outline
Post on 31-Dec-2015
32 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Ramifications of the Crisis:Revising Future Expectations
Theo NotteboomITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy
Jean-Paul RodrigueDepartment of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University
Terminal Operators Conference - EuropeValencia (Spain), June 8-10 2010
Outline
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
2. Towards a new hierarchy in the European container port system?
3. Towards a paradigm shift?
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
World trade and manufacturing output
Source: EU
GDP growth (q-o-q) in EU
Source: EU
GDP growth (index) in EU
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
Industrial production - EU
Source: EU
Industrial production - world
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
Private consumption in EU
Source: EU
Investments in capital goods in EU
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
Increased need for factoring in uncertainty/risk in business strategies
Outline
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
2. Towards a new hierarchy in the European container port system?
3. Towards a paradigm shift?
-5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
100 1
98
5
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
Co
nta
ine
r th
rou
gh
pu
t in
mill
ion
TE
Us
(7
5 E
uro
pe
an
co
nta
iner
po
rts
)
European port system
Exponential trendline total traffic
Till 1993: Fairly linear development of total container traffic
Since 1993: traffic path becomes exponential 2008: Stagnation
2009: - 14% compared to 2008
Throughput gap of 18 million TEUnobody anticipated in early 2008
Setback of three years(volumes of 2006)
How serious is the throughput issue?The European case
The bubble effect?
Container throughput development and various forecasts, Antwerp
Source: Notteboom
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
98
0
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
Th
rou
gh
pu
t in
TE
U
Actual throughput
Antwerp Port Authority (1990)
Cost-benefit analysis Second Scheldt terminal (1992)
OSC and Marconsult (1993)
OSC (1995)
OSC (1997)
Verbeke et al (1996)
Cost-benefit analysis container dock west - working strategy 1 (1997)
Cost-benefit analysis container dock west - working strategy 2 (1997)
OSC - Deurganck Study (2001) - Base Case
OSC - Deurganck Study (2001) - Low Case
Strategic Plan (2004)
Bubble?
Top 15 European container ports
in 1000 TEUR 1985 1995 2000 2005 2008 2009 R1 Rotterdam 2655 Rotterdam 4787 Rotterdam 6275 Rotterdam 9287 Rotterdam 10784 Rotterdam 9743 12 Antwerp 1243 Hamburg 2890 Hamburg 4248 Hamburg 8088 Hamburg 9737 Antwerp 7310 23 Hamburg 1159 Antwerp 2329 Antwerp 4082 Antwerp 6488 Antwerp 8664 Hamburg 7008 34 Bremen 986 Felixstowe 1924 Felixstowe 2793 Bremen 3736 Bremen 5448 Bremen 4565 45 Felixstowe 726 Bremen 1518 Bremen 2752 Gioia Tauro 3161 Valencia 3597 Valencia 3654 56 Le Havre 566 Algeciras 1155 Gioia Tauro 2653 Algeciras 2937 Gioia Tauro 3468 Algeciras 3043 67 Marseille 488 Le Havre 970 Algeciras 2009 Felixstowe 2700 Algeciras 3324 Felixstowe (*) 2900 78 Leghorn 475 La spezia 965 Genoa 