Today, global
seaborne trade totals nearly 8 billion tons, and sea transportation accounts
for more than 90% of goods traded between countries. Shipping is the lifeblood
of the global economy. Without it, export countries would falter and importers
would face desperate shortages, much of the world would starve, societies would
remain divided, and globalization would slow drastically. Within the
international economy, the shipping industry affects a large number of upstream
and downstream industries. It is also a crucial link between the world economy
and the national and local ones.
The Black Sea
region accounts for only 2,5% of seaborne trade, but this is an important area
of development, due to its geographical size and resource base. Ukraine and Russia are two major powers in the
Black Sea port sector. The ports of Russia and Ukraine together, account for
almost ¾ of the total cargo handling in the region. [1] Another interesting point
is that the amounts of cargo handled by the two countries are roughly equal.
Russia used to be the leader up to the year 2006. In 2007 Ukraine
became the champion for the first time in recent years, to retain the position
in 2008. But in 2009 Russia came back to the top and still holds this place.
Examining the power balance between the two countries in detail, one can
clearly see that their patterns make a sharp contrast, although the total amounts
are very close. On the Ukrainian side there are several middle-sized ports
(Odessa, Mariupol, Illichivsk, Mykolaiv, Izmail etc), whereas on the Russian
side cargo handling is highly concentrated in one port, i.e. Novorosiysk.
It must be
pointed out, that Russia’s Black Sea port sector is in a sense “inflated” owing
to a huge amount of oil transportation. The position of Ukraine’s port sector is superior to that of Sothern
Russia, if only dry cargo is counted. Ukrainian ports also depend on the
transit operation of oil. The operation structures of both Russian and
Ukrainian Black Sea ports are characterized by a high proportion of export
cargo and transit cargo, while that of import cargo is relatively low. That is
mainly because we are exporters of natural
resources and primitive commodities with low added-value, which are bulky and
heavy. This also results in the underdeveloped level of containerization of
Black Sea transportation compared to other regions of the world. In fact,
container transactions at Ukrainian and Russian ports are more often
import than export ones.
As a result of
the collapse of the Soviet Union, new-born Russia became dependent on foreign
sea ports. In the early post-Soviet era, more than half of Russia’s foreign
trade cargo was handled at ports of Ukraine, the Baltic States and Finland.
Russia’s policy-makers regarded this dependence not only as contrary to its own
economic interests but also as threatening national security. This dependence is getting less year by year, but even today around 20% of Russia’s foreign trade cargo
is still handled at Ukraine’s and the Baltic States’ ports. Southern Russia
does not have special terminals to export coal and fertilizer along the Black
Sea coast, thus passing these items to Ukrainian ports. Russian authorities pay
much attention to the developing port sector of Southern Russia. They adopted
the “Federal special program concerning the development of transportation
systems in Russia for 2010-2015”
in May 2008. [2] There
are four port development projects in the Black Sea region listed on the agenda (Sochi Port - to reconstruct and newly build port facilities; Kavkaz Port - to build new port facilities;
Novorosiysk Port - to expand port facilities, especially container terminals,
terminals for petroleum products, fertilizers, alumina and so on; Taman’ Port - to build a new port on the Taman’ Peninsula, with
coal and container terminals. Expected total investments ―more than 240 billion roubles). The mission of Taman’ Port is to regain
Russian cargo from Odesa, Illichivsk and Mykolaiv, especially containers and
coal, because the capacity of the Novorosiysk Port to handle dry cargo is not large enough. Russia’s grain export is recently shifting from
Ukrainian to Russian ports, allegedly thanks to a discount railway fare
initiated by the government. It is reported that Russia is planning to reduce
further Russian cargo transited through Ukrainian ports at least by 40% until
2015.
Ukrainian ports
heavily depend on transit operation, with transit cargo making up around 40% of
the total. Transit business brings huge hard currency revenue to Ukraine. It is
of vital importance for Ukraine to retain and even expand transit operation at
its sea ports. One of the
priorities for Ukraine now is making effective use of our transit
capability. The Association of Ukrainian Ports presented policy proposals to
the government, in which it envisaged that Ukraine should exert its
geopolitical potential as a transit nation.
Over 90% of transit cargo in Ukrainian ports is from CIS countries, most
notably from Russia. Russian exporters are forced to use Ukrainian ports,
because the capacities of Russian Black Sea ports are not sufficient.
