and operation speeds. The total costof the project is EUR 45.4 mln of which 10% is contributed by the EU. The secondventure, regarding Kokkola-Ylivieska, a part of the Seinäjoki-Oulu line, is goingto receive funds for conducting a study on the feasibility of a Public-PrivatePartnership procurement model for this section. The project is going to costEUR 2.44 mln, of which the EU co-financing amounts to EUR 1.22 mln.Photo: DB SchenkerBecoming biggerKlaipėdos Smeltė, a stevedoring company operating in Port ofKlaipėda, has invested in three STS and seven RTG cranes, which will bedelivered by Konecranes. Since its start in 2006 Klaipėdos Smeltė hasbeen consistently developing; the company wants to become a 1 mlnTEU transhipment hub. The ordered STS cranes are Post Panamax sizewith an outreach of 51 m, a lifting capacity of 65 tn and a lifting height of42 m. The 16-wheel RTGs have a lifting capacity of 40 tn. They can stackone over six boxes high and six plus truck lane wide. STS and RTG cranesare equipped with remote access technology, enabling immediate diagnosticsand maintenance services via Konecranes TRUVIEW® software.10 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

On the roadsSimplicity of daily cut-offsMy favourite Albert Einsteinquote, apart from “Any foolcan make things bigger, morecomplex, and more violent. Ittakes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage– to move in the opposite direction,” is“Make everything as simple as possible, butnot simpler.”Seven centuries before Einstein, Williamof Ockham created “Ockham’s razor” – theidea stating that in trying tounderstand something, gettingunnecessary informationout of the way is the fastestway to the truth. I wouldn’tbe myself, if I didn’t addsomebody from the jazz sideof life: Charles Mingus alsosupported “making the complicatedsimple, awesomelysimple”, what he considereda true creativity.The world we meet everymorning is more and morecomplex – we cannot justlet things flow and see whatcomes up. Facts and figuresstrike us every minute inreal time; no one waits forone’s proper answer; thechance to get a contractpresents itself twice: the firstand last time. Informationhas gained power over theworld and modern treasurehunters are relentlesslyseeking every snatch of insidestories to reach the top.One of the most vital andvisible examples of such behaviouris the specializationmaking everyday maritimetransport and seaport routinesa countless sequence of questions, answers,offers and unit prices leading to thelonged-for destination. Conclusions mustbe made almost at the moment of enquiryand decision-makers must remember: someis not a number, soon is not a an interval oftime. Otherwise you may hopelessly call toHouston, Texas, USA.Can anyone specify the limits of this, Idare to say, crazy, unbalanced and very oftenabsurd rally? Is there any logical or straightforwardanswer? I can think of one dailyproposal, following the latest global examplecoming from Denmark through London.The answer is… simplifying. Yes, inmy opinion simplifying can make us more12 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011productive. Doing less than more. Getrid of all the inessential stuff on your todolist. Get rid of all the clutter on yourdesk and computer. Focus on one task ata time. No one can do everything that hasto be done – it is not possible. You cannotread everything, write everything, listento everyone or meet everybody. Time isrunning consecutively, always in only onedirection, and – the biggest drama for allThe art of choice is becoming the most preciousadvantage, also in the transport industry.workaholics – it cannot be saved; everysecond is valid and may be utilized in onesecond only. That’s why the art of choiceis becoming the most precious advantage,also in the transport industry. Even whenthe best and only strategy remains “trialvs. error”, execution of inevitable activities.The art of choice and the willpowerto change goes hand in hand leading to asuccessful finish line – the port of expecteddestination.Let’s go global, as simplicity is alsothe core message of the new A.P. Møller-Mærsk plan of reinventing and redefiningits Far East-Europe connection. The conceptis called “Daily Maersk”. Even thoughthis column is not created for in-depthcoverage and analysis of such a story, I willenumerate the most important facts andfigures,, as they were presented by Maersk’sCEO Eivind Kolding on September 12 th ,2011, at Millbank Tower in London.The project will consist of 70 vessels,including the Emma Maersk series, fourports in Asia: Shanghai, Ningbo, Yantianand Tanjung Pelepas and three ports inEurope: Felixstowe, Rotterdamand Bremerhaven.The service will start on24 th October, 2011, andthe first call in Europe isplanned for 19 th of November,2011. The main issue isthe offer of the “conveyorbelt approach” – cargo canbe shipped immediately afterproduction without theneed for storage, with cutoffsperformed every day.The transit time parameteris going to be replaced bytransportation time value;Maersk will pay penaltiesin case the agreed valuesare neglected. Koldingemphasized its simplicity,beneficial to all presentand future customers, andthe absolute reliability ofthe service, presenting thistransparent shipping modelas the most unique solutionof the 21 st century.There is one fact whichis undisputable – we maywitness another originalservice pattern in oceanshipping, which most probablywill change a lot. Whatwill the competition do? What impact willnew sailing schedules have on inventorypolicy and warehousing business in logisticsand distribution services? Will shippers savemillions on their supply chains? Will storageproviders lose the same amount?We are living in interesting times,and more and more often, crisis means achance rather than a loss. Simplifying hasa bright future too, no doubt. So, let’s allmake something, even relatively small, ona daily basis in our office, with an eye focusedon the big game which starts thismonth on the world’s sea routes. Krzysztof Urbaś

MaritimeThe shipping sector within the SECAUnder pressureThe Baltic shipping sector is trying to foresee the consequences of theIMO’s 2008 decision to establish new regulations regarding sulphur contentin marine fuels and prepare for them. Increased fuel expenses, logisticscosts and the need for large investments into low-emission technologyand infrastructure – this outcome is unquestionable. But is that all?TIhe Emission Control Area (ECA),constituting only the Baltic Sea,North Sea and the English Channel,is an area covering about 0.3% ofthe world’s water surface. These regions aredeclared as SECAs, unlike the Black Sea, theMediterranean and the East Atlantic.“The global sulphur and nitrogen dioxideregulations of the Marpol Annex VI wasa success for the IMO, but the even morestringent regional sulphur rules of the SulphurEmission Control Area was a decisiontaken in darkness since no impact assessmentwas conducted prior to the decision.The SECA regulation will lead to trade-offeffects and enormous negative competivenessimplications, which should make allpoliticians shiver” – begins an article entitled“Lower sulphur levels in shipping -not sustainable” by Karolina Boholm, advisorto the Industrial Policy Departmentof Swedish Forest Industries Federation.And it won’t be far off to state that almostthe whole shipping industry which operateswithin the SECA nods its head to thisstatement, if not shivers in the face of whatthe future might bring.The consequences of the new IMO rulesfor short short sea shipping are fairly obvious,as various reports conducted by theMember States, organizations and institutesindicate that reducing the sulphur content inmaritime fuel to 0.1% in less than four yearswill lead to a modal backshift, forcing freightonto roads, which, in turn, will increasegreenhouse gas emissions. As the SwedishMaritime Administration has shown, roadtransport might increase by 6% within Sweden,corresponding to more than 300,000tonnes of CO 2. Maritime UK, an organizationof shipping, ports and maritime businessservices sectors in the United Kingdom,has recently warned that the 2015 SECAregulations may increase bunker fuel costsby 87%, creating considerable financial, logistical,societal and environmental impacts.What’s more, they will force dramatic costincreases onto the already highly vulnerableand competitive sector of short sea shippingwithin the Baltic and North Seas, leaving globalshipping, not really competing with othermodes of transport, unaffected for the nextfifteen years. Industry might also face anotherproblem – a diesel shortfall, resulting inincreased imports and a further price boostas well as additional costs in hydro-treatingheavy fuel oil to meet the requirements andadditional carbon emissions.The backgroundOn July 15 th , 2011, the European Commissionadopted a new legislative proposal,bringing the EU’s regulation on marine fuelsulphur content in line with IMO’s requirementsset out under the Convention for thePrevention of Marine Pollution from Ships(MARPOL 73/78). According to Annex VIof the convention, Regulations for the Preventionof Air Pollution from Ships, before2008 it was allowed to use maritime fuelscontaining up to 4.5% of sulphur in all seaareas, excluding SOx Emission Control Areas,where the sulphur content was restrictedto 1.5%. A reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx)emissions from ships, with the global sulphurcap initially reduced to 3.5%, effectivefrom 1 January 2012; then progressively to0.5 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subjectto a feasibility review, to be completedno later than 2018. The limits applicable inSECAs were reduced to 1.0%, beginning on1 July 2010, being further reduced to 0.1 %,effective from 1 January 2015. However, asstated in the European Commission’s communication,the entry into force of the ‘global’provision may be delayed until 2025subject to a review on the availability of thenecessary fuels.As a result of MARPOL Annex VI, SO 2emissions from shipping are to decrease bymore than 90% in SECAs and by more than75% in other sea areas bordering the EU. Theemissions of the particulate matter (PM2.5)are predicted to be lowered by more than60% and 75%, respectively. According tothe European Commission, EUR 15-34 blnper annum in 2020 is to be saved due to improvedhealth and a reduced mortality ratewithin the EU, while EUR 2.6-11 bln will bespent on implementing the revision.As recognized by the Commission, compliancewith the new rules poses a number ofchallenges for, inter alia, shipping, which is tobe monitored and in case of distortions in thelogistics chain or a significant modal backshiftfrom sea to land transport, the adequatepolicy response is promised. Among the solutionsthe operators can choose, the use ofexhaust gas cleaning systems or alternativefuels such as LNG were named, provided theydeliver the same emission reduction benefitscompared to low-sulphur marine fuels. TheEuropean Commission expects boosting innovationin green technologies (which is inline with the EU 2020 strategy).The revised IMO measures were designedfor a wonderful purpose and expectedto benefit greatly the atmosphericenvironment and human health, particularlythat of people living in port cities andcoastal communities. The problem, however,is that time is limited. First of all: to getready for the appropriate solutions – to developthem, by exploiting technologies, andthen to implement them on a broader scale.If this is lacking, what’s left are increasedcosts and fines, a modal backshift from thesea to roads and an extreme limitation ofthe environmental benefits. The whole shippingsector looks to the IMO and EuropeanCommission in search of a reaction to themore and more obvious problem.Tab. 1. Annex VI: adoption, entry into force & date of taking effect of the Emission Control AreasSpecial Areas Adopted Date of entry into force In effect fromBaltic Sea (SOx) 26 Sept 1997 19 May 2005 19 May 2006North Sea (SOx) 22 July 2005 22 Nov 2006 22 Nov 2007North American (SOx and NOx) 26 March 2010 1 August 2011 1 August 201214 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

MaritimeLiquefied Natural Gas as a ship fuelIs LNG-mania healthy?The campaign for LNG-fuelled engines in many respects reminds of historical campaigns for other innovationsin shipping – for nuclear ships, gas turbine, air cushion vehicles or mechanical sails. In all cases lots ofwords were used with minor practical effect. And the whole mass of words has common features – some factsare left unsaid and others are underlined without compatibility, probably for propaganda purposes.In the article “Greener shipping in theBaltic – The best solution is LNG” (BTJ4/2011) we find information that the BSR“constitutes over 11% of the global shippingtrade volume.” Even if this figure weretrue it is not relevant to the subject of environmentalissues and misleads outsiders, whomight think that this number also representsthe Baltic’s share in global shipping emissions.If we were to look for the adequate proportionsin transport statistics, only one set ofdata seems to be proper – a transport work,because in order to cause emissions, the volumehas to be moved. And the BSR generatesonly 0.9% (9 per mile) of the global shippingtransport work! Consequently, the first questionis born: why is the whole world so interestedin such a small amount of emissions andenacts special laws for the Baltic Sea?through the engines unburned – from 32 to154 kg (!) per tonne of LNG (3.2-15.4%), dependingon the engine class, load factor, etc.It means that probably all Norwegian LNGfuelledships are less “green” than ships withinstalled selective catalytic reduction (SCR)on traditional Diesel engines.Looking at the GWP factor alone, theNOx mixture is much worse than CH 4, butthings change when we look at them from atime perspective – from 1750 till the end ofthe 20 th century the methane content in theatmosphere grew by 150% (from 700 to 1,750ppb) and NOx by 17% only (270-315 ppb).This means that the increase in CH 4duringthe industrial era was twice as bad for today’sclimate as the historical rise of NOx.Summing up, today LNG engines existthanks to a legal loophole, which ignoredtheir methane emissions. The emission factorfor methane slip should be established ona level close to one per cent (1% of unburnedCH 4balances the drop in CO 2emission intotal GWP of exhaust gas thanks to the useof methane), but according to MARINTEKmost modern gas engines have a methaneslip of around 2.5%. The question is: how safeand viable is an investment in gas engines ifa regime for methane emission will be establishedin the near future, say in 5-10 years?Question of methane slipsThree greenhouse gases are the worst forthe climate – carbon dioxide (CO 2) with aGlobal Warming Potential (GWP) factor ofone, methane (CH 4) with a GWP between 21-25 and a mixture of nitrogen oxides (NOx)with a GWP of about 300. Today regulationsonly limit the emissions of CO 2and NOx andare silent in the case of methane.In 2010 the Norwegian Marine TechnologyResearch Institute (MARINTEK) measuredexhaust gases from gas-driven vessels inNorwegian domestic shipping*. As it turnedout a significant amount of methane passedPhoto: DISC BV16 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Question of competing technologiesLNG has strong competitors – the aforementionedSCR is the most popular in Norway.54 ships equipped with Diesel engineshad such installations at the end of 2010– 35 serving the offshore industry, 17 fishingvessels and three – cargo. Actual measuresshow that SCR diminishes NOx emissionsby 83%. Additionally, 52 ships passed anengine rebuilding procedure called ‘optimization’,which reduces NOx emission by37%. Most interesting is a combination ofthe SCR and ‘optimization’ which was thecase for only four Norwegian vessels. Sadly,MARINTEK didn’t publish data on emissionfrom such a hybrid solution.Twenty Norwegian ships with LNG enginesagainst over 100 with competitive technologiesshow the market’s choice (in all casessupported by the state). Among LNG-drivenships there are only inland ferries, CoastGuard vessels and one PSV – ships with freecapacity in hulls. The number of engine-‘optimized’ships includes two passenger ships, fivecargo, 15 offshore and 24 fishing vessels.The advantage of an improved Diesel enginecould be predicted on a historical andeconomic basis. This engine since its very beginning(the first ocean-going Diesel drivenship, the Danish Selandia, set sail in 1912)was competing with the steam engine, steamand gas turbine and always won thanks toslow but continual improvements. Developmentdoesn’t stop and “green” Diesel will becheaper in total installation and operationcosts than the LNG engine. Another factor isthat fitting LNG tanks into a modern cargovessel with a highly rationalized hull and deckcapacity seems to be a step back towards theera of steam, because the engine space has tobe enlarged at the cost of cargo holds. Let usremind that the removal of boilers and transferof bunker stores to corners of the hull wasthe first and largest rationalization in a mechanically-drivenvessel. Costly pioneeringDiesel engines were self-financed by earningson better utilization of hull capacity. Now thesituation is being reversed as LNG enthusiastscall for taxpayers’ money for improvementswhich will diminish a shipowner’s income.Question of solidarityIn light of MARINTEK’s research the LNGengine has only one real advantage over Diesel– its methane exhaust doesn’t include solidand soluble particles. Of course, they will be lefteven in the best MDO and HFO, which meetfuture MARPOL requirements. But, accordingto MARINTEK’s deep evaluation, particulatesmatter has a complex nature. CleanerMaritimefuels could lose their grade – the report says:“There will probably not be enough low sulphurcrude oil available to meet the demands,and the average quality of heavy fuel oil mightsuffer. This might lead to higher emissions ofparticles, originating from the combustionprocess.” Black carbon particles act in the atmospherelike greenhouse gases – making theworld warmer. But sulphur added to a blackcarbon particle works like a ballast tank – it absorbswater from the air and forces the particleto land quickly. In its conclusion MARINTEKstates: “The effect on the climate when reducingsulphur seems to be mostly negative since theblack carbon lifetime increases due to a longerlife time in the atmosphere.”World shipping utilizes the waste madeby oil refineries, it can’t stop doing this.But the solidarity in this work has beenbroken because of the idea that we canrun away to an LNG heaven from the effectsof marine liquid fuels combustion.MARINTEK has said that such an escapeis impossible. An LNG heaven does not existyet and there is only one atmosphere. Marek Błuś* Jørgen B. Nielsen, Dag Stenersen, Report. Emission factorsfor NH 4, NOx, particulates and black carbon for domesticshipping in Norway, revision 1, MARINTEK, 23.11.2010.A crossroads for markets –A road map for the futureAsk for exhibitorinformation now!www.transfairlog.comFIRST TRADE FAIR FOR INTERNATIONALTRANSPORT AND LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT12 - 14 June 2012Trade Fair Centre Hamburg, GermanyOrganiser:EUROEXPO Messe- und Kongress-GmbHTel.: +49 89 32391-241Fax: +49 89 32391-246E-mail: transfairlog@euroexpo.deInternet: www.transfairlog.com5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 17

MaritimeWe will monitor the shipping sectorInterview with Siim Kallas,Vice-President of the European Commission Climate and environment challenges areamong the crucial problems the transportsector is nowadays confronted with.What are the most crucial EU measuresdesigned to improve the environmentalcondition of the European seas?Preserving the environment is indeed a keypillar in the development of a sustainable maritimetransport. The environmental protectionof the sea is a broad concept, which covers bothprevention of pollution and response to pollution.As regards pollution prevention, let memention a few examples, such as reducing thecontent of sulphur in marine fuels – we havejust proposed to amend Directive 1999/32/ECregarding this matter, to reduce the sulphuremitted from maritime transport in sensitiveareas, such as the Baltic Sea. We have also inplace legislation which enhances the availabilityand use of reception facilities in ports to handleship-generated waste and cargo residues, andwe are currently reviewing it. Moreover, theIMO decided that all oil tankers built from 1996onwards should have a double hull. The EU negotiateda faster phase-out and secured internationalacceptance for its position at IMO. Regulation417/2002/EC set a timetable for phasingout single-hull oil tankers worldwide and theintroduction of double-hull tankers. These offerbetter protection for the environment in theevent of an accident. As regards our initiativesin terms of response to pollution, together withthe European Maritime Safety Agency we havedeveloped the CleanSeaNet service, which providesnear-real-time satellite information on oilspills. EMSA can also mobilise ships, at the requestof Member States, to help clean the sea incase of an oil-spill. As regards the sulphur content of fuels,and the Baltic Sea in particular, whatare the European measures designedat maintaining the competitiveness ofshort sea shipping, also in the area ofcapital investments in the fields of infrastructureand technology?The Commission is aware of the short termpotential economic impact the stricter limitsfor ships’ emissions might have and has beenlooking into possible solutions to limit theadverse impacts on the industry, in particularfor short sea shipping operators and users.18 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011We have proposed a set of accompanyingmeasures to supportthe sector to meet the mandatorytargets and limit the cost of compliance.The TEN-T Programmewill continue to support projectsaddressing environmental issues,such as implementation projects,studies, and pilot actions introducingnew technologies, innovativeinfrastructure, and facilitiessupporting the deployment ofLNG. In addition, Marco Polo II Programmewill support projects aiming at the implementationand use of innovative technologies oroperational practices that significantly reduceair emissions from ships, such as the use of lowsulphur fuels, alternative fuels like LNG, abatementtechnologies (scrubbers), or vessels usingshore side electricity. Also, investments targetingresearch, development, and innovation toreduce emissions from ships and to promoteenergy efficiency could be financed throughthe European Investment Bank (EIB) dedicatedlending programmes. For the medium andlonger-term our approach aims at encouragingthe use of clean ship technology and alternativefuels, the development of adequate green infrastructure,and the use of funding instrumentsthat could support this – in close dialogue awith all relevant Stakeholders.Making use of the additional technology-basedcompliance provided by the revised Annex VIof MARPOL, and subsequently by the reviseddirective, requires capital investments by theprivate as well public sector. Such investmentsmay need to be incentivised notably when awider set of sustainable shipping objectivesgoing beyond compliance with Marpol AnnexVI are being pursued. Therefore, the use ofpublic funds (both those managed by MemberStates and those resulting from EU funding)could also be envisaged to support measuressuch as retro-fitting air pollution control devicesor marine engines on vessels ahead of theentry into force of the new standards, or developingonshore infrastructure for the treatmentof residues or marine-LNG refuelling stations.Any such support must comply with existingEU Guidelines on State aid for environmentalprotection and the EU Guidelines on NationalRegional Aid for 2007-2013 respectively. As Isaid, the Commission actively supports LNGinfrastructure. What steps will be taken in the casemodal backshift from sea to land-basedtransport occurs?The Commission’s impact assessment findsthat it is very difficult to quantify the exactrisk of modal backshift, as this depends on theroutes and trades affected. However, I wouldlike to recall that the fuel used by road transport(diesel) is still more expensive than marine fuel,and there are additional charges for road transport(Eurovignette) which aim to internalisethe environmental externalities of transportinggoods by trucks. Nevertheless, with the help ofthe industry, we will continue to monitor possibleimpacts on the shipping sector, especiallythe short sea shipping, to ensure adequate policyresponse in case of distortions in the logisticschain or in case of significant modal backshiftfrom sea to land based transport. The IMO regulations established the sulphurcontent of fuels used in all seas on thelevel of 0.5% as of 2020. However, theirentry into force may be delayed to 2025, incase the necessary fuels are not available.Do you think postponing these regulationsin the Baltic Sea region is also possible?This flexibility in the IMO decision is indeednot applicable to the so-called Emission ControlAreas, such as the Baltic Sea. These areasmust respect a stricter fuel standard whichcomes into force at an earlier date (2015). Forthe ECAs, the IMO has not foreseen any revisionmechanism, so I do not see how the standardsapplicable there could be changed, withoutre-opening a delicate compromise at the levelof the IMO. As the Commission proposal releasedlast July aims to align existing EU ruleswith the new IMO provisions, it does not divertfrom the international provision.

