WPC-1 Report

 Identifying and Analysing
the Characteristics of
Complementary Ports
A Study of Ports in the North
Sea Region
StratMoS WP C
Date: September 2009
Rev. No. 2.1.9
Type of Report: Transnational
Main Title: Identifying and Analysing the Characteristics of Complementary Ports
Subtitle: A Study of Ports in the North Sea Region
Main responsible institution/company:
FDT - Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres (DK)
Cooperating institution/company:
Hafen Hamburg Marketing (D), Hamburg University of Technical – TUHH (D); Hafen
Hamburg (D); Aberdeenshire Council (UK); Aberdeen City (UK); Edinburgh Napier
University (UK); Rogaland County Council (N); Hordaland County Council (N); Vest-Agder
County Council (N), University of Hull (UK)
Main author:
Anthony Caruso
FDT Team:
Kent Bentzen, Michael Stie Laugesen and
Izabela Prokop
Contact persons in StratMoS:
Anthony Caruso
Project Consultant, FDT
Summary: This report explores port cooperation and port complementarities in the North
Sea Region. The report is based on interviews, questionnaires and other research which aim to
examine how short-sea shipping and ports can become more efficient and effective in door-todoor transport chains. In-depth regional reports from Norway, Germany, Denmark, Scotland
and England (Humber Region only) are also included in this report. The results of the report
are concluded in chapter six and are broken down into nine areas where port cooperation was
shown to be possible. These areas include: Inland terminals, Planning, Waterways,
Marketing, Environmental protection and monitoring, Training and human resources, Rail &
road infrastructure, Terminal operations and Information and Communication Technology
(ICT).
Indexing terms: Port cooperation and complementarities, Regional port characteristics,
Efficient Motorways of the Sea services and solutions.
Report No.:
Report Start Date: September 2008
Revision No. 2.1.10
Date last revision: 11th of January, 2010
Work carried out by:
FDT – Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres
2
PREFACE
The StratMoS project is a part of the North Sea Interreg IVB programme. The StratMoS
project is in progress from January 2008 to March 2011 and has partners from Norway,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom and The Netherlands. Furthermore StratMoS
partners remain in cooperation with partners from North-west Russia. This present Work
Package C report has been developed and written by FDT- Association of Danish Transport
and Logistics Centres with support from WPC partners.
The report consists of 6 Chapters and 12 Appendices.
Aalborg – 21st September, 2009
Main author:
Anthony Caruso
FDT Team:
Kent Bentzen, Michael Stie Laugesen and Izabela Prokop
FDT- Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres
Ved Stranden 22
P.O. Box 1111
DK-9100 Aalborg, Denmark
Direct phone:
+45 99 30 00 11
Telephone:
+45 99 30 00 00
Fax:
+45 99 30 00 01
E-mail:
[email protected]
3
Table of Contents:
1 INTRODUCTION TO REPORT .................................................................................. 12 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 12 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 13 DELIMITATION .......................................................................................................................................... 14 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 17 2.1 PAST RESEARCH/EUROPEAN VIEWPOINT ON MOS: ......................................................................................... 17 2.2 EU POLICY PERSPECTIVES ON PORT COOPERATION AND COMPLEMENTARITIES ...................................................... 18 2.3 EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE ON PORT COOPERATION AND COMPLEMENTARITIES ........................................................ 22 2.3.1 Cooperation between ports ............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Inter‐Port relationships .................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.3 Coordination and cooperation ........................................................................................................ 28 2.3.4 Ports on the periphery ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.5 Coordination and cooperation strategies ........................................................................................ 31 2.3.6 Coordination in hinterland chains ................................................................................................... 31 3 REGIONAL REPORTS ................................................................................................. 35 3.1 NORWAY ................................................................................................................................................. 36 3.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 National policies on ports & networks ............................................................................................ 37 3.1.3 Description of national procedures with relation to complementary ports – strategies, project ideas, established networks ............................................................................................................ 39 3.1.4 Characteristics of ports involved in port networks. ......................................................................... 42 3.1.5 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to port cooperation within the region/port area .............................................................................................................................. 51 3.1.6 Description of MoS initiatives within the region ............................................................................. 53 3.1.7 Positive and negative operation experiences in relation to complementary ports and MoS experiences ...................................................................................................................................... 54 3.1.8 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and establishment of MoS routes during the next 10‐15 years in the region/port. ......................................................................................... 54 3.1.9 Cooperation possibilities involving feeder ships, railway connections, road deliveries ................... 56 3.1.10 Description of corridor development procedures with relation to complementary ports ........... 57 3.1.11 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 59 3.1.12 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 59 GERMANY ............................................................................................................................................... 60 3.2 3.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 60 3.2.2 German Ports .................................................................................................................................. 61 3.2.2.1 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 3.2.3.2 3.2.3.3 3.2.3.4 3.2.4 3.2.5 Seaside and water canal investments ..................................................................................................... 66 Railway investments ............................................................................................................................... 66 Road investments ................................................................................................................................... 67 Cooperation between the ports ............................................................................................................. 68 National policies on ports/ networks .............................................................................................. 68 Assessment of two chosen ports ..................................................................................................... 69 3.2.5.1 3.2.5.2 3.2.6 North Sea ports ...................................................................................................................................... 62 Trends in National Harbours............................................................................................................ 65 Port of Hamburg ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Port of Cuxhaven .................................................................................................................................... 73 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to port cooperation within the region/port area .............................................................................................................................. 77 3.2.6.1 Jade Weser Port ...................................................................................................................................... 77 4
3.2.6.2 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 Port network in Niedersachsen .............................................................................................................. 78 Description of MoS initiatives within the region ............................................................................. 79 Positive and negative operation experiences in relation to complementary ports and MoS experiences ...................................................................................................................................... 79 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and establishment of MoS routes during the next 10‐15 years in the region/ port ......................................................................................... 80 3.2.9.1 3.2.9.2 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports ........................................................................ 80 Establishment of MoS routes .................................................................................................................. 81 DENMARK ............................................................................................................................................... 83 3.3 3.3.1 The Maritime Economy in Denmark ................................................................................................ 83 3.3.2 National Policy on Ports & Networks ............................................................................................... 86 3.3.3 Description of national procedures with relation to complementary ports –strategies, projects ideas, established networks. ........................................................................................................... 88 3.3.4 Characteristics of ports involved in port networks. ......................................................................... 91 3.3.5 Association of Danish Ports (ADP A/S) – Terminal Fredericia, Terminal Midddelfart and Terminal Nyborg ............................................................................................................................................. 94 3.3.6 Port of Aalborg ................................................................................................................................ 98 3.3.7 The Port of Esbjerg ........................................................................................................................ 102 3.3.8 Port of Hirtshals ............................................................................................................................. 106 3.3.9 Port of Aarhus ............................................................................................................................... 111 3.3.10 Port of Frederikshavn ................................................................................................................ 115 3.3.11 CMP (Copenhagen & Malmö Port) ............................................................................................ 117 3.3.12 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to port cooperation within the region/port area ................................................................................................................. 120 3.3.13 Description of MoS initiatives within the region ....................................................................... 121 3.3.14 Positive and negative operation experiences in relation to complementary ports and MoS experiences ................................................................................................................................ 122 3.3.15 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and establishment of MoS routes during the next 10‐15 years in the region/ port ................................................................................... 123 3.3.16 Cooperation possibilities involving feeder ships, railway connections, road deliveries, etc. ..... 123 3.3.17 Description of corridor development procedures with relation to complementary ports. ........ 124 SCOTLAND ............................................................................................................................................. 126 3.4 3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 126 3.4.2 Statistics on the Scottish Region .................................................................................................... 126 3.4.3 Port Industry Structure .................................................................................................................. 127 3.4.4 Port Responsibilities of Government ............................................................................................. 129 3.4.5 Government Policy – UK Level ....................................................................................................... 129 3.4.6 Devolved Ports Policy in Scotland .................................................................................................. 130 3.4.7 Regional Activity ............................................................................................................................ 138 3.4.7.1 3.4.7.2 3.4.7.3 Regional Activity ................................................................................................................................... 138 Results from the Regional Port Surveys ................................................................................................ 143 Other Issues brought out of the Interview and Analysis Process. ........................................................ 147 3.4.8 C1 Report Template Questions ...................................................................................................... 148 3.5 SUMMARY OF PORT COOPERATION & COMPLEMENTARITIES ........................................................................... 149 3.5.1 Summary from Regional Reports ‐ Examples & Challenges .......................................................... 149 4 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................... 152 4.1 INTRODUCTION TO ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................ 152 4.1.1 Analysis of the questionnaire results ............................................................................................. 153 4.2 MAIN FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 155 4.2.1 Other issues brought out of the questionnaire and analysis process. ........................................... 171 4.2.2 Specific Country Responses to Questions ...................................................................................... 175 4.3 SUMMARY & LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 179 5
5 REPORT SUMMARY & MAIN FINDINGS ............................................................. 180 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 INLAND TERMINALS & TERMINAL OPERATIONS ............................................................................................. 181 PLANNING ............................................................................................................................................. 183 WATERWAYS .......................................................................................................................................... 183 MARKETING .......................................................................................................................................... 183 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & MONITORING ........................................................................................... 184 TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 184 RAIL & ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 185 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICT) ........................................................................... 185 SUMMARY OF PORT COOPERATION & COMPLEMENTARITIES ........................................................................... 187 6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 189 7 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 192 APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX A: IN PERSON INTERVIEW GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................ 197 APPENDIX B: COPY OF ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................ 200 APPENDIX C: FERRY PASSENGER SERVICES TO AND FROM DENMARK ............................................................................... 206 APPENDIX D: REGULAR ROUTES TO AND FROM THE PORT OF AARHUS ............................................................................ 207 APPENDIX E: GOODS TURNOVER IN SELECTED DANISH PORTS ....................................................................................... 209 APPENDIX F: STATISTICS ON THE SCOTTISH REGION ..................................................................................................... 212 APPENDIX G: UK: THE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING PORT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 217 APPENDIX H: NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR SCOTLAND ................................................................................. 221 APPENDIX I: COOPERATION BETWEEN PORTS IN THE NETHERLANDS ............................................................................... 223 APPENDIX J SUMMARY OF PORT COOPERATION IN FLANDERS, BELGIUM ......................................................................... 225 APPENDIX K UK SUB‐REGIONAL CASE STUDY – THE HUMBER PORTS ............................................................................... 227 APPENDIX L ABP DOCKS VISISTS REPORT ................................................................................................................. 232 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Evolution of a Port .......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2: Map with counties, major cities, ports, and port district boundaries ..................................... 37 Figure 3: Map over the future possible alternatives .............................................................................. 47 Figure 4: Bergen og Omland Havnevesen (BOH)................................................................................. 48 Figure 5: Share of turnover in the maritime economy in 2004 ............................................................. 60 Figure 6: German seaports classified according to the TEN-T guidelines and the Kiel-canal .............. 62 Figure 7: Turnover of considered ports for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 ......................................... 62 Figure 8: Share of cargo turnover of all German ports based on the weight of handled goods ............ 63 Figure 9: Share of good types in 2007 in ports considered ................................................................... 63 Figure 10: Typical planning steps for infrastructure measures .............................................................. 68 Figure 11: Example of different ownership and responsibility models in German seaports ................. 69 Figure 12: Cargo turnover development in the Port of Hamburg .......................................................... 70 Figure 13: Main Commodities in the Port of Hamburg........................................................................ 71 Figure 14: Inland navigation from and to the Port of Hamburg ............................................................ 73 Figure 15: Cuxhaven: Development of the overall cargo turnover for the years 1998, 2004-2008 ...... 74 Figure 16: Total amount of RoRo-turnover for the years 2004-2007 .................................................... 75 Figure 17: Share of RoRo11-turnover on total cargo turnover for the years 2004-2007 ........................ 75 Figure 18: Interest in the MoS concept ................................................................................................. 81 Figure 19: Danish Shipowners Association, “Danish Shipbuilding Figures - May 2008” .................... 83 Figure 20: Ownership Categories of Danish Ports (Danske Havne) ..................................................... 84 Figure 21: International Ferry Passenger Routes in Denmark .............................................................. 85 Figure 22: Transport Goods in Denmark, with container ship (fragtskibe), ferry (færge) .................... 87 Figure 23: Nordic Link Corridor ........................................................................................................... 88 Figure 24: Members of Danish Ports (Danske Havne) ......................................................................... 90 Figure 25: Danish ports included in the study ....................................................................................... 92 Figure 26: Approved Routes for EMS in Denmark (Danish Road Directorate 2007)........................... 93 Figure 27: Map of Port of Fredericia area ............................................................................................. 94 Figure 28: Port of Nyborg area .............................................................................................................. 95 Figure 29: Port of Middelfart area ......................................................................................................... 95 Figure 30: Taulov Transport Center ...................................................................................................... 97 Figure 31: Harbour areas belonging to Port of Aalborg ........................................................................ 99 Figure 32: Distribution of Goods by Percentage ................................................................................... 99 Figure 33: Port of Esbjerg ................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 34: Port Activities in Tons, Port of Esbjerg .............................................................................. 103 Figure 35: The Hinterland to the Port of Esbjerg (Port of Esbjerg 2009) .......................................... 104 Figure 36: Shipping windmills from the Port of Esbjerg, .................................................................. 105 Figure 37: Revenue from various activities at the port ....................................................................... 106 Figure 38: Hirtshals Transport Center (HTC) ..................................................................................... 106 Figure 39: Rear view from the Color Line ferry from Larvik to Hirtshals ......................................... 107 Figure 40: Overview Map of Port of Hirtshals .................................................................................... 108 Figure 41: Fishing boats at Port of Hirtshals ....................................................................................... 109 Figure 42: Goods per 1000 tons – 2007 Yearly Report, Port of Hirtshals ........................................... 109 Figure 43: Trucks passing through port, 1000s, Port of Hirtshals ........................................................110 Figure 44: Overview Map of Port of Aarhus ........................................................................................113 Figure 45: Motorways of the Baltic Sea ...............................................................................................114 Figure 46: Map of Port of Frederikshavn .............................................................................................116 Figure 47: CMP ownership structure....................................................................................................117 Figure 48 : Port Activities in Tons, CMP .............................................................................................118 Figure 49 : Proposed Fehmarn Belt Bridge ..........................................................................................119 7
Figure 50: New MoS Route, Esbjerg - Zeebrugge .............................................................................. 122 Figure 51: Freight Lifted in Scotland 1974 to 2008 ............................................................................ 127 Figure 52: Freight Network Aspiration ............................................................................................... 134 Figure 53: A summary diagram of the STAG process ......................................................................... 137 Figure 54: Local Region Port Context for the Aberdeen City and Shire Area .................................... 138 Figure 55: The major project underway at Peterhead.......................................................................... 140 Figure 56: Online Questionnaire results as of April 24/2009 .............................................................. 152 Figure 57: Country from where respondent is based........................................................................... 153 Figure 58: Breakdown of industry response, by country .................................................................... 154 Figure 59: Survey results..................................................................................................................... 154 Figure 60: Are you familiar with the MoS concept? ........................................................................... 155 Figure 61: Knowledge of MoS based on country ................................................................................ 156 Figure 62: Respondents who said “yes” to knowledge of MoS .......................................................... 156 Figure 63: Those that have knowledge of MoS, based on the industry they represent. ..................... 157 Figure 64: Those that have no knowledge of MoS,............................................................................. 157 Figure 65: Companies cooperating with others in the same field ....................................................... 158 Figure 66: Motivation to work with other companies in the same field.............................................. 159 Figure 67: Motivation for Seaports to work together .......................................................................... 160 Figure 68: Possible problems with shifting cargo from road to sea .................................................... 161 Figure 69: Reasons to use short sea shipping ...................................................................................... 164 Figure 70: Reasons for using SSS services, firms over 100 employees .............................................. 165 Figure 71: Reasons for not using SSS services, firms over 100 employees ........................................ 165 Figure 72: Government Responses for using SSS ............................................................................... 166 Figure 73: Maritime Transport ............................................................................................................ 166 Figure 74: Port Authority .................................................................................................................... 166 Figure 75: Warehousing ...................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 76: Answers to the survey question; ........................................................................................ 167 Figure 77: Which leg of the transport chain is there congestion ......................................................... 168 Figure 78: Firms facing congestions problems ................................................................................... 168 Figure 79: Reasons for using SSS, greater available subsidy for combined transport ........................ 169 Figure 80: Reasons for using SSS, economic reasons. ........................................................................ 170 Figure 81: Percentage of total who are familiar with the various programmes.................................. 171 Figure 82: Motivation for Seaports to work together, large firms ....................................................... 172 Figure 83: Motivation for Seaports to work together, medium firms.................................................. 172 Figure 84: Motivation for Seaports to work together, small firms ...................................................... 173 Figure 85: Motivation to cooperate with others firms within the same field, small firms .................. 173 Figure 86: Motivation to work with others in the same field, medium firms...................................... 174 Figure 87: Motivation to work with others in the same field, large firms ........................................... 174 Figure 88: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree) ............................. 175 Figure 89: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree) .................... 175 Figure 90: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree) ............................. 176 Figure 91: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree) ..................... 176 Figure 92: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree) .............................. 177 Figure 93: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree) ...................... 177 Figure 94: Motivation to work togetherr (those that said agree + strongly agree) .............................. 178 Figure 95: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree) ...................... 178 8
List of Tables:
Table 1: Ports Highlighted in this Report .............................................................................................. 14 Table 2: Number of call of ships and goods in 2002 ............................................................................ 49 Table 3: Goods – tons loaded an unloaded in 2002 – Mode of carriers in Hordaland ......................... 49 Table 4: Facts on considered German North Sea ports ......................................................................... 65 Table 5: Plan for water traffic investments according to German Master Plan Traffic ........................ 66 Table 6: Plan for relevant rail way investments according German Master Plan Traffic ..................... 66 Table 7: Plan for relevant road investments according German Master Plan Traffic ........................... 67 Table 8: Constraints and prospects in the port of Cuxhaven ................................................................ 77 Table 9: Potential for supply of and demand for MoS type services among survey respondents ........ 82 Table 10: Port of Aarhus Statistics, 2000 to 2008 ................................................................................112 Table 11: Overview of Select Danish Ports and the Main Services offered ........................................ 125 Table 122: Summary of Port Cooperation & Complementarities ...................................................... 187 Table 13: Financing and Charging (Division of Responsibilities in the United Kingdom)................ 220 9
Executive Summary
This report is the first in a number of reports, which will be published under Work Package C (WP C)
under the StratMoS project - Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme. The overall aim of StratMoS
is to promote and facilitate the shift of cargo from road to sea based intermodal transport, and improve
accessibility within the North Sea Region by supporting the implementation of Motorway of the Sea
(MoS) and related transport networks into integrated logistical chains.
The aim of WP C is to study and develop cooperation between larger and smaller ports in the concept
of complementarities. The MoS integrated dry port concept and hub concepts will be developed, and
horizontal and organisational issues and administrative bottlenecks will be approached. Furthermore
representatives from the StratMoS WP C will be involved in the North Sea Region Motorways of the
Seas Task Force, thus securing that the newest EU policies and ideas about Motorways of the Sea are
presented and incorporated in the StratMoS project and especially into the WP C reports.
The intention behind this contemporary C-1 report is to investigate how port cooperation and port
complementarities work and how they can be improved and hereby help with transferring more goods
from road-only to sea based combined transports. For this purpose, partners from four North Sea
Region countries have given significant input into the making of this report. Interviews have been
made with port authorities in four different countries (Norway, Germany, Denmark and Scotland) and
an internet based questionnaire has been distributed to people within the transport and logistics
industries. All the results from these surveys have been incorporated into the findings of this report.
This report can be read in several ways. The entire report can be read together - as one large report,
encompassing details from the maritime industries in four of the seven StratMoS partners countries,
Norway, Germany, Denmark and Scotland, plus the results from the online questionnaire and
conclusions based on results from all the above and a workshop held in Amsterdam on September 1st,
2009, where project partners jointly discussed the report’s conclusions. Additionally, results
explaining port cooperation in the last three partner countries England, Belgium and the Netherlands
can be found in Annex section at the end of the report. Experiences from these three partner countries
are only briefly described but are valuable inputs nonetheless. Alternatively, for those only interested
in information about a particular country, the results of the online questionnaire or final conclusions,
these sections can be read as stand-alone reports. It is, however, recommended that the entire report be
read in full, which will allow for the benefits of the results found within this report to be fully
appreciated and understood.
The report ends with a summary and discussion on how and in what areas ports can possibly cooperate
in. These discussions are in part based on a workshop held with StratMoS project partners, where
results from the country regional reports were presented, the results from the online questionnaire
were discussed and small groups were formed to further analyse the findings. The summary of this
workshop can be found in a report entitled “WPC Amsterdam Workshop Report” on the StratMoS
webpage (www.stratmos.com). The end results of this report are summarized in a final table (Table 12)
at the end of the Chapter Five, followed by the conclusion chapter, Chapter Six.
10
In general, there are several areas where it was found where cooperation can occur. These nine areas
are discussed under the following headlines: inland terminals, planning, waterways, marketing,
environmental protection and monitoring, training and human resources, rail & road infrastructure,
terminal operations and Information and Communication Technology (ICT). These areas are explored
in Chapter Five and are the result of each are discussed on such bases as who is cooperating, the type
of cooperation, benefits of cooperating and challenges to cooperation, along with real case examples
of such cooperation. This overview provides an in-depth exploration of issues surrounding port
cooperation and is the accumulation of all the work found in the various chapters of the report.
FDT – The Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres would like to thank all StratMoS
partners, who have contributed to the making of this report. We hope that the contents within this
report will be an eye-opener for its readers, thus contributing to new ideas for cooperation between
ports, both domestically and internationally and for improving the overall transport sector. Thanks to
all those who contributed their comments, thoughts and meanings – you have all assisted in making
this report possible.
11
1 Introduction to Report
This report is assembled as a compilation of several reports. It consists of regional chapters from the
countries of Norway, Germany, Denmark, and Scotland (plus a report on the Humber Region ports,
England, found in Appendix K), a chapter analysing an internet-based questionnaire conducted with
people in the transport industry plus a chapter which discusses the results of the report findings and
offers recommendations for improving transport and logistics networks. The final chapter is composed
by WPC StratMoS partners, based on a workshop undertaken by StratMoS partners in Amsterdam, in
September, 2009. As such, each of these chapters can be read on their own as standalone reports, but
the best output for the reader, will be given if the six chapters are read one after each other. This will
allow for an easier understanding and make best use of the accumulated conclusions at the end.
1.1 Objectives
There are several broad objectives with the undertaking of this report. These include but are not
limited to:






Obtaining up-to-date information about various ports around the North Sea Region
Understanding some of the most pressing issues facing ports and port authorities in providing
better, increased, and more efficient MoS services
Enhancing knowledge about how MoS activities can be integrated within ports and port
networks
Analysing how ports can better work together and further explore these areas which could
bring about benefits for all involved parties
Provide an opportunity for which to learn from other ports and experts and possibly assist with
other StratMoS demonstration projects, utilising the findings of this report.
Identifying good examples of port cooperation, complementarities and ways to improve the
overall transportation and logistics networks for goods
Key Actors represented in this report are:
 Port Authorities
 Forwarders
 Shippers
 Government Authorities
 Civil Society
 Transport Industry Associations
 Maritime Associations
 Research Institutions
12
1.2 Research Methodology
Content of Report
This report focuses on ways to improve port and hinterland facilities in door-to-door transport chains.
It will focus on the better understanding and developing of multimodal and transnational transport
corridors that provide the most effective, efficient and environmentally sustainable solutions to,
amongst other things, reduce congestion on motorways, reduce emissions from transport and finally, it
will examine ways to shift the transport of goods in a more environmentally sustainable manner. As
such, this report aims to enhance the position and role that Short Sea Shipping (SSS) can play in the
various logistic networks that make up our modern day goods-transport-network. By improving a
region’s port infrastructure, suprastructure and possibilities for cooperation, the ability to provide and
accommodate the seamless flow of goods from road-to-sea-to-road improves. Also, the improvement
and better understanding of the ways ports can cooperate with not only other ports but other transport
sectors, will ultimately lead to an enhanced understanding into possible opportunities where ports and
their hinterland connections could effectively compete and cooperate with one another. It will also
allow for sea transport to better compete with only door-to-door road based transport.
This report explores the issues of complementary and cooperation, related to transportation of goods.
Complementary and cooperation are used interchangeable throughout this report to describe ways for
various transport actors, mainly sea ports, to work together. Complementary is a broadly used term
which holds several meanings. This report adopts a loosely based definition of ‘complementary’ in
order to encompass a broad based idea of devices, actions and policies which can assist the transport
and logistics networks to become more innovative, productive and competitive. In its basic form,
complementary arises when a minimum of two factors can mutually support each other to produce a
greater value than if each factor were operating separately. These “factors” can be physical devices,
actions undertaken or policies which are together referred to as “complementarities”.
Complementarities are strongly based in business theory and practice. Research in this area have
shown that there is a positive correlation between the level and degree of “complementarities” and
cooperation and the ability of firms and countries to innovate and remain competitive (Mazzanti and
Zoboli 2008; Macedo and Martins 2008). This is one reason why exploring port complementarities
can be useful in finding ways for the maritime industry to strengthen its role in transporting cargo. At
the same time, this topic is not very well understood by many people working in the maritime industry
and a better understanding of port cooperation and complementarities will allow for some meaningful
ideas and recommendations. It will also allow for more visible opportunities for synergies in the short
sea shipping and maritime industry and for the overall logistics performance of the transport industry.
Problem Formulation/Research Question:
This report will attempt to contribute to the understanding and development of port cooperation and
complementarities in relation to MoS activities. This will include analysing the possibilities and
challenges to developing complimentary ports, developing the port hub concept and improving the
door-to-door transport of goods through SSS. This report will consider how ports could be better
13
incorporated into the logistics network and how ports cooperation could enhance this. As a result, the
problem formulation of this report is as follows:
How could North Sea ports be effectively integrated into European logistical
networks and how could port cooperation and port complementarities improve
the flow of door-to-door transport as per the Motorways of the Sea concept?
In order to answer the above problem formulation, several North Sea ports have been examined to
highlight their potential, challenges and strengths in improving and/or providing SSS services, port
cooperation and port complementarities. Interviews have been conducted with key experts in the doorto-door transport chain which will allow for a more comprehensive understanding about enhancing the
MoS concept. Adding to the main problem formulation, a series of sub-questions will be discussed in
order to provide some detailed insights into the main focus areas of this report. These questions
include:
1. How can complementarities in relation to port networks create added value?
2. What are some of the constraints and challenges in the logistical network in using
seaports?
3. Which North Sea Region ports have the current or future potential capacity to be
successfully integrated into such a logistics network?
1.3 Delimitation
Due to the large number of ports located around the North Sea Region, this report has only focused on
a select number of ports. Ports have been selected based on consultations with members of StratMoS
from each of the countries – Norway, Germany, Denmark and Scotland. The ports chosen are based on
the presumption that they represent a viable port which could prove vital in developing the MoS
network in the North Sea Region and which have the capacity and ability to create viable alternatives
to solely road based transport. Most of the selected ports fall under the European designation of
category port “A”, which indicates throughput of more than 1.5 million tonnes of goods or 1.5 million
people. The ports selected in this report include:
Table 1: Ports Highlighted in this Report
Denmark 






ADP (Fredericia. Nyborg, Middelfart) Port of Aarhus CMP (Copenhagen & Malmö Port) Port of Aalborg Port of Esbjerg Port of Frederikshavn Port of Hirtshals Germany









Port of Cuxhaven Port of Nordenhavn Port of Emdem Port of Brake Port of Stade‐Bützfleth Port of Wilhelmshaven Port of Brunsbüttel Port of Bremen/Bremerhaven Port of Hamburg 14
Norway 









Port of Grenland Port of Risavika Stavanger & Makjarvik Ports Port of Sandnes Port of Karmsund Port of Egersund Central & New Port of Bergen Ports of Stord/Eldøyane Port of Odda Port of Kristiansand Scotland




Aberdeen Harbour Peterhead Harbour Montrose Harbour Forth Ports Plc (with Port of Dundee) In addition to the above countries and ports, a discussion of comparable aspects of the four Humber
Ports (Immingham, Hull, Grimsby and Goole) is included in Appendix K.
Research Approach
In order to answer the main research and sub-questions, this report employs a variety of methods.
Firstly, a literature review provides a solid foundation to some of the key issues being addressed,
namely port complementarities, port cooperation and port logistical functions. Research and reports
into port cooperation and networks by Government publications, port association literature and
academic reports and conference proceedings all provided much needed inputs. Adding to this,
quantitative data has been gathered from both the above mentioned sources, from the statistics bureaus
from each of the four countries in Table 1, from an online questionnaire and from the port authorities
who were directly interviewed for this report. A large part of the report is geared towards information
provided by key experts in the field of ports, logistics, transportation and businesses. These key
experts have provided their in-depth knowledge and expertise into some of the important issues facing
the transport and logistics industry today. In order to capture this knowledge a series of in-depth
interviews and an online questionnaire were developed. These are discussed below.
Interview Guideline & Online Questionnaire
Using expert interviews as a means of collecting data can be an excellent way to collect in-depth and
specific information about certain issues. Interviewees not only provide their own perspective on
issues, but that of their industry as well. This insight can then be generalised to some degree based on
the institution he or she represents and from other inputs from people within the same institutions. As
such, this inductive method is used to find some sort of general concerns, challenges and solutions to
improving short sea shipping. The results from all the interviewees have also been verified against
other background material and data collected. This sort of triangulation of research enables the
statements giving by the interviewees to be verified from other sources while providing a solid
foundation in which to assist in answering the main and sub-research questions.
Interviews have been conducted with selected port authorities in the four countries of Norway,
Germany, Denmark and Scotland. All the interviews conducted were based upon similar questions in
order to provide an opportunity to compare and contrast the responses given. The interview guideline
15
is provided in Appendix A. The interviews were conducted as open-ended, meaning that either the
interviewee or interviewer can ask additional questions and/or let the questions or topic of discussion
focus on certain issues that are relevant to their particular port and the respective transport industry
being studied. Partners within each region were given the responsibility to arrange and organize their
own in-depth interviews and to incorporate the findings into their selective country reports.
Questionnaire: Structure, Response Rate & Timing
In addition to the above in-person interviews, an on-line questionnaire was used to reach a broader
selection of people connected to the logistics and transport industry. As with the in-person interviews,
partners from each of the regions were responsible for sending out the questionnaire direct, via emails
or guiding their contacts to the link provided on the StratMoS webpage. The questionnaire was made
available on January 8th, 2009 and the last day for submission of responses was on April 8, 2009. A
reminder email was also sent out to those who directly received the questionnaire via email, one
month after the first email was sent. A copy of the questionnaire is placed in Appendix B and more
information and the results of findings can be found in Chapter Four.
16
2 Background Research
2.1 Past Research/European Viewpoint on MoS:
“Modern seaports have become critical nodes in the complex network of
logistical transport chains. Seaports that are unable to present themselves as key
partners in the optimisation process of the logistics chain to which they belong,
or that are unfortunate enough to belong to a non-competitive chain, will become
victims of evolutions in the conception of international freight movements”
(Meersman et al 2005:123)
The above quote sums up how important it is to cooperate and establish meaningful logistical transport
networks in today’s competitive environment. In order for SSS to become a viable alternative to road
only transportation, it becomes important that the entire logistics chain, from door-to-door, is fully
understood. As a result, other stakeholders and transport modes must be better integrated and managed
in order to provide for an optimal SSS network. Therefore, transport and logistics centres, ports,
railways, logistics firms, forwarders, shipping companies and other stakeholders all have a role to play
in optimizing SSS. This is why inputs from all the above mentioned stakeholders have been engaged
with in the making of this report.
The European Commission’s new approach to transportation is to focus on more environmentally
sustainable modes. One concept that has emerged is the use of green corridors to move freight traffic
between major hubs and destinations. As stated, “Along green corridors industry will be encouraged
to rely on co-modality and on advanced technology in order to accommodate rising traffic volumes
while promoting environmental sustainability and energy efficiency” (EC, 2007). The green corridor
concept aims to build upon an integrated and intermodal foundations, where all forms of transport can
potentially complement each other to promote and utilise the most effective and environmental form
available. The use of SSS is thus an integral part of these green corridors and given that shipping is the
least polluting means of transporting goods, the promotion of SSS is vital to the success of green
corridors and other policy devices to reduce the negative effects of transport.
The Emergence of Ports as key hubs in logistics chains
In their research on ports as hubs in logistics chains, Meersman, et al (2005) examined how port
authorities are losing their ability and influence to meaningful remain competitive. This role is largely
now in the hands of the shippers and private terminal operators. As large shipping companies use their
own terminal facilities, they are effectively the ones developing new trade routes. This can also be
seen as a positive development due to the fact that terminal operators linked with shippers are more
likely to develop longer term relationships with the ports than less permanent tenants. It is much easier
to change a sailing route than it is to move the location of a terminal. It can therefore be beneficial for
port authorities to link themselves up to the logistics networks which terminal operators can bring. In
their work on port co-operation and competition, Heaver et al (2000) found that increasing these
alliances and co-operation agreements are controlling a large share of world trade and this is further
influenced by the proximately of port jurisdictions.
17
It thus becomes important for port authorities to not only focus on proving the physical infrastructure
but also to provide an effective and integrated port network with its hinterland. Improved business
relationships with the corresponding hinterland will enhance supply chains and in turn would lead to
more effective transport opportunities. Port authorities can therefore act as the mediator between all
stakeholders (transport operators, shippers, government, etc) and by doing so can position the port and
sea shipping as central to the logistics networks. The below graph depicts the possible evolution of
ports into hubs. This theme, of hub development, will be further explored in another StratMoS report,
WP C -3: development of the hub concept.
Figure 1: The Evolution of a Port
(Notteboom et al, 2005)
2.2 EU Policy Perspectives
Complementarities
on
Port
Cooperation
and
What is “port policy” state of the art seen from an EU perspective?
Maritime policy in Europe has to consider many issues, including: sustainable port development,
logistics integration, strategies of market players, port governance, modernization, investment and
competitiveness (Verhoeven, 2009)1.
1
Verhoeven P. (2009) European ports policy: meeting contemporary governance challenges. Maritime Policy &
Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, February, pp. 79-101.
18
It has been suggested that EU (and Member state) maritime policy in recent years has been
characterised by some disappointment, contradiction and failure (Roe, 2009)2. Effective maritime
policy-making requires mechanisms for governance that reflect the characteristics of the industry and
its political context along with an institutional framework that provides the support and initiative for
the design and implementation of those policies. The current framework emerged from the early
twentieth century and is based upon a hierarchical and state-centric approach to governance and
policy-making whereby nation-states form the pivotal role in a layered framework consisting of
international, supra-national, national, regional and local institutions. This hierarchy of decisionmaking and discussion requires close cooperation between jurisdictions if it is to be effective.
Meanwhile globalisation has changed the role of the nation-state in maritime affairs substantially and
the shipping industry in particular has adopted globalised characteristics whenever it seems
convenient. This, it is suggested, has altered the context for governance and policy-making
fundamentally.
Notwithstanding the broader policy context and its major influences, the EC’s 2007 ports policy
communication3 is the culmination of a debate which is almost as old as the European integration
process itself. The communication contains an overview of the general challenges of the European port
system. These include the demand for international transport, technological change, emissions and
climate change, dialogue between ports, cities and stakeholders and, finally, reconciliation with
transparency, competition and in general the Community set of rules.
The Commission’s new ports policy takes a broader scope than any of its previous initiatives. It
remains faithful to the two basic, interrelated objectives which the Commission already identified in
the 1970’s, i.e.:
1. To ensure the consistent approach of general Treaty rules, notably with regard to competition
and the basic internal market freedoms, and;
2. To achieve a balanced development of European ports.
As far as the latter objective is concerned, the Commission proposes – at least for the time being – a
less interventionist approach. This may, however, change in the future when the scope of forthcoming
instruments such as State aid and environmental guidelines as well as the mid-term review of the
TEN-T guidelines become clearer.
The new ports policy can be seen as one outcome from the double failure of the port services’
Directive, which has also had a ‘purifying’ influence on the internal cohesion of European port
authorities through their representative trade organisation ESPO4. Despite the fact that diversity
continues to exist, the debate on the Directive has gradually made port governance a more binding
factor for the organisation. After a period of friction the European Commission and the port sector
seem to have found common ground again. The Commission’s proposals can finally also count on
broad political support from all EU institutions.
2
Roe, M. (2009) Maritime capitalist liposuction – a postmodern interpretation of maritime governance failure,
IAME 09 Conference, Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
3
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Communication on a European ports policy. COM (2007)
616 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
4
http://www.espo.be/Home.aspx
19
Although the Commission’s communication clearly responds to contemporary port governance
challenges, it contains a number of uncertainties and weak points, which are partly inherent in its ‘soft
law’ nature. This is for instance the case with the guidance it provides on concessions. However, it has
to be remembered as well that it was the common desire of the port sector, including port authorities,
to rely on the soft law, given the experience of the port services’ Directive. The Commission
responded to this request from stakeholders, which is also in its own interest, since it avoids political
interference from Council and Parliament. A number of other crucial elements still need to be
developed, such as guidelines on the application of environmental legislation and State aid guidelines.
The latter may have significant implications for port governance, including further harmonization.
EU law and EU policy regarding ports have implicitly favoured landlord-type governance systems
which separate the management of infrastructure and the provision of commercial services. These
would correspond best with the principle that public port authorities should be independent vis-a-vis
port users and service providers. This is also the Commission’s approach with regard to other sectors.
Without prejudice as to whether it is the best system for all ports, it corresponds with the fact that the
landlord model is predominantly applied in the larger continental European ports and may gain further
importance given the direction of on-going reforms in a number of Member states. This excludes the
UK which has a very different model of port governance with emphasis on private port
companies/authorities as owners and regulators of port estates and port areas, including navigation
channels, and in many cases as operators. Whereas previous initiatives, including the port services’
Directive in its original format, advocated a rather strict landlord role, the Commission’s new
communication explicitly supports (financially) autonomous port authorities which take responsibility
for the strategic development of their ports, stimulate dialogue between all possible stakeholders, and
pro-actively intervene in market processes to safeguard the general interest of the port. The
Commission thus follows port governance trends which advocate an active role for port authorities.
If there is not a common EU port strategy, what should be the content of such a EU port
strategy?
The ever-changing environment in which ports operate has put strong pressure on the traditional role
of public port authorities. Market developments have created the need for ports to be part of wider
logistics networks and to provide value-added services. Powerful private players which are organised
on a global scale, such as carriers, terminal operators and logistics service providers, struggle to gain
control over port-oriented logistics networks whereas port authorities very often seem to remain local
spectators with limited influence on these market-driven processes5.
Port authorities are on the other hand the focal point of criticism from societal interests such as local
government, ngo’s and citizens for negative externalities related to port development and port
operations even if these do not always fall within their direct responsibility. There are suggestions for
port authorities revisiting traditional landlord, regulator and operator functions and devising a strategy
for a sort of community manager function inclusive of a dimension beyond the local port perimeter.
5
Vehoeven, P. (2009) A review of port authority functions: towards a new renaissance? IAME 09 Conference,
Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
20
Several governance-related factors can be singled out that may make the difference between a mere
conservator role for port authorities and facilitator and entrepreneurial roles. The power balance with
government stands out as a principal factor which influences the legal and statutory framework, the
financial capability and the room for a pro-active management culture at the corporate level of the port
authority. At the supra- national level of the European Union there is the potential of setting a more
independent, legal and policy framework for port authorities, a potential which up to now has not
really seen its full implementation.
In determining EU strategy, two major influential trends in ports and maritime industry have been
recognized over recent decades:
1. Globalization, for which the maritime industry is one of the critical enablers; and,
2. Concentration in terminal, transport and logistics industries.
The combination of the two trends leads to a fast internationalizing business community in many ports
(Nijdam, 2009)6. Local terminal operators are replaced by worldwide operating TOCs, major shipping
lines open offices and operate terminals all over the world and logistics companies increasingly
maintain a worldwide network. Within the EU context there is a need to develop adequate and timely
responses to such influences and challenges.
But there is no common EU port strategy. Member states basically develop their own approaches
within the guidelines set by the Commission. This raises the question of should there be an EU
strategy? The guidelines provide the rules but also the intent for future port development and
competitiveness. But the funding mechanisms for ports or maritime transport in general at EU level
are relatively limited compared with funding for other modes. However the TEN-T Programme is now
emphasizing ports and EIB loan funding has been increasing for ports. But most of the emphasis is on
Member states themselves to promote developments, increasingly based on greater recovery of costs
from user charging.
While there is general commonality with respect to delivery of port functions, with public port
operators as landlords and regulators, and private actors delivering port services via concession
arrangements etc., the main variant to this model is in the UK. The UK is arguably the only EU
Member state which leaves its port system more or less entirely to the market having privatized/sold
its ports during the 1980s and 1990s. Most of the major UK ports are now privately owned, and also
privately regulated (i.e. the port ‘authority’ function was unusually given to the private sector port
successor companies).
The UK government maintains this system is most effective. Of course it implies almost zero public
investment in UK port infrastructure, which is at odds with port development elsewhere in the EU
where Member states view port access and other aspects of port infrastructure as the investment
responsibility of the state, the same as road and rail infrastructure. The UK has tended to object to state
aid provided at continental ports claiming this distorts the market. On the other hand, the UK expects
the market to provide ports as and when required, and at a competitive price. It is uncertain however
6
Nijdam, M. (2009) Local effects of global trends: internationalization in port-industries and its effect on port
clusters, the case of Rotterdam, IAME 09 Conference, Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
21
that the market is able to act in such a way given the distinct nature of port investment and the
internationalization of port service providers (e.g. the same major terminal operators are active both on
the continent and at UK ports).
Nevertheless, with the exception of the UK, most other EU states appear to conform to the
‘continental’ model of port organization: that is, public/corporatised port authorities, public ownership
of port infrastructure, increasingly mixed public/private investment in port infrastructure and
superstructure, and the landlord approach based on port concessions with private operating companies.
2.3 European Perspective on Port cooperation and
complementarities
This section will provide some more insight into port cooperation, inspired in part from the work
already completed in StartMoS C-1, about port cooperation and complementarities. It will also be a
pre-introduction into the cluster concept which is indirectly inspired by coordination and cooperation
strategies.
2.3.1 Cooperation between ports
The relevance of cooperation between ports has been discussed by scholars involved in port studies
more especially in the USA, in the beginning within the context of public policy concerns about antitrust activity, but more lately with respect to continuance of anti-trust immunity so that cooperation
and coordination may be used to deal with the most pressing congestion problems that ports face (see
Kent and Ashar, 20017 regarding the former, and AAPA, 20088 for the latter).
Today, interport relations are complex and competition frequently accompanies cooperation. A
rationale for cooperation for ports on the periphery is to bring more centrality to those ports and the
region in which they are located through:
1. An increase in the volume of specific hinterland and/or maritime transport services; and,
2. A better configuration and working environment for maritime operations and hinterland
transport chains.
Cooperation between ports is not a new concept. UNCTAD (1996)9 and Juhel (2000)10, for example,
7
Kent, P.E. and Ashar, A. (2001) Port competition regulation: A tool for monitoring for
anticompetitive behaviour, International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3(1): 27-51.
8
American Association of Port Authorities (2008), Testimony of Jean Godwin, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel American Association of Port Authorities Before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, June
19. http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/testimony%5Fhouseti%5F061908.pdf
9
UNCTAD (1996) Potentialities for Regional Port Co-operation, NCTAD/SDD/PORT/5, Geneva:
UN.
10
Juhel, M. (2000) Globalization and partnerships in ports: trends for the 21st century, Ports and
22
have explored cooperation between ports, in order for ports to adapt to more flexible traffic
distribution patterns; van Klink (1997)11 detailed the example of cooperation between Rotterdam and
Baltic Region ports to strengthen the competitive position of the ‘home port’; and Avery (2000)12 had
proposed strategic alliances between adjacent container ports as a countervailing option against the
growing market power amongst shipping lines.
Table 2: Typology with Examples of Coordinating Mechanisms
Type
Scope
Practical examples of coordinating mechanisms
Port authority (PA) investments in inland intermodal terminals. Examples:
Barcelona’s PA in terminals in Zaragoza and Toulouse (France); and Melbourne.
PA investments in hinterland rail freight connections (Rotterdam, Amsterdam,
Melbourne, Barcelona)
Alliances
Joint investment by Port of Tacoma, rail carriers, terminal operators to establish a
rail command center in the port.
Transformation of Port of Rotterdam’s port community system in joint venture with
Port of Amsterdam.
Incentives
and rules
Agreed rules for decreasing the dwell time of containers at the deep-sea terminals in
Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Joint action of an association of inland barge terminals, the port authority in
Rotterdam and in-port barge terminals, to agree on transhipment conditions for
barges.
Collective
action
Investment in port community systems, by the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of
Barcelona.
Source: Van der Horst and De Langen (2008).
In business research, Nooteboom (1999)13 put forward a comprehensive concept of inter-firm
alliances, which provides, by interpreting the term “alliance” in a broad sense covering a wide
spectrum of forms of cooperation between firms, a useful analytical tool to understand strategic port
cooperation.
The aims of strategic port cooperation are threefold (Brooks et al, 2009):
1. To better use assets in terms of efficiency, scale and scope;
2. To improve competencies; and
Harbours, 45: 9–14.
11
Van Klink, H.A. (1997) Creating Port Networks, International Journal of Transport Economics, 24
(3): 393-408.
12
Avery, P. (2000) Strategies for Container Ports, A Cargo Systems Report, London: IIR Ltd.
13
Nooteboom B. (1999). Inter-Firm Alliances: Analysis and Design, London: Routledge.
23
3. To gain positional advantage that may potentially pre-empt the competition.
As in any other business, cooperation between ports might be multi- or single- function (also: multiproject or single project) and might even reach the form of coopetition. Coopetition is defined as
cooperation with competitors aimed to reach decisive benefits that cannot be reached otherwise
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996)14. In that way, different entities are both competitive and
complementary units at the same time.
It was the strategic idea of coopetition for the port industry that Song (2003)15 put forward endorsing
Slack’s (1993)16 concept that within the new economic environment of seagoing trade, ports are
‘pawns in the game’. Song argued that in order to cope with a changing business environment a certain
form of competition and cooperation among ports is necessary, so as to provide services that fit better
into shipping lines’ strategies.
The idea of port networking among neighbouring ports was also raised by Notteboom and
Winkelmans (2001)17, who advocated that segmentation of markets and coordination of functions can
prevent port authorities from wasting scarce resources on inter-port competition. They focused on
counterbalancing carrier power, and on landside coordination of hinterland connections through
cooperation of neighbouring load centres. They argued that such cooperation would lead to the more
effective bundling of container volumes towards the hinterland. Container bundling would allow
deeper hinterland penetration and stimulate intermodal transportation through higher service frequency
and better utilization of shuttle trains and barges.
Brooks et al 200918 identified 21 different cases of cooperation involving over 70 ports on five
continents. Cooperation has taken several forms, indicating the absence of one best approach. It takes
place between ports in the same geographical region with the aim often being the joint development of
infrastructure, regional promotion and marketing and common approaches to environmental issues.
That is, between almost full integration to fully independent firms engaged in pure market contracting.
Los Angeles and Long Beach cooperate in the application of environmental initiatives (i.e. PierPass)
and coordinate reductions of cargo storage fee to reduce congestion. Cooperation between bigger ports
and smaller ones is also frequent, as is regional scale cooperation aimed to enhance particular trade
corridors. Cooperation happens between ports located in geographical distance as well, with the
common themes being training, technical cooperation, assistance in port management, sharing of
information on port development and environmental programs, the promotion of mutual logistics
business, and the development of common positions at international fora.
This indicative list illustrates that none of these types of cooperation is location bound;
14
Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff.,B.J., (1996) Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Song, D.W. (2003) Port co-opetition in concept and practice, Maritime Policy and Management, 30
(1): 29-44.
16
Slack, B. (1993) Pawns in the game: ports in a global transport system, Growth and Change, 24 (4):
579–588.
17
Notteboom, T.E. and Winkelmans, W. (2001) Structural changes in logistics: how will port
authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, 28(1): 71-89.
15
18
Brooks et al. (2009) Op. Cit.
24
moreover, cooperation might take several, formal and informal, forms. Thus a typology of cooperation
is not easily established but a division between informal and formal seems appropriate as a starting
point:
1. Formal cooperation would apply to legal agreements or written contracts including
memoranda of understanding (MOU);
2. Informal would be ad hoc in nature in response to a specific issue or as a trial before formal
arrangements are agreed.
Different forms of cooperation can be classified under four headings: Marketing and Business
Development, Operations, Administrative, and Regulatory. Table 3 presents examples of the types of
cooperation, formal and informal, that can be found in each category.
Below are some examples of the various forms of cooperation and how they fit into the typology:

Amsterdam cooperates with North Sea canal ports in the accommodation of cruise vessels;

Rotterdam and the Zeeland Seaports manage jointly port expansion;

Algeciras, Dover, Calais, and Tangiers Med cooperate in marketing, commercial
development, and the management of Ro-Ro terminals;

Barcelona cooperates with the Tunisian Maritime Authority in enhancing quality of port
services, as do Las Palmas and several ports in Morocco;

Livorno and Tartous develop joint training programmes;

Strasbourg and Kehl (Rhine ports) have gone as far as the participation of three
representatives of each port authority at the administrative council of the other;

African ports located in Western and Southern Africa cooperate with ports as far away as the
USA and China in training and exchanges of staff, technical cooperation/assistance in port
management, exchanges of experts, and the establishment of common positions at
international fora;

The neighbouring ports of Koper and Trieste are discussing cooperation on joint bids for EU
funds, navigational safety, and possibilities of enhancing hinterland coordination by linking
the two ports by railway to create a common European entry point in the northern Adriatic
region. Cooperation would involve integrating financial resources, and technical cooperation
for building the rail line;
Table 3: Formal and informal cooperation activities between ports
Activity
Formal
Informal
25
Marketing
and
Business
Development
Joint advertising and promotional
activities. Establishing a joint marketing
agency.
Seeking
joint
clients.
Exchange of experts. Promote
the use of each other’s
facilities.
Operations
Common training agreements. Joint
application of new communications
technologies. Port development planning.
Partnerships with other actors. Joint
development of similar operating
practices.
Information exchange on
terminal management. Sharing
of information on port
development. Exchange of
experts Joint studies.
Administrative
Port representatives participating in other
ports. Joint investments in hinterland
infrastructures. Joint management of port
expansion. Formation of (inter)national
cooperative organizations.
Technical assistance in port
management.
Common
positions at international fora.
Regulatory
Joint environmental protection initiatives.
Coordinated investment in safety and
security.
Information
sharing
environmental programs.
on
Source: Brooks et al. (2009) Op. Cit.

