~~~~~~W!J.lJ.UJ.U!IlJlWU.:." 1IJIIIIIIbI'llr!lIlI!lIlI!fIl'l!fllll'illlllllllJJJIlIUlIIIIII~flmllllllllllllIJJllUlllUJl'J 1IIlIll1lJlfUlIIJlllC!U
ULTIMODAL SHORTSEA TRANSPORT
<Prof.dr.ir. N. Wijnolst
Ir. A. Sjöbris
Prof.dr. C. Peeters
Prof.dr. A. Verbeke
Drs. E. Declercq
Ir. T.J.N. Schmitter
Verkoop van dit rapport wordt verzorgd door:
Stichting Coördinatie Maritiem Onderzoek
Postbus 21873 - 3001 AW Rotterdam
telefoon
:
010 -
'
4130960
telefax:
010
-
4112857
MUL TIMODAL SHORTSEA TRANSPORT
COASTAL SUPERHIGHWAY
INDISPENSABlE (AND FREE) LINK IN THE EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK
KFB Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board, Project number Dnr 93-65-43
GMD Foundation for the Coordination of Maritime Research, Project number 93/1668/7.3
EU Commission of the European Union,
Project number B93/ B2-7040, SIN 008116
~
'(fD
Swcdish Transport andCommuniclJtions Research BOllnJ
eMD
--
---
---
~--"'-'"DELFT UNIVERSITY PRESS
Bibliotheek TU Delft
111111111111
., \.!I
~:(l
/. J.ljl\\'DELFT MARINE TECHNOLOGY SERIES
1. ANAL YSIS OF THE CONTAINERSHIP CHARTER MARKET 1983-1992 IN RELATION TO THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAINERSHIPS (OCTOBER 1993)
2. INNOVATION IN FOREST PRODUCTS SHIPPING (OCTOBER 1993)
3. INNOVATION IN SHORTSEA SHIPPING: SELFLOADING AND UNLOADING UNITLOAD SHIPSYSTEMS (DECEMBER 1993)
4. NEDERLANDSE MARITIEME SEKTOR: ECONOMISCHE STRUCTUUR EN BETEKENIS (MA Y 1994)
5. INNOVATION IN CHEMICALS SHIPPING: PORT AND SLOPS MANAGE-MENT (JUNE 1994)
6. MULTIMODAL SHORTSEA TRANSPORT: COASTAL SUPERHIGHWAY (JUNE 1994)
Prof. dr. C. Peeters,
Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Middelheimlaan 1, B -2020 Antwerp, tel. +32-3-2180725, fax +2-3-2180746
Prof.dr.ir. N. Wijnolst, ir T.J.N. Schmitter,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands, tel. +31-15-784682, fax + 31-15-620620
Ir. A. Sjöbris,
Mariterm AB, Banehagssatan 1 P, P.O. Box 12037, S-40241 Gothenburg, Swe-den, tel. +46-31-122030, fax +46-31-245856
Drs. E. Declercq,
Policy Research Corporation N. V., Spoorweglaan 191, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium, tel. + 32-3-4480444, fax 32-3-4480446
Prof. dr. A. Verbeke,
Solvay Business School, University of Brussels (V.U.B.), Plein laan 2, 1050 Brussel, tel. + 32-2-6412128
MUL TIMODAL SHORTSEA TRANSPORT
COASTAL SUPERHIGHWAY
INDISPENSABlE (AND FREE) LINK IN THE EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK
Prof.dr.ir. N. Wijnolst
Ir. A. Sjöbris
Prof .dr. C. Peeters
Prof. dr. A. Verbeke
Drs. E. Declercq
Ir. T.J.N. Schmitter
DELFT UNIVERSITY PRESS
1994
Delft University Press Stevinweg 11 2628 CN Delft The Netherlands tel: +31-15-783254 fax: +31-15-781661
CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, THE HAGUE
N. Wijnolst, A. Sjöbris, C. Peeters, A. Verbeke, E. Declercq, T.J.N. Schmitter Multimodal Shortsea Transport: Coastal SuperhighwaY/N. Wijnolst, A. Sjöbris, C. Peeters, A. Verbeke, E. Declercq, T.J.N. Schmitter
Delft: Delft University Press. -111. - Lit.
ISBN 90-407-1009-0 NUGI834
Keywords: shortsea shipping, multimodal, coastal highways
Copyright © 1994 by N. Wijnolst, A. Sjöbris, C. Peeters, A. Verbeke, E.
Declercq, T.J.N. Schmitter. All rights reserved
No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the publisher: Delft University Press, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Nether-lands
Table of Contents Table of Contents PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 CHAPTER 1: CHAPTER 2: CHAPTER 3: CHAPTER 4: CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER 7: CHAPTER 8: CHAPTER 9:
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS .. .... 8
DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION: THE ROADSHOWS 16
FA ST SELFLOADING AND UNLOADING
SHIP-TERMINAL SYSTEMS FOR UNITLOADS: SUMMARY
FIRST BOOK . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . ... 40
POTENTlAL FOR SHORTSEA MUL TIMODAL
TRANSPORT: THE CORRIDOR-STUDY . . . . . . . . . . .. 65
ROADBLOCKS ON THE COASTAL SUPERHIGHWAYS 105
COASTAL SUPERHIGHWAY: ROUTES AND
NETWORK STRUCTURE . . . . .. .. . . .. 119
VERY FAST TRAIN UNITLOADER SHIP-TERMINAL
SYSTEM: TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIONS AND
ECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
EUROPEAN SHORTSEA SHIPPING RESEARCH
PROGRAMS .. .... .. .. .. .. . . .... . . .. .. . . . 171
PREFACE
Ships play an important role in the inter-European move ment of goods; these goods can be bulk commodities, containers or roll-on/roll-off. The latter category is mostly transported on the short-haul ferry-services, which are in fa ct an extension of the road transport sector.
Shipowners across Europe are continuously exploring new opportunities for transport services, and of ten with success. Sometimes, these services are in direct competition with road or rail transport. An example of the latter is Sea-Land's service to Southern Italy, which is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Within the door-to-door multimodal transport services, like those of 8ell Lines (Figure 2), shipping forms the backbone of a cost-efficient transport system, in which ships, terminals, rail, barge and road transport are cemented together by an information system and a marketing organisation.
