BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION
description
Transcript of BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
BALTICOMWP 8 THE FINNISH CASES
PROGRESS PRESENTATION
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES
TWO LEVELS:
• TECHNICAL - CUSTOMS ISSUES- DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION- EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS
• SPATIAL- BALTIC SEA MARKET ANALYSIS- KOTKA-HAMINA REGION -CASE- VAASA REGION -CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES
Basic problem:The customs status information is not following the goods travelling from Finland viaHamburg to third countries. German customs does not have real time informationwhether the goods coming from Finland have the transit status or if the cargo is still under the community traffic status.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES
Proposed solution:The terminal process carried out in the Finnish ports is developed:
1. Exporters are obliged to give more detailed data of the customs status before the unit is received into the port terminal area.
2. The Finnish customs can utilize the data for the risk analysis
3. The Finnish customs is able to quarantee that units under transit status (D-status) have left the EU customs area while leaving from Finland. This information is forwarded to the German customs.
New process in use since 4 th of September
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL CUSTOMS ISSUES
Proposed future actions:Meeting concerning customs issues in Finland during November
- Hamburg customs- Finnish customs- terminal operators- feeders- deep sea carriers
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL, DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION
Basic problem:Poor communication between German and Finnish authorities responsible fordangerous goods.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL DANGEROUS GOODS INFORMATION
Proposed solution:
Data flow between GEGIS (Hamburg) and Port @ Net -system (Finland).IFTDGN edifact message or XML based information flow.
Proposed future actionsMore detailed discussions between DAKOSY and EDI Management Ltd.Co-operation between BALTICOM and INTERMODAL PORTAL projects
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
PORT@NET-announcement
is received
Finnish Maritime
Waterpolice(GER)
Customs (GER)
Feeder
information systemPORT@NET-Administration
Feeder leaves fromFinland
Port Authority
Customs (FIN)
feederAgent of
line
German custom isable to check the
customs status of thegoods from Port@Net
Customs informationto authorities of thereceiving country
IFTDGN, XML
Feeder arrivesto Germany
Dangerous cargo informationto authorities of the
receiving country
PORT@NET-announcementis processed
PORT@NET-announcement
(=electronic manifest)
PORT@NETinformationto customs
PORT@NETinformation
to port authority
GEGIS - systemsends / receives information
CUSCARCUSREPIFTDGN
?
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS
Basic problem:Finnish terminal operators are not able to communicate with the deep sea carriersby using EDI.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
Customer
Finnish Agent of the Deep Sea Carrier
Depot
Terminal operator
Vessel
Deep Sea CarrierHead Office
Make booking
Confirm booking
Receive bookingdata
Bookingreference Release empty
load unit
Bookingreference
Receive emptyload unit
Receive Depot gate report
COCECO-messageBooking reference &load unit ID
Stuffing of theload unit
Receive loadunit
ReceiveTerminal
Operator gatereport
CODECO-messageBooking reference &load unit ID
Charge loadunit
Receive Loadunit
Receive loadingreport
COARRI-messageBooking reference &load unit ID
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS
Current situation:Finnsteve (Ports of Helsinki and Turku)
- BABLIE, COARRI, CODECO, COPARN, COPRAR (container traffic)- DESADV, IFTMBF, IFTMDC, IFTMEX, IFTMPC (forest products)
Steveco (Port of Kotka)- CODECO, COEDOR
Hamina Multimodal Terminals (Port of Hamina)- interested, not in production use