Kazakhstan, Belarus and Moldova are inland countries, and that is why Ukrainian
ports are used by them as export outlets. Anyway, cargo transit at Ukrainian
sea ports is basically the operation, in which cargoes brought to the ports by
land transportation are shipped for export to outside world, mainly to Black
Sea and Mediterranean countries. Russia’s strategy to reduce
transit through Ukraine is a great threat to Ukraine’s port sector. Despite the
economic crisis, Russia succeeded in expanding cargo turnover at Black Sea
ports in 2009, whereas Ukraine’s transaction went down, mainly because of a
decline in transit.
As for the so-called “transshipment”
of containers, a very prospective transit scheme, Ukraine is still not in a position
to provide that kind of service because of a lack of necessary infrastructures
and legal conditions. It is widely known that the importance of container
transportation is growing in global maritime business. Black Sea region lags
behind other regions of the world in the level of containerization of cargo. There are obvious benefits
for a country to have international container hub ports. Hub ports gain money
by transshipping containers and the country can shorten the time of
transportation, which means a higher competitiveness of the national economy.
Third, the country enjoys lower import prices thanks to hosting large container
ships directly, evading the additional cost of feeder ship transportation.
Thus, it is very natural that both we and Russia have been trying to develop
capacities to handle container cargo for the last several years. Ukraine is
catching up with Romania remarkably, with Illichivsk and Odesa together
handling 1,242,700 TEU vs 1,380,900 TEU of Constanţa in 2008. [3]
The world economic
crisis, however, revealed that overall container handling capacities of the Black
Sea region were rather in excess, than in deficit. Container handling at Black
Sea ports was severely hit by the recent economic turmoil. Ukraine suffered
most of all. According to one forecast, the negative gap between supply and
demand of container handling capacities at Ukrainian ports will widen further because
it will take long for demand to recover, while investment projects to build new
terminals will not be abandoned so easily. Ukraine therefore has no choice but
to develop transit operations of container cargo, including transshipment, so
as not to be reduced to a peripheral position in this business. Other Black Sea
countries like Russia and Georgia, potential targets of Ukrainian ports’
transshipment, also plan to expand their own container handling capabilities.
Russia in particular will try to avoid being subordinate to transshipment by
our ports, and this is even one of the factors motivating Russian authorities
to expand the Novorosiysk Port and newly built Taman’ Port. Undoubtedly, it
will not be easy for Ukrainians to make our ports international container hubs.
Ukraine,
however, does have prospective container transit projects. The “Viking” and “Zubr”
schemas in particular deserve attention. Both of the schemas connect the Black
Sea and Baltic Sea regions, so much so that they even remind us of the ancient
road “from the Varangians to Greece.” The international transportation route
“Viking” was opened in 2003 based on an agreement between the Ukrainian and
Lithuanian governments (Belarus also being involved). It connects the
Illichivsk/Odesa Ports of Ukraine and the Klaipeda Port of Lithuania by
container train and provides clients with quick and reasonable cargo delivery.
In September 2009 another international transportation route “Zubr” was agreed
upon by the operating companies and railway companies of Ukraine, Belarus,
Latvia and Estonia. “Zubr” connects the Illichivsk/Odesa Ports of Ukraine, the Riga
Port of Latvia and the Tallinn Port of Estonia. These container transit schemas
have the advantage of not infringing on the interests of third-party countries
like Russia.
As we have seen, Ukraine and Russia are two big rivals in the Black Sea
port sector, with roughly equal total amounts of cargo handled at their ports.
Transit operations of Russian cargo at Ukrainian ports are a crucial factor.
Both Russia and Ukraine are underdeveloped in terms of container
transportation, the most important segment of contemporary maritime business.
Ukraine in particular is expanding its container terminal facilities rapidly
and even seems to claim a hub position in Black Sea container transportation in
the future. But the world economic crisis revealed that Ukraine’s container
facilities are rather in excess and the terminals cannot survive without
developing transit services. Thus, there is much work to be done with respect
to efficiency, developing infrastructure, and extending the capabilities of our
ports to survive and win this competition.
Source:ksf.openukraine.org/.../The_International_Economy_Of_The_Black_Sea...
[1] http://www.ukrport.org.ua/
No comments:
Post a Comment