In spite of the many success-stories of shortsea shipping, there is a general feeling that much more can be done. In fact, much more is being done, but this is not always visible to the outsider. From every ten services or routes which are explored by shipowners and transport companies, maybe four are started up and maybe two survive the first year.
From these collective experiences the question arose as to why shortsea ship-ping within Europe can not extend its role as a large player in the transport network?
Figure 2 Paris Tours Clermont-Ferrand Luxembourg Mannheim Stuttgart Strasbourg Dijon Basel Geneve Lyon Preface Berlin München
The European Commission commissioned several studies, such as the Corridor-study in order to identify the potentialof shortsea shipping on various trade routes. One of the conclusions from these studies is that the competitive posi-tion of shortsea shipping within the unitload segment is limited. The critical success factors, such as transit time, frequency of departure, cost of transport
and quality of service, often do not measure up in comparison with road and sometimes also rail transport.
The authors of this book believe that th is can not easily be altered, unless the technology and operations of shortsea shipping are fundamentally changed. The concepts which may bring about this change are described in the first book
"INNOVA TlON IN SHORTSEA SHIPPING: SELFLOADING AND UNLOADING UNITLOAD SHIPSYSTEMS".
The essence of the concepts in th is book is th at the turnaround time of ships and the related stevedoring and port costs should be dramatically reduced, which can be achieved by making the ship independent of the availability of terminal labour and attaining extremely high loading and unloading speeds. An overview of this book is presented in Chapter 3.
Although we may be technological optimists, we are not naive. A shift in modal split will not happen by itself. What is required is a different positioning of shortsea shipping, which is reflected in the title of th is book through the words: multimodal, transport, coastal, superhighway and highway.
The reasons behind this shift in perception th at we strive for are explained in the following paragraphs.
MULTIMODAL
Shortsea shipping is of ten the core-link in a transport ch~in, but seldom the only link. Road transport, rail transport and inland navigation are linked with shipping via the terminal-interfaces. Shipping cannot do without the other modes and therefore it is not a useful strategy to antagonize each other. The combination of the strengths of each mode should be used in order to compete effectively for business.
The shipping link is particularly suited to the adaptation to any form of unit, such as the maritime container or the stackable swapbody . The shipowners should be pro-active in the adoption of new equipment standards, which co me from the other land modes.
The ship and the terminal design should be such th at a high degree of automa-tion can be achieved, which increases the flexibility, shortens the turnaround time in port and lowers the cost. Shortsea shipowners should work together with the other modes to create a flexible, low cost and reliable multimodal system, and they should realize that each mode is as strong as the weakest link.
TRANSPORT
Shipping is part of the transport sector; or better, it is a form of transport ser-vice. Shipping has a too strong connotation with ships, and many shippers do not like the idea th at their precious goods are moved in an old-fashioned and slow way.
Preface
Shortsea shipping should therefore, in the case of unitloads, be replaced by shortsea transport. This is not a simple word game, but an essential change in perception in the minds of its users, as weil as the operators themselves. In short, we should like to use in the remainder of th is book the term "MUL TI-MODAL SHORTSEA TRANSPORT" to depict unitloads services th at make use of shortsea shipping.
COASTAL
Deepsea shipping implies long distances between continents, while the term shortsea shipping refers to relatively short distances. Although, this may be deceptive in the case of for example the Sea-Land service from Rotterdam to Southern Italy. A general characteristic of shortsea shipping is th at the ships often follow the coastline, and make relatively many port calls compared to deepsea shipping. The new types of unitload services that are presented in this book not only follow the coasts of Europe, but frequently hop in and out of ports. That is why we have introduced the term port hopper service.
The ships that follow the coastline use an imaginary sea lane, a liquid road. That is why we introduced the word superhighway.
SUPERHIGHWAY
Every mode of transport has put forward a European network structure; even the invisible, information technology has come up with a smart marketing slo-gan to create anxiety in the minds of the decision-makers "the information superhighway". No equivalent network proposal has been put forward by the maritime sector.
The electronic highway research programme attracts many billion ECU's from the European Commission, while a few cru mb les will be allocated to maritime and shortsea shipping research. The policy-makers in Brussels are not to blame for this; it is the sector that lacks the clout to come up with a comprehensive sc he me in which arealistic aspiration level is defined.
The transport segment of the European railways recently published a slick brochure with the future ambitions for a truly European rail transport service and network. In spite of the fact that most of the European railways receive vast amounts of subsidies from the state and that in particular goods transport is loss-making, they know to create a perspective which encourages the politicians to invest enormous sums in new ambitious projects, with only a fictitious return on investment.
How can the Multimodal Shortsea Transport sector create such a network plan and the equivalent "hype" as the road, rail, and information lob bies have done? A start could be to change the perception of the sea lanes in the minds of the general public and the politicians. This is not just salty water, but rather an unlimited infrastructure resource, with an infinite number of connections. Like
the creative process in the brain, where the nerves (roads) are connected by synapses (transfer points). The infinite number of route combinations at sea warrants the use of the word "Superhighway".
Hardly any investment is necessary to tap th is freely available infrastructural resource.
HIGHWAY
Highways are associated with fast road transport. Shortsea shipping is usually not associated with speed. This in spite of the fact that for example ferry ships may have service speeds of 23 knots (over 40 km/hour) and are unobstructed by traffic jams.
When the turnaround time in .port is further impraved, then the shortsea servic-es may start to compete on the level of transit time with road transport.
Although road transport is not particularly fast on the long haul, it has the image of being fast, uncomplicated and reliable.
Shortsea transport should improve its performance in the hardware, operations and software domains. Therefore it should start to put into the minds of ship-pers and freight forwarders the concept that multimodal shortsea transport is getting its act together and is becoming a road transport equivalent, i.e. areal, professional alternative, th at can be used without headaches, like a highway.
DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION
By now many policy-makers and researchers have become aware of what is wrong with the competitive position of shortsea shipping. The next question is how to bring about real change if this perception is indeed shared by the profes-sional community.
This requires a diffusion of the innovative ideas which are being put forward (not only by us) and to create a platform for change.