Rotterdam and Amsterdam have furthered their cooperation efforts by merging their
independent port data systems in order to offer customers a broader range of services for the
exchange of data both between them and with the port authorities and Customs (CNA Staff,
2008). The formal creation of one single port community information system is both an
operational and administrative initiative resulting from the demand of the international
business community operating in both ports. This cooperation case illustrates that within the
new context of overlapping hinterlands, port authorities are ready to abolish what is
considered as a ‘competitive advantage’—Rotterdam’s Port infolink—in order to provide
long-term advantages to users that are increasingly less captive than in the past.
Overall, these examples demonstrate that cooperation among ports is happening and that it takes
various forms. In other instances we might ask why are coordination and cooperation not well
developed? One explanatory factor is the nature of port centrality and hinterland development. The
literature suggests that coordination and cooperation in many ports are driven by congestion and
26
landside hinterland access problems. With respect to Northern Europe, there is evidence of more
cooperation, and that it has progressed beyond simple agreements to a situation where there may be
cooperation in coordination. This is driven by three factors:
1. Greater number and type of gateways and corridors;
2. Greater congestion in port areas and their hinterland networks; and,
3. Greater participation by government in the supply and governance of such networks.
Where port land space and hinterlands are congested, and public policy concerns exist about the split
of public benefits and private benefits, coordination serves a social purpose. However, in uncongested
port areas and hinterland access, coordination is primarily along a private sector customer-driven
supply chain and concerned with competition with other chains outside the region.
Cooperation among ports in high density gateways with high centrality is a way to mitigate demands
on port land space and spread the load among neighbouring ports. Ports on the periphery, without
these pressures, do not see the same need to participate in coordination and cooperation activities,
especially of the formal variety.
What does this mean for such ports and their future strategies? When ports see themselves as
competing in similar lines of business, the tendency is to view interest on the part of other ports as
seeking to ‘steal’ cargo business. In the case of marketing the region, however, cooperation has been
demonstrated in the cruise business to be one of ‘a rising tide lifts all boats.’ There is opportunity to
grow business for these ports on the periphery through greater cooperation than currently exists
through:




More formal regional marketing cooperation;
More formal positions of regional regulatory issues to present a united front to government
agencies;
Continued informal arrangements in information sharing;
Expanded informal, perhaps leading to formal, bi-port or multi-port studies testing the
feasibility of cooperative trade developments that can be shared between ports.
.
On the coordination front there are limited opportunities for a regional approach involving all ports
and their supply chain actors. Given the limited port and hinterland access congestion, fragmented port
activity both geographically and functionally in terms of products handled and hinterlands served, it is
difficult to see how a regional coordinated approach for all ports with their supply chain interests can
exist.
The future is a more integrated regional transportation system benefitting all ports and their
stakeholders. This will tend to bring the ports closer together within the region and contribute to ports
overcoming their peripheral nature as they compete for distant hinterlands.
27
2.3.2 Inter-Port relationships
In Northwest Europe, inter-port dynamics are viewed as important when seen between selected ports.
Specifically, investigation of inter-port relationships between Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp and
Bremerhaven found the ports to be actively competing with as well as complementing one another
(Yap & Notteboom, 2009)19. A particular pair of container ports could be complementing each other on
one trade route while at the same time, competing with each other on another trade route. As a whole,
the region witnesses a higher amount of changes to shipping capacity attributed to inter-container port
complementarity as compared to intercontainer port competition.
Analyses of inter-container port relationships would be incomplete if complementary aspects were not
accounted for. Shipping lines and container ports which focused on the competition aspect of the
business would be missing out on opportunities that could be capitalised from complementary
relationships that exist between ports. In other words, focusing on addressing inter-container port
competition may become myopic to the win-win relationships that can be forged from inter-container
port complementarity where circumstances permit.
Inter-container port complementarity accounts for a significant share of developments in the supply of
shipping capacity. This draws policy and decision makers’ attention to considerable opportunities
offered from inter-container port complementarity in order to advance the competitive position of their
respective ports. Analyses of relationships between container ports should not be conducted at an
aggregated level. With every market served by each port involving different decision makers, regions,
routes, cargoes and shipping lines, it is unlikely for a port to be competing with another port on the
whole spectrum of variables and sectors. Similarly, it is impossible for complementary relationships
between two ports to extend to all their markets served. In the context of Northwest Europe, two
container ports could be competing on a particular trade while complementing each other on another
route. Hence the requirement to draw decision makers’ attention to the need to identify the extensity
and intensity of such relationships in order to craft and implement decisions with greater precision.
2.3.3 Coordination and cooperation
Seaports operate at the interface of ocean and land transportation. They compete with other ports to
service the needs of shippers located in hinterland areas that may have overlapping accessibility to
competing ports. Ports on the periphery are characterized by a limited domestic market and, second,
by a more remote potential hinterland for which they will have to compete with one or more other
ports (Brooks et al (2009)20. Competition may differ for these ports dependent on whether they are
competing against a single, large competitor in the region, or the competitive situation is one that has
no single dominant port player.
19
Yap, W. Y. & Notteboom, T. (2009) Unraveling dynamics in inter-container port relationships
through an examination of liner service patterns, IAME 09 Conference, Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
20
Brooks et al (2009) Coordination and cooperation strategies in strategic port management: the case
of Atlantic Canada’s ports. IAME 09 Conference, Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
28
A port on the periphery has to work harder to develop as a competitive port than those that are
centrally located near maritime networks or large domestic markets. Proximity to a great circle route
and having good facilities and/or good infrastructure connections are not sufficient. Advantages may
be found in a better performing inland transport network, a more customized client approach, a more
flexible business environment (quickly adapting to changing customer requirements) and/or the
greater reliability that comes from some availability in assets.
To achieve growth targets, such ports can choose different strategies. This raises a number of
questions, including:
1. Is there a role for the port to be a leader in bringing together the various supply chain actors to
provide, through coordination strategies, an integrated transportation service beneficial to all
the actors but especially to the port?
2. Are there benefits to be gained from ports within a coastal port range following cooperation
strategies to develop business together?
Considering the first question, the degree of coordination among the supply chain actors focused on
servicing a port and its hinterland impacts significantly on the port’s ability to not only contribute to an
efficient regional port infrastructure but also to ensure that inland hinterland areas are well serviced by
the transportation and logistics companies using the port. From the public policy perspective, there are
social welfare benefits arising from coordination. Bottlenecks impacting on local citizens will likely be
mitigated or at least addressed, and the interests of citizens as a whole are better served by a more
efficient trading network.
As for the second question, if we take the perspective of a port range serving a limited overlapping
hinterland, we can identify two reasons why ports might cooperate:
1. First, there may be substantial duplication in the services leading to destructive competition;
and,
2. Second, there are gaps in the ability of the port range to serve the needs of those shippers for
whom cooperation might be advantageous.
In the case of the latter, developing common regional public policy might be mutually beneficial, or a
common marketing strategy could drive growth in total traffic for the port range. Alternatively,
cooperation may mean an agreement to specialize in certain services at one port and not duplicating
that service at another. The availability of cooperation benefits could lead to strategic alliances among
ports premised on
the belief that seamless customer service does not require ownership of all the assets and results from
managerial values that accept cooperative behaviour.
2.3.4 Ports on the periphery
Because seaports operate at the interface of sea and land transportation, their success in developing
29
business has two geographical perspectives. On the ocean side, it is beneficial for a port to be located
near major maritime networks to allow access to foreland (overseas) areas. On the landside, close
proximity to the hinterland areas the port serves is also beneficial.
Hayuth and Fleming (1994)21 have designated the two location conditions respectively as intermediacy
(applied to en route location) and centrality (applied to hinterland location). Three relative states of
ocean and land location conditions apply, namely:
1. First, when both shipping lane proximity and hinterland centrality are well met it is likely that
the port will succeed in its mission to serve shippers’ needs, given, of course, the necessary
port infrastructure and effective management arrangements;
2. Secondly, it may be that the conditions at each location are not equal, with one being superior
to the other. In such cases, one condition may make up for a deficiency in the other. The lack
of shipping lane proximity may be offset by high hinterland centrality; alternatively, nearness
to maritime networks may offset a peripheral land location. In both these cases, ports may be
said to be peripheral: either peripheral to shipping lanes and overseas markets or peripheral to
land markets;
3. Finally, in regard to relative location conditions, if ports lack both intermediacy and centrality,
they will struggle to serve shippers’ needs.
Of interest here is the peripheral nature of a port’s location and what can be done to overcome it. It is
almost impossible to change a port’s location relative to major shipping lanes. Ships are attracted to
areas of cargo generation and/or consumption. How they access those areas depends largely on great
circle routes, weather patterns, and world choke points, such as major straits or canals that limit
options of movement. Thus, if a port lacks intermediacy–it is not en route–it has little chance to
change the condition unless it can generate sufficient cargo to offset extra shipping costs of deviation.
On the other hand, it is not as difficult to overcome a lack of centrality, as long as intermediacy is
strong. In order for this to occur, though, land transportation must be strong and focused on catering to
shipping interests. Otherwise, no amount of advantageous ocean location will overcome the peripheral
landside disadvantage. The port must be ever diligent to monitor land connections, to encourage their
smooth operation, and to work closely with the supply chain suppliers both in the port and along its
hinterland chain to see that the peripheral location is overcome.
The situation of good intermediacy and poor centrality applies especially to those ports serving interior
continental markets with competitive hinterlands. It is not so much the situation for ports loading
locally produced bulk products or receiving bulk products such as oil for immediate processing and redistribution, or for transhipment. Indeed, most transhipment ports tend not to be close to major areas
of production and consumption, but they will reflect high intermediacy.
21
Hayuth, Y and Fleming, D. (1994) Concepts of strategic commercial location: the case of container
ports, Maritime Policy and Management, 21 (3): 187-193.
30
2.3.5 Coordination and cooperation strategies
Focus may therefore be directed at ports with a poor centrality but which are relatively well located
with respect to shipping networks. The challenge for these ports is to compete for a remote hinterland
that is served to a large extent by larger ports having more centrality, based on two aspects:
1. Geographical location with shorter distance to the market, and;
2. Scale economies due to greater frequency and greater density of the hinterland services.
The centrally located load centre ports may face difficulties, though, in maintaining their competitive
position. Many load centres face local scarcity in land and the infrastructure needed to make efficient
inland connections. The entrance of a multitude of new actors has increased competition in the port
market. In many of the larger ports, there is more than one deep sea terminal operator, more than one
rail terminal from which shuttles depart, and more than one railway company serving the port. This
has brought challenges in terms of the provision of smooth and effective operations and efficient use
of the infrastructure.
Notwithstanding their poor centrality, ports on the periphery do have a chance to develop into ports
with a gateway function for a more remote hinterland, but such development requires deliberate
strategies. There are two approaches in the academic literature on ports that contribute to this debate:
1. The concept of improving the integration and coordination in hinterland transport networks,
and:
2. The concept of port cooperation.
In attempting to develop successful strategies for ports on the periphery in creating more centrality and
becoming competitive, it is necessary to elaborate on these approaches, and define the differences
between them by use of the word “coordination” as being along the supply chain, and “cooperation” as
along the port range.
2.3.6 Coordination in hinterland chains
In order to build successful transport chains, the development of good and efficient land connections is
recognised as a main factor for success. In regards to the European Union, the priority has to be given
to the connections to ports and railways.
Ports need to be competitive in contestable hinterlands (De Langen, 2008)22. As a
consequence, ports compete to a large extent by the efficiency and effectiveness of their hinterland
networks (Robinson, 200223; Notteboom and Rodrigue, 200524). In the first place, this requires good
22
De Langen, P.W. (2008) Ensuring Hinterland Access: the Role of Port Authorities, Discussion Paper
2008-11, OECD/ITF
23
Robinson (2002) Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm, Maritime
31
infrastructure connections. However, this is not a sufficient condition. The efficiency and effectiveness
of hinterland networks depend to a large extent on the level of coordination that is achieved in the
supply chain.
Hinterland corridors consist of a relatively large number of actors. There are terminal operators at the
seaside, rail or barge terminals at the landside of the port, inland transport operators, warehouse
operators, customs agencies and inland terminals. Both the design and the operations of the hinterland
chains are characterized by strong interdependency, in time and in place. The OECD (2004)25 has
identified at least 21 actors in a global supply chain from origin to destination.
A well developed hinterland system based on rail shuttles has the potential to strengthen the overall
door-to-door logistics efficiency and the short-sea-shipping segment thereby producing an overall
environmentally efficient transport chain (Woxenius & Bergqvist, 2009)26. Necessary conditions for
growth and development are technical innovations and implementations related to rolling-stock and
handling that contribute to short lead-times and efficient transfers, especially within ports.
Empirical research into interorganizational relationships has provided evidence that a high level of
interdependency between organizations without any formal coordination
mechanisms in place leads to high coordination costs (Gulati and Singh, 1998)27. This is what we see
in many hinterland chains where there may be a high level of fragmentation with actors showing
strong interdependency. Without coordination mechanisms, coordination problems occur, leading to
less efficient and less effective hinterland chains with excessive coordination costs.
This observation has triggered the interest of various scholars in port economics and management.
Some of them have applied insights from supply chain management to the field of ports. They see
ports as parts of global supply chains (Panayides, 2007)28 or as elements in value-driven systems
(Robinson, 2005)29. They translate supply chain integration, which is seen as a key success factor in
improving supply chain performance, to the ports’ inland transport chains. Cooperation and
coordination are therefore key factors for improving a port’s hinterland accessibility.
Van der Horst and De Langen (2008)30 further developed the concept of coordination in hinterland
Policy and Management, 29 (3): 241-255
24
Notteboom, T.E. and Rodrigue, J.P. (2005) Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port
development, Maritime Policy and Management, 32 (3): 297–313.
25
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004). Security in Transport: Report on
Transport Security Across the Modes (CEMT/CM(2004)22). OECD.
26
Woxenius, J. & Bergqvist, R. (2009) Hinterland transport by rail – comparing Scandinavian
conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailers, IAME 09 Conference, Copenhagen, 24-26 June.
27
Gulati R. and Singh H. (1998) The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and
appropriation concerns in strategic alliances, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 781-814.
28
Panayides (2007) Global Supply Chain Integration and Competitiveness of Port Terminals, In Ports,
Cities and Global Supply Chains, Wang et al (eds), Ashgate Publishing Limited, 27-41.
29
Robinson, R. (2005) Liner Shipping Strategy, Network Structuring and Competitive
Advantage: A Chain Systems Approach, in Shipping Economics: Research in Transportation
Economics, Kevin Cullinane (ed), 12: 247-289.
30
Van der Horst, M.R. and De Langen P.W. (2008) Coordination in Hinterland Transport Chains: A
major challenge for the seaport community, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10 (1/2): 108-129.
32
accessibility using the lens of institutional economics to empirically examine
coordination problems and mechanisms for hinterland transport networks. Some examples of
coordination problems include the following aspects:





Underinvestment in inland transport facilities;
Peak loads at terminals;
Splintered distribution of barge and rail cargo in ports;
Underutilisation of assets with little cargo exchange; and,
Inefficient information and documents processing in the network.
The focal point of the framework (Table 1) is governance in the ports’ hinterland transport network
and comprises the entire set of actors involved in these networks. While the specific conditions under
which these coordination mechanisms may or may not be applied are still to be researched, the basic
assumption is that the level of complexity is a determinant variable underlying the emergence and
development of coordination mechanisms. This assumption can be derived from the approach on
coordination costs (Gulati and Singh, 1998)31, and also from the Transaction Costs Approach
(Williamson, 1985)32.
31
Gulati R. and Singh H. (1998), Op. Cit.
32
Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, The Free Press.
33
Table 1: Four coordination mechanisms and possible coordination arrangements
Coordination
mechanism
Coordination arrangements that can be introduced by port authorities
Introduction of
incentives and rules
Bonus, penalty, tariff differentiation, warranty, auction of capacity, deposit
arrangement, tariff linked with cost drivers
Creation of inter- Project-specific contract, standardized procedures, standards for quality and
firm alliances
service, formalized procedures, access rules, offering a joint product
Changing scope
Risk bearing commitment, vertical integration, introduction of an agent,
introduction of a chain manager, introduction of an
auctioneer, introduction of a new market
Creation of
collective action
Public governance by a government or port authority, public-private
cooperation, branch association, ICT system for a sector or industry
Source: Van der Horst and De Langen (2008).
In landlord ports, port authorities are limited in their domain of influence. This domain is restricted to
the control of land area and infrastructure within the borders of the port. Yet they do have options to
influence the conditions under which hinterland transport networks work (De Langen, 2008)33. Port
authorities can deliberately enable competition and set conditions in concession agreements. They can
develop access rules to enhance efficient use of infrastructure, and they can develop supporting
facilities like port community systems. They also may be able to make (joint) investments in port
related infrastructure like barge and rail terminals.
Out of their position in the port (e.g. in control of the land area and the in-port infrastructure), port
authorities can influence the conditions under which hinterland networks work by introducing
coordination arrangements. However, in most cases, port authorities have no, or limited, stake outside
their port areas. Setting conditions in concessions, setting access rules or doing active infra-slot
management are only possible if port authorities have a stake in the physical hinterland transport
network.
The model is not normative in that it prescribes that port authorities must invest outside their port
borders. It rather conditions the possibilities for the emergence and development of coordination
arrangements in ports’ hinterland transport networks with the involvement of port authorities. Brooks
et al (2009) extended the conceptual approach with empirical examples where coordination
mechanisms with involvement of port authorities have emerged (Table 2), and explored the options for
port authorities to enhance coordination in hinterland transport networks.
33
De Langen, P.W. (2008), Op. Cit.
34
3 Regional Reports
The four main countries – Norway, Germany, Denmark and Scotland – which are being studied in this
report will now be presented in the following section, along with a report on the Humber Region
presented separately in Appendix K. These country reports will provide insight into the maritime
industry and transport sectors in the respective countries, they provide an overview of some select
ports, and they describe some national policies, procedures and key actors in the maritime industry.
The country reports were all written by project partners in the respective countries based on a common
template to ensure consistency throughout all reports. There are, however, some differences with all
the reports which allowed country representatives to cater their reports to their own country’s position
and situation with regards to port complementarities and cooperation.
The regional reports can be found in the next four sections and are as follows:
3.1 Norway
3.2 Germany
3.3 Denmark
3.4 Scotland
3.1 Norway
The focus of this report is to establish a basis for assessing how ports are functioning now and in the
future as possible complementary ports. Complementary in this context means how ports together can
provide better services and attract more cargo to sea borne and intermodal services so that the effect is
greater than what is just the sum of each port’s efforts.
3.1.1 Introduction
This report comprises four different regions/counties in the southern part of Norway, i.e. Telemark,
Vest-Agder, Rogaland and Hordaland. As the map shows, these counties provides a string of major
cities (Skien/Porsgrunn, Kristiansand, Stavanger and Bergen) and major ports in Norway, from the
Outer Oslofjord to the mid part of the Western Coast of Norway.
36
Figure 2: Map with counties, major cities, ports, and port district boundaries
The port cooperation in this report is dealt with at two levels:


The relation between ports in the same Region/County
The relation between ports throughout the four regions/counties
At the first level there is a challenge to look at the cluster of ports that often are located close to each
other. They are often competing on the same cargo, but may benefit from looking at their services to
be more complementary. This may expand the market potential in terms of both service level and
costs.
At the second level there is a challenge to look for win-win situations where cooperation between
ports in different counties may improve their competitiveness in intermodal transport chains so that
more cargo is channelled through ports and logistic hubs.
3.1.2 National policies on ports & networks
In Norway, the Ministry of Transport and Communications has the overriding responsibility for issues
relating to transport, postal services and telecommunications, while the Ministry of Fisheries and
Coastal Affairs is responsible for sea transport, ports, and coastal administration.
The Norwegian National Coastal Administration is an agency under the Ministry of Fisheries and
Coastal Affairs. The NCA is the Ministry’s advisory and executive body in matters pertaining to the
administration of ports and seaways, as well as national pollution preparedness and response.
National policies on ports and sea transport are formulated in a number of laws, the most important
ones being the Ports and Fairways Act, the Pilotage Act, the Pollution Control Act, as well as parts of
the Planning and Building Act. A revised Ports and Fairways Act has been adopted and will be in
effect from Jan 1, 2010. Moreover, transport policies for the maritime sector are key elements of the
National Transport Plan recently presented by the government (see more on National Transport Plan in
4.1.3.)
New Act on Ports and Fairways
“With its proposed new Act on Ports and Fairways, the Norwegian government will facilitate the
safety of navigation, efficient transport at sea and sustainable use and management of fairways. The
Act also contributes to the efficiency and safety of port operations, which in turn improves the
competitiveness of sea transport,” said Helga Pedersen, Norwegian Minister of Fisheries and Coastal
Affairs, after the Government presented its proposal to the Norwegian Parliament.
“Efficient port services are crucial for the population along the coast and for economic growth
37
throughout the country. The new Act on Ports and Fairways will be an important instrument for
strengthening safety at sea and improving navigation along the coast. Furthermore, the Act is an
important means to increase the use of sea transport as an efficient and environmentally friendly mode
of transport. The Act also improves ports opportunities to operate efficiently, and the municipalities
are stimulated to give priority to develop their ports and port activities,” says the Norwegian Minister
of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.
Major proposals regarding the management of fairways:
 The Act proposes to give the municipalities’ general administrative responsibility for safety
and navigation in municipal sea areas while the State will be responsible for the regulation on
main and secondary transport corridors, other sea areas and for infrastructure for navigation.
 The Act proposes to prohibit the use of vessels which may endanger, harm or disrupt the
safety of navigation or transport in fairways or ports.
 The Act proposes to clarify the legal basis for interventions towards vessels in distress or in
need of assistance.
Major proposals regarding port operations:
 The Act proposes a general right to call at ports.
 The Act proposes to extend the municipalities’ authorities to organize port activities and to
elucidate the distinction between public port management and port services.
 The Act proposes to continue the rules for separate finances in the ports – hereinafter called
port capital.
 The Act proposes limited authority to pay dividends and returns from the port capital pursuant
to regulations laid down by the Ministry.
 The Act proposes the replacement of port fees with general pricing of port services.
 The Act proposes permission to apply for waivers from the regulation on the port capital.
 The Act proposes that the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs may designate
ports that are particularly important, and that further requirements may be stipulated for these
ports regarding organization, cooperation and planning.
The Norwegian National Coastal Administration - Kystverket
The NCA is an agency of the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs responsible for sea transport,
maritime safety, ports and emergency response to acute pollution. The Coastal Administration aims to
actively promote efficient and safe transportation at sea by ensuring good navigability and efficient
ports in line with the transport industry’s needs. The Coastal Administration shall prevent and limit the
harmful effects of acute pollution, and contribute towards the sustainable development of the coastal
zone.
The Norwegian Coastal Administration takes responsibility for the fairways at sea by promoting:
 Safe navigation
 A clean environment
 Transfer of transportation of goods from shore to sea
 Sustainable coastal communities
 Quality throughout all operations
38

Always present where needed
The Coastal Administration is headed by the Director General. The Coastal Administration is run from
its Head Office, which is allocated tasks by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. The Head
Office in turn delegates tasks to the operational units, the coastal regions. The Head Office is situated
in Ålesund, but it also includes an emergency response department located in Horten. The Coastal
Administration is divided into five regions with regional offices in Arendal, Haugesund, Ålesund,
Kabelvåg and Honningsvåg.
The five Regional Offices are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the pilot service, as well as
work on fairways and navigational aids, including lighthouses, within their geographical areas. The
Regions are responsible for enforcing the Ports and Fairways Act and the Pilotage Act and their
associated regulations, as well as parts of the Pollution Control Act. Each Regional Office also has a
specialist centre that works on a particular field on behalf of the Head Office.
The Coastal Administration’s shipping company, Kystverket Rederi, acts as an internal contractor with
its fleet of 12 operational vessels. These vessels are used in connection with the building, maintenance
and operation of the lighthouses, lights and fixed and floating aids to navigation along the coast. Four
of the shipping company’s boats are also part of the national emergency response to acute pollution.
The Administration’s main tasks:
 Pilot services
 Vessel traffic services (VTS)
 Lighthouse and navigation aids services and navigational warnings
 Improvement of fairways as well as construction and maintenance of fishing ports
 Responsibility for the national emergency response to acute pollution
 Enforcement of relevant legislation (e.g. The Pilotage Act, The Ports and Fairways Act, parts
of The Pollution Control Act)
 Investigations and planning (e.g. the maritime part of the national transport plan)
The Coastal Administration has a wide-ranging collaboration with other public agencies responsible
for safety, transport and emergency responses. The Coastal Administration is also heavily involved in
international work within its specialist fields.
3.1.3 Description of national procedures with relation to complementary
ports – strategies, project ideas, established networks
National Transport Plan
The main transport policy document in Norway is the National Transport Plan, which is revised every
4 years. A revised plan (NTP 2010-2019) was presented March 13 2009, as a report from the
government to the national assembly (see more about the plan on the government’s internet pages:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/sd/press-centre/Press-releases/2009/unprecedented-boost-for-
39
transport--natio.html?id=549133 ).
For the maritime sector the key message has been termed “an unprecedented improved focus on sea
transport and maritime infrastructure”, in the form of yearly state spending increase for the sector
from NOK 783 mill to NOK 1.085 mill, in order to improve maritime safety and accessibility, and
encourage intermodal transport. This will be accomplished in the form of investment in ports and
fairways, as well as renewal of navigation lights and vessel traffic monitoring stations. Furthermore,
the plan presents a scheme for removal of some port dues and terminal security fees.
One of the key ambitions of the plan is to develop an integrated and sustainable transport system
where all modes of transport are utilized effectively. Moreover, transfer of goods from road to rail and
sea is encouraged, even though few financial or legal incentives are presented. However a network of
key sea port terminals connected to the national road network has been identified. Improved road (and
rail) access to these port terminals is a specified target in the plan.
Established networks
Several national networks and associations of sea ports, terminal operators, freight forwarders,
intermodal transport companies, and ship owners, exist in Norway. A few are listed below.
Norwegian Ports (Norske Havner)
Website: http://www.havn.no/englishpage.asp
Norwegian Ports (formerly Norwegian Ports Association) is a national industrial organization open to
all public ports in Norway. 52 of the approximately 60 public ports of Norway are members of
Norwegian Ports.
The main objectives of Norwegian Ports are:
 to enhance the conditions of Norway’s industrial policy and particularly in the area of port and
transport policy issues
 to forward the best interests of the ports of Norway
 to strengthen the significance and acknowledgement of the ports in local community and in
Norwegian and international transport environment
 to strengthen and develop the professional knowledge and competence in ports personnel.
Shortsea Promotion Centre Norway
Website: http://shortseashipping.no/
Transfer of transport to sea is an established policy in the European Union and in Norway. Increasing
road transport results in congestion and environmental damages. Sea transport is the obvious
alternative. The Norwegian government and EU are co-operating in order to increase the market share
of sea transport. The Norwegian Government wants to take part in this concerted effort. The Ministry
of Trade and Industry has appointed Maritime Forum Norway to manage the Shortsea Promotion
Centre (SPC) Norway. SPC Norway is partly financed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry
of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Transport and Communication. The centre was
40
initiated in 2003.
Maritime Forum (Maritimt Forum)
Website: http://www.maritimt-forum.no/?nid=7414&lcid=1033
The Maritime Forum of Norway was established as a foundation in 1990. Since then, the main office
and its seven regional chapters have been engaged in bringing the urgent needs of the maritime
industry, Norwegian seafarers and offshore into the political limelight. This includes promoting the
industry outside Norway as well as fostering co-operation among its several hundred members,
national authorities and employee organizations, buyers and sellers.
The Forum seeks to strengthen contacts within Norway's maritime cluster, enabling all stakeholders
from ship owners to equipment producers to thrive. It is the aim for them to enhance their
competitiveness and increase their value, and for Norway to capitalize on its leading knowledge base.
There are approximately 97.000 people employed in the maritime sector, and it is Norway's second
largest export industry after the petroleum industry. The Maritime Forum is focused on promoting a
positive image of the sector among the Norwegian public and to encourage young people, especially
those living in coastal districts, to pursue careers in the industry's various branches and in offshore.
They constitute the group which will ensure Norway's continued status as a leading maritime nation.
The forum is also working on making a strong case to politicians to take into account the importance
of the sector for the national economy and put in place an advantageous competitive framework long-term supportive policies and operating conditions that will ensure stability and profitability - on
par with competing nations. Norway is determined to be the most attractive place in Europe to run,
own and develop maritime business!
Norwegian Shipowners Association (Norges Rederiforbund)
Website: http://www.rederi.no/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=881
The Norwegian Shipowners Association is the largest special-interest organisation of enterprises in the
Norwegian shipping, offshore and subsea contracting industry.
Federation
of
Norwegian
Coastal
Shipping
Landsforening)
Website: http://www.rlf.no/index.php?cat=19623
(Rederienes
The Federation of Norwegian Coastal Shipping is both an employee federation and an industrial
association. The federation which is an organization within NHO (The Confederation of Norwegian
Business and Industry), is representing more than 50 shipping companies with a total of 5.500
employed seamen on board approximately 400 ships in coastal trade. The members of the federation
41
cover a broad range of business as e.g. car ferries, fast passenger crafts, coastal express steamers, tugs,
cargo ships, tankers, reefers, cable ships and rescue boats.
The coastal fleet consists of about 1250 ships (100 GT and more) of a broad variety of types and
trades. The majority is different types of cargo ships doing unscheduled transport of many different
kinds. Transport of fish still plays an important role and the strong increase in fish farming industry
makes this an interesting challenge.
Some 400 ships do scheduled routes. Half of these are car-ferries, connecting roads across the fjords
and islands to the mainland. The other half are passenger-ships, mostly fast crafts. There are also about
400 ships in the size of 50 - 100 GT which are playing an important role in making life easier for the
inhabitants of the small communities along the coast. The federation also organises the interests of the
Coastal Express (Hurtigruten).
Association of Cargo Freighters (Fraktefartøyenes Rederiforening)
Website: http://www.fraktefartoyene.no/default.asp
The Association of Cargo Freighters is a national association for owners and charterers (corresponding
owners) of coastal cargo freighters in Norway. Its aim is to promote the industry’s financial and social
conditions, as well as to defend the industry’s interests towards authorities and other stakeholders. The
association claims to represent some 300 coastal cargo freighters in Norway, ranging from small bulk
and tanker vessels to general cargo vessels and well boats.
Norwegian Logistics and Freight Association (LTL – Logistikk og Transportindustriens
Landsforening)
Website: http://www.ltl.no/
LTL is an independent industry and employers organisation within NHO (The Confederation of
Norwegian Business and Industry), which organises the majority of Norway’s transport companies
within logistics, freight forwarding and ship handling, including port and terminal operation. LTL’s
main areas of work is related to economic policies, employer issues, competence and training, legal
advice, environmental issues as well as health/safety issues.
3.1.4 Characteristics of ports involved in port networks.
a. Telemark county
The Port of Grenland is one of Norway`s most important ports with the local and regional industry as
its solid mooring points. It is not a formal organisation but encompasses all the port facilities within
the region – both the community owned harbours and quays which are managed by the Grenland Port
Authority as well as the private port installations serving local industrial plants. Grenland Port
Authority is an inter-municipal company owned by the municipalities of Skien, Porsgrunn and
Bamble.
42
The Port of Grenland is located 160 kilometres southwest of Oslo in the county of Telemark, which is
situated in south eastern Norway. A strategic location on the coast of the Skagerrak with safe and
efficient harbours has made the Port of Grenland a natural crossroad for both maritime and land traffic.
The port has a range of modern and efficient terminals, which are able to handle almost any kind of
cargo in both larger and smaller quantities.
Main features of the port:
 A total of 8290 meters of quays where 2590 meters are public and 5700 are private
 Facilities for handling vessels up to 12,5 meters draught and additional 2,5 meters
under-keel clearance.
 A range of facilities for loading and discharging bulk products
 Facilities for handling general cargo and containers in both Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo systems
 Annual turnover of about 10 million tonnes of cargo
 About 3,500 ship calls annually including several calls from liners and ships on
regular routes
 Ferry terminal with daily routes to Sweden and Denmark
 Fishing harbour
 Marinas and guest harbours for yachts and leisure craft
The largest petrochemical industry cluster in Norway is located in this region. Products such as:
cement, ferromanganese, fertiliser, various petrochemical products, renewable solar energy products
such as wafers, etc. are key products from this region.
b. Rogaland county
The main fairway along the coast of Rogaland is in open sea south of Stavanger, and more sheltered
northward through Karmsund to Haugesund. From this main fairway there are local fairways to the
different ports of Egersund, Risavika (in Sola), Stavanger, Sandnes and Haugesund.
Cargo to and from ports in Rogaland totalled near 21 mill. tons in 2005, increasing to 22.5 mill tons in
2007 (+ 7,2%).
Risavika
The land area around the Risavika Bay has been under continued development for port and industrial
purposes for the last 40 years. Base area and other facilities for the offshore industry, stevedores,
transport companies and terminals for both sea and road transportation are main activities in the area.
Several oil companies and oil service companies are located in the area with offices, warehouses and
workshops, and thus increasing traditional cargo and port activities.
A new harbour and industrial area has been under construction over the last years on the area of the
former Risavika refinery plant (Shell). An international ferry terminal was opened in 2008. The port
terminal will open later and will comprise 1.650 m of quays and a container terminal area on 650.000
m2 in the first development stage. Water depth is 15 m.
43
In 2007 a total of 23.000 TEUs with 6,5 mill. tons were handled in the port of Stavanger, with 5.900
ship arrivals. (Excluding cargo and ship arrivals to the oil bases).
Stavanger and Mekjarvik harbour
Stavanger (city) is an attractive cruise ship destination with facilities to handle the largest cruise ships.
About 100 arrivals are expected in 2009 (April – September) with a total of approximately 140.000
passengers (up from 64.000 in 2007).
The harbour of Stavanger also functions as a reserve for ships between contracts or in preparations for
larger operation offshore.
Mekjarvik is a specialized harbour for ships and equipment requiring larger sea depth. It is located
about 5 naut. miles north of Stavanger (city) and thus has a favourable location in respect to the North
Sea and the main fairway.
Port of Sandnes
The Port of Sandnes is located at the end of the Gandsfjord. Several industries are located in, or near
the port. There is a railway sidetrack into the port – although it is not much in use any more.
In the port area there are several companies offering transport and logistics services for both onshore
and offshore industries, including road-, sea- and air fright. There are regular sea lines to several ports
in the Baltic Sea as well as North European and Norwegian ports.
The Port of Sandnes has a quay length of 630 m. The water depth is maximum 8 m. The total terminal
area is near 47.000 m2. Inside warehouse capacity is approximately 7.400 m2. In addition, Somaneset
Harbour Terminal offers 40.000 m2 for industrial use where the water depth is up to 10.5 m.
Port of Sandnes handled a total of 310.000 tons cargo in 2007. No statistics on number of TEUs and
ship arrivals are available.
Port of Karmsund
Port of Karmsund offers services for national and international freight lines and ferry connections. The
port also offers services to the offshore oil industry and is also important to the fish industry. There are
a wide range of maritime industries and services in the area, as well as transportation and logistics
companies.
The port has a total key length of 4.000 m and land area of 24.000 m2. The offshore base at Killingøy
is a deepwater key with a length og 400 m and land area of 6.000 m2. The aim of the port is to
continue to serve as a main national port, and will concentrate further development and expansion in
the area of Veldeøyene and Husøy. The area is regulated for harbour and maritime use, and facilities
will be constructed in accordance with growth in cargo and other activities.
44
The port of Karmsund handled a total of 9.000 TEUs with 15.2 million tons and 6.900 ship arrivals in
2007.
Port of Egersund
Port of Egersund is the largest fishing harbour in Norway (by volume). The port is situated with a
short sailing distance from the open sea. The port has today good capacity with possibilities for further
expansion.
The port has today a total of approx. 4.500 m of keys with water depth varying from 6 to 9 m. There
are three Ro-Ro ramps with good connections to the main highway system and to the railroad.
The port handled a total of 2.900 TEUs with 610.000 tons of cargo and a total of 580 ship arrivals in
2007.
c. Hordaland county
i.
Ports in the Bergen area
The ports in the Bergen area include the central port of Bergen, Coast Center Base (CCB) at Ågotnes,
Sture Gas- and Oilterminal and Mongstad Base. Most of the quays are under the Port Authority of the
Bergen Area (BOH) which is an inter-municipal organisation owned by the municipalities in the
region and Hordaland County Council. Between BOH and CCB there is a written cooperation
agreement. At Mongstad only a smaller part of the port is under the authority of BOH.
Central Port of Bergen
When it comes to goods, the Central Port of Bergen is not a big port compared to ports on the
continent. Over the container port of Dokken/Nøstet the number of TEU is approximately 25.000 per
year. In addition quite a number of general cargo passes through the inner port where there is also
some ro/ro transports via the ferries to/from Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The ferry link to
Newcastle was terminated in 2008 but may come into operation again in 2009 or 2010. From the
summer of 2009 the ferry link to Iceland, The Faroe Islands and Shetland will go via Denmark. In the
Central port there are 5.650 meters of quays. Changes are planned in the future regarding the location
of the Central Port and the operational facilities for ferries, containers and cruise ships.
A new major port for the Bergen area
In 2003 the search for a new major and central port for the Bergen area started due to the current space
limitations for handling goods, and new plans for using the attractive central port area for other
purposes, such as housing. In cooperation with the port authority (BOH) the task for finding a new
port was given to the Hordaland County Council. In the planning for a new major port there is an
understanding that the main goods handling area will be at Dokken/Nøstet in the existing central port
of Bergen until 2020, but that this area will be subject to further development along with the planning
for a new main port.
45
In the planning for a new major port, three aims have been focused upon:
1 - Finding an area suitable for both port facilities and logistic services.
2 - Paying heed to the needs of important stakeholders.
3 - Facilitating environmentally sound transport solutions by reducing transport cost
In June 2010 the County Council of Hordaland will decide on the future location of the new port.
Areas under consideration are:
Area:
Lundaneset
Municipality:
Sund
Flesland
Bergen
CCB Ågotnes
Fjell
Mongstad
Lindås
Location:
North in Sund kommune (C on
map)
Between the airport and the
seaway to Bergen (D on map)
Ågotnes (E or F on map)
In connection to the oil refinery
(I on map)
These alternatives will be compared with the zero-alternative which is a combination of today’s
Central Port and more use of Mongstad and/or CCB.
Map over the future possible alternatives:
46
Figure 3: Map over the future possible alternatives
ii.
Other important ports in Hordaland
In addition to the ports in the Bergen area there are two other places in the County of Hordaland where
there is a concentration of port facilities; Stord / Eldøyane and Odda. In addition there are a number of
large private ports for import/export to the manufacturing industries such as at Husnes (aluminium),
Sture (oil & gas), Stord (shipyard and off-shore constructions) and Odda (zinc and titanium). In
addition there are a number of private quays adapted to the various products which are imported or
exported there.
iii.
Characteristics of the ports
Ports for general cargo
The Central Port of Bergen is the most important port when it comes to import and export of general
cargo within the County of Hordaland. The second largest port for general cargo in the Bergen area is
CCB Ågotnes.
In Sunnhordland and Hardanger there are three ports which handle a certain amount of general cargo
and have the possibility to handle larger ships. These ports are as mentioned Eldøyane and Leirvik port
at Stord and the port of Odda. Eldøyane at Stord is a fairly new port with a Ro-Ro quay and a
possibility to extend its capacity with 500 meters of quays.
Oil and gas ports
The County of Hordaland is the largest and most important importer and exporter of oil and gas in
Norway. The most important port facility is at Mongstad with its oil refinery and Sture Terminal where
oil and gas arrives by pipe lines from the North Sea and are exported mostly by ship, but also by road.
Cruise ports
Bergen is the largest cruise port in Norway, and among the 3rd largest cruise ports in Northern Europe.
The number of cruise ships visiting Bergen each season varies between 200 and 300. At the peak
47
season, there can be between 4-7 big cruise ships at the same time in the central port of Bergen. The
pollution from these vessels has been in focus, in order to mitigate the environmental effects of the
vessels. One of the possible solutions, electricity delivered to the ships while at quay is being
considered by regional authorities. Other solutions might be to impose the use of cleaner fuel.
Other than Bergen there is one quay built for cruise vessels at Eidfjord in Hardanger. There were 45
cruise calls here in 2008. In 2009 there will be a decrease in the number of vessels, but from 2010 –
2011 the number of calls is expected to increase again. The County Council of Hordaland have partly
financed preliminary studies for a cruise port project in Kvinnherad at the mouth of the
Hardangerfjord, but at the time being the project have been stopped.
Hurtigruten ASA (Coastal express) travels to Kirkenes round trip from Bergen. Every day one of the
ships servicing the coast, arrives or departs from Bergen.
iv.
Port authorities in the county of Hordaland
Bergen og Omland Havnevesen (BOH)
Within the County of Hordaland the most important port authority is Bergen og Omland Havnevesen
(BOH). This organisation is among the most important inter-municipal port authorities in Norway.
This organisation is owned by the 11 municipalities in the Bergen region. Over 50 people are
employed in BOH. Measured in both tonnages and the number of calls, BOH is the largest port in
Norway. The ports within BOH handle in total 50 % of all goods (oil and gas included) imported and
exported at Norwegian ports.
Figure 4: Bergen og Omland Havnevesen (BOH)
48
Karmsund Havnevesen
The inter-municpal port authority, Karmsund Havnevesen, started as an organisation for the two
municipalities, Haugesund and Karmøy in the County of Rogaland. Today the ports at Sveio and
Bømlo municipalities in the County of Hordaland are members of Karmsund Havnevesen.
Stord, Kvinnherad and the Hardanger region
For some years the municipalities of Stord, Kvinnherad and Odda together with the County Council of
Hordaland have tried to establish an inter-municipal port authority for the region of Sunnhordland and
Hardanger. This organisation is meant to take care of the ports and quays in the 16 municipalities in
this area of Hordaland.
v.
Volume of goods in Hordaland
Table 2: Number of call of ships and goods in 2002
(will be replaced by more recent numbers later on
Port
No of calls
Central Port of Bergen
Statoil Mongstad
Mongstad Base
Coast Center Base Ågotnes
Norsk Hydro Sture Terminal
Oster Pukk og Sand, Eikefet
Norstone – Mjølkevikvarden, Askøy
BOH in total
Stord ports in total
Karmsund Havnevesen (district) in total
Ports outside port districts in total
17 230
2 000
21 177
1 738
186
594
319
24 244
2 601
13 165
599
Goods in 1000 tons
2 409
70 917
1 186
1 286
17 234
1 320
557
94 090
262
32 000
851
Table 3: Goods – tons loaded an unloaded in 2002 – Mode of carriers in Hordaland
Wetbulk
Drybulk
General cargo
loaded + unloaded
loaded +
loaded + unloaded
Containers
unloaded
in TEU
BOH
89 093 944
2 091 975
2 222 190
113 811
Stord ports
5 000
82 000
175 000
910
Ports outside port districts
5 190
Bømlo and Sveio in
Karmsund Havnevesen
0
53 713
175 975
In total
3 638 305
3 638 305
2 898 257
118 1
49
d. Vest Agder county
Port of Kristiansand
The Port of Kristiansand is the only port of relevance in Vest-Agder in terms of international traffic,
and thus in the context of this report. The port is classified as a “national port” and is characterized in
the Norwegian National Transport Plan (NTP) as a port of particular national significance. The Port of
Kristiansand is an important hub between transport corridor No. 3 from Oslo to Stavanger and the
international corridor from Kristiansand to the European Continent across Skagerrak and North
Denmark. The Port of Kristiansand is mainly serving the following 3 market segments:



Short sea traffic in the North Sea Baltic Sea, and along the Norwegian coast
Passenger and Ro-Ro ferry traffic to Hirtshals as a “bridge” for E39 across Skagerrak
As an important hub for export from a growing region in Norway
Port of Kristiansand is a municipal enterprise in Kristiansand Municipality. The port is able to handle
all sorts of vessels and cargo and is the port in Norway with shortest distance to the European
continent.
Throughput per year:
1,1 mill tonnes freight (wet and dry bulk)
45.000 TEUs
1,3 mill passengers (Colorline service to Hirtshals in Denmark, and some 15 – 20 cruise calls)
Liner services and passenger traffic
The port has got (almost) daily departures/arrivals to Europe, mainly to Hamburg and Bremen, but
there are also prospects for increased traffic on Rotterdam. NorLines is having 4 – 7 calls to the Baltic
states, and Kristiansand regards it-self as a possible hub for Baltic traffic in the future.
There are also enquiries about possible new ferry services to the Netherlands, UK and Denmark.
Development projects
Kristiansand has decided to move parts of the activities (mostly bulk and other non-containerised
cargo) from the city port to a new port section at Kongsgård/Vige about 5 km east of the city. The
move is motivated out of capacity, security and efficiency concerns. The container and ferry terminals
will remain in the city port. The development of the new port section is well under way. Upon
completion, the area will total 94 acres. Today, about 11 acres have been developed. A newly
completed quay (north-south) has 144,5 m quay. A mobile crane is in the area, with a 22,6 t lifting
capacity at 51 m boom length and 100 t at 24 m boom length. Lifting height is 40 m above quay level
(radius 11-45 m), and 28.7 m (radius 45-51 m). Below quay level, the lifting height is 12 m.
By the end of 2008, a new east-west quay line will be completed. The quay length will then be
extended by 220 m.
50
After this expansion, Kongsgård/Vige will have a total of 364.5 m of quays and 15 acres of developed
port area. The next building stage will be the construction of storage facilities at the east-west facing
quay, and further extension of the east-west line.
3.1.5 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to
port cooperation within the region/port area
a. Telemark county
For many years, the Department of Fisheries and Coastal Administration have stimulated the
cooperation between various ports – when possible. However, due to the Norwegian law for
management by the municipalities, there is no real incentive to stimulate such a process.
The Port of Grenland has been given the task by the Norwegian Department of Fisheries and Coastal
Administration to try to stimulate a voluntary cooperation between the Port of Grenland and the Port
of Larvik. With regards to general cargo, the Port of Grenland has the same opinion as the Norwegian
Department of Fisheries and Coastal Administration. However, the neighbouring port is still not
interested in such cooperation.
Approximately five years ago, the Norwegian Department of Fisheries and Coastal Administration
took the initiative to evaluate the possibilities to establish a main terminal for general cargo in the Oslo
fjord area. At that time, the two national ports in the Oslo fjord participated together with the
Department and the National Coastal Administration. The conclusion was to utilize the potential from
the ports within Oslo fjord area.
The Port of Grenland supports the idea to look for potential cooperation of port services and handling,
which have been investigating for several years now.
In October 2008, a joint meeting with the board of both the Ports of Grenland and Larvik was held to
discuss the potential cooperation of a potential new main terminal in this region.
b. Rogaland county
The major initiative in relation to cooperation between ports the latest years, is the merging of four
municipal port authorities (Stavanger, Sola, Randaberg and Rennesøy) into one inter-municipal port
authority, the Stavangerregionen Havn IKS (SRH). This arrangement brought competing ports into a
win-win situation where the various port locations could develop and optimize their individual role
and profile.
Another new important feature was to divide port duties and activities into three separate bodies. (This
arrangement is new in Norway, and Stavanger was the first place to establish this arrangement, and the
model is called the “Stavanger model”.):

