Post on 26-Oct-2019
Logistics Performance Logistics Performance –– Kazakhstan and Central AsiaKazakhstan and Central Asia
SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES FOR NATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES FOR NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPETITIVENESS
Round TableRound Table
GenevaGeneva, , SwitzerlandSwitzerland22 DecemberDecember 20092009
Oleg Samukhinosamukhin@rtlc.net
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) 2007 Evaluates 150 countries by 7 parameters with 5-point scale
• Customs• Infrastructure• International Shipments• Logistics Competence• Tracking and Tracing• Domestic Logistics Costs• Timelines
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) 2007 Central Asia is at the bottom
Rank Country LPI Customs InfrastructureInternational shipments
Logistics competence
Tracking & tracing
Domestic logistics costs
Timelines
30 China 3.32 2.99 3.2 3.31 3.4 3.37 2.97 3.68
103 Kyrgyzstan 2.35 2.2 2.06 2.35 2.35 2.38 2.8 2.76
129 Uzbekistan 2.16 1.94 2 2.07 2.15 2.08 2.91 2.73
133 Kazakhstan 2.12 1.91 1.86 2.1 2.05 2.19 2.81 2.65146 Tajikistan 1.93 1.91 2 2 1.9 1.67 2.33 2.11
150 Afghanistan 1.21 1.3 1.1 1.22 1.25 1 3.13 1.38
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
Customs control procedures
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
52%
16%
21%
17%
45%
48%
28%
59%
68%
45%
0%
56%
20%
14%
10%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
Other control procedures at the borders
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
22%
33%
32%
5%
51%
74%
50%
59%
68%
35%
4%
17%
8%
27%
14%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Logistics Infrastructure
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
0%
9%
14%
3%
22%
94%
31%
68%
37%
43%
6%
59%
18%
61%
35%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
Telecommunications / IT Infrastructure
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
0%
0%
5%
18%
0%
41%
22%
66%
18%
23%
59%
78%
28%
64%
78%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
Quality and availability of logistics services
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
31%
0%
14%
14%
5%
69%
17%
59%
31%
73%
0%
83%
26%
56%
23%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
Logistics legislation
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
0%
0%
12%
21%
3%
100%
24%
71%
29%
85%
0%
76%
17%
50%
13%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
Corruption in logistics
Logistics Performance Index (LPI) - 2009Changes from previous studyPreliminary data
18%
35%
39%
39%
40%
82%
47%
53%
33%
50%
0%
18%
8%
28%
10%
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Got Worse ImprovedAbout the same
Logistics Performance Index - 2009Ranking of neighbors by Kazakh freight forwarders*Country
Clearance (customs and other)
Competitive pricing
Quality of logistics services
Tracking and tracing
Delivery on time
Average score
Russia 3.98 2.59 3.52 3.86 4.27 3.64China 3.21 3.33 3.25 3.31 3.44 3.31Kyrgyzstan 2.63 2.94 2.72 3.61 3.92 3.16Uzbekistan 2.56 3.33 2.51 3.24 3.71 3.07Tajikistan 2.53 3.02 2.71 3.25 3.52 3.01
* Preliminary dataInterviewed 300 freight forwarders in 5 Central Asian countries
3.643.31 3.16 3.07 3.01
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Russia China Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Tajikistan
3.573.24 3.22
2.75 2.662.12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
China Kazakhstan Russia Uzbekistan Tajikistan Afghanistan
Logistics Performance Index - 2009 Ranking of neighbors by Kyrgyz freight forwarders*Country
Clearance (customs and other)
Competitive pricing
Quality of logistics services
Tracking and tracing
Delivery on time
Average score
China 3.48 3.52 3.62 3.02 4.22 3.57Kazakhstan 2.86 3.13 2.95 3.09 4.16 3.24Russia 2.82 3.14 2.89 3.18 4.05 3.22Uzbekistan 2.21 2.95 2.26 2.48 3.86 2.75Tajikistan 2.06 3.00 2.29 2.38 3.56 2.66Afghanistan 1.63 2.33 1.61 2.00 3.05 2.12
* Preliminary dataInterviewed 300 freight forwarders in 5 Central Asian countries
2.97 2.912.68 2.64 2.63
2.16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Russia China Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Kazakhstan Afghanistan
Logistics Performance Index - 2009 Ranking of neighbors by Uzbek freight forwarders*Country
Clearance (customs and other)
Competitive pricing
Quality of logistics services
Tracking and tracing
Delivery on time
Average score
Russia 2.76 2.79 2.94 3.18 3.18 2.97China 3.13 2.91 2.72 2.81 3.00 2.91Kyrgyzstan 2.38 2.91 2.50 2.49 3.12 2.68Tajikistan 2.39 2.66 2.50 2.50 3.13 2.64Kazakhstan 2.32 2.85 2.33 2.61 3.06 2.63Afghanistan 1.73 4.09 1.35 1.74 1.88 2.16
* Preliminary dataInterviewed 300 freight forwarders in 5 Central Asian countries
Best document to define regional logistics master plan isCAREC TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION STRATEGY (ADB, 2008)
MONGOLIA
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
PAKISTAN
AFGHANISTAN
TAJIKISTAN
KAZAKHSTAN
UZBEKISTAN
TURKMENISTAN KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
IRAN
ULAANBAATARASTANA
ASHGABAT