In the past, the lack of alternatives and spiralling costs facilitated the phenome-nal speed of change fram general cargo shipping into the container age. In shortsea transport, the alternatives are abundant and of good quality. Only in the not to distant future, externalities (social and environmental cost of road transport) may force a change towards the sea. It will not happen by itself, in particular since the odds are against shortsea transport. The freeing of the road-cabotage in Europe will possibly lead to a dramatic increase in the haulage efficiency, which will be passed on to the shippers. The competitive position of raad transport is th us expected to improve further in the short term.
Consequently, an enlarged rale of multimodal shortsea transport will not happen by itself. First of all we have to sell the new service concepts to an unwilling audience, and in fact make shippers happy with shortsea shipping against their own free wijl.
Preface We believe that in the long term a change towards the sea has to happen if Europe wis hes to accommodate ever increasing flows of imports and exports, as weil as passenger movements. As the lead-time of any new system is usually long, our motto is "the future is now!".
The first condition for change is not the development of new technological con-cepts, that is not the bottle-neck. There is first a need for creating the aware-ness for fundamental change within the professional community. This process which is ca lied "diffusion of innovation," is at the core of our research project. It started with the publication of a book titled "Innovation in Shortsea Shipping: selfloading and unloading unitload shipsystems" and ends for the time being with this second book "Multimodal Shortsea Transport: Coastal Superhighway".
YOUR REACTIONS COUNT!
We like to stimulate you to react to our ideas and invite you to direct your comments to the addresses on the cover page.
As part of the diffusion process we try to create a network of change agents, by publishing the names of those professionals who attended the roadshow presentations. Please do not hesitate to contact us or each other.
FINANCIERS
The study has been financed by three organisations:
*
The Commission of the European Union - Directorate General VII Trans-port;* The Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board (KFB); * The Dutch organisation for the Co-ordination of Maritime Research
(CMO).
The authors are grateful for the support and opportunity provided by these organisations towards th is research project.
The ideas expressed in this book are however not necessarily shared by our financiers .
Multimodal Shortsea Transport
CHAPTER 1:
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The research studies carried out in Sweden and Holland over the past 4 years and the development programs in the shipbuilding industry show th at the tech-nology exists to build selfload/unload unitload ship systems. The technique is available and in most of the cases already being used in other or similar ap-plications.
Road-rail-sea competition
Traditional short sea shipping markets are threatened all the time as the in-frastructure for road and rail is being built up rapidly by means of largepublic subsidies. Examples of th is can be given by the Channel tunnel and the Öresund/Baelt connections giving the land transport modes direct access to the traditional shipping markets without passing over ferry services. This will strengthen the possibility for the land transport modes to compete without the ferry service at the same time as it increases the competition towards the exist-ing short sea shippexist-ing services in the same market.
One should bear in mind that contrary to the railroad, sea transportation is always exposed to internal competition. Rail and sea are today the closest competitors. It would have been nice to see the railroad compete more for the road transport cargoes and less for the long, heavy, bulky materials which are traditionally best suited to sea transportation. This can only take place through direct operating subsidies to the railroads. Governments, however, should be responsible enough to see th at their transport modes compete in the niche giving the highest benefits to society. As of today the competition between road and rail is declining, as rail is concentrating on cargo that is easy to handle. In this way the states are subsidising a transport mode which is competing with the shortsea and coastal sea transportation to the bitter end, while the roads are jammed, demanding large infrastructural investments.
The politica I rules and regulations in th is respect must be further analyzed in order to give the politicians better guidance regarding the consequences and the real effe cts of the existing transport system.
Summary and Policy Recommendations Role of the government
The market for the shortsea port hopper concept has not been studied in th is project. In order to build up an infrastructural system based on sea transporta-tion a new business structure must be arranged. The rules and the implementa-tion of such a structure are not known and must be given further research and analysis. Nevertheless it will be the government that needs to control the total system in order to make the system available to all areas that needs to be covered by the system. The comparison to road and rail can be made in this respect. A shipowner will only call at terminals and ports if he has a cargo turnover that is sufficient to cover for the marginal cost of calling at that port or terminal.
This is why the state has further interests in a seaborne transport system. The service should include areas in Northern Europe which cannot carry cargo quan-tities large enough for an exclusive service and cover the cost for the same. Ex-amples can be North Norway, Ireland, and the Isle of Gotland in Sweden. By the integration of these areas in a commercial cargo flow, the need for subsidising cargo transports can be diminished or eliminated. In order to incorporate such regions, the state must involve itself in the establishment of the transport system.
The beneficiaries of a sea transport infrastructure will be:
*
The state by means of extra transport resources without heavyinvest-ments;
* The industry by means of lower cost of transportation;
* The shipping industry by means of increased shipping activities;
* The ports and local community by means of increased utilisation of exist-ing ports.
The previous studies have shown that a sea transport system based on unit-loaders can be cost saving and able to compete with raad transport. It does not require subsidies. However, investment in a system will demand guarantees to make it start. Also the organisation to run it must be developed in further stud-ies of business development and the management structure of the system.
Investment
The investment in a sea transport system is normally never a problem if there is some guarantee for the coverage of costs. This may be a cargo flow that can be shown to the investors or some strong body in shipping or other business sector th at can grant the investment. As an infrastructural resource this part will probably not be aproblem. If it is a request from the state to have the service on certain conditions the investors will, as is normal in the sea transportation
business, raise the investment capital themselves which means the state does not have to raise the capital for a system.
However, one of the more crucial questions is how the state can take a more active part in the total infrastructural planning if it bears no cost or other obliga-tions in sea transportation systems. At the same time one must recognise the heavy investments, the responsibility of the state in the raising of funds for the infrastructural investments in land transport modes, and its reluctance to take on more costs. It is essential that the sea transportation industry must show the cost-benefits and the advantages of systems where cargo can be moved from road to sea. Research programs in all European states should be formed to identify these potential c,,\rgo flows. The cargo flow should then preferably be based on an intermodal port hopper system described in this report.
Port hopper services
In Figure 3 a system comprising an integrated network of port hopper systems is shown. This is a model based on alogistic layout of a system where the num-ber of ports and the cargo flows as such are not analyzed. By pinpointing a number of interchanging ports, several systems can be connected in a chain and the goods can be moved between a large number of ports, this without heavy costs for interchanging the cargo units in the ports. As aresuit, the cargo can be shipped in a sea system as close to its destination as practically possible, thus reducing the need for trucking at each end.