The governance of the duties and activities is the responsibility of the SRH
51


The port operations, is run by a company – Stavangerregionan Havnedrift AS -established as a
limited company, but owned 100% by SRH IKS.
All port area and buildings is divided into a separate company – Stavangerregionen Havn
Eiendom AS – also owned 100% by SRH IKS as a limited company.
A third very important initiative is that the new port section in Sola named “Risavika Havn AS”. It is a
limited company owned partly by the government (SRH – 45%) and private companies (a private port
and an investor). This port section is specialising in Ro-Ro/ferry services and container services in
general. Ferry activities opened in 2008, while port activities will start later.
c. Hordaland county
As mentioned earlier, there is a search for a new major port for the Bergen area and the County
Council of Hordaland is the responsible organisation for this job. This means that there has been quite
a bit of cooperation between the port authority, Bergen og Omland Havnevesen (BOH), the County
Council of Hordaland, CCB Ågotnes, StatoilHydro Mongstad and all the municipalities in the Bergen
Region.
In the project searching for a new major port, it should be mentioned that the question of an
intermodal port, with railway connection, will not be a crucial issue when it comes to alternatives
outside the municipality of Bergen. If the alternative at Flesland is chosen, there is a possibility of a
railway connection.
Also mentioned earlier, there is a written cooperation agreement between BOH and CCB Ågotnes, but
it is not very clear, to what extent, one can say that this cooperation is really working.
Some years ago, the County Council of Hordaland took the initiative, together with the municipalities
of Stord, Kvinnherad and Odda to form an inter-municipal port authority in the south east part of the
county. This project has not been successful up until today.
d. Vest Agder County
In Vest-Agder, only the Port of Kristiansand has got regular international freight and passenger traffic.
Kristiansand is also the biggest port for import in the Southern part of Norway. The other ports in the
region are mainly handling local industry products, of which the export is shipped out through
Kristiansand. From time to time the Port of Kristiansand is storing bulk goods in other ports for which
there is temporarily no room for in Kristiansand.
Some attempts have been made to establish a joint port structure & organisation between the different
ports in Vest Agder and the neighbouring county Aust Agder during the last decade. These attempts
have however failed, mainly because of the lack of perceived common benefits due to the vast
differences in the role and size of the ports in the region. The ports are however interacting as
described in the first paragraph above.
52
3.1.6 Description of MoS initiatives within the region
a. Telemark county
The Port of Grenland has not been involved in MoS activities or initiatives.
b. Rogaland county
No new route is established with any support by the MoS programme or the Marco Polo programme.
But some new and improved short sea shipping services are established. These services cross the
North Sea and are connections that fit well into the MoS concept.
SeaCargo reassessed their services across the North Sea some five years back, and decided to
restructure the route pattern to be more concentrated and frequent, and they contracted a series of new
ro-ro ship which now are partly delivered and in operation. The services are now concentrated
between Stavanger/Bergen and Amsterdam, Immingham and Aberdeen. The NMC project provided a
cargo analysis that documented a potential for shifting cargo from road to sea.
The same company established last year a new service between Stavanger/Bergen and Esbjerg. This
route has a potential for shifting cargo from road to sea on the leg from Western Norway to south
Denmark/Germany.
c. Hordaland county
When it comes to MoS initiatives in Hordaland region it should be mentioned that in the participation
in NMC I and II the county of Hordaland together with the local NMC cluster and lead partner,
Rogaland County Council, was able to deliver services to SeaCargo that, as mentioned above by
Rogaland county, lead to the reassessment of SeaCargo services in the North Sea.
In the NMC II period Hordaland took part in a project trying to establish a new RoPax route between
Germany and the ports from Kristiansand to Trondheim. The Norwegian/German project never came
into operation.
d. Vest Agder county
The Port of Kristiansand was in 2005 – 2006 involved in a MoS initiative (Nordic Triangle MoS) for
TEN-T together with the Ports of Turku & Naanthali (Finland), Stockholm (Sweden) and Rostock and
Hamburg (Ger). The initiative did however fail due to partner changes and lack of support from the
German government.
The Port of Kristiansand has also been involved in the development of an intermodal service, whereby
the intention is to transport seafood from Northern Norway to Kristiansand by rail, and from there
further on with Ro-Ro / Pax vessel to Emshaven in the Netherlands. This service initiative was
invented in the NMCI project under the Interreg IIIB North Sea Programme under the name “Norway
– Benelux intermodal service”. This service has however not yet materialised, mainly due to problems
of finding a wiling operator and a suitable vessel.
53
3.1.7 Positive and negative operation experiences
complementary ports and MoS experiences
in
relation
to
a. Telemark county
The Port of Grenland has not been involved in MoS activities.
b. Rogaland county
The most significant move recognising complementarities between ports is the establishment of the
common port authority, the SRH. This implied a willingness to look at the various ports as having
different roles and profile, and hence complementary. Some port sections specialise in oil related
cargo, others on industrial cargo and general cargo and others on containers.
A negative aspect is the fact that Port of Sandnes did not merge into the common port authority.
Sandnes municipality is in all other respects a part of the Nord-Jæren metropolitan area, but they
choose to stay outside. An obvious reason for this is that the Port of Sandnes is getting large portion of
their revenues from leasing land to others and not from port activities.
c. Hordaland county
As stated in chapter 4.1.5c, there is an agreement between CCB Ågotnes and the BOH of
complementarity but how this is working is uncertain. And the initiative taken by the County Council
of Hordaland for a common port authority and complementarities of the ports in the south east of the
county has until now not been successful.
d. Vest Agder county
As stated earlier the potential for and benefits from complementary port cooperation within VestAgder alone is considered to be very limited.
3.1.8 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and
establishment of MoS routes during the next 10-15 years in the
region/port.
a. Telemark county
The Port of Grenland has not been involved in MoS activities. Nevertheless, the Port of Grenland does
have weekly routes to Immingham (UK), Ghent (BE), Hamburg (GE) and Rotterdam (NL) and daily
routes to Hirtshals (DK) and Strømstad (S).
There are also possibilities to establish routes to the Baltic Sea region countries.
54
b. Rogaland county
Within Rogaland County, there are four port districts:




Port of Egersund
Port of Sandnes
Port of Stavanger (Stavanger, Sola, Randaberg and Rennesøy) including Port of Risavika
Port of Karmsund (Haugesund and Karmøy)
These port do not have any structured cooperation today, but the role and the profile in a larger picture
is nevertheless different and in reality quite complementary.
The Port of Egersund is the largest fishing port in Norway in terms of fish landed.
Port of Sandes is primarily serving the industry (largely mechanical and machinery) in Sandnes and
partly south Jæren.
Port of Stavanger/Risavika operates the major part of containers and general cargo as well as having
the two supply bases for the oil industry.
Port of Karmsund is also a major fishing port and has industrial cargo (aluminium). In total tonnage
Port of Karmsund is a major port in Norway, but that is largely due to the Kårstø gas terminal.
The major potential for MoS routes in the future is the potential for Stavanger/Risavika to become a
major logistics hub in Norway. The development of Risavika creates a basis for handling cargo not
only to the Rogaland region, but to function as a transit port for cargo that is destined northwards and
soutwards along the western coast of Norway, transhipped to other sea services or land transport, and
for cargo that is destined for Eastern Norway, carried by rail to/from Eastern Norway.
c. Hordaland county
For the County Council of Hordaland one of the aims for the planning of a new major port in the
Bergen region is not only to make it easier for importing and exporting goods for the region of
Hordaland, but also to facilitate and compete on a national and international level. For Hordaland it is
therefore important to improve the road system along the west coast of Norway and east-west. The
importance of a high-class road transport corridor along the west coast, without the use of ferries has
the highest priority for all the counties from Kristiansand to Trondheim.
A high class road on the west coast will open up for more complementarities for the ports in the
different counties to the benefit of cargo owners and transport companies. This will bring about a
certain competition between the most important ports like Kristiansand, Risavika in Stavanger and the
new major port in the Bergen region, but as mentioned above to the benefit of cargo flow.
d. Vest Agder county
The potential for port complementary would be bigger if considering the Southern part of Norway
55
from Stavanger to Oslo as a whole. The only port in Vest Agder with significant importance is Port of
Kristiansand.
3.1.9 Cooperation
possibilities
connections, road deliveries
involving
feeder
ships,
railway
a. Telemark county
The Port of Grenland has taken initiative to look for possibilities to utilize the rail connection from the
main production facilities to the main general cargo terminal in our district. We will also start to work
with investigating the possibilities for local sea-transport of cargo between producers and terminal.
The prefeasibility-study opens up for two alternative locations for establishing a new main terminal for
general cargo.
b. Rogaland county
The major potential for combining various modes of transport is the sea – rail combination for longer
distances and sea – road combination for local/regional distribution. The potential is primarily related
to UK – Norway cargo, but could also comprise Continent – Norway cargo when optimising the
direction balance. This potential is connected to the development of the Risavika Harbour.
Another possibility in the future is related to the new sub-sea tunnel connection between South
Rogaland and North Rogaland, i.e. establishing the ferry free connection called “RogFast”. This would
create an efficient connection for distribution of cargo over larger area than today.
c. Hordaland county
For the county of Hordaland is the most important issue for facilitating shifting goods from road to
sea, and to achieve a lager extent of competition is better roads along the coast and east-west. The use
of sea going feeder transport especially to and from the manufacturing industries inside our fjord
system might well be focused more upon.
d. Vest Agder county
The Port of Kristiansand has rail connections from a freight terminal at “Langemyr” a few kilometres
inland. It is a strategy to develop this connection in order to strengthen intermodal rail – sea transports.
The NTP has decided that the road access to national hubs, like Langemyr Terminal and the Port of
Kristiansand, shall be considered part of the “trunk road system”, and therefore be funded by the state.
By this, the hubs are ensured a national focus. However, this decision is not changing the ownership of
the hubs which will still remain municipal (port) and private (Langemyr).
56
3.1.10 Description of corridor development procedures with relation to
complementary ports
Corridor development related to the four regions/counties
The four counties form a string of major cities and major ports in Norway, from the Outer Oslofjord to
the mid part of West Coast of Norway. All ports have international services, both for cargo ships and
for ferries.
Today there is hardly any cooperation between the ports in different counties, so the dominating
feature is competition between the ports. However, the ports in question are indirectly cooperating
through the Port Associations on improving the general framework conditions for ports and sea-based
intermodal transport solutions.
In a wider perspective the challenge for the ports in different counties is to search for a win-win
situation where more cargo is channelled through ports and intermodal logistic hubs. This may be
achieved through:


Specialisation of ports by enhancing the competitive profile of the ports
Provide a cooperation between ports and other logistics player, in particular rail services, that
contributes to shift from long haul road transportation to sea and intermodal transport services
As a starting point, the present profiles for the major ports are as follows:
Grenland, including Larvik:





Major industries (fertiliser, mechanical, petro-chemical)
Ferry services to Denmark
Partly serving the Oslo area
Rail connection
New port area outside city centre is discussed
Kristiansand:





Major ferry port in Norway, connections to Denmark
Daily services to main ports in Europe
Possible future hub for Baltic traffic
New port sections under development, moving away from the inner city area
Direct rail connections and railroad terminal 5 km from the port
Stavanger:




Large new port section developed outside the city centre for containerships and ferries,
adjacent to industrial development area
Major supply bases for the oil industry
New railroad terminal 15 km. from the port
Considerable calls by cruise ships
57
Bergen:




Major container port in the city centre, planning carried out for new location of the main port
Important supply base for oil industry
Major port for cruise ships
Railroad terminal 3 km away, but crossing the city centre
This shows that the various counties have ports with different profile that could be a basis for some
specialisation. The key common challenge for the ports is to contribute to shifting cargo from road to
sea and intermodal transport modes.
One cargo segment is the cargo that goes to Oslo area before it is sent to destinations in other parts of
Norway. Another cargo segment would be cargo that is destined for the greater Oslo area, but could
benefit in time and costs by routing via ports in one of the four counties nearby and hereafter sent by
rail to the greater Oslo area. This potential is due to the fact that the direction balance is fairly poor as
there is more cargo by road and train from the Oslo area, than to the Oslo area. It is also a concern by
the national transport authorities that the capacity of terminals and on the rail network in Oslo area is
limited, and that well functioning regional logistic hubs are important for the Oslo hub to function
well.
A quick SWOT analyses has been carried out, taking the following objective as the basis for the
assessments:
To contribute to a shift of more cargo from road to sea and intermodal transport in Southern
Norway, in order to reduce the environmental problems and improve competitiveness.
The immediate reflections from the SWOT analyses in respect to capitalise on strengths, is to explore
the potentials of these ports located as a string in the corridor along the coast with its links to
international ports.





Market the special profile/features of ports along the coast in order to exploit mutually
beneficial synergies
Contribute to efficient direct routes between international ports and the Norwegian ports,
accepting that not all ports have the same international links
Contribute to developing and utilising the capacity of the rail services along the coast, and to
Oslo area
Cooperation with Oslo/Inner Oslofjord ports by selling capacity to these ports
Demand more balanced tax regime for sea transport
Another aspect to development is to turn weaknesses and threats into strengths and opportunities. One
major problem in the transportation system is the poor direction balance as is for instance the case for
the rail service between Oslo and other regions. This is also the case for shipping lines. A close
cooperation between ports in different ends of the transport chain can contribute to better utilisation of
the transport modes by thinking in terms of triangular services. The ports also have to work closely
58
with the rail services. This implies that the traditional thinking of ports as sea related is too limited, as
they have to think in terms of the full transportation chain.
A third aspect is for the ports to be “in the future” before others. The environmental challenge is high
also for the maritime industry. To be in the forefront when the regulations demands a shift the ports in
question could together shape a “green” profile of their ports, including facilitating, and demanding
when possible, environmental sound practices, cleaner ship technology etc.
3.1.11 Recommendations
Overall recommendations
The main recommendation looking at the challenge for the four regions/counties as a whole, is to
establish a parallel forum to “Rail Forum South”, i.e. a “Port Forum South”. In the Rail Forum South
all the counties from Vestfold to Rogaland has seen the benefit of joint efforts to work for a better
railroad in the future.
The two forums should develop a cooperation that eventually lead to an integrated “Transportation
Forum South” since a close cooperation between ports and rail has a potential for a win-win situation,
and that one may not succeed in shifting cargo from road to rail unless they cooperate.
A second recommendation is to search for cooperation through a specialisation of ports, i.e. to explore
the complementarities of ports. This could trigger a system where ports are purchasing capacity at
each other.
The third recommendation is to work for changing the fundamental unbalanced tax regime where sea
transport is paying much more than road and rail transport.
3.1.12 Conclusion
Overall Conclusions
Some overall conclusion may be summarised as follows:

Ports are competing and cooperating at the same time. But to shift to more environmental
friendly and competitive transport solutions, cooperation efforts should be facilitated.

To contribute to a shift from road to sea, the ports have to pursue win-win situations and to
cooperate closely with the railroad authorities and rail service operators

The cooperation on regional/county level could be on two different levels of cooperation:
- Common marketing;
- Specialisation of ports and sea-based intermodal services;

The cooperation across counties could at least be on common marketing outwards, and to
pursue a common strategy in respect to utilising the rail service along the corridor the counties
represent. To some extent complementarities across the counties should be explored.
59
3.2 Germany
This next section will explore the maritime and transport industries, along with port development in
Germany. A review of national policies in relation to ports will be discussed along with a review of
MoS activities in the region.
3.2.1 Introduction
The role of the maritime economy in Germany is not part of official statistics, as it is not considered to
be one of the economic sectors like e.g. agriculture and forestry or the construction industry. However,
studies have been undertaken to evaluate the importance of this economic sector. The Central
Association of German Seaports (ZDS) and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry North (IHK
Nord) have published some general figures on these issues. According to these, there are around
400.000 employees in Germany directly and 100.000 indirectly depending on maritime economy
(ZDS 2007, p. 7-9). Based on the number of employees the contribution to the gross value added was
estimated at 29 Bn €, which corresponds to 1.6% of the national income (IHK Nord 2009, p. 7). There
are different industries belonging to the maritime economy. The following diagram shows the different
parts of the maritime economy and their share of the overall turnover, which was 54.4 Bn € in total in
2004.
navy
3%
other
8%
maritime transport
21%
fishery
10%
inland waterway
transport
3%
hydraulic engineering
5%
maritime equipment
16%
port logistics
26%
shipbuilding
8%
Figure 5: Share of turnover in the maritime economy in 2004
(ZDS 2009, p. 9)
Considering port economy and maritime traffic the following aspects are of interest for the German
economy.
Seaports play an important role as logistics hubs for incoming and outgoing transport. In Hamburg,
over 11.5% of the German foreign trade was handled in 2006 (IHK Nord 2009, p. 4), 15.7% via all the
German ports. In 2007 this increased up to 19.9% on the whole (Flottenkommando 2008, p.4-8).
Around 52% of the seabased exported goods were handled via all the German ports (average 2000-
60
2007). As maritime transport is an open market, there are also companies from other countries using
German hubs, German companies located along the ‘Rheinschiene’ (the corridor along the river
Rhine) are using the ARA ports34 and companies located in southern Germany ship via some
Mediterranean ports.
The lack of large fossil fuel resources and other raw materials makes Germany dependent on
importing them from other countries. More than half of Germany’s consumption of oil and petroleum
products comes through the North Sea ports. Furthermore, a quarter of the German coal consumption
is imported via seaports (IHK Nord 2009, p. 4). A third of the demand of ore, which is very important
for German steel production, is also imported via seaports. In addition to these raw materials, the
international division of labour leads to an increasing demand of half-finished products for the German
industry, which is partly also imported via seaports.
Apart from their essential functions for global transport chains, ports also satisfy the demand for
logistics and value added services. The big universal ports like Hamburg or Bremen/ Bremerhaven
offer a widespread portfolio, other smaller ports are more specialised on certain services.
Concerning the maritime transport sector in Germany, 380 shipping companies are operating a fleet of
3.281 ships, of which 548 ships are sailing under the German flag. Around 400 of these ships are
operated in international maritime traffic (Flottenkommando 2008, pp. 3-1). After Japan and Greece,
the fleet owned by German shipping companies was in third place of the so called dead-weighttonnage (dwt-) ranking in 2008. The container fleet was ranked first (VDR 2008, pp. 9). The total
gross revenue of these companies in 2007 was 20.3 Bn. €.
In summary it can be concluded that maritime economy, especially port logistics and maritime
transport, is of considerable importance for the German economy. Apart from contributing to the
development and the gross value added of the economy, ports and maritime transport must be
considered as elementary interfaces and channels for an in- and exporting country embedded in global
markets.
3.2.2 German Ports
Considering its relatively short coastline, there are a high number of seaports in operation in Germany,
located both on the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The following map shows the most important ports in
the sea bordering federal states Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,
Bremen (incl. Bremerhaven) and Hamburg. Some ports are not directly located at the seaside, but as
they are directly linked to the sea by rivers/canals they are considered as seaports, too. One of the
world’s busiest artificial waterways, the Kiel-Canal, is also located in Germany. The canal links the
North Sea with the Baltic Sea and runs from Brunsbüttel to Kiel. Instead of the way around Skaw an
average of 250 nautical miles can be saved by using it and the Kiel-Canal is thus a major transport link
for trade by and with the Baltic countries (Kiel-Canal 2009). In this context North Sea ports are also
very important as logistic hubs for maritime traffic from and to the Baltic area, as large vessels from
overseas cannot pass through the Kiel-Canal.
34
Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp Ports
61
Figure 6: German seaports classified according to the TEN-T guidelines35 and the Kiel-canal
3.2.2.1
North Sea ports
In accordance with the StratMoS project focus on the North Sea region, the following data collection
comprises facts about important North Sea ports. They were chosen in correspondence with the TENT category (more than 1.5 Mio. tonnes of freight). Thus there are Emden, Wilhelmshaven, Brake,
Nordenham and Stade-Bützfleth in Lower Saxony, the port Brunsbüttel in Schleswig Holstein as well
as Bremen/Bremerhaven Hamburg which are located in the federal states of the same name.
The development of the cargo turnover in most of the ports considered has been increasing over the
last three years as can be seen in Figure 10.
1.000 t
Turnover 2006 - 2008
160.000
140.000
120.000
100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
Hamburg
Brunsbüttel
Brake
Emden
Bremen/Bremerhaven
2008
Wilhelmshaven
2007
Stade-Bützfleth
2006
Nordenham
0
Cuxhaven
20.000
Figure 7: Turnover of considered ports for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 36
(IHK 2009, p.13; ZDS 2008, p. 41)
35
36
All the ports in category A, B and C defined in the TEN-T guidelines (TEN-T 2007, p. 10).
Total gross-weight of goods (incl. packing) but without weight of trailer or container.
62
The North Sea ports with the biggest share of the overall cargo turnover are Hamburg,
Bremen/Bremerhaven and Wilhelmshaven.
Share of cargo turnover of all German ports
Hamburg
37,9%
North Sea
ports
81,3%
Baltic Sea ports
18,7%
Bremen/Bremerhaven
19,0%
other 10,8%
Wilhelmshaven
13,7%
Figure 8: Share of cargo turnover of all German ports based on the weight of handled goods
(ZDS 2008, p. 41)
In Figure 9 the share of goods types in 2007 is illustrated for each of the ports. There are no crucial
changes in the share of good types from 2006 to 2007, therefore only the year 2007 is shown. As
Hamburg and Bremen/Bremerhaven have the biggest share of container turnover nationwide, these
values are included. The container turnover of the other ports is included in general cargo.
Share of good types 2007
100%
% Container (HH, HB/BHV)
% General Cargo incl. Container
(HH,HB/BHV excl. Container)
80%
% Bulk Cargo
60%
40%
20%
Hamburg
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Brunsbüttel
Wilhelmshaven
Stade-Bützfleth
Brake
Emden
Nordenham
Cuxhaven
0%
Figure 9: Share of good types in 2007 in ports considered
(ZDS 2008, pp. 41)
In Germany there are two universal ports with a widespread portfolio of services offered: Hamburg
63
and Bremen/ Bremerhaven. Other ports are concentrating on specified services due to a number of
reasons. One reason is that there is certain demand of some companies or an industry settled in their
region/in the transport chain via the port for e.g. importing bulk products or exporting automobiles.
Another reason might be, that one specialisation is beneficial because of the port’s location e.g.
construction and handling of offshore wind energy equipment in the vicinity of offshore wind parks. It
is also possible that the port is filling a service gap by servicing a niche market. The main services
offered by the considered ports are illustrated in Table 4.
The amount of passengers arriving at/departing from North Sea ports are also listed in Table 4. It
should be mentioned, that in comparison to the Baltic Sea ports, passenger transport in the North Sea
is not of great importance considering traffic with destination to other countries. The importance is
more because of the supply of German North Sea islands and tourism.
Concerning RoRo- and ferry-transport, the situation is comparable to passenger transport. North Sea
ports are not of great importance for this service, even if most of the ports have the appropriate
suprastructure they only hold a share of 13% in Germany in 2007 (Destatis 2009).
64
Table 4: Facts on considered German North Sea ports
1
Passenger
ferries
Main services
Appropriate
Suprastructure
–


–

357.62

1 385
Nordenham
–
–

–
–


–
–

–

–
Emden
–
–
–

–
–
–



516.82

164
Brake
–
–
–
–

–
–


n.a.
–
–
–
Stade-Bützfleth
–
–

–
–

–
–
–
n.a.
–
–*
–
Wilhelmshaven

–

–
–

–
–
–

24.32

–
Brunsbüttel
–
–

–
–

–

–
–
–
–
–
Bremen/
Bremerhaven


–

–



–

92.73

2 702
Hamburg







–
–

78,32

576
(2007)
Crude materials
Automobiles
Petroleum
products
4
Passengers
1000 (2008)
–
Yes ()/No (–)
Amount 1000t
Yes ()
No (–)

Cellulose/ wood
–
cargo/
–
Foodstuffs and
animal fodder
–
Ferries/ cruiser
Cuxhaven
Containers
Offshore
wind
equipment
RoRo and ferry
transport
General
RoRo
Port
* RoRo ramp in construction
Sources:
1
IHK Nord 2009, p.13;
2
Personal Interviews with port administration (without short trips e.g. harbour tours and transit passengers);
3
Ports Bremen 2009,
4
Destatis 2009
the other information is taken from the following sources:
Ports NI 2009, Ports Bremen 2009, Port Hamburg 2009, Ports SH 2009, ZDS 2008, seaports 2009
3.2.3 Trends in National Harbours
In general either the federation or the local government is responsible for the infrastructure
development. For traffic infrastructures like high ways, train tracks and canals the trend of the local
governments is to submit the extension demands to the federal institutions like the German Ministry of
Traffic, Building and Urban Development. All requests will be ranked and sorted in the so called
German Master Plan for Traffic, Version: April 2007. According to the German Master Plan for Traffic
the following are planned for seaside-, rail- and road investments.
65
3.2.3.1
Seaside and water canal investments
For the investments which are related to extensions and maintenance of river and canals following
master plan exists:
Table 5: Plan for water traffic investments according to German Master Plan Traffic
German North
Sea Ports
Hamburg
Brunsbüttel
Cuxhaven
Bremerhaven,
Brake,
Nordenham,
Bremen
Wilhelmshaven
Emden
Sum
Future and current
investements
Amount of
investment
2006 - 2010
(in Mio €)
Running maintenance of Elbe
Adaption of river Elbe (Lower part
and North Sea mouth for 14,50
m depth)
Running maintenance of KielCanal
Amount of
investment
after 2010
(in Mio €)
8,4
9,5
144
104,2
111,3
5,1
Extension of Kiel-Canal
-
73,3
56,7
Running maintenance of Weser
Adaption of river Weser (North
Sea mouth for 14,50 m depth)
5,2
0
23,5
4,8
18
0,5
383,7
180,8
Adaption of river Weser betweent
Nordenham - Bremen
-
Not all of these measures are in appropriate planning status. Especially measures on free flowing
rivers like the Elbe have some delays due to environmental issues. The investment for Brunsbüttel for
the Kiel-Canal has only an indirect influence to Brunsbüttel Port itself. The port is located at the Elbe
close to the Kiel-Canal and can indirectly participate from the bigger ships for the Kiel-Canal.
3.2.3.2
Railway investments
For the railway systems the following relevant measures exists:
Table 6: Plan for relevant rail way investments according German Master Plan Traffic
German North
Sea Ports
Wilhelmshaven
Hamburg/Bremen
Future and
current
investements
2 track
(OldenburgWilhelmshaven)
extension and
electrification
between
Oldenburg and
LangwedelUelzen via
Wilhelmshaven
Y-Trail to
German
hinterland
Total amount
of investment
(in Mio. €)
Already
Amount of
invested investment
(in Mio. €) 2006 - 2010 (in
Mio. €)
Joint
investments (in
discussion)
196, 3
6,0
20,5
169,8
1283,9
3,5
15
1265,5
66
All investments in federal railway improvements are in early planning stages. Especially the Y-Trail, a
joint measure for Bremen and Hamburg, is still in investigation for finding the best route.
3.2.3.3
Road investments
The relevant road investments for the hinterland connection of the German North Sea Ports are
depicted in the following table:
Table 7: Plan for relevant road investments according German Master Plan Traffic
German North
Sea Ports
Hamburg/Bremen
Bremenhaven
Brake
Future and
current
investements
6 lane
extension of
high way A1
B71, High way
conneciton to
A27, move in
federal resp.
2 lane
extension of
B211
Total amount Already
Amount of
Remarks
of investment invested (in investment 2006 (in Mio. €)
Mio. €)
2010 (in Mio. €)
277
277
already in
process
9,6
9,6
already in
process
19
preliminary
draft
Caused by the distributed character of the Port of Hamburg a new traffic axis within the port area is
planned (Hafenquerspange). But this axis has not a high priority in the German Master Plan Traffic, so
the status of this road axis is only in the status of a preliminary draft. Private investment models for
this have all failed.
Beside the federal investments there exists a lot of government and local plans for new infrastructure
in the German North Sea ports. The most important is the foundation of the Jade-Weser-Port
Realisierungsgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG in 2003. This society is responsible for the realization of
the Jade-Weser-Port which is located in Wilhelmshaven. The Jade-Weser-Port is a totally new
container ship port without the typical depth limits for greater container ships.
In general it should be considered that every measure in traffic infrastructure development is subjected
to Germans public planning conditions. A short summary of the general planning rules is shown the
following figure:
67
Conceptional design 1. Basis design including ecological risk analysis
(Entwurfsplanung inkl. Umweltrisikoanalyse)
2. Regional impact assessment procedure or statement (Raumordnungsverfahren oder Landesplanerische Stellungnahme)
3. Plan‐approval procedure or/and building application
(Planfeststellungsverfahren oder/und Bauanträge )
Political support required
(Konzept / Grobbeschreibung)
German Planning Law
Typical duration: 10 ‐ 20 years 
Detailed Design and Implementation planning
(Ausschreibungsunterlagen und Bauausführungsplanung)
Final acceptance and certification

(Abnahme und Zertifizierung)
Authorities (normally) not involved
Authorities involved
Figure 10: Typical planning steps for infrastructure measures
3.2.3.4
Cooperation between the ports
At the moment there only exists port cooperation between enterprises. The participation of the
terminal operator Eurogate on the German overseas ports Hamburg, Bremerhaven and Jade-WeserPort (still in construction) makes a practical cooperation between the involved container terminals
possible. The level or quality of cooperation is of course a business secret, but the benefits are
measureable. Eurogate has recently also published a future cooperation with the inland waterway ports
Magdeburg and Minden.
Another co-operation on the level of enterprises exists between Brunsbüttel and the Norddeutsche
Affinerie (Cooper Refinery) which is located close to the Port of Hamburg. Brunsbüttel is operating
the overseas ships and storing the row materials for the refinery.
3.2.4 National policies on ports/ networks
On June 17th 2009 the German National Port Concept was published by the Ministry of Traffic,
Building and Urban Development. Besides a detailed analysis of future investments in German Port
the Federation has underlined that a coordinated infrastructure development between the federal and
local government institutions is necessary for the future. In this context the law for regional impact
assessment procedures (see also Figure 10) was changed giving more influence to the federal
institutions. Isolated port developments shall be avoided in the future. The following paragraph shows
the different ownership structures in German seaports.
68
Description of national procedures with relation to complementary ports
As the German National Port Concept already has mentioned, the ownership and responsibility for
ports in Germany is totally different. An example is shown in the following figure.
e.g. Eurogate, HHLA, Buss Group
HPA
Hamburg
e.g. Eurogate, MSC, NTB
Bremerhaven
Bremenports
HBH
e.g. Cuxport, E.H. Harms
NPorts
Cuxhaven
MW
HGB
Brunsbüttel
HGB
private
public province
public federal
Figure 11: Example of different ownership and responsibility models in German seaports
HPA – Hamburg Port Authority, Public Body
HBH – Hansestadt Bremisches Hafenamt, Public Body
MW – Ministry of Economics of Lower Saxony
HGB - Hafengesllschaft Brunsbüttel
NPorts - Lower Saxony Port association
Therefore, an establishment of complementary sea ports in Germany is very difficult. Too many
different ownerships and legal requirements exist between the ports. On the other hand, every concept
of complementary ports has to consider the different ownerships and legal requirements of each port,
thus creating synergies that can handle the differences in the management and ownership structure.
3.2.5 Assessment of two chosen ports
In this chapter, the ports of Hamburg and Cuxhaven are assessed. Both ports are located along the
river Elbe. Between the cities of Hamburg and Cuxhaven there is a general agreement of port
cooperation.
69
3.2.5.1
Port of Hamburg
The area of the Port of Hamburg comprises 4,249 ha shore area and 2,987 ha water area. Apart from
that, there is an extension area of 833 ha. The range of services offered in the universal Port of
Hamburg covers all requirements of the ports customers. These range from traditional handling and
warehousing activities and logistics solutions to IT and communication services.
Jobs in a large number of sectors are dependent on the Port of Hamburg. The port is the most
important economic factor for the city. Employees in the handling, warehousing, transport and
industrial sectors are directly dependent on the port, as well as forwarding agents, trading and
insurance companies in the city or outlying districts are. These are supplemented by employees in
indirectly dependent sectors who are responsible for providing financing and producing investment
goods for port operating companies.
The cargo turnover development split into different types of cargo is shown in the following table:
Year 1990
Total (in million tons)
61.4
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
97.6
106.3
114.5
125.7
134.9
140.4
Bulk Cargo
32.8
37.5
39.4
37.8
40
42.7
41.7
Liquid Cargo
15.3
11.5
11.6
12.2
13.1
14.2
14.7
Suction cargo
4.9
6.2
6.7
4.3
5.6
6.3
5.2
Grabber
12.6
19.9
21.2
21.3
21.2
22.2
21.7
General Cargo
28.6
60.1
66.9
76.7
85.8
92.1
98.7
Containers (in Mio. tonnes gross) 20.3
57.2
64.3
74
83
89.5
95.8
No. of 20' units (TEU)
1969
5374
6138
7003
8100
8862
9890
Degree of Containerisation
68.6
(proportion in % of general cargo)
95.1
96.1
96.5
96.8
97.2
97.1
Transit traffic via Hamburg (m.
tonnes) incl. imports for open
customers depots
15
20.2
-
-
-
-
9.2
gross = weight of cargo and
empty container TEU (Twenty
Feed Equivalent Units)
Figure 12: Cargo turnover development in the Port of Hamburg
70
Main moving commodities, Port of Hamburg
'000 Tons (2007)
No. Commodity
Total
thereof
Container Cargo
Break Bulk
Bulk
Container %
A) Top 20 Container/General Cargo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Machinery¹
Chemical products
Food preparations²
Other finished products
Apparel
Chemical base products³
Iron and steel
Meat, reefer products
Paper, board
Electric appliances
Ironware
Furniture, wood products
Vehicles, veh. components
Tiles, stone products
Non-ferrous metals
Glass, ceramic products
Wood
Carpets, textile
Fruit
Coffee
6,383
6,272
5,273
4,647
4,303
5,534
4,056
3,883
3,778
3,768
3,322
3,186
2,844
2,902
2,035
1,866
1,552
1,506
1,472
1,210
6,165
6,125
5,234
4,636
4,296
4,161
3,396
3,865
3,619
3,745
3,302
3,165
2,406
2,538
1,834
1,858
1,522
1,493
701
1,203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ores
Petroleum products
Coal
Crude oil
Oil seeds
Fertilizers
Cereals
Building materials
Chemicals base products³
Oils and Fats
10,425
7,523
5,782
4,811
3,090
3,007
1,944
1,695
5,534
1,427
120
411
160
0
376
346
280
342
4,161
339
Other goods
30,738
20,063
28,356
20,063
140,236
95,995
218
47
39
11
7
43
660
18
159
22
20
21
437
14
201
8
30
13
772
7
97%
100
98%
99%
100%
100%
1,330
75%
84%
100%
96%
99%
99%
99%
85%
350
87%
90%
100%
98%
99%
48%
99%
B) Top 10 Bulk Cargo
thereof: Container tare weight
Seaborne total
43
128
10305
7113
5622
4811
2714
2661
1664
1353
1330
1087
1%
5%
3%
0%
12%
12%
14%
20%
75%
24%
2,254
2,877 41,364
68%
¹ excl. vehicles, electric appl.
² excl. luxuries, beverages, reefer, oils and fats
³ Chemicals belong to most important commodities in container and likewise in bulk cargo
Source: Statistisches Landesamt Nord, HHM
Figure 13: Main Commodities in the Port of Hamburg
71
Additional Services
In the Port of Hamburg following additional services are available:
– Container services
– Safety services
– Seaworthy packaging
– IT services
– Consulting
– Port shipping
– Education
– Warehousing and Distribution logistics
– Financing and insurance
Quays and handling facilities
Key facts about quays and handling facilities:
Berths for ocean-going vessels
Quay walls for ocean-going vessels
Container handling area
Multi Purpose handling facilities
Bulk cargo handling
320
35 km
413 ha
192 ha
258 ha
Hinterland Connections
A strong hinterland connection is vital for the Port of Hamburg. The share of local goods is
approximately 30%. Around 50% of the hinterland transport are land based (inland waterways, truck
and rail). Approximately 50% of the containers are handled in transhipment. Around 12% of the total
German rail freight traffic is connected to the Port of Hamburg [BAG-2005]. Therefore, a lot of
maintenance for the rail way network is necessary.
Hamburg is nerved by a network of highways running as radials towards the centre of the city (80 kms
of motorways within the city boundaries), on which long-distance transit traffic is carried and which
efficiently connects the city with the large international and the neighbouring regional commercial
centres. In order to be able to continue to guarantee the goods and business traffic, so vital for the port
and the commercial location, improvements are continually being carried out in the road network and
the handling of traffic.
72
The inland navigation system is currently the hinterland connection with the most dynamic increase.
The following inland waterway connections exist:
Service
Operator
DBR Containerservice
Mittelland Canal
Deutsche Binnenreederei AG
Deutsche Binnenreederei AG
DBR Containerservice River
Elbe
Boerde Container Feeder
Elbe-Container-Service
Deutsche Binnenreederei AG
Börde Container Feeder GmbH
Lexzau, Scharbau GmbH & Co.
Frequency /
Cargo
5 times per
week /
Container,
Heavy Lifts
3 times per
week /
Container,
Heavy Lifts
2 times per
week /
Container,
Heavy Lifts
2 times per
week /
Container,
Heavy Lifts
3 times per
week /
Container,
Heavy Lifts
Ports served
Brunswick
Hannover,
Minden
Magdeburg,
Aken, Riesa,
Dresden,
Decin,
Lovosice
Haldensleben,
Magdeburg,
Brunswick
Glueckstadt,
Brunsbuettel,
Cuxhaven
Figure 14: Inland navigation from and to the Port of Hamburg
3.2.5.2
Port of Cuxhaven
The seaport of Cuxhaven lies directly on the estuary of the river Elbe. The location of the port is
highlighted by its position at the Elbe as an international shipping lane on the one hand and on the
other hand opposite the western entrance to the Kiel Canal. The infrastructure of the port is owned by
the federal state of Lower Saxony, the operation of the terminals is managed by different companies.
The port covers a total area of 319 ha, of which 231 ha are land area and 88 ha water area.
The development of the cargo turnover and the share of good types can be seen in Figure 16. From
1998 up to 2008, the cargo turnover has increased by a total amount of 517 000 t (around 33%).
73
2 500
+7%
2 000
+3%
+2%
+15%
1 500
in 1 000t
Other general cargo
Trailer
Container
Bulk cargo
1 000
500
0
1998
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 15: Cuxhaven: Development of the overall cargo turnover for the years 1998, 2004-2008
and the share of good types for the years 1998, 2004-200737 (Port Concept NI 2007, p. 20; Destatis 2009)
Services
The importance of the port of Cuxhaven lies not in its contribution to the nationwide cargo turnover
(less than 1%), but in its specialised services. The main services offered in Cuxhaven are the handling
of different types of general cargo via RoRo- and ferry-transport (72% in 2007): trailer, container and
automobiles. The share of turnover of this kind of transport for the years 2004 up to 2007 can be seen
in Figure 17 for some considered ports. Although the ports in the Baltic Sea are much more important
in this segment (they share nationwide 86.8% in 2007), this is a service which highlights the position
of Cuxhaven.
Among the North Sea ports Cuxhaven holds a share of around 25% of the whole RoRo- and ferrytransport in 2007. Only Bremen/ Bremerhaven handles more in this segment, but in contrast to
Cuxhaven the share of RoRo- and ferry-transport is only 4.5% in 2007 of the total cargo turnover, as it
can be seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17 (Destatis 2009).
37
For 2008 only total data on the total cargo turnover was available, for 1998 only the share of bulk and general cargo.
74
RoRo-turnover
2004
2005
2006
2007
6 000
5 000
in 1000t
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
Hamburg
Bremenports
Cuxhaven
Other ports
All North Sea
ports
Figure 16: Total amount of RoRo38-turnover for the years 2004-2007
(Destatis 2009)36
Share of RoRo on total cargo turnover
2004
2005
2006
2007
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Hamburg
Bremenports
Cuxhaven
Other ports
All North Sea
ports
Figure 17: Share of RoRo38-turnover on total cargo turnover for the years 2004-2007
(Destatis 2009) 36
Passenger transport departing and arriving in Cuxhaven is mainly dominated by the supply of the
islands Helgoland and Neuwerk and the island’s tourism (all together 77.6%) as well as short trips
(21,4%). Even though cruise services have a low share (<1%) Cuxhaven is a location for cruise
services, destinations are Great Britain and Scandinavia. There is also a line service to Hamburg in
operation.
38
RoRo turnover comprises cargo shipped by RoRo-vessels, RoPax-vessels and ferries.
75
Quays and handling facilities
There are different quays and handling facilities in the port. First of all there is Europe Quay operated
by Cuxport GmbH. The Europe Quay as a multi-purpose port handling installation is situated in the
eastern part of the America Port, with a total quay length of 840 m and three berths altogether
equipped with different handling facilities as RoRo-ramps, one container gantry crane and other types
of cranes. Another berth for seagoing vessels will extend the Europe Quay in future as well as a heavyduty-quay for the shipping of heavy goods, which has just been completed. The Cuxport GmbH is also
operating the Steubenhöft, equipped with RoRo handling facilities. The handling of automobiles is
mainly settled at the CuxCargo Quay in the America Port. In the America Port there are, furthermore,
handling quays and fitting-out quays for general cargo ships and small bulk cargo ships as well as for
large-scale passenger ships. In addition to this there is the New Fishing Port (total quay length of 2 815
m) intended for the handling of fish products and bulk cargo and the Old fishing Port (total quay
length of 1 210 m), both accessible via a sluice. At last there are the old ferry port and the Lübbert
Quay.
There are some interesting facts in the city’s history which had an impact on the port development and
the offered services in Cuxhaven. The America port and the Steubenhöft was up to 1991 owned by the
City of Hamburg39. After the area was given back to Cuxhaven, Hamburg insisted on the so called
‘Containersperrklausel’, a prohibition to handle container, which was manifested in the contract for the
return of the territory. Not until the year 2005 this was repealed, but even though Cuxhaven was
officially not allowed to handle container before they defied it (Logistik Inside 2005, Cuxhaven 2009).
Hinterland Connections
The port of Cuxhaven is connected with all transport modes important for a port’s hinterland: road, rail
and inland waterway. As the port of Cuxhaven is located on the estuary of the river Elbe, the link to
the European inland waterway system is naturally given. The railway infrastructure connects
Cuxhaven to the marshalling yard Maschen double-tracked (via Stade and Hamburg) and to
Bremerhaven single-tracked. Both connections are operated by Deutsche Bahn AG and are mostly
non-electrified. The motorway A 27 with direction to Bremerhaven and Bremen and the highly
frequented interstate road B 73 (‘Bundestraße’) with direction to Stade and Hamburg link the area of
Cuxhaven with the federal motorways. The airport ‘Seeflughafen Nordholz’ takes account of the
airborne connectivity and is situated 18km apart from the seaport. The airport is equipped with an
3000m runway which allows it also for large airplanes to operate.
Development plans and capacity
There is an area around 55ha which is intended directly for port development. Some parts of this area
are already determined for the fourth berth at the Europe Quay. More areas in the older parts of the
port may be developed, too. There is also an area of 45ha, which is intended to be developed for the
settlement of companies in the offshore-wind equipment-industry. The City of Cuxhaven has already
39
In former times Cuxhaven was completely owned by the City of Hamburg. In the context of the so called
‘Groß-Hamburg-Gesetz’ in the year 1937 Hamburg gained some of the Prussian territory around the city but they
also gave the city of Cuxhaven to Hannover, a Prussian province. Hamburg insisted on some area (America Port
and Steubenhöft) in the port and kept the rights to this until the year 1991 (Cuxhaven 2009).
76
planned to develop 23ha of this area and to invest 1.9 Mio. € (Port Concept NI – Annex, p.8).
Assessment of major constraints and prospects
The major constraints and prospects of the port of Cuxhaven have been evaluated in the context of the
port concept for Lower Saxony (Port Concept NI – Annex 2007, pp.8). Thus the following points have
been identified:
Table 8: Constraints and prospects in the port of Cuxhaven
(Port Concept NI – Annex 2007, pp.8)
Prospects
Constraints
Accessible for seagoing vessels, with max. no appropriate road infrastructure direction
draught of 14.5 m
Northern Europe and Hamburg
access to the Baltic Sea via the Kiel- no appropriate rail infrastructure direction
Channel
Hamburg and Bremerhaven
key service in Short-Sea Shipping, RoRohandling
offshore wind park base in Lower Saxony
free port area
Based on this, the future perspectives of the port of Cuxhaven are the services in ferry- and RoRotransport comprising container, trailer and automobiles and the establishment of Cuxhaven as an
offshore wind park base (Port Concept NI – Annex 2007, pp.9).
3.2.6 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to
port cooperation within the region/port area
In the German North Sea region there is on the one hand the infrastructure project JadeWeserPort,
which was initiated in 2002 based on port cooperation and will be completed in 2011 and on the other
hand the port network in Lower Saxony, which is already in operation.
3.2.6.1
Jade Weser Port
In order to anticipate the global container traffic growth, a huge infrastructure project was initiated in
Germany: the JadeWeserPort, the first deep-sea port in the country. It will be located in
Wilhelmshaven at the Jade-Weser estuary of the North Sea. In June 2002, the long planned project has
finally been launched by the States of Lower Saxony and Bremen. Construction work for the port
started in March 2008 and the terminal should enter into service in October 2011. Although Lower
Saxony, Hamburg and Bremen agreed unanimously on the location of the new port on the 30th of
March 2001, Hamburg decided in May 2002 against taking a 20% share in the JadeWeserPort
Development Company. However, in July 2002, the federal governments of Lower Saxony and
Bremen reinforced their commitment to the realisation of the port and both states founded the
JadeWeserPort Realisation Company in April 2003 (JadeWeserPort 2009). The total project investment
77
volume is estimated to reach 950 Mio. €, of which the future terminal operator will contribute up to
350 Mio. € for the suprastructure. With shares of 50.1% and 49.9% respectively, the states of Lower
Saxony and Bremen will be contributing around 44 Mio. € each to the infrastructure finance
(JadeWeserPort 2009).
The main argument for building this port was the past and forecast rapid growth of the demand for
container handling volume, which may lead to a saturation point in the existing ports. As an important
in- and exporting country, Germany will need new capacities in order to keep up with the increased
container traffic in Europe. In addition to that, the largest container ships with loads of more than
8.000 TEU can only reach the ports of Bremerhaven and Hamburg during high tide due to depth
restrictions in the approaches up the Weser and Elbe rivers respectively. For these reasons the new
deep sea port is being constructed in Wilhelmshaven. The intention is, that the JadeWeserPort will
handle some of the additional future container traffic and it will be able to handle several nextgeneration cargo ships (JadeWeserPort 2009).
The Jade Estuary, a large bay on the North Sea, provides a suitable location for such a port. It will be
able to handle container ships with capacities beyond 8.000 TEU, lengths up to 430 metres, 58 metres
in width and draughts up to 16.50 metres. The 1.725 meter long quay will be capable of providing
simultaneous service to 4 container and feeder ships and there will thus be no need for ‘terminal
hopping’ by feeder ships, saving time and money. The location facilitates further transit to
Scandinavia, the new European Union States around the Baltic and Russia. A container handling area
covering 120 ha will be located behind the port, allowing various companies to locate there, and
another 170 ha area will be dedicated to a logistics zone, where companies providing logistics and
port-oriented services can operate (JadeWeserPort 2009).
3.2.6.2
Port network in Niedersachsen
In Lower Saxony, a private company was established out of the former administration for ports and
maritime traffic: Niedersachsen Ports (Ports NI 2009). Their main tasks can be split into three main
fields of activities: Management of port infrastructure and infrastructure needs, developing the real
estate and port services.
Niedersachsen Ports has five subsidiaries: Brake, Cuxhaven, Emden, Nordenham and Wilhelmshaven.
Through these subsidiaries Niedersachsen Ports is responsible for the management of 13 further
seaports and some smaller ports for the supply of the Frisian Islands.
The management of the port infrastructure is one of their key functions. This implies the installation,
operation and maintenance of the main equipment needed for the port business (such as the inner
harbour (basin), wharfs, locks) but also the facilities and equipment for the security within the port.
Coordinating the extension and modernisation of infrastructure on the landside (train, road and paths)
also belongs to their tasks. In addition, Niedersachsen Ports is responsible for the security of the
shipping traffic according to international standards. They are also managing industrial real estate by
providing areas for commercial or business premises to port/ shipping-related companies.
Another field of activity are port services (for instance allocation of mooring areas, waste/ scrap
disposal, providing electricity and water). Within some ports, the company is also operating cranes,
RoRo ramps and railroads though usually this part of the suprastructure are operated and build by
78
private companies. Apart from this operating company, which actually originated out of the top down
initiative of the Lower Saxony government to privatise their port administration, there is another
network in which the most important ports of Lower Saxony are combining their interests: the
Seaports of Niedersachsen GmbH (Seaports 209; Seaports Handbook 2008, p.12-13).
Seaports of Niedersachsen GmbH is a public-private partnership financed by the Federal State of
Lower Saxony and private port industries. It represents eight ports with numerous port handling
operators, trans-regionally active logistical networks and specialists for different types of port service.
They are acting as a marketing company for the seaports of Niedersachsen, building up a
communication platform between prospective clients and the ports. Furthermore they concentrate the
interests and create a corporate identity for the participating ports aiming to provide the best possible
solutions for customers with fair prices (Seaports 2009). They are representing the associated ports e.g.
on exhibitions and in the internet40.
3.2.7 Description of MoS initiatives within the region
Up to now, there’s only one MoS initiative approved for EU co-financing in Germany. The project,
involving the ports of Trelleborg and Sassnitz, has received EU co-financing of approximately 10
million Euros. The aim of the project is to improve the transport corridor between Trelleborg and
Sassnitz by upgrading the capacities of a rail/sea link combined with the development of new
intermodal train services. Within the project there is said to be a potential for a significant modal shift
from the road to combined rail-sea-rail transport. The transport corridor between Trelleborg and
Sassnitz is acknowledged as one of the most important in the Baltic Sea. Government officials said
that they are confident that this project will contribute to an even more efficient and sustainable
transport corridor between Germany and Sweden. Apart from that there have been a number of project
proposals, but none of them was approved.
3.2.8 Positive and negative operation experiences
complementary ports and MoS experiences
in
relation
to
According to experts statements received in the one on one interviews, experiences in port cooperation
have been positive as long as no competition arose between the partners. In the case of complementary
ports, this is generally not the case. Therefore, coexistence and cooperation were regarded as
beneficial for all parties involved. If problems would have occurred in advance, cooperation would not
have come to practice though.
Economic advantages are in general key drivers for any kind of cooperation, but, especially in recent
years, political aspects have initiated port partnerships in Germany, too. Once the changes have led to
optimized cargo flows through integrated logistics concepts, success become also visible in terms of
cargo turnover.
40
http://www.seaports.de/
79
3.2.9 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and
establishment of MoS routes during the next 10-15 years in the
region/ port
3.2.9.1
Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports
In Germany the ‘Nationales Hafenkonzept’ (‘National Port Concept’) was published in June 2009.
This concept comprises some future perspectives for the issue ‘complementary ports’ and
‘establishment of MoS routes’. It includes some interesting perspectives on development in the field of
port cooperation. One of the topics in the new National Port Concept Plan is raising the status of seaoriented infrastructure investment projects, thus providing the necessary funding and support for
strengthening and developing the needed hinterland infrastructure. Ports should have an even greater
focus in the future transport policies on federal government level, both in order to emphasize the sea
transportations role in the future transport market and to strengthen the individual transport hubs. The
financial support is furthermore required for a timely and tailored implementation of the national port
concept.
In Germany the brand ‘Seaports of Germany’ was established in the last years to push up Germany’s
position in international logistics. The initiative was taken by the ‘Zentralverband der deutschen
Seehafenbetriebe (ZDS)’ (Central association on German port business) and the German ports to
unify their common interests. Under this brand, the German seaports were already presented on some
international logistics exhibitions. Currently it is planned to develop a common design (logo etc.) and
a marketing-programme. Apart of the common marketing on a national level, it is intended to keep on
to market also the interest of every single port on federal state level, following the principles of
competition (ZDS 2008, p 16; Bremen/ Hamburg/ Niedersachsen 2009).
Concerning the issue ‘port cooperation’ a relevant statement from the prime ministers of the North Sea
bordering federal states Lower Saxony, Bremen and Hamburg was published recently (Bremen/
Hamburg/ Lower Saxony 2009). The main intention of the statement is to proclaim on the one hand
fields of cooperation and identified measures and on the other hand to underline their common
interests considering the ‘Nationales Hafenkonzept’ (‘National Port Concept’). The main common
interests and fields of cooperation are as follows:






Argue for an adaption and actualisation of the ‘Seeverkehrsprognose 2025’ (‘Prognosis of
maritime traffic 2025’) ordered by the Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban
Affairs in 2007.
Development of the hinterland infrastructure for road, rail and inland waterway in the northern
part of Germany.
In context of the seaports’ importance for Germany’s economy, it was demanded to
compensate the investments of the North Sea bordering federal states.
Intensification of the collaboration between port companies as well as between seaport related
ministries and administration.
Implementation of an interoperable IT-system in the field of transport control.
Assure the position of German North Sea ports by interchanging information.
80
Especially the common interest to assure the position of German North Sea ports by interchanging
information can be interpreted as a measure to support the establishment of complementary ports. The
ministers argued, that companies who demand for certain services in one of the German North Sea
ports and do not find the appropriate offer should be kept in the North Sea region. Therefore their
demand should be coordinated to the other ports, who offer complementing services.
3.2.9.2
Establishment of MoS routes
In 2007, a survey41 relating to MoS was conducted among port-related companies in the Hamburg
area. This survey was part of the INTERREG IIIB project Northern Maritime Corridor (NMC) II42. As
part of the survey, respondents were asked about their interest in the MoS concept. Out of the 70
responses collected, 22 companies considered that new or improved MoS type connections to or from
Hamburg could be interesting for them, more than half of the companies responding (36) considered
such services would be useful – if not relevant for their own business – and only 9 respondents
considered such services unnecessary or not useful.
Almost the half of the respondents of each company type considered MoS to be of interest for their
company (Figure 18). The group trade/ manufacturing constitutes an exception, which is unsurprising
as most of these companies do not organise freight transport themselves. However, representatives of
this group agreed, that new MoS to/ from Hamburg were per se desirable. This position was relatively
widespread, while those companies, which actually operate water based freight transport, also showed
the greatest interest in MoS with respect to their own activities.
no. of
companies
shipping company - IWW
3
container depot operator
5
terminal operator
10
haulier - IWW
11
shipping company - ocean carrier
13
trade / manufacturing
13
haulier - rail
16
haulier - SSS / feeder / RoRo
16
handling, storage and warehousing
21
haulier - road
22
no
yes, also for our
yes, but not for our
company
company
Figure 18: Interest in the MoS concept
(Q: ‘Would you consider new MoS type connections to/ from Hamburg as desirable?”. (Note: survey participants
were able to choose more than one option for the self-classification; coloured bars show the
proportions of the respective answers relative to the numbers in each company type.)
41
An English language report on this survey can be downloaded as ECTL Working Paper 41B from
http://www.vsl.tu-harburg.de/vsl_2/1publikation/index_html?inhalt=2 A German Version is also available
(WP 41A)
42
http://www.northernmaritimecorridor.no
81
These results do indicate, that demand for improved maritime freight transport connections exists or is
perceived, even if SSS/ feeder connections being offered to and from Hamburg in the North and Baltic
Seas are already numerous.
Survey participants were also asked, for which destinations specifically they would like to offer or use
new or improved MoS type services. The results are presented in Table 9 below as they were provided
– no distinction has been made between routes on which services already exist, those that might not
actually match the definition of MoS (such as e.g. Hamburg – Cuxhaven) or those, that would indeed
constitute a new service. A match between supply and demand among the survey respondents was only
found for Rotterdam and St. Petersburg. However, since the group of companies, for whom such
services would be of relevance, is actually much larger, further matches could easily exist. It would be
of further interest in this context, to find out, why in particular demand for services to destinations
already on feeder/ SSS routes from Hamburg was mentioned by respondents.
Table 9: Potential for supply of and demand for MoS type services among survey respondents
MoS demand/ supply relating to North Sea ports
would use MoS services to…
Destination
frequency/ capacity
Emden
-
Wilhelmshaven
-
Cuxhaven
-
would offer MoS services to…
destination
frequency/ capacity
Bremerhaven
ARA range
weekly/ 300 TEU
Antwerp (x 2)
3 x per week/ 300 TEU
Le Havre
3 x per week/ 300 TEU
Felixstowe
3 x per week/ 300 TEU
Bilbao
3 x per week/ 300 TEU
UK, Belgium, Netherlands,
France
2 x per week/ 590 TEU
Rotterdam
weekly/ 500 t
-
MoS demand/ supply relating to Baltic Sea ports
would use MoS services to…
Destination
Kiel
frequency/ capacity
would offer MoS services to…
destination
frequency/ capacity
-
Lübeck – Travemünde (x 2)
St. Petersburg
5 per week/ 300 TEU
weekly/ 400 TEU
Sweden, Denmark, Finland
St. Petersburg (x 2)
2 x weekly/ 800 t – 590 TEU
-
(note: details on frequency and capacity are stated as far as provided;
demand and supply are matched where possible)
82
3.3 Denmark
This section will provide an overview of the maritime economy in Denmark. An assessment of select
ports will also be discussed in relation to MoS activities and a discussion about the challenges facing
the industry will be made.
3.3.1 The Maritime Economy in Denmark
With over 7,000 kms of coastlines and over 400 islands which make up modern day Denmark, access
and proximity to the sea has always played an important role in the history and development of the
country. It is therefore not surprising that there are 130 seaports located around the country. 121 of
these ports accept cargo. While most of these seaports are small and oriented towards their local
economies, many others are increasingly serving a wider domestic and international market. In 2007
alone, all seaports in Denmark handled a combined 109,666,000 tons of goods, while over 48 million
passengers passed through them (Statistics Denmark 2008). Over 75,000 people are directly employed
in the Danish maritime cluster43, while another 30,000 are indirectly employed (Ministry of Economic
and Business Affairs 2006
On a global scale, Danish shipping companies are very competitive and own 3% of total world
tonnage whereas 7% of total work tonnage is controlled from Denmark44. Considering the size of
Denmark, these are fairly impressive numbers for a small country. One of the main reasons for these
high numbers are that AP Møller Maersk, one of the largest shipping companies in the world, is a
Danish owned company.
Figure 19: Danish Shipowners Association, “Danish Shipbuilding Figures - May 2008”
43
Number includes core industries such as shipping and transport related services but does not include fishing,
navy and leisure activities.
44
Danish Shipowners Association, “Danish Shipbuilding Figures - May 2008”
83
Due to the diverse nature and functions carried out at Danish seaports, there is no one umbrella
organisation that represents all Danish ports. There is, however, one large port association, known as
Danske Havne (Danish Harbours) and the aim of this group is to promote the interest of its 79
members. Danish Ports is a political interest organisation which main strategy is communication of the
results that harbours achieve both seen from a goods and a person transport perspective. In general,
Danish seaport fall under five general ownership categories; private port, private port (with
shareholders), municipal port, municipal port (self-governed) and ferry ports. These five categories are
represented in the map below.
Figure 20: Ownership Categories of Danish Ports (Danske Havne)
A study conducted by Danish Harbours, Denmark’s largest harbour association, demonstrates the
importance of Danish harbours in transport supply networks. The study shows that every third truck
either delivers goods to or receives goods from a Danish harbour, which equalled over 7.5 million trips
in 2007. Despite the great importance of harbours Tom Elmer Christensen, chief sectary of Danish
Ports, states that roads to and from harbour areas remains in poor shape and are in dire need for
upgrading and expansion.
84
There is a debate currently going on about “mega-harbours” in Europe. Some EU countries, such as
Sweden, have decided to focus efforts and investments on creating large harbours facilities. In
Denmark, 60% of goods are transported via smaller harbours yet they only receive 40% of the State
financial support for new investments (Altenburg 2008). In addition, 65% of goods are transported via
short sea shipping routes to the rest of Europe. This leads to questions about how Danish harbours
could better organise themselves to be more efficient and effective at processing goods. Increasing
revenue per unit time and reducing operating costs, i.e. such as the time ships moor in harbours, can
help in improving smaller harbours ability to compete with larger ones.
Denmark’s strategic location makes it an ideal place for ferry services to and from Scandinavia and the
North Sea Region. The map below shows the various international ferry services currently in
operation.
Figure 21: International Ferry Passenger Routes in Denmark
(A list of the lines can be found in Appendix C)
85
3.3.2 National Policy on Ports & Networks
The Danish parliament passed a new Harbour Law (havneloven) which came into effect on January 1,
2000. The new law enables harbours to re-organize themselves into independent bodies or shareholding companies. To date, ten harbours have been made into part or wholly owned companies, while
three have joined together into one company. There are currently five types of harbours; state,
municipal, independent municipal harbour, municipal harbour (public limited company), and private
harbours.
Only three harbours are directly owned and operated by the state (Thorsminde, Bøjden, Fynshav),
under the direction of the Transport and Energy Ministry. Smaller municipal harbours are often
managed directly by a committee and considered a part of the normal operating budget of the
municipal in which they are located in. Larger harbours are usually run as independent units,
separately run from the municipality. The first group are considered independent municipal harbours,
such as the Port of Esbjerg, where an independent company which is overseen by municipal appointed
committee. Major decisions need to be first approved by the committee but the day-to-day operation of
the harbour is left to the appointed harbour chief. The second group of larger harbours fall under a
category known as public limited harbours. These harbours are owned by a municipality through
shares, but are managed as private businesses. The final group of harbours are private harbours. They
do not fall under the Danish Harbour Law and are often associated with a particular industry, such as
the oil and coal industry. Statoil’s harbour near Kalundborg is an example of a private harbour.
While 90 Danish harbours are recognized to accept international ships, as per EU standards, most
goods are transported via the 20 top Danish ports. These ports fall under European category “A” ports,
meaning that they process in excess of 1.5 million tonnes of goods a year and/or not less than 200.000
passengers a year. Furthermore the “Category A” ports should be connected to the TEN-T network.
(EU 2009)
The ports of Fredericia and Aarhus see the largest share of goods and they therefore dominate the
Danish shipping market. Helping the movement of goods pass through ports, is the ability of 15 ports
to provide RO-RO ferry facilities.
In order to retain competition in the harbour sector, the government of Denmark has outlined a
strategy for goods that aims for three main goals:

Effective infrastructure with good port connections between Denmark’s regions and between
Denmark and foreign countries

Good framework conditions for streamlining of separate transport modes

Development of efficient transport centres and better coordination between transport modes
The above strategy is being carried out by investing heavily in harbour infrastructure and development
services. The State is in charge of all infrastructures to harbour areas while the municipalities are
responsible for actually harbour facilities. Between 2001 and 2006 over 4 billion Danish kroner have
been spent on Danish harbour facilities. National strategic goals for the harbour sector have been
86
outlined until the 2025 by the Ministry of Transport and Energy in their Danish Harbour Strategy Plan
2025 - from 2007). Some of these goals include:
 Harbour sectors ability to solve society’s goods transport assignments
 Harbour sector is internationally competitive
 Danish and international goods through harbours occur via a well built and effective transport
centre with well built hinterland infrastructure.
 Harbour sector offers attractive working environments with good personal and skill
development opportunities
 Harbour sector contributes to a better environment in the transport sector
From a global perspective, Danish harbours are quite well placed to meet many of the above goals. In
the Global Competiveness Report (2006-2007), Danish harbours placed 6th in the world, being edged
out by top placing Singapore, Holland, Hong Kong, Germany, and Belgium as number 5. Another
study placed Denmark as high as number 2 in competitiveness, behind only Hong Kong (IMD World
Competiveness Yearbook, 2006). These studies reveal that there is a high element of competitiveness
in the Danish harbour sector and that compared to other world harbours, Danish harbours are
performing well.
Figure 22: Transport Goods in Denmark, with container ship (fragtskibe), ferry (færge)
and total number (godstransport I alt) (Denmark Statistics 2008)
87
3.3.3 Description of national procedures with relation to complementary
ports –strategies, projects ideas, established networks.
Examples of Networks in Denmark
Some past initiatives by regional governments in Denmark have worked on developing infrastructure
corridors for goods transport. Two examples of this are the Nordic Link which focussed on developing
a goods corridor through Jutland and into Norway and Sweden and the Northern Transport political
Network (NTN), a follow up project to the Nordic Link which aims at strengthening transport policies.
The purpose of the Nordic Link was to create and further strengthen regional development through
transport corridors between south-western Norway, western Sweden, western Denmark and Northern
Germany. In total, 14 Scandinavian and 3 German regions are part of the network which aims to
towards more efficient and sustainable transport of goods within the corridor and to Eastern Europe.
Figure 23: Nordic Link Corridor
The Nordic Link aims to link up not only the physical transport network for building up capacities
within economic planning and policy making. Nordic Link was formed in the late 1980s between
Danish and Southern Norwegian business partners in response to Danish government plans to bypass
mid and northern Jultand as a transport corridor. Working together with the Danish Ministry of
Transport, the NTN produced reports and conducted studies to show that there was a market for
transporting goods via Jutland to Norway and Sweden. These studies, in addition to other work carried
out by the Danish Ministry of Transport, were influential in building the highways extensions
(E45/E39) from Aalborg to Hirtshals and Frederikshavn, where ferries transport goods and passengers
to Norway and Sweden. Today over 3.2 million tons of goods and 7.2 million passengers cross the
88
Kattegat/Skagerak a year by ferry. This fosters synergies and fosters business partnerships which are
important for business, trade and the economic prospects of the regions involved. According to Danish
Ports, during the last seven years, its members have invested 725 million Euro in new port areas,
wharfs, cranes and other needed facilities. This investment has continued to grow over the years and a
survey into future spending patterns of the 22 largest Danish ports shows that an additional 650
million Euro are expected to be spent between 2008 and 2015 (Danish Ports, 2008).
The Danish Maritime Authority
The Danish Maritime Authority (Søfartsstyrelsen) is a division of the Danish Ministry of Economic
and Business Affairs (Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriets) and was founded in 1988 with the merging
of six shipping authorities. Despite its recent structure, the history of Danish shipping laws can be
traced back to 1567 to the time of King Frederik II, who first started introducing maritime laws.
In general, the Authority works on behalf the Danish merchant fleet and maritime industries promoting
health, safety and environmental considerations while developing new IT possibilities for the industry
at large. It also works with developing new maritime laws, business plans and educational services for
the industry in Denmark and abroad. The Authority has seven major focus areas for developing and
improving the maritime industry. These include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Better education and greater flow of skilled labour into the Danish Maritime Cluster.
Research, development and innovation in the Danish Maritime Cluster.
Taxation and development financing.
Reduced administrative burden and fewer Danish national requirements.
Promotion of Danish influence and market access.
Greater focus on quality shipping.
An efficient, service-oriented and modern administration.
In additions to the above focus areas, a recent publication45 into the future actions plans for growth of
the industry have spelled out three main objectives for the future. These objectives are;



Denmark should develop to become the most attractive place in Europe to operate
international quality shipping.
Conditions for growth, dynamics and competitiveness across the entire Danish Maritime
Cluster should be enhanced.
Health, safety and environment measures on ships should be maintained and improved, so that
Denmark develops as a leading maritime nation with an international focus and quality
shipping.
The Danish Coastal Authority
The Danish Coastal Authority (DCA) is a division of the Danish Ministry of Transport. DCA
administrates the Coastal Protection Act which aims to protect Danish coastal and marine areas. In
addition to providing protection, the DCA is also involved with some harbour operations, dredging and
emergency protection services on the west coast of Jutland.
45
“The Danish Maritime Cluster – an Agenda for Growth” The Danish Maritime Authority, 2008
89
Danish Ports (Danske Havne)
Danish Ports (DP) is a national association of commercial ports with 79 members. Ports in Faroe
Islands and Greenland are also members of this association. DP has set out five key objectives which
they work for on behalf of their members. DP works for promoting the interest of their members to
politicians, public authorities both in and outside of Denmark. DP promotes the use of ports as a
central element in transport chains and works to create business plan frameworks for ports. DP also
works on the sharing of knowledge and to strengthen ties between its members. Thus, DP is a key
group in assisting with port cooperation, one of the aims of this report.
Figure 24: Members of Danish Ports (Danske Havne)
Danish Ship-owners Association
The Danish Ship-owners Association is the ship-owners trade associations and represents ship-owners
in all matters in dealing with the public authorities and the media. The association was established in
1884 and it consists of some of the largest ship-owners in Europe, such as A.P. Møller Maersk A/S and
90
Torm A/S. The association also work closely with short sea shipping and ferry services and promotes
their interest in Denmark and in international organisations such as at OECD, United Nations and the
EU. Issues such as wage agreements, employment conditions and safety and training are all part of the
duties of the association.
Maritime Development Centre of Europe (MDCE)
The MDCE is a broad based maritime association which works for promoting Danish shipping, naval
architecture and marine engineering industries. There are over 140 companies represented under
MDCE from universities and unions to service providers and government bodies. MDCE’s mission
statement is “To be a networking association based on knowledge and information sharing for the
broad maritime industry and thereby secure added value to our members”(MDCE 2009). Some of
MDCE’s activities include, networking amongst members, knowledge sharing, SSS promotion,
national and international marketing and supporting research and innovation.
MDCE also manages Short Sea Promotion Denmark, which is a part of the European Short Sea
Promotion Networks (ESN). The main objectives of Short Sea Promotion Denmark are to:




To facilitate information and knowledge sharing of short sea shipping facts
To highlight short sea shipping’s interests in relation to politicians, authorities and transport
organizations in Denmark and the EU.
To facilitate co-operation and communication between shipbrokers, ports, ship-owners, cargoowners, cargo-buyers and organisations
To facilitate intelligent, sustainable and environment friendly transport where short sea shipping is
a part of the transport chain.
3.3.4 Characteristics of ports involved in port networks.
The analysis undertaken in this report is mainly focusing on the ports shown on
Figure 25. These seven ports can be considered to be some of the most important ports
when it comes to both passenger and goods transportation.
91
Figure 25: Danish ports included in the study
As it can be seen from Figure 26 the ports chosen are all located near the main motorway network,
while most are directly connected to the main railway lines46. Although railway infrastructure is fairly
decent at most ports, the utilisation of transports combining rail and sea in Denmark is not very
significant in comparison to the amount of goods handled. There is, however, a growing interest in
using the railways more efficiently. Recently in July of 2009, APM Terminals in Aarhus announced a
new rail shuttle service from the Port of Aarhus to Hoeje Taastrup Transport Centre near Copenhagen.
The new service offers shippers a five hour transit time and frequency of up to three departures a
week. The shipping lines calling APM Terminals Aarhus: CMA‐CGM, MSC, Maersk Line, Eimskip,
Containerships and Hamburg Sud, K‐Line and Samskip are expected to use the rail service with
additional lines showing interest in utilising it as well (APM Terminals, 2009).
The new political agreement made by the Danish government on the 29th of January 2009 includes an
increased focus on the hinterland infrastructure including road and railway connections to the main
harbours (those of international or regional importance). Although the involvement of the government
46
The 7 Danish ports chosen for a deeper analysis are all categorised as Category A ports according to the EC
definition following the TEN-T guidelines.
92
and the Danish parliament is expected to make a difference and increase investments in infrastructure,
it is still the harbours themselves, who should utilise the opportunities given by the possible subsidies
for infrastructure development. A number of the ports introduced in the following sections have
expressed interest in further developing their rail to port connections and are expecting to utilise the
opportunities of getting additional funding for infrastructure investments from the national
government.
The latest development in port networks has been the recent development of the “European Modular
System (EMS) (“modulvogntogsnettet” in Danish). The concept allows for the combination of existing
loading units (modulars) for longer and heavier vehicles. In Denmark they can be up to 25,25m long
and carry goods up to 60 tonnes. They are only allowed to drive on certain routes, mainly between
various Danish harbours (see Figure 27). The use of an extra wagon on an existing truck, allows high
frequented routes to become more efficient due to the fact that fewer trips need to be made and fewer
drivers are required. In addition, studies have shown that fuel use and particle emission can be
reduced up to 15% when these larger trucks are used (Danish Road Directorate 2007). Due to the size
of the trucks, roads need to be upgraded to allow for wide turns, and over the next few years more and
more ports, transport centres and large businesses will be connected to this network
Figure 26: Approved Routes for EMS in Denmark (Danish Road Directorate 2007)
93
Data on the amount of goods in the harbours in question can be found in Appendix E
3.3.5 Association of Danish Ports (ADP A/S) – Terminal Fredericia,
Terminal Midddelfart and Terminal Nyborg
General Information
The Association of Danish Ports A/S (ADP) was founded on January 1, 2000. It was created with the
fusion of two municipal ports – Municipality of Fredericia and Municipality of Nyborg, into one
commercial company. Three years later in 2003, the municipality of Middelfart port, today called
Terminal Middelfart, joined the group. Ownership is divided amongst the three municipalities with
Fredericia owning 89%, Nyborg 10,6% and Middelfart 0,4%. The shares are somehow equal to the
sizes of the ports. In total, the three port areas see yearly traffic of over 17 million tonnes goods and
the ports are Denmark’s largest port facilities in terms of goods handled. ADP specialises in container
cargo, Ro-Ro, general cargo, liquid bulk and dry bulk and handles approximately 30,000 TEUs a year
in cargo.
Terminal Fredericia
Terminal Fredericia is the largest of ADP A/S ports. The port is located on the eastern side of the
Jutland peninsula on an area of water that is known as Little Belt, which allows for deep water and ice
free conditions. The port is also located near to a major motorway junction, the E20 (east/west) and
E45 (north/south). Adding to the motorway access, the port is also in close proximately to one of
Denmark’s largest international rail junctions – the intermodal terminal in Taulov Transport Centre.
Figure 27: Map of Port of Fredericia area
94
Terminal Nyborg
Terminal Nyborg is located on the western side of the Great Belt, the international deep-water route
connecting the Baltic Sea with the North Sea. Situated away from any urban area with direct
motorway (E20) and railway connection, the 31-hectare site provides all the necessary facilities of a
modern day harbour. The water depth at the largest quayside is 11 meters.
Figure 28: Port of Nyborg area
Terminal Middelfart
Terminal Middelfart is located across the Little Belt straight from Terminal Fredericia, on the island of
Funen. The port is located a few kilometres off the main E20 motorway and close to the E45
(north/south) and Taulov Transport Centre. The 600,000 square metre port areas, offers 100 meters of
quayside where vessels of up to 130 meters can dock, in water depths of up to 9 meters. 12,000 square
meters of warehouses compliment the ports services. The port of Middelfart is in other words a very
small port which is owned and managed by the ADP organisation.
Figure 29: Port of Middelfart area
95
Port Performance
In Fredericia, they are converting the West Port into a modern, efficient environment with space for
new general cargo activities. There is room for 12,000 square metres of modern warehouses, which
will be adapted to meet the individual needs of customers. In the Centre Port they have built 4,000
square metres of new dry bulk cargo facilities.
Since the takeover in 2002, the Port of Middelfart has been upgraded and developed so it now
functions as a niche port for general cargo and dry bulk. The port was opened in December 2003. A
number of areas have already been leased, but other areas are still available. Over the next 5 to 10
years, over €36 million will be spent in the on new harbour facilities and infrastructure on all three
terminals within ADP A/S.
In Nyborg the infrastructure has been improved, and the links between the individual sections of the
port have been improved. This has created the basis for further growth. With total investments of €36
million, ADP A/S has the capacity and financial resources to invest in long-term customer
relationships. ADP also invests regularly in improving the infrastructure of the port areas with a view
to utilising them and achieving optimum conditions for transport.
Hinterland Connections
ADP works largely with the “triangle area”, a group of large municipalities (Vejle, Kolding and
Fredericia) which are known for industry. The rail facilities at Fredericia also allow the port to capture
a large hinterland. While not directly owned by ADP, rail/combi-terminal in Taulov Transport Centre
is nearby and works closely with ADP. Taulov Transport Centre is centrally located to several major
transport modes in Denmark. Port of Fredericia is only few km away and Taulov Transport Centre is
placed directly on Denmarks’s two main highways E45 an E20. Also within one hour drive is Port of
Esbjerg, Billund Airport, and the German border, making the Port of Fredericia an important addition
to the logistic network of Denmark. With the opening up of the Great Belt Bridge in 1999 and the
Øresund Bridge to Sweden in 2002, goods can now be shipped on trains directly to Sweden and
Norway.
96
Figure 30: Taulov Transport Center
(http://www.fdt.dk/ttc/index.htm)
Constraints
For ADP, the biggest challenges are outdated Danish harbour laws and access to capital. ADP feels
that Denmark needs to update its harbour laws and tax laws. Some laws even go back to the later
1800’s and with regards to these harbour laws, port officials believe that clearer rules and more
updated rules are needed as to what port authorities can and can’t do. Certain restrictions limit what
port authorities can do, for example, Danish ports are not allowed to go into partnerships with foreign
ports. Many in the industry, believe that this is a hindrance to optimising operations as it doesn’t allow
Danish ports to tap into larger networks and experiences found abroad. In addition, ports are often
very politically sensitive to local municipalities and as such, municipal politicians often limit what
ports can and can’t do. They do this despite the fact that there are initiatives, such as working more
closely with other Danish ports and coordinating facilities, which could improve a ports performance.
More transparent rules are also advocated for. The amount of paper work needed should be reduced to
make it in line with only land based transport. Also, issues with icebreaking services and taxes need to
be clarified for all actors involved.
Prospects
The unique position of ADP, which owns three harbours, is one of the best examples of cooperation
between ports in Denmark. Operating as one company allows port officials to effective move
equipment (cranes) and personal to ports where there is demand. This allows for an effective and
efficient operation and allows for the ultimate synergy effects. It also allows the administration to
diversify the various ports. For example, the Port of Nyborg is being developed to be an important hub
for the shipping of wind mill blades to points east of Denmark. This allows the other two ports to
focus on other industries and products. There are also benefits for clients, whose needs could be better
tailor-made, with access to three different harbour areas and infrastructure. The administration and
97
promotion of the ports are also done centrally, which minimize the costs, something which can be a
high burden, especially for smaller ports. Finally, having three harbours close proximately of each
other also gives port officials the chance to re-direct ships to the other ports, if one is fully booked.
This could save shippers time and money.
Although separate, ADP works closely with Taulov Transport Centre in order to optimise both their
facilities. ASD has also received some funding to investigate how to improve the connections between
the two areas. ADP is hoping to greatly expand its offering of train service. It currently manages about
6000-7000 wagons a year, but there is still much more capacity to handle more containers.
ADP feels that while Danish ports are good at making money, the available of EU programmes and
support could allow for more efficient port operations and allow for more goods to be taken off
country highways. Despite this, ADP officials feel that in order to get these EU fund, it requires far too
much paper work and procedures are often very complex and bureaucratic. With regards to the current
economic crisis, port officials believe that this is a good time to develop better communication
between transport actors in order to develop more effective solutions for all parties. This would
ultimately give them all a better economic position when economic conditions improve.
3.3.6 Port of Aalborg
General Information
The Port of Aalborg covers over 3 million sq2 along the inland waterway, the Limfjord. The main
harbour area is located 5 km east of the city centre, with other facilities spread out along other areas.
Two private harbours also operate within the Port’s areas. Aalborg Portland has a large cement factory
in Aalborg and uses its own harbour facilities to import raw materials and export the finished cement.
In total Aalborg Portland handles 3 million tons of goods. The other private harbour belongs to
VattenFall, which owns and manages a large coal electric generating facility on the northern side of the
Limfjord. VattenFall imports over 1 million tons of coal a year to its own port.
Within the port areas, over 6,300 people are employed in over 80 businesses. Aalborg Port is the main
distribution point for all traffic to and from Greenland and as a result many firms who are either based
in or do business with Greenlandic goods, such as Royal Greenland and Royal Arctic Line, have
operations at the port. Another large and growing industry is the production of windmill blades and
other windmill components, with both Siemens and Bladt Industries A/S located in the port. The
production and transport of alternative energy components is something that the management at
Aalborg Port is working hard on to increase activity at the port. The vision is to make Port of Aalborg
into an alternative energy harbour, focusing on wind blades and other energy activities as the sizes of
new windmill blades will make it impossible to drive them on the current motorways. The Port of
Aalborg expects to build an internal road system tailor made for the transportation of windmill blades.
98
Figure 31: Harbour areas belonging to Port of Aalborg
Port of Aalborg 2009
Port Performance
Machines and Containter Goods
other goods
9%
2%
Stone goods
2%
Port of Aalborg Iron, metals
3%
salt, earth, stones
14%
Timber
3%
Goods
3%
Milk products
1%
Corn and feed stuff
13%
Oil
47%
Ores, slag and ash
Sphagnum
2%
1%
Figure 32: Distribution of Goods by Percentage
Hinterland Connections
The Port of Aalborg is located in Jutland’s second largest city. The port’s close proximately to other
ports creates an area of overlapping hinterland. Within an hour’s drive, there are 3 other ports offering
similar services to Aalborg, and just over one hour’s drive south, is the Port of Aarhus, which is the
largest container port in Denmark. As such, a large portion of goods are transported via the Port of
99
Aarhus due to its size, location and availability of feeder routes. As a result, the Port of Aalborg will
have to work more closely with local economic actors and stick with its strategy of being a regional
harbour, catering to regional economic needs.
Development plans and capacity
Within the confines of the Port of Aalborg, there are many different economic activities taking place.
At present, however, there is spare capacity at the port. With a couple of sailings a week to Greenland,
and a few other feeder routes operating on a monthly base, the port has the capacity to handle much
more traffic than it currently does. Despite this, the Port has been successful in attracting businesses to
the port area and is open to the idea of developing more cooperation with other ports and industries in
Northern Jutland. In addition, the Port has recently purchased a stretch of railway from the port area to
the main north-south rail line in Denmark. The port has calculated that it would have to invest a
minimum of 20 million Danish kroner in the rail line to improve service quality. While no trains are
currently running, the Port now has an option of developing rail service and enhancing its hinterland
catchment area. In the past, there were some train services to Herne, Germany and to Høje Taastrup,
just outside Copenhagen.
According to Port officials, by 2015 the port hopes to have twice the amount of activity at the harbour
(compared with 2007 levels) and will focus on container traffic, floating bulk (oil) and transit goods
for Northern Jutland). In addition, 600,000 sq2 of green space have been added to their ports’ master
plan, which can be used for new business activities and future projects. Currently 50% of all revenue
to the port comes from the renting out of buildings and land to various companies.
The Port of Aalborg is also aiming to make its facilities a central hub in the production and transport of
alternative energy components. With both Siemens Wind Power A/S and Bladt Industries A/S located
near and on port property, this strategy holds promise. In addition, the continuing increase in windmill
blade sizes will make transporting windmill blades on Danish highways increasingly dangerous and
unfeasible. The goal for port officials is to increase the shipment of windmills in the near future and to
possible work with another Danish port to ship the windmill blades to customers.
Constraints & Prospects
The Port of Aalborg, like other Northern Jutland ports, faces some challenging times. With no less than
four other ports offering 24 hours fully serviced facilities in Northern Jutland, and in close proximity
to one another, there is a clear overcapacity problem in this part of Denmark. The Port of Aalborg has
conducted their own study about port cooperation in Northern Jutland and found that upwards of €1,3
million could be saved if synergies were made between Northern Jutland ports. The problem,
according to port officials, is that all the ports want to run 24 hours operations in order to remain
attractive to new opportunities. This, however, comes at a cost (staffing, resources, etc.) and this
endeavour can be expensive for smaller ports. Cooperation could bring about financial savings, reduce
overlapping services and allow port operators to focus on more efficient operations.
Other constraints for the Port of Aalborg have to do with the limitation of available routes. Besides the
Greenlandic traffic, there are only a number of limited shipping routes available for customers. More
100
routes will enhance the port’s location attractiveness and improve the likeliness of new business. With
its close prominently to the large Port of Aarhus, port officials would have to tap into the local
economy and make the Port an attractive alternative to road-based transport. Port officials envision the
Port of Aalborg becoming a feeder point to such larger hubs as Aarhus or Gothenburg. A 20,000 TEU
minimum will be needed to create a viable feeder route from Aalborg. The Port of Aalborg does hold
potential and have some experience with such feeder routes, as they once were part of a network from
Hull-Rotterdam-Helsingborg. Also, the increasing trade with the Baltic States and Russia holds
promise for some possible more connections, apart from the current once a monthly sailing to St.
Petersburg’s.
One of the greatest challenges for the Port of Aalborg bestows upon the political establishment, at all
levels of government. The port of Aalborg, being located where it is, in the Limfjord, has to pay for its
own dredging costs. The high costs of dredging the waterway is a high financial burden, which port
officials would like to see the National government pay for, as they do in some other European
countries, such as Germany. In addition, port officials would like to see more supportive Danish
national policies. For example, currently a large portion of goods are trucked down to Hamburg to be
shipped elsewhere. If Denmark is committed to reducing its climate impact by reducing CO2
emissions, then policies that make it more attractive to ship goods to Hamburg and elsewhere via
Danish ports, could be an attractive option. This would also enable the external costs of shipping to be
incorporated into the final shipping costs, thus making more sustainable options viable.
Also, there is no national government support for short sea shipping, modal shift and inland
waterways. In a country like Denmark which is made up of several islands, support for such internal
measures could help with the movement of goods over sea routes versus road routes. Port officials
have looked at possible EU funding programmes, such as Marco Polo, to assist with the start of some
feeder traffic routes. The consensus was, however, that EU funding procedures are far too time
consuming and confusing and thus they did not proceed with their application.
At present there are no trains to or from the harbour, but with the infrastructure available this is one of
the areas where Port of Aalborg sees future development perspectives. There have been some test runs
with trains to Germany, but currently there is no market for trains from Northern Jutland. Also a night
route to Høje Taastrup has been in operation without being able to create a surplus. The lacking
success of rail transport in Denmark is mainly due to the fact that road transport is very effective thus
making it hard to transfer goods to other transport modes in Denmark. The trend right now is that
many trucks drives with a capacity utilisation which is the lowest for many years. At present July
2009, the current capacity utilisation for trucks has been calculated to be 54%, which should be
compared to an utilisation percentage of 70% in 2006 – A strategy to utilise the trucks better could be
to focus more on the opportunities that follows with the use of heavy commercial vehicles, which can
be up to 25.25 metres and where two heavy commercial vehicles can carry the same as three normal
trucks. As a final prospect the respondent from Port of Aalborg mentioned routes to North Atlantic and
Baltic Sea destinations as interesting for the port.
101
The Nordjysk Transport Center (NTC)
The Port of Aalborg is a part of the NTC, which is the main company which owns and manages most
of the facilities and infrastructure in the East Harbour. This special arrangement is based upon the idea
of developing the entire area into a logistics centre, where port functions are only one part of the
activity and function. The NTC specialises in combined and intermodal transport solutions for all
businesses inside and outside of the East Port. The goal of the NTC is to strive to be the main
distribution in northern Jutland and has developed a wide reaching network of routes between
suppliers and businesses. NTC has an area of 420.000m2 and also has truck support and service
facilities such as repair, fuel and food amenities.
3.3.7 The Port of Esbjerg
General Information
The Port of Esbjerg is located in one of Denmark’s newest towns on the south west coast of Jutland.
Today, the Port goes under the name “Gateway Scandinavian” which reflects its vision to be the
entrance port to Scandinavia. With over 3.5 million sqm2 of space and extensive facilities for both RoRo and Lo-Lo, the port has grown rapidly over the past several decades. Today the port has direct
railway access and will soon have direct access to the E20 motorway, after a 4 km extension of the
E20 motorway is completed. The discovery of oil and gas off the coast of Denmark in the 1970s
cemented the Ports position as the prominent port which services the North Sea oil and gas industry in
Denmark. Over 8,000 people are employed at various companies at the port and the yearly turnover
for the port operations is over €1,3 billion.
Figure 33: Port of Esbjerg
102
Port Performance
The current capacity and throughput of the Port of Esbjerg are given below. 2008 numbers relieve an 18% drop in activity, compared with 2007. The only activity to see an increase in growth was the in
the area of “other goods” which are mainly related to wind energy components, such as wind mill
blades, which saw an increase of 28% from 2007 levels.
Infrastructure at Port of Esbjerg:
Total land area
Rented areas
Developed areas
Infrastructure
Areas used by the Port itself
Non-developed areas
3.5 million m2
1,570,450 m2
365,499 m2
1,137,965 m2
36,858 m2
376,913 m2
10 km of quays
Fishing Harbour: 4.5 km (4.4 m to 7.5 m depths)
Activities at the Port of Esbjerg (1,000 tons)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2007
2008
Figure 34: Port Activities in Tons, Port of Esbjerg
On the 17th of March, 2009, Cobelfret Ferries NV started a new sailing between Esbjerg and
Zeebrugge, sailing once a week. This is in addition to the existing sailing between the two ports. The
24 hour crossing will double the capacity of this route and allow goods from Esbjerg to be further sent
to the continent or to Ireland and England, where several ports have daily connections to Zeebrugge.
In addition to the new MoS route to the Port of Zeebrugge, a new Ro-Ro vessel and service has also
been introduced to Esbjerg by Sea-Cargo in February 2009. Sea-Cargo now offers a twice weekly
sailing to Amsterdam, and the new vessel will furthermore allow for increased capacity on routes from
Esbjerg and the west coasts of Norway.
103
Hinterland Connections
The Port of Esbjerg sees it hinterland along southern Denmark, over the islands of Funen and Zealand
and into Sweden. It wants to be used as a hub for goods being transported to the Øresund Region, on
Zealand and into Southern Sweden. There are several short sea shipping routes already in operation at
the port. These include routes to the Faroe Islands, Amsterdam and Zeebrugge. In addition, the port
has a passenger ferry route to Harwich, England (RO-RO) and a ferry service to the popular Danish
vacation island of Fanø.
Figure 35: The Hinterland to the Port of Esbjerg (Port of Esbjerg 2009)
Constraints
With several SSS routes up and running and a MoS funding received (see 4.3.13), the Port of Esbjerg
has proven that it can be a candidate for EU funding. Despite this, port officials still must work hard to
maintain these key SSS links as competition remains intense from ports. As such, there are few
constraints for developing new MoS routes from the Port of Esbjerg.
There are, however, some challenges that lie ahead for the Port of Esbjerg. The latest challenges have
been brought on with the financial crisis where shippers and transporters have come under pressure as
fewer goods are being moved due to an overall economic slowdown. Officials believe that in 2-3 years
time, goods moving through the port will be back to 2007 levels. Port officials also stress that
Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) can be very complex and as a result projects can take 4-6
years to get final approval. This could slow down needed projects which would otherwise bring
benefits to shifting cargo off roads and onto sea-based routes. In addition, environmental concerns are
always a challenge for port operations.
As with the other port authorities interviewed, the Port of Esbjerg believes that writing EU programme
applications for funding is extremely difficult and time consuming. While their attempt has been
successful, this issue will have to be addressed if more MoS funding is to be used to help port
authorities get new MoS services.
104
Figure 36: Shipping windmills from the Port of Esbjerg,
“Hav & Kaj” magazine, April 2009
Prospects
Having the distinction of being the first Port in Europe to get approval for MoS funding has been a
major boost to the Esbjerg region. As a result, many people in the industry will be closely watching
what happens at the port and the direct results of the MoS funding. This additional attention will make
the port and its activities more visible to other actors in the transport industry. This could result in
more business and new projects for the port. The fact that they have already won approval for one
project, will give officials more tools and understanding into how to possible get approval for new
additional projects. This could only serve to help the port’s chance in the future. In addition to this
project experience, the port also employ’s a person with a Master’s degree in intermodal transport who
works closely with the port businesses, universities and other research institutes. This commitment to
provide the best possible solutions for transport is seen as a positive development for successful port
activities.
In addition to the seaside activities, the Port is currently working on improving its rail facilities and
hopes to have a shuttle train service running between the port and the Copenhagen region. In addition,
there has been additional development plans in the works with Siemens Wind Power A/S who are
renting out over 200,000 m2 of port space for the shipping and storage of windmill components. The
port now has three special cranes for handling windmill blades and a new wharf to be used exclusively
by the wind energy sector. Officials hope that the fast developing wind energy sector holds much
promise for the port and region of Esbjerg.
105
3.3.8 Port of Hirtshals
General Information
The port of Hirtshals was first opened 90 years ago in 1929 and was original only a fishing port. In
2001, the municipality of Hirtshals took over control of the port and it is now run as a self-governing
port. The North Sea Terminal is the Port’s freight terminal with the facilities to handle both container
and Ro/Ro traffic. About 60% of Port’s business is generated from traffic and cargo which is equal to
approximately 150,000 trucks a year. The port also has extensive facilities for handling, processing
and storage of fish and this represents about 20% of business (see figure below). The Port of Hirtshals
has an annual turnover of the port on approximately €8 million and sees approximately 1.4 million
tons of goods and €92 million worth of fish pass through its facilities.
Port of Hirtshals Rent
13%
Traffic
61%
Other
7%
Fisheries
19%
Figure 37: Revenue from various activities at the port
Today, the largest activity at the port
comes from four daily ferry sailings. There
are two daily sailings to Kristiansand &
two to Larvik in Norway on Color Lines.
There are also several sailings a week to
Bergen and Stavanger on Fjord Line
ferries. There are also monthly freight
sailings to St. Petersburg in the summer
months. Port officials have worked
extensively over the years to increase its
communication and marketing budget and
they are active in making its presents
known at events such as the annual
Figure 38: Hirtshals Transport Center (HTC)
transport fair in Munich Germany. These
initiatives are important for smaller ports,
such as the Port of Hirtshals. At the end of
2008 a new transport centre opened up,
Hirtshals Transport Center (HTC), which aims to provide truckers and motorists with services such as
food, bathing facilities, tax offices and sleeping facilities for drivers. HTC is located 1 km south of the
106
Port and is located at the start/end of Highway E39.
Port
performance
Water Depth: 9.5 meters (can be increased to 11 metres)
Quay Length: 4.5 km
Port Land Area: 750,000 m2
Port Water Area: 465,000 m2
Ice Factories: 3
Ro/Ro ramps: 3
Slipways: 2
Floating dock: 1 (covered)
Cold Storage capacity: 130,000 m2
Chilled Storage Capacity: 19,000 m2
Mobile Harbour Crane: 100 tones capacity
Figure 39: Rear view from the Color Line ferry from Larvik to Hirtshals
107
Figure 40: Overview Map of Port of Hirtshals
Hinterland Connections
With the building of the Transport and Logistics Centre in Hirtshals all trucks arriving from Norway
(because it is outside EU) has to be custom cleared. This happens at Hirtshals Transport Centre. One of
the current projects in the works will be to work on connecting the rail line to the port and build upon
rail traffic. The Danish State has already agreed to support this initiative with €1,3 million
infrastructure funds, while the Port would have to put in an additional €2 million. The possibility of a
train route down to Duisburg, Germany could already be realised by 2012. While no EU funding has
yet been received at Hirtshals, port officials are open for the idea of receiving assistance for expanding
MoS activities and are looking for a possible connection with a larger port in the North Sea Region.
108
Figure 41: Fishing boats at Port of Hirtshals
Development Plans
Officials at the Port of Hirtshals are continually developing their business plan to reflect the changing
economic conditions. Since 2000, there has been a steady increase in both goods and trucks passing
through the Port (see Figure 42 below). The Port sees itself as an important hub for consolidating
goods and as a hub for the transport of goods to and from Norway. They hope to build upon the
successful Norwegian routes with possible routes to and from the Baltic States and with a connection
to a port on mainland Europe.
Figure 42: Goods per 1000 tons – 2007 Yearly Report, Port of Hirtshals
109
Figure 43: Trucks passing through port, 1000s, Port of Hirtshals
Some potential growth areas for the Port of Hirtshals, according to Port officials, are traffic to the East,
namely the Baltic States, as well as possible opportunities for becoming involved with routes between
Hamburg and Oslo. With approximately 21 sailings a week between Hamburg and Oslo, the Port of
Hirtshals sees some potential here. Some research conducted by the University of Southern Denmark,
for the Port of Hirtshals, has shown some possible new routes. In one study, it was shown that it was
cheaper to send goods via the Port of Hirtshals from mid and north Jutland to Paris then to drive the
goods all the way by truck. Savings were calculated against road only transport based on such things
as congestion, the German road tax (Maut), rest times needed for drivers, etc. This one example
demonstrates that there could be potential for new routes from northern Jutland, although whether or
not there is a large enough demand for such services remains to be answered.
Constraints
The current financial crisis has not yet had a major impact on the Port’s operations. Port officials see
the crises as an opportunity to make their organisation more efficient and to continue to look for new
opportunities as to be ready when the global economy improves. As such, they are aware that they
cannot become complacent and must remain competitive. Officials would like to see the Danish
government become more active in support infrastructure investments to and from harbour areas.
Prospects
In general, there is little cooperation with other ports and the Port of Hirtshals. There have, however,
been talks about making Northern Jutland a logistics centre for all of Scandinavia. The idea would be
to work with the three largest ports, Port of Hirtshals, Port of Frederikshavn, and possible the Port of
Aalborg. Two smaller ports could also be included, the Port of Skagen and the Port of Seaby. While no
former discussions have been made, there is a growing concern that after the Fehmern Belt Bridge is
completed, linking Germany with Zealand, traffic could bypass Northern Jutland and go to Sweden
and Norway via the Copenhagen area.
According to port officials, in order for cooperation with other ports to take place, there must be some
money savings in it for the port. It must be a “win-win” situation for both partners before a partnership
110
can be created. As such, it is hard for port officials to see huge benefits for working with others ports,
although the possibilities for working together on certain projects could be feasibility. For example,
Port of Hirtshals would like to have the option of moving goods between their harbour and the Port of
Frederikshavn. Interestingly enough, Port of Hirtshals has no contact to the Norwegian Port of Larvik
and Port of Kristiansand, both of which are directly connected to Hirtshals. Nearly all contact is made
via the ferry operators, in this case ColorLine, and they at present cannot see how establishing contact
with the Norwegian would improve their business. Some sharing of knowledge or working together on
some projects to improve the service and operations might be a possible option and should be further
studied. Officials at the Port of Hirtshals believe that EU subsides should be used to get new routes
going and could assist with new projects, such as with their ambitions for a new rail connection. They
believe any new rail route that would start would run with a deficit during the first 6 to 12 months and
this is why subsidies are often the key factor in allowing such projects to become reality.
3.3.9 Port of Aarhus
General Information
The Port of Aarhus is Denmark’s largest container port which handles 900,000 TEUs a year, equal to
65% of all containers in Denmark. The municipality of Aarhus owns the port but it is run as an
independent entity. There are approximately 150 private companies on the port who employ 4,000
people. The port handles approximately 8,000 ships a year with over 5 million tonnes of goods. In
addition, the port handles 2 million tonnes of oil and 3 million tonnes of bulk goods such as coal and
animal foodstuffs.
Port Performance
There are several terminals at the Port of Aarhus to handle a variety of goods. Two terminal operators
run the terminals, APM Terminals and Cargo Service. The terminal facilities include, see box below:
Quays: 9 kms
Water Depths: up to 14 meters
Railway: Yes, up to quays
EU Border Control: Yes
Cranes for all types of cargo:
• 3 Post-Panamax container cranes
• 5 Panamax container cranes
• 2 bulk cranes
• 9 quay cranes
111
Table 10: Port of Aarhus Statistics, 2000 to 2008
There are several Ro/Ro ferries currently in route to and from the Port of Aarhus. Ferries depart to
destinations in Finland, Sweden and Lithuania. In addition to this there are regular crossing to Zealand
(Odden and Kalundborg), which take between 65 minutes and 2h 30 minutes, depending on the ferry
in operation.
Development Plans
The Port of Aarhus is currently half-way through a two billion Danish kroner, 25 year plan to double
the size of the port. When complete in 2022, the port area will be 360 hectares and 20 million tonnes
of goods will be able to be handled at port facilities. In addition, depths along the quays will be
increased to 15.5 meters from the present 13.5 meters. Also, there is a new €200 million tunnel
currently under construction which will directly connect the port area to the E49 motorway. This
tunnel will assist with reducing congestion problems and local environmental damage caused by the
large amount of traffic entering and leaving the harbour.
112
Figure 44: Overview Map of Port of Aarhus
The Port of Aarhus has ambitions of becoming one of the most important Baltic Sea hubs. Together
with the Port of Gothenburg, Sweden, port officials are working on plans to strengthen business with
several Baltic Sea countries and are involved with an initiative called “Motorway of the Baltic Sea.”
Therefore Port of Aarhus and Port of Gothenburg together with Port of Riga have submitted an
application for the 2009 European TEN-T call. The application concerns infrastructure works in the
three ports hinterland, e.g. improved rail access connections to the Port of Gothenburg.
Hinterland Connections
The sheer size of the Port of Aarhus and the numerous routes makes the port an attractive transport
destination for business. As a result, the port’s hinterland is extensive and far reaching, stretching out
over most of Jutland. The current number of sailing routes from the Far East to the Baltic’s is
unmatched by any other port in Denmark.
113
Assessment of major constraints and prospects
The current expansion of the harbour and coming tunnel connection to the motorway will provide the
port with more space while reducing congestion at the same time. The aim for port officials is to retain
the Port of Aarhus as the largest container port in Denmark. While the above mentioned initiatives are
welcomed to facilitate the movements of goods, the Port of Aarhus is still limited with expansion
capabilities due to its location in the city centre of Aarhus. The only way to expand is to build
outwards into the sea, which can become very costly. As a result, in the next 10 to 20 years, new
initiatives will have to be explored. This could be in the form of partnerships with other harbours or an
alright merger, such as seen already with the ports of Fredericia, Nyborg and Middelfart into ADP and
the ports of Copenhagen and Malmo into CMP.
Port officials are currently working on a partnership with the Port of Gothenburg, Sweden and recently
won MOS support to develop this cooperation further. The idea is to make the Port of Aarhus and
Ports of Gothenburg the main hub for goods to and from the Baltic Sea (see Figure 46 below). While it
is too early to discuss the outcome of such a partnership in this report, it is the hope that this kind of
partnership would lead to greater efficiencies and benefits for the shipping and transport industry.
Figure 45: Motorways of the Baltic Sea
114
3.3.10 Port of Frederikshavn
General Information
The Port of Frederikshavn is a medium sized port in Northern Jutland. The port is an important ferry
port with daily crossings to Gothenburg, Sweden and Oslo, Norway. In addition, there are daily
sailings to the Danish islands of Laesoe and Hirsholmene. The port covers an area of 1.7 million sq m2
and is directly connected to the main Danish rail line and Motorway E45.
The ferry services at the port sees 5,200 ferry calls with over 3 million passengers, 600,000 passenger
cars, 210,000 trucks and 45,000 busses, equalling approximately 3 million tonnes. In addition to the
ferry services, the port handles some general cargo, such as crushed stone, oil, chemicals and recycled
material. In recent years the fishing activity at the port has been dramatically reduced, however, there
remains some fishing boats and a fish market.
There are also extensive ship repair and servicing facilities at the port. There are two floating docks
and two dry docks which have the capacity to accept ships up to 215 meters and up to 120 tons.
Port performance
Port areas
Ferry harbour: 86,900 m2
Freight harbour: 91,800 m2
Outer harbour: 150,100 m2
Fishing harbour: 209,000 m2
Total port area: 1,708,500 m2
Length of quays, including shipyards
8 m water depth: 1,130 m
7 m water depth: 2,475 m
>7 m water depth: 2,235 m
Docking facilities
Ferry berths: 8
Dry docks: 2
Floating docks: 2
Slipways: 4
Warehousing: 2000 m2 unheated
Hinterland connections
The port also has direct connections to the Danish and European railway system with one railway ferry
berth. As with other Northern Jutland ports, the Port of Frederikshavn’s close proximately creates an
environment of fierce competition with nearby ports. Despite this, Stena Line has recently added an
additional sailing on its Frederikshavn-Gothenburg route.
115
Constraints & Prospects
Port officials have been attempting to diversify the port against the heavy reliance of ferry activities
and the decline of the number of fishing vessels using the port. To date, there have been significant
increases in the bulk goods handled at the port. Road construction material and the export of recycled
material have been dominant. Turnover of these goods has increased 75% from 2000 to 2005. The
addition of a new sailing from Frederikshavn to Gothenburg will also aid in making the port an
attractive departure point for goods traffic.
In order to improve the efficiency of the port, port officials have established a network, the Maritime
Network, which aims to facilitate better cooperation amongst all actors using the port. Over 40
companies belong to this network and they range from ship repairs companies to other maritime
services companies. The idea is that through this group, all actors can remain more competitive and
supportive of one another. In addition it provides potential customers with more synergies and
strengthens the role of the local economy in the operations of the port. This cluster development is
further explored in another StratMoS Report, WPC-3 Report: Developing MoS Hubs.
Figure 46: Map of Port of Frederikshavn
116
3.3.11 CMP (Copenhagen & Malmö Port)
The Port of Copenhagen-Malmö (CPM) was founded in 2001 with the merges of ports in Copenhagen,
Denmark and Malmö, Sweden. The distance between the two ports is 26 kilometres.
The initiative behind the merger was to create a more coherent transport hub in the Øresund region
and to take advantage of the proximately of the ports in bringing synergies and cost savings to port
operations.
Introduction to CMP
Copenhagen Malmö Port AB is a Danish-Swedish joint venture with both public and private
shareholders. CMP is a Swedish-registered limited liability company, where 50% is owned by the
City of Copenhagen and the Danish State, and the other 50% is owned by the City of Malmö and
private investors. The chart below depicts the ownerships structure and shareholders of CMP.
Figure 47: CMP ownership structure
CMP is the largest port in the Øresund Region and services the large Danish-Swedish market in
eastern Denmark and southern Sweden. It operates quays and terminals on both sides of the Øresund
and with the opening of the Øresund Bridge in 2000, both ports are easily accessible by road and rail.
The idea behind the merger was to create a dynamic and ultra-modern port, capable of offering its
customers efficient transport service. CMP processes all kinds of cargo from cars to oil to dry bulk and
it operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Since it was founded in 2001, CMP has grown into the
largest Nordic automobile port, serving as a hub for the distribution of cars to the whole of the Nordic
Region. CMP is also an important cruise destination where over 300 ships a year make a call in the
city. A major 500 million Swedish kroner (SEK) investment will see a new cruise berth opening in
2012.
Port performance
There are 460 employees directly employed by the port who aid with the over 7,800 vessels calling at
the port each. The port sees a yearly turnover of approximately 750 million SEK. Port activities and
volumes are depicted in the below chart, Figure 48.
117
Figure 48 : Port Activities in Tons, CMP
The goal for CMP officials is to develop the port into a central hub for transport and logistics in
Scandinavia. They hope to take advantage of the port’s location, with new port facilities and its close
proximity to motorways, Copenhagen Airport and the Øresund Bridge linking Denmark and Sweden.
The vast majority of goods imported into Sjaelland arrive by sea and many of the goods exported from
the south of Sweden also pass through CMP.
Selected key figures:
Production area of approx 2 million m2
Development area of approx 3 million
m2
Quay length: 16.5 km
Railway tracks: 36 km
10 ferry and RO/RO berths
Warehouse: 200,000 m2
Two harbours, one with free port
status
2
modern
container
terminals:
250,000 m2
4 container gantry cranes and 1
mobile crane
10 rail-mounted cranes
4 car terminals with pre-delivery
inspection facilities (PDI)
Bulk terminals, the largest of which
handles up to 12,000 tonnes a day
Transhipment of cargo to Panamax
vessels
Tank capacity: 2 million m3
CMP has the honour of being the biggest automobile
port in Scandinavia. The port handles over more than
350,000 new cars a year, using six car terminals which
cover an area of 800,000 m2. In addition to cars, oil is
also an important good for the port. There are two
terminals and two deep berths for the storage and
shipment of oil.
There are several sailings a day to Germany, several
sailings a week to Poland and the Baltic States, the
three most important markets for the port.
Development plans
There are several major developments currently
underway at CMP. On May 8, 2009, the Mayor of
Malmö broke ground for a new major port facility for
Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP) in Norra Hamnen.
The SEK 845 million project included three new
terminals and greatly expanded the size and capacity of
the port and is expected to be in operation in mid-2011.
The intention of the project is to create efficient
conditions for the transfer of goods between the
118
different forms of transport: ships, trucks and trains – aiming to operate as logistic centre. The joint
project involves the land owners, the City of Malmö, and CMP, the port operators. CMP covers
approximately 430,000 m2 in Norra Hamnen and the City of Malmö is planning on building a 0,75
million m2 area for transport and distribution companies.
The new combi-terminal will move more freight to the railways and port officials aim to have at least
20% of all freight moved on the rails to and from Norra Hamnen. The relocation of the terminal will
also free up space for ferries and cruise ships in Nyhamnen, allowing up to four cruise ships to dock
there at once. There will also be a new 18 hectares and 650 metres of quay added at Prøvestenen, the
bulk area of the port.
Ro-ro traffic at CMP rose by 7% from 2007 to 2008 on the four current routes; Malmö–Travemünde
(Nordö-Link), Copenhagen–Oslo (DFDS), Copenhagen–Klaipeda (DFDS) and Copenhagen–
Swinoujscie (Polferries).
Constraints & Prospects
CMP is undergoing the most ambitious and costly renovation and expansion plan seen in
Denmark/Sweden today. Port officials hope to place CMP at the forefront of technology and ability to
remain competitive in the market. With a diverse network of routes and products, combined with an
optimal location – near large markets and good infrastructure links, the port has raised the bar for its
competitors. In addition, the future construction of the Fehmarn Belt Bridge between Germany and the
Danish island of Sjaelland, where Copenhagen is located has now been approved. This bridge could be
a boon to the CMP as it could bring more traffic and business to the port. It could, however, also make
road transport more time efficient and cheaper, and become counter-productive to facilitating more
goods transport by sea. The bridge will begin construction in 2011 and is expected to be completed in
2018.
Figure 49 : Proposed Fehmarn Belt Bridge
119
Like most other ports around Europe, CMP has experienced a reduction in demand for its services.
Cargo such as cars and other goods, especially from the East have seen reduced volumes. This has
already led to the reduction of one sailing between CMP and Klaipeda by 25% and possibly more
route reductions in the future.
3.3.12 Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to
port cooperation within the region/port area
The structured interviews have shown that many of the consulted ports are keen on developing
enhanced cooperation with other ports. Despite this, only a few ports have succeeded in establishing
efficient and well functioning cooperation between various ports while there also remains some doubt
as to the benefits of port cooperation. In Denmark the two best examples of cooperating ports are ADP
and CMP.
When ADP was formed in 2000 it was a new chapter and direction in Danish port development. A
large regional port merged with a smaller port (Nyborg) and later with another smaller port
(Middlefart) to form a larger port. There were clear benefits in this strategy. For both Terminal Nyborg
and Terminal Middelfart, they now had access to more facilities and know-how with port planning that
had been successfully developed in Fredericia over the years. The merger also allowed each of the
ports to focus on key competencies and not provide similar competing services. Today Nyborg is being
developed to service the windmill industry and Middelfart is aimed more at general cargo and bulk
goods. This select specialisation is of particular importance for smaller ports that often try and provide
too many services which may not be economically feasible in the long run. For Terminal Fredericia,
the main port, having the space and facilities of the other two ports, allows it to be more flexible in its
business approach. It also reduces its risk, for example, in the event of an accident, goods and
personnel can be redirected to one of the other ports.
Whereas the shareholders ADP are the three municipalities where the ports are located, CopenhagenMalmö Port (CMP) also has the addition of private investors. This could help explain the huge
investment currently being implemented in CMP today. Like ADP, CMP is another example of how
port operations can merge for the benefit of all. The merger of Copenhagen’s Port with Malmö’s into
CMP was partly enabled by the Øresund Bridge, which made both rail and road connection to the
ports easy and convenient. Unlike with ADP, where one large and two small ports merged,
Copenhagen and Malmö were individually already large ports, however, they lay in different
countries.
To date, there appears to be no major hindrance for having a port operator in charge of two ports in
two countries. There are, however, some areas which could be improved. For example, Sweden and
Denmark have two different emission control programs in place and having one coordinated
controlling authority could better assist in environmental management of the Øresund area. Improving
the environmental performance of the ports is necessary, especially when truck traffic in Copenhagen
has been estimated to be responsible for up to 50% of particle emission in the city (Danish Ministry of
the Environment 2000). With large number of trucks entering and leaving the ports, a coordinated
approach to reduce pollution would be a positive development for reducing transport’s impact on the
environment. Joint efforts could also be extended for planning purposes, as currently officials have to
120
deal with two separate planning laws.
3.3.13 Description of MoS initiatives within the region
The below mentioned projects have had Danish partners involved:
In 2005, a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) project called “Master Plan Studies for the
Development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea” was chosen as the first MoS funded project. One of
the work packages in this project looked at the possibilities of the Port of Aarhus and Port of
Gothenburg becoming a North Sea Baltic Hub (NSBHub). The study not only looked at what factors
but how these ports can become more efficient transhipment hubs for the Baltic Sea Region. The
project ran from July 2005 to June 2007 and had a budget of approximately EUR 2.8 million budget.
In 2006 another TEN-T support project was undertaken called, Master Plan Studies for Development
of the “Baltic Sea Information Motorway” (BASIES). The project involved all Baltic Sea countries
and had a budge of Euro 3.7 million. The main objective is to create a new type of logistics and
information (Information Motorways) that will speed up concrete implementations of new systems
with less investment costs. These new systems will be crucial and essential tools to overcome the
different spatial, logistics and administration problems addressed. These actions will lead to more
effective sea routes, corridors and maritime logistics. By directly including the technological aspects in
the Motorways of the Sea concept, the new approach will contribute to the establishment and
development of an integrated maritime and land based infrastructure across the Baltic Sea.
In 2007, the municipality of Aarhus won support for carrying out preparatory studies on a tunnel to
connect the Port of Aarhus to the main European motorway. The project, entitled, “The Marselis
Tunnel Project – Aarhus, Denmark” was supported to the tune of Euro 4.18 million.
In 2008 the EU Commissions awarded a TEN-T support to the Port of Esbjerg and the Danish Road
Directorate. The project entitled “Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge” with EURO 5,3
million support under the Motorways of the Sea Programme, the first port to be awarded such funding.
Half of the money will be used to co-finance the extension of the E20 motorway, 4 kilometres, right
into the port area, while the remaining half will be used to develop port infrastructure in both Esbjerg
and in the Port of Zeebrugge, the other project partner. The 4 km extension is part financed by TEN-T
funding 20% and 80 % from the Danish road Directorate (state aid).
The partnership between Port of Esbjerg and Zeebrugge began at conferences and meetings where the
two port authorities wished to build upon the success of its already once a week sailing between the
ports. While Zeebrugge is already considered a fairly large harbour, Port of Esbjerg needed some
additional assistance with infrastructure funding if it were to handle more traffic. The new
infrastructure being implemented now at the port will make operations at the port more efficient and
attractive for businesses to use sea shipping services. It is estimated that transport cost savings of up to
40% can be achieved, while Co2 emissions can be reduced by 58% - compared to road based
transport.
121
Figure 50: New MoS Route, Esbjerg - Zeebrugge
Under the 2nd TEN-T MoS call, which ended on May 15th 2009, the Ports of Aarhus and Gothenburg,
along with the Port of Riga have submitted a proposal. The proposal aims at strengthening each ports
hinterland connection as well as improving rail connections to the Port of Gothenburg. A final
decision on the success of this proposal should be made in the autumn of 2009.
3.3.14 Positive and negative operation experiences
complementary ports and MoS experiences
in
relation
to
The experiences with Motorways of the Sea solutions in Denmark are very new and limited. The new
Esbjerg – Zeebrugge has only recently started and improvements in each of the ports infrastructure are
still ongoing and the Aarhus-Gothenburg-Riga MoS proposal is still under the assessment phases.
There is therefore little information available to make a meaningful assessment of the positive and
negative experiences. Instead we refer to the survey conducted under StratMoS Work Package B,
where actors and applicants of the first two application rounds have been asked to fill out
questionnaires focusing on their experiences. The WP B study identifies opportunities for
improvement and disseminates good practice solutions for future MoS funding applicants.
122
3.3.15 Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and
establishment of MoS routes during the next 10‐15 years in the
region/ port
As previously discussed, ports located in Northern Jutland potentially have possibilities of establishing
synergies amongst them. In the personal interviews with ports in the area, the idea of making the entire
region a transport hub for Scandinavia was mentioned. There is clearly the infrastructural backbone in
place at each of the ports to support higher levels of goods and intermodal transport. What is missing
is perhaps the political will and vision to make use of benefits from cooperation. The examples of ADP
and CMP could be used as models for such cooperation and potential merger.
In the near future, some ports did express that they were willing and open to working on specific
projects with other ports, if both partners would gain from the cooperation. The Port of Hirtshals was
particularly keen on developing stronger ties with the Port of Frederikshavn. The Port of Aalborg was
open to cooperation with other Northern Jutland ports, but also expressed interest in working with the
larger Port of Aarhus. If congestion problems prevail at the Port of Aarhus, the port could benefits with
working with other ports to reduce the losses that arise when ports become congested. While not
studied in this report, the Port of Grenaa, located 65 km east of Aarhus, has extensive facilities and
space which could complement activities at Aarhus. The addition of a new motorway under
construction, linking the E45 to Grenaa, and the existence of one ferry route to Sweden, serve to make
the Port of Grenaa a very feasible port for cooperation and future MoS services.
Finally, it is no secret that CMP would also like to either acquire or expand cooperation with other
ports. The success of its merger has been extensively documented as a good case example for
cooperation where both ports win. Building new relationship with Høje Taastrup Transport Centre, the
Port of Køge, just south of Copenhagen and other nearby ports could be plausible in the near future.
In addition to above, CMP officials will soon have to plan for the opening up of the Fehmarn Belt
Link, which is due to open in 2018. This new link will have significant impacts on travel and transport
patterns in the region. This new bridge and rail link will allow for faster and easier travel between
Germany, Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia. At the same time, however, it will also bring more
traffic and congestion, especially to Copenhagen and Malmö, and it will bring increased benefits to
road transport over sea transport. As such, ports will actively have to strategically plan how the new
link will impact their business plans but also they will have to plan how best to take advantage of this
new route.
3.3.16 Cooperation
possibilities
involving
connections, road deliveries, etc.
feeder
ships,
railway
Rail
New or improved rail links are on the agenda of many ports studied. The Port of Fredericia wants to
boost the number of rail carts that pass through its facilities and they are looking at ways to cooperate
further with the combi-terminal in the Taulov Transport Centre. As the motorway network in this part
of Denmark is known for congestion problems, it would be beneficial to bring in and out more goods
via the railway. The port of Hirtshals is also planning on directly connecting the port to the rail
123
network and they have secured some funding assistance from the national government for this project.
The Port of Aalborg has recently taken ownership of a stretch of railway that connects the harbour to
the main north-south rail line. The idea would be to have some shuttle trains running from the port.
While no concrete plans are yet developed, the feasibility of rail service to the port area should be
explored.
Feeder Routes
While no Danish port has visions of becoming a mega-hub, they all wish to become important feeder
hubs, with connections to larger ports in other European countries. There are discussions of possibly
some new feeder routes to the Baltic States, where the Port of Aarhus has taken the most iniatives of
this, in their desire to become “the Nordic Hub” for the Baltics. The current economic downturn will
most likely put most of these ports’ plans on hold in the near future, but when economic conditions
improve, new routes may be realised.
3.3.17 Description of corridor development procedures with relation to
complementary ports.
The development of corridors in Denmark has been instrumental in linking the peripheral regions to
the main business and production centres, it has facilitated ferry services and trade links between
regions within Denmark, the EU and beyond. In the process, ports have come to play a much larger
role in the economic development of the regions in which they are located in.
The Port of Esbjerg, once a small fishing port, is now a large port with numerous feeder routes and has
a frequently used passenger and Ro-Ro ferry service to Harwich, England. The port has also become
the centre for the oil and gas industry in Denmark which has resulted in several spin off benefits to the
region. These developments were made possible with the extension of the E20 motorway to Esbjerg.
The final leg of this motorway will be completed when the last remaining four kilometres is finished
in the next two year. This will provide the port with direct motorway access and assist with better
integrating the port with the combi-terminal at the Taulov Transport Centre. To further enhance the
Port of Esbjerg, improved railway access will allow the port the option of improving and proving more
MoS services.
The extension of the E45 motorway to Frederikshavn has also positioned the Port of Frederikshavn as
an important entrance and exit point for cargo and people. This corridor development is thus extended
to Gothenburg and further onto Stockholm in Sweden, providing an efficient and smooth transport
route. The importance of the Port of Hirtshals was boosted immensely when the new motorway, E39,
was completed. The E39 starts just north of Aalborg and continues up to Hirtshals and further on into
Norway from Kristiansand to Trondheim. The motorway allowed the once fishing port to become an
important centre along the heavily used route between Norway and Denmark.
On the other side of Denmark, the completion of the Fehmarn Belt Link will strengthen trade and
transport between east Denmark and northern Germany, providing a seamless transport connection to
124
Scandinavia. It will also strengthen the peripheral region of Lolland-Falster and northern Germany and
could bring economic benefits to these regions, as seen with the benefits brought to the Esbjerg,
Hirtshals and Frederikshavn regions.
Table 11: Overview of Select Danish Ports and the Main Services offered
1000t (2008)
4
RoRo and
ferry
transport
MoS
Activities
Amount
Passenger
ferries
Foodstuffs
and
animal
Crude
materials
General
cargo/ RoRo
Offshore
wind
Cellulose/
wood
Yes ()
No (–)
Passengers
1000 (2008)
Ferries/
cruiser
Petroleum
products
automobiles
Main Services Offered
Containers
Port
Port of Aalborg 
-