Maritimeships to the sea, since the ferry and cruise industriesare delivering 356 tonnes of nitrogenand 119 of phosphorus annually (HELCOM’sdata). The regulations were approved by theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO)in MARPOL Annex IV. The idea is that dumpingsewage into the sea is going to be prohibited,unless passenger ships (both ferries andcruise vessels) will have an approved sewagetreatment plant capable of reducing nutrientsor that ships will deliver sewage to port recipientfacilities (PRF). Ports have time until 2015at latest to construct or upgrade their sewageservices, while new and existing vessels willhave to cope with the new laws by 2016 and2018, respectively. The estimated decrease innutrients coming from ships is 63%.PRF will have to be “adequate”, meaningthat sewage discharge infrastructure or servicesshould meet the needs of the vessel and do notcause a ship’s delay. The adequacy of the PRFdepends on pax traffic inside the port as well ason the size and type of the vessel. Ports handlingonly ferry traffic can effectively fulfil the rulesusing only tank trucks or tankers. In oppositionto that, ports also visited by cruise ships needto construct an infrastructure for direct sewagedischarge to a municipal waste system. Asfor now only two out of the six biggest Balticpax ports – Helsinki and Stockholm – have theTallink has made significant investments for cleaning the sewage waterson board through our new vessels, but this investment is useless as wehave already had to follow the principle discharging sewage waters toport reception facilities for years. The cleanliness of the waters and theend result for the environment is the same in both cases. To make theregulation work efficiently, the rule should be applied to all ships operatingin the Baltic. We see several potential problems arising with the implementationof these regulations, like the present insufficient capacityof port reception facilities as well as financing of investments needed toimprove that. It is pointless to make new rules which are not implementable due to real conditionsand not implemented by all stakeholders.Tanel Hinno, Head of Technical and Safety Management, Tallink GruppWWF was pleased with the decision by the International Maritime Organisationto ban the discharge of sewage from ferries and passenger shipsin the Baltic Sea – something WWF has been working to secure for manyyears. In reality, however, this ban cannot come into effect since many BalticPorts are ill-equipped to receive this ship waste.The Baltic Sea region is an attractive and fast-growing destination for touristsrepresenting roughly three million cruise passengers visiting the region eachyear. Today most of the sewage produced by them is directly discharged intothe Baltic which contributes to the problem of eutrophication and thereforenegatively affects the very environment which attracts these visitors. Given the financial benefitsthe cruise industry, cities and ports receive from the ever-increasing pax ship traffic, they must showgreater responsibility and leadership by making the necessary upgrades to pax vessels as well asport waste management capacity to avoid ships dumping directly out at sea. Only when this is donewill the cruise industry and ports demonstrate their commitment to protect the sensitive marineenvironment of the Baltic Sea and enable the IMO ban to come into effect. It is simply not enoughfor the industry to passively wait for laws to make dumping illegal.Mattias Rust, WWFThe fastest routeto EuropeThe port of Antwerp is accessible to the largest container vessels sailingthe world seas. 14.000 TEU vessels with a draft up to 16 metres are regularlycalling the port. Ranking second on the list of European container ports,Antwerp handles more than 8 million TEU of containerized freight per year andhas plenty reserve handling capacity. Performing the highest terminal productivityin Europe, it guarantees a seamless service and a smooth flow of goodsfrom and into Europe. Thanks to the strategic 80 kilometre inland position,every European destination is just around the corner and easy to reach by rail,barge and road. The nearby areas of our port are strategic locations to installcentral European Distribution Centres. With 550 ha of covered storage space,the port offers a unique range of storage and value added services.www.portofantwerp.com22 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

MaritimePort of Tallinn Harbours, especially Tallinn Old City Harbour and MuugaHarbour, are some of the busiest ports in the region. In our developmentplans we are taking into consideration the newest technologies and scientificknowledge for energy efficiency and environmental protection inorder to achieve sustainable development. The Sustainable DevelopmentPlans of Utilities of Port of Tallinn Harbours is dedicated to the fulfilmentof the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plans’ goals, especially to the fulfilmentof Chapter 3: “Towards a Baltic Sea with environmentally friendly maritimeactivities”. In addition to that EU directives and international suggestions forwater and wastewater (minimizing the effect on the environment also through new technology,construction of port reception facilities, etc.) are taken into account. At present Port of Tallinn ismaking preparation works to modernise port reception facilities for passenger and cruise vesselsin the Old City Harbour.Ellen Kaasik, Head of the Quality and Environmental Management Department at Port of Tallinnproper PRF. Tallinn, St. Petersburg, Rostock it, but the port authorities aren’t sure thatand Copenhagen have fallen behind, and currentlythe initiative will have the anticipated effect.are at the stage of constructing such fa-Also, ship owners might not be so fond ofcilities or have them only at one pax quay, like the new regulations, since onboard sewageSt. Petersburg. It should be noticed that Danishtreatment plants will mean the cost ofports – Helsingør, Rødby, Frederikshavn, Gedserbuying one, installing and fixing it; the new– are the best prepared for the upcoming equipment will take up valuable space with-standards, all of them having direct discharge in the ship. Not without meaning there willto a sewer system. Other ports, such as Gdynia, also be the added weight, which will accountGothenburg, Riga, Świnoujście, Trelleborg, for more fuel consumption. In addition,Turku and Ystad have room for improvement. ship operators will have to pay waste treatmentcompanies for taking care of the sewage.The sceptical point of viewBoth ports and ship owners will bow toFirst of all, ports will have to pay for the the necessity, but it’s rather hard to imagineBTJ.Container:184 x 118 / 4C .03.1 1:28 Seite 1additional infrastructure and for mending that they will behave like a Good Samaritan.Most likely they will make the ultimate consumerto bear costs. The proposed solution,the so-called ‘no special fee’ system, wherethe cost of reception, handling and disposalof ship-generated wastes, originating fromnormal operation of the ship, is includedin the harbour fee or otherwise charged tothe ship irrespective of whether wastes aredelivered or not, is in fact a cloaked charge.At present, not every Baltic pax port has implementedthe ‘no special fee’ system. Butit’s not only the problem of ports, but alsocities owning them. It is the cities who getmost of the revenues from pax traffic – hotelnights, shopping, restaurants, etc. – thusthey have a role to play in solving the sewageissue, tooIt remains unclear whether the regulationswill help or not. But if the upcominglaws are combined with other actions,most notably with establishing the TotalDaily Maximum Load (TMDL) for nutrients,indicating the highest amountof pollutants that can enter a body ofwater without exceeding the thresholdabove which negative impacts will occur,there may be a possibility that the BalticSea will once again be safe and sound. Przemysław Myszka5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 23

ReportBaltic containerizationA guideto the Baltic Sea Container Map 2011Photo: MaerskWorkhorsesof the BalticBTJ’s 2006 report lists 124 ships feedering in the Baltic with a total nominal capacity of 83,500 TEU. Now, five yearson, the census shows 160 feeders and 157,000 TEU – almost twice the amount in the main term of productivity.Five years ago, in our first report on container shipping in theBaltic Sea, we compared this business to “a bunch of parsleytied to the Kiel Canal”. Its roots are ingrained in a few hubs onthe North Sea, while stems and leaves reach the northernmostports of the Gulf of Bothnia. Although some ocean and transatlanticcontainer services have started to call in Gdańsk and St. Petersburg sincethe beginning of 2010, this general picture has not changed. Against allodds, feeder shipping now has stronger roots and richer greens.Our first report, published at the end of 2006 (BTJ 6/2006),lists 124 ships feedering in the Baltic with a total nominal capacityof 83,500 TEU. Five years later the census shows 160 feeders and157,000 TEU – nearly twice the amount. But to precisely comparepast and present we should diminish the newest numbers, becauseour first ranking didn’t include Norway, the UK, Iceland and theFaeroe Islands’ short sea services (minus 14 ships and about 12,300TEU). Nevertheless, the growth in capacity is enormous – almost80%, but in terms of the number of ships it is only 20%. The differencebetween the latter numbers informs that a ship’s averagecapacity has grown significantly – from 675 to 981 TEU (+45%).In 2006 operators had 13 vessels which could carry nominally over1,200 TEU, now they have 43 such ships (to be exact, 41 serve theBSR and two are employed on an Icelandic service).Large and small operatorsToday 24 operators are involved in the container business and thisnumber is larger than in 2006, even though some names have disappearedfrom the list in the meantime. For example, in 2007 Baltic ContainerLines merged with IMCL, which was later acquired by Unifeeder (2009).Also in 2007 Kuršių Linija merged with Containerships while SaimaaLines ceased its shipping activities. In fact, almost all companies listed in2006, except overseas operators like MSC or OOCL, were transformedduring the period in focus: they changed ownership without changingtheir names (i.e. Containerships, Unifeeder) or have a new owner anda new brand (i.e. ESF Euroservices since 2006 has been FESCO-ESF).The Baltic has seen ‘veteran’ operators grow and expand geographically;Team Lines has opened a service to the Iberian Peninsula, Unifeeder – to5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 25

Reportthe UK, and vessels of Containerships ply in a detached network betweenMediterranean ports (it has acquired the Turkish operator Contaz Line).Among the successful new entrants are Green Feeder, Merilinja, SeaConnect and SCA Transforest. Some initiatives are short-lived, includinge.g. a two-ship service to St. Petersburg started and closed in 2007 byNYK Line. Even an innovative feeder service from Lübeck to St. Petersburg– Combispeed – ceased operations in 2009.Container business in the Baltic and its surrounding waters is a mixtureof feedering and short sea shipping. Some operators declare themselveson one side but in fact most carry containers both in overseas andintra-Europe traffic. Consequently, there is no reason to omit two wellestablishedIcelandic companies – Eimskip and Samskip. They are mentionedfor first time in our report and ranking because their ships call atports in the Kattegat. Among the 18 common carriers only three companies(Green Feeder, Team Lines and X-Press Feeders), haven’t declaredshort sea services although they also carry 45’ containers – the typicalintra-Europe box. Twelve companies declare door-to-door services andoperate their own or leased containers. Two operators: Containershipsand Unifeeder, have fleets in the range of 15,000 units each.global carriers, then CMA CGM, Maersk Line, MSC and OOCL witha share of 30% (now we have added two ships on one service of the K-Line). The rest, also 30%, is left for medium and small operators usuallyserving one loop like Hacklin or one destination like FESCO-ESF (previouslyESF Euroservices). Things haven’t changed very much althoughthe share of global carriers has grown to about 36% at the expense ofUnifeeder and Team Lines (now 36%) and local operators with a shareof 28%. It is worth noting, the share of the latter group was smaller(25%) at the beginning of 2010. This recovery probably underlines theimportance of the local market and cluster relations in it.Tab. 2. Operator’s capacity [TEU]Tab. 1. Baltic container [feeder] operators 2010OperatorNumberof shipsTotalcapacity(TEU)Ship’saverage(TEU)Total GT1 Unifeeder* 41 41,211 1005 423,7292 MSC 16 23,340 1,459 313,5183 Maersk/Seago Line 15 19,500 1,300 205,0004 Team Lines** 17 17,621 1,037 187,9055 FESCO-ESF 7 10,164 1,452 110,4946 Containerships*** 9 7,882 877 81,8427 OOCL 6 5,488 915 63,2488 Delta Shipping 4 3,806 952 41,132Lines9 CMA CGM 5 3,750 750 40,76710 Transatlantic 8 3,646 456 34,40511 X-Press Feeders**** 5 3,500 700 35,00012 Eimskip 3 3,479 1,160 34,38413 MacAndrews 4 2,414 604 23,00714 Sea Connect 3 2,107 702 19,21015 Swan Container 2 1,876 978 22,919Line16 Samskip 2 1,816 908 17,66017 Tschudi Lines 3 1,716 572 15,44418 K-Line 2 1,410 705 12,38219 Merilinja 2 1,358 679 11,41920 Green Feeder 2 1,016 508 7,99821 Hacklin Seatrans 2 894 447 7,82422 SCA Transforest 1 809 809 7,72023 Mann Lines 1 658 658 5,056160 157,013 981 1,732,063Remarks:1*including four ships serving the UK2* excluding three ships in the Iberian services3* excluding four ships in the Mediterranean4*capacity and GT estimatedSince the very beginning of our report we have divided operatorsinto three groups and measure their relations of total capacities. The firstgroup consists of the two largest independent common operators havingwide networks to all shores of the BSR – Unifeeder and Team Lines.In 2006 Team Lines was the second in the chart, so both companies heldabout 40% of the total feedering capacity. The second group includedRemarks:* second half of the year** first half of the yearLarge and minor shipsAttention-grabbing is the average and maximum size of ships. Theaverage capacity of feeders has grown continuously and independentlyof the market situation, even during the crisis. Interestingly, theprocess has slowed down recently – in the beginning of 2010 the averagewas 960 TEU, now, after 18 months, it is only 21 units more. Onthe other hand, against many predictions pointing to the number of3,000 TEU as optimum for the Baltic (at least for the main routes tothe Gulf of Finland), capacity of the largest ships entering the markethasn’t grown. So it seems that in the near future a “baltimax feeder”will not exceed a capacity of 2,000 TEU. Although the general growingtrend is obvious, since 2007 all new huge deliveries remain in therange of 1,600 – 1,800 TEU. The leader among modern vessels is nowMaersk Vallvik built in China in 2011, with a 1,800 TEU nominal capacityand a gross tonnage (GT) of 20,927. She is employed in the loop:Rotterdam – Kaliningrad – Kotka. Only one company, MSC, operatesships over 2,000 TEU, but these are former ocean liners retired to therole of feeders. Today, in terms of nominal capacity the largest is MSCDymphna (2,900 TEU) built in 1989 and in terms of gross tonnage– MSC Carina (GT 42,640) from 1986. Both ships sail in the service:Antwerp – Bremerhaven – Gdynia – Klaipėda. MSC Carina is probablythe biggest feedering container ship ever in the Baltic and the firstone crossing the threshold of GT 40,000. Let us remind – in terms ofcapacity the record is still held by MSC Nora (3,016 TEU) which wasserving the same route in 2010. MSC traditionally leads the ranking interms of ship average, but in this census its figure is lower than in 2010– decreasing from 1,583 to 1,459 TEU.On the other hand, the average of Team Lines and Unifeeder’sship capacity has crossed the limit of 1,000 TEU for the first time.Notable is a split between operators with a growing and stable average– since 2006 Team Lines’ fleet has grown 64%. Both FESCO-ESFand Unifeeder’s fleet have grown by 54%. On the contrary, Containershipsincreased its ships’ average by only 7% and OOCL by 4.5%.Now six Baltic feeder operators have ships exceeding 1,200 TEU intheir fleets; MSC has 12, Maersk Line – eight; Unifeeder, Team Lines andFESCO-ESF each have seven such vessels. Only the latter has a whole26 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Reportfleet of this size. It seems interesting that in the western part of the area infocus only one operator – Eimskip – has two ships over 1,200 TEU.Obviously, the market still needs smaller vessels and until nowthe ship average hasn’t passed the limit of 1,000 TEU. Six Balticfeeders have a capacity less than 500 TEU (10 such vessels existedat the beginning of 2010) and six are in the range 508-510 TEU.Time confirms our prediction that at least two classes of “handy”vessels will remain the most popular – one, between 800 and 900TEU (now 36 units) and the second, around 1,400 TEU (19 units).13 ships have already reached the top range for modern ships – acapacity between 1,600 and 1,800 TEU.Tab. 3. Minor Baltic container ports served by feeder operatorsCountry PortTurnover[thou.TEU]Served by:1 SE Södertälje 38 Containerships, MSC2 SE Norrköping 37MSC, Team Lines,Transatlantic3 FI Oulu 31 Merilinja, Transatlantic4 SE Halmstad 27 CMA CGM, Unifeeder5 SE Stockholm 26SCA Transforest, TeamLines, Unifeeder6 SE Åhus 24Team Lines,Transatlantic7 FI Pori 22 Hacklin8 SE Västerås 21 Transatlantic9 SE Umeå 18 SCA Transforest10 FI Tornio 14 Transatlantic11 FI Turku 14 Team Lines12 FI Kokkola 12 Merilinja13 SE Oxelösund 11 Transatlantic14 SE Sundsvall 9 SCA Transforest15 SE Varberg 8 Samskip16 FI Kemi 7 TransatlanticTotal 319Remarks:1. This table supplements Table 14. ‘Top 20 container ports 2010’ published in the BTJ4/2011, pg. 44.2. The actual sum for Finnish ports is 101 thou. TEU; in the table decreased to 100 thou.due to roundings.3. Figures for Swedish ports include flats and cassettes.Tab. 4. Ships’ average capacity [TEU]Remarks:* second half of the year** first half of the yearWide and limited networksFeeder and short sea Baltic operators currently serve 105 independentlines of which 79 simply join North Sea hubs and portswith the BSR. Two feeder connections are intra-Baltic – from DCTin Gdańsk to ports in the Gulf of Finland. Services within the limitsof the BTJ map and attached tables include 11 loops to Norway ofwhich four call at Danish and/or Swedish ports. Harbours in the BalticStraits have three connections to Spain, three to Iceland/FaeroeIslands and one – separately – to the UK/Ireland, to Morocco and tothe Mediterranean (ships serving the two latter are not included inthe data presented in Table 1). Additionally, our tables – printed inthis issue and on the CD – list three overseas services which enter Balticports directly. Four listed services don’t call at Baltic or Norwegianports but we add them as integral parts of wider operators’ networks.Summing up – 97 container services call at ports in the BSR. The largestnetwork belongs to Unifeeder – 29 services, including 22 to theBSR, four to Norway and three to the UK. Team Lines follows with13 services, MSC has 10 and Seago Line – nine.Such a rich network serves 36 ports (51 terminals) in the Baltic– they are connected to five North Sea hubs (29 terminals) and 28other destinations in Western Europe. Shortly, the first pair of figureswill grow to 37 and 52 because the container terminal in Ust-Luga will start operations this November. Other changes are in thepipeline because Maersk Line is reconstructing its services Europe– Far East and its whole European feeder network. The new “total”service Daily Maersk will probably absorb some AE loops whichcould also affect the longest AE 10 from China to Gdańsk. The newMøller-Maersk company Seago Line, dedicated to feeder and shortsea services in Europe, will probably strengthen Maersk’s servicesin the Baltic – we would like to note a first sign of this new policy:in September 2011 a new loop started from Bremerhaven to Riga,Klaipėda and back via Aarhus and Scandinavia Feeder to Aarhusand Gothenburg. Competition will again be on the rise and newtakeovers and/or merges on the feeder market can be expected.FiguresContainer turnover in Baltic ports grew from 6.4 mln TEU in2006 to 7.4 mln TEU in 2010 – and in 2011 a growth of over 20%is expected. In the ‘Top 20 container ports’ table (BTJ 4/2011) wewould like to note one important Baltic liner port not listed in thisreport because it is not connected to the feeder network. This isLübeck (15 th position) which handled 126 thou. TEU in 2010. Justbelow the bottom line of the table is Hanko (21 st position), also aro-ro port without feeder connections but having a turnover of 50thou. TEU. Some other ports and terminals outside the feeder networkshow minor turnovers, for example Naantali: 11 thou., Raahe:5 thou., Liepāja: 1.8 thou. TEU. This means that some containertraffic is served by other branches of shipping. The pair, Lübeckand Hanko, handles containers served by ro-ro and con-ro vesselslike Trafexpress vessels operated by Transfennica. Helsinki is alsoan important destination in this combined network. Another Germanport – Sassnitz – tranships containers between trucks and widegauge rail cars delivered by ferries from Russia. Such turnover inro-ro and universal terminals could be estimated on the level of 300thou. TEU and is mostly intra-Baltic.Additionally, about 100 thou. TEU of intra-Baltic traffic is carriedby container ships and multipurpose vessels. Summing up theyear 2010 – 7.2 mln TEU travelled to and from the Baltic in containerships, of which feeders carried about 6.8 mln TEU. Basing onthe incomplete statistics of hub ports, one could estimate that about5.2 mln TEU was transshipped to and from ocean vessels and therest, about 1.6 mln, travelled as short sea cargo.According to the latest Annual Report of Unifeeder, revealingfigures for 2010, its vessels carried 1,748,823 TEU of which215,066 TEU was served by its short sea department. The utilisationratio on the vessels’ capacity was 91.3% – four points morethan in 2009. Calculating Unifeeder’s data we can roughly say that5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 27