The roa,dshow presentations gave as a result a confirmation of a number of issues which is the base of the shipping concept presented. The strongest con-cern expressed, was the fact that the existing structure and co st of port opera-tion must be changed in order to change the competitive posiopera-tion of sea trans-portation.
New transport systems must be brought forward where the whole transport chain is considered, incorporating intermodal transports. The new system must look deeply into all operational details in the transport system incorporating the management, organisation, information transfer including booking and notifying of cargo, EDI and cargo tracking. The intermodal system must be organised and preplanned. The land transport system can just as weil be a partner in a trans-port system based on sea transtrans-portation. Further research is needed in this area. The subject should be to find a proposal for the organisation, management and running of a complete system.
One of the main objectives in a development of sea transportation systems is to find the most suitable load carrier for the shortsea intermodal transport. In the modern way of transportation th is should not be a single unit for only the sea transportation but rather be integrated in the new standardization of load
car-Summary and Policy Recommendations
~AST
SELFLOADING/UNLOA
~HIP.TERMINAL
PORT H
Go
'D Figure 3riers. A standardization is needed in order to build up intermodality and is one of
the most essential issues for the united Europe to determine and decide. Highest
priority should be given to this subject in the standardization committees. The issues to be solved are, in order without priority:
* The overall dimensions with respect to the different transport modes and pallet sizes and its stowability in the unit;
* Stackability;
* Fixing points;
* Cargo securing;
* Safety and security;
* Handling efficiency;
*
Unit costs.Even though these parts are essential the overall action from all parties and the planning towards a common goal of developing the shortsea and coastal sea transports to a competitive and useful transport alternative must start as soon as possible. The timing for action is today. The window of opportunity is open but, must be kept open or it will close when all heavy decisions in alternative extensions of the road and rail infrastructure burdens the society in such a way that it will not listen to other alternatives until current programmes have been completed.
POllCY RECOMMENDATIONS
The 10 policy recommendations are related to all aspects of shortsea transport systems such as:
1. Technical
The lack of competitiveness of shortsea shipping of unitloads can be solved by making ships and terminals independent of each other and shortening dramati-cally the turnaround time in port. This can be achieved by new technical ship-terminal concepts, which do not require major technological breakthroughs, and can be developed within a short period of time.
Promotion of these concepts amongst shipowners, ship designers, shipbuilders and terminal operators will stimulate further research and lower the acceptance threshold. A range of ship types and sizes should be developed with corre-sponding terminal designs and accurate cost-estimates.
2. Operational/ports
The port-hopper concept calls very frequently in (small) ports, which is its strength and under the present circumstances also its weakness. The port cost structure of today is penalizing a frequent use of ports. Therefore new rate structures and incentive-systems must be developed which will create a level playing field for shortsea shipping in comparison with its main competitors: road and rail transport.
Summary and Policy Recommendations The ships will be loaded and unloaded semi-automatically by the ship's crew, which is in some ports presently prohibited by law. Labour laws sho~ld be adjusted to accommodate these new developments.
These ships are equipped with very flexible propulsion units and mooring sys-tems, which makes them independent of tug assistance and harbour pilots. The new ships should be exempted from paying the dues for these important cost-items.
3. Market
The coastal and shortsea shipping port-hopper service will be based on three market segments: the feeder market, the door-to-door market and the purely coastal market. The ultimate goal of the new system is to increase the com-petition for business with road and rail transport in the coastal and door-to-door markets. As th is will take some time to develop, a new system should initially be based on a large and growing market, that of feeder containers.
A new system will require a high frequency of sailings in order to compete with the other modes; consequently, th is will create a phenomenal capacity, which has to be filled.
This is a "catch 22": without frequency no competitive advantage and no volume of business, without volume of business no feasible operation.
Developing the market segments is
the constraint
for implementation of a new system.4. Commercial
The market development requires a radical different approach than that of a traditional shipping company. lts commercial policy will resembie much more that of a door-to-door operator.
Actually, a new service should not position itself as a seaborne system, but as a transport service.
The commercial organisation should create allies with the freight forwarders, and sell its services through them. They know the markets, shippers, and have the equipment.
5. Financial
The port-hopper system should be implemented on a full scale in order to make it work. This means for example an investment in some 3 ships (a sailing every two days, as a minimum) and some 9 terminals (round trip time 6 days, 1600 nm). The investment is of a magnitude, which cannot be financed by the tradi-tional small-scale shortsea operators. It will require co-operation among the
different owners and port operators, as weil as some form of government back-ing.
A consortium of regional and business interests should be formed to support the initiatives of transport companies, freight forwarders, port and terminal opera-tors and shipowners.
6. Competition
The competition for any new entrant in the coastal and shortsea shipping scene
from existing services or road and rail transport will be formidable. This may
lead to a further deterioration of freight rates if the market does not grow suffi-ciently to absorb the excess capacity.
The key to success for a new service will be its ability to reduce the empty backhaul from any destination, and to find return cargo.This so-called "haulage efficiency" is far more important than the actual freight-Ievel on a door-to-door basis. This will initially lead to a commercial policy which focusses on remote areas, where the present road and rail operators do not have a sustainable competitive advantage. To find these niches will require an in-depth transport analysis of the potential routes.
In some situations, a large-scale development will create a near-monopoly for the new system. It is difficult to regulate competition in this case; besides, the
government finds it hard to institutionalize such a market structure. This
re-quires further study.
7. Routes/network
The basic concept of the port-hopper system evolved from a study on the East Coast of Sweden. During the roadshow presentations some potential routes have been indicated, not based on market research. Ultimately this should lead to a whole network of services, which are linked at different unitload hubs. The hubs will be the mainports of container services, as they provide the basic flow
of feeder-containers.
Regional studies should be undertaken and published in order to identify these
routes and networks.
8. Unitloads
The port-hopper service is based on the traditional maritime container (ISOl. the 2.5 m wide container (pallet-wide) for the European needs, and the stackable
swapbody. The dimensions of the swapbody and its stackability are still a
mat-ter of debate. The European industry is urged to develop unitload standards that
fit their needs. The present containerships and terminals cannot handle swap-bodies efficiently. The port-hopper services should be geared to these requirements.