-





-
-
-
-
Port of
Hirtshals
-


-



-


1,8
-
1,4
Port of Esbjerg



-
-



-

1,84
Yes
1,6
ADP A/S
(Fredericia)
Port of
Frederikshavn

-

-





-
-
-
<0,5
-


-
-


-


2,5
-
3
Port of Aarhus



-



-


4,9
Yes
12,1
CopenhagenMalmo Port







-


4
-
18
125
3.4 Scotland
3.4.1 Introduction
The StratMoS project is principally concerned with the North Sea Basin and the routes connecting to
other areas notably to the North. Domestically the market for the North Sea (East Coast Scotland)
ports from the English Border to the Far North looks to the East and North while the Scottish West
Coast ports look to the Islands and Ireland etc. International Gateways and deep water ports are shown
on the map in Figure 51. In this report we consider mainly the area covered by those East Coast
Scotland ports that have participated in the study: Peterhead, Aberdeen, Montrose, and Forth Ports plc
(including Port of Dundee). These ports statistically cover all of the most significant East Coast ports
for traffics excluding the bulk fuel market.
3.4.2 Statistics on the Scottish Region
Data is published annually in “Scottish Transport Statistics”. Edition number 27 is the current version
which was published at the end of 2008 and provides data for the 10 years up to and including 2007.
This
data
is
available
free
of
charge
online
at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/0
Chapter 10 from that document is copied in part and lists of the key tables and their hyperlinks are
provided thereafter in Appendix G.
It should be noted that the inclusion of bulk oil is a major factor in the port total tonnages. A separate
calculation using these figures for the Scottish East Coast ports (i.e.: the North Sea basin) shows:





the collection of ports operated by Forth Ports plc on the Forth estuary have foreign and
domestic port tonnage for 2007 excluding bulk fuels of 3,943 thousand tonnes for 2007;
Aberdeen has 3,644 thousand tonnes for the same category;
Peterhead at 647 thousand tonnes;
Dundee at 507 thousand tonnes; and
the other East and Northern Isles ports each have less than 200.
126
Taken from the figures in the Scottish Transport Statistics a comparison of tonnes lifted in Scotland by
mode can be made and is shown in Figure 51:
Freight Lifted in Scotland 1974 to 2008
200
180
160
Million Tonnes
140
Road
Coastal shipping
coastal shipping (continued)
Inland waterway
Rail
120
100
80
60
40
20
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
84
19
86
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
0
Figure 51: Freight Lifted in Scotland 1974 to 2008
Note the figures in the above graph are not continuous due to changes in the statistic compilation
which is further explained in Appendix G.
3.4.3 Port Industry Structure
There are three types of port ownership in Scotland; Trust, Municipal and Private. All ports operate on
a commercial basis independently from government and receive almost no public funding or
assistance.
A Trust Port is an independent statutory body governed by its own local legislation and controlled by
an independent board. Any profits that Trust ports make are re-invested into the port. All the main
Scottish ports associated with the StartMoS project are Trust Ports. This included the three main ports
in the Aberdeen City and Shire area – Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and Peterhead. In the far north Scrabster
is also a Trust port.
Privatised ports are privately owned companies and can often be part of a larger port group – Forth
Ports plc owns and operates five ports on the Firth of Forth – Leith, Grangemouth, Methil, Burntisland
and Rosyth. It also operates the Port of Dundee and has other (and larger) ports elsewhere in the UK.
Municipal ports are run by local authorities and report to one or more elected Councillors. Municipal
ports in Scotland include those in Orkney and Shetland.
127
Other than in the grouping arising from common ownership of Private companies of municipal
districts, all Scottish ports are operating essentially independently. They are grouped under a trade
association – the Scottish Committee of the British Ports Association. This organisation publishes
more detailed reviews of the Scottish Port capabilities, which can be found on their website
(http://www.britishports.org.uk/scotland).
Port and related harbour activity (cargo handling and storage, warehousing, ship repair) are estimated
by the Ports Association to generate 18,000 direct full time equivalent jobs in Scotland (based on 2006
data) with up to 21,000 indirect jobs excluding fishing and offshore oil and gas sectors.
All facilities at UK ports are provided by the port authority – and thus are responsible for rates and
investment. The only other activity of concern is the navigational services which in Scotland are
provided by the Northern Lighthouse Board. This organisation manages navigational aids, including
lighthouses, in Scottish waters. It is funded by “Light Dues” which are fees raised on ships entering
ports. To be clear no public sector funds are involved in navigational aid provision. The fees for these
services are set by the Board and ports are obliged to recover these fees from their customers which is
not the case in some other countries for competing ports.
The very largest UK ports / port groups are connected under the United Kingdom Major Ports Group
(see http://www.ukmajorports.org.uk/). On the East Coast of Scotland only the Forth Ports Plc group
ports are included.
The perspective of this industry group is summed up as follows:
“The UK ports industry is the largest in Europe, in terms of total tonnage handled. Total tonnage is
about 570 million tonnes a year and annual international passenger throughput is about 30 million.
Despite the large number of ports, much of the tonnage is concentrated among a comparatively small
number of ports – the top 16 ports account for 80% of the total.
There are three main types of port in the UK. Most of the largest ports are in private-sector ownership.
This group includes ports such as Liverpool, Felixstowe, Tees & Hartlepool and Forth Ports. This
group also includes the 21 ports owned by Associated British Ports (ABP). ABP was formerly a
nationalised industry – the British Transport Docks Board – but was privatised in 1982. A number of
other private ports were formerly trust ports, which were privatised in the early 1990s. The
Government has no ownership interest in any of the ports in this sector, and all their investment has to
be privately financed on a commercial basis. This sector accounts for some two-thirds of the total
tonnage handled in the UK.
Many of the smaller ports (and a few of the larger) are trust ports. Trust ports are independent
statutory corporations but without shareholders. They operate on a quasi-commercial basis, but they
do not pay dividends as they have no shareholders, and any profits they make are retained in the
undertaking. Most trust ports are now entirely independent of Government, although in a few cases,
such as the Port of London Authority, the Secretary of State appoints Board members. The trust ports
sector accounts for about 25% of total tonnage.
A few ports belong to local authorities, notably Portsmouth and the oil terminals in Orkney and
Shetland. This sector accounts for about 10% of total tonnage, but this figure is inflated by the large
tonnage handled by the Scottish oil terminals.”
128
Further information on Scottish Ports
A commercial directory of 80 Scottish ports in published annually:
See “Ports of Scotland”, available at http://www.portsofscotland.co.uk.
A map and details of some 900+ ports in the UK (of which about 50% are in Scotland) is available by
visiting http://www.ports.org.uk.
3.4.4 Port Responsibilities of Government
The NMCII project commissioned a review of the involvement of Government frameworks in the
various North Sea bordering countries. The UK section of this report is reproduced as Appendix J.
UK ports compete with Continental ports for certain types of traffic, for example deep-sea containers.
While UK ports receive virtually no financial assistance from the public purse, this is not the case for
many continental ports. The lack of a 'level playing field' between UK and Continental ports is of
major concern to UK port operators and they are looking for the European Commission’s Ports Policy,
to lead to guidance on the fair application of EU state-aid rules to ports.
There is a strong belief amongst most port organisations that the transfer of almost all ports to the
private sector by the means of one mechanism or another has been a good thing and they see
competition flourishing and laud it as a very efficient port system. Indications from the Government so
far through their ongoing ports review process do not indicate any plans for changing this structure.
However it is the view of many ports that whilst they are able to provide port related infrastructure to
encourage economic development the continued support of Government will be necessary for the
provision of landside connections to the national road and rail network.
3.4.5 Government Policy – UK Level
UK Ports policy is covered by the document, “Modern ports:
(http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/modern/modernportsaukpolicy).
A
UK
policy”,
In 2000 the Modern Ports policy framework was published. That policy is now subject to review but
the interim review reports published so far do not lead the industry to expect any major changes.
Guidance in England and Wales has been produced recommending but not obliging larger ports to
produce master plans. It is likely that this will be mirrored in Scotland.
Government plans for transport invariably involve very large sums to be spent on road and rail (in that
order) with the maritime sector largely excluded. The UK Government’s ports policy affirms the
independence of port authorities and endorses the principle of user pays, stating that port
developments and port operations should not in general need public subsidy. Subsidy, it is believed,
would tend to lead to excess capacity.
129
The problem with this approach (given the absence of public funding for the maritime sector
compared with continued support for land modes and the market distortion this creates) is in
delivering the expectation that somehow the market will deliver the modal shift necessary to meet the
government sustainability objectives. This expectation has yet to be realised and has been brought into
question. One factor ignored by relying on this structure is the fact that maritime policy is not the sum
of separate company policies. It can be larger than that, involving national government, as well as
supra-national government (e.g. the European Commission) and worldwide. Outside of the port
industry (which largely supports independence of operation) some consider it a weakness in this
approach to only rely on the market to safeguard the economic interests of any country vis-a-vis its
trade and development.
The present regulatory position with regard to ports is unusual in that, unlike the other utilities that
were privatised in the UK (notably the rail sector) there was no specific regulatory body established
for the port sector. At the time of privatisation each port authority was dissolved, and thereafter all
statutory rights, duties and obligations held by the authority were transferred to respective private
sector successor companies. Thus, for example, the Forth Ports company now manages and operates
an area of 280 square miles of navigable waters around their Scottish port areas. The consequence of
this is a high degree of self-regulation by private commercial enterprises within seaports and seaport
areas.
To sum up, whereas planning of, and investment in, roads and railways is still viewed as the
responsibility of the state, the long-term planning of port capacity is no longer considered a function of
government; it is seen as the role of the market to do this. Any proposal to expand or develop new port
capacity is promoted by the private sector, or individual ports, and each application is considered on its
own merits, sometimes after lengthy public inquiries. Now in Scotland under the new National
Planning Framework there is some recognition of the role of a few of the many essential ports it is
very limited in terms of its impact and on the scope of the ports considered.
3.4.6 Devolved Ports Policy in Scotland
Devolution in the UK means that Ports policy is now shared between the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in Scotland by the Scottish Government. The reserved
areas not dealt with by the Scottish Government are:
 shipping;
 carriage of goods by sea;
 marine safety;
 marine accident investigation;
 salvage;
 navigation;
 lighthouses;
 coastguards;
 marine pollution; and
 occupational health and safety.
130
Before July 1st, 1999, the Secretary of State for Scotland was responsible for fishery harbours and
marine works. The Scottish Government is now responsible for all ports in Scotland and deals with
administering provisions in the Harbours Act and related local legislation; policy on and appointments
to trust ports; designating harbour authorities under the Pilotage Act; and relevant powers in the Ports
Act 1991.
The Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Government maritime policy is heavily focused on ferry provision given the public subsidies
paid out for these service
Ports Policy
Ports policy is devolved to Scottish Ministers and the current framework is set out in
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/modern/modernportsaukpolicy.
Following the Devolution settlement, from the July 1st, 1999, the Executive inherited from the
Department of Environment Transport and Regions (DETR) the responsibility to develop policies and
legislate on a range of ports and harbours matters. This includes:
 Responsibility for administering provisions in the Harbours Act and related local legislation;
 Policy on commercial, publicly owned and trust ports;
 Designating harbour authorities under the Pilotage Act;
 Relevant powers in the Ports Act; and
 The issuing of consents under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act.
This work falls to the Ports & Harbours Branch and involves liaison with:
 The Department for Transport (DfT) (renamed from DETR);
 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency;
 The Northern Lighthouse Board; and
 A number of other bodies in consideration of both devolved and reserved ports, harbours,
coast protection and related matters.
Ferries Policy
There are a range of ferry services in Scotland, most of which are subsidised by the Scottish
Government to maintain or improve the economic and social conditions in the Highlands and Islands.
The Scottish Government declares on its website:
“Ferry services to the islands and remote peninsulas in the Clyde and Hebrides Islands and the
Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland are subsidised by the Scottish Government. These ferry services
are provided under tendered contracts to the Scottish Government by CalMac Ferries Limited,
Northlink Ferries Limited and Shetland Line (1984) respectively.
Scottish Ministers are the sole shareholder of David MacBrayne Limited, the group holding company,
that in turn owns CalMac Ferries Limited and Northlink Ferries Limited. Scottish Ministers are also
the sole shareholder of Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited, the asset owning company with
131
responsibility for the fleet of vessels and a number of piers and harbours utilised on the Clyde and
Hebrides Ferry Services. Through Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited financial assistance is
available for the development and improvement of lifeline piers and harbour infrastructure within the
Highlands and Islands.
The Scottish Government is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of ferry services in
Scotland. The Review is considering all domestic services in Scotland including those operated
privately. Ferry services in Scotland are currently the focus of a European Commission investigation
which is due to be completed later this year, however the European Commission have made it clear
that they do not want to jeopardise the existing ferry services in any way.”
Specifically in connection with the North Sea basin and the Northern Isles Ferry Service, it states:
“Northlink Ferries Ltd are currently operating ferry services between the Scottish mainland and
Orkney and Shetland. The routes operated are Lerwick/Kirkwall to Aberdeen, and Scrabster to
Stromness. Northlink Ferries were successful in securing the contract to operate from July 2006 to
June 2012. Northlink Ferries Ltd provides facilities for passenger, cars, commercial vehicles and
freight.
Northlink Ferries Ltd operate three passenger vessels on the Orkney and Shetland routes: the MV
Hjaltland, MV Hrossey and MV Hamnavoe. In addition they operate two freight vessels: the MF
Hascosay and the MV Clare. Northlink Ferries Ltd has offices in Stromness, Kirkwall, Lerwick and
Aberdeen and the ferry terminals at Scrabster and Hatston.
NorthLink sail daily from Aberdeen to Lerwick with frequent calls at Kirkwall, and from Scrabster on
the north coast of Scotland to Stromness in Orkney.
More information about Northlink Ferries Ltd can be found on their website at
www.northlinkferries.co.uk.
Shetland Line (1984), part of the Streamline Shipping group, are currently operating a lift-on lift-off
(lo-lo) freight shipping service between Aberdeen -Kirkwall and Lerwick. Shetland Line (1984) were
successful in securing the contract to operate the service from May 2008 to May 2014. More
information about the Shetland Line service can be found on their website at
http://www.streamlineshippinggroup.com/northern_isles.php.”
Grants
Capital Grants are available from the Scottish Government but are relatively small and related to
lifeline service provision. As the Government’s website states:
“The Piers and Harbours Grants programme provides substantial support for major capital works to
improve berthing facilities used by lifeline ferry services in the Highlands and Islands. Ferries
Division within Transport Group administer these grants.
The 2006-2007 programme budget was £7.5 million. This money supported projects at locations on
the west of Scotland ferry network.”
Regarding freight grants, it is stated:
“The Scottish Government actively encourages the transfer of freight from roads onto rail and water.
To this end, the Executive operates three grant schemes, with a combined budget of £44 million (over
the period 1 April to 31 March 2008).
132
All awards are limited to the environmental benefits of transferring freight away from roads. The
environmental benefits used in the assessment of awards are calculated using the Environmental
Benefits Calculator on the Department for Transport's website.
The three types of freight grants are:
(i)
Freight Facilities Grants (FFG)
The rail and water FFG schemes are capital grant schemes that aim to encourage the transfer of
freight from roads to the more sustainable rail and water options by helping companies invest in the
facilities needed to compete in financial terms with road.
Since August 1997, 32 awards of FFG, totalling £66 million (including funding of £14.9million from
the Department for Transport) have been made to projects in Scotland. Details can be found in the
FFG Table of awards.
(ii)
Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (REPS)
(iii)
Waterborne Freight Grant (WFG)
The scheme assists companies with the operating costs, for up to three years, associated with running
water freight transport instead of road (where water is more expensive than road).”
Government Influence
As can be seen there are however a number of ways that the Government could influence the port
system, as set out below:
 There is a limited fund available for Freight Facilities Grants administered by the Scottish
Government which offer grants to projects which transfer traffic from road to sea.
 The Scottish fishing sector is a large industry and heavily regulated. Government policy in this
area will affect the landings at the various Scottish ports which are very significant in terms of
this industry in the North Sea basis and for some types of fish are the most significant in
Europe. Fisheries grants are also available for certain port works.
 Investment (or a lack of it) in connecting road and rail hinterland infrastructure.
 And lastly through the recent revision of the National Planning in Scotland has come in with
the recent publication of “National Planning Framework for Scotland 2”.
Planning
National Planning
This National Planning framework document revised in 2009 shows a freight network aspiration
shown in the map in Figure 52.
133
Figure 52: Freight Network Aspiration
The relevant sections of the document relating to ports are shown in extract under Appendix H
including the rational for inclusion of several port schemes.
134
It is important to note that inclusion of a project in the national planning documentation does not give
it any access to funding nor to any endorsement other than on applying for planning permission the
status of the project in the national framework is of relevance. The main point is that the legislation
provides for:
“the National Planning Framework to be used to designate certain projects as national developments.
Designation in the Framework is the mechanism for establishing the need for these developments in
Scotland's national interest. The Government has indicated that major transport, energy and
environmental infrastructure projects may fall within this category of development. In a statement to
Parliament in September 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced
that projects which may be identified as national developments are those which:
 make a significant contribution to Scotland's sustainable economic development;
 strengthen Scotland's links with the rest of the world;
 deliver strategic improvements in internal connectivity;
 make a significant contribution to the achievement of climate change, renewable energy or
waste management targets;
 are essential elements of a programme of investment in national infrastructure
 raise strategic issues of more than regional importance (projects with impacts on more than
one city region, for example).”
On the basis of an assessment against one or more of these criteria, the Scottish Government has
included the following five maritime related projects in the list of fourteen key national developments:
 Grangemouth Freight Hub; *
 Additional Container Freight Capacity on the Forth; *
 Port developments on Loch Ryan;
 Scapa Flow Container Transhipment Facility *
 New power station and transhipment hub at Hunterston.
Proposals denoted * are those particularly relevant to the North Sea basin area. Further details on
individual projects are given on: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/9.
Regional and Local Planning
For both the ports mentioned in the National Planning Framework and all other ports, planning
permission and incorporation into regional and local plans is required. However planning guidance on
seaports is limited in the official documentation:
The main relevant document is Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 17: Planning for Transport (available at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/16154406/44096#14). In relation to “Planning for
seaports”, this states:
“29. As noted in the National Planning Framework for Scotland, international trends in container
shipping present substantial opportunities for the deep water facilities at Scapa Flow and Hunterston.
These give scope for new transhipment and gateway facilities linked to world shipping routes to
contribute to the Scottish economy.
30. Coastal shipping can provide an environmentally friendly means of moving heavy freight. This
requires wharves and harbour facilities able to handle and distribute the goods. Planning authorities
135
should liaise with port authorities and have an access strategy for freight traffic serving the port.
Opportunities for rail access should be safeguarded and where appropriate promoted and developed
using Track Access Grants and Freight Facilities Grant.
31. Scotland's island and coastal communities are dependent on ferry services. Road access for cars
and freight to ferry terminals as well as integration and interchange with buses and trains should form
part of planning policy supporting these communities.”
Under planning for freight, SPP 17 states that “Development plans should allocate sites for
manufacturing, processing, distribution or warehousing, which are readily accessible not only to the
strategic road network, but also to suitable rail facilities, wharves and harbours. ……… In addition,
planning authorities should, in consultation with transport providers, identify existing operational or
disused sites adjacent to infrastructure which may be suitable in commercial, operational and
technical terms to be developed for uses requiring rail or water borne freight access at either a
strategic or local scale.”
Planning in seaports is also heavily regulated through the impact of environmental issues. This now
also includes the impact of the Scottish Marine Bill which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in
April 2009. It proposes to modernise and streamline the management of the marine environment to
enable the new overarching Scottish marine management organisation ‘Marine Scotland’ to manage
Scottish marine issues. The Bill will also introduce new measures for marine planning and proposes
that a new national marine strategic plan be developed. It will be scrutinized by the Scottish
Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Environment Committee before progressing on to the next stages later
in 2009.
Project Evaluation
Transport projects in Scotland are evaluated under the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)
process.
Full
details
of
the
process
are
available
online
at
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag/home.
It is a requirement of the Scottish Government that all transport related projects which require its
approval or for which it provides funding shall be appraised in accordance with Scottish Transport
Appraisal Guidance.
136
Figure 53: A summary diagram of the STAG process
137
3.4.7 Regional Activity
3.4.7.1
Regional Activity
As part of the StratMoS workpackage WPC review regions are asked to give more details of two
regional ports. In this report section Peterhead and Aberdeen harbours are highlighted with the issues
affecting Motorways of the Sea applications in a hub and hinterland context.
Short Description of the Local Region Port Context for the Aberdeen City and Shire Area
Figure 54: Local Region Port Context for the Aberdeen City and Shire Area
An overview of the key issues can be summarised as follows:
 General cargo is dealt with at both Aberdeen and Peterhead Harbours.
 Offshore supplies and servicing is carried out from both ports,
 Since the North East of Scotland is the key world-wide hub for numerous companies active in the
oil and gas industry there is a large shipping market from this area which is used as a marshalling
point for project cargoes with world-wide destinations. Some of these services are now coalescing
into regular services notably to West Africa.
 Bulk fuel is a signification commodity however it is not the dominant cargo that it is in the other
Scottish east coast ports.
 The ferry service to the Northern Isles of Scotland is operated from Aberdeen Harbour.
138




Aberdeen is the busiest harbour in the UK in terms of traffic movements.
Peterhead is one of the major European Fish ports and also has the largest purpose built deep
water offshore supply berth.
Both ports are used by cruise ships
Detailed descriptions of both Aberdeen and Peterhead Ports are available on their respective
websites.
o http://www.aberdeen-harbour.co.uk; and
o http://www.peterheadport.co.uk.
In terms of hubs and hinterland connections the situation may be summarised as follows:



A rail siding at Aberdeen Harbour, Waterloo Quay is in the process of being expanded to provide a
multi-user rail freight terminal with the potential for intermodal use.
There is no rail service available at Peterhead, and all goods must transfer by road. At present the
links to the main trunk road (A90) are very good. However there is a bottleneck on this route,
from Tipperty to Balmedie. This section of road is programmed for upgrading to dual carriageway
and this will significantly improve access to Peterhead from the south.
At the present time traffic from Aberdeen or Peterhead Harbour, heading south must pass through
Aberdeen City, via the A90. Although this is a dual carriageway standard route it is quite
congested with various bottleneck at several locations. Construction of the Aberdeen Western
Peripheral Route (AWPR) – a new dual carriageway route to the west of Aberdeen City – will be a
significant improvement to the road network around the city of Aberdeen, allowing better access
to the north and south.
Both Aberdeen and Peterhead are structured as Trust ports (see section 3) Several other smaller ports
dealing with fishing and general cargo are located at different places in the North East of Scotland
these can have significant roles – notably the fish handling at Fraserburgh (as at Peterhead) making it a
leading port in a European context. These ports do have capability to handle other cargoes however
this is often perceived only in a niche role.
Port development is undertaken by the trust ports using re-invested profits or grants
Future work at Aberdeen includes: dredging the approach channel to accommodate larger vessels,
clearing of port land to provide additional operation and shed space, establishment of new quays on
the south side of the port, and completion of the new Waterloo yard rail freight terminal facilities.
139
Figure 55: The major project underway at Peterhead.
The new Smith embankment facility
Hinterland Connections
It is a challenge for both ports to create multimodal links from the port due to the accessibility of the
rail network. The location of Peterhead Harbour makes this more challenging as the rail network does
not extend to Peterhead. At present Aberdeen Harbour has direct links to the rail network which are
being upgraded to enable a wider range of commodities to be handled, however these are still
somewhat limited. Road would still require to play a role in linking the port to an intermodal logistics
site.
In the short term this will require appropriate road links from both ports to such an intermodal facility.
The ongoing redevelopment of rail freight provision in the area will also require to be completed to
allow full advantage to be taken of the rail opportunities.
The recent upgrading of the main rail line from North East Scotland to the rest of the UK to allow a
greater gauge clearance now allows standard 9’6” containers to be transported by rail to the Central
Belt of Scotland and beyond (albeit on specialist wagons). This increase in capacity has improved the
potential for more freight to be moved from road to rail.
At present the combination of rail freight facilities in the area is sufficient to allow development of
more freight routes. In the longer term rationalisation of the site may be required, with the provision of
a larger intermodal facility with improved links to the main rail line, road network and ports.
It is the role of the StratMoS project through the Demonstration project 3(a) to examine the connection
issues further and come up with a long term plan for addressing this issue.
140
Present and Future Services and Infrastructure
Discussion within this section is split into three elements:
 The SSS services;
 The logistical hub; and
 The hinterland connections.
SSS Services
The main existing sea routes to/from North East Scotland are:
o Orkney and Shetland (Northlink Ferries);
o Orkney and Shetland (Streamline); and
o Norway (Sea-Cargo).
The expected significant increase in container transport is likely to imply that ports in Aberdeenshire
will require developing container handling and storage infrastructure.
At the present time there are free rail paths from Aberdeenshire to the Central Belt of Scotland and
beyond. This is potential for services to be established from Northern Europe to Aberdeen to take
advantage of these free freight paths to transport goods further south in the UK.
Aberdeen and Peterhead Ports handle a significant volume of offshore related cargo. Markets already
exist whereby cargo is exported to Norway, and worldwide. These ports are particularly well placed in
relation to the oil services industry to be able to expand this role.
A couple of trial services have been operated under the StratMoS Demo 1 umbrella from Aberdeen on
the NMC corridor towards Murmansk and it is hoped that these will be further developed as a link to
Norway and the Barents region.
Logistic Hubs
The main logistics operators in Aberdeenshire are located close to Aberdeen City and Peterhead. Both
have good links to the national trunk road network, giving access to the rest of the UK and Europe.
However there are issues relating to congestion in and around the City of Aberdeen. There are two
committed road infrastructure improvements schemes that will significantly improve this situation,
and afford better road access to both Ports.
Several intermodal (road/rail) sites are available across Aberdeenshire, and with the recent rail freight
gauge enhancement works the line is now capable of accepting containerised traffic.
A recent study confirmed that the present intermodal termini across Aberdeenshire are capable of
dealing with an increase in rail cargo. In the longer term there may be merit in the rationalisation of
these termini to provide a fewer number of larger intermodal sites with better access and storage
arrangements.
141
Hinterland Connections
The hinterland connections are two-fold:
 Road connections linking the logistic hub to other parts of Scotland, the UK and Europe; and
 Rail connection from Aberdeen to the Edinburgh and Glasgow and North to Inverness. A
recent study under the SustAccess project has concluded that there are 7 free daily freight
paths from Aberdeen. This would be adequate to accommodate an increase in sea freight.
The road links to Aberdeen and Peterhead are on the national Trunk Road network. From Aberdeen
south this network is at dual carriageway standard (two lanes each direction). Congestion is not
generally an issue on these roads, although bottlenecks do exist at certain points close to Glasgow and
Edinburgh.
The rail connection is a mix of single and double track sections. Waiting times at passing loops has an
impact on service timetables. However freight paths are available on the network.
Inland waterway transport is not a consideration for the North East of Scotland however additional
costal shipping connections are worthy of serious consideration.
Modal Shift
The major potential for modal shift is related to:
 Cargo brought/leave directly/ to Aberdeen and Peterhead instead of by road and/or rail from
South East England; and
 Cargo brought/leave directly to Aberdeen and Peterhead for distribution to/from North
Scotland.
The cargo flow analysis contained with the original NEA report conducted for the NMCII project
makes it difficult to assess the detail of any potential for flows from Aberdeenshire to the continent.
The NEA report indicates that Scotland’s trade with Europe and beyond will continue to increase. It is
probably true that the majority of this cargo will continue to enter the UK via major ports in the South
East of England. However as the congestion in these ports, and their hinterland connections, continues
to increase other alternatives will become viable.
Serving Aberdeenshire’s needs via increased use of the available port infrastructure is one way in
which this increase trade can be accommodated without adding to the congestion at ports, or national
trunk road network. Further work is required with the ports in Aberdeenshire and also trading partners
to develop a more robust assessment of this potential. There is no doubt that economies, in relation to
cost, and emissions, can be made by a better balance in the use of the UK’s ports and of the internal
North-South freight flows.
More direct sea links to Aberdeenshire will contribute to improved sea transport along the Scottish
coast potentially creating opportunities for SSS services to replace transfer by road or rail – thereby
increasing the ability of these modes to serve time critical markets.
142
Indications of Potential MoS Proposals
The idea of utilising the available capacity on the rail service between Aberdeenshire and the
remainder of the UK seems to be a basis for a MoS proposal.
To facilitate such a switch investment is required to address various issues:
 More efficient cargo handling equipment, including container handling.
 Improvement of road connections between Peterhead and Aberdeen. This scheme has already
been committed by the Scottish Executive.
 Improvements of road connections around Aberdeen City (Aberdeen Western Peripheral
Route).
 The creation of additional intermodal cargo handling facilities to improve transfer from
road/rail/maritime.
 Further improvements on the Mossend to Elgin line – to remove restrictions caused by
sections of single track line.
 If relevant establish a common ICT system for communication between the actors internally as
well as with cooperating regions abroad, pursuing greater efficiency and the idea of one-stopshopping (“port community” ITC system).
 A rationalisation and reconfiguration of road distribution networks may provide the critical
mass necessary to support such a service. Creation of a new logistics hub linked to the new
infrastructure mentioned above and invisibly linked to the ports and railheads would kick-start
such transfer. A more efficient logistic hub would offer the opportunity to shift cargo from
road to sea/rail, and to provide more competitive transport options for the industries and hence
regional development and greater cohesion in Europe. This is the subject of the StratMoS
DP3(a) project.
3.4.7.2
Results from the Regional Port Surveys
Surveys were conducted with Forth Ports Plc (for the Forth Port and Port of Dundee areas), Port of
Montrose, Aberdeen Harbour Board, and Peterhead Port Authority.
Only relevant questions to regional issues have been reproduced below in an amalgamated format, in
red font, next to the relevant question. Obviously not all ports subscribe to all of these responses.
Interview Parts:
Part A: General Information
Part B: Specific Questions for C-1/C-2/MoS
Part C: More General Ideas and Thoughts into MoS Activities
Part A:
The core idea and aim of the StratMoS project is to promote and facilitate a shift of cargo from road to
sea based intermodal transport, and improve accessibility within the North Sea Region by supporting
the implementation of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) and related transport networks in an integrated
logistical chain.
143
The StratMoS project is funded by the EU and the Norwegian government through the Interreg IV B
North Sea Region Programme. The project currently comprises for the time being 27 partners from
Denmark, Norway, Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.
As part of MoS, we are working at ways to improve and promote the concept of MoS by focusing on
the roles ports play in door-to-door logistics chains. One way of doing this is by examining the role
that port cooperation and hinterland facilities could be used to promote the industry.
1. Is there a particular industrial sector which your port caters to?
All ports responded that they were not exclusive to any one sector however most were able to
nominate a sector or small group of sectors which constituted their main business. Whilst this list of
sectors did overlap in some cases between ports it was clearly not the same for all.
1a. Has this remained steady over the years, or has your port changed focus?
Most ports reported they were steady – obviously investment had to be prioritised and so would be in
targeted sectors but overall the main focus of each port had not changed significantly in recent years.
2. Have you in anyway worked with Motorways of the Sea solutions?
All ports reported that although Motorways of the Sea had been discussed as a concept, nothing
material had happened.
Part B:
3. Can you tell me about how you have tried to make your port more competitive in recent years?
All ports reported investment and management action to improve their competitivity – these included:
1 – Capping port charge increases;
2 – Building new, deeper and stronger quays;
3 – Additional rail freight connections;
4 – Additional shed storage space;
5 – New cranes;
6 – New equipment; and
7 – conducting SWOT analysis.
Have you seen any of the results?
Some ports reported seeing an increased tonnage of vessels and cargo already, some ports were
expecting results in the future.
a. Are you currently in or planning to develop any partnerships with other ports?
No port was currently in or planning a partnership with other ports connected with their own
hinterland (excepting for ports within an ownership grouping). Some ports were talking with other
ports at the other end of existing or proposed SSS legs. One port mentioned a radius of 150 miles from
their port as their perception of a zone within which co-operation was not useful.
Some ports considered links through trade associations and sharing information about building or
using facilities to be a pseudo-partnership arrangement.
b. If YES, Can you explain how this works? Who made the first initiative?
c. If YES, Can you see the benefits of port cooperation to your organisation?
4. Are there any areas where you can see your ports cooperating with another port? (OR other
ports)(i.e. share facilities, knowledge exchange, services, etc)
Ports reported this was possible – there was a wide disparity in the response if the other port was
considered to be in competition or not. Knowledge exchange in general was mentioned as was
144
building new SSS services with specific target ports.
a. In your opinion, which areas would ports be most able to cooperate in?
Identification of potential cargo flows (note: assume other port is at the other end of the sea leg )
b. Most difficult? Why?
Same answer as above but assuming a local port. Competition issues.
5. What mechanisms need to be in place, in order for the above (responses to port cooperation) to
become reality? (5 & 5.a)
Responses mentioned the need for an improvement process and B2B visits as important here.
a. What could hinder ports from cooperating?
Lack of trust and commercial sensitivity.
b. Do you have any ideas about who could manage this cooperation?
Third party facilitation Both Local Authorities and the StratMoS project were mentioned as actual
facilitators
6. If another nearby port offered a certain type of service that you were unable to offer here, how
willing would you be to send that cargo there?
Most (but not all) ports were adamant that this would not happen as they would at least try to provide
the service themselves. It was pointed out however that this is not a decision made by a port authority
and that the shipping lines and importers/exporters were the key players here. It was considered very
important to look after the existing customer base.
a. How would this work?
b. What type of communication do you have with neighbouring ports?
Common trade association links linked all ports – some ports had common ownership.
7. Who are the key players in developing new sea routes? (Port Authority, shippers, ferry
operators, government, etc?)
Responses were split here. Some ports mentioned the Shipping companies as the key and others
mentioned the major European port hubs.
a. Are you aware of how this works?
Some ports felt it was up to them to influence through marketing action while others felt it was
entirely demand led.
8. Can you think of any problems with the goal of shifting cargo off the roads and onto short sea
shipping routes?
Roads are not charged at their real cost was the main answer given here.
a. What could be done to mitigate these problems?
Road charging was offered as a solution. Revising the regional (FFG – see section 6.3) grant system to
overcome the inability to prove cases were eligible and simplifying MoS and access to the necessary
data to make cases were both mentioned.
9. What is your marketing strategy for promoting sea transport and other port facilities?
All ports made media promotion of facilities and individual approaches to potential
partners/customers. Others sought also to include promotion though various trade and project links:
Freight by Water, Coastlink, StratMoS. Marketing varied by cargo type.
10. Can you name 3 or 4 major transportation challenges facing your organization/industry today?
1 – Poor rail freight infrastructure (over the links required by the market).
145
2 – Road congestion.
3 – Lack of available shipping.
4 – Lack of a proactive government approach to stimulating coastal shipping.
5 – Ease of entry to competing road markets.
6 – Pressure on costs.
a. How are port authorities dealing with the above challenges?
1 – Direct investment in rail freight.
2 – Lobby about road congestion.
3 – Lobby to government about investment in shipping.
4 – Lobby to government about investment in hinterland infrastructure.
5 – Investing in market contacts.
Part C:
11. What national policies would your organization like to see in place to promote the shipping
industry?
1 – Positive discrimination to shipping as an alternative to investment in rail infrastructure.
2 – Require that certain traffics (e.g. recyclates / waste) have mandatory transport by rail or water.
3 – Road regulation.
4 – A government body created to help stimulate coastal shipping (or MoS) on a UK level.
5 – Third party facilitation of information and aspirations.
a. On a regional policy level?
1 – Require that certain traffics (e.g. recyclates / waste) mandatory transport by rail or water.
2 – Third party facilitation of information and aspirations.
12. In the near future, in order to secure EU funding it will require more inter-linkages with other
transportation forms within the logistics network.
a. How would these new rules affect your organization
No port claimed to be affected by these new rules
OR
b. Do you have any cooperation with hinterland terminals, such as Dry Ports/In-Land terminals?
Responses varied depending on whether there were existing rail connections – Some ports were
looking for the Stratmos and Dryport projects to help develop such facilities.
c. If so, how does that work?
13. In Sweden, the government has decided that it’s best to concentrate seaport investments on a
few key seaports which are deemed to be of national significance.
a. Would this be a good idea for (your country) ports?
The consensus was that this was a good idea only if the port in question was chosen as being of
national significance. Some ports raised the disparity in ownership and rate of return criteria in the UK
scenario as an issue here, Some ports mentioned the disparity in infrastructure provision ownership
and charging between UK and other European countries as an issue including dredging costs.
b. Why, why not?
14. The current economic crisis presents some challenges for the transport, shipping and logistics
industries. As these industries scale back and consolidate, some might consider this a good
opportunity for concepts such as MoS – which among other things aims to improve the
efficiency of the transport chain.
What are your thoughts on this?
146
Ports agreed that the current economic climate was an opportunity however the volumes necessary to
get MoS funding were also felt to be too big to be of relevance to many ports in the region. Less
congested ports can now look to the ship lay-up market.
End of formal questionnaire
3.4.7.3
Other Issues brought out of the Interview and Analysis Process.
It is an interesting question as to whether in the UK port structure system the market forces bring
about a port complimentary situation through specialisation without the need for formal partnership
agreements. There are certainly results that elsewhere in more formal planned structures would be
taken as evidence of a successful port complimentary policy.
There are obviously some inefficiency in the process as practiced, however, there are a number of
advantages:
 Market forces are felt more likely to lead to the correct direction more often then simple
planning alone;
 Market forces give back-up to investment plans and almost all ports in the region had
achieved major investment in their own infrastructure in recent or immanent times; and
 There was no evidence of unused new facilities in the subject ports where market forces alone
had been the stimulus for investment.
The fact that so many ports had a degree of capacity for overlap in many areas rather than being seen
as duplication can be seen as providing the market with reassurance that competitive market forces are
applying which would not be the case if ports were operating in cartel cooperatives (from the
perspective of the user). It would be interesting to explore further the Humber Ports model of cooperation quoted as giving marketing activity with separate competitive commercial sales to end-users
by cooperative members.
MoS as a grant based system for infrastructure investment was perceived as having to have the support
of national government as a prerequisite for a successful application – it was almost universally felt
that no such support would be forthcoming as it would (if granted) be de-facto be an expression of
favouritism and against government policy of UK ports acting without distortion of competition
(between themselves).
Many other issues of the grant process were raised including the time taken to undertake the
application and approval process, the thresholds of traffic to be moved being too high. It is suggested
that lower thresholds should apply in peripheral regions where cohesion was just as important in EU
policy as congestion, and the availability of data to prove MoS case applications was raised.
In comparing the planned verses market led approach it is to be questioned as to who is competent to
do the planning in the former scenario. As government in the UK has very little involvement in the
maritime sector it likewise is seen as having little expertise. There is a danger that a lack of
involvement reaches a level that results in so little experience being available that it is unable to act as
an informed purchaser of outside expertise. It is also commented that there is a small base of expertise
external to the ports themselves and that that is available is heavily committed. This gives rise to the
147
idea that advice may not always be independent and commercial information in these domains is not
secure.
3.4.8 C1 Report Template Questions
In summing up the key points of the C1 report template the key questions are those raised by points 5
to 10 of the tasks issued by WPC leader:
5. Description of initiatives taken during the last five years in relation to port cooperation within
your region / port area.
None outside of established ownership groupings
6. Description of MoS initiatives within the region (Established routes, new possible routes).
None existing – some ports state they are considering European SSS MoS but also see opportunities in
Coastal shipping which indicate perhaps a lack of clarity about the programme rules. Not enough is
known as to whether these ideas (or the European ones) would be applicable to MoS in its current
format.
7. Positive and negative operation experiences in relation to complementary ports and MoS
experiences (Effects on the environment, economy, cooperation, market share, goods turnover of
the port)
No practical experience of complementary ports and MoS.
8. Possibilities and perspectives for complementary ports and establishment of MoS routes
during the next 10-15 years for your region / port.
No complementary ports arrangements seen by ports outwith the existing arrangements and a
perception that there is no UK government support for MoS applications.
9. Cooperation possibilities involving feeder ships, railway connections, road deliveries, etc.
These were not specifically covered by the questionnaire in the absence of complementary ports
arrangements – it is to be hoped that the StratMoS demo projects will lead to co-operation on feeder
ships and rail links and road delivery networks and this should be revisited later in the project.
10. Description of corridor development procedures with relation to complementary ports.
The Scottish National Planning Framework (see Appendix H) would apply here although it is to be
hoped that it can be applied at a regional level to encompass the constituent port.
148
3.5 Summary of Port Cooperation & Complementarities
This section will provide an overview of some common findings and general conclusions from the
four regional country reports. The results discussed below, together with the results of the online
questionnaire - discussed in the next chapter, Chapter Four, will form the basis for the conclusion
chapter, Chapter Six.
3.5.1 Summary from Regional Reports - Examples & Challenges
It can be seen from the regional reports that port cooperation can be a challenging undertaking. Port
authorities do not want to lose their market share, particularly in today’s poor market, so they are
therefore reluctant to make any partnership agreements. Many port authorities also expressed that they
are unsure of the benefits that port cooperation can bring. The reports have shown that the benefits of
port cooperation are not clearly understood. Some possible port cooperation benefits can include better
marketing opportunities, knowledge sharing on environmental policies and plans, better asset
utilization and a better and more expanded hinterland. These benefits would surely assists ports to
become more effective and allow for more efficient operations.
Despite the above potential benefits, there are few examples of port cooperation in the North Sea
Region. The two most prominent examples have been found to be with Copenhagen Malmø Port
(CMP) and Associated Danish Ports A/S. While these are in fact full mergers, there are lessons to be
learned from them that could provide needed support to other types of agreements and partnerships. In
summary, the lessons that these two case examples have shown are:




These organisation have clear and sound businesses plans which incorporate the wider scope
of influence (ie. hinterland) that the ports bring together
There is a clear demonstration of the improvement of efficiencies. Each port can be assigned
certain tasks and specialize in certain goods, thus making them more effective in inter-modal
transport solutions. This ultimately brings with it costs savings to the users of these ports.
There are reduced financial and physical risks when ports work together; making the
combined ports stronger together than if they were operating alone.
Improved efficiency in port authority operations. Port authorities can combine the human
resources, i.e. Planners, engineers, accountants, etc., reducing over head costs and tasks.
There are lessons to be learned for all port authorities from the above two examples.
There were hardly any port cooperation examples found in Norway. This could be due to the large
distances that exist between Norwegian ports and/or the lack of sufficient connections between them.
On the other hand, Norwegian port associations are working together on building better working
frameworks for sea-based inter-modal transport solutions and for improving the efficient of port
operations. Also, the merger of four ports in the Bergen region demonstrates a political and business
149
understanding of the potential benefits of cooperation.
In Germany, there are also few examples of port cooperation. There is concern in Germany over
competition between ports, however, when there are economic advantages for cooperation, there is
much interest for cooperation. In recent years, there has also been more political motivation for port
cooperation and partnerships. This can be seen in the recently published “National Port Concept”
(Nationales Hafenkonzept) which discusses some future opportunities for complementary ports and
the establishment of MoS routes. The Plan also raises the status of sea-oriented infrastructure in
Germany, which will provide additional funds for strengthening port hinterland and accommodating
future facilities into more efficient logistics networks.
The German case of Niedersachsen Ports, who manages over a dozen ports, can be seen as a good
example of how the centralised role of port operations can be successfully utilised for the benefit of
users. Economies of scale can be reached in terms of administration and a stronger network can be
established by grouping ports under one management company. This only happens, however, within
federal states, not across them.
In Scotland there are no examples of port cooperation. Despite this, Scottish port authorities are keen
on new SSS routes and are willing to work with other distant ports to develop new routes. Scottish
ports do not receive any government funding and some port authorities believe that more government
support to assist with providing improved access to ports and hinterlands would be beneficial to port
operations. One area of possible cooperation expressed, was the area of knowledge exchange where
ports could learn from each other to improve operations.
Funding Challenges
Port officials have looked at possible EU funding programmes, such as Marco Polo, to assist with the
start of some feeder traffic routes. The consensus was, however, that EU funding procedures are far
too time consuming and confusing and thus they did not proceed with their application. Statements
from the MoS TEN-T Green Paper (EU 2007) confirm this:



“The complexity of procedures for obtaining public financial support and the lack of clear
objectives and criteria have however hindered any broad implementation of the concept so far.
The MoS instruments under TEN-T are obviously perceived as difficult to use by the
stakeholders (ports, shipping operators etc). Need for simplification and streamlining of
funding instruments.
No prospects for revision of MoS, but ports and MoS should get a more prominent role in the
revised TEN-T network, although it is not clear yet how this will happen”.
While EU officials have themselves admitted that the application process might by a bit too difficult,
some ports have received funding and therefore it might be worthwhile to look at how they achieved
this. It therefore, might be interesting to further explore the process they undertook which got them
their funding. Questions may be asked as to what are some of the “needed ingredients” to create a
successful bid. Many ports, especially smaller ones, expressed that they do not have the human
resources needed to get involved with EU projects. This clearly puts them at a disadvantage. Another
interesting find from this report is that many port authorities are not fully aware of the various EU
150
programmes and funding available. The various programmes, which are often inter-related or
overlapping, create a maze of documentation and procedures that can be challenging even for EU
professionals. There should thus be some initiatives made by the EU to streamline the application
processes and to bring a clearer vision to EU.
151
4 Online Questionnaire
This section is based upon the results of an online questionnaire that was carried out between January
2009 and April 2009. A series of questions and scenarios were asked and the results have been
compiled and analysed in the proceeding pages. The results of this questionnaire and the various
country reports will come to form the bases for the conclusions, found in Chapter Five & Six.
4.1 Introduction to Online Questionnaire
A total of 345 questionnaires were distributed or viewed (via the StratMoS homepage), 63 of which
were answered fully and 76 were only partially completed. The response rate for the fully completed
questionnaires was 18.3% which is fairly high for these types of online surveys. This high response
rate could possibly be explained by the fact that those people who were emailed the questionnaire
were familiar with the StratMoS project partner sending it. This would have increased the likelihood
of people completing the survey. There were also a high number of partially completed questionnaires
(76). This suggests that while many other people were curious about the survey they failed to fill in all
the questions for some unknown reasons. A sampling of these 76 uncompleted questionnaires revealed
that most of these people only filled in the first few questions, while the rest only read the first page of
the questionnaire without responding to any questions. Other commitments and/or lack of interest
could be some reasons for the lack of completion. All respondent’s answers remain anonymous and
this was made clear on the first page of the questionnaire. The results that will be used in this report
will be only those based on the 63 fully completed questionnaires.
Figure 56: Online Questionnaire results as of April 24/2009
Questionnaire Structure & General Information
The questionnaire was created using the computer program Survey Exact. Survey Exact is specifically
decided for online surveys where large volumes of data need to be analysed and coordinated. The use
of Survey Exact allowed us to efficiently and effectively distribute and analyse the responses via email
and on the Internet. After clicking on the questionnaire link, respondents had to “click” in their
answers and move onto the next screen accordingly. A total of thirteen questions were asked. The first
four questions were general in nature, followed by more specific questions about areas where ports
152
could cooperate, about short sea shipping and about other related factors regarding transportation. This
was then followed with three questions about hinterland facilities and Dry Port. These results of these
last three questions have been used in the StratMoS Work Package C-2 Report, The Dry Port: Concept
& Perspectives.
Responses were received from all North Sea countries in the StratMoS project, with responses from
Germany comprising 54% of the total. This was followed by Denmark with 17.5% of total responses,
Norway with 14.3% and then Scotland with 6.3%. Other responses were also received from other
European countries and Russia. All respondents work within the transport and logistics industry or
with associated organisations. For some countries the number of responses has been very limited. This
should be kept in mind when assessing the results, especially for Scotland. Although the number of
respondents in Scotland is not sufficient to make significant conclusions, the survey results are
included in the analysis as they can help with making some general conclusions about the conditions
in the country.
It should also be mentioned that for some questions, respondents were allowed to tick off more than
one box. Therefore some of the answers in the charts will show more than 63. For more information
about the questionnaire see Appendix B.
4.1.1 Analysis of the questionnaire results
Question: What country are you based in?
Figure 57: Country from where respondent is based
A breakdown of responses based on the industry in which the respondent works in, indicates that a
wide variety of groups are represented in this survey. The largest group to respond were those from
Maritime transport firms and “other47 ”(23.8% each). Responses from port authorities were also high
(15.9%) as were those from warehousing and storage firms (14.3%). The next highest group to
47
“Other” includes: marketing, air transport, terminal operators, transportation associations, transport service
and reporting firms.
153
respond were those from private Consulting/Planning firms and government authorities (9.5% each),
followed by rail transport firms and road transport at (1.6% each). See diagram for breakdown.
Figure 58: Breakdown of industry response, by country
A breakdown of respondents’ organisation size revels that more than half of them come from
organisations with more than 50 people, with a large percentage coming from medium sized
organisations (27%). Organisations with 11 to 20 employees represent 8% of all respondents while
9.5% come from firms with 10 or fewer employees.
How many people work in your organisation?
Figure 59: Survey results
154
4.2 Main Findings
The previous section provided some general
insight into who responded to the questionnaire.
This section will now provide the main results of
the online questionnaire. The data collected will
be presented in various graphs and charts which
provide insight into some of the current
understanding and opinions from people working
in the transport and logistics industry, in the
North Sea Region. Answers will also be cross
referenced to provide a more detailed response
breakdown from, for example, different
industries, countries, etc.
Knowledge of Motorways of the Sea
A large majority of respondents had some
knowledge of the MoS concept. Those that said
“yes” to having some knowledge of the MoS
concept, the highest percentage indicated that the
media and through conferences were the places
where their knowledge about MoS was obtained
from. Promotional material, industry contacts and
the StratMoS webpage were all similar with 12%,
13% and 14% respectively.
Other responses included:
Figure 60: Are you familiar with the MoS concept?
 Through contact via the European
Union in Brussels
 Work colleagues
 Involvement with other Interreg Projects (ie. Northern Maritime Corridor project)
 Through their local council/municipality
 Through one of the StartMoS partners
In Figure 61, it is shown how respondents in the different partner countries replied to the question of
whether they are familiar with the concepts of Motorways of the Sea.
155
Figure 61: Knowledge of MoS based on country
Those respondents that said “YES” to having some knowledge with MoS, largely come from medium
to large size firms. 46% of respondents work for firms with more than 100 employees, while firms
with 1 to 10 employees represented only 9% of total responses.
Figure 62: Respondents who said “yes” to knowledge of MoS
(total 54)
156
Further analysis of those that said “YES” to knowledge with MoS can be broken down by the industry
they represent - as shown in the below graph.
Figure 63: Those that have knowledge of MoS, based on the industry they represent.
Of those that said “NO”, most respondents came from “Warehousing and Storage” as shown in the
below graph.
Figure 64: Those that have no knowledge of MoS,
based on the industry they represent.
Port Cooperation
In order to find out about the possible motives for organisations to cooperate with other companies in
the same field we asked the following question:
157
Question: Is your organisation presently cooperating with other companies in the same field?
The overwhelming response is that cooperation currently does exist between companies within the
same field. More specifically, people who said “yes” were asked - what were some of the motivations
their organisation cooperated with others in the same field.
Question: What could be/are some motives for your organisation to cooperate with other
companies in the same field?
The highest motivation for cooperation came from
innovation, followed by learning and acquiring
knowledge, internationalization and economies of
scope. There are the areas where respondents
indicated their organizations motivations for
cooperation was the highest.
Figure 65: Companies cooperating with others in
the same field
At the other end of the scale, need for resources,
economies of scale, risk limitations and
transaction cost minimization were indicated as
not the most signification reasons for cooperation.
This question reveals that the highest degree of motivation for a company to work with others lies in
the areas where something can be gained with leads to more efficient and effective means of delivery
services/goods. This is evident in the high number who chose “Innovation” (technology and new
equipment) and “learning and acquiring knowledge”, two areas that could give companies a leading
edge and provide it with better and more prospects. Some companies might be reluctant to invest in or
try new technologies, but if their competitors are using it and it can be demonstrated that it works, this
could be a motivation to also try it.
158
Figure 66: Motivation to work with other companies in the same field
To find out more about possible motivations for seaports to work together, we asked a series of
questions about which areas would seaports most likely be able cooperate.
159
Question: What could be the motivation for Seaports to work together?
Like the previous question, there appears to be a high response rate for “sharing of knowledge” and
“innovation”. The least likely areas where seaport could cooperate would be “sharing of facilities” and
in the area of “human resources”. In the middle, respondents indicated “economic benefits” as a likely
area for cooperation. While many agreed that this could be a high reason for cooperation, there were
almost equally the same number indicated either “neutral” or “strongly disagree”. The same was for
“faster transhipment times” and “lack of space in ports”.
Figure 67: Motivation for Seaports to work together
*categories without responses have been omitted
160
While the aim of this report is to shed some light onto how we can shift cargo off the roads and onto
sea routes, there remain numerous challenges to this. We therefore asked respondents about some
problems they see with achieving this goal.
Q: In your opinion, which of the following factors could be seen as the main problems with
shifting cargo off the roads and onto short sea shipping routes? (a maximum of 3 responses were
allowed)
Figure 68: Possible problems with shifting cargo from road to sea
The greatest challenge as indicated by respondents was the “perceived increase in transport times” for
goods. Sea shipping has a perceived reputation for being slower compared to road and rail transport
and this could be one reason why the use of road transport has increased dramatically in the past many
years48. This point will later be explored to discuss some solutions to this problem. While transport
times are important for firms, not all goods shipped are ‘time sensitive’ and thus if extra time is used
for shipping goods, then this shouldn’t be a major concerns for companies.
The next challenges indicated where “costs” and “coordination difficulties”. Some other studies have
indicated that costs for shipping goods via sea routes can actually be lower than only road based
transport (Port of Hirtshals 2009; Mange 2006). If this is the case, then again, there must be more
information made available as to the real costs of transporting goods via different means. Regarding
“coordination difficulties”, there appears to be confusion as to how to best approach this. As a client
with goods to ship, it can be assumed that a customer wants its goods shipped from A to B in the
fastest time and with the lowest price possible. So from the customer’s perspective, they are not too
48
50% increase in heavy goods vehicles on European roads is predicted from 1998 to 2010, “White Paper
European Transport Policy 2010: time to decide”, pg. 9
161
concerned if their goods are shipped by road, rail or sea. If the aim of the European Union policies is
to reduce pollution and congestion on European roads, then short sea shipping must become even
more efficient compared to road transport. By strengthening each transport mode individually the
intention is to strengthening the whole intermodal transport chain.
Smaller concerns which were indicated in the survey were the availability (10%) and reliability (6.5%)
of ferry service.
Other responses included:
 Lack of national facilitation of sea transport
 Flexibility
 Port costs
We asked respondents to provide more specific details about the above mentioned challenges to
shifting cargo off the roads and onto sea shipping routes. Some of the responses are presented below.
Question: Do you have any suggestions how to solve the above problems? (from previous)
“Easier and more efficient formalities are needed along the Russian-EU border”
“Increase transparency of the information on the cargo, where it is situated and when will it arrive,
such as done today with road transport”
“Overall easier to follow procedures for custom clearance”
“More networking between ports”
“Reduce costs and tariffs”
“More involvement with local governments and with legislation that pushes cargo off the roads and
into ships”
“Less EU administration for funding programs – extensive amount of time is used to fill out forms and
undertake all the needed procedures. Not very business friendly.”
“There is a need to demonstrate that the transfer of goods from one mode to another can be achieved
in an efficient "invisible" manner. The cargo owner should have no need to worry about the actual
links in the logistics chain, only that his goods get from door to door within the parameters that he
sets. This requires the complexity of a multimodal logistics chain to be shielded from the cargo owner,
but in a way that gives him confidence that when problems arise they can be addressed easily. This
can only be achieved through improved cooperation across the logistics modes, and by investing in
infrastructure and systems that allow a more efficient flow of cargo from one mode to another.”
“Need some sort of standardization across the system, i.e. Packaging, trucks, trailers, etc.”
162
“A coordinated national approach – one stop shopping”
“The government should stimulate the cooperation between multiple ports owned by municipalities.
Need for bigger regional hubs.”
Question: What reasons make (could make) your organization use Short Sea Shipping?
The greatest reason indicated for someone to use short sea shipping service is “economic reasons”.
This indication re-emphasises the need that sea shipping needs to be a competitive alternative to road
transport in order for it to gain a greater market share. 55% of respondents indicated either “strong
agree” or “agree” for this category. Followed closely were those which indicted “congestion on
roadways” as a possible reason for using short sea shipping. 40% of respondents agreed with the
statement that “greater available subsidies for combined transportation” would be a reason to use SSS,
while 10% strongly agreed with this statement. “Better information about available services” and
“time savings” appears to have some of the least reasons for firms to use SSS where large numbers
indicated they were neutral on the matter.
163
Figure 69: Reasons to use short sea shipping
Those firms that indicated either “strongly agree” or “agree” and have more than 100 employees, the
greatest reasons for using SSS services are economic reasons and congestion on roadways. “Greater
available subsidies for combined transport” and “environmental reasons” are followed closely behind.
164
Figure 70: Reasons for using SSS services, firms over 100 employees
These same respondents indicated that “time savings” was the weakest reason for using SSS services.
This was followed by “frequency of shipping services” and “better information about available
services”.
Figure 71: Reasons for not using SSS services, firms over 100 employees
An overview of respondents to this questions based on the industry they represent shows that there is
broad consensus as to which reasons are strongest for using SSS services.
165
Figure 72: Government Responses for using SSS
Figure 73: Maritime Transport
Figure 74: Port Authority
166
Figure 75: Warehousing
Figure 76: Answers to the survey question;
Whether congestion on roadways could make an organisation use Short Sea Shipping or not
167
Question: Is your firm currently
facing congestion problems? &
Question: If “Yes”, on which leg
of the transport network is there
congestion?
Figure 77: Which leg of the transport chain is there congestion
Figure 78: Firms facing congestions problems
Twenty-five firms or about 40% of
organizations indicated that there
were experiencing delays along
some part of their transport chain.
Of those that indicated they were
experience delays, the areas where
their
organization
was
experiencing congestion were on
highways (23%), ports and
railways (20%). It appears that the
physical infrastructure (road-portrail) should be the areas of most
concern by respondents. While
individual actors can do little to
change physical infrastructure,
they can apply pressure to their
national and regional governments
to
prioritise
infrastructure
investment projects in the national
action plans for transport. National
and regional governments should
be aware of the cost delays which
poor infrastructure, congestion and
delays can bring to their local
businesses and society at large.
A sample of the country responses to the above question by “congestion on roadways”, “greater
available subsidy for combined transport” and “economic reasons” are presented below.
.
168
Figure 79: Reasons for using SSS, greater available subsidy for combined transport
When asked whether the use of greater subsidies would pursue firms to use SSS, the strongest
response came from Germany, where a large majority agreed it would help. The Norwegian
respondents also indicated that more subsidies could help an organisation decision to use SSS. The
Danes “strongly agreed” that subsidies could boost SSS, with the highest in this category out of all
countries. As with the Norwegians, there was also a large “neutral” indication towards subsidies,
suggesting that there may be other indicators which are more influential in a firm’s decision to use
SSS.
169
Figure 80: Reasons for using SSS, economic reasons.
While the reasons for subsidies, as seen in Figure 79 were not as decisive across countries, there
appears to be more agreement when respondents are asked about economic reasons for using SSS.
This answer demonstrates the competiveness of the transport industry where final costs ultimately
determine the mode of transport chosen.
170
Question: Are your familiar with the following European Union programme(s) where transport
funding is available?
Figure 81: Percentage of total who are familiar with the various programmes
Most respondents have some knowledge of EU funded transport programmes. Marco Polo II (31%)
and Motoroways of the Sea (24%) funding were indicated as programmes where respondents had most
knowledge. This was followed closely by Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) (22%) funding
and Interrge programme funding (17%). Only 6% of respondents did not have any knowledge of the
various EU programmes.
4.2.1 Other issues brought out of the questionnaire and analysis process.
Many in this online questionnaire and in the interviews conducted indicated that they simple do not
bother to even apply for EU funds due to this confusion and efficient of the system. Comments were
also given about the application procedures and time delays for EU funds (Marco Polo & MoS).
“They must become more effective and efficient or delivering the funds and making procedures to
access the funds simpler.
“This is a huge hindrance and disadvantage to short sea shippers and ports, especially if they are to
compete with road transport. Also, often new short sea routes need the assistance of funds, such as
available under EU programmes, to get started and to develop into something more permanent.”
“The programs are much too complicated. Really good projects are done by companies without
funding. Large shares of funding are "burned" to pay consultants. Furthermore applications take far
too much time.”
“Background & application procedure for Marco Polo & Motorways of the Seas is too complicated.
Application time frames are too short. Programmes should be in line with simplifying customs
171
procedures requested for short sea transports (there is still a huge disadvantage for short sea
transport compared to road transport).”
Taking the above on possible motivation reasons for seaports to work together, based on the
respondents’ size of firm they work for reveals some interesting results. Those who indicated “strongly
agree” and “agree” for large, medium and small firms stated that “sharing of knowledge”, “economic
benefits” and “innovations” offer the greatest motivation for seaports to work together. The “need for
human resources” was indicated to be the weakest motivation for cooperation.
What could be the motivation for seaports to work together with size of firm?
Figure 82: Motivation for Seaports to work together, large firms
Figure 83: Motivation for Seaports to work together, medium firms
(25 respondents – 141 answers)
172
Figure 84: Motivation for Seaports to work together, small firms
When asked about a firm’s motives for cooperation with other companies in the same field, there was
a more marked difference between respondents from firms of different sizes, compared with the
similar question on seaports.
Those from smaller firms indicated “learning and acquiring knowledge” and “innovations” could be
the greatest motives for cooperation. While they also indicated “learning and acquiring knowledge”,
respondents from medium firms also indicated “economies of scope” and “internationalization” as
almost equally motivating. Those from larger firms indicated that “learning and acquiring knowledge”
and “innovations” were the most motivating, followed closely by “economies of scope”,
“internationalisation” and “economies of scale” as fairly motivating for their organisation to work with
others in the same field.
Figure 85: Motivation to cooperate with others firms within the same field, small firms
173
Figure 86: Motivation to work with others in the same field, medium firms
Figure 87: Motivation to work with others in the same field, large firms
An overall breakdown of who responded to each of the above questions related to motivation for
seaports to work together shows that in fact “port authorities” are the most positive towards
cooperation than other groups. Areas where port authorities indicated less positively towards
cooperation are, “sharing of facilities”, “need for human resources” and “faster transhipment of
goods”.
In addition, all industries agree that environmental reasons are an important motivation for using SSS.
174
4.2.2 Specific Country Responses to Questions
This section will look at some specific answers to questions from each of the four focus countries of
the report.
Denmark
In Denmark, “learning and acquiring knowledge” was indicated as the area where firms in the
transport industry would most likely cooperate with one another. This was followed closely with
“economies of scale” and “internationalization”. The “need for resources” was the least reason for
cooperation.
Figure 88: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree)
Figure 89: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree)
175
Germany
In Germany, several possible areas where cooperation could be most likely were also given.
“Innovations”, “learning and acquiring knowledge” and “economies of scope” were all highly
plausible while “internationalization” and “need for resources” were also indicated as possible reasons
for cooperation.
Figure 90: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree)
Figure 91: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree)
176
Norway
The response from Norway indicated that “learning and acquiring knowledge” and
“internationalization” were the two most likely reasons for cooperation. This was followed closely by
“innovations”. For those that disagreed, the “need for resources” was the least likely area for
cooperation, followed by “internationalization”.
Figure 92: Motivation to work together (those that said agree + strongly agree)
Figure 93: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree)
177
Scotland
In Scotland, there was no broad consensus into the areas where firms could possible work together and
where they cannot. “Learning and acquiring knowledge” was indicated as the most likely as was
“innovations”, “need for resources”, “risk limitations” and “economies of scope”.
Figure 94: Motivation to work togetherr (those that said agree + strongly agree)
Figure 95: Motivation to work together (those that said disagree + strongly disagree)
178
4.3 Summary & Lessons learned from the Online Questionnaire
The online questionnaire allowed for a wider perspective into port cooperation and complementarities.
By reaching out to the very people in the industry that this report is trying to reach, the questionnaire
added support and new ideas into the debate on port cooperation. In general some of the most
prominent findings from the questionnaire can be summarized as:






Most people have some knowledge of MoS, where larger firms show a higher percentage of
knowledge than smaller firms. Overall, a more consists and detailed definition would benefit
people’s understanding of MoS.
The shipping industry still has a poor image, compared to other forms of transport (road and
rail). Shipping is still considered the slowest mode of transporting goods – although in many
cases it can be faster than both road and rail, especially in cases where modes are combined.
In addition, the cost of shipping goods is still perceived as high. The value added aspects
which are provided by all actors involved with shipping goods needs to be better expressed to
customers.
The coordination of goods, which includes SSS should be improved to ensure that the most
appropriate mode of transports are the actually ones being used in good transport. Often road
transport wins out over SSS due to poor coordination and/or lack of information about
available sea services.
Congestion is actually a good thing for SSS. 40% of the respondents indicated that they have
experienced delays on transport routes, mainly on highways and within the ports. The more
congestion there was on highways, the more willing organizations are to look at sea transport
as an alternative.
Some of the highest indicators for using SSS are “economic reasons”, followed by
“congestion” and “subsidies”
Those who indicated reasons for not using SSS were due to “time” and “frequency of ferry
services”
Other findings from the online questionnaire will be included in the conclusion discussions which can
be found at the end of Chapter Five.
179
5 Report Summary & Main Findings
The four previous sections of this report have explored various issues surrounding port cooperation
and port complementarities. The four regional reports provided insight into some of the issues, which
are directly affecting the transport and logistics industry and how countries manage their port system.
Such a background is needed in order to fully appreciate and understand the limits to where ports can
cooperate and how they can undertake cooperation. The proceeding pages will summary the results of
the entire report and will assist with answering the sub-questions of this report. The main research
questions will then be answered in the next chapter, Chapter Six. The sub-questions are:
1. How can complementarities in relation to port networks create added value?
2. What are some of the constraints and challenges in the logistical network in using
seaports?
3. Which North Sea Region ports have the current or future potential capacity to be
successfully integrated into such a logistics network?
In general, there were examples and discussion based around nine areas where there exist
opportunities for ports to cooperate. These nine areas will be discussed under the following headlines:









Inland terminals,
Planning,
Waterways,
Marketing,
Environmental protection and monitoring,
Training and human resources,
Rail & road infrastructure,
Terminal operations and
Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
While some overlapping does occur with these categories, it is important to discuss each of them
separately in order to better understand the final outcomes of this report. These nine categories will
again be summarized in an easy-to-read table at the end of this section (Table 12)
As such, Table 12 is based on some criteria which are further explained below.
Type of Cooperation
There are three types of cooperation that have been identified in this report: organizational, structural
and project. Organizational cooperation is cooperation that is based on the direct day-to-day
operations of the port, mainly done within the port. This type of cooperation is seen as the direct form
of cooperation that can occur. The next type of cooperation is called structural cooperation. This
type of cooperation is seen as more cooperation based on port operations outside the port. These
include areas where cooperation occurs on developing such things as new routes, new systems which,
180
while they are done outside of the port, form part of the port operations. The next level of cooperation
is called project cooperation. This type of cooperation occurs on single projects, where ports devote
resources for a limited period of time to develop e.g. new infrastructure, suprastructure, techniques or
tools which will enhance port operations.
Who is cooperating?
When discussing port cooperation is it important to distinguish who exactly is cooperating. While
those mentioned in the proceeding pages are presented as possible suggestions, in principal, all those
interested partners within the transport chain can cooperate.
Benefits of cooperation
The benefits of cooperation, based on the regional reports, online questionnaire and the Amsterdam
workshop will be expressed in order to highlight what those interested partners can get out of entering
a form of cooperation.
Challenges to cooperation
As well as showing the benefits, the challenges to cooperation will also be discussed. It is important to
note that some forms of cooperation are easier than others and for some partners there are other
concerns, such as legal concerns, which prevent them from cooperating with others.
Real examples
Examples of cooperation are important to show in order to see how it actually works in ‘real life’.
Case examples can provide inspiration for those seeking to start new cooperation, while it also allows
for the challenges of such cooperation to be made clear from the start.
5.1 Inland Terminals & Terminal Operations
Inland terminals are one area that showed high potential for cooperation. The terminology ‘inland
terminals’ is used to describe the broad term used for such things as rail, intermodal or more
encompassing terminals such as Dry Ports. ‘Terminal operations’ is used to describe those who will
come to operate the terminal. For more information about inland terminals, particularly Dry Ports,
please refer to the StratMoS WPC-2 reports, entitled “Dry Port – Concept and Perspectives” which
describes various inland terminals and how they function. These terminals could be separately
managed or co-owned by various ports. This type of cooperation is seen as structural cooperation as it
is managed outside the port, but nonetheless shapes a part of the ports operations in how port operators
receive and ship goods.
There are many benefits to ports in using inland terminals. Inland terminals can act an extension of
the port, providing port services such as costume clearance, storage and sorting areas, and other
181
services needed. This can be especially useful in ports which experience congestion. Inland terminals
can also be used to provide a specialised service, which is not offered at the main port. As such, inland
terminals can allow for reduced costs of handling goods to the ports. They can also allow the port to
offer and market a wider variety of services, which would otherwise not be available or be too
expensive if the port had to do it themselves. The costs of inland terminals can either be borne by a
private company or a jointly formed company between several actors, including several ports. When
ports jointly come together, they can have influence in the operations of the inland terminal, but are
free from taking on more responsibilities than they are capable of.
There are also some challenges to this type of cooperation. Not everyone can see the benefits of using
inland terminals and many port operators do not want to give up control of their distribution networks.
As such, port authorities may wish to explore how and if an inland terminal could bring positive
benefits to their organization. One way to overcome this obstacle is to consider inland terminals as part
of a port’s strategic plan. In this way, port authorities can better manage how an inland terminal could
match the port’s needs and overall enhancement of choices and decisions by all parties could be
properly managed.
Two good examples of inland terminal cooperation between ports can be found in the Dry Port of
Madrid (Puerto Seco de Madrid - PSM) and the Taulov Transport Centre (TTC), Denmark. The
purpose of the development of the PSM is to “design, construction, marketing, management,
exploitation and operation of the rail container terminal…and the provision of services facilitating
both the handling and the transport and distribution of freight cargo” (Estrada 2008, p.3). The PSM
works with four Spanish ports (Algerciras, Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia) and has the legal right to
offer custom and inspection regulatory services. The PSM is operated as a public-private partnership
between several government agencies and the four ports which they are connected to it. The case of
PSM demonstrates that both public bodies and private port operators can work together to develop
inland terminals to help reduce road based transport and to increase intermodal transport. It also
represents a good case example of how several ports can work together so that all port involved can
benefit from the joint efforts of one project.
While not as formally organized as the PSM, authorities at the Taulov Transport Center (TTC) are
currently developing a more expanded business model approach with various ports within Denmark.
In particular, the ports of Esbjerg and Fredericia (ADP A/S) have more recently worked with
developing more linkages with this combi-terminal. The Port of Fredericia has expanded the number
of trains going to and from the TTC and is currently working on improving road connections to the
TTC. These initiatives will enable the ports to improve intermodal transport while reducing road
congestions to and from the ports, but moving more goods on rail. The Port of Esbjerg is also working
on improving its rail network in order to increase goods moving between the TTC and the port.
Ports and terminal operates can also cooperate when it comes to terminal operations, as the case of
Jade-Weser Port, in Germany demonstrates. The terminal operator Eurogate along with the Ports of
Hamburg and Bremerhaven have worked together to construct an entirely new terminal where all
parties can benefit. This type of cooperation is new in Germany and will be closely watched to see
what the final outcomes will be. Another case of ports merging to form one operation and management
company can be found in Norway, in the Bergen region. Here, four ports have joined together to form
the Port Authority of the Bergen Area (BOH). This has allowed for the municipalities in the area, who
182
own the ports, to redistribute activities and plan for a new port to replace the central port of Bergen.
The proximately of the central port to the city centre has made the port land more attractive for other
purposes and has also limited this port’s ability to expand operations. The BOH can closely cooperate
with other ports in the area and with local municipalities to find the best suitable location for a new
port.
5.2 Planning
Port cooperation can also occur on a planning level. Planning incurs all area of preparing for and
developing of new and old port areas and facilities. Planning can be considered on all levels of
cooperation – organizational, structural, and project cooperation. Planning usually involves the local
government and port authority, but can also be extended to include all actors, who will be affected by
the end results (i.e. residents, forwarders, local property owners, etc.).
There are several benefits of planning cooperation between ports. These include such things as
rationalization of resources and enhanced cooperation with local municipalities. For the municipality
(ies) involved it can lead to more sound planning practices where the port is actually a part of the
overall community planning – something that is often lacking from municipal plans today. This is
especially important for ports that are located near or in city centres. There cases of conflict between
the port authorities and others residents and businesses near by the port often arises. Examples of ports
cooperating on the planning level can be found with Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP), ADP A/S in
Denmark and Lower Saxony Ports in Germany.
5.3
Waterways
Many ports, including many described in this report, are located on inland waterways, which present
these ports with some special challenges. Inland waterways need to be properly maintained and such
services like dredging and coastal management protection need to be provided. All these extra
services, however, comes at an extra costs to port authorities. As such, this is one area in which ports
can cooperate, in order to share the burden and management costs of these services. In addition to
dredging, other ports that are located in areas where ice can be an issue will also have additional costs
in the form of icebreaking services. Therefore cooperation on this level should be further explored to
see how partnerships with other local ports, or regional authorities could reduce the costs of these
services. In Denmark dredging is the responsibility of the ports, unlike in Germany where it is state
that pays for dredging.
5.4 Marketing
The joint promotion of ports was one of the areas, which showed the most promise for port
cooperation. The benefits of sharing knowledge about a region’s ports and pooling resources to
promote a port’s activities to a wider audience was very appealing to port authorities and those
183
surveyed in the online questionnaire. In many of the North Sea countries, there already exist some
national groups, such as Danish Ports, Norwegian Ports, Flanders Port Area, British Ports Association,
Lower Saxony Ports, etc. These groups work on promoting the interest of that country’s ports both
domestically and international. Beyond these large national groups, individual port marketing with
ports located in vicinity of each other could be a tool to help improve regional development. An
example of this can be found with the formation of Lower Saxony Ports, which took over the
responsibility of each individual port marketing efforts into one larger and centralised strategic unit.
This combined allows for better strategic marketing where services from all the ports can be included
in promotion material to potential clients.
5.5 Environmental Protection & Monitoring
The protection and monitoring of the environment is an important part of port operations. Port
authorities have a commitment to reduce the impacts of port operations on the surrounding
environment and many are actively involved in their local communities in raising awareness of such
issues as water protection and management. Environmental protection and monitoring is usually
carried out by port authorities, local, regional and national government agencies in a wide number of
departments and agencies. The various agencies that port authorities need to deal with can present
some planning challenges for port authorities. As with marketing, ports can work together on a variety
of projects, which could reduce the costs of carrying out certain environmental protection measures
and monitoring efforts. This could be in the way of sharing experiences with new devices or new
initiatives to reduce the environmental impact the port has on the local area. Due to the unique
situation with Copenhagen Malmö Port lying in two countries, with two different environmental rules
and regulations, the harmonization of environmental monitoring and protection is an important aspect
of their environmental plan. This unique situation can actually become beneficial to improvement of
the environment in both countries as the adoption of better environmental regulations in one country
will ultimately lead to an improvement in the other. The case example of air pollution emission limits
in the City of Copenhagen, will ultimately be applied to Malmö port activities and create a situation
where Malmö city officials might be inclined to adopt similar measures. This is an example of how
ports can actually have an impact on fostering more environmental friendly practices.
5.6 Training and Human Resource Management
Another form of cooperation was found in the area of “training and human resources”. The term
“training and human resources” is used to describe activities, which allow for employees to upgrade
their skills, improve overall worker efficiencies and safety and to train in new methods and
procedures. While this level of cooperation is considered to be organizational, it can also come about
in the form of certain projects between various ports. Cooperation can occur between ports, national
and regional authorities, universities and other training institutions. The benefits of engaging in such
cooperation for port authorities would be to increase productivity, reduce accident rates and to develop
employee skills to meet the needs of the industry. While there are many benefits to engaging in these
training exercises, they do come at a cost. These will include not only financial costs, but also time and
other resources.
184
The Port of Hamburg has been involved with a successful program, along with the German national
government which allows for the port to obtain state subsidies for training. The current economic
crisis has provided an opportunity to engage employees in training programs while the industry is
experiencing a down turn. Other opportunities exist where nearby ports could pool resources to offer
courses that meet the demands of the port, but would allow for costs to be shared amongst more than
one port. This could be especially beneficially for smaller ports whose size and limited staff budgets
may limit the training they can provide.
5.7 Rail & Road Infrastructure
Like inland terminals, ports can jointly work together on improving infrastructure to and from the port.
Enhanced rail infrastructure can improve a port’s hinterland connections and join it up with inland
terminals, other ports and new customers. Rail infrastructure investments are often large and therefore
the costs cannot always be borne solely by the port. National and regional governments are often
involved to pay for part or the entire cost of new infrastructure.
Several ports examined in this report are currently considering or have already expanded their rail
facilities. The Port of Hirtshals, Denmark, will receive 50% financing from the National government
for its plan to extend the current main rail line up to the port. The Port of Aalborg also would like to
begin rail service to the port, after taking ownership of the local rail network that runs from the port to
the main north-south Danish rail line. The Port of Kristiansand also has expanded its rail network to a
new rail terminal, located a few kilometres from the port area. In addition, the port has ten daily cargo
trains connecting the port with Oslo.
As with rail, working together to improve road access to the port area can also bring about benefits.
Unlike rail, road cooperation most often involves the port working with regional and national
authorities. In some cases, ports have won EU MoS funding to assist with road extensions and
planning studies to the port, as seen with the Port of Esbjerg and Port of Aarhus.
5.8 Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
The development of ICT to improve sea transport, safety and overall efficiency of business operations
was rated high for cooperation. These systems can either be considered organizational cooperation or
project cooperation and usually only involve port authorities. The can, however, also include national
governments in the cases where more widespread use of one particular system is adopted. ICT
cooperation can help ports improve their abilities to efficiently track information flows and enhance
communicate between ports, ships and other actors. The Port of Amsterdam has been very active in
developing vessel traffic systems (VTS) or vessel traffic management information systems (VTMIS)
along with the Port of Rotterdam. A new organisation, called Portbase, was created in 2009 but was
founded with the merger of Port of Rotterdam’s Port Infolink and Port of Amsterdam’s PortNET. The
idea is that when all logistics information is gathered together in one place, all parties can benefit and
information exchange between companies and public authorities can be improved. The port authorities
185
in Rotterdam and Amsterdam hope to turn Portbase into a national organization where all ports in the
Netherland, and possibly in other countries, can learn from benefits of cooperating on ICT.
The idea of standardising ICT would be beneficial for all ports and actors involved in the transport of
goods. Which standards to adopt and the debate about who will manage such standards would need to
be worked out but the potential benefits could be great and the above example of Portbase shows that
it is possible to cooperate in the area of ICT where all partners can receive positive advantages from
participating.
186
5.9 Summary of Port Cooperation & Complementarities
Table 122: Summary of Port Cooperation & Complementarities
Area of Cooperation
Details
& Complementarities
Inland terminals & Rail terminal,
transport and logistics
terminal operations
Type of
Cooperation
Structural,
project
Ports authorities,
shipping lines,
planning
authorities,
terminal
operators,
forwarders
Planning (Port, Port Planning for new
facilities – coherence
area)
Organization,
project, structural
Government
authorities and
port authorities
Waterways
Organizational,
structural
Port authorities,
national/regional
governments
Port authorities
centres, Dry Port,
Intermodal Terminal,
Constructing new
facilities
Marketing
between port master
planning and
municipal/regional
planning
Dredging, icebreaking
services
Promotion of ports
Research &
Development
Lobbyism
Organizational
Who is
cooperating
Benefits of
cooperation
Challenges to
cooperation
Ease congestion,
increased storage
capacity, modal
shift, outsource
customs, shared
costs for all the
above, improved
logistics, new
capacity at reduced
costs
Rationalization of
resources,
enhanced
cooperating with
local
municipalities
Cost savings,
increased
coordination
Sharing knowledge
and resources
Convince people
about the benefits
of inland terminals,
more integration of
Inland terminals
into port strategies,
customs
procedures,
Funding methods
Dry Port of Madrid, Taulov
Transport Centre (Esbjerg/ADP)
Jade-Weser Port, Port of Bergen (4
ports together), Aberdeen Harbour
Finding common
goals, visions for
ports
Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP),
Associated Danish Ports (ADP),
Lower Saxony Ports
Expensive – who
pays?
Port of Aalborg (Limfjord),
Norwegian Ports and Norwegian
National Coastal Administration
ADP A/S, CMP, Seaports of
Germany, Lower Saxony Ports,
Hafen Hamburg Marketing, Forth
Ports Plc
Balanced
development
between ports
Real Examples
Environmental
Protection &
Monitoring
protecting of
waterways, air, lands
around ports
Organizational
Port authorities,
national/regional
governments,
environmental
authorities
Training & Human
Resource
Management
Upgrade skills,
improved employee
working conditions,
improve productivity
Organization,
project
Rail & Road
Infrastructure
Increased hinterland
accessibility
Project
Information
and
Communication
Technologies (ICT)
Information
and
communication
systems to improve
sea transport, safety,
efficiency
Organizational,
structural,
Project
Port authority
and
national/regional
authorities,
universities and
training
institutions
Ports,
rail
authorities,
national
governments,
national safety
organizations
Port authorities
Improved
environmental
protection
standards,
adoption of new
technologies/ideas
More productive
works, esp. in
down times,
trained in more
‘greener’ working
methods, cost
reductions
Modal shift,
improved
accessibility,
greener transport, shared costs
Expensive,
national
government
regulation,
awareness of
benefits
Costs, time
consuming,
government
support needed
Copenhagen Malmö Port
Costs, obtaining
subsidies, sunk
costs of existing
transport facilities
Port of Aalborg (rail), Port of
Hirtshals (road and rail), Port of
Kristiansand (new inland terminal
connected by rail)
Improved safety,
efficiency,
information about
vessels and traffic
To find a common
standard for the
system, expensive
to operate
Port of Amsterdam and Port of
Rotterdam (Portbase) – system
VTS, VTIS, vessel traffic systems
Port of Hamburg and the German
National government
The next chapter, Chapter Six, will answer the research question and conclude the report.
188
6 Conclusions
This report has demonstrated what others in the field of short sea shipping and the transport and
shipping industries have already done - that port cooperation is becoming more common, more intense
and that there are indeed some potential and proven benefits for ports to cooperate between themselves
and others in the transport chain. This trend will only continue as more port authorities realise the
benefits of cooperation and search for new ways of competing in an already competitive market. Also,
as the industry strives to remain competitive and efficient and as politicians look for ways to
strengthen their region’s prospects in the globalised world, port cooperation will come to play a more
important role in port policy and development strategies. In summary, some of the main aims for ports
to engage in cooperation are:






Costs savings through rationalization of operations (marketing, ICT systems, accounting, etc.)
Developing strategic alliances with other ports
Sharing the risks
Increase customer service and services available
Knowledge sharing
Sharing the costs of new investments (road, rail, terminal, etc.)
Port cooperation can be a part of the solutions to problems facing ports operations and can help
achieve some of the above mentioned objectives. The main research question of this report is again
stated below and will now be answered and this report will then be concluded.
The main research question of the report:
How could North Sea ports be effectively integrated into the European
logistical network and how could port cooperation and port complementarities
improve the flow of door-to-door transport as per the Motorways of the Sea
concept?
Port cooperation and port complementarities activities have been shown to bring positive benefits to
port operations. Some ports are at the forefront of port cooperation, due to their organisational
structure as a result of the merging of two or more ports together. Ports such as Copenhagen Malmö
Port and Association of Danish Ports (ADP A/S) have been innovative in merging ports within close
proximity of each other. All ports involved in these partnerships, as already expressed in this report,
have benefited from such strategic moves. Other examples of this include the Port of Bergen, Norway
and in Scotland with Forth Ports Plc. The merging of ports is not always possible or desirable in every
location and situation. Instead, examples of ports working together on common marketing, ICT or
terminal operations have shown that ports are currently benefiting from shared practices. Of course,
not all port cooperation is possible and even desirable.
Examples about the large distances between ports in Norway, is an example of how port cooperation
can be challenging due to physical distances and constraints between the ports. That being said, other
cooperation examples could be useful in Norway, in such areas as ICT or marketing, where common
problems can be achieved through joint efforts to build up partnerships. At the other end of the scale,
the strategic port cooperation shown in the Flanders region of Belgium demonstrates a high level of
port cooperation within one region. Together the ports Antwerp, Ghent, Zeebrugge and Ostend are
marketed as one strong brand to the outside world. Other forms of cooperation are, however, not so
easily visible. These include such agreements where one port has shares in another port, such as seen
with the Port of Amsterdam who holds shares in Port of Rotterdam. Despite the several above
mentioned cases, there is still a need to further explore more case examples of port cooperation so
authorities can learn from the experiences of each other with the goal of improving the entire transport
chain.
One major hindrance to port cooperation has been seen with country and EU level competition rules.
Local and EU laws and regulations must be considered first when ports enter into cooperation
agreements as to not misuse their market position. There will always be issues of breach of
competition rules, and these laws that must be taken into account when new partnerships are formed.
Too much cooperation also could lead to price cartels, something which has been seen in other
transport sectors. This would not benefit the customer and would damage the industry as a whole,
defeating the positive benefits that port cooperation hold. The EU can, however, assist with working
on such matters as harmonising working practices, laws and operation procedures which would bring
an EU wide standard into the market to make the cost and ease of business operations easier for all
parties. Other obstacles to port cooperation have already been discussed in Chapter 6, in Table 12,
however, it was one of the objectives of this report to explore these issues in order to help with
developing a better understanding of how obstacles hinder cooperation and how (or if) they could be
overcome.
More research will, however, be needed into port cooperation, but it is important that knowledge from
this report is disseminated by all – allowing for the most possible benefits to appear and to become
reality. This is also why the next WP C StratMoS report, under activity C-3, will focus on further
exploring cluster policies and the linkages to MoS initiatives. The aim for C-3 will be an attempt to
take some of the results discussed in this C-1 and the C-2 (on Dry Ports) and examine how and what
we can learn by looking at both cluster policies and ICT developments with MoS initiatives. It will
also be a goal of the C-3 report to further explore what “MoS” actually entails and provide some clear
definition for the industry.
In concluding the report, the main objectives will again be stated in order to review whether or not
they have been met. The objectives of the report were:




Obtaining up-to-date information about various ports around the North Sea Region
Understanding some of the most pressing issues facing ports and port authorities in providing
better, increased, and more efficient MoS services
Enhancing knowledge about how MoS activities can be integrated within ports and port
networks
Analysing how ports can better work together and further explore these areas which could
bring about benefits for all involved parties
190


Provide an opportunity for which to learn from other ports and experts and possibly assist with
other StratMoS demonstration, utilising the findings of this report.
Identifying good examples of port cooperation, complementarities and ways to improve the
overall transportation and logistics networks for goods
If all previous six chapters of the report have been read, it can be assessed that the main objectives of
the report have largely meet. The regional reports have provided an insightful overview into port
developments in four of the StratMoS countries, plus the addition of other partner countries can be
found in the Annex section of this report. The main issues facing ports and other actors in the door-todoor transport chain have been discussed and summarized. Understanding these issues have been
aided with the use of interviews with several port authorities and an online questionnaire, allowing
StratMoS partners to analyse how ports can better cooperate with each other. The various workshops,
meetings and communication taken place over the past year has allowed for both StratMoS partners
and invited guests to exchange knowledge and ideas with each other and jointly form common
conclusions to some of the problems facing the transport industry today. Finally, all of the above have
allowed for an identification of best practice examples of port cooperation and complementarities and
highlighted some areas which need further exploration.
191
7 References
General:
Estrada, J.L. (2008) The Madrid Dry Port. Port of Barcelona.
Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E. and T. Vanelslander (2005). “Ports as hubs in the logistic chain”
Chapter 10, in Leggate, H., McConville, J. and Morvillo, A. (eds.) International Maritime Transport,
Routledge: New York, 123-129.
Notteboom, T. (2008). “The Relationship between seaports and the inter-modal hinterland in light of
global supply chains - European Challenges”. Discussion Paper presented at the Joint Transport
Research Centre – OECD – International Transport Forum – Research Round Table, Paris April 1011 2008.
Macedo, J. B. de, and J. O. Martins (2008). “Growth, Reform Indicators and Policy
Complementarities”. Economics of Transition (16)2: 141–164.
Massanti, M. and Zoboli, R. (2008). “Complementarities, firm strategies and environmental
innovations: empirical evidence for a district based manufacturing system”. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences, Vol. 5, 17-40.
Heaver, T.D., Meersman, H. and Van de Voorde, E. (2000). “Co-operation and competition in
international container transport: Strategies for ports. Chapter 11 Maritime Policy & Management (27)
130-142
Regional Country Reports:
Norwegian Country Report References
National Transportation Plan 2010-2019, approved 11.06.2009 (Nasjonal transportplan – NTP)
Pilotage Act of 16.06.1989 (Losloven)
Pollution Control Act of 13.03.1981 (Forurensningsloven)
Ports and Fairways Act of 27.06.2009 (Havne- og farvannslov) Effective from 01.01.2010
Germany:
(APM
Terminals,
2009)
APM Terminals AAarhus Starts Rail Service
Press Release: July 15, 2009
BAG-2005
Marktbeobachtungen Güterverkehr: Sonderbericht zum Seehafen-Hinterlandverkehr, Bundesamt für
Güterverkehr, Bonn 2005
192
Bremen/
Hamburg/
Niedersachse
n 2009
Cuxhaven
2009
Freie Hansestadt Bremen, Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Niedersachsen (Free Hanseatic City of
Bremen, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony): ‘Seaports of Germany’. 2009. published
on the webpage of Bremen: http://www.bremen.de, last seen 03/17/2009
Webpage of the city of Cuxhaven: http://www.cuxhaven.de, last seen 03/18/2009
Destatis 2009 Webpage of the Federal Statistical Office, Statistics on the turnover of sea ports (Verkehr –
Seegüterumschlag deutscher Häfen): http://www.destatis.de/, last seen 03/16/2009
Decision No 1346/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of
22
May
2001
retrieved
from
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,da&lng2=bg,cs,da,de,el,en
,es,et,fi,fr,hu,it,lt,lv,mt,nl,pl,pt,ro,sk,sl,sv,&val=260197:cs&page=
Flottenkomm Flottenkommando (part of the German navy): ‘Fakten und Zahlen zur maritimen Abhängigkeit der
ando 2008
Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Jahresbericht 2008’ (‘Facts and figures on the maritime dependence of
Germany – Annual report 2008’)
Eurlex, 2009
German
Investitionsrahmenplan bis 2010 für die Verkehrsinfrastruktur des Bundes (IRP), Version April 2007,
Master Plan http://www.bmvbs.de
Traffic 2007
German
Nationales Hafenkonzept für die See- und Binnenhäfen vom 19.02.2009, Entwurf, http://www.bmvbs.de
National Port
Concept
2009
IHK
2009
Nord Industrie- und Handelskammer Nord (IHK Nord): ‘Die nationale Bedeutung der deutschen Seehäfen’
(Chamber of commerce and industry north: ‘National importance of German seaports’). 2009
ISL-2000
Entwicklungstendenz der Deutschen Nordseehäfen bis zum Jahr 2015, Institut für Seeverkehr und
Logistik, Bremen 2000
JadeWeserPo Webpage of the JadeWeserPort: http://www.jadeweserport.de, last seen 03/10/2009
rt 2009
Kiel-Canal
2009
Official webpage of the Kiel-Canal: http://www.kiel-canal.org, last seen 03/09/2009
Logistik
Inside 2005
Logistik Inside (German trade journal for logistics): ‚Cuxhaven darf künftig Übersee-Container
umschlagen’. (Cuxhaven is allowed to handle container in the future). Published on the webpage
http://www.logistik-inside.de on 10/28/2005, last seen 03/12/2009
NI
Port Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr: ‚Hafenkonzept Niedersachsen –
Concept
– Anlagenband – Profile der See- und Binnenhäfen’. (Ministry for Economics, Labour and Transport of
Annex 2007 Lower Saxony: ‘Port Concept Lower Saxony – Annex – Profiles of seaports and inland waterway ports’).
2007
NI
Port Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr: Hafenkonzept Niedersachsen.
Concept
(Ministry for Economics, Labour and Transport of Lower Saxony: ‘Port Concept Lower Saxony’). 2007
2007
Port
Hamburg
2009
Webpage of the seaport Hamburg: http://www.hafen-hamburg.de/, last seen 03/09/2009
Ports Bremen Webpage of the seaports Bremen and Bremerhaven: http://www.bremenports.de/. Last seen 03/09/2009
2009
193
Ports
2009
NI Webpage of the seaports of Lower Saxony: http://www.niedersachsenports.de, last seen 03/09/2009
Ports
2009
SH Webpage of the seaports of Schleswig-Holstein: http://www.ports-of-schleswig-holstein.de/, last seen
09.03.2009
Seaports
2009
Webpage of the logistic platform for the seaports of Lower Saxony: http://www.seaports.de/, last seen
03/09/2009
Seaports
Handbook
2008
Statistic
Portal 2009
Seaports of Niedersachsen GmbH: ‘Seaports Handbook 2007/2008’. 2008
Webpage of the Statistical offices of the federal states and the Federal Statistic Office:
http://www.statistik-portal.de/, last seen 03/11/2009
TEN-T 2007
European Parliament and the Council: ‘Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network’ (1996D1692 – EN – 01.01.2007 – 004.001). 2007
VDR 2008
Verband Deutscher Reeder (VDR): ‘Daten der deutschen Seeschifffahrt 2008’ (Association of German
shipping companies: ‘Facts on German maritime traffic 2008’). 2008
ZDS 2007
Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe (ZDS): ‘Jahresbericht 2006/2007’ (Central association on
German port business: ‘Annual report 2006/2007’). 2007
ZDS 2008
Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe (ZDS): ‘Jahresbericht 2007/2008’ (Central association on
German port business: ‘Annual report 2007/2008’). 2008
Danish Country Report References
Altenburg, T. (2008) “Drop megahavn – lad de mindre komme til” (Drop mega port – let the smaller
go to). Havne, December 2nd, 2008.
APM Terminals 2009, pg.79
Danish Ministry of the Environment (2000) “Future Air Quality in Danish cities” Environmental
Project No. 527 2000, Impact study of the new EU Vehicle emission standards. Available at:
http://www.mst.dk/
Danish Road Directorate (2007). MODULVOGNTOG Foreløbig vurdering af vej- og trafiktekniske
Forhold , July 2007
European Commission (2007). “The EU’s freight transport agenda: Boosting efficiency, integration
and sustainability of freight transport in Europe”, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels
[18.10.2007 COM 606 Final]
German Ministry of Transport, Transport Research, Summary Survey 'Shortsea, Maut en Baltic' –
Available at: www.shortsea.nl/main/documents.php?id=563&language=2
IMD World Competiveness Yearbook (2006). Available at: http://www.imd.ch/index.cfm?nav1=true
(Accessed in August 2009)
194
Mange, E. (2006). “Short Sea Shipping Cost Benefit Analysis”. SETRA, Association for European
Transport and contributors
Websites referred to in the Danish Report
ADP A/S (www.adp-as.com)
Copenhagen-Malmo Port (CMP) (www.cmport.com/)
Danish Ports/Danske Havne (www.danskehavne.dk)
Danish Ship-owners Association (www.shipowners.dk)
European Union (EU) Trans-European Transport Networks
(//ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/basis_networks/basis_networks_en.htm)
Martine Development Centre of Europe (MDCE) (www.maritimecenter.dk)
Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (www.oem.dk)
Port of Aalborg (www.aalborghavn.dk)
Port of Hirtshals (www.portofhirtshals.com)
Port of Esbjerg (www.portesbjerg.dk)
Port of Frederikshavn (www.frederikshavnhavn.dk)
Statistics Denmark [2008] (www.sd.dk)
The Danish Maritime Authority (www.dma.dk)
195
Appendixes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
IN PERSON INTERVIEW GUIDELINES
COPY OF ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
FERRY PASSENGER SERVICES TO AND FROM DENMARK
REGULAR ROUTES FROM THE PORT OF AARHUS
GOODS TURNOVER IN SELECTED DANISH PORTS
STATISTICS ON THE SCOTTISH REGION
UK: THE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING PORT MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR SCOTLAND
COOPERATION BETWEEN PORTS IN THE NETHERLANDS
COOPERATION BETWEEN PORTS IN FLANDERS, BELGIUM
HUMBERSIDE PORTS
196
Appendix A:
In person interview guidelines
Questions for one-on-one interviews: Port Authorities
*** At the start of the interview, the interviewer SHOULD ask the interviewee whether or not they wish to
remain anonymous. If they do, then their names and organisation name will not be used when referring to any
ideas/answers we use that may refer to something they said.
Interview Parts:
Part A: General Information (About StratMoS, purpose, interviewee, role, etc.)
Part B: Specific questions for C-1/C-2/MoS
Part C: More general ideas and thoughts into MoS activities + Closing
Part A:
The core idea and aim of the StratMoS project is to promote and facilitate a shift of cargo from road to
sea based intermodal transport, and improve accessibility within the North Sea Region by supporting
the implementation of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) and related transport networks in an integrated
logistical chain.
The StratMoS project is funded by the EU and the Norwegian government through the Interreg IV B
North Sea Region Programme. The project currently comprises for the time being 27 partners from
Denmark, Norway, Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.
As part of MoS, we are working at ways to improve and promote the concept of MoS by focusing on the
roles ports play in door-to-door logistics chains. One way of doing this is by examining the role that
port cooperation and hinterland facilities could be used to promote the industry.
1.
Can you tell us about your position in the organization?
a.
b.
How long have you been working for the organization?
How long have you worked in your present job?
2.
Is there a particular industrial sector which your port carters to?
a. Has this remained steady over the years, or has your port changed focus?
3.
Have you in anyway worked with Motorways of the Sea solutions?
a. Can you explain how it worked/the results?
Part B:
4.
Can you tell me about how you have tried to make your port more competitive in recent years? Have you
seen any of the results?
a.
Are you currently in or planning to develop any partnerships with other ports?
197
b.
c.
5.
Are there any areas where you can see your ports cooperating with another port? (OR other ports)(ie.
share facilities, knowledge exchange, services, etc)
a.
b.
6.
How would this work?
What type of communication do you have with neighbouring ports?
Who are the key players in developing new sea routes? (Port Authority, shippers, ferry operators,
government, etc?)
a.
9.
What could hinder ports from cooperating?
Do you have any ideas about who could manage this cooperation?
If another nearby port offered a certain type of service that you were unable to offer here, how willing
would you be to send that cargo there?
a.
b.
8.
In your opinion, which areas would ports be most able to cooperate in?
Most difficult? Why?
What mechanisms need to be in place, in order for the above (responses to port cooperation) to become
reality? (5 & 5.a)
a.
b.
7.
If YES, Can you explain how this works? Who made the first initiative?
If YES, Can you see the benefits of port cooperation to your organisation?
Are you aware of how this works?
Can you think of any problems with the goal of shifting cargo off the roads and onto short sea shipping
routes?
a.
What could be done to mitigate these problems?
10. What is your marketing strategy for promoting sea transport and other port facilities?
11. Can you name 3 or 4 major transportation challenges facing your organization/industry today?
a. How are port authorities dealing with the above challenges?
Part C:
12. What national policies would your organization like to see in place to promote the shipping industry?
a.
On a regional policy level?
13. In the near future, in order to secure EU funding it will require more inter-linkages with other
transportation forms within the logistics network.
a.
b.
c.
How would these new rules affect your organization OR
Do you have any cooperation with hinterland terminals, such as Dry Ports/In-Land terminals?
If so, how does that work?
198
14. In Sweden, the government has decided that it’s best to concentrate seaport investments on a few key
seaports which are deemed to be of national significance.
d. Would this be a good idea for (your country) ports?
e. Why, why not?
15. The current economic crisis presents some challenges for the transport, shipping and logistics industries.
As these industries scale back and consolidate, some might consider this a good opportunity for concepts
such as MoS – which among other things aims to improve the efficiency of the transport chain.
- What are your thoughts on this?
END – Thank you for your time.
_______________________________________________________________
*** Please note the above interview guidelines are to be seen as an aid to your own interviews. You are not
obliged to ask all the questions in the list, especially if they do not apply to your country’s situation/port. Please
feel free to add more questions that will help you in writing your country’s regional report.
*** Our idea is to compile all responses together which will help us look for more general themes, ideas,
problems which are common to the NSR and/or each countrys’ ports. Again, you should see the one-on-one
interviews as useful tools in complying your own regional reports.
*** If possible, an interview summary – of all interviews – could be made and placed in the final C-1 report
which will provide an overview of what was said – this will require that all partners transcribe the interviews
they conduct and send them to FDT. This information could also be helpful in later WP C activities.
*** All the reports and summaries will be made available on the StratMoS webpage, which you can let the
interviewee know about. You could also ask them or others in their organisation to fill in the on-line survey –
which is placed under “News” and under WP C - on the StratMoS webpage
199
Appendix B:
Copy of Online Questionnaire
Welcome to the StratMoS on-line survey.
Thank you for taking the time to fill out the survey - we appreciate your help. The survey should not take
more than 10 minutes of your time and all answers will remain anonymous. The findings of the survey will
be made available in mid-2009 on the StratMoS webpage (www.stratmos.com).
Again, if you should have any questions, please contact Anthony Caruso at FDT ([email protected]) or phone +45
99 30 00 11.
FDT - Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres, is a non-profit, independent organisation
representing the interests of seven transport and logistics centres in Denmark. FDT is also a member of
EUROPLATFORMS, the only European Association of Logistics Centres.
Which country are you based in?
(1)
 Denmark
(2)
 Norway
(3)
 Germany
(4)
 Scotland
(5)
 England
(6)
 Netherlands
(7)
 Belgium
(8)
 Sweden
(9)
 Other __________
What industry sector best describes your activities? (Select one)
(1)
 Road Transport (including freight forwarders)
(2)
 Port Authority
(3)
 Rail Transport
(4)
 Warehousing and Storage
(5)
 Government
(7)
 Consulting/Planning
(8)
 Maritime Transport
(6)
 Other [Please specify] __________
How many people work in your organisation?
200
(1)
 1-10
(2)
 11-20
(3)
 21-50
(4)
 51-100
(5)
 More than 100
Are you familiar with the concept of Motorways of the Sea?
(1)
 Yes
(2)
 No
If YES, where did you hear about it?
(1)
 Media
(2)
 Conference(s)
(3)
 Promotional Material
(4)
 Industry Contacts
(5)
 Website
(6)
 Other (Please specify) __________
Is your organisation presently cooperating with other companies in the same field?
(1)
 Yes
(2)
 No
What could be/are some motives for your organisation to cooperate with other companies in the
same field?
Strongly Disagree
Innovations
(technology
or
new
equipments)
Need
for
resources
(human,
financial, physical resources)
Learning
and
acquiring
new
limitation
(financial
and
knowledge
Risk
competition)
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

201
Strongly Disagree
Economies of scale (savings in cost
production)
Economies of scope (increasing the
variety of services available)
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Transaction cost minimisation (the
costs which are related with drafting
contracts, negotiating, safeguarding
agreements between the parties to a
transaction also managing relevant
logistics costs)
Internationalization
(the
process
leading to a company's increasing
involvement
in
cross-border
or
international operations)
What could be the motivation for seaports to work together?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Lack of space in port area
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sharing knowledge
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Environmental benefits
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Economic benefits
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sharing facilities
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Innovations
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Need for human resources
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Faster trans-shipment of goods
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

In your opinion, which of the following factors could be seen as the main problems with shifting
cargo off the roads and onto short sea shipping routes? (Max. 3 responses)
(1)
 Perceived increase in transit time
(2)
 Costs (ferry and/or organising costs)
(3)
 Coordination difficulties
(4)
 Availability of ferry services
202
(5)
 Reliability of ferry services
(6)
 Lack of existing partnerships/networks
(7)
 Other [Please specify] __________
Do you have any suggestions how to solve the above problems? (from Question 9)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
What reasons make (could make) your organization use Short Sea Shipping?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree Not Applicable
Environmental reasons
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Economic reasons
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Congestion on roadways
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Time savings
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Frequency of shipping service
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Greater
available
subsidy
for
combined transportation
Better information about available
services
Is your firm currently facing congestion problems?
(1)
 Yes
(2)
 No
(3)
 Not Applicable to my firm
If Yes, on which leg of the transport network is there congestion?
(1)
 Transport from suppliers
(2)
 Transport to customers
(3)
 Warehouse/Storage Facilities
(4)
 Highways
203
(5)
 Port
(6)
 Rail
(7)
 Other [Please specify] __________
Could it be beneficial to use a hinterland terminal (Dry Port) for your transport needs?
Dry Ports are intermodal terminals primarily located in strategic locations (rail and/or road networks) and are
linked up to one or more seaports. These terminals provide usual logistics services for the ports they serve, and
can provide extra services such as customs clearances, 3rd and 4th party logistics, or handling of dangerous
goods, etc. The terminals are often owned by port authorities who wish to move some port activities away from
congested port areas.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
It could be beneficial to use value
added hinterland terminal for our
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

maritime transport.
Which hinterland terminal (Dry Port) services could be assessed as the most relevant:
Strongly Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Neutral
Relevant
Strongly Relevant
Warehousing & Storage
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3rd Party Logistics
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Customs clearance
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Value Added Services
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Maintenance of units (containers,
swap bodies, trailers, etc.)
Which following hinterland terminal advantages could be/are the most relelvant ones for my
organisation:
Strongly Irrelevant
Reducing total transport expenses
Strengthening multi-modal solutions
Reducing the use of high cost,
centrally located port areas
Reducing
local
environmental
Neutral
Relevant
Strongly Relevant
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Strengthening the ports role in the
transport chains
Irrelevant
204
Strongly Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Neutral
Relevant
Strongly Relevant
problems
Avoid traffic bottlenecks
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Are your familiar with the following European Union programme(s) where transport funding is
available?
(1)
 Marco Polo II
(2)
 Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
(3)
 Motorways of the Seas Funding (TEN-T)
(4)
 Interreg
(5)
 Other [Please Specify] __________
(6)
 I am not familiar with any of the above.
Please feel free to add any additional comments or questions below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time! The survey is now complete. If you would like more information about StratMoS initiatives
and
projects,
please
visit
the
StratMos
website:
www.stratmos.com
205
Appendix C:
Ferry passenger services to and from Denmark
No. Norway <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
1
Oslo – Frederikshavn
Stena Line
www.stenaline.com (summer only)
2
Larvik – Hirtshals
Color Line
www.colorline.com
3
Kristiansand – Hirtshals
Color Line
www.colorline.com
4
Kristiansand – Hanstholm
Master Ferries
www.masterferries.com
5
Egersund – Hanstholm
Fjord Line
www.fjordline.com
6
Haugesund – Hanstholm
Fjord Line
www.fjordline.com
7
Bergen – Hanstholm
Fjord Line
www.fjordline.com
8
Oslo – Copenhagen
DFDS Seaways
www.dfdsseaways.com
No. Sweden <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
10
Göteborg – Frederikshavn
Stena Line
www.stenaline.com
11
Varberg – Grenå
Stenaline
www.stenaline.com
12
Helsingborg – Elsinore
Scandlines
www.scandlines.com
13
Helsingborg – Elsinore
HH Ferries
www.hhferries.com
14
Ystad Rønne
Bornholmstrafikken
www.bornholmstrafikken.com
No. Germany <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
15
Puttgarden – Rødby
Scandlines
www.scandlines.com
16
Rostock – Gedser
Scandlines
www.scandlines.com
17
Sylt – Rømø
Rmø-Sylt Line
www.syltfaehre.de
18
Sassnitz – Rønne
Bornholmstrafikken
www.bornholmstrafikken.com
No. Poland <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
19
Swinoujscie – Rønne
Polferries
www.polferries.com
20
Swinoujscie – Copenhagen
Polferries
www.polferries.com
No. England <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
21
DFDS Seaways
www.dfdsseaways.com
No. Iceland <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
22
Smyril Line
www.smyril-line.com
No. Faroe Islands <-> Denmark
Shipping Company
Website
23
Smyril Line
www.smyril-line.com
Harwich – Esbjerg
Seydisfjördur - Hanstholm
Tórshavn - Hanstholm
206
Appendix D:
Regular routes to and from the Port of Aarhus
SHIPPING COMPANY
AGENT
DESTINATION
CALL
Containerships
Eimskip Denmark A/S
+45 70 20 16 02
Gdansk
Södertalje
Frederikstad
Teesport
Lieapaja
St. Petersburg
Helsinki
once a week
once a week
once a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
Delta Shipping Line
Seamaster Shipping A/S
St. Petersburg
Rotterdam
Hamburg
once a week
once a week
once a week
+45 35 44 15 33
Eimskip
Eimskip Faroe Ship Denmark
A/S
+45 70 20 16 02
Fredrikstad
Tórshavn
Immingham
Reykjavik
Grundartangi
Eskifjödur
Rotterdam
Hamburg
Göteborg
2 times a week
2 times a week
once a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
2 times a week
Finnlines
Finnlines Danmark A/S
+45 86 20 66 50
Helsinki
3 times a week
Hamburg Süd/Maersk Line
Hamburg Süd
+45 35 44 15 44
Rotterdam
Felixstowe
Bremerhaven
Göteborg
Antwerp
Gioia Tauro
Istanbul
Izmir
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
"K" Line (Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha Ltd)
"K" Line (Denmark) A/S
+45 86 20 81 40
Hamburg
Rotterdam
Lisboa
Leixoes
Felixstowe
Teesport
Bilbao
Göteborg
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
Maersk Line
Maersk Agency Denmark A/S
Bremerhaven
Rotterdam
Felixstowe
Antwerp
St. Petersburg
Gioia Tauro
Piraeus
Ambarli (Istanbul)
Haydorpasa
Izmir
Shimizu
Shanghai
Le Havre
Southampton
Shekou
Ningbo
Tanjung Pelepas
3 times a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
+45 89 31 64 00
207
Kobe
Yokohama
Nagoya
Singapore
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
Mols-Linien A/S
Mols-Linien A/S
+45 70 10 14 18
+45 89 52 52 53 (trucks)
Kalundborg
Odden
6 times per day
10 times per day
MSC
MSC Denmark A/S
+45 86 20 81 80
Antwerp
once a week
Samskip
Samskip A/S
+45 86 12 81 55
Torshavn
Reykjavik
Vestmannaeyjar
Immingham
Rotterdam
Cuxhaven
Varberg
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
once a week
Scandlines Balticum Seaways
Scandlines
+45 74 62 03 74
Klaipeda
once a week
Tschudi Lines Baltic Sea
Chr. Jensen Shipping A/S
Muuga/Tallinn
once a week
+45 3374 7576
Hamburg
once a week
Unifeeder A/S
+45 88 83 00 00
Fredrikstad
Oslo
St. Petersburg
Tallinn
once a week
Unifeeder
once a week
2 times per week
2 times a week
Riga
once a week
Klaipeda
Göteborg
Helsingborg
Copenhagen
Hamburg
Bremerhaven
Bremen
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Kotka
Helsinki
Hamina
once a week
once a week
once a week
2 times per week
3 times per week
3 times per week
3 times per week
once a week
once a week
2 times per week
2 times per week
once a week
208
Appendix E:
Goods Turnover in selected Danish Ports
Amount of goods in the Danish ports measured in 1000 tons (excl. fish) 2000K1 Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out 2000K2 2000K3 2000K4 2001K1 2001K2 2001K3 2001K4 2002K1 2002K2 2002K3 2002K4 2003K1 2003K2 Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Copenhagen Port 1900 Esbjerg Port 476
Fredericia Port 697
Århus Port 1447
Aalborg Port 415 Frederikshavn Port 379 Hirtshals Port ..
654 320
3292
836
78 276 ..
1662 562
649
1595
454 368 ..
695 356
3444
939
153 294 ..
1279 617
692
1488
435 326 ..
405 349
3281
938
126 292 ..
1256 503
694
1673
515 374 ..
372 365
3423
931
105 309 ..
1096 599
546
1581
475 357 ..
379 373
3362
959
104 294 ..
1160 557
670
1589
516 342 ..
427 363
3024
908
170 308 ..
1443 743
588
1550
528 326 ..
469 391
3177
988
130 316 ..
1249 609
650
1517
542 360 ..
465 440
3746
887
116 325 ..
1073 360
564
1549
445 395 ..
359 408
3654
813
93 360 ..
1118 544
580
1519
531 377 ..
340 459
3645
873
184 327 ..
1261 695
565
1541
571 333 ..
355 462
3270
884
112 313 ..
1047 467
679
1518
603 380 ..
444 481
3628
924
112 319 ..
1217 554
560
1413
408 360 ..
488 463
3776
819
253 325 ..
1270 355
598
1692
539 382 ..
495 440
3523
863
176 329 ..
209
2003K3 Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out 2003K4 2004K1 2004K2 2004K3 2004K4 2005K1 2005K2 2005K3 2005K4 2006K1 2006K2 2006K3 2006K4 2007K1 2007K2 2007K3 2007K4 Copenhagen Port 1402 Esbjerg Port 806
Fredericia Port 619
Århus Port 1682
Aalborg Port 557 Frederikshavn Port 342 Hirtshals Port ..
432 454
3464
956
136 320 ..
1080 619
552
1640
581 378 ..
386 428
3420
918
108 326 ..
1220 453
707
1561
555 402 ..
368 393
3252
898
201 354 ..
1274 517
536
1681
577 408 ..
369 406
3806
993
166 372 ..
1307 465
492
1630
563 353 ..
315 434
3615
910
122 315 ..
1008 549
670
1726
471 368 ..
Goods In
354 448
3576
958
96 317 ..
Goods in Total Goods Out 960 350
577
1656
352 335 128
Goods In
290 389
3653
839
78 293 148
Goods in Total Goods Out 1231 403
654
1897
613 366 146
398 408
3777
1026
177 307 184
Goods in Total Goods Out 1437 685
555
1803
513 368 126
479 434
3414
1020
166 332 145
Goods in Total Goods Out 1368 666
777
1897
529 360 136
511 448
3663
1029
114 314 181
Goods in Total Goods Out 1342 418
656
1744
538 362 155
577 423
3357
974
200 287 200
Goods in Total Goods Out 1320 523
617
2028
594 357 137
437 453
3498
1094
215 330 167
Goods in Total Goods Out 1308 785
627
1939
673 346 132
373 485
3037
1097
185 323 165
Goods in Total Goods Out 1154 591
667
1965
593 395 144
385 460
3648
1072
126 355 181
Goods in Total Goods Out 1596 701
604
1945
408 379 134
416 406
3120
1085
106 353 166
Goods in Total Goods Out 1402 603
688
2003
562 361 138
477 412
3151
1069
256 354 164
Goods in Total Goods Out 1360 739
620
1899
546 325 119
500 477
3133
1059
193 359 133
Goods in Total Goods Out 1145 664
689
2102
557 358 100
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
210
Goods In
2008K1 Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out Goods in Total Goods Out 2008K2 2008K3 2008K4 2009K1 Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Goods In
Copenhagen Port 483 Esbjerg Port 474
Fredericia Port 3321
Århus Port 1027
Aalborg Port 121 Frederikshavn Port 366 Hirtshals Port 112
1211 443
683
2083
630 315 119
526 380
3034
1004
228 313 133
1309 562
842
2151
637 284 134
434 454
2877
1097
222 348 138
1540 505
564
1757
519 300 126
381 452
2931
1024
175 313 129
1395 516
682
1788
619 304 122
427 435
2812
909
137 279 137
1163 615
627
1423
450 264 124
387 380
2796
802
136 243 150
211
Appendix F:
Statistics on the Scottish Region
Data is published annually in “Scottish Transport Statistics”. Edition number 27 is the current version
which was published at the end of 2008 and provides data for the 10 years up to and including 2007.
This
data
is
available
free
of
charge
on-line
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/0).
Chapter 10 from the book is copied in part and lists of the key tables and their hyperlinks are provided
thereafter in Appendix G.
It should be noted that the inclusion of bulk oil is a major factor in the port total tonnages. A separate
calculation using these figures for the Scottish East Coast ports (i.e. the North Sea basin) shows:
 the collection of ports operated by Forth Ports plc on the Forth estuary have port tonnage on
foreign and domestic tonnage for 2007 excluding bulk fuels of 3,943 thousand tonnes for
2007;
 Aberdeen has 3,644 thousand tonnes for the same category;
 Peterhead at 647 thousand tonnes;
 Dundee at 507 thousand tonnes; and
 the other East and Northern Isles Ports each have less than 200.
Chapter 10 contains the data relevant to “Water Transport”. It provides information about foreign and
domestic freight traffic at Scottish ports and inland waterways by type of freight and country of origin
and destination. It also includes statistics on passengers and vehicles carried by Caledonian
MacBrayne, Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd, Orkney Ferries, Northlink Orkney & Shetland Ferries, and
some of the other ferry services operating in Scotland.
The Main Points of the report are:
Freight
2.1 In 2007, a total of 70.2 million tonnes of freight was recorded as being lifted by water transport in
Scotland: 22.8 million tonnes of coastwise traffic to other ports in the United Kingdom (including
Scotland), 1.8 million tonnes of one port traffic to offshore installations, and 45.6 million tonnes of
exports from the major Scottish ports. Only 10.5 million tonnes of waterborne freight was carried for
part of its journey on inland waterways in 2007. Compared with 2006, there was an 11% increase in
coastwise traffic and the tonnage of port exports rose by 4%; the other figures were similar to those of
the previous year. (Table 10.1[a])
2.2 Exports through Scottish ports rose from 58 million tonnes in 1997 to 73 million tonnes in 2000
before steadily falling to 46 million tonnes in 2007. Figures for 1997 and later years cover exports via
major ports only (see section 4.3.3) - eight ports were counted as major ports in 1997 and 1998, there
were nine in 1999 and 11 from 2000 onwards. (Table 10.1[a])
2.3 In 2007, a total of 7.8 million tonnes of coastwise freight was discharged in Scotland: considerably
less than the amount that was lifted in Scotland. 7.9 million tonnes of one-port traffic (nearly all from
oil rigs) was discharged in Scotland. Imports totalled 14.6 million tonnes, considerably less than the
volume of exports. There are no figures for the amount of inland waterway traffic which is discharged
in Scotland. (Table 10.1[b])
212
2.4 The total amount of waterborne freight of all types (coastwise, one port and foreign traffic; both
incoming and outgoing) passing through the ports rose by 0.4% in 2007 to just under 102 million
tonnes. This was 11% less than in 1997 -well below the most recent peak of over 130 million tonnes in
2000. A breakdown between foreign and domestic traffic was only collected for the major ports from
1996 onwards. In 2007, the eleven major ports accounted for 96% of the total traffic through Scottish
ports. Exports accounted for 40% of the total freight through Scottish ports and domestic traffic
(either coastwise or one port) accounted for a fifth. Imports, and incoming domestic freight were much
lower, together accounting for 28% of the total freight through Scottish ports. (Table 10.2)
Ports & Destinations
2.5 Forth (37 million tonnes), Sullom Voe (17 million tonnes) and Clyde (12 million tonnes) accounted
for the highest freight traffic in 2007. Although the Forth traffic is 16% higher than 2006, it is still
15% below 1997. Clyde's freight traffic increased from 7.5 million tonnes in 1997 to 12.0 million
tonnes in 2007. (Table 10.3)
2.6 Bulk fuel accounted for 75 million tonnes (77%) of the total traffic through major Scottish ports in
2007. (Table 10.4)
2.7 Top exporting ports were: Forth (22 million tonnes); Sullom Voe (10 million tonnes); and Orkney
(5 million tonnes). Clyde (8.2 million tonnes) and Forth (4.2 million tonnes) together accounted for
almost all the imports. Forth (9.0 million tonnes), Sullom Voe (3.7 million tonnes) and Glensanda (2.1
million tonnes) had most outward domestic traffic; Orkney (3.6 million tonnes) and Sullom Voe (2.7
million tonnes) were the main ports for inwards domestic traffic. (Table 10.6)
2.8 The main types of traffic through the major ports in 2006 were crude oil (53.3 million tonnes), oil
products (9.2 million tonnes), coal (10.9 million tonnes), other dry bulk (7.7 million tonnes) and
liquefied gas (3.2 million tonnes). (Table 10.7)
2.9 In 2007 most exports were destined for Netherlands (12.2 million tonnes), USA (10.1 million
tonnes), Germany (7.7 million tonnes) and France (4.0 million tonnes) while most imports arrived
from Russia (2.3 million tonnes) and Norway (2.1 million tonnes). (Table 10.8)
2.10 The total number of road goods vehicles and containers passing through Scottish ports, and the
weight of freight that they carried, increased by around 56% and 43% respectively between 1996 and
2006. (Table 10.9)
2.11 Inland waterway traffic mainly comprises those parts of coastwise and foreign traffic that are
carried on inland waterways. About 10.2 million tonnes of freight were lifted in Scotland and carried
on inland waterways in 2006, in line with most of the past ten years (when the total was usually
between 10 and 12 million tonnes). Most of the inland waterway traffic was carried on the Forth.
Passenger Services
2.12 In 2007, 2.1 million passengers were carried on ferry services between Scotland and Northern
Ireland, the busiest Scottish port for this traffic being Stranraer, which accounted for over half of the
total. There were 110,000 passengers on the Rosyth/Zeebrugge ferry service in 2007, slightly fewer
than in the previous year and much lower than two years earlier, following a reduction in the
frequency of service with effect from November 2005. (Tables 10.12 (a) & (b))
Passenger Operators
2.14 Northlink Ferries carried 307,000 passengers in 2007 (on routes that were operated by P & O
213
Scottish Ferries until 30 September 2002), 3,000 (1%) more than used those routes in 2006 and 25%
more than in 1997. Orkney Ferries services carried 316,000 passengers in 2007, 2,000 (1%) less than
the previous year but 13% more than in 1997. (Table 10.13)
2.15 In 2007, the total number of passengers carried on Caledonian MacBrayne, Northlink Ferries
and Orkney Ferries services was 6.0 million. Caledonian MacBrayne accounted for 90% of the total
passenger numbers on all these services. (Table 10.13)
2.16 Shetland Islands Council services carried 805,000 passengers in 2007, 35,000 (5%) more than
2006 and 63,000 (8%) more than 1997. There were 347,000 cars carried which was 23,000 (7%) more
than in 2006 and 63,000 (22%) more than 1997. (Table 10.13)
2.19 The service between Toft and Ulsta had the largest number of passengers of all the Shetland
Islands Council services, with 256,000 in 2007, 11,000 (4%) more than in 2006. This was an increase
of 28,300 (12%) over 1997. (Table 10.15)
Punctuality & Incidents
2.20 The level of punctuality for Caledonian MacBrayne lifeline ferry services was 99.4% in 2007-08.
For Northlink the level of lifeline ferry services that were both punctual and reliable was 99.9% for
Aberdeen routes and 98.6% for the Pentland Firth in 2007-08. (Table 10.16)
Note: (a full list of notes is available at the website) the following may be of interest:
3.1.3 Previously, all freight information was collected from ports annually. Major ports (generally
those with cargo volumes of at least 2 million tonnes a year) were asked for detailed information on
weight of traffic in and out of their ports, identifying cargo categories (e.g. liquid bulks, dry bulks,
containers, Roll-on-Roll-off etc), and whether they were foreign, coastwise or one port cargoes. Other
(minor) ports were required to provide only total weight of cargo inwards and outwards.
3.1.4 In the new collection system, most of the detailed freight information is collected from shipping
lines, operators or shipping agents, which are required to supply detailed returns of their inwards and
outwards traffic at each major port for each ship, on each route. Major ports (now defined as those
with at least 1 million tonnes of cargo a year) are only required to supply summary information (for
use as control totals) while other (minor) ports continue to provide just the total weight of cargo
inwards and outwards.
Definitions (a full list of definitions is available at the website)
3.2 Coastwise traffic: traffic between ports of the United Kingdom, excluding traffic between a UK
port and either the sea bed or an off-shore installation. It should be noted that Table 10.1(a) covers
only freight lifted in Scotland, and therefore its figures for coastwise traffic exclude cargoes arriving
from other UK ports; Table 10.1(b) covers freight discharged in Scotland, so includes cargoes arriving
from other UK ports (including those elsewhere in Scotland).
3.3 One port traffic: traffic between the sea bed or an offshore installation and a UK port. For
example, it includes traffic to and from offshore installations, materials shipped for dumping at sea,
and dredged sand and gravel etc landed at a port for commercial purposes. The disappearance of the
sea dumped traffic is due to the end of sewage dumping at sea. It should be noted that Table 10.1(a)
covers only freight lifted in Scotland: Table 10.1(b) contains figures for the one port traffic arriving
from offshore installations and any incoming sea dredged aggregates. The reason for the increase in
one-port oil traffic is due to increased number of crude oil shipments into Sullom Voe and Flotta,
particularly from the newer Atlantic fields west of the Shetlands, Schiehallion and Foinaven.
214
3.4 Domestic traffic: in the statistics of traffic through the ports, domestic traffic comprises coastwise
traffic plus one port traffic.
3.5 Foreign traffic: traffic between ports in the United Kingdom and other countries.
3.6 Inland waterways: in general, waterways bounded by the furthest point downstream which is less
than both 3 km wide at low tide and 5 km wide at high tide (spring). However, this definition is not
applied strictly: for example, the definition is relaxed, where necessary, in order not to count, as
inland waterway traffic, short-haul shipping movements of foreign and coastwise traffic, such as all
sea-going traffic to or from major seaboard ports.
3.7 Inland waters traffic: subdivides into coastwise, one port and foreign (in each case, that part of the
traffic that is carried upstream of the inland waters boundary, excluding short haul inland movements
of sea-going traffic) and internal (i.e. not sea-going) traffic. All passenger and passenger vehicle ferry
services are excluded, such as crossing movements (e.g. Gourock-Dunoon) and coastwise ferries
entering sheltered waters (e.g. Loch Ryan, on services between Stranraer or Cairnryan and Northern
Ireland).
3.8 Tonne-kilometres: where part of a voyage is on an inland waters and part is at sea, account is
taken of the inland waterway boundary, so that, in the case of traffic involving inland ports, there is no
double-counting of tonne-kilometres between the figures for inland waters and the figures for
coastwise, one port and foreign traffic. (This is in contrast to the double-counting of some of the
figures for tonnage - for example, if a voyage to another UK port starts on a Scottish inland waterway
in Scotland, the tonnage would be counted in the figures for both inland waters and coastwise traffic.)
3.9 Container and roll-on traffic: includes all traffic carried on special container and roll-on vessels,
as well as the container traffic carried on conventional services.
3.10 Main Freight Units comprise containers, road goods vehicles, unaccompanied trailers, rail
wagons, shipborne port to port trailers and shipborne barges only.
Notes on the data sources is available on the website however the note on the Major port sizes is of
interest:
4.3.3 From 1995 to 1999, the smaller ports (then defined as, generally, those with less than 2 million
tonnes of traffic per year) were not required to supply detailed statistics - they provided only two
figures, for the total amounts of their inwards and outwards traffic. Full details of freight traffic were
collected only for those ports with at least 2 million tonnes of cargo in the previous year (and for a few
ports with less traffic): these were called the 'major' ports. In the 1995 and 1996 surveys, there were
seven 'major' ports in Scotland: Aberdeen, Clyde, Cromarty Firth, Forth, Glensanda (on Loch Linnhe,
south-west of Fort William, which exports crushed granite, which is classified in the statistics as crude
minerals), Orkney, and Sullom Voe. In the 1997 and 1998 surveys, there were eight: these seven plus
Cairnryan, which was counted as a major port because its 1996 return of its inwards and outwards
totals had shown that its traffic exceeded 2 million tonnes in 1996. In 1999 the number of 'major' ports
increased from eight to nine, since total traffic at Peterhead had exceeded 2 million tonnes in 1998. In
2000, with the introduction of the new definition of a major port (at least 1 million tonnes), Stranraer
and Dundee became major ports, bringing the total in Scotland to 11.
215
The referred data Tables in the Appendix F and their URLs are found here:
Table 10.1 – Waterborne freight lifted, discharged and moved, by type of traffic
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/135
Table 10.2 – Foreign and domestic freight traffic at (major) Scottish ports
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/136
Table 10.3 – Foreign and domestic traffic by port: inwards and outwards
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/137
Table 10.4 – Foreign and domestic freight traffic by port: bulk fuel and all other traffic
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/138
Table 10.5 – Foreign and domestic freight traffic by port and mode of appearance (major ports only)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/139
Table 10.6 – Foreign and domestic freight traffic at the major ports by type of traffic, 2006 and 2007
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/140
Table 10.7 – All traffic at the major ports by mode of appearance and commodity, 2007
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/141
Table 10.8 – Major ports traffic by cargo category and country of loading or unloading – 2007
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/142
Table 10.9 – Foreign and coastwise container and roll-on traffic by type
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/143
Table 10.12 (b) – Vehicle and Passenger Traffic between Scotland and Europe
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/146
Table 10.13 – Shipping services
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/148
Table 10.15 – Traffic on some other major ferry routes
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/150
Table 10.16 – Reliability and punctuality of lifeline ferry services
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/151
Table 11.1 – Expenditure on transport within the Scottish Ministers' responsibility, and expenditure on
transport controlled by local authorities
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/154
In the above, see lines for Northern Isles Ferries and Freight Facilities Grant (all modes)
Table 11.4 – Gross capital account expenditure on local authority roads and transport by Council and
Boards by type of expenditure
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/157
In the above see lines for Shipping and Transport piers and ferry terminals.
Table 11.8 – Harbour facilities, government grants for construction and improvement
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/22091243/161
216
Appendix G:
UK: The Framework Governing Port Management
Governing, service and financing aspects in the UK were researched under MNCII project
NMC-II/WP-E Port Information Report, September 2006, covering ports comparison among
European countries from governing, service and financing aspects.
Number/Type of Ports
±1,000 ports and terminal facility/ 4 types
Names of the Port*/Important Notes about the Port
 Over 650 ports have statutory powers and about 120 are commercially active.
 Much of the trade is concentrated in the largest ports and in 2002, the top 15 ports handled
79% of all UK traffic.
 In Scotland there are numerous “marine works” which offer facilities to inter-island ferries.
Type of Ports
* The industry comprises a mixture of private, trust and municipal ports which compete with each
other and operate as stand-alone, self-financing commercial enterprises.
- Company Owned or Privatized Ports 14/20 largest ports
- Trust Ports
- Municipal Ports
Overall Legislative Framework/Dynamics or Future Changes in the Port
 In the early 1980s, the UK decided on the abolition of the National Ports Council, labour
deregulation, privatization and increased competition.
 UK ports are not state funded or managed and retain strategic independence from
government.
 The UK government’s non-interventionist approached was confirmed in the government’s
2000 ports policy paper called “Modern Ports”.
Sector
 The main legislative Acts include the Harbours Act 1964, the Pilotage Act 1987 and the Port
Act 1991.
Responsibilities of the Port Authority, Port Administration
 The main responsibilities and functions of harbour authorities are:
o to provide and maintain harbour facilities;
o to ensure safe navigation within harbour waters by providing lighting and buoys,
removing wrecks and maintaining approach channels of sufficient depth through
dredging;
o to regulate vessel movements and berthing in the harbour;
o licensing construction works within the harbour; and
o the provision of a pilotage service and other harbour operations such as cargo
handling.
The Investment Decision-Making Procedure
 The government takes a “hands-off” approach to the port management and investment
decisions in the UK.
217


