Despite a slight 0.5 percent decline in cargo throughput of Russian ports in the first half of this year (-0.5%), handling of outbound cargoes rose 1 percent to 243 410 000 tons. At the same time, foreign ports boosted cargo traffic by 7.5 percent from a year earlier, to 54.21 million tons. Analysts say major exports flow from Russian ports will hardly be down even if a new economic crisis comes, yet are not certain about the ability of Russian ports to increase its share in handling of the cargo.
Rivalry for tons
For the first half of 2011 the share of foreign ports in handling Russian exports rose to 18.2% versus 17.6% in January-June 2010. That is, the Russian port industry trend turns out to be negative, as the domestic goods continue to go to foreign stevedores. Naturally, Russia is not satisfied with the state of affairs.
Rosmorport has prepared the port infrastructure development strategy until 2030, which implies, in particular, handling of all Russian foreign trade cargo in domestic ports. Rosmorport conclusion is based on the fact that the Russian ports have a much better geographic location relative to Russian centers of production and consumption.
The main rivals of Russia are the ports of the Baltic countries, which increased handling of Russian exports in January-June of 2011 by 7% thanks to half-year volume of coal (+13.4%), fertilizer (+26.8%) and liquid cargo (+2.8%).
Ukraine, the second competitor, also increased handling of Russian transit goods by 8.4% mainly due to the ore (up to 3.8 times) and coal (2%). For the rest of the range of goods registered a decline here.
Ice and bureaucratic barriers
The main reasons for the success of foreign ports were extremely difficult ice condition in the eastern Gulf of Finland (in the Neva Bay) and the bureaucratic barriers associated with customs and border crossing procedures.
The Russian ports of the Gulf were obviously in a less advantageous position than their Baltic rivals. Actually, the ice condition complicated last winter the port of Riga, which had only one operational icebreaker (the port eyes acquisition of ice-class tugs), and the Finnish ports. However, Latvia’s second largest port Ventspils is ice-free with its Baltic Coal Terminal for transshipment of Russian export coal), as well as the port of Klaipeda. Situation in the harbors of Estonia is also a lot better than that of North-West of Russia.
The problem with ice condition at the regional Russian ports could rather be solved through expansion of icebreaking fleet, in the first place, with new diesel-electric and nuclear-powered icebreakers. The Russian government has been set to start funding this year the construction of three nuclear and four diesel-powered icebreakers.
Rivalry for tons
For the first half of 2011 the share of foreign ports in handling Russian exports rose to 18.2% versus 17.6% in January-June 2010. That is, the Russian port industry trend turns out to be negative, as the domestic goods continue to go to foreign stevedores. Naturally, Russia is not satisfied with the state of affairs.
Rosmorport has prepared the port infrastructure development strategy until 2030, which implies, in particular, handling of all Russian foreign trade cargo in domestic ports. Rosmorport conclusion is based on the fact that the Russian ports have a much better geographic location relative to Russian centers of production and consumption.
The main rivals of Russia are the ports of the Baltic countries, which increased handling of Russian exports in January-June of 2011 by 7% thanks to half-year volume of coal (+13.4%), fertilizer (+26.8%) and liquid cargo (+2.8%).
Ukraine, the second competitor, also increased handling of Russian transit goods by 8.4% mainly due to the ore (up to 3.8 times) and coal (2%). For the rest of the range of goods registered a decline here.
Ice and bureaucratic barriers
The main reasons for the success of foreign ports were extremely difficult ice condition in the eastern Gulf of Finland (in the Neva Bay) and the bureaucratic barriers associated with customs and border crossing procedures.
The Russian ports of the Gulf were obviously in a less advantageous position than their Baltic rivals. Actually, the ice condition complicated last winter the port of Riga, which had only one operational icebreaker (the port eyes acquisition of ice-class tugs), and the Finnish ports. However, Latvia’s second largest port Ventspils is ice-free with its Baltic Coal Terminal for transshipment of Russian export coal), as well as the port of Klaipeda. Situation in the harbors of Estonia is also a lot better than that of North-West of Russia.
The problem with ice condition at the regional Russian ports could rather be solved through expansion of icebreaking fleet, in the first place, with new diesel-electric and nuclear-powered icebreakers. The Russian government has been set to start funding this year the construction of three nuclear and four diesel-powered icebreakers.