Summary and Policy Recommendations
9. Political
The lobby for road transport, road building, rail transport and railroad building is very strong, while the shortsea shipping lobby is weak and hardly existent. Many national transport plans do not even consider shipping as an option, let alone allocate resources to th is sector.
Shortsea shipping should position itself as a viabie, environmentally friendly op-tion, and a relatively cheap alternative for the other modes.
Building up the lobby power should be based on positive information transfer to politicians. A strategy should be devised, especially by the shipowners associa-tions, which achieves this objective.
10. Research
To bring a new transport concept to the market will require a lot of research and development; the problem is always to finance th is research.
Therefore, if the national and European governments take a serious attitude towards shortsea shipping, a substantial amount of money should be allocated to support research efforts in th is domain.
At the same time, universities can focus their master thesis projects on the different research topics. The results should be communicated and shared with others. A part of thè research funds should be used to facilitate this.
CHAPTER 2:
DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION: THE ROADSHOWS
Policy-makers have become aware of the fact that shortsea shipping can and should play a role in the European transport sector. At the national level this has led in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom to Road-to-Sea initiatives. In Germany, shipping has become an integral part of the National Transport Plan, while in Norway, the Maritime Forum has united a shortsea shipping group which has set out to develop shipping alternatives and stimulate research. At the European level the European Commission has created the Maritime In-dustries Forum, which produced an outline of a research program for the mari-time sector and which is supervised by a high-powered steering committee. The sector, which lacked for so many years any lobbying-power and attention from policy-makers, now has to.get used of being in the spotlights.Can the maritime sector live up to these new expectations and fulfil its promis-es?
This baak contains a report on one such ettort to make the shortsea shipping sector more competitive: the tast selfloading and unloading unitlaad ship
-terminal system.
The system is described in the book INNOVATION IN SHORTSEA SHIPPING:
SELFLOADING AND -UNLOADING UNITLOAD SHIPSYSTEMS, which was
published in December 1993, as part of a research project undertaken by the authors, which was financed by three organisations: the European Commission -Directorate General VII Transport, the Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board and the Dutch Organisation for the Coordination of Maritime Research.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The objectives of the project can be summarized by the following eight state-ments.
1. Shortsea and coastal shipping cannot compete with road or rail transport Any doctor knows th at making the right diagnosis is essential for prescribing a cure for the patient. In shortsea shipping many professionals have been study-ing over the last years the potential for an expanded role of shippstudy-ing in the modal split within Europe. The results of these studies are not too encouraging. We are of the opinion that the shipowners are very enterprising people and that they are continuously exploring new routes and opportunities. A lot of these trials do not work out as the critical competitive factors are stacked up against
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Diftusion of Innovation: The Roadshows shortsea shipping. These factors have been extensively described in the book on "INNOVA TlON IN SHORTSEA SHIPPING", and are in th is context briefly sum
-marized: transit time, frequency of departure, cost of transport, and quality of transport.
In most of the cases, shortsea shipping cannot not compete with the other land-based modes on the basis of these factors. The shipping community should, like the doctor, accept th is diagnosis and act accordingly, before it can cure the competitive disease of shortsea shipping.
2. Innovation can change the competitive position of shortsea shipping
Based on the previous statement, one may draw the conciusion th at the com-petitive situation for shortsea shipping is such th at there is no future. We are of the opinion that under certain conditions, shortsea shipping may become much more competitive. This requires innovations at all levels (marketing, technologi-eai, operational, financial), which should basically improve the four critical success factors mentioned before.
The concepts presented in the book "INNOVA TlON IN SHORTSEA SHIPPING" should be able to achieve this. These concepts are briefly described in Chapter 3. The essential features are that the ships must become independent of the availability of terminal-labour and achieve extremely high loading and discharg-ing performance, measured in tons/manhour.
Over time, one can distinguish two periods of major change in general cargo handling performance.
The first period is related to the development of modern general cargo ships, starting early this century; the design of this ship type was perfected af ter WW2. In spite of modern cranes on shore and on board, as weil as wide hatch-es, rectangular holds, flush-tweendecks, the introduction of pallets, cargo gear, and the like, the handling performance measured in tons/manhour, has leveled oft.
The second period of change started with the introduction of the container; many improvements in ship design, (gantry) cranes on board and on shore, effi-cient terminals, etcetera, led to a phenomenal increase in productivity.
But now, 30 years af ter its worldwide breakthrough, the productivity in the ship-to-terminal interface has leve led oft again.
In order to make shortsea shipping of unitloads competitive, a third wave of change is required, based on very fast selfloading and unloading unitload ship-terminal systems. Figure 4 illustrates these developments over time.
Handling Performance
(tonsjmanhour)
Gantry
General cargo
cranes
Ships gear
1950
1960
Figure 41993
Self-Ioacling
&
unloacIing
ships
Future
- - - --~3. Diffusion of the innovation concepts amongst professionals
The introduction of the container in the worldwide transportation system was so rapid as never seen before. The reasons behind this unique diffusion process were the spiralling increases of the cost of stevedores, ship's crew, and the de-murrage of the ships in port. The container revolution caught on so quickly as there was no alternative to deepsea shipping.
In deepsea shipping, sea transport made the rules and gave birth to the con-tainer; in shortsea shipping, land transport sets the rules, which means road transport systems. All transportation will be adapted to the road transport needs. Shortsea shipping gave up de facto the competition in the sixties, when the deregulation of road transport commenced.
Besides, in shortsea shipping the alternatives are abundant and this is one of the major obstacles for a rapid diffusion process for new concepts. Why bother to inform oneself about new ideas, which require a lot of money, while at the same time one can hardly make a living, or rather survive in the cutthroat com-petitive environment.
Given th is lack of urgency for new shipping concepts on the part of all the par-ties involved, there does not seem to be a natural audience to address with these new concepts.
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows As we are of the opinion that new ideas have to be sold, and that success only co mes af ter th is hard-sell, we have decided to use a rather unusual approach. We have organised five presentations (roadshows) in five countries: Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway and Finland. The members of our international Reference Group were instrumental in organising these local meet-ings. Presentations in Sweden had been already made by MariTerm AB, the consultants who initiated the project in Sweden,
The audiences were made up of representatives from the shortsea shipping sector, ranging from shipowners to government officials, from shipbuilders to researchers, from transport companies to journalists.