Rauma Stevedoring (Port of Rauma)- interested, not in production use
Hacklin (Port of Pori)- interested, not in production use
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, TECHNICAL LEVEL EDI AND FINNISH TERMINAL OPERATORS
Proposed solution:Follow the development.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
Basic problem:Follow the development of the Baltic sea transport market situation.Find reasons behind the development.Estimate the role of the Kotka-Hamina region taking account transit traffic.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC 1998 (1997, 1996) 760 000 TEU (682 000, 586 000)
10 605
6 378
16 94039 674
62 101
171 747
119 012
76 670
257 175
FINESTLITHLATRUSPOLSWENORDEN
FIN 34 (36, 35) %
EST 1 (1,1) %
LITH 1 (1,0)%
LAT 2 (2,2) %RUS 5 (4,3)%
POL 8 (6,5) %
SWE 23 (25,26)%
NOR 16 (16,17) %
DEN 10 (9,11) %
FMA domestic.: 220 000 TEUFMA transit.: 50 000 TEU (45 000, 35 000) 7 % ( 7 %, 6 %)
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
100
251
LITH 439
100
187
RUS 267
100
181
EST 240
100
159
POL 224
100 105
LAT 172
100117 FIN 123
100 106100 95NOR 118
100114
SWE 113100
116AVERAGE130
100
129FIN transit143
DEN 118100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1996 1997 1998
IND
EX (1
996
= 10
0)HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
0
36 348
FIN 47 269
0
16 293
POL 34 381
0
12 978
RUS 24 817
0
21 960 SWE 19 823
0
5 722
NOR 18 551
0
10 000
FIN transit 15 000
0
-3 193
0 507
LAT 7 119
0
3 600EST 6 185
02 193
LITH 4 925
DEN 11 608
-5 000
5 000
15 000
25 000
35 000
45 000
1996 1997 1998
TEU
HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
HAMBURG CONTAINER TRAFFIC
-15 000
-10 000
-5 000
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
1996 1997 1998
YEAR
TEU
IMPORT
EXPORT
FIN6 720 3,2%
FIN14 522 5,9%
FIN24 547 9,5%
EST 590 13,3%
LITH 293 20,2%
LAT 717 7,3%
RUS 2 823 19,0%
POL 240 0,9%
SWE 18 260 12 %
NOR 4 769 4,7%
DEN 70 0,1%
EST1 28016,0%
LITH 284 7,8%
LAT 414 4,0%
RUS 1 719 6,2%
POL 4 681 10,6%
SWE 9 634 5,5 %
NOR 9 261 8,7%
DEN 1 971 3,2%
EST5315,0%
LITH 682 10,7%
LAT 1 588 9,4%
RUS 3 562 9,0%
POL 1 927 3,1 %
SWE 15 267 8,9 %
NOR 6 800 5,7%
DEN 3 510 4,6%
balance = Import - export
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
COST / VESSEL CALL (USD)
3 900
140 000
125 000
4 620 1 646
32 000
24 000
5 258
65 000
49 000
3 635
130 000
90 000
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Feeder vessel (330 TEU) Panamax (73 000 DWT) Handymax (43 000 DWT)
USD
(1 U
SD =
6,1
FIM
)
KotkaHamina
Tallinn
RigaSt Petersburg
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
40' container from Hamburg to Moscow (FIM)
120 174 54 119 141 120
4 3893 300 3 960 3 960 3 960 4 389
3 960
7 5907 260 7 260 7 260
7 590
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
St Petersburg (custom clearancein St Petersburg)
Riga Tallinn Kotka Hamina St Petersburg (bond)(custom clearancein Moscow)
FIM
Road transport (40' ft)Sea transport (40 ft)Port cost / container
8 469
11 064 11 274 11 339 11 36112 098
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELBALTIC SEA TRANSPORT ANALYSIS, KOTKA-HAMINA CASE
Preliminary conclutions:Container traffic of St Petersburg is expected to grow rapidly. The capasity and the service level of the port is not setting restrictions. Cost level is very competitive, especially for the cargo heading to St Petersburg market.
The price level of the other container routes from Hamburg to Moscow isquite similar.
Ports in Baltic countries seems to be competitive especially in bulk traffic.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELVAASA CASE
Basic problem:The ferry line to Sweden has been the most important traffic for the Port of Vaasa. The volume of this traffic has reduced since the loss of tax free.
The port of Vaasa is looking for a new role.
7.9.2000Jukka Siren
WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES, SPATIAL LEVELVAASA CASE
Solution:
A new line between Vaasa and Kiel.Mainly for sawmill products.