XINJIANG UYGUR AUTONOMOUS REGION
INDIA
Urumqi
N
BISHKEK
AZERBAIJANBAKU
CAREC-1a,c
1a
1c
CAREC-2CAREC-1CAREC-5
CAREC-4a
CAREC-2
2a
2b
CAREC-6a
CAREC-1b
CAREC-6b,c
6a
6b,c
3a
3b
CAREC-6a,b
CAREC-3b
CAREC-3
CARE
C-6c
CARE
C-5
Tashenta
N
TASHKENT
DUSHANBE
KABUL
UlaanbaishintO lg iy
Hovd
YarantTakeshiken
Hexi
L ianyungangTurpan
KashiU lukeqiati
IrkeshtamSary-Tash
Karam ik
Kushat
Kurgan-Tube
Nizhni PianjSherkhan
Kunduz
Torkham
Karachi
Troitsk
Fedorovka
Karaganda
Moyinty
Aktogay
Shu
Druzhba Ala Shankou
Alm aty
KhorgosHuochengLugovaya Chaldovar
Naryn
Torugart
Chuanwulu Shankou
Agstafa
YevlakhAlyat
Turkm enbashi
Turkmenabad
AktauBeyneu
Karakalpakya
Nukus
Uchkuduk
Navoi
Sam arkand
DjizakKhavast
Khujand
Kanibadam
KokandAndijan
Kara Suu
Osh GulchaA latBukhara
RubtsovskBelagash
Sem ey
Charskaya
Taraz
ShymkentArys
SaryagashChukursay
Syrdaryinskaya
Kara Balta
Tursunzade
Shargun
Term ezHairatan
Mazar-i-Sharif
Herat
Islam Q ala
Aksarayskaya AtyrauM akat
Orenburg
Iletsk
Kandagash
AyniIstaravshan
M ary Tash GuzarBaisun
Kum kurgan
Tianjin
Kandahar
Jalalabad
Gwadar
Port Qasim
Kumla Pass
Balykchy
Khorong
CA
REC
-4b
Zamyn-Uud
Sukhbaatar
Astara
Band
ar-A
bbas
Sarahs
CAREC-3a
Zaranji
Cha
baha
r
Delaram
Aral Sea
CaspianSea
Arabian Sea
PersianGuff
Karachi/Gwadar
Bandar-Abbas
Chabahar
}
}
Kyzyl-Orda
Aktobe
Erenhot
Naushki
1a,bKuytun
Sarakhs
1b
1cLandi Kotar
Arababad
Gulam Khan
G erdez{
Banda
r-Abb
as
6b
1b
M ONGOLIA
AZERBAIJAN
AFGHANISTAN
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
KAZAKHSTAN
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
TAJIKISTAN
UZBEKISTAN
0 100 200 300 400
Legend:
Kilometers
International boundaries are not necessarily authoritative
CAREC Participating CountriesCAREC 1: CAREC 2:CAREC 3:CAREC 4:CAREC 5:CAREC 6:Feeder Corridors:
Includes-6 Corridors-85 investment projects-68 TA projects
Key national programs for transport and logistics development
• Kazakhstan: Transport Strategy. 2015– Development of transit landbridge– Development of logistics centers in major population centers and
key Border Crossing Points• Tajikistan: National program for development of Transport is
focused on road infrastructure and rolling stock. 2010-2025De-facto: – Tajikistan diversifies transport routes to overcome the dependency
on Uzbek transit– Afghan transit of non-lethal materials– FEZ Sugd and Nijnij Pianj as future logistics centers– Need to develop logistics of agricultural produce
• Kyrgyzstan: Strategy of transport sector development is focused on road infrastructure and maintenance. 2007-2010– Rehabilitation of key road, including 2 corridors to China– Logistics and marketing centers for agricultural produce
Logistics Triangle ConceptBut, several alternative triangles were proposed by different teams
Astana
Almaty
Horgos Dry Port
(Eastern Gates)
Taskala-Ozinki Dry Port
(Western Gates)
Aktau-BeineuPort
International Road Corridor Western China – Western EuropeMultibillion US dollar project (2009 – 2013)
Astana
Almaty
Customs Union Russia – Belarus – Kazakhstan (from 2010)Regional physical distribution patterns in the North will change
Astana
Almaty
Astrakhan
Samara
Yekaterinburg Omsk Novosibirsk
Role of professional associations in development of demand for value added logistics services
Professional organization Country Web
European Logistics Association EU www.elalog.org
Eurasian Logistics Association Russia www.eala.ru
Logistics Association of Volga Region Russia www.logovolga.ru
Ukrainian Logistics Association Ukraine ula-online.org
US
UK
Russia
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals cscmp.org
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport www.ciltuk.org.uk
National Logistics Association www.nla.ru
Establishment Central Asian Logistics Association can be the next step in development of logistics and supply chain
management in the region
Key challenges in Supply Chain Management• Weak and fragmented logistics private sector
(small organizations, no cooperation between professionals)• Too much focus on fixed assets, too little on lean operations• High property prices and availability of capital in 2004 -2007
followed by financial crunch => redundant and expensive warehousing space
• Little understanding of inventory value => excessive inventory, limited use of LTL/LCL and other lean logistics operations
• Different from EU, and not properly examined logistics cost structure (high transport, customs and unofficial payments, relatively low labor and warehousing, etc.) often make global best practices not very relevant
• Logistics management is focused on customs and border crossing issues, supply chains are long and disjointed (many inventory holding points, change of transport documents, physical transloading, etc.)
Logistics Performance Logistics Performance -- Central AsiaCentral Asia
SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES FOR NATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES FOR NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPETITIVENESS
Round TableRound Table
GenevaGeneva, , SwitzerlandSwitzerland22 DecemberDecember 20092009
Oleg Samukhinosamukhin@rtlc.net