Apart from the presentations, each participant received a free copy of the first book, and will receive a copy of the present book.
The names of the participants are listed in Chapter 9, as we wish, as part of our research project, to create a network of professionals who are involved or inter-ested in bringing about change in shortsea shipping.
4. Stimulate discussion and create a momentum of change
Making the new concepts known to an international audience is not enough for
the introduction of innovations in shortsea shipping.
The participants should be able to communicate the concepts to their peers and
the books can be instrumental in th is respect.
Artieles in the trade press will further en ha nee the discussion, as weil as presen-tations at Conferences such as the ROR094.
The members of the international Reference Group, which was created, are also focal points for the dissemination of information in the local professional
net-works.
Only when the issues and objectives are weil understood, the solutions which are presented for the quantum leap in the shortsea shipping of unitloads can be discussed.
It takes not only perseverance but also a receptive audience in order to create a momentum of change and that is wh at we are af ter .
All parties in the shortsea shipping sector have their responsibility in th is re-spect; without a broad support for change, any new idea of th is magnitude and potential impact is doomed to fail.
5. Identify potential routes in North-West Europe
The new concepts co me to life if they are applied to the local situation; people can relate to new ideas more easily if they are placed in a familiar surroundings of coastal waters, ports, trade routes. For this reason we have presented during the roadshows several hypothetical round trip voyages, not based on market re-search, but just to illustrate the concept of the port-hopper service, i.e. a ser-vice making many port calls in a very short period of time. Most of the
exam-pies show the basic principle of the system: a linkage to large ports, in order to get access to feeder cargo.
The cargo-base is essential for any shipping project. As coastal trade flows are presently hardly developed, a new system has to be based in the first phase on existing flows of feeder containers and door-to-door containers. The coastal and shortsea flows can be developed on the back of these existing, large flows. We have invited the participants to use their knowledge of the local situation to come up with other routes.
6. Reinforce the Maritime Industries Forum initiatives
The Maritime Industries Forum forms a milestone in the European mantlme sector. Never before in history was so much effort put into the development of all shortsea shipping segments.
But plans without a follow-up turn out to loose support and that is why the new concepts have to be developed in order to show that the sector is getting its act together and that there is a real chance for change.
Just as shortsea shipping needs the MIF-initiative, the MIF needs demonstration projects in order to justify in the longer term a continued financial support.
7. Research and investment
At the European level, research programmes like EURET and the Fourth Frame
-work Programme channel the research funds towards the maritime sector. The ECU 10 billion which is allocated to the Framework Programme is only targeted for a small percentage (0.6%) to the entire maritime sector. If the MIF can show that the sector deserves more, than the politicians can derive from th is the lobbying-power which is required in this allocation struggle.
An active maritime sector, with plenty of research initiatives which lead to investments, reinforces the lobbying-power.
Therefore, the shipowners and all the parties involved in shortsea shipping should realize th at taking a non-involved stance will be counterproductive.
8. Time wind ow of opportunity: the future is now!
The shortsea shipping sector has earned a lot of goodwill at the European and national level over the last two years. If th is is not duly supported by results, like new shipping systems, the goodwill will eventually dissipate.
The sector has a time window of some five years to show results from research and pilot projects. If they cannot deliver the goods, then it may take a decade before we get another chance. The sector should become aware of this sense of urgency; the future is now!
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows THE ROADSHOW-PRESENTATIONS
Five presentations were organised in order to inform the professional mantime community about the fast selfloading and unloading ship-terminals systems and the coastal superhighway concept. These meetings were attended by some 190 people (Chapter 9).
*
Bremen, Germany, organised by prof. M. Zachcial at the University of Bre-men, on February 2, 1994.The meeting draws a large audience of 65 people trom all sectors of the Ger-man maritime industry.
*
Delft, The Netherlands, organised by prof. N. Wijnolst at the Delft University of Technology on February 10, 1994.The meeting was attended by same 30 participants from industry, govern-ment, university and the press.
*
London, United Kingdom, organised by mr. G. Rabbitts from Associated British Ports, at the British Chamber of Shipping, on February 22, 1994. The meeting, presided by F.M. Everard, was attended by some 30 people from the shipowners, shipbuilding, ports, government and press community.*
Oslo, Norway, organised by mr. A. Minsaas from Marintek and secretary of the Maritime Forum Shortsea Committee, at the Norwegian Shipowners Association on March 2, 1994.About 25 participants from the maritime industry, research, university and government attended th is meeting.
*
Helsinki, Finland organised by mr. R. Kurki and mr. H. Favorin at the Ministry of Transport on March 18, 1994.Some 40 participants from the shippers, ports, shipowners, shipbuilding, university and government attended this meeting.
PRESS FEEDBACK FROM THE MEETINGS
A number of articles appeared in the trade press as a result of the presenta-tions.
A good illustration of the feedback from the press were the articles in Lloyd's List, of which one is printed on the following page.
Shortsea leap
Some time in the mid 1960s, groups of worried shipowners would have gathered to consider the technological leap which the advent of containers were due to bring. They we re being presented with technical solutions which offered quite staggering advances in productivity over that of conventional shipping. But the problem was how on earth the gigantic capital costs which containerisation would entail could be undertaken in a liner industry that was not exactly down by the head with cash.
The quite extraordinary courage which those old liner lords exhibited as they leapt into the consortia which brought forth the container age is the stuff of history, but has vet to be properly recognised.
Could shortsea shipping take a similar leap into tech future. We have been invited at least to contemplate such a prospect this week following a presentation on "Innovation in shortsea shipping" which suggested that if shipping was ever going to break the stranglehold of the motor lorry, technica I advances were very necessary.
A collaboration between Professor Niko Wijnolst of Delft University and Anders Sjobris of the SwediSh MariTerm consultancy, this proposal takes up the challenge issued by the European
. Commission to provide shipping systems to move traffic from the roads of Europe to the green uncongested sea lanes that wash the European coasts.
Associated British Ports is providing a good deal of what might be described as the sponsor-ship, in presenting the concept to shipowners and ot hers interested in coastal and shortsea freight.
While there will be few people who would deny that road tralfic cannot increase for evermore without completely destroying the environment, it takes more than goodwill to shift it onto ships. Ships may be highly competitive when they are actually at sea, but their port costs and the price of handling cargo are considerable. And when it is considered th at the average price of moving a container between road and rail is around [20 ($29.301 it is clear that the ports have a long way to go to compete.
The answer, say Messrs. Wijnolst and Sjobris, lies in technical innovation, developing systems to handle units with the utmost efficiency and developing shortsea services whose speed and regularity provide an attractive alternative to the road. Most of the components of the system -the cargo handling, ship handling and port infrastructure - are separately in place, so -there is only a modest amount of new technology that is required. The battle will be in putting it all together into a workable system.
The analogy with the dawn of containerisation is attractive, although it does not quite hold water. The deepsea liner operators were faced with no practical altern;:;tive to containerisation - spiralling port costs and the high costs of operating conventional liner tonnage focused their minds sharply. But shortsea liner trades compete head on with cheap and effective road haulage and state railways, and while there is clearly a "sociai" reason to stop the growth in road transport, there is not vet the coercion which drove the deepsea operators down the container road.
Inrelative terms the costs are really quite small. For the price of a double skinned VLCC or two motorway bridges,a seven ship service to fourteen Swedish ports on a daily basis could be provided. And of course there are other equally attractive routes now being contemplated around the British Isles and continental coasts. But even this is still an enormous investment that is quite bevond the means of the existing shortsea operator, who is usually hard pressed to find the cash for a single ship.
But this should not be necessarily be a barrier, with Europe's roads becoming increasingly congested and the road ha uier facing increased regulations and higher costs. And maybe we should be, like those container pioneers rather more visionary.
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows
COMMENTARIES FROM THE PRESENTATIONS
A summary from the commentaries of each roadshow-presentation is given below.
al Bremen meeting
The very large attendance was clearly triggered by the promlslng title of the roadshow which seems to offer a new perspective for shortsea shipping. German shipowners and shipyards have the know-how and critica I mass to bring about change. The presentation of the new fast selfloading and unloading concepts was weil received and the discussion did not raise fundamental objec-tions. Three issues formed the core of the discussion: the port cost, the cargo unit, the relation of shortsea shipping with inland shipping, and a new, German ship concept.
The port-hopper concept is based on very frequent calls at many ports. If the present-dav port casts structure were to be applied, this would result in unreal
-istically high costs for th is kind of service. Therefore, a new system should be introduced, with greater flexibility in port co st calculation, especially in the Nor
-dic countries.
The standardisation of cargo units is another important issue. Standard ISO
con-tainers have been designed for deepsea trading, and are not really suited for intra-European transport. The first adjustment which is required, is the widening of the unit to 2.5 m in order to be able to handle the euro-pallets efficiently. Besides, the unit should meet the requirements of the road transport industry
and resembie much more the swapbody . Whether these should be soft-top or
stackable is a matter of debate. The German Studiengesellschaft für den
kom-binierten Verkehr e.V. in Frankfurt/Main addrE;sses this question thoroughly. Coastal shipping plays a minor role along the relatively short coastline of Germa-ny. More important is the in/and shipping of unitloads and its potential to
com-pete with road/rail in combination with shortsea shipping. Thus, shortsea ship-ping development should be considered in coherence with the inland shipship-ping sector. Again, the right cargo unit is crucial for both systems.
The German shipyard Thyssen-Nordseewerke briefly introduced a whole new
design at the meeting, dubbed the "Euro Kombi Carrier", which is shown in
Figure 5, This ship is designed to handle a combination of conventional
roll-on/roll-off and swapbodies (soft-top) efficiently. It demonstrates clearly that
more professionals are trying to find concepts which speed up the handling in port.
"
I.f.::
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows Another positive sign came from the Bremer Vulkan Group, in particular from its yard the Schichau Seebeckwerft in Bremerhaven. This yard has experience in building special shortsea vessels such as the Railship 111, while the Group as a whole is geared to develop new maritime transport systems. This is demonstrat-ed by their brochure with the title : The highway around Europe.
In September 1993, an "Expertenkonferenz Schnitstelle Land-See" took place in Kiel. This Conference had the same objectives: how to improve shortsea ship-ping and in particular the land-sea interface.
In short, the awareness in Germany is growing.
bI Delft meeting
The participants were rather skeptical about the port costs of such a port-hop-per system. If these port costs and pilotage regulations were not changed radi-cally, any new system based on frequent calls was doomed to be killed. A radical new approach is required to achieve this. Some ports show examples of such policies, as is the case with container shipping in Rotterdam. Deepsea lines have special rates for a second call, while feeder services have substantial reductions with an increasing number of caiis. Much more creative, commercial rate structures can be developed to stimulate shortsea shipping. The lower port user costs, may th us be compensated with an increase in calls and business. The Dutch Ministry of Transport (D.G.S.M.) has a road-to-sea programme, managed by drs. R. Bagchus, who is also member of our international Reference Group. Various projects are underway which aim to stimulate shortsea shipping. At the regional level, the province of Groningen in the North of Holland, is also promoting shortsea shipping as a means of developing the local economy. Mr. J. Kaspers of ISP/NOM has presented a plan titled "Northern Corridor; gateway for the European market ; the development of intermodal maritime trade links between the Northsea and the Baltic rim, together with the development of intermodal collection and distribution centres in the Baltic States" .This is il-lustrated by Figure 6
The train unitloader concept, which was presented in the first book at the con-ceptual level, has now been designed in more detail by the graduate maritime engineering student from the Delft University of Technology, T.J.N. Schmitter. The ship and terminal are shown in Figure 7. The description of th is design can be found in Chapter 7 of the book.
The Northern Corridor
Port Rel.ted Activities
Figure 6
cl london meeting
The meeting started with a short presentation by mr. J. Packer, who recently
had finished the "Roads to water study" for the Department of Transport. The
main conclusions from his study are the following statements:
.. The present share of coastal shipping in the internal UK-market is,
mea-sured in tonmiles, only 9.4% (78.4% road, 9.6% rail, 2.6%
pipe-line/inland waterway);
.. The order of magnitude for savings for the "coastal highway" is 1 % for unitloads. Although th is does not look very impressive, it still represents
17 million tonmiles. The potential for coastal bulk is of the same mag-nitude;
.. The port interface is the major cost and critical element in the transport chain with a sea routing. This problem is hard to solve as:
High port costs are of ten largely due to low and irregular through-put;
The ports are not going to make the investments necessary to
reduce costs and ship time unless volumes are high and certain
Coastal shipping systems competing with road cannot be based on
irregular and uncommitted traffic flows;
Regional ports need services competitive on cost and quality which
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows "·':"l,J1 iI '
I
I 'J E I 11'11::, ~I
1lllIillllh~ ,I ' - ,/IPutting the efficient handling systems on the ships might be the answer, but this generally requires higher cost and dedicated ships and less flexible shipping systems.
Mr. Packer concludes in summary that the key' issues facing shortsea shipping are:
*
Scope tor further ship design development and productivity seems limit-ed; cost analysis shows that the focus should be on systems to decrease port time and costs;* Where port investments cannot be justified, then handling systems on the ships may be the answer;
* Research into low cost, rapid, automated ship-to-shore transfer systems should be considered.
The organiser of the meeting, mr. G. Rabbitts sent a summary of the meeting to all the participants, who reacted on it. This summary and some of the reactions are given below.
Impressions from the roadshow:
*
It is technically possible to produce a ship system which will compete nose to nose with road transport. This in itself, is an interesting result, but ...* It probably involves a technology jump - to a new S-curve;
*
Under present conditions, it is not possible to introduce such a system with all the attributes of frequency and reliability in a manner which would be an acceptable risk to investors;* Therefore, if the governments of the Member States and/or Commission require a massive shift of freight from road to water, they must create the commercial (fiscal?) conditions in which this can happen;
* The indications are that some Member States, particularly on the other side of the North sea, and the European Commission are minded to inter-vene in the market to achieve the result, even if th is results in some distortion of competition;
* The British Government is likely to be suspicious of such intervention, a suspicion that is probably shared by many British companies who believe that however carefully a fiscal regime is devised, it will be abused in some way;
Diffusion of Innovation: The Roadshows
* This leaves British industry with a choice. Either:
It can encourage its Government to block any interventionist mea-sures (with the risk th at the spoils go to our competitors); or It can be creative and come up with regimes that meet its criteria for fair and open competition as closely as possible.
* While the schemes put forward appear at first sight to be bad news for ports, the argument that they will generate new traffic for the sea mode has a siren attraction. British ports will always look at every scheme on its me rits and negotiate a deal, but they will be careful that such schemes are not used as ploys to undermine the rate structures which are essential to the well-being of the port infrastructure. I (G. Rabbitts) am sure ABP ports (as ever) want to take part in any realistic technology development, provided it has a sound commercial basis.
Some quotes from the letters:
A large containershipowner: "we found the presentation to be both interesting and informative, and came away with very similar impressions to yourself. Throughout the meeting, it was stressed that, for the concept to be workabie, the entire system must be in place from dav one, which would therefore require a very high level of investment before any return could be expected.
We are, however, always interested in new ideas and would therefore confirm that we wish to keep in touch with the programme" .
A shipowners' representative: "As ever, I suspect it will be necessary to balance the competing forces of practicality, pragmatism, and polities!"
A shortsea shipowner: "I think the important thing about the whole issue is th at they are creating traffic that doesn't exist at all at the moment, but it would still require a brave man to invest such a large sum on a pure risk investment. Nevertheless, let us keep the debate going as there may be a route that may be particularly suitable."
A shortsea shipowner: "In our own particular area and trade it has to be recog-nised that a large volume of the traffic is time-sensitive (just-in-time, perish-abies). As a consequence, importers and exporters would be looking for their goods to be moved to the nearest direct port and probably would not accept a service based on calls at a number of ports on a sequential basis.
The element of Government or State intervention required to provide a sophisti-cated ship system would be a major problem, particularly for British companies. There would be an added problem on the Irish Sea in that the Government in the Republic of Ireland has, for some time, been making a very strong case to the European Commission for granting assistance for mobile assets i.e. ships. This argument is primarily based on the fact that once the Channel Tunnel is complete, Ireland will be the only major unconnected land ma ss within the
European Union and that grant assistance for ships should be a substitute for Commission funds expended on Autobahns, Motorways, etcetera.
From our position as a major ship operator on the Irish Sea, we cannot envisage howa "level playing field" could be maintained if grant assistance was given for mobile assets such as ships. In our view, it would be impossible to devise a system which could be applied even-handedly to all the competitor shipping services between Great Britain and Ireland."
A shipowners representative: "With the development of the Fourth Framework programme for R&D in the Community, occasional Roadshows on particular projects, funded by the Commission of course, would be a good way of involv-ing potential users."
A shipbuilders representative: "In my view we have to deal with two quite separate sets of problems. First is technical, where I think most of the solutions are already available. Second is political, where I think the path is rather more difficult to follow.
On the political aspects, I would first make the obvious point that our organisa-tion is keen to promate the use of shortsea shipping as a transport mode for the obvious reason th at more ships means more work for our members bath in terms of building and repair. Sa much for the declaration of self interest. That said, it does seem that all logic points toward moving as much trade as possible within Europe by water to reduce the pressure on a road network which already recognised to be over used and a rail network which does not have a great deal of spare capacity. The other great built-in advantage of water
-borne transport is that it can be environmentally friendly.
Over the last year or sa, through our European trade association, we have been putting in a lot of work with the Maritime Industries Forum. What is emerging from that is a Commission recognition th at shortsea shipping is a practical solution to allowing an unhampered growth in trade within the Community. Our problems come in translating the very open-minded attitude we find in the Commission to Government Departments and Ministers in the UK. A co-or-dinated transport policy seems, for same reason, anathema to Ministers here. The road and railways lobbies seem so deeply ingrained in Department of Trans-port that shipping hardly gets mentioned."
dl Oslo meeting
The fact th at the Norwegian Maritime Forum already established a Shortsea Shipping Committee signals th at the Norwegians focus on the sector. From their perspective, they have raised the following questions:
