1 / 22

BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION

BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES. TWO LEVELS: TECHNICAL - CUSTOMS ISSUES - DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION - EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS SPATIAL - BALTIC SEA MARKET ANALYSIS - KOTKA-HAMINA REGION -CASE - VAASA REGION -CASE.

eithne
Download Presentation

BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION

  2. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES • TWO LEVELS: • TECHNICAL • - CUSTOMS ISSUES • - DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION • - EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS • SPATIAL • - BALTIC SEA MARKET ANALYSIS • - KOTKA-HAMINA REGION -CASE • - VAASA REGION -CASE

  3. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES Basic problem: The customs status information is not following the goods travelling from Finland via Hamburg to third countries. German customs does not have real time information whether the goods coming from Finland have the transit status or if the cargo is still under the community traffic status.

  4. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES Proposed solution: The terminal process carried out in the Finnish ports is developed: 1. Exporters are obliged to give more detailed data of the customs status before the unit is received into the port terminal area. 2. The Finnish customs can utilize the data for the risk analysis 3. The Finnish customs is able to quarantee that units under transit status (D-status) have left the EU customs area while leaving from Finland. This information is forwarded to the German customs. New process in use since 4 th of September

  5. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES Proposed future actions: Meeting concerning customs issues in Finland during November - Hamburg customs - Finnish customs - terminal operators - feeders - deep sea carriers

  6. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL, DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION Basic problem: Poor communication between German and Finnish authorities responsible for dangerous goods.

  7. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION Proposed solution: Data flow between GEGIS (Hamburg) and Port @ Net -system (Finland). IFTDGN edifact message or XML based information flow. Proposed future actions More detailed discussions between DAKOSY and EDI Management Ltd. Co-operation between BALTICOM and INTERMODAL PORTAL projects

  8. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL

  9. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS Basic problem: Finnish terminal operators are not able to communicate with the deep sea carriers by using EDI.

  10. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS

  11. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS Current situation: Finnsteve (Ports of Helsinki and Turku) - BABLIE, COARRI, CODECO, COPARN, COPRAR (container traffic) - DESADV, IFTMBF, IFTMDC, IFTMEX, IFTMPC (forest products) Steveco (Port of Kotka) - CODECO, COEDOR Hamina Multimodal Terminals (Port of Hamina) - interested, not in production use Rauma Stevedoring (Port of Rauma) - interested, not in production use Hacklin (Port of Pori) - interested, not in production use

  12. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS Proposed solution: Follow the development.

  13. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE Basic problem: Follow the development of the Baltic sea transport market situation. Find reasons behind the development. Estimate the role of the Kotka-Hamina region taking account transit traffic.

  14. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE DEN 10 (9,11) % 76 670 FIN 34 (36, 35) % 257 175 FMA domestic.: 220 000 TEU NOR 16 (16,17) % FMA transit.: 50 000 TEU (45 000, 35 000) 119 012 7 % ( 7 %, 6 %) FIN EST LITH LAT RUS POL SWE NOR EST 1 (1,1) % DEN 10 605 LITH 1 (1,0)% 6 378 SWE 23 (25,26)% 171 747 LAT 2 (2,2) % 16 940 RUS 5 (4,3)% 39 674 POL 8 (6,5) % 62 101 HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC 1998 (1997, 1996) 760 000 TEU (682 000, 586 000)

  15. 450 LITH 439 HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT 400 350 INDEX (1996 = 100) 300 RUS 267 250 251 EST 240 POL 224 200 187 181 LAT 172 159 150 FIN transit143 AVERAGE130 129 FIN 123 117 116 114 NOR 118 106 105 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DEN 118 100 100 95 SWE 113 1996 1998 1997 WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE

  16. HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FIN 47 269 45 000 36 348 35 000 POL 34 381 25 000 RUS 24 817 TEU 21 960 SWE 19 823 NOR 18 551 16 293 15 000 FIN transit 15 000 12 978 DEN 11 608 10 000 LAT 7 119 EST 6 185 5 722 5 000 3 600 LITH 4 925 2 193 507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 193 -5 000 1996 1997 1998 WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE

  17. 30 000 FIN 24 547 9,5% 25 000 SWE I 18 260 20 000 12 % M FIN SWE P 14 522 15 267 5,9% 8,9 % O 15 000 R SWE T 9 634 5,5 % FIN 10 000 6 720 POL 3,2% 240 0,9% 5 000 TEU 0 EST EST E EST 590 -5 000 531 1 280 X 13,3% 5,0% 16,0% P O -10 000 R LITH LAT RUS NOR DEN LITH LAT RUS POL NOR DEN LITH LAT RUS POL NOR DEN 293 717 2 823 4 769 70 284 414 1 719 4 681 9 261 1 971 682 1 588 3 562 1 927 6 800 3 510 T 20,2% 19,0% 7,3% 4,7% 0,1% 7,8% 4,0% 6,2% 10,6% 8,7% 3,2% 10,7% 9,4% 9,0% 3,1 % 5,7% 4,6% -15 000 1996 1997 1998 YEAR WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC balance = Import - export

  18. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE COST / VESSEL CALL (USD) Kotka 160 000 Hamina Tallinn 140 000 Riga 140 000 St Petersburg 130 000 125 000 120 000 100 000 90 000 USD (1 USD = 6,1 FIM) 80 000 65 000 60 000 49 000 40 000 32 000 24 000 20 000 5 258 4 620 3 900 3 635 1 646 0 Feeder vessel (330 TEU) Panamax (73 000 DWT) Handymax (43 000 DWT)

  19. 40' container from Hamburg to Moscow (FIM) Road transport (40' ft) Sea transport (40 ft) 14 000 Port cost / container 12 098 12 000 11 361 11 274 11 339 11 064 10 000 8 469 7 590 8 000 7 260 7 260 7 260 7 590 FIM 3 960 6 000 4 000 4 389 4 389 3 960 3 960 3 960 2 000 3 300 120 174 54 119 141 120 0 St Petersburg (custom clearance in St Petersburg) Riga Tallinn Kotka Hamina St Petersburg (bond) (custom clearance in Moscow) WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE

  20. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL BALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE Preliminary conclutions: Container traffic of St Petersburg is expected to grow rapidly. The capasity and the service level of the port is not setting restrictions. Cost level is very competitive, especially for the cargo heading to St Petersburg market. The price level of the other container routes from Hamburg to Moscow is quite similar. Ports in Baltic countries seems to be competitive especially in bulk traffic.

  21. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL VAASA CASE Basic problem: The ferry line to Sweden has been the most important traffic for the Port of Vaasa. The volume of this traffic has reduced since the loss of tax free. The port of Vaasa is looking for a new role.

  22. WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVEL VAASA CASE Solution: A new line between Vaasa and Kiel. Mainly for sawmill products.

More Related