1501 Le Havre 2287 Felixstowe (*) 3200 Gioia Tauro 2857 89 Tilbury 387 Barcelona 689 Le Havre 1465 Valencia 2100 Barcelona 2569 Marsaxlokk 2330 910 Barcelona 353 Southampton 683 Barcelona 1388 Barcelona 2096 Le Havre 2502 Zeebrugge 2328 1011 Algeciras 351 Valencia 672 Valencia 1310 Genoa 1625 Marsaxlokk 2337 Le Havre 2234 1112 Genoa 324 Genoa 615 Piraeus 1161 Piraeus 1450 Zeebrugge 2210 Barcelona 1801 1213 Valencia 305 Piraeus 600 Southampton 1064 Marsaxlokk 1408 Genoa 1767 Southampton (*) 1600 1314 Zeebrugge 218 Zeebrugge 528 Marsaxlokk 1033 Southampton 1395 Southampton (*) 1710 Genoa 1534 1415 Southhampton 214 Marsaxlokk 515 Zeebrugge 965 Zeebrugge 1309 Constanza 1380 La spezia 1046 15
TOP 15 10450 TOP 15 20841 TOP 15 34698 TOP 15 50067 TOP 15 62697 TOP 15 53951TOTAL Europe 17172 TOTAL Europe 33280 TOTAL Europe 51000 TOTAL Europe 73729 TOTAL Europe 90710 TOTAL Europe 78011
Share R'dam 15% Share R'dam 14% Share R'dam 12% Share R'dam 13% Share R'dam 12% Share R'dam 12%Share top 3 29% Share top 3 30% Share top 3 29% Share top 3 32% Share top 3 32% Share top 3 31%Share top 10 53% Share top 10 54% Share top 10 57% Share top 10 58% Share top 10 59% Share top 10 59%Share top 15 61% Share top 15 63% Share top 15 68% Share top 15 68% Share top 15 69% Share top 15 69%
(*) Estimate
= port gained places in ranking (2008-2009)
= port lost places in ranking (2008-2009)
Taking a medium-term view on traffic development: Winners and losers during
the period 2006-2009
THE MAIN WINNERS THE MAIN LOSERS
Source: ITMMA – own compilation
TEU gains - 2006-2009 (in 1000 TEU) % traffic gains - 2006-2009Valencia 1042 Tarragona 1580.0%Marsaxlokk 845 Gdansk 207.1%Zeebrugge 675 Sines 107.9%Antwerpen 291 Gent 82.1%Tarragona 192 Marsaxlokk 56.9%Gdansk 162 Koper 56.7%Sines 132 Bordeaux 46.4%Koper 124 Zeebrugge 40.8%Bremen 120 Valencia 39.9%Tilbury 103 Teesport 34.2%Southampton 100 Szczecin 29.6%Le Havre 96 Trieste 25.7%Leghorn 83 Ravenna 22.6%Leixos 76 Leixos 20.1%Cagliari 66 Varna 19.7%Trieste 57 Venice 16.6%Rotterdam 53 Tilbury 13.9%
Venice 53 Leghorn 12.7%Napels 51 Savona 12.3%Teesport 46 Napels 11.5%
TEU losses - 2006-2009 (in 1000 TEU) % traffic losses - 2006-2009Hamburg -1854 Ventspils -97.3%Piraeus -743 Piraeus -52.9%Barcelona -517 Vlissingen -50.0%Constantza -443 Constantza -42.7%Algeciras -202 Burgas -40.0%Malaga -175 Malaga -37.6%Taranto -151 Hamina -37.5%Felixstowe -130 Amsterdam -33.6%Genoa -123 Bahia de Cadiz -31.5%Kotka -112 Rouen -26.7%St-Petersburg -106 Stockholm -26.0%Amsterdam -103 Kotka -24.7%La spezia -91 Cuxhaven -23.6%Gdynia -83 Barcelona -22.3%Gioia Tauro -81 Thessaloniki -21.4%Bilbao -80 Hamburg -20.9%Thessaloniki -74 Malmö -20.3%Marseille -70 Helsingborg -18.6%
Med and UK succeeded in reversing recent decline in market share
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%1
98
5
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Sh
are
in to
tal c
on
tain
er t
hro
ug
hp
ut
Hamburg-Le Havre range
Mediterranean range
UK range
Atlantic range
Baltic
Black Sea
Changes in Container Traffic at Some Major European Ports, 2008-2009-Q1
2010Volume in
2008(1000 TEU)
Volume in 2009
(1000 TEU)
Volume change 2009 vs. 2008
Volume change Q1 2010 vs.