New developments require a Harbour Revision Order(HRO).
Decisions on investment are made by individual harbour authorities and are approved by their
board based on the commercial viability of the proposal
The Organisation of Port Services
The Organisation of Cargo Handling, Technical-Nautical And Passenger Services
Cargo Handling
 Cargo handling services may be carried out by the port undertaking, port subsidiary
companies or companies specializing in its provision.
 In 1989, the UK government abolished the Dock Labour Scheme.
 Earnings of port employees are subject to local negotiation.
 Training is provided by the port employers at their own expense.
Technical – Nautical
 The 1987 Pilotage Act placed responsibility for marine pilotage on to “Competent Harbour
Authorities” (CHAs) who are usually the port authorities.
 Ocean towage services are provided by companies specializing in their provision and are not
provided by port undertaking.
 The responsibility for towage within the port area is fulfilled in most ports by private towage
undertakings.
Passenger Services
Passenger services are mainly provided by the carriers, but in some areas, port authority involvement
will be different from port to port..
Limitation of the Number of Service Providers:
 *In certain ports and terminals, the number of cargo handlers is restricted to the maximum
number due to the traffic.
 There are no restrictions on the number of providers for towage.
 For pilotage, UK law (1987 Pilotage Act) provides the Competent Harbour Authorities
(CHAs) are responsible for provision of the service.
Organization of Policing Operations
 If the port authority provides conservancy services, it is responsible for traffic controls within
the harbour area, both water and land.
 Port Skills and Safety Ltd (PSSL) provides UK ports with advice, guidance, training etc.
 Transport Security (TRANSEC) is responsible for ensuring adequate security arrangements in
UK ports.
 Few UK ports received ECOPORTS accreditation.
Organization of Ancillary Port Services
 Water services are supplied by port authority.
 Bunkering is provided by private contractors.
 Under the requirements of the new Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations, ports provide
the facilities and then contract disposal companies to remove the waste.
Self-Handling
 Self-handling is largely confined to the ro-ro sector, but it can include the lashing of vehicles.
218

Some ports don’t permit self-handling of cargo, on the grounds that this would amount to
“cherry picking” and would not be in the overall interest of the port.
Access to the Market for Potential Service Providers
 For cargo handling the most obvious approach for a would-be stevedore is to purchase or take
a lease on a terminal.
 In the case of common user terminals the service provider would need to approach the owner
of the terminal.
Ports Authorities Providing Port Services:
 Some ports do some cargo handling themselves, especially private owned ports.
 Few traffic ports are making agreement with cargo owners for a range of logistic services.
 On pilotage, UK legislation provides that regular users of a port are entitled to apply for a
Pilotage Exemption Certificate, and these are widely issued.
 Other types of services are carried out either by port authority or are contracted out.
Port Services
 For cargo handling, some port authorities operate a licensing system but some don’t.
 For towage a special authorization would be needed for safety reason.
 There is no standard regime for either selection or appeal procedures.
The Normal Durations of Contracts, Concessions, Authorizations, etc.
 There is no standard duration, but concessions of 15-25 years are common.
 The largest investments can result in concession of more than 35 years.
 Extensions are frequently negotiated.
219
Table 13: Financing and Charging (Division of Responsibilities in the United Kingdom)
Cost of investment
Maritime access (sea 100% P.A.
locks and channels)
Coastal defence and 100% P.A.
exterior breakwaters
Hinterland
connections:
Land
access (Rail and
road network)
Hinterland
100% P.A.
connections (in port)
Railways
Hinterland
100% P.A.
connections (in port)
Roads
Lights, buoys and Mostly
navigational aids
* outside- Trinity House49
Lighthouse Authority
* inside- P.A.
Quays, docks and 100% P.A.
jetties
Superstructures
100% P.A. or terminal
operator
Cost of maintenance
100% P.A.
Remarks
100% P.A.
100% P.A.
100% P.A.
Mostly
Funded by Light dues
* outside- Trinity House
Lighthouse Authority
* inside- P.A.
100% P.A.
100% P.A. or terminal
operator
49
The lighthouse authorities are Trinity House (for England and Wales), the Northern Lighthouse Board (for
Scotland) and the Commissioner of Irish Lights for Ireland.
220
Appendix H:
National Planning Framework for Scotland
National Planning Framework for Scotland 2
The National Planning Framework document was revised in 2009 shows a freight network aspiration
shown in Figure 52 in the main report.
The National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 notes:
“122. Ports make a vital contribution to the economy and are modernising to meet projected long term
growth in world trade. A growing proportion of freight is containerised. The number of containers
handled by Scottish ports has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase in the long term.
On the East Coast, the Firth of Forth is a key strategic freight gateway and there is potential for
further expansion of port capacity, including container freight facilities. There is potential to handle
coastal services from English ports as well as more international traffic, thus promoting the movement
of a higher proportion of containerised freight by sea.
123. The Grangemouth area contains Scotland's largest container port, with important European,
Baltic and global connections. Approximately 9 million tonnes of cargo are handled through its docks
each year and there is scope for further expansion. Forth Ports is concentrating its Scottish freight
business at Grangemouth and has announced plans for the construction of 1 million sq ft of
warehousing. English, Welsh & Scottish Railway Holdings Limited plans to offer direct rail freight
services to Continental Europe from Grangemouth. Grangemouth is also home to most of Scotland's
petrochemical industry. Improvements to strategic road and rail infrastructure will allow the area to
function to its full potential as an intermodal freight hub.
124. A substantial area of reclaimed land immediately to the west of the Rosyth dockyard offers the
opportunity to create a new container terminal as part of the wider development of Rosyth as a key
East Coast port. The location has the potential to offer deep water berthing accessible 24 hours a day.
It can be made accessible by sea, road and rail, making it suitable for multi-modal operations.
125. The Ireland - United Kingdom - Benelux Euro-route follows the A77 and A75 trunk roads via
Cairnryan, Stranraer and Dumfries. Stena Line plans to develop a new gateway port on Loch Ryan.
The Scottish Government is already committed to spending more than £80 million to upgrade the A75
and A77 and the STPR identifies further improvements as a scheme for delivery from 2012. In
addition, Ireland's National Spatial Strategy recognises the potential for moving freight through
Scotland to avoid congestion on routes to England's East Coast ports and the matter is being pursued
by the British - Irish Council.
126. The Government is committed to supporting the expansion of direct ferry links from Scotland.
The Rosyth - Zeebrugge service resumed under a new operator in May 2009. The potential for a new
ferry route between Kristiansund in Norway, Shetland, the UK and Continental Europe has been
market tested by the partners involved and a preferred operator is taking the project forward. The
Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are funding an economic appraisal of the
case for restoring the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle.
221
127. The international trend is towards larger container vessels and few existing European ports offer
the channel and berth depths necessary to accommodate the largest container ships. Against this
background, the sheltered deep water locations at Hunterston and Scapa Flow offer substantial
opportunities for developing new transhipment and gateway facilities linked to world shipping routes
… The Ayrshire Structure Plan safeguards Hunterston for the development of an international
transhipment hub. The realisation of this potential will depend on efficient and effective access
through the road and rail network. Orkney Islands Council is currently assessing the potential
environmental impacts of establishing an international container hub at Lyness on the island of Hoy.
It is important to note that inclusion of a project in the national planning documentation does not give
it any access to funding nor to any endorsement other than on applying for planning permission the
status of the project in the national framework is of relevance,
104. Legislation provides for the National Planning Framework to be used to designate certain
projects as national developments. Designation in the Framework is the mechanism for establishing
the need for these developments in Scotland's national interest. The Government has indicated that
major transport, energy and environmental infrastructure projects may fall within this category of
development. In a statement to Parliament in September 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and
Sustainable Growth announced that projects which may be identified as national developments are
those which:






make a significant contribution to Scotland's sustainable economic development;
strengthen Scotland's links with the rest of the world;
deliver strategic improvements in internal connectivity;
make a significant contribution to the achievement of climate change, renewable energy or
waste management targets;
are essential elements of a programme of investment in national infrastructure; or
raise strategic issues of more than regional importance (projects with impacts on more than
one city region, for example).”
On the basis of an assessment against these criteria, the Scottish Government has included the
following maritime related projects in the list of national developments
1. Grangemouth Freight Hub;
2. Additional Container Freight Capacity on the Forth;
3. Port developments on Loch Ryan;
4. Scapa Flow Container Transhipment Facility;
5. New power station and transhipment hub at Hunterston.
Further details on these projects are given on:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/9
222
Appendix I:
Cooperation between ports in the Netherlands
This short annex will provide some information about port cooperation in the Netherland and highlight
some of the benefits that have resulted in port cooperation activities.
Competition
Seaports are competing for cargo and revenues. This is in principle from an economic perspective a
sound basis. Competition in well-functioning markets leads to a downward pressure on prices and
thereby allows for a more favourable balance between regional economic development and welfare.
Competition can also have side effects so that welfare decrease. In strong competing markets it can be
difficult to aim for sustainable development. For example, in terms of efficient use of existing space in
ports, future investments in new infrastructure and use of intermodal transport.
Cooperation
Cooperation between seaports provides opportunities for a more sustainable development and more
efficiency on a national and international level. It can also bring social benefits. The Dutch Ministry of
Transport asked the Maritime institute KIM to research whether and how cooperation between port
managers can contribute to national wealth and what role the government can play in the promoting of
this cooperation.
Effects of cooperation between ports on welfare: theory
Literature study shows that cooperation between seaports has positive effects. But the list of potential
social benefits does not prove that every cooperation agreement by definition has a net welfare
improvement. There are several reasons. First, positive and negative effects can occur simultaneously
in one project. An large increase of the cargo flows may offer benefits in terms of added value for a
specific region. But also disadvantages in terms of sustainable development. Second, cooperation can
also lead to reduced competition as an unintended side effect. This could lead to higher prices than in
a market with full competition. This might be beneficial for the ports, but unfavourable for their
customers. The Dutch Competition Authority (NMa) and Directorate-General for Competition of the
European Union, will always have a critical eye concerning cooperation between ports that might
hamper open market development.
Overview of potential benefits of cooperation between seaports
-
Cooperation between seaports can lead to lower production and / or consumption costs by
preventing of overcapacity
Higher occupancy of terminals and hinterland infrastructure and intermodal systems
Pooling / sharing of flows in terminals, hinterland infrastructure thereby optimization of
(government) investments
Joint R & D (knowledge and innovation), purchasing and marketing
ICT standardization
Standardization of procedures, safety and security
Scale and scope advantages through specialization of the type of ports or service
Reducing impacts on the environment, security and use of space
223
Experience of Dutch seaports
Dutch port managers have been working in different ways together. Usually there are also other portrelated parties involved in specific projects for cooperation (like terminals, logistic service providers,
barge and rail operators, etc.). Where common interests are obvious and the projects are not
commercially sensitive issues, it seems that the port authorities find each other relatively easy. In this
respect, the benefits described concerning cooperation between port operators already exists. The
question is especially where more cooperation is possible (for instance in the field of marketing,
commerce and acquisition. In these cases the boundaries of competition law are very relevant.
Location and transport choices are ultimately being made by private companies. In this the influence
of port managers and government is actually small.
In a strong and growing market cooperation between ports has more change of succeeding then in a
very competitive market with low growth or declining cargo flows. The port managers and the
government have the same question, namely how the growing cargo flows (period 2040) can be
accommodate within the constraints of scarce space and infrastructure and within the stringent future
limits of sustainability. More cooperation between ports can be a solution for this.
Holland Port Holding
A possible solution on the long term to the problems of accessibility, durability and space and
economies of scale might be the development of a joint Holland Port Holding. But a joint National
Port Holding may also lead to inefficiencies compared to the current situation: namely more
bureaucracy, reduction of commercial attractiveness and neglect of profitable niches. Competition
between the different Dutch ports keeps them sharp and more market oriented.
Role of government
Cooperation between ports can help to achieve policy objectives of the government, aimed at
facilitating growth in cargo volumes in an efficient way and within constraints of sustainability.
Collaboration may also contribute to the best use of investments by the government, thus the
efficiency of public investment. Think of (large) infrastructure for accessibility ports, or the hinterland
transport. Cooperation between ports, will put the joint interests, rather than regional interests, more
central. Then new and existing infrastructure will be used in an optimal way. The potential social
benefits of cooperation between seaports, however, does not automatically mean that there is a very
active role for the government to play. The role of government in encouraging or slowing of
cooperation between ports, called legitimacy question in the political and economic governance
theory is determined by the contribution to the public interests. The government can intervene if there
is some kind of market failure. Which implies that the market in a given situation does not always
reach an optimal solution. For example, if there is abuse of market power present. Along the line of
reasoning, for the public interest government intervention in cooperation between ports include the
monitoring on internalizing or reduction of external costs by port activities. Most important is that the
government in all forms of cooperation ensures the prevention of monopolistic market power.
Although cooperation between port managers has interesting potential social benefits cooperation is
not a target in itself. In all cases, the central government should have a clear vision on where closer
collaboration between ports is a practical solution and where the government provides alternative tools
for the identified problem. Examples are regulations, a sharp assessment of public investment, or
efficiently pricing of space.
224
Appendix J
Summary of Port Cooperation in Flanders, Belgium
‘Flanders Port Area’
'Flanders Port Area' relates to both the Flemish port area that can pursue a joint promotion policy for
the four seaports of Antwerp, Ghent, Ostend and Zeebrugge under this brand, and an ambitious
strategic action programme of the Flemish Government to reinforce the international competitive
position of its ports.
'Flanders Port Area' is used as a brand to position the ports in a wider European and global context – as
Flemish port area beside the other European port areas – in view of the competitive context. Making
the ports known abroad as one port area implies combined forces and allows our ports to make the
most of their complementarities.
.
On 22nd February 2008 the ports signed a code of conduct defining their future way of dealing with
each other. Although they remain competitors, they will also loyally support one another whenever
necessary.
The direct and indirect added value of the four seaports amounts to over 27 billion Euros, which is
almost one seventh of the Flemish gross regional product. More than 250,000 employees work in the
Flemish seaports, which is about one out of nine employees in Flanders. Impressive figures, but the
importance of the Flemish seaports for welfare is still largely underestimated. Flanders Port Area
project tries to change that as well. Communication will be provided to make the population
increasingly familiar with the social assets of strong ports.
The Flanders Port Area project is part of 'Flanders In Action', a project for the future that deals with
talent, logistics and mobility, creativity and innovation, internationalisation.
At present Flanders Port Area is hitting cruising speed. Ten different action themes have been defined.
For each action theme, concrete plans have been drawn up which are gradually being put into effect in
a new policy that will increase the strength of the Flemish seaports.
225
Some more information on two actions which are relevant within the StratMoS context:
Action 1 – Promotion policy
The four Flemish ports each define their own commercial policy. In commercial terms they are indeed
competitors with regard to attracting both port traffic and investors. Every port goes at full force, on
the basis of its own assets. Fair play is the first matter of importance in that respect.
However, competition no longer exclusively takes place between the individual ports. Entire port areas
now take part in the game. They profile themselves as a total package, as a whole of complementary
ports that are able to provide customers with a strong service.
The ports join hands to attract new traffic and a higher added value together, as this benefits the entire
area. Their share of the ‘cake’ thus increases. By collaborating, they gain efficiency.
Action 9 – Joint hinterland strategy
The hinterland is very important for the Flemish seaports. The quality and capacity of the hinterland
connections are an important element in the competitive position of the Flemish seaports. The
hinterland connections are very important as establishment factor for companies that are looking for a
suitable location in a Western European port. Within the framework of Flanders Port Area, initiatives
will be taken to support the Flemish ports in this respect.
For more information on Flanders Port Area, please visit http://www.flandersportarea.be
226
Appendix K
UK sub regional case study – the Humber Ports
1.
Introduction to the sub region
The Humber region, also known as the Hull and Humber Ports City region, is one of four sub regions
within the Yorkshire and Humber area. It encompasses the four unitary local authorities of East Riding
of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. Covering 3,517
square kilometres with a population of 907,800 (2007 figure) the region has a very diverse geography,
including rural, urban and coastal communities. There are extreme contrasts between the local
authority areas, for example the East Riding has the largest land area of any unitary or district
authority in England whilst Hull is one of the most densely populated local authority areas in England.
The Humber region benefits from its central east coast position facing continental Europe and it is
approximately equidistant from Edinburgh, Rotterdam, London and Dublin. The Humber has three
main urban centres (Hull, Scunthorpe and Grimsby) and is within 3 hours drive of the larger
conurbations of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Newcastle and Birmingham.
The Humber economy is generally characterised by economic under-performance and yet it is home to
a number of world class businesses. For example it has the second largest chemicals cluster in the UK
and houses one of the largest producers of acetic acid in the world. The Humber is the landing point
for the 1,200km sub sea gas pipeline, the longest in the world, which can deliver 20% of the UK’s
natural gas requirement. The Humber also has the UK’s largest independent bulk liquid and gas
storage facility
The key logistical assets in the Humber region are undoubtedly its ports. The Humber estuary houses
ports at Grimsby, Immingham, Hull, and Goole as well as river wharves on the Trent, Ouse and
Humber. This represents the largest ports conurbation in the UK in volume terms with a combined
volume over 91 million tonnes (16% of the UK total) in 2008, equating to approximately 16% of the
UK total. The breakdown of this as follows:
Port
Grimsby and Immingham
Hull
River Humber
Goole
River Trent
2008 tonnage
65.27
12.25
9.34
2.16
1.98
This is made up of 71,706 million tonnes in and 19,532 million tonnes out, totalling 91,238 for 2008
(provisional figures from the Department for Transport). This represents a very significant
contribution to the total of UK port traffic, with the second largest conurbation being London which
227
handled 53 million tonnes in the same year. (It is, however, dwarfed by the volumes handled at some
of the world’s largest individual ports such as Shanghai, Singapore and Rotterdam which individually
handle multiples of this tonnage.)
In terms of cargo type total provisional figures for 2008 show the following breakdown for the Hull
and Humber ports (in million tonnes):
Liquid bulk
Dry bulk / LoLo
general cargo containers
Roll-on /
Roll-off
Grimsby & Immingham
24.50
25.15
1.17
14.45
Hull
1.82
4.94
1.50
3.98
Rivers Hull and Humber
8.22
1.12
-
-
River Trent
0.04
1.95
-
-
Goole
0.02
1.62
0.52
-
239.16
147.91
60.11
101.41
All major UK ports
2
UK ports policy
In contrast to Continental Europe, where many ports are publicly funded and subsidised, the majority
of ports in the UK became privately owned and operated from the late 1980s onwards. Over recent
years however, the issue of overseas control and ownership of many UK ports has become one of
increasing importance following a number of high profile take-overs. With only one independent UK
port operator remaining, the recent changes which have taken place in port ownership raise a number
of questions, for example what implications might the now diverse ownership of UK ports have on the
ports industry and as a result, the UK economy? This issue also impacts on the level of collaboration
between port operators.
It is difficult to speculate about what is driving investors to acquire particular port infrastructure, for
example, whether decisions are being made based on the current or projected future performance of
ports or are being driven by other factors. Whatever the reason, it is important to assess how such
changes may impact at the local and regional level. This is particularly pertinent given the perceived
threat posed by such changes as the following extract clearly demonstrates:
228
‘We are concerned that the ownership of UK ports by foreign companies, particularly those
with no prior experience of owning and managing ports, may create instability within the
industry. Port companies with foreign interests may decide on balance that investment and
development is best prioritised outside the UK; similarly investment companies may see
more profit in selling off ports for land. The Government must recognise the risks and
develop an action plan to mitigate them.’ (House of Commons Transport Committee, 2007,
p.19)
In July 2007 the Department for Transport published a ‘ports policy review interim report’. That report
notes that the Department’s view is that commercial port operators are best-placed to make decisions
about where and when to invest in the port sector. The report goes on to state that no additional
benefit is seen from a locally or regionally determinative ports policy and that evidence submitted
during the consultation suggests that levels of competition and efficiency in the domestic port sector
are sound. The report continues that Government will:
 commission demand forecasts every five years to aid assessment of national
need;
 recommend the use of Master Plans by ports to improve planning;
 set out broad guidelines on the safeguarding of port land;
 chart out planned course in pursuit of further trust port modernisation;
 set out plans to enhance the port safety regime.
Government policy then is clear with regard to the development of regional port areas such as the
Humber, in that they will not determine how such ports should develop, what types of traffic they
should attract, and so forth. These matters then become a concern for regional stakeholders, should
they be so interested and the level of collaboration then becomes vital.
3
EU interregional involvement of the Humber
Recent or current programmes of relevance to the current StratMoS project fall within the scope of
either the Interreg IIIB North Sea Programme 2000 – 2006 or The North Sea Region Programme
2007-2013. StratMoS is building upon work carried out within Theme 3 “Improving Transport”, firstly
within the Northern Maritime Corridor - North Sea Region (NMC-NSR) project, which ran between
1 March 02 and 31 December 05 and secondly with the NMC II – Motorway of the Northern Seas
(NMC II – MONS) project, which ran from 30 November 04 to 30 June 08.
The Humber region had no direct partnership involvement with NMC-NSR although port operators
based at Immingham were involved indirectly in two short sea shipping aspects of NMC: a RO-RO
relay service calling at Immingham and the North Sea Bridge Sea Cargo service.
For the second project (NMC II – MONS) the Humber Region had direct involvement as a partner via
Humber Forum (now known as Humber Economic Partnership) who indirectly involved Hull City
Council and the Association of British Ports (ABP). The University of Hull, Department of
Engineering joined the project as a sub-partner at the invitation of Humber Forum. The main area of
229
work carried out by the University of Hull was a review, supported by ABP, of potential applications
of RFID and related technologies in selected areas of port operations at Hull and at Immingham. A
report on this work is included at Appendix L. As a result of this work, The University of Hull joined
StratMoS as a full partner.
Whilst NMC and StratMoS are clearly the most relevant projects in the area of improved Motorways
of the Sea, Humber-based organisations have been involved in a range of other Interreg-funded
projects including REMARCC II (Network of Regional MARitime Competence Centres - A Regional
Maritime Strategy for Promoting Intermodal Transport, ICT and Network Opportunities within the
North Sea Region) of which Humber Trade Zone was a member and FR@ME (Flood Risk
Management in Estuaries: Sustainable New Land Use in Flood Control Areas). The idea of
REMARCC II was to set up a portal about short sea shipping and inland waterways in the North Sea
Region using the name www.northseashipping.org., whilst the aim of the FR@ME project was to
reduce flood risk in North Sea Estuaries, including the Humber, by advancing and promoting
innovative solutions involving sustainable new land uses whilst safeguarding the wildlife and
providing new opportunities for social, economic and environmental benefits.
The University of Hull is also involved in another current Interreg North Sea Region project, NS
FRITS (North Sea Freight Intelligent Transport Solutions) which aims to implement a messaging
system to improve the safety and security of road freight drivers and their loads, and improve the
overall efficiency of road freight transport. There is emphasis within this project on improved
intermodal links and two of the three planned pilot projects will involve Humber Ports.
4
Collaboration in the Humber Ports
The Hull and Humber ports have always benefited from a diverse range of supporting activities and
collaboration to develop and promote the sub region. These include those involved in:





private businesses
local government
partnership groups
sub regional activities and
the regional development agency (Yorkshire Forward)
However across these stakeholder groupings there is currently no one point of focus or co ordination
for developing the Humber ports and related logistics activities. It is also clear that work and
aspirations within each of these groups will have different drivers and objectives, which results in a
complex mix of support. This work ranges from strategic initiatives, such as those led by the regional
development agency, to practical operational activities.
Strategic collaboration across the Humber Ports is complex and compounded by the range
stakeholders involved. For example with regard to local government, the four local unitary authorities
within the sub region (the East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North Lincolnshire and
North East Lincolnshire) each have institutional arrangements in place which focus on the port
230
opportunities within their geographical area. These include staff within the council’s economic
development teams and related partnerships involving the private sector, such as the South Humber
Bank Partnership (North Lincolnshire) and the Grimsby and Immingham Ports Partnership (North East
Lincolnshire).
With regard to the sub regional organisations which are in place working across the geographical area
there are two key examples. Firstly the World Trade Centre Hull and Humber (WTCH&H), which
opened in June 2008. The WTCH&H is quickly establishing itself as the hub for business,
international trade and investment into and out of the UK through the Humber.
The second example is the Humber Economic Partnership (HEP), which is a strategic partnership for
sustainable economic development for the Hull and Humber Ports sub region. The HEP is businessled and takes the lead on issues that can be dealt with effectively at only a sub regional level, such as
coordinating and facilitating strategic partnership working at this level. HEP is core funded by the four
local authorities in the sub region.
At an operational level a variety of collaborations exit between Humber port operators. For example
DFDS opened their Nordic Terminal Riverside at Immingham Outer Harbour (in July 2006), a £35
million development at Associated British Ports’ Port of Immingham. Plans for the £35 million
terminal, in which ABP has invested £27.5 million, followed the signing of a 25-year agreement in
2004 between ABP and Danish ro-ro ferry operator DFDS Tor Line.
In addition to the strategic and operational collaborations the University of Hull has recently secured
Higher Education Innovation Funding to working with both the public and private sectors to develop
are more unified approach to port promotion across the Humber. This project is in its infancy, however
some initiatives have already been planned.
231
Appendix L
ABP Docks Visits Report
UNIVERSITY OF HULL LOGISTICS INSTITUTE
ABP Docks Visits Report
_________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
23 & 24 May 2006
24 July 2006
Immingham Docks
Hull Docks
Host:
Gareth Cutts (ABP)
Visitors:
Nick Riley (UHLI)
Tariq Waqas (Hull City Council)
The University of Hull Logistics Institute (UHLI) expresses its thanks to Gareth Cutts of ABP,
not only for putting aside three days of his time to host the visits, but also for his organisation
and hospitality which enabled a successful outcome from the visits.
1.
Purpose of Visits
An initial two-day visit to ABP at Immingham Docks was followed up by a one-day visit to
particular activities, including the Steel Terminal, at Hull Docks. The purpose of the visits was
to enable the visitors to gain an appreciation of the scope of activities carried out at ABP
Docks around the Humber, with a view to identifying areas of activity which might benefit
from the implementation of appropriate radio communications and identification technology. It
is anticipated that if a potential application can be identified, funding will be sought to
implement such a system in order that it may be used to showcase such technology to other
port and terminal operators both in the Humber and beyond. The benefits of such a docksbased technology showcase in the Humber to all parties concerned (potentially ABP, Hull City
Council, HTZ and UHLI) are elaborated below.
2.
Dock activities examined
There are four main ports in the Humber Estuary; Hull, Goole, Grimsby and Immingham.
232
Although the scale of activity differs from port to port, the type of activity is similar in outline.
Immingham is the largest complex, handling around five eights of the total estuary tonnage,
and was chosen for the initial two-day visit on the basis of convenience. It is understood that
any conclusions from the study would apply equally to Hull and to a lesser extent to the other
two ports. Following submission of a draft report on the Immingham visit, it was decided to
undertake a further one-day visit to Hull Docks, specifically to look at issues relating to the
handling of steel and bulk timber, board and paper materials.
3.
Brief overview of activities at the Port of Immingham
The Port of Immingham consists of the enclosed dock, river terminals and the surrounding
storage areas along with a complex road and rail infrastructure, covering an area of
approximately two square miles as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Port of Immingham (courtesy of ABP)
The enclosed docks at Immingham are, in plan view, shaped like a squared “U” with entry via
a single lock. There are a number of terminals around the dock (some of which are described
below) including the DFDS Container terminal, ABP Container Terminal, Paper terminal, Bulk
Terminals and general purpose areas one of which is currently used for scrap metal. There
are also several terminals out on the river dredged channel including Immingham Bulk
Terminal, Humber International Terminal (HIT), the newly constructed HIT2, the gas terminal
and the oil terminal. HIT2 (top left in Figure 1) is used for coal operations and includes an
extensive storage yard with conveyors, stacker/reclaimers and rail terminals, built at a cost of
around £60Million. The dock area is served by a number of fixed cranes plus six 100-tonne
movable cranes which can operate anywhere within the dock area. There are also purposebuilt container stackers in the container terminals.
233
234
4.
Overview of Immingham Docks Visit
The visit had been logically organised so that Port Operations were seen on the first day and
examples of terminal operations on the second day. This was successful in that it was then
possible for the visitors to appreciate the overall context and constraints of terminal
operations in terms of ship movements, tides, pilotage etc as well as the financial penalties
associated with any delays in loading or unloading vessels.
In each part of the visit description below an immediate conclusion is given as to the potential
for implementation of Automated Identification and Data Capture (AIDC) technology and
in particular Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), under the title RFID Scope. These are
summarised in the overall conclusion section.
5.
Immingham Docks Visit Day 1: 23 May 2006
Meetings were arranged with Graham Hodge (Assistant Dock Manager), Graham Tettley
(Operations Manager) and Shaun Blissett (Maintenance Manager). Key points from each
meeting, where they relate to potential applications of new technology, are recorded below.
5.1
Meeting with Graham Hodge (Assistant Dock Manager)
Graham described the scope and scale of ship movements in and out of the port and the
systems currently in use to manage ship arrivals and departures.
Key points are:

Port Manager’s area of responsibility is up to 200m from shoreline, Humber Authority
takes over from that point;

Typically have 20 movements of large ships and 20 smaller ones per day;

It takes a ship about 45 minutes to get through the lock;

A large ship might engage 4 tugs to manoeuvre safely in the river;

A database called POD (Port Operation Database) is used to log details and schedule
ship movements, pilots etc;

A new system called PAVIS (Port And Vessel Information System) is used to track
vessels throughout their voyage. This interfaces with the Lloyds of London database.
Some field of the database can be made available to other parties to streamline the
ship turnaround;

A system called VTS (Vessel Traffic System) tracks vessel movements in the Humber
using a radar at Spurn Head along with radio/waypoint reporting back to a data centre
in Hull;

A new system called AIS is being implemented for all vessels over 65m long. At
minimum this requires the vessel to permanently transmit its vessel number (AIMDG
code) which shows the name of the ship in the database. Additional information can
also be recorded such as cargo details;
235

Brief look at security systems such as RFID-enabled access schemes and camera
systems.
Overall, the discussion gave the visitors a valuable insight into the technology used including
Radar, Radio Communications, International Standards and Computer Databases.
RFID Scope
It was deduced that conventional AIDC technology is inappropriate in the context of
management of ship movements, since the small number and extreme high value of the
items concerned (ships) leads to implementation of expensive systems such as those
described above.
5.2
Meeting with Graham Tettley (Operations Manager)
Graham is responsible for all issues relating to cargo handling including planning and
interaction with Agents. He is also responsible for dock maintenance (the “estates” function)
and emergency control.
The main part of our visit was in the form of a drive around the docks. Key points noted were:

Most movements of goods in the dock area is by approximately eight quayside
cranes and six mobile 100-tonne cranes;

Crane operational hours are recorded for maintenance purposes;

Grab wires are routinely replaced every two years;

Grab operational time not tracked;

Crane wires replaced in sets on an inspection basis. Damage monitored as the
number of fractured strands over a certain length;

Scrap metal is difficult to handle and is hard on the equipment;

Noted handling of lash barges;

Train movements scheduled and controlled by EWS;

An RFID-based system used on the weighbridges.
RFID Scope
RFID is already in limited use to identify trucks and relate weights recorded on the
weighbridges. Use of this technology could be extended to other areas of truck tracking
within the Port Area, possibly with a single integrated system/database.
Grab wires and crane wires need to be identified and tracked - there are many differing
lengths and diameters as well as left-hand and right-hand wires (but see 5.3).
5.3
Meeting with Shaun Blissett (Maintenance Manager)
Shaun’s responsibilities include maintenance of stores of both strategic spares and
236
consumables. He runs a Maintenance Department of about 100 people including a fast
response team (which we saw in action on Day 2 when a train derailed). Our visit included a
look at the indoor and outdoor stores. The following points were noted:

Asset management is via the “MainSaver” software system;

Maintenance operator’s schedule is worksheet based;

The stores are operated with an unusually high level of local knowledge. The
storeman knows which crane wire is which, for example, and the scope for use of the
wrong part is very limited;

£2Million store stock is accounted for to a high degree of accuracy and theft is not a
problem;

Responsibility also includes procurement of fuel for cranes where savings can be
made by tracking fuel prices and buying in bulk. Monitoring crane fuel level and
replenishment is labour-intensive (5000litre tank);

Temperature sensors on motors etc can give an indication of wear and the need for
maintenance/replacement.
RFID Scope
Many of the usual reasons for implementation of RFID in a stores or warehouse environment
do not apply here. Theft and security are not issues. Identification of spare parts does not
seem to be an issue due to the expertise of the storekeepers and the way in which the parts
are booked out and used. The cost of a mistake (rigging a crane with a wire which is 10m too
short for example) is high in terms of outage time.
Perhaps savings could be made by replacement of the worksheet system with a handset
based system but this would require further investigation.
6.
Immingham Docks Visit Day 2: 24 May 2006
Visits were made to a representative set of terminals including the Bulk terminal (grain, wood
pellets, timber, paper), the YARA site (fertiliser) and HIT2 (coal). The visits concentrated on
terminals because that is where goods handling in a wide variety of forms takes place and
where scope for business efficiency improvements via the use of AIDC technology is
greatest.
6.1
Bulk Terminal
Bulk products are stored in heaps either inside sheds (part of a new shed shown in Figure 2)
or outside, depending on the nature of the product. Control of truck movements is crucial
from the efficient working of the site as there could be 40 trucks on the terminal at one time.
Figure 3 shows a truck unloading into a ship and again efficient marshalling of the trucks is
key to a smooth operation. For this reason a new truck control scheme has been proposed
which may have RFID aspects included in the design.
Value adding processes are sometime carried on at the bulk terminal, the most obvious one
being bagging of the product into typically 500kg bulk bags for handling by fork-lift trucks
237
(see also section 6.4 below). This process may benefit from application of RFID technology.
RFID Scope
RFID could be used to identify products in bags, especially where varieties of the product
look superficially similar. Issues to be addressed include:

The benefits of RFID must be centred on handling mainly within the port unless bulk
purchasers are willing to invest in appropriate readers. An example would be a retail
outlet. Small farmers who buy a single truckload per year would not benefit;

At what point would the tag be applied? Onward use / returns /reuse of bags must be
considered;

Read Range: The obvious place for an RFID tag would be near to the “neck” of the
bag but in the case where four bags are lifted on the two tines of a forklift, the neck of
the furthest bag could be 2.4m from the front of the truck.
Figure 2: Part of new bulk storage shed
238
Figure 3: Bulk handling - Truck to Ship
6.2
Timber
Currently some use is made of barcode labels to identify timber (see Figure 4). These labels
are stapled to the timber and are often damaged by handling or weather, becoming
unreadable and adding to cost of handling.
239
Figure 4: Barcode labels for timber identification
RFID Scope
RFID tags would prove to be far more robust than barcode labels in this environment. There
are low frequency RFID tag formats specifically designed for timber use, in the form of hard
plastic nails that can be driven into wood. However, several disadvantages are immediately
apparent: the read range is fairly short (up to 1.5m) and there would have to be a visible
mark to indicate where the tag is; the tag might interfere with subsequent use of the wood.
Nevertheless, there might be benefits of RFID usage in this environment.
6.3
Paper Reels
Figure 5 shows handling of paper reels which often arrive in containers and have to be
stored in a clean dry environment. Rolls of sheet steel are also handled in a similar way.
Figure 5: Handling Paper Rolls
The Container is moved on a “Maffi” (wheeled trolley) and a fork lift truck accesses the
container via a ramp. We understand that the manufacturers of the paper reels have gone
some way towards specification of a sector-based standard for barcoding of paper reels.
RFID Scope
Since the handling of the reels is fairly precisely determined, there is scope for use of RFID.
For example it would be possible to attach an RFID reader to the fork lift truck and if the tag
is positioned near to the centre of one end of the reel it should be readable whatever the
240
orientation of the reel. There is a well defined supply chain for this product and, as already
mentioned, some AIDC standardisation is already in progress. See also Section 7.2 for
paper roll handling at Hull Docks.
6.4
YARA Site
This site is owned and operated by the YARA fertiliser company. Bulk product is taken
directly from the dockside via a conveyor belt to the factory building, where various
processes such as mixing/formulation and bagging are carried out. Figure 6 shows a section
of the warehouse where 600kg bags are stored. Figures 7 and 8 show the bagging process
and a self-adhesive identification label which is manually applied to the bag as it is filled.
Figure 6: Storage of 600kg bags of fertiliser
The bagged product is supplied to a variety of types of customer ranging from large retailers
to small farmers who might buy a single trailer load once per year. One of the main
challenges is to reduce losses due to spillage, damage and miscounting loads. It is reported
that these losses amount to about 0.5% of the 300,000 tonnes handled annually. At a value
of £150 per tonne this represents a considerable financial burden, even though the loss is
limited by insurers to £100 per tonne. It is understood that similar scales of loss (or worse)
are experienced elsewhere in handling bulk materials.
RFID Scope
The main aim of any RFID implementation in this context would be reduction of loss. Clearly
there is a need for visual identification in view of the diversity of customers, but the common
element in handling for all customers is the forklift used for loading. An RFID reader at this
point would provide automatic verification that the correct quantity of the correct product had
241
been loaded in each case. Larger customers
Figure 7: Filling and manual application of label
242
Figure 8: Typical fertiliser identification label
could also benefit by integrating the reading of these RFID labels into their own business
systems. The nature and positioning of the RFID tag would require careful consideration
since read requirements differ from those of the visual label.
6.5
Coal Terminal (HIT2)
Since 2001 coal has been a rapidly expanding business for ABP at Immingham. Last year it
was expected that 2 Million tonnes would be handled whereas in actual fact 9 Million tonnes
were handled. The coal terminal HIT2 is still being commissioned but when fully operational
will be capable of loading more than 20 trains per day where each train has typically 22
trucks. 99% of coal handled leaves Immingham by train. The layout of the terminal is shown
in Figure 9.
243
Figure 9:
Plan of Coal Terminal showing Berth (top),
Conveyors (Grey) and Railway (bottom).
Conveyors are about 800m long
Coal is unloaded from a vessel at Berth 2 onto the conveyors shown in Figure 9. It is taken
off the conveyor at some point along its 800m length and stored in a heap using one of the
two stacker/reclaimers shown in Figure 10 (for scale, the bucket wheel at the far right of the
picture is about 6m in diameter). When required the coal is reclaimed from the stack by the
same stacker/reclaimer and put back onto the conveyor from where it is loaded into a hopper
ready for discharge into the train. Figure 11 shows the two hoppers (one still uinder
construction). The train drives through at a steady 0.75mph and the computer controlled
hopper fills each car as it passes underneath. Information about the type, number and
serviceability of each car is pre-programmed by the train operating company (EWS) who also
schedule the train movements.
244
Figure 10: One of the two stacker/reclaimers at the new coal terminal
Figure 11: Train loading at the coal terminal
245
RFID Scope
The main coal handling operation does not readily lend itself to the useful application of RFID
technology, but there are peripheral activities where a combination of sensors and RFID
might prove beneficial. These could include, for example, monitoring conditions such as
temperature, humidity or gas concentration inside stacks of bulk material to provide
advanced warning of combustion or decomposition. There might be scope for use of low
frequency RFID in managing the train movements but the scope of this visit did not include
EWS acivities.
7.
Hull Docks Visit: 24 July 2006
The visit to Hull Docks was specifically focussed on Steel handling with a look at the paper
roll handling and timber and board shed. Some time was spent with Keith Robinson who
explained previous work that had been carried out into the feasibility of RFID implementation,
specifically in the context of the paper and board activities.
7.1
Hull Steel Terminal
Steel is handled in the form of flat sheet wound into large rolls, each of which can weigh up
to 20 tonnes. Much of the steel handled is destined for car body manufacture. The rolls are
held together by bands and are often covered with an outer protective sheath of hardboard
with formed metal edge protectors. A general view of the steel storage area is shown in
Figure 13 which shows the berth on the far right of the picture from where the reels are
offloaded by crane. Figure 14 (left) shows the steel storage area with one of the cranes
which are the main method of moving the steel reels. On the right of the picture is shown
coils of wire, destined for tyre manufacture for example, which has to be protected from
ingress of moisture by a plastic covering. The volume of wire rolls handled is small
compared with the sheet steel rolls and storage is correspondingly more straightforward.
Figure 13: Undercover steel berth (right) and storage area
246
Figure 14: Storage and movement of steel reels (left) and wire (right)
Currently, each unique steel roll is identified by a multiple bar-code label (see inset on Figure
15) and the position of the roll is recorded within the storage area by its aisle reference and
floor position as shown by the labels on vertical pillars in Figure 15. Occasionally the reels
are moved using a canvas-covered lifting sling which is passed through the central hole of
the reel and lifted on a hook.
Figure 15: Identification by bar-code label and aisle reference
RFID Scope
Steel is a material which is perceived to be difficult to label using RFID techniques. Aside
from issues relating to actual mechanical attachment of the RFID tag, in all but the Low
Frequency (LF) band the presence of ferromagnetic material (which most steels are)
severely reduces read range. However LF RFID will work in the presence of metals provided
that there is a line-of-sight between the tag and the reader, although the read range is
relatively short (up to about 1m, depending upon read antenna size). Due to the way that the
247
reels are picked up, and due to the fact that their rotational orientation cannot be guaranteed,
the obvious place to locate the tag would be inside the central hole. A reader could be
placed inside one of the prongs of the grab (see figure 16), since there is already cabling
down to the prongs as there are safety-related sensors in the hollow ends.
Figure 16: Detail of the grab, showing potential for integrated RFID Reader
The tag itself could be designed into a streamlined casing which would not be dislodged in
the event that a lifting sling were used rather than the grab. The tag could be attached
magnetically, resulting in a reusable item. Benefits of the use of RFID in this situation would
arise from automatic recording of the characteristics and position of each steel reel and from
authentication of identity as each reel is moved.
7.2
Hull Paper Terminal
Handling and storage of paper rolls has already been discussed in section 6.3. The volume
of activity and diversity of types of paper rolls can be seen in Figure 17 which shows two
views of the Hull paper storage shed. Currently rolls are identified using bar-code labels, an
example being shown in Figure 18.
Figure 17: Volume and diversity of paper roll handling at Hull Docks
248
Figure 18: Typical bar-code label of paper roll at Hull Docks
RFID Scope
The scope for implementation of RFID in this situation is not perhaps as straightforward as
first imagined. It is not possible to insert anything down the centre tube after the roll has been
manufactured, since this would destroy the moisture barrier which is part of the outside
cover. Any RFID solution based on insertion in the centre tube would have to involve the
manufacturers, although as already stated, this would be desirable. There is also an issue
concerning orientation of the roll ie which way up it is. Experiments have been proposed
using ball-shaped RFID tags which will always fall to the bottom of the tube. It is concluded
that RFID in this context would have to involve the whole paper supply chain to be effective.
7.3
Timber and Board Terminal
The timber and board handling facility is, although under cover, similar to the timber area in
Immingham (see also section 6.2). Figure 19 shows three views of board and timber in
storage. Being under cover, labels or printed covers on the bundles of board or timber are
less prone to damage or accidental removal. In some cases the identification is printed
directly onto the side of the board bundle. In many cases the only obvious way to move an
individual bundle is by fork lift from the side, leading to a relatively constant relationship
between the side of the bundle and the front of the fork lift during handling in the shed.
249
Figure 19: Timber and Board materials in storage and transport
RFID Scope
In cases such as bundles of boards, as mentioned above where size and shape is
consistent, it may be possible to attach an RFID tag in a constant position on, for example,
one of the bundle’s straps so that it can read by a fork-lift mounted reader. However, the
lower picture of Figure 19 (timber) shows the often irregular nature of timber loads.
Identification becomes more important as irregularity increases, but the use of RFID in a
consistent manner may become problematical, with as much time potentially being spent in
finding the attached RFID tag as might be spent in reading a bar-code label.
8.
Overall Recommendations
It is concluded that there is a wide variety of possibilities for efficiency improvements to be
gained in the operation of the port by the appropriate adoption of RFID technology. At this
stage it is necessary to choose an application which can be used both to demonstrate the
technology and to provide a readily identifiable benefit and which has the scope for more
widespread adoption. The main areas identified as amenable to adoption of RFID
technology are:
250

Truck Movements (including trains). Improved truck management within the port
could be facilitated by adoption of low-frequency RFID technology. Ideally this would
be linked to the weighbridge system, which already uses RFID cards. Ultimately it
might be possible to extend the POD (see section 5.1) to include all trucks and trains
approaching or on the port as well as vessels. There are well-advanced plans in place
to implement some of these ideas, so a further study in this area would be in the
nature of an enhancement rather than a new project. It should be noted that security
(theft from the port) is not perceived to be an issue here.

Stores and Maintenance. Due to the very specialised nature of many of the items in
stores and the high level of specialist knowledge of the staff involved, the usual
benefits which might arise from RFID adoption in a typical warehouse situation do not
apply. There might be a case for application of RFID tags to crane wires, grabs and
other machinery both for identification and maintenance purposes, but there are very
robust manual paper-based systems already in operation. RFID implementation
would therefore be on the basis of minimising errors (which we understand are
extremely rare, but nevertheless very costly) or a reduction in the cost of running the
maintenance schedule.

Bulk / Bagged product identification. There are a number of bagging processes in
operation at the ABP Bulk terminal and at the YARA site. In both cases RFID tags
could be used to identify product and to track its movement by forklift trucks equipped
with RFID readers and appropriate radio technology. A full business case would need
to be considered which addresses the extent to which other members of the product’s
supply chain could also benefit from using the same information. However, this could
be a simple and self-contained starter project.

Steel Reels (Hull). The steel terminal appears to offer good scope for implementation
of a pilot RFID system based on LF RFID. The crane system in use seems to be
suitable for mounting an RFID reader inside the tip of the grab from where a tag
situated inside the hollow centre of the reel might be read. Some ingenuity would be
required to design a reusable tag that could be attached inside the reel, possibly with
a magnetic base. The main benefit from such a system would be accurate and
reliable positioning and identification of the very diverse type of reels within the
storage area.

Timber. The existing use of barcode labels for identifying timber clearly has
drawbacks due to damage which can occur to the labels. RFID tags would prove to
be far more robust than barcode labels in this environment. There are low frequency
RFID tag formats specifically designed for timber use, in the form of hard plastic nails
that can be driven into wood. However, several disadvantages are immediately
apparent: the read range is fairly short (up to 1.5m) and there would have to be a
visible mark to indicate where the tag is; the tag might interfere with subsequent use
of the wood. Nevertheless, there might be benefits of RFID usage in this
environment.

Paper rolls (Hull and Immingham). This is a potential application where the
manufacturer has already made some progress in AIDC standardisation, albeit in the
context of barcoding. There are problems associated with the fixing of RFID tags to
paper rolls, which would probably have to be done at source, in collaboration with the
manufacturer. This area might therefore best be considered as a further candidate for
a study with a cooperative manufacturing chain.
251

Sensors for Bulk condition monitoring. In addition to the comments in section 6.5
Gareth has already outlined ideas relating to placing sensors into bulk stacks. The
challenges relate to recovery of the data, separation of the sensors from the bulk
product and ensuring an appropriate distribution of sensors within the stack.
Depending on the application, disposable self-networking sensors could be employed
which stay with the product (eg coal) but clearly this is not appropriate for animal
feed.
Overall, whilst further discussion with interested parties is required following release of this
report, the author’s recommendation is that a stand alone RFID project should be developed
further, based on either bulk product bagging with its associated supply chain or steel reel
handling with a further prospect of paper reel handling if the manufacture is willing to
cooperate. An additional project should also be carried out as a possible enhancement to
the current thinking on truck movement control.
N G Riley
24 October 2006
252