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


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


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


7.9.2000Jukka Siren


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


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 %)


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


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


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


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


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


7.9.2000Jukka Siren


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.

BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION

Documents

Transcript of BALTICOM WP 8 THE FINNISH CASES PROGRESS PRESENTATION