Q1 2009
EUROPERotterdam – the NetherlandsAntwerp – BelgiumZeebrugge - BelgiumHamburg – GermanyBremerhaven – GermanyLe Havre – FranceMarseille - FranceAlgeciras - SpainBarcelona – SpainValencia - Spain St-Petersburg – Russia
10,7848,6642,2099,7425,4482,501851
3,3242,5693,5971,970
9,7437,3092,3287,0084,5652,230877
3,0431,8003,6541,323
-9.6%-15.6%+5.4%-28.0%-16.3%-10.4%+3.0%-8.5%
-29.9%+1.6%-33%
+16%+15.9%+23.9%
-4%+12%
-+17%+8.8%-5.7%+6.7%
-
Growth differences mainly explained by:• Consolidation of volumes on trunk lines
• End of capacity constraints in some ports• Major inter-port shifts in transhipment business
• Russia effect
Source: statistics individual port authorities
Trade volumes per route to/from Europe: Mixed results
Source: based on data EELA
Year on year change in trade volumes (basis = TEU)
Q1-2009 Q2-2009 Q3-2009 Q4-2009 Q1-2010 Q1-2010 vs. Q1-2008Europe-SSA Northbound -4.2% -4.3% -7.1% 3.5% 8.2% 3.6%Europe-SSA Southbound -1.3% -3.1% -1.8% 2.6% 4.6% 3.2%
Europe-Asia Westbound -22.1% -22.2% -13.2% -0.2% 20.4% -6.2%Europe-Asia Eastbound -15.6% -1.6% 9.2% 29.1% 21.6% 2.7%
Europe-North America WB -16.9% -21.6% -15.0% -6.5% 10.8% -7.9%Europe-North America EB -29.0% -35.0% -25.6% -6.6% 14.1% -18.9%
Europe-India/Middle East WB -12.1% -7.4% -0.5% 4.7% 17.7% 3.5%Europe-India/Middle East EB -4.1% -0.6% 1.7% 6.4% 11.7% 7.1%
Europe-South/Latin America NB -12.9% -12.3% -18.6% 2.7% 5.9% -7.8%Europe-South/Latin America SB -27.4% -26.4% -22.5% -0.8% 45.9% 5.9%
Europe-Oceania NB -6.8% -9.1% -14.0% -12.9% -19.4% -24.9%Europe-Oceania SB -14.7% -26.4% -8.5% -6.0% 11.7% -4.7%
Inventory replenishment or an underlying recovery in demand ?
Revisiting transshipment in Europe
Algeciras
Sines Cagliari
Gioia Tauro
Malta
Taranto
Piraeus
Le Havre
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Zeebrugge
Bremerhaven
Hamburg
Valencia
Barcelona
Tanger Med
Market shares of ports in the West-Med according to diversion distance from the
main route
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Sh
are
in T
EU
th
rou
gh
pu
t We
st-
Me
d
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance > 250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance 100-250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance < 100 nm
Middle East – Far East
Main shipping route
Americas
Americas
Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)
Logistics core region
Multi-port gateway region
Inland corridor
Main shipping route
Gateway port
Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows
Multi-port gateway regions1. Extended Rhine-Scheldt Delta2. Helgoland Bay3. UK SE Coast4. Spanish Med5. Ligurian Range 6. Seine Estuary7. Black Sea West8. South Finland9. Portugese Range10. North Adriatic11. Gdansk Bay12. Kattegat/The Sound
1
2
11
6
5
10
4
9
7
3
8
12
Main stand-alone gateways
Profile map of European seaport system CONTAINERS
© 2010 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, Universityof Antwerp
The immediate hinterland as the backbone for port volumes
• Containers: challenge of co-modality and cargo bundling on short distances
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hamburg
Bremen
Zeebrugge
Le Havre
Share in total inland traffic flows of port (modes rail, truck and barge)
Germany
the Netherlands
Belgium
France
Other
Containerized cargo by road, rail and barge
The immediate hinterland as the backbone for port volumes
• Competition but also synergy between regional ports• Increasing role of inland/dry ports
0 50 100 150 20025Kilometers
France
Belgium
Lux
Germany
NetherlandsROTTERDAM
Zeeland SeaportsANTWERPZeebrugge
Ghent
Ostend
BrusselsLille
Liège
WielsbekeGenk
DuisburgEmmerich
Nijmegem
Avelgem
Born
Venlo
Valenciennes
GrimbergenWillebroek
DeurneMeerhout
Duesseldorf
Cologne
Krefeld
Neuss
Bonn
Andernach
Dortmund
Amsterdam
Alkmaar
BeverwijkZaandam
HarlingenLeeuwarden Veendam
Meppel
GroningenDrachten
Kampen AlmeloHengelo
ZutphenEdeHillegom
UtrechtA. a/d Rijn
TilburgOosterhout
Helmond
Gorinchem
MoerdijkDen Bosch
Oss
Valburg
Stein
Gennep
Mertert
Koblenz
Dormagen
Seaport in Extended Rhine-Scheldt Delta
Logistics corridors
Inland Container Terminal (barge or multimodal)
Growth region EuropeanDistribution (outside seaport system)
Dunkirk
Middle East – Far East
Main shipping route
Americas
Americas
Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)
Multi-port gateway region
Main shipping route
Gateway port
Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows
Multi-port gateway regions1. Extended Rhine-Scheldt Delta2. Helgoland Bay3. UK SE Coast4. Spanish Med5. Ligurian Range 6. Seine Estuary7. Black Sea West8. South Finland9. Portugese Range10. North Adriatic 11. Gdansk Bay12. Kattegat/The Sound
1
2
11
6
5
10
4
9
7
3
8
12
Madrid and surroundings
West Germany
Bavaria Alpine region
South Poland/Czech Republic/
Slovakia/Hungary
Northern ItalySouth
France
Ports increasingly compete
for more distant hinterlands
Keeping Track of the Big Picture: Emerging Global Maritime Freight
Transport System
Outline
1. Towards an economic recovery in Europe?
2. Towards a new hierarchy in the European container port system?
3. Towards a paradigm shift?
The Double Squeeze on Ports and Maritime Shipping
Supply Demand
OvercapacityNew terminals coming onlineNew ships coming online (+ cancellations)
Lower profitabilityLess pressures on terminal resources
Less financial appeal
Contestability for gatewaysContestability for hubsRebalancing
Maritime Shipping
Port Operations
M&A activity in terminal operating industry
• Expected net returns on investment grossly overrated on assumptions that: - container throughput figures would go through the ceiling- container handling facilities would be in short supply- prices would rise steeply.
• Since 2008: no major terminal transactions
• Max 8 to 10 times EBITBA
• Shipping lines’ divestment in terminals?
A more prudent approach to plot sizes of capacity extensions?
• Deurganckdock- 5.3 km quay wall, - 326 ha, 44 GC - 8m TEU
• Rotterdam: Euromax- 5.5m TEU, 2.3m TEU in 1st phase
• Rotterdam: Maasvlakte I & II
• Le Havre: Port 2000
Rebalancing risk
• Globalization and the growth of the shipping industry appear to have skewed the perception of risk downward.
Source: Rodrigue, Notteboom and Pallis (2009)
The “Calm” after the Storm: A Paradigm Shift for Maritime Container Trade and
Ports
1) Risk Allocation
Desire to allocate greater risks onto private sector in PPPs:• Requires clear policy goals and stable regulation. • Moral hazard risks will continue to be tested.More demanding capital markets and less access to (cheap) credit:• Focus on performance to meet financial metrics.• New projects more critically assessed.Greater consideration of cost recovery of port infrastructure investment:• From the deal / financial structure to quality of the asset.
2) Reviewing False Asymmetries
The assumption that larger players have more information than smaller players:• The larger players appear to have lost the most.
The “Calm” after the Storm: A Paradigm Shift for Maritime Container Trade and
Ports
3) Growth Story:Time for realism
Abandoning the compound annual growth paradigm• Port traffic assumptions likely to be less backward looking. • Stronger cyclical effects than perhaps first assumed.Greater attention on market fundamentals:• Globalization or regionalization?
4) Barriers to Entry: Competition matters
Paying attention to competition drivers:• Growth may no longer mitigate competitiveness as it did previously.• Transshipment a particularly vulnerable segment.
5) Amortization: Modest times
Volume & pricing assumptions more modest:• Longer amortization periods.• PPP rent sharing more probable.
Will we get back to a ‘business as usual’ scenario?
• No: the ‘business as usual’ practices between 2002 and 2008 were highly ‘unusual’.
• Medium-term perspective (3-5 years): - Sustained pressure on terminal rates due to
restructuring/consolidation of shipping services and memory effects in terminal overcapacity situation.
- Actors will continue to show cautious in competitive bidding processes.
• Long-term perspective (>5 years): - Strategic port sites remain scarce goods.- Terminals will regain status as interesting investment
objects, but with a more realistic risk assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
• Mid-term problems to a ‘recently enlarged port sector’ with investors rediscovering risk
• Provide opportunities:- to develop corrective actions as good days will be
back.- to revisit growth expectations as trade growth is not
exponential.
Topics for Discussion
• How solid are the growth fundamentals for the shipping industry?
• Which sectors and regions are the most vulnerable?
• Who is likely to default next?• Signs of divesture?• What could be the “new normal”?
Thank you for your attention !theo.notteboom@ua.ac.be
jean-paul.rodrigue@hofstra.edu
top related