ReportMap 1. Ro-ro & con-ro lines serving container traffic on the Baltic Seaone quarter of Baltic feeder capacity carried one quarter of thecargo which crossed the Skaw and Kiel Canal. All data show thatin 2010 an average Unifeeder vessel made 35 round voyages carrying50,000 TEU and made 200 calls at ports. These figures seemto be valid also for vessels of other operators – so, the whole Balticcontainer fleet made at least 5,200 round trips (about 100 perweek) and 30,000 calls at ports (about 580 per week).Following these data one could say that feedering containershipsare the real workhorses of the Baltic Sea.Marek BłuśSee the full Baltic Sea container network in the tables on pgs. 29-32,also graphically depicted in the attached map poster and CD.28 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

B A LT I C S E A C O N TA I N E R L I N E R N E T W O R K 2 0 1 1ReportOPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALSAtlantic Container Gothenburg/SE SkandiaLoop 4 Rotterdam/NL RSTHacklin Seatrans Pori/FI Hacklin TerminalLineSt. Petersburg/RU Moby DikPori-Helsinki Helsinki/FI Vuosaari (Steveco)A Service Hamburg/DE UnikaiHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)Hamburg/DEC. Steinweg – SWT, EurogateAntwerp/BEEuropaRiga/LVRUTCTH, HHLA CTA, HHLA CTBLiverpool/UKRSCTTeesport/UKTCTPori/FIHacklin TerminalHalifax/CASouth Ends TerminalsRotterdam/NL RSTK-Line Lisbon/PT Santa ApolóniaNew York/USAPMTTeesport/UKTCTIBESCO-A Leixões/PT TCLPort Newark/US FAPSContainerships Hamburg/DE Buss Hansa, HHLA CTAFelixstowe/UK TrinityBaltimore/USDunkalkLoop 5 St. Petersburg/RU Moby DikTeesport/UKTCTNorfolk/USNITKlaipėda/LTKCTGothenburg/SE SkandiaNew York/USAPMTTeesport/UKTCTAarhus/DKAPMT-CSHalifax/CASouth Ends TerminalsRotterdam/NL RSTHamburg/DEEurogate CTHLiverpool/UKRSCTHamburg/DEBuss Hansa, HHLA CTARotterdam/NL ECT EMXAntwerp/ BEEuropaContainerships Teesport/UK TCTLisbon/PTSanta ApolóniaGothenburg/SE SkandiaLoop 6 Rotterdam/NL RSTMacAndrews Hull/UK HCTCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Klaipėda/LTKCTUK-Poland Gdynia/PL GCTHHLA CTBRiga/LVRUTHull/UKHCTBaltic Feeder (loop 1) Kotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Södertälje/SESydhamnenMaersk/Seago Line Gdańsk/PLDCTHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Steveco)Helsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)AE 10 Aarhus/DK APMT-CSHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,St. Petersburg/RU Moby DikGothenburg/SE SkandiaHHLA CTBHamburg/DEBuss Hansa, HHLA CTABremerhaven/DE NTBCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Teesport/UKTCTRotterdam/NL APMTHHLA CTBDelta Shipping Tilbury/UKSSCTAlgeciras/ESAPMTBaltic Feeder (loop 2) Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBLinesSuez/EGCZTGdynia/PLGCTLoop 1 Dunkirk/FR NFTIYantian/CNYICTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,HHLA CTBRotterdam/NLHamburg/DEECT Delta, UniportBuss Hansa, Eurogate CTH,Hong Kong/CNKwangyang/KRModern TerminalsTerminal 2CMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,HHLA CTBNingbo/CN Terminal 3HHLA CTBGdynia/PLGCTShanghai/CNSGHRigkla Feeder Klaipėda/LT KCTSt. Petersburg/RU PLP, 4 th S.C., FCTYantian/CNYICTRiga/LVBCTTilbury/UKSSCTTanjung Pelepas/MY Pelabuhan TanjungHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Delta Shipping Rotterdam/NL ECT Delta, RSTSuez/EGCZTHHLA CTBLinesRotterdam/NL APMTCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Loop 2 Gothenburg/SE SkandiaBremerhaven/DE NTBHHLA CTBAarhus/DKAPMT-CSGdańsk/PLDCTDanbot Feeder (loop 1) Fredericia/DK FCTSt. Petersburg/RU PLP, 4 th S.C.Maersk/Seago Line Bremerhaven/DE NTBHalmstad/SEKattegatRotterdam/NL ECT Delta, RSTEast Baltic Express St. Petersburg/RU FCTCopenhagen/DK CCTEimskip Tórshavn/FO MolinBremerhaven/DE NTBSzczecin/PLDB PortEastern Route Aarhus/DK APMT-CSMaersk/Seago Line St. Petersburg/RU PLPHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Fredrikstad/NO FCTECUBEX/CRX Bremerhaven/DE NTBHHLA CTBTórshavn/FOMolinAltamira/MXIPMCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Eimskip Reykjavik/IS Sundabakki KleppsbakkiVeracruz/MXICAVEHHLA CTBNorthern Route Reydarfjordur/IS MjóeyriLimón/CRMoinDanbot Feeder (loop 2) Tallinn/EE MuugaTórshavn/FOMolinManzanillo/PA MITRauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)Rotterdam/NL UniportPanama/PAPCTGävle/SEGCTHamburg/DEBuss HansaBalboa/PABCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Helsingborg/SE VasthamnenGuayaquil/ECCMTGHHLA CTBAarhus/DKAPMT-CSBalboa/PABCTCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Tórshavn/FOMolinPanama/PAPCTHHLA CTBGrundartangi/IS GRTManzanillo/PA MITKaliningrad Feeder Gdańsk/PL GTKReykjavik/ISSundabakki KleppsbakkiLimón/CRMoinKaliningrad/RU KSCPEimskip Reykjavik/IS Sundabakki KleppsbakkiRotterdam/NL APMTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Southern Route Vestmannaeyjar/IS VEYBremerhaven/DE NTBHHLA CTBTórshavn/FOMolinSt. Petersburg/RU PLPCMA CGM Hamburg/DE Eurogate CT Hamburg, HHLAImmingham/UK Nordic Terminal 1Maersk/Seago Line Gdańsk/PLDCTCTA, HHLA CTB, HHLA CTBRotterdam/NL UniportGdańsk Finnish Gulf Kotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)FEMEX Scandinavian Aarhus/DKAPMT-CSImmingham/UK Nordic Terminal 1ServiceShuttleGrundartangi/IS GRTHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Finnsteve)Helsingborg/SE VCTReykjavik/ISSundabakki KleppsbakkiGdańsk/PLDCTGothenburg/SE SCTFESCO ESF St. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPMaersk/Seago Line Gdańsk/PLDCTHamburg/DEEurogate CT Hamburg, HHLA St. Petersburg- Zeebrugge/BE CHZGdańsk St. PetersburgShuttleSt. Petersburg/RU FCTCTA, HHLA CTBBeneluxContainerships Teesport/UK TCTRotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT Delta, UniportGdańsk/PLDCTLoop 1 Rotterdam/NL RSTAntwerp/BEAntwerp GatewayMaersk/Seago Line Rotterdam/NL APMTHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)St. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPKaliningrad Kotka Kaliningrad/RU BCTSt. Petersburg/RU Moby DikFESCO ESF St. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Klaipėda/LTKCTSt. Petersburg- Hamburg/DEHHLA CTA, HHLA CTBRotterdam/NL APMTTeesport/UKTCTHamburgMaersk/Seago Line Casablanca/MA CCTContainerships Teesport/UK TCTSt. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPKNSM Agadir/MA ACTLoop 2 Rotterdam/NL RSTFESCO ESF St. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPBremerhaven/DE NTBHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)St. Petersburg-RotterdamCopenhagen/DK CCTRotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT Delta, UniportHelsingborg/SE VasthamnenSt. Petersburg/RU Moby DikGhent/BEGCTHamburg/DEHHLA CTA, HHLA CTBBremerhaven/DE NTBSheerness/UK Container ParkAarhus/DKAPMT-CSTeesport/UKTCTContainerships Ghent/BE GCTLoop 3 Sheerness/UK Container ParkAarhus/DKAPMT-CSRiga/LVRUTSt. Petersburg/RU Moby DikHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)Teesport/UKTCTRotterdam/NL RSTGhent/BEGCTContainerships Teesport/UK TCTSt. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPGreen Feeder Hamburg/DE Kuhwerder, Eurogate CTH, HHLACTA, HHLA CTBService 1 Fredericia/DK FCTGothenburg/SEHamburg/DESkandiaKuhwerder, Eurogate CTH, HHLACTA, HHLA CTBGreen Feeder Hamburg/DE Kuhwerder, Eurogate CTH, HHLACTA, HHLA CTBService 2 Copenhagen/DK CCTHelsingborg/SEAarhus/DKHamburg/DEVasthamnenAPMT-CSKuhwerder, Eurogate CTH, HHLACTA, HHLA CTBAntwerp/BECasablanca/MAMaersk/Seago Line Rotterdam/NLSt. Petersburg PLP Antwerp/BEHelsinkiSt. Petersburg/RUHelsinki/FIRotterdam/NLMaersk/Seago Line Rotterdam/NLSt. Petersburg PLP St. Petersburg/RURaumaRauma/FIRotterdam/NLDeurganckCCTAPMTDeurganckPLPVuosaari (Finnsteve)APMTAPMTPLPRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)APMT5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 29

ReportOPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALSMaersk/Seago Line Gothenburg/SE SkandiaScan Baltic Express Antwerp/BENoordzeeHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,SCANMED Aarhus/DK APMT-CS1 (SBX1)HHLA CTBBremerhaven/DE NTBSt. Petersburg/RU FCTTeam Lines Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBAntwerp/BEDeurganckGdynia/PLBCTNOR 2 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Gioia Tauro/IT MCTGothenburg/SE SkandiaHHLA CTBPiraeus/GRPCTHamburg/DEHHLA CTA, HHLA CTBOslo/NOSCTAmbarli/TRAmbarliGdynia/PLBCTHalden/NONorske SkogIzmit Korfezi/TR EvyapSt. Petersburg/RU FCTOslo/NOSCTGemlik/TRGemportRotterdam/NL ECT DeltaKristiansand/NO KSTIzmir/TRICTOOCL Hamburg/DE HHLA CTA, HHLA CTBBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBMarsaxlokk/MT MarsaxlokkScan Baltic Express St. Petersburg/RU FCTTeam Lines Gothenburg/SE SkandiaValencia/ESVCT2 (SBX2)NOR 3/SPA 1 Oslo/NO SCTFelixstowe/UK TrinityKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Moss/NOMCTBremerhaven/DE NTBRauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)Kristiansand/NO KSTGothenburg/SE SkandiaGävle/SEGCTRotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT Delta, ECT EMXMaersk/Seago Line Bremerhaven/DE NTBBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBAntwerp/BESCTNRiga Service Riga/LV RCTHamburg/DEHHLA CTABilbao/ESAMTKlaipeda/LTKCTKlaipėda/LTKCTAntwerp/BEDelwaidedok, Deurganck, SCTNAarhus/DKAPMT-CSSt. Petersburg/RU PLPRotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT Delta, ECT EMXBremerhaven/DE NTBHamburg/DEHHLA CTA, HHLA CTBGothenburg/SE SkandiaMaersk/Seago Line Bremerhaven/DE NTBSamskip Reykjavik/IS HoltabakkiTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Scandinavia Feeder Aarhus/DK APMT-CSIceland-Aarhus Vestmannaeyjar/IS VEYHHLA CTBGothenburg/SE SkandiaImmingham/UK ExxtorTallinn Service Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBBremerhaven/DE NTBRotterdam/NL RSTTallinn/EEMuugaMann Lines Hamburg/DE HHLA CTBCuxhaven/DECuxportHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Service 1 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBVarberg/SEVCTHHLA CTBGdynia/PLGCTAarhus/DKAPMT-CSTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Kaliningrad/RU KSCPTórshavn/FOKollafjørðurHHLA CTBHamburg/DEHHLA CTBReykjavik/ISHoltabakkiPOL 1 Gdynia/PL BCT, GCTMann Lines Rotterdam/NL RSTSCA Transforest Sundsvall/SE InterforestBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBService 2 Gdynia/PL GCTN. Sweden-RotterdamHHLA CTBUmeå/SEHolmsundHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Kaliningrad/RU KSCPRiga/LVRCTRotterdam/NL ECT Delta, Interforest, Kramer Team Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Rotterdam/NL RSTStockholm/SE FrihamnenHHLA CTBMerilinja Kokkola/FI AWTSundsvall/SEInterforestPOL 3 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBKokkola-Antwerp Oulu/FI OritkariSea Connect Rotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMX, UniportGdynia/PLGCTAntwerp/BEMSC Home, IMTRotterdam-Baltics- Klaipėda/LTKCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Kokkola/FIAWTSt. PetersburgHHLA CTBMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeTallinn/EEMuugaTeam Lines Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBLoop 1 St. Petersburg/RU FCTSt. Petersburg/RU PLP, NMT, 4 th S.C., RFTRUS 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Larvik/NORevkai SydRotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMX, UniportHHLA CTBAntwerp/BEMSC HomeSea Connect Rotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMX, UniportSt. Petersburg/RU FCT, 4 th S.C., NMTMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeRotterdam-Hamburg-St.PetersburgCTH, HHLA CTA, HHLA CTBHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Hamburg/DEC. Steinweg – SWT, EurogateBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBLoop 2 Bremerhaven/DE MSC GateKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)St. Petersburg/RU PLP, NMT, 4 th S.C., RFTHHLA CTBHamina/FIHMT (Steveco)Rotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMX, Uniport Team Lines Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBHelsinki/FIVuosaari (Multi-Link)Swan Container Rotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT DeltaSWE 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Antwerp/BEMSC HomeLineHHLA CTBMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeRotterdam-St. St. Petersburg/RU PLP, FCTStockholm/SE FrihamnenLoop 2A Bremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBPetersburgNorrköping/SE PampusRiga/LVBCTRotterdam/NL ECT City, ECT DeltaÅhus/SEACTAntwerp/BEMSC HomeTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBHHLA CTBMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,BAL 2 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBLoop 3 Bremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBHHLA CTBRiga/LVBCTKaliningrad/RU BCTSWF 1 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBKlaipėda/LTKCTTallinn/EEMuugaTurku/FIFinnsteveHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Rauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)Rauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)HHLA CTBAntwerp/BEMSC HomeGävle/SEGCTTeam Lines Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBDSW 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Loop 3A Rotterdam/NL ECT DeltaHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,HHLA CTBGävle/SEGCTHHLA CTBCopenhagen/DK CCTSödertälje/SESydhamnenTransAtlantic Oulu/FI OritkariHelsingborg/SE VasthamnenNorrköping/SE NPTTrans Feeder Line Kemi/FIAjosAarhus/DKAPMT-CSAntwerp/BEMSC HomeNorthHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,MSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeTornio/FIRöyttäHHLA CTBLoop 4 Bremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLABremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBGdynia/PLBCTCTB, HHLA CTTTeam Lines Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBKlaipėda/LTSmelteBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBFIN 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Antwerp/BEMSC HomeHHLA CTBOulu/FIOritkariMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)TransAtlantic Södertälje/SE SydhamnenLoop 5 Aarhus/DK APMT-CSHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Steveco)Trans Feeder Line Oxelösund/SE StålhamnenFredericia/DKFCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,South (loop 1)Copenhagen/DK CCTHHLA CTBÅhus/SEACTAntwerp/BEMSC HomeTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAMSC Rotterdam/NL ECT DeltaHHLA CTBCTB, HHLA CTTLoop 5A Bremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBFIN 2 Kotka/FI Mussalo (Steveco)Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBGothenburg/SE Skandia Continer TerminalHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Steveco)Södertälje/SESydhamnenHelsingborg/PL VasthamnenHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,TransAtlantic Södertälje/SE SydhamnenRotterdam/NL ECT DeltaHHLA CTBTrans Feeder Line Västerås/SEVästra HamnenMSC Antwerp/BE MSC HomeBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBSouth (loop 2)Loop 6 Kristiansand/NO KSTTeam Lines Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA,Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAOslo/NOOCTHHLA CTBCTB, HHLA CTTLarvik/NORevkai SydNOR 1 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTBAntwerp/BEMSC HomeGothenburg/SE SkandiaSödertälje/SESydhamnenMSC Bremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBOslo/NOSCTTransAtlantic Västerås/SE Västra HamnenLoop 7 St. Petersburg/RU FCTMoss/NOMCTTrans Pal Line Oxelösund/SE StålhamnenBremerhaven/DE MSC Gate, NTBBrevik/NONSTNorrköping/SE PampusOOCL Rotterdam/NL ECT DeltaGothenburg/SE SkandiaÅhus/SEACT30 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

ReportOPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALS OPERATOR/SERVICE PORTS/COUNTRY TERMINALSHull/UKKing George DockUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECT Scandinavian Aarhus/DKAPMT-CSAmsterdam/NL Velsen NoordEMX, RST, UniportService 4Västerås/SEVästra HamnenNorway Service 3 Oslo/NO OCTFredrikstad/NO FCTTschudi Lines Helsinki /FI Vuosaari (Finnsteve)Brevik/NONSTLarvik/NORevkai SydFinnbest Service Tallinn/EE MuugaKristiansand/NO KSTRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTKlaipėda/LTKCTRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportEsbjerg/DKECTEMX, RST, UniportUnifeeder Zeebrugge/BE APMT, CHZImmingham/UK ExxtorUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECT Scandinavian Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTRotterdam/NL RSTEMX, RST, UniportService 5EMX, RST, UniportHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Finnsteve)Norway Service 4 Oslo/NO OCTHelsingborg/SE VasthamnenTschudi Lines Drammen/NO SSGMoss/NOMCTCopenhagen/DK CCTNorth Sea Service Moss/NO MCTKristiansand/NO KSTGothenburg/SE SkandiaLarvik/NOLCTRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTZeebrugge/BE APMT, CHZEsbjerg/DKECTEMX, RST, UniportUnifeederImmingham/UK ExxtorUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportRotterdam/NL RSTPolish Service 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTScandinavian Zeebrugge/BE APMT, CHZDrammen/NO SSGService 6Gdynia/PLBCT, GCTUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBGothenburg/SE SkandiaKaliningrad/RU KSCPDanish Service Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTGdynia/PLBCT, GCTStockholm/SE FrihamnenAarhus/DKAPMT-CSGdańsk/PLDCT, GTKGävle/SEGCTFredericia/DKFCTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLA Unifeeder Antwerp/BE Antwerp Gateway, DeurganckRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTCTB, HHLA CTTPolish Service 2 Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBEMX, RST, UniportUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAGdynia/PLBCT, GCTSweden-Poland Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTGdańsk/PLDCT, GTKServiceCTB, HHLA CTTFinnish Service 1 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTHalmstad/SEHCTHamina/FIHMT (Steveco)EMX, RST, UniportMalmö/SENorthern HarbourHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Finnsteve)Antwerp/BEAntwerp Gateway, DeurganckSzczecin/PLDB PortBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAEMX, RST, UniportCTB, HHLA CTTCTB, HHLA CTTPolish Service 3 Gdynia/PL BCT, GCTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAGdańsk/PLDCT, GTKUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTCTB, HHLA CTTFinnish Service 2 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBEMX, RST, UniportTallinn Service Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Unifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTTallinn/EEMuugaRauma/FIRCT (Rauma Stevedoring)EMX, RST, UniportBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBPolish Service 4 Szczecin/PL DB PortHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAKlaipėda/LTKCT, SmelteCTB, HHLA CTTCTB, HHLA CTTRiga/LVBCTUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportFinnish Service 3 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAEMX, RST, UniportUK Service 1 Felixstowe/UK TrinityCTB, HHLA CTTUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBTyne/UKDCTKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Russia Service 1 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Finnsteve)CTB, HHLA CTTTeesport/UKTCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLASt. Petersburg/RU FCT, PLPGrangemouth/UK GCTCTB, HHLA CTTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBEMX, RST, UniportUnifeeder Zeebrugge/BE APMT, CHZRussia Service 2 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLAUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTFinnish Service 4 Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTCTB, HHLA CTTEMX, RST, UniportEMX, RST, UniportSt. Petersburg/RU PLPUK Service 2 Immingham/UK ExxtorHelsinki /FIVuosaari (Steveco)Kotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Tyne/UKDCTKotka/FIMussalo (Steveco)Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportZeebrugge/BE APMT, CHZUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTLatvia Service Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBRiga/LVBremerhaven/DEHamburg/DEBCTEurogate CTB, NTBEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBLithuania Service Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTKlaipėda/LTKCT, SmelteHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTNorway Service 1 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBOslo/NOLarvik/NOBremerhaven/DEHamburg/DEOCTRevkai SydEurogate CTB, NTBEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTNorway Service 2 Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBMoss/NOFredrikstad/NOOslo/NOBremerhaven/DEHamburg/DEMCTFCTOCTEurogate CTB, NTBEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportRussia Service 3 Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTSt. Petersburg/RURotterdam/NLFCT, PLPAPMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBScandinavianService 1Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTCopenhagen/DK CCTMalmö/SENorthern HarbourGothenburg/SE SkandiaHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Bremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBScandinavianService 2Hamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTHelsingborg/SE VasthamnenGothenburg/SE SkandiaCopenhagen/DK CCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTBremerhaven/DE Eurogate CTB, NTBUnifeeder Antwerp/BE Antwerp Gateway, DeurganckScandinavianService 3Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportHelsingborg/SE VasthamnenCopenhagen/DK CCTAarhus/DKAPMT-CSAntwerp/BEAntwerp Gateway, DeurganckUnifeeder Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportTeesport/UKRotterdam/NLTCTAPMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportUnifeeder Hamburg/DE Eurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTUK Service 3 Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT City, ECTEMX, RST, UniportImmingham/UK ExxtorTyne/UKDCTGrangemouth/UK GCTHamburg/DEEurogate CTH, HHLA CTA, HHLACTB, HHLA CTTX-Press Feeders Rotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT EMXAalborg GothenburgX-PressAalborg/DKGothenburg/SE SkandiaRotterdam/NL APMT, ECT Delta, ECT EMXX-Press Feeders Gothenburg/SE SkandiaBilbao GothenburgX-PressRotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMXGijón/ESTCGBilbao/ESAMTLe Havre/FRCNMP AtlantiqueRotterdam/NL ECT Delta, ECT EMXGothenburg/SE SkandiaX-Press Feeders Gothenburg/SE SkandiaGothenburg IrelandX-PressAntwerp/BEAntwerp Gateway, DeurganckRotterdam/NLDublin/IEGreenock/UKSouthampton/UKRotterdam/NLGothenburg/SEACTAPMT, ECT Delta, ECT EMXPortroeGOTDP WorldAPMT, ECT Delta, ECT EMXSkandia5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 31

ReportP O R T S & T E R M I N A L S D I R E C T LY I N V O LV E D I N T H E B A LT I C S E A C O N TA I N E R L I N E R N E T W O R K 2 0 1 1PORTS TERMINALS CODE PORTS TERMINALS CODE PORTS TERMINALS CODEB A L T I C C O U N T R I E SMalmö Northern Harbour Northern Harbour Immingham Exxtor Terminal ExxtorDENMARKNorrköping Norrköping Port Terminal NPTNordic Terminal 1 Nordic Terminal 1Aalborg Aalborg Container Terminal ACTPampus TerminalPampusLiverpool Royal Seaforth Container Terminal RSCTAarhus APM Terminals – Cargo Service APMT-CSOxelösund Stålhamnen StålhamnenSheerness Container Park Container ParkCopenhagen Copenhagen Container Terminal CCTSödertälje Sydhamnen SydhamnenSouthampton DP World Southampton DP WorldEsbjerg Esbjerg Container Terminal ECTStockholm Container Terminal Frihamnen FrihamnenTeesport Teesport Container Terminals TCTFredericia Fredericia Container Terminal FCTSundsvall Interforest Terminal InterforestTilbury Short Sea Container Terminal SSCTESTONIAUmeå Holmsund HolmsundTyne Deepwater Container Terminal DCTTallinn Muuga Container Terminal MuugaVarberg Varberg Container Terminal VCTI B E R I A & M E D I T E R R A N E A NFINLANDVästerås Västra Hamnen Västra Hamnen ITALYHamina Hamina Multimodal Terminals (Steveco) HMT (Steveco)W E S T E R N E U R O P EGioia Tauro Medcenter Container Terminal MCTHelsinki Vuosaari (Finnsteve) Vuosaari (Finnsteve) BELGIUMEGYPTVuosaari (Multi-Link Terminals)Vuosaari (Multi-Link) Antwerp DP World Antwerp Gateway Antwerp Gateway Suez Canal Zone Terminal CZTVuosaari (Steveco)Vuosaari (Steveco)DP World DelwaidedokDelwaidedokGREECEKemi Ajos AjosIndependent Maritime TerminalIMTPiraeus Piraeus Container Terminal PCTKokkola All Weather Terminal AWTMSC Home TerminalMSC HomeMALTAKotka Mussalo (Steveco) Mussalo (Steveco)PSA Deurganck TerminalDeurganckMarsaxlokk Marsaxlokk Terminal MarsaxlokkOulu Oritkari OritkariPSA Europa TerminalEuropaMOROCCOPori Hacklin Terminal Hacklin TerminalPSA Noordzee TerminalNoordzeeAgadir Agadir Container Terminal ACTRaumaRauma Container Terminal (RaumaRCT (RaumaSchelde Container Terminal NoordSCTNCasablanca Casablanca Container Terminal CCTStevedoring)Stevedoring)Ghent Ghent Container Terminal GCTPORTUGALTornio Röyttä RöyttäZeebrugge APM Terminals Zeebrugge APMTLisbonTerminal de Contentores de Santa Apolónia Santa ApolóniaTurku Finnsteve FinnstevePSA Container Handling ZeebruggeCHZ(Sogatus)GERMANYFAROE ISLANDSLeixões Terminal de Contentores de Leixões TCLBremerhaven Eurogate CT Bremerhaven Eurogate CTBTórshavn Tórshavn Molin MolinSPAINMSC Gate BremerhavenMSC GateKollafjørðurKollafjørðurAlgeciras APM Terminals Algeciras APMTNTB North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven NTBFRANCEBilbao Abra Terminales Marítimas AMTCuxhaven Cuxport Terminal 1 CuxportDunkirk Nord France Terminal International NFTIGijón Terminal de Contenedores de Gijón TCGHamburg Buss Hansa Terminal Buss HansaLe Havre CNMP Atlantique CNMP Atlantique Valencia Valencia Container Terminal VCTC. Steinweg (Süd-West Terminal) C. Steinweg – SWT ICELANDTURKEYBuss Kuhwerder TerminalKuhwerderGrundartangi GRT – Grundartangi GRTAmbarli Ambarli Shipowners Port AmbarliEurogate CT HamburgEurogate CTHReydarfjordur Reydarfjördur – Mjóeyri MjóeyriGemlik Gemport GemportHHLA CT AltenwerderHHLA CTAReykjavik Holtabakki Terminals HoltabakkiIzmir Izmir Container Terminal ICTHHLA CT BurchardkaiHHLA CTBReykjavik Eimskip Sundabakki Kleppsbakki SundabakkiIzmit Korfezi Evyap Terminal EvyapHHLA CT TollerortHHLA CTTKleppsbakkiN O R T H A M E R I C AUnikai TerminalUnikaiVestmannaeyjar VEY – Vestmannaeyjar Binnabryggja Skalinn VEYCANADALATVIAIRELANDHalifax South Ends Terminals South Ends TerminalsRiga Baltic Container Terminal BCTDublin Portroe – Ocean Terminal PortroeUSARiga Container TerminalRCTNORWAYBaltimore Dunkalk Marine Terminal DunkalkRiga Universal TerminalRUTBrevik NorthSea Terminal NSTNew York APM Terminals Port Elisabeth APMTLITHUANIADrammen SSG Container Terminal SSGNorfolk Norfolk International Terminal NITKlaipėda Klaipėda Container Terminal KCTFredrikstad Fredrikstad Container Terminal FCTPort Newark FAPS FAPSKlaipėdos SmeltėSmelteHalden Norske Skog Norske SkogL A T I N A M E R I C APOLANDKristiansand KST Terminal KSTCOSTA RICAGdańsk Deepwater Container Terminal Gdańsk DCTLarvik Larvik Container Terminal LCTLimón Terminal de Moin MoinGdańsk Container TerminalGTKRevkai SydRevkai SydECUADORGdynia Baltic Container Terminal Gdynia BCTMoss Moss Container Terminal MCTGuayaquil Container & Multipurpose Terminals Guayaquil CMTGGdynia Container TerminalGCTOslo Oslo Container Terminal OCTMEXICOSzczecin DB Port Szczecin DB PortSjursøya Container TerminalSCTAltamira Infraestructura Portuaria Mexicana IPMRUSSIATHE NETHERLANDSVeracruz ICAVE ICAVEKaliningrad Baltiysk Container Terminal BCTAmsterdam MEO Terminal/Velsen Noord Velsen Noord PANAMAKaliningrad Sea Commercial PortKSCPRotterdam APM Terminals Rotterdam APMTBalboa Balboa Container Terminal BCTSt. Petersburg First Container Terminal FCTECT CityECT CityManzanillo Manzanillo International Terminal MITFourth Stevedoring Company4 th SCECT DeltaECT DeltaPanama Panama Canal Terminal PCTMoby DikMoby DikECT EuromaxECT EMXF A R E A S TNeva-Metall TerminalNMTInterforest TerminalInterforestMALAYSIAPetrolesportPLPKramer Rotterdam Container Terminal KramerTanjung Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas Terminal Pelabuhan TanjungRusmarine Forwarding TerminalRFTRotterdam Shortsea TerminalsRSTPelepasSWEDENUniport Multipurpose TerminalsUniportSOUTH KOREAÅhus Åhus Container Terminal ACTTHE UNITED KINGDOMKwangyang Terminal 2 Terminal 2Gävle Gävle Container Terminal GCTFelixstowe Trinity Terminal TrinityCHINAGothenburg Skandia Container Terminal SkandiaGrangemouth Grangemouth Container Terminal GCTHong Kong Modern Terminals Modern TerminalsHalmstad Halmstad Container Terminal HCTGreenock Greenock Ocean Terminal GOTNingbo Terminal 3 Terminal 3Kattegat TerminalKattegatHull Hull Container Terminal HCTShanghai SGH Shengdong Terminal SGHHelsingborg Vasthamnen Container Terminal VasthamnenKing George DockKing George Dock Yantian Yantian International Container Terminals YICTT h e B a l t i c S e a C o n t a i n e r M a p 2 0 1 1 p r o j e c t h a s b e e n k i n d l y s u p p o r t e d b y :32 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

ReportRecent global trade and transport developments and their impact on Baltic container portsFierce competitionShipping lines are investing in larger ships to take advantage of the economies of scale, but they are alsoforming unusual alliances to ensure that they are able to fully utilise their ships. They need deepwaterports that can handle the bigger ships, which is likely to mean fewer port calls and the elimination ofsecondary calls from rotations on the main arterial routes.In 2009 most countries, with the exceptionof Poland, experienced a decrease inGDP. Initially, there was a huge surplusof tonnage, which caused problems. It wasreduced during 2010, so that only 2% of thefleet was actually in lay-up, compared to 9% in2009. There was a greater use of slow or evensuper slow steaming, which again ate up thesurplus of tonnage, and is now becoming thestandard. Major shipping lines, such as Maerskand CMA, announced huge profits in 2010 tocounter effect the huge losses in 2009. However,in the first half of 2011 we can again seea decline in profit and the cancellation of somemain arterial services. This is the first sign of therenewed negative pressures on the market andthat’s largely because of the severity of the underlyingsupply/demand position.East Baltic: container port demand to2020The total demand at Baltic container portsis expected to grow somewhere from 38% to60% to about 5.68 mln TEU by 2015, and bya further 55%-65% to just over 10 mln TEU by2020. Baltic Russian ports will increase by 42%-72% to 3.8 mln TEU by 2015 and to 6.8 mlnTEU by 2020. Polish ports will increase to 1.43mln TEU, and by a further 49% to 2.1 mln TEU,respectively. There will be a relatively minor increasein capacity in Scandinavian ports – from7.41 mln TEU in 2009 to 8.22 mln TEU in 2020(+10.9%), in contrast to an increase of 88% incontainer handling capacities in the main Balticports (chiefly in Baltic Russia). It is importantto note that some of the expansion plans, set tostart in 2009, have been delayed and many developmentsare now subject to demand.As far as container port capacity is concerned,the main development areas are inBaltic Russia. St. Petersburg’s First ContainerTerminal introduced a new berth in 2009; Petrolesport– will have a possible new terminalin 2020; and Moby Dik terminal is expectingfurther capacity development in 2013. Ust-Luga has a great potential due to its geographicallocation as well as the speed of the levelof its ongoing development (i.e. dredging theaccess channel to 17 m, scheduled to be finishedthis year, as well as Gulftainer Group’sinvestment in the terminal Yug-2), but that isnot all. Terminals operating within the Portof St. Petersburg are restricted as to the extentthey are able to grow; there’s a certain level ofvolumes they can handle and they have alreadyreached maximum capacity. Ust-Luga will beable to handle cargo, but the biggest difficultyfor this port is in winter time, when the threatof icing appears, stopping the biggest vesselsfrom entering the port.In other Baltic ports ongoing investmentscan be observed too, such as KlaipėdosSmeltė container terminal’s berth extensionand dredging works or the construction of anew container terminal in the Port of Tallinnwhich finished in July 2010, and is expectedto be operational in the third quarter of 2013.In Latvia, Riga Container Terminal is now reconstructingits access channel to a depth of 17m – with works planned for 2012-2015; constructionof the NKT terminal is also underway,following land reclamation. In Poland,Gdynia’s quay extension was delayed from2016-2017 but is now expected by 2020.What is happening to the container fleet?We are in the middle of a size-based revolutionfor container ships. The role of 10,000+TEU vessels has increased dramatically, drivenby scale economics and competitive pressures.The decision to proceed with the Panama Canalexpansion in 2014 was a key factor for speedingup this process, too, and will accelerate the penetrationof larger ships into the Atlantic. Thecurrent increase in order books for large vesselswill result in too much tonnage, given the recentdecline in economic growth. Transpacific andAsia-Europe services are able to accommodatemost of the largest units, but the rest will haveto cascade to secondary trade routes – North-South or transatlantic trades – where we will see6,000 TEU ships, which are probably a little toobig for such demands. Obviously, fuel is a bigcost, so lines are taking full advantage of overtonnage by slowing vessels down. The main resultsare fewer direct port calls, more transhipmentand more feeders.Since 2005 there has been a substantial increasein 8,000 TEU and 8,000+ TEU containerships. By the end of 2010 there was 2.7 mlnPhoto: DCTTEU of 8,000 TEU vessels, compared to 1.8 mlnTEU in 2009 and 16,000 TEU in 2005. A hugeincrease (+700%) in 13,000 or 14,000 TEU vesselsby 2015 is also forecasted. More recently thefocus is on the development of 12,500-14,500TEU vessels – but the most resilient companiesare already looking forward to further developmentand 18,000 TEU Triple E-Class ships aretheir main target.Ports have to respond to this, as there arebigger requirements to receive such ships; this isespecially related to the quay’s depth. Approximately16-17 m alongside is necessary to handlethe biggest ships with a suitable quay clearanceof 10-15%. They will also need more yardspace to handle larger sizes of consignments.Terminals’ productivity has recently improved,but ongoing increases are still necessary. Suchports as Gdańsk, Aarhus and Gothenburg withthe necessary depths are able to take advantageof the situation, and this is why more deepwaterterminals are being constructed, suchas at Klaipėdos Smeltė. This will result in anincrease in the number of available deepwaterports, but with the likely reduction in mainlinecalls overall, this will create tremendouscompetition between the deepwater terminalsall vying for the big vessels. However, it is alsolikely that we will see a rise in the size of feedervessels, which will cover ports that cannot handlethe larger ships. Some ports may have tosettle for this size of vessel and type of operationinstead of the main arterial trade vessels.Steve WrayOcean Shipping Consultants5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 33

ReportKiel CanalStrategic shortcut or bottleneck?“Ticking Bomb?” “Disaster?” If these and similar expressions are used in the public discussion on transportinfrastructure – in this case in an official statement of the Kiel Nautical Association in regard to the situation ofthe Kiel Canal – then it should be taken as a warning signal that something seems to be extremely wrong.This impression is enforced by the fact that in late August theGerman Shipowners’ Association (VDR), the German Shipbrokers’Association (ZVDS) and the Association of GermanSeaport Operators (ZDS) all signed a joint open letter to Dr.Peter Ramsauer, the German Federal Minister of Transport, Buildingand Urban Development (BMVBS) – urging the Federal Governmentto strengthen public investment in the modernization of the Kiel Canal,especially to start with the construction of a fifth lock chamber inBrunsbüttel at the westerly end of the canal.Kiel Canal trafficLet’s look at the numbers and trends before deliberating on the needfor infrastructure investment. According to the Waterways and ShippingAdministration of the Federal Government, being responsible forthe management and maintenance of the Kiel Canal, in 2010 the canalhosted an average of 87 ships per day – a number which still qualifiesfor top of the league of artificial seaways. In other words it is a very successfulwaterway. In comparison to the passage via the Skak, a voyagebetween West-European ports and the mid-point of the Baltic via theapprox. 100 km long Kiel Canal is approximately 180 NM shorter. Thisdistance saving in turn leads to a large reduction in ship fuel consumptionand hence less emissions of greenhouse gases; so the canal offers apositive environmental benefit as well as a ship operating cost and timeadvantage to the benefit of users. The following figure shows canal trafficindex numbers for the period between 2000 and 2010 concerningthe number of ships, total cargo volume and total gross tonnage.Fig. 1. Kiel Canal traffic (2000 = 100)Source of data: www.kiel-canal.orgBetween 2000 and 2008 the number of ships transiting the canalincreased almost consistently (with the exception of 2006) from38,377 p.a. in 2000 to 42,811 p.a. in 2008. Due to the deployment oflarger vessels, the increase in total cargo (2000: 57,861,599 tonnes; 2008:105,869,136 tonnes) and total gross tonnage (2000: 100,750,615 tonnes;2008: 175,159,970 tonnes) was even bigger. The worldwide shippingcrisis in 2009, however, led to a dramatic slump in canal traffic. Onereason for this was, in addition to the overall decrease in cargo volumes,34 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011a shift in some Baltic Sea feeder traffic to and from Hamburg throughthe Kiel Canal to, inter alia, the Port of Rotterdam as low charter rates,combined with low bunker costs made such feeder services economicallymore viable. Since 2010, however, canal traffic has increased againand it is expected that the 2011 cargo figures might be close at the 2008record level. Thus, it should now be expected that, given expectationsof growth in Baltic trade, demand for shipping to use the canal willcontinue to increase over the long term.Preparing the Kiel Canal for the futureOnly a few years after the opening of the then Kaiser-Wilhelm-Kanalin 1895, the first major expansion took place. Between1907 and 1914 the canal was widened to enable the passageof a new generation of big battleships. As early as 1906 theFirst Lord of the British Admiralty, John Arbuthnot Fisher, predictedthat in 1914, when the canal expansion with new locksat both ends in Kiel-Holtenau and in Brunsbüttel were due tobe completed, a war between Britain and Germany would breakout. Like all of the world’s major canal systems (e.g. Suez, Panama,etc.), such infrastructure was and still is of major strategicsignificance, militarily as well as economic, for the nations andregions most directly concerned. So we should be clear – the KielCanal is of strategic significance, and thankfully today more interms of its important economic function.Today, almost 100 years after their erection most people still usethe term “new” for the locks from the beginning of the last century.But it has become more and more obvious during the recentpast that neither the 19 th century “old locks” nor the “new locks” arereliable enough to guarantee smooth canal operations. Repeatedly,breakdowns and repair works at the locks force vessels to queue upand wait for their lock transit in Brunsbüttel. This should not be thatsurprising – the locks are, after all, basically 100-year old infrastructure.The modernization of the Kiel Canal has been included as oneof the first priority projects in the Federal Transport InfrastructurePlan. Thus, initially it was intended to start with the newbuildingof a fifth lock chamber in Brunsbüttel already in 2010 – with totalcosts estimated to amount to EUR 350 mln. But, in light of thetight budgets, in August 2011 the BMVBS announced it was goingto postpone the newbuilding and to start instead with the rejuvenationof the existing locks (cost estimates: EUR 85 mln per lock). Theimprovement of the lock situation at Brunsbüttel is only one part ofa number of measures to prepare the canal for the future: a new lockin Kiel-Holtenau, the deepening of the canal and the enlargementof the eastern part of the canal are also on the agenda – all in all theinvestment will cost EUR 1.25 bln.Fear of a total breakdownA number of experts meanwhile fear a total breakdown of thecanal if counter-measures are not implemented without delay. In aworst case scenario job losses could be expected as well as a shift incargo flows from waterway to road; if the latter happens, and supply

Reportchains are altered in a major way, it will be difficult to bring much ofthis traffic back to the canal in the future. Furthermore, trade patternsmight change if the canal were out of service for a longer period oftime. Liner carriers could consider implementing more direct calls inthe Baltic Sea instead of using feeder services which could also influencethe utilisation of the major German ports, especially of Hamburg,but also Bremerhaven and Wilhemshaven-JadeWeserPort.The end result, if nothing is done, is that the Kiel Canal couldwithin the next decade or so cease to be of much relevance. Feederships are becoming much larger, and so the infrastructure needed toaccommodate them needs to be upscaled. And other types of shipsare also becoming larger, such as ro-ro and cruise ships. Today’sships and shipping operators do not appreciate unwelcome delays– shipping lines and their increasingly discerning customers needcertainty – advanced, well maintained maritime infrastructure providesthat certainty.The urgent need for investmentThere is really no alternative here – it is either investment orwe can say auf wiedersehen to a major element of shipping activityand trade for the German maritime sector in the future. The NorthGerman hubs depend on their feeder ship function in serving theentire Baltic Sea region; as these feeder ships are getting ever larger,the Kiel Canal has to keep pace. The present locks built a centuryago have given excellent service for a very long time, but the recentrapid and ongoing scale increases in shipping have changed thegame somewhat. Today, larger locks and deeper draft are the nameof the game. If the canal is not upgraded, this could also mean a lossof mainline shipping business to the German hub ports, with a shiftof this trade to the Benelux hubs and routing of larger feeders viathe Skak, combined with more direct calls in the Baltic by mainlineoperators. Other ship types, including cruise and ro-ro, will followsuit. This would imply a loss of national competitiveness.Germany has to consider the Kiel Canal as a strategic transportcorridor, and not only for container services but for a whole varietyof shipping services. If the right investments are made now, the futureof the canal, and the competitiveness of the North German hub portscan be assured for the next 100 years or more. If not, then who knowswhat the future holds, for the canal and for German seaports, whichhave a critical role to play in terms of the wider economy. Prof. Dr. Thomas Pawlik, Prof. Dr. Alfred BairdThomas Pawlik is the Bremer Rhederverein professor of Maritime Management and Dean of Studiesat Hochschule Bremen’s Centre of Maritime Studies. A member of the International Associationof Maritime Economists and the German Association of Transport Sciences, he’s also the initiatorof the Northern Maritime University Network. Alfred Baird is a professor of Maritime Business atEdinburgh Napier University’s Transport Research Institute. Ports, shipping lines, transport firms,enterprise agencies, local and central government and the European Commission have benefitedfrom his work concerning maritime industries. Moreover, he has an honours degree in BusinessStudies and is a member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport.5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 35

TransBalticTowards an integrated transportsystem in the Baltic Sea regionProject part-financedProject part-financedby the European Unionby the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)(European Regional Development Fund)The intergraded transport system in the Baltic Sea region – the transit role of LatviaPhoto: Riga’s Transport and Telecommunication InstituteGetting connectedThe transport sector should be perceived as a whole, rather than separate industries and logistics connections.Still the transport network in the EU must not only be united, but also green, as the environmentally friendlyapproach hits the big time. The TransBaltic Stakeholders Debate, held in Riga on 14 th of September, was devotedto the holistic and green development of European transport, with special attention to the transit role of Latvia.Amajor part of the TransBaltic work isdedicated to investigate “The BSR asa transport gateway area”. A subtaskin this investigation is to perform“Forecasts and scenarios for BSR corridor flows”by the modelling of traffic flows. The forecastincludes a projection of transcontinental flowsbetween and through the BSR to/from the FarEast, Central Asia and Russia considering theirpossible freight volumes, collection/distributionregions and physical routes. In this contextTransBaltic arranged a debate in Riga to discussthe importance of Latvia’s transit role.The main goal of the new EU transport policyis aimed at creating a system that supports thedevelopment of the European economy, increasescompetitiveness, provides high qualitymobility services, but which at the same timeuses existing resources more effectively. Also theEuropean Commission’s position on the future oftransport planning is clear – transport is viewedas a basic necessity in the context of other prioritiesor sectors. The transport network shouldserve as the backbone for overall development36 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011– the better and healthier it is, the overall conditionof the organism is better, too.Three main trends in transport and logisticsin the BSR, as pointed out by Igor Kabashkin,president of Riga’s Transport and TelecommunicationsInstitute, are globalization (the BSR asa gateway for global freight transport), regionalizationand unification (documents, services,procedures and so forth).The mentioned tendencies are facing severalproblems, like the difficulty to alter the mindsetof politicians (the so-called “administrative bottlenecks”along with the clash between political andeconomic agendas), troubling legislation, environmentand safety issues (i.e. to what extent a corridorcan be made green and secure and yet yieldprofits), along with customs and border crossingnuisances. Despite these difficulties, the BSR canbe a future logistics and distribution centre (ora web of such centres), providing value-addedproduction in the custom-free zones and specialeconomic zones. The Baltic Sea region has the advantageof a good location, priceless if we take intoconsideration the potential of the Russian market;the BSR also offers skilled labour, which has a goodcommand of English and Russian. Not withoutmeaning are also the Baltic hinterland ports, supportingother transport and logistics chains.Co-ompetition (co-operation plus competitionat all levels) will be the key to future successfuldevelopment, according to Kabashkin. Ifco-ompetition is to become a common practice,a vast number of parties much cooperate – centraland local governments, organizations (BPO,IMO, various associations, including ecological organizations),private business and last but not leastsocieties, which are going to be affected by thetransport and logistics infrastructures. The secondfuture key aspect will be optimodality – the wayto optimize each mode of transport consideredseparately and draw the best of the combinationof diverse modes of transport (rail, road, maritime,inland waterways, air) to the benefit of the useras well as the individual consumers. Integrationis the vital condition for the success of the wholeidea; but such integration is needed which doesn’trule out specialization, while saving money andstill providing the BSR with the advantage of

Project part-financedProject part-financedby the European Unionby the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)(European Regional Development Fund)Towards an integrated transportsystem in the Baltic Sea regionTransBalticversatility. As history shows ongoing technologyimprovements (i.e. co-modality, ITS, crossborder innovations) are also required to burstthe integration. In this regard the European Unionhas to take some recommendations intoconsideration. If the EU wants to develop anefficient Trans-European Network of Transport(TEN-T), more attention needs to be placed onBaltic transport corridors, as many countriesalong the Baltic Sea are a border betweenEU and non-EU nations. The European Unionshould also harmonize the customs legislationbetween the EU and the customs union ofRussia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.And that’s the point of departure for thediscussions on Latvia’s opportunities as an attractiveand important player in the transit axisboth bearing in mind its location as the middleof the three Baltic States as well as a transitcountry to and from Russia. Alongside Estoniaand Lithuania, Latvia is mobilising its forces notto be left off the map when the growing Asianeconomies plan their future transport routes.Latvia – as a case study – has the advantageof bordering with both Russia and Belarus andthe institutionalised customs union betweenthese two neighbouring countries and Kazakhstanis perceived as an excellent opportunityto attract freight flows. Development of logisticsand distribution centres could also be onthe agenda with the value-added productionin the custom-free zones. However, the competitionbetween the three Baltic States is nota desirable outlook. While rivalling for fundingto develop TEN-T infrastructure links and greentransport technologies, Latvia, Lithuania andEstonia can still cooperate to harmonize planningconcepts and develop their own profilesas transit countries. Thus, co-ompetition at relevantgovernance levels and across the territoriescould be more suitable as a means to findthe right focus in transport policy planning.Also knowledge is essential for co-ompetitionwithin BSR, but it’s widely recognised that adecision-support basis for public authoritiesdoes not exist due to scattered traffic flowdata as well as different methodologies andmodels applied for individual networks. TheTransBaltic Outlook (BTO), recalled as an actionof the ministries in the EU Baltic Sea Strategydocument, may partially fill this gap by describingcurrent and predicted goods trafficbetween both BSR countries and regions Asfor now Latvia is preparing its national transportpolicy 2014-2020, but plans are meaningfulwithout actions, a notion which politiciansmust bear in mind to improve their country indetail, and the EU in general.The direction: greenDuring the debate much care was alsotaken regarding the green corridors concept.Photos: Riga’s Transport and Telecommunication InstituteThe concept for imposing greener transportis both a possibility and a threat, meaning thatthis challenge can turn out very well, but alsobring interested parties to ruin. One of the keyfactors is the governments’ enforcement ofgreen thinking onto public and private actorsor green corridors will rather become ghostcorridors with no companies using them, thuslarge investments will be written off. As for nowthe concept was considered by the Latvianstakeholders as not much more than just a slogan,since today all corridors are far from beinggreen. Nonetheless, TransBaltic’s disputantsperceive the green corridors as the only possiblefuture for cost-efficient transport, althoughit will also need a lot of careful investigationsbefore being developed and implemented.So what are the necessary conditions forimplementing green corridors? First of all, policiesmust be changed, both on the nationaland EU level, i.e. fighting off bureaucraticburdens, harmonizing national regulations,as well as creating easy terms for the developmentof green corridors and enabling thegreening of existing ones. If effective greencorridors are to be established, then the economicgaps between neighbourhood countriesmust be filled, because a fragmented“corridor” running across many countries isn’ta corridor at all. Furthermore, border crossingshave to be as simple as possible withless administration for efficient (low emission)transportation. The EU must work their fingersto the bone on optimizing customs unionsand legislations; in this regard joint actionswith Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraineshould be undertaken, as these countriesform a common custom union. Russia needsto be involved in the “green” discussion toinvest in the right corridors, too. Not withoutmeaning is also spreading the good newsthat green corridors are the best solution, notonly from an environmental point of view, butalso in terms of economics. To do so it’s necessaryto develop a common language andunderstanding of the green corridor conceptfor all involved actors (public and private) tounderstand each other and to come out witha widely recognized solution.As the debate was held in Latvia, thecase of importance of green corridors to thiscountry was raised. If the Latvian governmentbecomes more proactive, the strategic consequencesfor Latvia should be positive. If Latvialives for the day it could become the most importanthub for freight transportation throughoutthe Baltic States. If green corridors succeed,everybody who has the know-how andexperience in dealing with them will gain anadvantage over lesser committed countries. Przemysław Myszka5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 37

TransBalticTowards an integrated transportsystem in the Baltic Sea regionProject part-financedProject part-financedby the European Unionby the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)(European Regional Development Fund)Inland waterway transport in the BSRTime to take actionAs transport needs are growing, while restrictions in the transport sectorare increasing in number, the development of inland water transport inthe Baltic Sea region is an undeniable chance to meet market demandsand to boost the region’s competitiveness on an international scale.The European Union’s transportpolicy sets out clear goals to increasethe economic efficiency oftransport, keeping environmentalissues in mind. Such concepts as co-modalityand green corridors promote the visionof a technologically advanced, integratedtransport system where different transportmodes cooperate with one another optimally,while staying eco-friendly. TransBalticincorporates the key EU objectives andaims at creating a comprehensive multimodaltransport system in the BSR. A recentreport issued by the project shows that thedevelopment of Inland Waterway Transport(IWT) in the BSR is a factor of a great potentialin achieving the main project aim andEU policy goals. The report gives an insightinto the present state of the inland transportationsystem in the BSR and shows theimportance of integrating IWT into the systemas well as proposes actions needed tobe carried out in order to do so.Main features of IWTInland waterways are competitors to othermodes of transport as far as serving porthinterland traffic is concerned. Although inlandwater shipping usually takes more timethan road or rail transport, it has huge advantageswhich make it gain a top positionPhoto: Waterways Forwardin the sector. Such characteristics as low externalcosts, environmental safety and lowenergy consumption undoubtedly make upfor the time loss and are worth investing in.Inland navigation has the potential to playa complementary part in maritime transportin the following specialized markets: riverseatransport, container traffic, continentalcontainer shipping, transport of new carsby ship as well as transport of heavy loads,scrap, coal, biomass as an energy feedstockand hazardous goods. What is more, IWT canbe an important factor in the developmentof tourism in the Baltic Sea region, offeringhigh quality services.A potential to take advantage ofAccording to the White Paper for thetransport sector, presented in Brussels on 28March 2011, the policy for years to come isstrongly heading in a ‘green’ direction withfocus on reducing transportation emissions.These postulates are largely in favour ofdeveloping inland waterways as eco-friendlymodes of transport and are planned tobe expanded. Hence, cargo shipping ondistances over 300 km is expected to movefrom road transport to rail and IWT. Todayinland benefits of waterways seem to beunderestimated and are used for shippingpurposes mostly in the eastern andsouthern Baltic areas. IWT plays a significantrole in Germany, on the three great rivers:Rhine, Danube and Elbe, where the riverRhine carries 63% of the overall Europeaninland waterways freight, as well as in Finland,where waterways total up to 8,000 kmin length and the Saimaa Canal, being themost important connection, brings highturnovers both in freight and passengers.Yet, a potential to expand the scopedoes exist as all inland waterways of BalticSea countries pass through important economicregions and almost all of them havetransport capacity. Such problems as shallowrivers and too low bridges as well as alimited size and number of sluices weakenthe usage of many waterways and shouldbe dealt with. These difficulties appear inLithuania, Latvia and Estonia where hydropowerdams without functional locks hamperinland navigation on important rivers(Neman River, Daugava River, Narva River).In Russia and in Poland, on the other hand,there is a need for modernization of infrastructureand maintenance works whichwould increase the use of existing waterways.Moreover, improvement of transportregulations would enable their more efficientutilization. Poland’s waterway networkstretches over 3,500 km, where themost significant for transport are the Oderand Vistula rivers which are connected bythe Bydgoszcz Canal. In Russia, the 72,000km-long network of waterways providestransport routes across Europe by linkingthe Baltic Sea, White Sea, Caspian Sea, Seaof Azov, and the Black Sea.IWT developmentThe efficiency of IWT is largely dependenton its integration with other transportmodes. Successful cooperation with seatransport is especially significant as hinterlandconnections to seaports are the mostbeneficial for IWT. Today, the dominatingload units in both land and sea transport arecontainers. At present, more than 500 mlnTEU is transported by containers worldwideand it is expected that the number will growto 700 mln TEU by the year 2014. Due to thedevelopment of containerisation, IWT canbe a part of the integrated transport chainsand contribute to their effectiveness. A largeamount of cargo in ports is containerised,hence ready for multimodal transport. Containerscan be easily transhipped to bargeswhich are able to carry (depending on thetype of vessel) up to 3,000 tonnes of cargo,which corresponds to 120 lorries or 75 railcarriages. What is more, a special containerfleet can be employed for the shipmentof containerised general cargo by inland38 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Project part-financedProject part-financedby the European Unionby the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)(European Regional Development Fund)Towards an integrated transportsystem in the Baltic Sea regionTransBalticwaterways. This is practised on the Rhineriver where specially built vessels used totransport containers carry over 1 mln TEUannually (the largest container ship on theRhine has a capacity of 500 TEU).The development of transport corridorsin the Baltic Sea region should consider seatransport above all and what follows the ideaof IWT as a reliable and efficient means of shippinggoods and people, bringing benefits tothe entire region. Of course investments intothe construction and maintenance of waterwayswill be necessary and the costs are higherthan those for road infrastructure, yet thelow external costs of IWT make them a worthyinvestment for the future. IWT can be a moreenvironmentally friendly alternative to roadtransport and special initiatives should be undertakento foster its development.Putting theory into practiseWith all the abovementioned advantagesof IWT and plans for development, animportant question arises – how to take actionand make inland navigation a successin reality? The answer to this question lies inthe field of technology, communication andforms of crew training. An excellent exampleof well-planned utilisation of waterways forshipping purposes is the initiative DIPCITY,focused on strengthening the port-city connectionand transporting waste by IWT infour cities: Liège, Brussels (Belgium), Parisand Lille (France). The INLATRANS project(part of the INTERREG IIC project for the BSR)is aimed at making use of the existing potentialof waterways in the BSR as well as toimplement innovative ideas. Its overall goalis to promote freight shipping by waterwaysand to find partners who share the interestof creating an efficient inland water transportationsystem in the region. The projectresults are believed to enhance cooperationbetween Baltic Sea countries and foster thedevelopment of IWT. A website with a databaseof the infrastructure and facilities ofeach participating country is being createdand is one of the outcomes of the project.INTRASEA (a follow-up project to INLA-TRANS) has foreseen a bright future for theinland waterways in the Baltic Sea region.The presented Vision 2020 + gives the pictureof a highly utilised waterway systemthat largely contributes to the widening ofpan-European markets. By the year 2020, asa result of extending the utilisation of IWT,the market of the Baltic Sea region will grow,and hence transported volumes of freightand passengers will increase; logistical strategiesof the global market will be reflectedregionally; short sea shipping (SSS) will bethe main transport mode in the BSR all yearround; the Baltic Sea region, along withwestern Russia, will benefit from inland navigationon an everyday basis; ports locatedat river, rail and road junctions will serve asintermodal terminals for freight. In accordancewith the EU’s transport policy, IWT willbe eco-friendly and contribute to road safety.Moreover, logistical systems supportedby IT will be perfectly protected from waterinfluence. These future visions and thestrategy of how to reach them dwell in theoutcomes of the INTRASEA project. Here isa straightforward appeal to the transportindustry and to stakeholders to cooperateand transform these views into feasibleplans and create an integrated waterwaytransportation system which will strengthenthe region for years to come. As statedby the authors of the hereby report, “theBaltic Sea region cannot afford to neglectthe development of inland navigation.” Monika MikołajczykThe article is based on the report “Inland transportin the BSR Transport System” available onTransBaltic’s website www.transbaltic.eu.Photo: Waterways Forward5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 39

Face to face with challengesBaltic Ports Conference | 7-9 September 2011, Rostock Warnemünde, GermanyPorts in order to thrive must not only be well prepared to function in the new market economy, but have to come upwith responses concerning the near future. The competition is getting fiercer; the range of regulations to fulfil isgetting broader, and times are uncertain. BPO gathered again to debate on the key matters for the sector.This year’s Baltic Ports Conference held together with theGeneral BPO Assembly were of a unique character, as theyaccompanied the celebration of the 20 th anniversary of theBaltic Ports Organization. BPO stakeholders gathered inHanseMesse Rostock, the conference venue, to discuss the economicsituation of the Baltic Sea market after the recession. The theme of theevent included the challenges that the market is currently faced with.Baltic countries are viewed as much safer than some eurozonecountries, but with the world financial markets getting out of control,Baltic states will take a hit if the eurozone breaks apart. Both the USand the eurozone countries are faced with challenging debt problemswithout having a near term solution at hand. The oil market is sufferingfrom recession fears. The crisis is four years old and it is unclearas ever where it will end – these were the conclusions concerning thebackground of the current Baltic market situation, comprehensivelydescribed by Dr. Cyrus de la Rubia of HSH Nordbank.Among all conference subjects, the matter which consumed themost attention was the impact of the International Maritime Organization’sdecision to decrease the allowed sulphur content in the marinefuel from 2015, as well as possible solutions to this issue. Basingon the new regulations, only ships powered with a 0.1% sulphur fuelwill be allowed to operate in the Baltic, making it less competitive thanthe other seas of Europe. Michael Tasto from the Institute of ShippingEconomics and Logistics (ISL) presented the results of ISL’s researchon the consequences of these regulations for shipping in the Baltic andNorth Seas. ISL’s task was to estimate the volumes that would likelybe shifted in container traffic and in truck traffic in 2015, by modellingtransport costs for both land transport and sea transport andsetting up a modal split function, quantifying the loses or gains foreach group resulting from the changes in the shipping fuel prices. AsTasto summed up his presentations, “It is widely accepted that IMOregulations will lead to shifting transportation from sea routes to otherroads – directly in the opposite way as was suggested for over 20 years.The highest shift risk is between Russia and the Baltic States – there isfierce competition from the land routes. The current aim is to mitigatethe negative effects of the regulations – i.e. to subsidize pilot projectsas the scrubber technology. It is a pity that such studies weren’t donebefore Member States agreed to IMO regulations.” Among otherPhotos: Port of Rostock/nordlicht40 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

possible scenarios is the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a shipfuel which was identified as perhaps the most promising response.Following a lively debate, the conclusion was made that more time isneeded for technology and infrastructure development, before LNGfuel can be used in the BSR on a comprehensive level. The participantssuggested that a re-thinking of these regulations is needed and postponingthem until the sector is ready. Mogens Schrøder Bech from theDanish Maritime Authority presented the LNG infrastructure project(described in BTJ 4-2011, in the interview with Monica Gullberg of ÅFIndustry, entitled: “Maritime LNG infrastructure within the SECA”),co-funded from the European Union TEN-T programme Motorwaysof the Sea. Generally speaking, its aim is to design and set up guidelinesand recommendations regarding the usage of LNG as fuel, to ensuresafe development of the industry, which is of essence if investmentsare to be made; and ultimately prevent IMO’s SOx regulation’s negativeconsequences for the shipping industry. Ship owners and ports,while recognizing the indisputable value of this new policy – protectionof the environment – agreed that the sector will not be ready forthis tremendous change in four years and expressed the fear of increasedcosts as well as a modal backshift to the road.A bulk part of the conference was devoted to trends and reformsin ports’ governance in Europe, with special focus on the Baltic Searegion. Dr. Ulrich Bauermeister, MD of Rostock Port, focused onthe development of German Ports, linking the fast-growing BalticRim and Central/Southeast Europe, and presented the problemslying ahead of them. The prognosis of cargo turnover in Germanports by the year 2025 are quite optimistic, yet several factors haveto be dealt with, such as the preparation to fulfil the environmentalrequirements, i.e. sulphur and nitrogen emissions legislations aswell as the nutrient intake from passenger ships or to changes in theKimmo Naski describedthe case of Finnishreforms in port management.A change in Finnishmunicipal law in 1992made it possible to commercialiseports and separatetheir budget from themunicipal budget, resultingin increased power in decisionmaking. Further on hepresented a 40-year old issueof cooperation betweenthe Ports of Kotka andHamina, which was finallysettled this year, when Port of Kotka Ltd. and Port of Hamina Ltd. weremerged into the Port of HaminaKotka Ltd. The main reasons for mergingthe ports were the need to increase flexibility; separation of the porteconomy from municipal households as well as ensuring future investmentsand continuity of development through independent financing.This decision empowered the port and enabled it to succeed in internationalcompetition, it also lessened the need for investments, whichis a key factor during economic slowdowns. The merger allowed inaddition smoother coordination and optimization of traffic inside theport, more efficient financing as well as the use of port capacity. Moreover,it brought considerable benefits for shipping lines and forwardingcompanies, as well as for customers, and the majority of owners whorecommended it. The numbers say it all: savings in investments willresult in up to EUR 60 mln within 10 years and the estimated turnovergrowth is to range between EUR 15 -30 mln within 5 years.Photos: Port of Rostock/nordlichtmarket that come with new land transport infrastructure such as theFehmarnbelt and new motorways on the southern Baltic coast, whichagain might lead to a modal shift from sea to roads. Bauermeister arguedthat improved competitiveness of transport modes other thanSSS is needed and minimizing overall transport costs is possible dueto the settlement of industries dependent on sea transport in/closeto port areas. Among possible strategies he named High EnergyEfficiency, obtainable e.g. by the concentration of cargo flows, improvedquality of and access to intermodal transport – improved capacityby the Motorways of the Sea project, extension of rail shuttleconnections; a higher share in rail transport in the hinterland as wellas minimizing the environmental impact. Ulrich Bauermeister alsopointed out that concessions for port operators bring worse conditionsfor investments in ports; this issue was further debated later,as a follow up to the speech by Joanna Szychowska, Head of Unit ofDG Internal Market & Services European Commission, “Concessionrules for the ports in EU – new rules to be proposed”.The presentations, touching upon the issues of port laws, efficiencyand competitiveness, were concluded with a panel, duringwhich the future of port authorities was discussed.The Gala Dinner, held in the sky bar of Neptun Hotel inWarnemünde, gave over one hundred delegates the chance tocelebrate the organization’s anniversary as well as honour itsmembers while enjoying the ship lights twinkle on the sea. JulianSkelnik, BPO Chairman since 2007, who was confirmedin office, expressed his satisfaction: “In the past 20 years theBaltic Ports Organization could establish itself as a social platformfor representatives from different economic sectors andpoliticians. Today we are equipped to meet the future challengesof the maritime sector. These include not only adaptingto climate and environmental laws, but also the developmentof the hinterland connections of all the Baltic ports.” Marta Friedrichowicz, Lena LorencBALTIC PORTS ORGANIZATION • Secretariat Office – Actia Forum Ltd.ul. Pułaskiego 8, 81-368 Gdynia, POLAND, ph.: +48 58 627 24 67, fax: +48 58 627 24 27e-mail: bpo.office@actiaforum.pl, bpo.sg@actiaforum.pl, http://www.bpoports.com5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 41

EWTC II newsletterBusiness opportunities in railway transport of the East-West Transport CorridorIntegrated rail transportThe EWTC Joint Railway concept is aimed at proposing measures, inline with provisions of the green transport corridor concept and theEU transport policy, for integrating rail business processes to ensurethe smooth movement of goods within the corridor.The constantly increasing volume oftrade between Europe and Asia raisesthe need to create a sustainable transportcorridor from the Southern BalticSea region via Belarus, Russia and Central Asiancountries to China, as well as to Ukraine andthe Black Sea region. Railway transportationbetween the two continents more than twicereduces the time of cargo delivery comparedto sea transport and is more environmentallyfriendly, safe and efficient in long-distancetransportation, compared to road transport.The complexity of the rail business withinthe East-West Transport Corridor has beeninherited historically, as the rail net in eachcountry was created by a nation’s strategicneeds according to the existing legal bases.Two different rail gauge systems (1,435 mmand 1,520 mm) are present in the corridor, nothaving a direct link. There is also a huge diversityof technical, organizational, informationaland business railway models in the EWTCcountries and the country-oriented approachis still very strong in the railway sector, particularlyin the non-EU countries.One of the EWTC II project’s work packages(WP) is involved in the improvement ofbusiness opportunities in rail transport. Activitiesare implemented through a numberof thematic tasks concentrating on: preparationof the EWTC Joint Railway concept forseamless rail cargo flows (responsible WPpartner and task leader: Lithuanian Railways),examination of possibilities to expand42 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011Photo: Green Cargoshuttle train markets (task leaders: Port ofKarlshamn, Danish Trafikstyrelsen, LithuanianRailways), setting prerequisites for newrail ferry services (task leader: Port of Sassnitz)and for improvement of rail services byremoving some of the bottlenecks in Swedenand Lithuania (task leaders: Swedish TransportAdministration, Lithuanian Railways).During implementation of the EWTCJoint Railway concept the outcomes of thebest practice projects, aimed at harmonizinginternational intermodal transport chainsand corridors, were examined. Findings of thePROMIT, InteGRail, RailNetEurope, BRA-VO (Brenner corridor), REORIENT Corridor,Corridor B, FreightWise and BE LOGICprojects, as well as the results of the shuttletrain VIKING project (within the 1,520 mmrail network) were useful for preliminary formulationcriteria, domain and key performanceindicators (KPI). The concept’s preliminarymodel was presented and approved at theWP partners meeting in Vilnius on February24, 2011 and in the EWTC partners Midtermconference in Fredericia on March 23-24,2011. Five key areas, important for the smoothmovement of freight by rail, namely: political,social, technological, administrative and business,were selected and discussed. The developmentof the model was continued duringworkshops of the task partners together withSwedish and Danish rail business in Malmöon May 24, 2011. What is now crucial are theconcrete steps to expand freight services ofintermodal rail transport, remove hindrancesand bottlenecks, improving service quality.Danish and Swedish EWTC II projectpartners are implementing the railway shuttleconcept from Esbjerg (Denmark) to Karlshamn(Sweden). Two studies, involving amarket investigation on launching the newcargo services and a possibility for introducinginnovative technical solutions in terminals,have been developed. A working group consistingof Lithuanian, Russian and Belarusianrailway companies’ representatives coordinatestarting conditions of a new shuttle train fromKlaipėda/Kaliningrad to Moscow. A trial runof the train is expected later this year or earlynext year. On the other hand, a new workinggroup of Lithuanian and Kazakhstan railways’representatives and freight forwarding companiesfrom Klaipėda examines the possibilitiesof launching a shuttle train on the Klaipėda-Alma Ata-Dostyk route, with an extension toUrumqi in China. The Port of Sassnitz is consideringthe option of running a railway ferrybetween Sassnitz-Baltiysk (Germany, RussianFederation). A market study will be completedsoon and at the moment intensive negotiationsare taking place. Another EWTC II projectpartner, Swedish Transport Administration,has prepared a study for railway improvementon the Helsingborg–Blekinge route.Lithuanian Railways has signed an agreementwith the Ukrainian transport company Plaskefor expanding VIKING’s operations on thiscountry’s territory and for representing theaforementioned company in negotiations forthe train’s route extension in the Black Searegion, in cooperation with Belarusian andUkrainian railway companies. Also, LithuanianRailways has signed a cooperation agreementwith the Turkish Port of Samson to lookfor opportunities to extend VIKING’s servicesto Turkey. Moreover, in line with EU legislation,the company is implementing TechnicalSpecifications for Interoperability (TSI)of Telematic Application for Freight (TAF)to improve the interaction of European andLithuanian rail networks (it is the first trial toimplement TAF TSI on a 1,520 mm rail network).This is a necessary step in implementingthe European Railway Transport ManagementSystem (ERTMS), which would be anadvantage in the green corridor. The first stage– a study on analysis of requirements on TAFTSI – was prepared and adopted by the steeringcommittee of the task on July 1, 2011. Stasys ZurbaCoordinator of the EWTC II WP“Business Opportunities in Railway Transport”

FocusRailwaysPhoto: Port of GothenburgThe railways from an insurance point of viewThe industry has to keep upThe theme of insurance is still a fairly recent focus of interest in the railway industry, only arising since theliberalisation of the rail transport sector in Europe, which has been and in some cases still is being implementedat different speeds since the start of the 1990s in the various countries belonging to the EU.Since the 1990s insurance has beengrowing steadily in importancefor the railways. In general, stateownedrailways were not insured,and there are still considerable differencesbetween the levels of insurance in place forpublicly-owned rail operators. It can be saidwith certainty, however, that the further thestate withdraws from its role as shareholderin the old public railways, the more importantit becomes to deal with this matter. Forprivate railway companies insurance hasalways been vital, simply to guarantee theirsurvival. There are also legal provisions requiringinsurance to be taken out, in particularto cover public liability.The following is an outline of how insurancecover for rolling stock can be provided.The intention is also to examine thequestion of liability to third parties from aliability insurance point of view. This typeof insurance is obligatory for anyone wishingto operate in the railway sector and/orto even obtain a licence to operate a businessin a specific country. Our observationson this subject are limited to insurancecover for rolling stock and coveragefor liability to third parties.Insurance of rolling stockRailway companies and decision-makersfor leasing companies or the banks whichprovide finance for leasing companies have toask themselves to what extent the risk of lossor damage to rolling stock equipment can betransferred to third parties, e.g. to insurers.Their aim here is frequently to have availablethe broadest possible insurance cover, either byfinding their own solutions (the lessor takes outthe insurance himself) or by means of solutionssupplied by lessees in order to limit their financialrisk in the event of a claim.In developing and constructing an insurancepackage, the first task is to clarify the riskstructure of the business model concerned. Thearchitect of the insurance cover, e.g. the insurancebroker, must first of all establish what risksthe parties concerned want to purchase it for,i.e. what risks they wish to transfer to insurers.In a modern, internationally structuredinsurance concept the following aspects are ofparticular importance:• Will the insurer pay in advance, regardlessof where the liability lies? For example, willthis be the case even if the damage is causedby a workshop or by defective parts? Example:Was the defective vehicle componenteven technically appropriate for the purposeit was used for?• Will any payout be on a new-for-old basis?• Are out-of-service risks covered? For example,a locomotive is not earning, butleasing instalments have to be paid and areplacement locomotive obtained.• Does the cover automatically apply Europe-wide?• What recourse options are granted to theinsurer? Does the policyholder have anysay as regards recourse action?• Does the level of premiums take into accountcorrective (preventive) maintenance?The policyholder should not pay premiumsfor costs incurred for the purpose of preventivemaintenance.• Obligations on the part of co-insuredparties?• What is the situation as regards the underinsurancewaiver?• For the purpose of the insurance contract,who is regarded as the representative? Theaim should be to ensure that e.g. railwaytraffic or operating managers/fleet managersare not regarded as representatives.• Rights conferred by any other contractualagreements, e.g. national insurance5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 43

Focuscontract legislation, must be examinedfrom the point of view of their practicabilityfor the operation of railways. It isnormal practice for a locomotive to besubleased, thus, contractually excludingthe insurer’s recourse options. Withoutthe proper formulation in a specificinsurance contract, the insurer couldrefuse a settlement.• Does the insurance cover include protectionagainst terrorist threats?Coverage for liability risksIn terms of insurance requirements imposedon railway undertakings the approachIt is easy to understand how varying requirements with respect to liability insurancecover result in variations between the costs of cover in the different countries.Example of mandatory liability (see Table 1) – a snapshotCurrency exchange rate fluctuations also cause the amounts of risk cover required in differentcountries to vary and fluctuate. The CHF/EUR exchange rate is a good example:As per 1 August 2009EUR 1 = CHF 1.53, so a sum insured of CHF 100 mln ≈ EUR 65 mln.As per 1 August 2011EUR 1 = CHF 1.13, so a sum insured of CHF 100 mln ≈ EUR 88.5 mln.If a policy is fronted out of the eurozone it means that the minimum amount of cover requiredhas increased by more than 35%.Tab. 1. Limits of mandatory liability insurance, some examples from continental EuropePhoto: DB Schenkeracross Europe reveals major inconsistencies.The position varies widely from country tocountry. The differences in the legal requirementsin the various countries, e.g. in respectof limits to be insured or the prerequisiteswhere an insurance company has to be based,constitute a problem regarding the competitionfor the best insurance premiums. This isnot the best way to achieve fair competitionacross the European Railway market.Art. 9 of EU Directive 95/18/EC does notimpose any standardised obligatory requirementsas to insurance cover either. “A railwayundertaking shall be adequately insuredor make equivalent arrangements for cover,in accordance with national and internationallaw, of its liabilities in the event of accidents,in particular with respect to passengers,luggage, freight, mail and third parties.For freight services, this may only be permittedwhere the charges reflect a willingnessto pay more than costs imposed and whereregulatory bodies have safeguards in place toensure charges are not excessive.”Each country therefore defines its minimumliability insurance requirements individually.Remarks: *Exchange rates 01.01.2011However, the cost of insurance in the different countries is significantly affected not onlyby the different levels of cover required, but also by the competitiveness of the various countries’insurance markets. As state-owned railways in the past were generally not insured,local insurers are often not particularly well-versed on the subject. In addition, insurersclassify railway risks as very high ones, which means that very few insurers are prepared tooffer the high levels of cover required. As a consequence, frequently in many countries onlyone or two insurers are available to provide it. It is hardly necessary to explain how the lawsof the marketplace operate in such a case. There are only a few countries in Europe wherethere is true competition for the insurance premiums to be earned from railway companies,because there is an insufficient number of providers, e.g. as in Germany, competing for suchrisks. In addition, cross-border competition with regard to premiums and insurance termsmay be prevented or seriously obstructed by restrictions imposed by national rules, e.g. if aninsurer based in the same country as the insured has to front a liability policy.A quite recent example of one of the hurdles to be overcome in the design of cross-border liabilityinsurance schemes is represented by the Italian PIR regulations (Prospetto Informativo dellaRete = Terms and Conditions for Railway Network Use), which were obviously toughened afterthe accident in Viareggio. Whether the insurer of the rail operator involved in an accident in thefinal analysis acts as guarantor “bank” for RFI (the Italian network operator), regardless of whetherthe rail operator was in any way responsible for the accident or not, is under discussion.However, there are also positive examples. It is known that in Scandinavian countriesthe regulatory authorities accept insurance models that do not conform to legalrequirements if the insurance product concerned is designed in a sufficiently intelligentway so as to ensure that the entire amount of cover prescribed by law is in effect stillavailable. This means that a railway operator’s insurance costs may be halved.What levels of liability insurance cover do Europe’s railway companies’ actuallyhave in practice? The relevant statutory minimum amount of cover must always be inplace (see for example Table 1).44 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

FocusThe following examples, however, illustratehow companies’ attitudes towards insurancevary from country to country.Tab. 2. Comparison of limits insured in differentcountries, examples.CountriesLimit insured/in EUR mlnLimit insured/in EUR mlnBenelux 10.00 > 100.00Germany 10.20 > 100.00Poland 00.25 > 125.00Slovakia 00.25 > 150.00Lithuania 00.25 > 112.5Vehicle Keeper Liability InsuranceAs far as is known, there is only one liabilityinsurance product with Europe-widevalidity for keepers of rolling stock, i.e. theDVA Vehicle Keeper Liability Insurance®,which provides cover of EUR 25 mln. Thisproduct was developed years ago and onlycovers the risk of statutory liability arisingout of the operation of rolling stock pursuantto the liability required by law in the countryconcerned. Insofar as mandatory insurancefor keepers exists, as e.g. in Germany, the legallyrequired amount of cover is stipulatedin the policy. However, the risks of a railwayoperator cannot be insured by this method.Accident in Białystok, 8 Nov. 2010This accident serves as an example to illustratein more detail what types of insurancepolicy may be involved. First of all there is theliability of the railway operators concernedto PKP Cargo and Orlen KolTrans, and theinsurance cover for the railway companies’own rolling stock is also involved. In the caseof a railway accident, the question of the infrastructureoperator’s responsibility alwaysarises as well, which means that the latter’sliability insurance is important too. If the infrastructureoperator is in the end found to beresponsible for the accident, the question thenarises as to who will compensate it for its ownlosses. Does it have its own property insuranceor a guarantee from a public authority, or willit simply have to accept the loss resulting fromdamage to the infrastructure?As well as actions by the companies involved,the actions of individuals – e.g. traindrivers – are often the reason why an accidentoccurs. If a third party suffers injury and there isliability, that party’s losses will generally be coveredby corporate liability insurance.If equipment belonging to the railwaycompanies involved is damaged, this may becovered by their own respective property insurancepolicies.Also involved will be the insurance companiesresponsible for the owners of neighbouringproperties, for example their buildingsPhoto: PAPor contents insurers, who make advance payments to cover the damage. In the railway businessbanks and leasing companies are frequently also involved in their capacity as financeproviders. The most important thing for financial institutions is that the equipment financedby them is adequately insured, and in some cases they arrange cover themselves.Once the liability question has been settled, it will be interesting in the specific case to establishwhich insurance companies have in the end paid out how much in compensation, andwhich losses were not insured.Tab. 3. Types of insurance possibly involved, using the accident in Bialystok, Poland, on 8.11.2011 as an exampleInvolved Party Scenario Types of insurance possibly involvedPKP Cargo train Collision with Orlen KolTranstrain close to point switches– Rolling stock insurance– Liability insurance*– Environmental impairment liability insurance– Environmental damage insurance– Insurance for the goods transportedOrlen KolTrans trainCollision with PKP Cargo trainclose to point switchesInfrastructure manager Switching of points andoperating of signals,responsibility for condition ofinfrastructurePeople– Conduct by the train driver(e.g. signal driven through)– Railway station workers– Personal injuryOwners of neighbouringproperty– Material damage– Personal injury– Rolling stock insurance– Liability insurance*– Environmental impairment liability insurance– Environmental damage insurance– Insurance for the goods transported– Liability insurance*– Environmental impairment liability insurance– Property insurance for the track– In the case of misconduct the relevant publicand or employer‘s liability insurance will respond– Buildings insurance with an option to makea recourse claim later from the party thatcaused the damage;– Social insurance (state social security agencies)with the option to make a recourse claim laterfrom the party that caused the damageBank/Leasing Financed, leased rolling stock Property insurance for rolling stockRemarks:* In some countries additional liability without fault, e.g. in Germany.The table does not claim to be complete. For example, construction work could have been carried out at the collisionsite, and in that case the question of liability on the part of the construction firm would also have to be examined, or thepossibility of a technical defect in rolling stock caused by a repair firm.This sample accident shows clearly that double digits can quickly be reached when countingthe number of insurance companies involved in one or the same accident. However, it alsoillustrates how important it is to have made the right management decisions beforehand – i.e.5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 45

Focusbefore a claim arises – and arranged appropriateinsurance cover for one’s own company.Another claim which is interesting interms of the apportionment of liability betweenthose involved in an accident is currently beingprocessed in Western Europe. In this caseit is relevant whether the train driver suffereda heart attack immediately before the collisionwith another train, and drove through a signalfor that reason, or whether his heart attack didnot occur until after the collision. If he sufferedhis heart attack before driving throughthe signal, the driver and/or his railway companywould bear strict liability. However, inthe opposite situation, the liability would becontingent on culpability. The company’s liabilityin the two cases is quite different.Under the relevant national legal rules locomotive’sinsurer’s chances of succeeding with arecourse claim depend on the nature of the liability.If it is not possible to enforce a recourseclaim, this will of course affect future premiums.ConclusionDesigning the architecture of a well-functioningrailway insurance concept to cost as littleas possible is an extremely demanding taskfor those involved. These days rolling stockwith almost identical technical parameters canbe produced Europe-wide and then put intoservice in European markets. The insurancelandscape differs considerably from countryto country, however, being subject to local legalrequirements, and it is also very dependenton the capabilities and regional capacities oflocal insurers. International standardisationis much further advanced in the field of railwaytechnology than it is in the insurance industry,and the quality of the insurance coverpurchased will therefore depend very muchon the personal knowledge and skill of thosedoing the purchasing.For most of those involved in the insuranceindustry, railway insurance has remaineda purely national affair. It therefore seems logicalthat cross-border know-how transfers arelimited in their extent. It is thus highly recommendedthat risk managers/decision-makersfor railway companies check the Europe-widequalifications of their insurers/insurance serviceproviders in order to avoid, amongst otherthings, the following experiences. Many a liabilityinsurance contract assumes that railway infrastructureis something that is leased, with theunfortunate result that in the event of a claimonly a fraction of any damage to the infrastructureis found to be covered. Damage to railwayinfrastructure for which the railway company isresponsible should therefore be covered for thewhole of the sum insured available under theterms of the liability insurance contract.These days rail transport is international,but the insurance industry has only been ableto keep up with this development to a verylimited extent so far. It is thus always likelyto prove advantageous to a policyholder ifinsurance experts with international experienceare involved in designing the cover. Josef MaierJosef Maier is a branch manager of Deutsche Verkehrs-Assekuranz-Vermittlungs-GmbH,Berlin. In its capacity as industrial and commercial insurance broker,DVA offers services to a wide range of companies for their entire insuranceportfolio. DVA has designed special insurance solutions and insurance productsfor players in the railway industry, banks, infrastructure managers and leasingcompanies; e. g. the DVA Rolling Stock All-Risk Insurance (RSA)®, which providesthe broad insurance cover described above. You can learn more by contactingJosef at josef.maier@dva.db.de or by visiting www.dva-assekuranz.de.46 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

FocusPhoto: CERPhoto: DB SchenkerOn track for the futureInterview with Johannes Ludewig, CER Executive DirectorThe European rail industry is facing many challenges deriving from the very nature of this demandingbusiness but also related to unfair or short-sighted policies. We talk with Johannes Ludewig about thepotential of rail sector to overcome such difficulties as well as to discuss the possible paths of rail evolutionand their social and environmental impacts. The Community of European Railwayand Infrastructure Companies is lookingforward to discussions on private capitalbeing invested in railways. Exactly whatsort of private capital will be interestedin financing the rail industry?Direct state funding must remain the normin the vast majority of cases. The cost of capitalis typically greater in the private sectorand transport projects (not only rail but alsoroad for example) require public fundingfor economic reasons – very long pay-backperiods; indirect benefits of transport for allof society – and for social reasons – nationalcohesion or social policy. To the extent thatprivate capital is used, CER foresees a rolefor Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) thatinclude state co-financing in order to reducethe required level of borrowing and its cost.There is also a strong case for considering theuse of “shadow tolls” (i.e. the user chargesare partly or wholly covered by the state, notby the users). Private capital in transport ismost often found for high-traffic premiumlines, e.g. high-speed lines, links to airports,possibly new links to seaports. However, a‘complete system’ view is necessary and governmentsneed to take their responsibility inthis respect. There are bottlenecks that needto be removed and there is a general need forhigher quality and higher capacity across existingnetworks. PPPs could also be used insuch cases provided they are based on shadowtolls. This is an issue that governmentsneed to think about. What do you consider to be the majordifficulties standing in the way of railwayevolution in Central and EasternEurope?The main structural challenge is that moststates in the region have under-investedin rail infrastructure for many years. Thisleads to a vicious circle. Poorly maintainedinfrastructure leads to a multiplication ofspeed restrictions on the networks. Speedrestrictions reduce the capacity of the networkand the quality of the services delivered.In addition, tolls for the use of theinfrastructure are generally higher thanin Western Europe (pushing the final customerprices up) in a context where virtuallyno infrastructure user charging appliesto roads. This pushes away a whole rangeof potential customers who would be readyto use rail but who need reasonably rapidand reliable delivery times. There is an under-exploitedmarket potential and it is apity that governments in the region don’tdo more to develop it.The Baltic States have somewhat more favourableconditions thanks to the highproportion of transit of goods from thirdcountries. This allows for much higher trackaccess charges than in other countries in theregion where transit volumes to seaportsplay a much smaller role. However, the networksin the Baltic States also require significantimprovements in order to secure thelong-term competitiveness of the rail-andsearoutes in the region. In your opinion, what are the best solutionsto put the railway industries in the old EU-15 and new EU-12 countries on the sametrack of considerable development? Or arethese two so far away from each other thatthere is no possibility that the EU-12 willcatch up to the old Member States?Everything depends on the region’s governments.A clear strategic vision for the transportsystem as a whole, with a clear backbonerole for rail, is what makes sense – in termsPhoto: DB Schenker5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 47

Focusof economics, environment, and in terms ofnational security. The countries of the regionoften worry about their dependence on foreignoil and gas. Supporting rail, in particularelectrified rail, is a step towards greater security.What is missing almost everywhere in theregion is a balanced approach to infrastructurefinancing and charging between roadand rail. Yet, some very interesting reformshave occurred in the Slovak Republic whichis evolving towards an alignment between railinfrastructure charges and road user chargesin order to have fair competition between thetwo modes. This type of reform should be generalisedto the whole of Europe. Almost every EU Member State is cuttingcosts. Is this also the scenario for the railwayindustry? If this is the case, can it bean opportunity to lower the oversized expensesand make this mode of transportmore competitive compared to others?Member States are indeed cutting budgetsacross the board and rail is no exception.However, downsizing has already occurredto a very large degree in the rail sector overthe last decades, with massive reductions instaff numbers, not least in Central and EasternEurope. Public perceptions are slow toevolve in such cases. But a more fundamentalpoint is that cutting funding can never makean industry more competitive if its competitorscontinue to get funding. For some reasonthe public (and even many politicians) thinkof rail companies as a drag on the budget andas uncompetitive – but the same individualsoverlook the fact that rail’s main competitor,the road sector, receives massive amountsof state funding. A simple question for yourreaders: if you drive a car, did you pay a feeto get onto the road this morning? In the railsector our operating companies (and, as aconsequence, their customers) pay for everysingle kilometre they drive! What expenses are to be cut in the firstplace with no harm to the quality of railservices?Let me give you an example. The process forthe authorisation of rail vehicles is time-consumingand costly in many Member States.That process, which is handled by publicauthorities, can sometimes last more thantwo years! And during that time, of course,no operations can be run. We are thereforeworking on this issue at the political level andwe hope to make progress. Another example:energy bills. We do not complain aboutPhoto: Green Cargotheir absolute level: electricity is covered bythe EU’s Emissions Trading System and wethink it’s fair that everyone covers the costsdue to climate change. But other transportmodes do not face this type of burden andthis is not helpful for fair competition. How do you see the importance of railto the society? Can you say more aboutthe social returns of rail projects?They are partly similar to those of other transportprojects: when you create a new transportconnection, or a faster transport connection,you allow the economy to function better.People can move around, consume, work.Goods move around faster and more cheaply.This is why states have financed transportprojects in the past and must continueEXPERIENCETHE DIFFERENCETailor-making tomorrow’s railAt Tata Steel, our team is committed to work as onewith 48 you | Baltic to define Transport your optimum Journal rail | 5/2011 solution.Our people touch every aspect of track systems withworld-leading expertise and draw on over a centuryof experience in track product design, productionand performance. We listen, consider, advise, createand deliver much more than just rail – sustainablesolutions that work better, last longer and provideoutstanding value. Experience the differenceand let’s build tomorrow’s rail together.For more information contact:Tata Steel RailPO Box 1 Brigg Road Scunthorpe DN16 1BP UKT: +44 (0) 1724 403398 F: +44 (0) 1724 403442E: rail@tatasteel.com www.tatasteelrail.com

to do so. But the social returns of rail aremuch greater still. By helping to cut localpollution, greenhouse gas emissions androad congestion rail brings important additionalbenefits that also need to be valued inmonetary terms. Rail companies also providepublic services that are not commercially viablebut that support broader governmentpolicies: national cohesion, social policy, mobilityfor a greater number of citizens. Theseare important contributions without which amodern society cannot function. How can the rail industry help the EU’sstrategy of fighting off the negative impacton the environment?Rail has exceptionally positive properties interms of its lower greenhouse gas emissions,its lower consumption of energy and itslower emissions of local pollutants. A higherreliance on rail is therefore a vital part of thesolution for a sustainable transport systemthat supports the economic security of anynation. These two huge challenges – climatechange and oil security – really come togetherwhen you look at transport. And thecontribution of rail in this area is very clearand encouraging. What do you perceive to be the futureof European railways? What sectors orservices will likely disappear and whatnew rail features or technologies are yetto hit the big time?The future of European railways lies in thebetter development of long-distance trafficFocusacross Europe, notably in terms of connectingseaports to the hinterland and in terms ofhigh-speed and higher-speed passenger services.In freight there is a potential for rail tocapture new market segments in terms of thetypes of goods that are carried rather than tolose segments, as many existing segments, e.g.raw materials in bulk over long distances, arerelatively safe markets. Particularly worrying,though, is the development of Single Wagonloads.This type of service is directly hit bythe competition from road and intermodaltransport. Here, the difference of infrastructurecharging between rail and road in favourof road considerably reduces the profitabilityof this “green” transport offer and jeopardisesthe very survival of Single Wagonloadsin an increasing number of countries. Withregard to technology, it is not a value in itself,but it provides means to increase customersatisfaction and to make the operation ofrailways safer and more economic. In thisrespect, ERTMS and any technology for improvedticketing services, a better journeyplanning as well as real time traffic and tripinformation have a huge potential, providedthat the quality of the network allows to offersignificant and attractive rail services.Przemysław Myszka5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 49

FocusCondition-based maintenance for freight wagonsFinding optimumPhoto: DB SchenkerPhoto: DB SchenkerIn order to improve availability and reliability of freight wagons it is necessary to implement conditionbasedmaintenance. The CargoCBM research group is developing a system to make this a reality.As the exchange of goods withinthe European Union is increasingand worldwide trade is intensifying,a significant growth in goodstraffic can be expected in the next few years.The most recent appraisals estimate that thetraffic in goods transportation (tonnes transportedmultiplied by distance, in tonne/km)will increase in Germany by 69% from 2005to 2030 and by 110% by 2050. Transit trafficis expected to increase by 136% by 2030 andby 214% by 2050. However, the proportionregarding rail and barge is not supposedto be substantially higher and still only accountsfor 27%, while 70% belongs to traffictransportation. These trends are unlikelyto change without improvements made ingeneral conditions.To match climate targets, the Germangovernment is willing to take action to increasethe amount of goods transported byrail in order to reduce CO 2emissions andtake pressure off the crowded motorways.Modern and available rolling stock can beseen to be one of the main restraints to a disproportionatelyhigh growth in rail traffic.An improved efficiency in maintenance canbe the key to enhance this situation.Maintenance strategiesThere are three categories of general maintenancestrategies: permanent maintenance,preventive and reactive.When a wagon is constructed fatigueresistant(permanent) it is not supposed to50 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011need any maintenance during its whole lifespan. This commonly used procedure in theautomotive industry is connected with higherproduction costs and wagon weight. Reactivemaintenance is a procedure that only dealswith the equipment after a component failure.This strategy is difficult to plan and impliesgreat storage capacities for spare components.Furthermore, consecutive faultsmay occur, which lead to further damagesresulting in additional costs and downtime.However, the fact that parts are being optimallyused can be seen as an advantage.Preventive maintenance can be separatedinto time-based and condition-basedmaintenance. The first strategy is currentlyused for freight wagons and is carried out infixed intervals in order to avoid unexpectedbreakdowns, minimize storage of spare partsand easier scheduling of down times. On theother hand, when applying condition-basedmaintenance, parts are replaced dependingon their actual wear status. To find theoptimal timing, the wear status has to beexamined regularly or permanently. The resultslie in greater reliability and availability,by simultaneously reducing costs.Today freight cars are being scheduled formaintenance in fixed intervals of six to eightyears in a preventive maintenance scheme. Askilometric performances greatly vary, freightcars are in a very different state when theycome into the workshop. Some wagons arein a really good state and could easily remainin operation without being repaired. Othersmight have shown technical problems alreadyand would have to be taken into maintenancebefore their planned time. A further difficultyis that damages through wheel flats, forexample, are occurring irregularly and thusare mileage independent. Discussions withwagon holders have shown that with the currentlyused maintenance strategy, annuallythree to four unplanned workshop visits perfreight car are occurring. This leads to problemsconcerning availability and thus cost,which have led to competitive disadvantagesof the rail freight transport in Germany.

In order to make condition-based maintenanceof freight cars possible, the Chair of RailVehicles of the Technical University of Berlincooperates with six industry partners (Eckelmann,Harting, PC-Soft, Lenord + Bauer,Vattenfall and Wascosa) to initiate the researchproject CargoCBM. The project was startedin January 2010 and is funded by the FederalMinistry of Economics and Technology.CargoCBM – general system designWithin the scheduled three-yearproject, required hardware and softwareon freight wagons for a condition monitoringsystem will be developed.From a technical point of view the CargoCBMsystem is divided into three components:wagon-based equipment, server-baseddata processing as well as customer frontend.Sensors will be implemented on the wagonside to collect data. An On-Board-Unit(OBU) will process these data mainly fordata reduction purposes. The informationis transmitted to a stationary device wheredata are stored in a database. This representsthe basis for the automatic data evaluationto investigate the wagon conditions. Plantmanagement software receives the gainedknowledge regarding the wear status. Thissoftware handles the wagon maintenance,disposition of wagons and capacities withinthe workshop. The user interface is at theend of the data processing chain. Here, carowners and railway operators can access thenecessary information.In the field of hardware the focus is onan independently working On-Board-Unit,a reliable transmission technology, robusthousing technology and sensors adaptedto railway applications. The OBU, installedon every freight car, bundles signals fromall active sensors, pre-processes data andFocuscontains on-car communication equipment.On the software side, automatic damagediagnosis algorithms and an interfacefor connecting the CargoCBM system to acomputerized maintenance managementsoftware are being developed. The latter allowsa fusion of the car database with gainedinformation about the condition, and servesas a user interface for the car owner.Through coordinated specification documentswith potential customers the greatestpossible acceptance of the final productshould be achieved. Extensive laboratory testsand testing on the tracks of Vattenfall EuropeMining in Lusatia are about to begin. Aftera successful test in January 2012 the systemwill be implemented in September 2012 onWascosa’s freight wagons across Europe. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus HechtDipl.-Ing. Christoph GerickeProf. Markus Hecht studied mechanical engineering at the University Stuttgart and RWTHAachen. He worked as a manager of control and measurement techniques and deputy headof engineering at Swiss Locomotive and machine factory, Winterthur. Since 1997 he has beena professor for Rail Vehicles at the Institute of Land and Sea Transport Systems at TechnicalUniversity Berlin – TUB (since 2005 the executive director of that institute). Christoph Gericke isa project manager and a research assistant in telematics and maintenance at the TUB’s Chair ofRail Vehicles. For more information go to www.schienenfzg.tu-berlin.de, www.cargocbm.de, orcontact Markus Hecht directly at markus.hecht@tu-berlin.de or +49 30 314 25150. POLZUG Intermodal GmbHContainer Terminal Burchardkai, HamburgTel.: + 49 40 - 74 11 45-0E-Mail: hamburg@polzug.dePOLZUG Intermodal POLSKA Sp. z o.o.ul. Ks. l. Skorupki 5, WarszawaTel.: + 48 22 - 336 34 00E-Mail: warszawa.info@polzug.pl POLZUG_BTJ_184x118_5.indd 1 5/2011 | Baltic Transport 23.09.11 Journal 12:34 | 51

LogisticsThe importance of sustainabilityBenefiting the supply chain all along the wayMaritime professionals can now use global standards and trends in sustainabilityto get projects off the ground, and drive accelerated development.Photo: Rona Proudfoot/Wikimedia CommonsSustainability essentially stands formeeting the needs of the presentwithout compromising the abilityof future generations to meet theirown needs. In 2011 this important term hasteeth – globally accepted metrics for measuringthe real currency of sustainability – carbon,energy, waste and water. For the firsttime, we are arriving at a level of maturityin the sustainability sector that creates unprecedentedopportunities for business inevery sector, very much including the shippingindustry, creating a measurable buy-infor senior management based on cost savings,improving efficiency and managingenvironmental stewardship. More than ever,CFOs and CEOs are looking to sustainabilityto support strategy and drive enterprise.First – it’s all about the numbersBefore we analyse strategic opportunities,we need to focus on the current state of play.There are two types of sustainability measurementapproaches which by now have becomefamiliar to maritime professionals; they bothdeliver absolute data in the four main currenciesand have become commonplace, namelycarbon emissions (metric tonnes of CO 2-equivalent) energy use (gigajoules) water use(cubic metres) and waste (sub-divided intowaste type, in cubic metres): embodied footprintsand operational footprints.Embodied footprints are the product ofthe above metrics (carbon, energy, water,waste) expressed in terms of what it takes toproduce a product or service, and measuredby unit of output; for example, the manufactureof a vessel, a port, a building, or even anevent with a finite lifetime. Life cycle analysis software (LCA) measures the embodied footprintsof a product, and is increasingly sophisticated, with thousands of data sets already built in. Operationalfootprints measure the output of a product or service during its life (e.g. an electricalappliance, power station, or organisation), over time. Most companies use guidelines formeasurement provided by the GRI, BSI or ISO, standards operators who develop measurementprotocols which can be bought reasonably cheaply and applied to different sectors.Of course – many products have an embodied footprint as well as an operational one.E.g. a tug boat has an embodied carbon footprint that takes into account its manufacture,expressed in tonnes of CO 2-equivalent. It also has an operational footprint, expressed in Kilosof CO 2-e per kilometre. A company has an operational footprint expressed as tCO 2-e/year.Tab. 1. Top 8 Global maritime companies ranked in order of metric tonnesof CO 2-equivalent (commonly termed a “carbon footprint”)Company StaffRev (mlnUSD)C0 2-e* (tn) CI** CPC***Maersk 29,330 24,022 32,112,000 1,337 1,095Mitsui O.S.K. Lines 6,893 16,981 20,126,494 1,185 2,920NYK lines 30,953 23,535 14,542,224 618 470Kawasaki KisenKaisha623 10,835 11,838,316 1,093 19,002Hanjin 4,581 8,135 9,776,457 1,202 2,134COSCO Container 8,382 6,390 8,523,409 1,334 1,017Yang MingMarine Transport4,418 4,478 5,491,661 1,226 1,243BP Shipping 1,684 1,360 2,250,000 1,654 1,336Source: www.ecodesk.comRemarks:* CO 2-e: carbon dioxide equivalent is the sum of companies’ total greenhouse gases (e.g.CH 4, HFC 23) converted into carbon dioxide, using WBCSD ratified conversion tables** CI: Carbon intensity is the amount of CO 2-e emitted per million dollars of revenue.*** CPC: Carbon per capita is the amount of CO 2-e emitted per full-time employee.Next: using solid data to design-in business benefit“What gets measured, gets managed” is the best way to describe the business case behindsustainability metrics. It follows that with any new measurable metric, (like carbon emissions)which can be understood, calculated and compared, that once done, a business will immediatelywork out ways of tackling how to reduce the numbers, and save costs along the way. Aswe can see from the table – the shipping industry, though currently not caught in any internationallegislative structure, has begun to take it upon themselves to measure and managecarbon (and to a lesser extent, energy, waste and water). Kevin Bennett, a DHL Deutsche Postemployee based in Singapore, confirmed this approach which can be applied to road vehicles,air and maritime equally across their fleet. “We have found that by starting with the measurementand then investing in the behavioural changes is much more effective, right from designstage but also in process improvement. It sounds simple but the knock on effect has beenhuge, from complex in-car telemetry to more straightforward behaviour change (see EcoFloatinformation panel), the business case is along the same lines.”An interesting perspective lies across an array of other industries, some of which(electronics, insurance, transport and logistics) lead the way in global sustainability.Steve Lipmann, Head of Sustainability with Microsoft says: “The more a sustainabilityscorecard can be tied to things your company cares about, the better. The metrics needto grab your management’s attention and relate to cost and quality to be effective. Microsofthas a number of decentralised purchasing groups that handle different aspectsof our sourcing and we want to drive more consistency across them from a carbon,and energy reporting perspective. This gives us a good understanding of their businessprocesses and where they can improve.”Developing this kind of competitive tendering, not just in dollars, but in embodied carbon,energy, water use,and waste output is notonly economically greatfor driving down costs,but also helps the resultingnarrative in productdevelopment to sell theproduct to an increasinglysustainability-sensitivebuying audience.Sustainability factorsand business decisionsIn an interview withthe British StandardsInstitute (BSI) we foundthe overwhelming driverto be cost, followed by52 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Logisticslegislative compliance and supplychain pressures. BSI conductedpost-certification of allclients who are using core productsISO14001, where 27,500respondents were asked 4 keyquestions: has ISO 14001 drivencost savings? (66% reportedpositive results); Increasedreputation? (80% positive); Enhancedregulatory compliance?(81% positive); Increased employeemorale? (64% positive).It’s worth noting that we have effectively hijacked these figures to apply to the relativebenefit of sustainability as a whole, but we think the correlation is close. It really illustrates avery significant increase in accountability and measurement which goes right down the linefrom supplier to manufacturer to customer. Business customers in turn increasingly wantproof that the products meet their own higher and higher standards. As the maritime industrybegins to use sustainability principles as a central business strategy, the sector will experienceaccelerated buy-in, deployment and success all the way along the supply chain. Robert ClarkeRobert Clarke is founder of Ecodesk.com, the largest online database of sustainabilityinformation relating to companies and products worldwide, with detaileddata available on carbon, energy, waste and water usage, as well as informationon product development. Detailed case studies and interviews with shippingcompanies, together with downloads of measurement software and training apps are availableon the company’s website www.ecodesk.com. Users can download the latest version ofEcofloat 1.0 and access the resources tab, or call +441225326421 for more details.EcoFloat 1.0 is the latest fully interactive e-learning course available for the maritimesector. Users are taken through ten specificlessons with integrated, highly immersive andcompelling exercises focused on tug operationspecifics, such as speed and acceleration,using tide and current and planning ahead.Practical steps to reduce fuel costs and carbonemissions are included, including tips on idlingtime and reducing generator load. Respectingthe fact that tug operators are experiencedand highly skilled, the developers worked withthe crew from Svitzer to ensure the subjectmatter expertise was built in by the Tug Mastersthemselves from the start. The keystoneof the EcoFloat course is behaviour change.Travelling through a series of cognitive adjustments,operators carry out ‘real’ exercisesdigitally, which set the stage for ‘learning byfiguring out’. Operators come away stimulatedfrom the digital course, which in turn affectstheir behaviour in the real world context.Ecofloat is a component part of a solution,ensuring behaviour change is bedded-in andremains a part of the job and responsibility forthe longer term. Among key benefits of theEcoFloat course are cost savings (reducing fuelconsumption through behavioural change intug operators can cut fuel bills by over 15%,which can be measured against fuel monitoring);GHG emissions reduction; compliancewith legislation as well as engaging staff.Choose the expresswaybetween east and west.Turkuwww.portofturku.fi5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 53

EventsPhotos: WISTA Sweden54 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011WISTA: steering a course through changeIt is time to have collaborative, trusting, and holistic leadership. Let the women in!In the coming decade shipping is likely toface various advantageous and disadvantageousfactors such as oversupply of tonnageas well as new energy efficient designs;it will continuously be challenged by inevitableenvironmental regulations and witness an expansionin Arctic operations. The outlook onwhat may happen to this industry over the nextfew years from a commercial perspective appearsto be far from rosy. What it needs now isstrong leadership.On September 15 th the cool stones of Stockholm’sold town pavements were trampled bymore than two hundred women from theshipping industry who gathered for the Women’sInternational Shipping and Trading Association’s31 st International Conference. Thetheme of the event was leadership and opportunitiesfor the future in the ever-transformingworld. Shipping and the industries gatheredaround it have traditionally been among thegreat bastions of male dominance. However,as Efthimios Mitropoulos, IMO SecretaryGeneral, recognized in his welcoming speech,WISTA and its members have been championingchanges to this branch since 1974. This wasthe year when several female brokers involvedin the tanker market met for a Christmaslunch in London; this has since become a tradition.Over the years the group has expandedthroughout Europe and further, to include femaleexecutives from other areas of shipping.The characteristics and qualities that markout a good leader are universal and timeless.The ability to steer a course through changeis a prerequisite. As the IMO Secretary Generalemphasized, the old world order hasbeen overturned. On a new world map with aconventional “north-up” orientation, thebrightest light flashes, pulsating at the placeswhere activity, growth and innovation arestrongest, would be emanating from our righthand side. He stressed that if China has becomethe new global economic powerhouse,then others (like Brazil, the Russian Federation,India, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia,South Africa and Malaysia) are rapidly emerging.As predicted, by 2030, a total of almostfive billion people will live in cities, and thisunprecedented urban growth will be concentratedin Africa and Asia. Within shipping itself,Asia has long been the leader in certainsectors, as shipbuilding, marine engineeringand ship recycling. And now, whether it bein ship owning, ship finance, maritime laboursupply, training and education or anyof the other professions and disciplines thattogether make up the whole maritime cluster,the voice of Asia in shipping, as a whole, isbecoming clearer and stronger than ever before.Conference discussions focused on thedemands of the “new world map”, which arebeing placed upon the leadership. As Carla S.Limcaoco, Director of Philippine TransmarineCarriers and Swedish Crewing Managementas well as Honorary Consul General ofSweden to the Philippines has stated, “Doingthe things we do now and doing thembetter, cheaper and faster will take us so far.But it will not take us far enough. We’re goingto have to do new things in new ways.”Laxmi Chaudry, HR & Multi CulturalConsultant and Trainer highlighted that today’sdominant world characteristics are instantcommunication, lower costs of movingpeople, goods and money, rapid technology,globalization as well as watchful stakeholders(governments, politicians, corporations, electorates,activists, etc.). She pointed out two keyareas that call for leadership today: understandingthe changing business environment and resolvingthe trust deficit. In today’s highly interdependentworld small changes or events canquickly amplify through feedback loops, creatinga snowball effect, and according to Laxmi,strong leadership means continually understandingthe deeper underlying causes, patternsand structures. It also means converting faster,cheaper communication and globalization intoa competitive advantage. As it is ultimately allabout people, the right and necessary directionis to work effectively across cultures, buildingsuccessful multicultural virtual teams, developingtrust and business relationships that work.These were some of the issues more broadlyaddressed during the whole conference as well.As capability and skill, goal alignment,structures and communication are still veryrelevant factors, they are no longer sufficient.Today’s leadership demands a comfort with ashifting uncertain world, being able to expressvulnerability and admit weaknesses and to setaside personal agendas to work with others andseeing the bigger picture, embracing complexity.This is where women leaders can make asignificant difference, as these very features arewhat they are generally identified with. Lena LorencSince 1981 the WISTA annual conferencehas been held in 17 different countries. Today,the organization gathers over 1,300 members in29 countries, worldwide.

Tall ships bid farewell to the summerEventsDuring the last weeks of the summer time some of the world’s biggestsailing ships took part in The Culture 2011 Tall Ships Regatta.Sailing ships returned to the Baltic Seasooner than expected. Although everyevent is planned four years in advance,this particular one was organized bySail Training International in a much shortertime. The Finnish city of Turku, which is thisyear’s European Capital of Culture, came upwith the idea of the regatta, aimed at markingits status as well as promoting the cultureof the Baltic Sea region’s countries. LithuanianKlaipėda and Polish Gdynia were invited toco-host the event. The regatta started on 18 thAugust, when the participating vessels gatheredin Klaipėda; the route of the first race led toTurku. The finishing line of the second one wasin Gdynia, where the whole event ended with afinal parade of sail on September 5 th .Sedov and Kruzenshtern, which are thebiggest training ships under sail in the world,Dutch Thalassa, easily recognizable because ofher characteristic figurehead and her blue hull,Zawisza Czarny, which celebrated its 50 th anniversary,and Gulden Leeuw – a golden lion fromthe Netherlands were among the 20 ships of anA to D class, which took part in the event. Therace was also an occasion for the meeting of sisterships: Russian Mir and Polish Dar Młodzieży.Both were designed by Zygmunt Choreń andconstructed in Gdańsk Shipyard. Gdynia welcomedthe participants with sunny and warmweather, which lasted for all final four days of theregatta. The forest of masts towering over PresidentBasin, where the ships were docked, attracteda lot of tourists, who strolled on the quays tillthe late evening hours. All vessels opened theirdecks to visitors and their crews took part in acolorful parade on the streets of Gdynia.The trophies for the main race and thenumber of special and additional ones wereawarded on the stage located on the beach soonafter the parade. Mir was the winner in ClassA, Tecla in Class B, 4 Oceans’ Dream in Class Cand Fujimo in Class D. Dar Młodzieży won theFriendship Trophy and was also awarded theTeapot Trophy – a special prize donated andpresented by Zygmunt Choreń to the winnerof the race between two sister ships. The CultureRegatta ended with a traditional parade ofPhoto: Ewa Grzybowskasail. One after another the tall ships left the portto take their positions on the waters of the bay.The sails were set and the sailing ships passedby the shore of Gdynia, watched by amazedspectators. Then all vessels got their bearingson their destinations, either to start a new journeyor to return to their homeport. The festivalseason of tall ships definitely came to an end. Ewa Grzybowska5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 55

Collector’s cornerThe comeback of a forgotten heroAt the end of November 2011 thewhalers’ graveyard in Grytviken,South Georgia, will witnessan unusual ceremony – FrankWild’s ashes will be buried beside his belovedcommander and friend, Sir ErnestShackleton. Both men died during the interwarperiod, Ernest Shackleton in 1922of a heart attack onboard the researchvessel Quest, Frank Wild in 1939 in hisbed in South Africa of pneumonia. Theymet for the first time in 1901 onboard theDiscovery during an Antarctic expeditionled by Robert Scott. Shackleton was amate and Wild an able seaman, but timespent together under the harsh polarconditions broke the social barrier. Bothmen won not only their unique friendshipbut also the fame of great explorersand lucky men.Wild was Shackleton’s right-handman during the Nimrod Expedition ledby him (1907-1909). Both men, plus two(1914-1917). Eventually the Endurancewas crushed by ice in the Weddell Seaand the men made their way by sleigh andboat to land on Elephant Island. Here hewas left in charge of 21 men while Shackletonwith a small party sailed on a halfopenboat to get help in South Georgia.If we exclude telepathy, Wild’s belief inhis friend was so strong that four monthslater, on the morning of the day of hisreturn onboard a Chilean vessel, he said:“Roll up your sleeping bags boys, the bossmay be coming today.”They went down to the sea twice again– in 1918 to Spitsbergen and in 1921 to theAntarctic on the Quest. After Shackleton’sdeath Wild assumed command of the shipand completed the journey. The followingyear, in 1923, a newly married Wild emigratedto South Africa with his wife to farmcotton. The farming venture failed, as didhis marriage. Wild moved from job to job,often struggling to make ends meet. WhileOn 20 November 2011 Frank Wild willmake his final journey onboard the Russianpolar cruiser Akademik Ioffe to bere-united with his ‘boss’ according to hislast will.On 25 of November South Georgiaand the South Sandwich Islands will issueeight stamps in four pairs – each representingthe expedition for which Wildwas awarded a bar to the Polar Medal (depictedon all the stamps below). His portraitsare on the left and on the right areleaders and ships from each expedition:Captain Robert Falcon Scott RN – theDiscovery (60p), Prof. Douglas Mawson– the Aurora (95p) and Ernest Shackletontwice – with the Nimrod (70p) andthe Endurance (£1.15p).The majority of Wild’s heritage wasauctioned off in 1971 after the death of hiswife Trixie in 1970 – manuscripts, documentsand medals. But the most valuableCBE and the Polar Medal (their modelsothers, made a heroic attempt to theSouth Pole. Beating all records they gotwithin only 97 miles of the Pole whenthey were forced to turn back. On theirreturn, 700 miles of appalling exhaustionand hunger, Wild and Shackleton’s relationshipbecame cemented. Wild wrote:“S. privately forced upon me his onebreakfast biscuit, and would have givenme another tonight had I allowed him.I do not suppose that anyone else in theworld can thoroughly realise how muchgenerosity and sympathy was shown bythis; I do, and by God I shall never forget.Thousands of pounds would not havebought that one biscuit.”Wild later was second-in-commandduring the famous Endurance Expeditionworking as a store-keeper on a mine in thetown of Klerksdorp he suddenly died. Hemarried twice but remained childless. Theonly property he left behind were somemanuscripts, Commander Insignia of theOrder of the British Empire (CBE), militarymedals and last, but not least, the silverPolar Medal, one of only two awarded withfour bars. His second wife Trixie refusedto sell the mementoes after Wild’s deathand she didn’t know, or didn’t want to say,where his remains were buried.This mystery has recently been solvedby South African journalist and Polartraveller Angie Butler. After a 7-yearsearch she found his ashes in a vault –unused since the 1960s – under a chapelin one of the cemeteries in Johannesburg.are on the left side of Wild’s mounteddress miniature set) were not sold until2009 by Trixie’s brother’s descendants atan auction in London fetching £132,000. Marek BłuśPhoto: Dix Noonan Webb56 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

Caravelle of the jet eraPostcards fromthe early 1960sseem to be almostpainted (rather thanbeing made fromphotographs), butlet’s not split hairs.We have a Frenchmademasterpiecein colours of theSwiss company but,actually, SAS wasthe first airline suppliedwith the Caravelleand the firstcompany whichstarted operating this aircraft in 1959 (before Air France!); on the other hand, the Caravellewas SAS’ first jet. Also, Finnair joined the jet technology with Caravelles delivered in1960. A total of 282 units were built including 21 for SAS and 12 for Finnair.Postcard to rememberPhoto: Marek Błuś collectionTen years ago the well-known liner of the famous Swedish America Line, Gripsholm, sank.We don’t know the detailsof the accident, becausewhile the ship was undertow on its way to breakers inIndia, it came under waveswithout fatalities and withoutwitnesses with cameras.It served the transatlanticservice between 1957 and1971, later sailed as a cruiser,but each of its subsequentowners went bankrupt. Thepostcard is as great as theship – you see it against thebackground of the townscapeof Hamburg.From Åland? Unbelievable!This is not a supplement to the Collector’sCorner, but a voice speaking aboutsafety at sea and training in navigation.Posten Åland edited two franking labelsdepicting the cardinal system of buoyage,but containing serious mistakes. In bothpictures lines between the joining pairs ofmarks N – S and E – W don’t cross over asubmerged danger in the middle, like theyshould (close to our eyes are marks E andW, next N and further S). The latest edition,presented above, is even worse becausethe depicted cargo vessel has sailedSource: Posten Ålandbetween both pairs, which have to be cleared off on a safe side… “Hey, Master, howis the bottom of your ship?”Photo: Marcin Błuś collectionTransport miscellanyCompetitor to SampoCruising aboard an authentic servicevessel is possible only at extreme ends ofthe Baltic and in opposed seasons. In winterone can take a tour onboard the retiredicebreaker Sampo in Kemi, and in summer,since 2011, on the former anti-submarineboat of the Polish Navy in Kołobrzeg (ithas no name, only pennant number KP-172). As the picture shows, guns and torpedotubes are still in place. The deck isnot crowded because the ex-chaser is certifiedfor 17 passengers only. Seems likeonly the comfort of a small company ofpeople can be found on its deck.Overnight ferryon wheelsPhoto: Tomasz GrotnikPhoto: Leif Rosnell/VRDouble-deckers have returned tothe stocks of railways in the BSR – theyare again on tracks in Denmark, Swedenand Lithuania, mostly for commuters.Finland alone has introduced doubledeckersas sleeping cars – 38-bed coacheshave been serving the longest route fromHelsinki to Rovaniemi since 2006. Eightcabins are situated on the upper deck,each has its own toilet and shower. Thelower deck houses contain 11 cabins withshared facilities. The cars are equippedwith all gadgets of the electronic era, butthe question is: what about the spirit ofovernight vehicles from the steam era?5/2011 | Baltic Transport Journal | 57

Who is whoFall draws on, companies riseTHOMAS BAGGENew CEO at Maersk PolandThomas Bagge has been chosen as newchairman of the board as well as the headof Central and Eastern Europe at MaerskPoland. He started his career in A.P. Møller-Maersk in 1996 and most recently workedfor the company’s process improvementteam and managed the corporate servicescentre in Copenhagen. Thomas Baggeholds a degree in applied finances, executiveMBA and has completed training inleadership skill development.CHRISTOPHER J. CONNORCCO at WWLWallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics hasnamed Christopher J. Connor its newchief commercial officer for the company’sglobal organization. His task in thisnew role will be to draw up WWL’s strategyas well as enhance commercial developmentin all products across the world.Together with his new position, ChristopherJ. Connor will continue working asdeputy CEO of WWL AS.CLAUS ELLEMANN-JENSENCMP’s COO of port and terminaloperationsClaus Ellemann-Jensen has been chosenthe new chief operating officer of ro-ro,car and container operations at CopenhagenMalmö Port. The new COO’s mainaim will be to burst the development ofthe newly opened Northern Harbour inMalmö. Claus Ellemann-Jensen has 25years of experience in shipping and containertraffic and at the same time he isCMP’s chief commercial officer.JOAKIM LANDHOLMHead of commercial at SASScandinavian Airlines System (SAS) haveappointed Joakim Landholm as their newcommercial director and at the same timea member of SAS Group’s managementteam. Joakim Landholm holds an M.Sc. inbusiness and economics from StockholmSchool of Economics and is currentlyworking as COO at RSA Scandinavia. Healso has a broad leadership backgroundin strategic and analytical functions at GEMoney Bank, Accenture and Swedbank.KIMMO MÄKIManaging director at Port of HelsinkiThe Helsinki City Council has elected KimmoMäki its new managing director at Portof Helsinki. Kimmo Mäki obtained an M.Sc.in engineering and earned his spurs for thenew position with versatile experience inthe port and logistics sector, where he wasresponsible for operator, export and logisticsduties.JAN MILLERManaging director at JadeWeserPortLogistics ZoneDr. Jan Miller has taken over the managementof JadeWeserPort Logistics Zone. Hehas 12 years of experience in neighbourhood,project and waterfront development.Previously, he worked for ING Real Estate, theIrish LNC Property Group and HanseProjekt.Jan Miller will be responsible for equippingthe JadeWeserPort deepwater port withproper infrastructure along with attractingcompanies to set up business in the port.GERHARDT RÜDIGERManaging director at Rickmers-LinieRickmers-Linie, part of Hamburg’s RickmersGroup, has appointed Gerhardt Rüdiger itsnew MD. Gerhardt has been working forRickmers since 1978 and most recently, asa director, he was responsible for the company’shuman resources, administrationand finance department. In his new postGerhardt Rüdiger will remain responsiblefor his previous business areas, but will alsotake command over the logistic services.MARCO VAN WALVERENDirector of operations at Menlo EuropeMenlo Worldwide Logistics has appointedMarco van Walraven as the new directorof operations at the company’s Europeanheadquarters. Van Walraven has beenworking for Menlo for eight years, in variousmanagement positions, delivering qualityservice to customers. Now Marco will bealso responsible for developing and puttinginto practice lean management procedureswithin the company’s operations.58 | Baltic Transport Journal | 5/2011

FREE to attendExhibition & ConferenceCONTAINERS IN MOTIONCONTAINER TRANSPORT ACROSS ROAD, RAIL AND SEAAfter the most successful show in its history Intermodal Europe returns with another unmissable line up.Make sure you don’t miss out on the event that brings the intermodal industry together.Intermodal Europe’s largest ever event programme: Over 120 leading global exhibitors 50 FREE conference sessions The Container Park featuring the latest container and reefer innovations NEW The Tiger Project - EU approved Conference NEW Industry recognised accreditation for all delegates NEW Baltic Transport Journal Conference Networking Bar and Internet LoungeRegisterfor FREERegister now for free www.intermodal-events.com/btjHost Port: Supported by: Organised by: Join us on: