The interview questions which were related to Short Sea Shipping aimed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this transport mode. Additionally it was tried to explore which role ports/terminals have in the promotion of SSS as well as the role of SSS in intermodal transport chains.
6.1.1 Strengths of SSS
The most frequently named strength of SSS in front of other transport modes was the capability of carrying big amounts of cargo (Malmqvist 2014; ISL 2014; BUSS 2014, Psaraftis 2014; SPC 2014). This is not only related to container, but also to other types of cargo such as the mentioned paper industry in Sweden. Additionally, the freight rate paid per ton is relatively low compared to other transport modes, which makes this transport mode perfect for low value, but voluminous goods (Malmqvist 2014; Psaraftis 2014;
SPC 2014). The other named strength is that SSS is bridging gaps between locations on the shortest way, which is particular the case in Scandinavia where the geographical situation is creating an obstacle for effective land transport modes (Malmqvist, 2014). Under environmental aspects it was confirmed that the SSS is the transport mode with the lowest CO2 emissions per ton/km (BUSS 2014; Psaraftis 214; VDR 2014).
6.1.2 Weaknesses of SSS
There was no common answer to the question of the major weakness of SSS. The lack of flexibility was named as a big disadvantage compared the road transport (Malmqvist 2014). Related to this point the burden of pre-carriage was also mentioned which makes the SSS less flexible on the one hand and in addition also less economical (ISL 2014; SPC 2014). SPC (2014) also mentions that pre- and post-carriage are offering space for dysfunctions within the transport chain.
3Methodological Note: The references which are given in this part are related to the interviews which can be reviewed in the back of the thesis.
58 The other weakness is connected to the increased handling costs which occur by using SSS due to port charges, administrative burden and costly equipment (ISL 2014; SPC 2014).
These administrative burden where described by Psaraftis (2014) as the biggest challenge, especially when it comes to the competitive situation with the truck. While a truck has no
“breaks” in terms of cargo handling, the cargo handled by the sea mode is facing many lifts which involves many participants which results in cost and time (Malmqvist 2014;
ISL 2014; SPC 2014; VDR 2014). The involvement of many participants is also increasing the complexity of the transport chain which makes the implementation less attractive (SPC 2014).
Furthermore the frequency of SSS in comparison of the truck was named. While the truck can literally depart every hour based on the high density of truck operators, the density of shipping departures is limited (Malmqvist, 2014). The lack of alliances has also been confirmed by one interview partner who mentioned that there is still a competitive attitude against each other, which is not favouring the cooperation between these transport modes (ISL 2014). Another big weakness which was confirmed some by respondents was the lack of innovation within the shipping industry (Malmqvist 2014; ISL 2014; HPA 2014;
Psaraftis 2014). VDR (2014) as well as SPC (2014) disagree with the statements and describe the shipping industry as very innovative. The shipping industry is so far the only transport industry which implements international standards, namely SEEMP and EEDI (VDR 2014).
Additionally the shipping market has evolved from a “port-to-port” transport service to a
“door-to-door” service (SPC 2014). Furthermore technical innovations such as the grey box and reefer transports are illustrating the innovation potential. The shipping industry was described as “reactive” (ISL 2014) instead of proactive. Psaraftis (2014) explains that the short sea shipping lines have not been very innovative in their strategically network planning, while this will probably change with the implementation of the Directive. An interesting problem connected to the weaknesses of SSS is provided by SPC (2014) who states that SSS is lacking of data transparency. Shipping lines are often providing inconsistent or not reliable data on their homepages which demands a higher effort to organize a transport including SSS (SPC 2014).
59 6.1.3 Role of Ports and Terminals
Nearly all participants named the role of the terminal operator as crucial (ISL 2014;
Malmqvist 2014; SPC 2014). The adaptation of the specific needs of SSS is one of the main challenges for terminal operators, whereas this is often not the case (Malmqvist 2014). Many terminal operators serving both deep sea vessels and SSS, prefer deep sea vessels as customers, based on the higher quantities they are carry (ISL 2014, SPC 2014; VDR 2014). There are however also other examples, where terminal operators make agreements with large SSS operators (e.g. Unifeeder and Eurogate; ISL 2014).
Additionally Malmqvist (2014) described the port as acting as an intermediary connecting the customer market (manufacturing industry, freight forwarder) with the transport supplier, the SSS industry. Psaraftis (2014) described the port as the interface between sea and land transports, which needs to be streamlined in order to be competitive. This streamlining cannot be achieved with the involvement of ports alone, rather it must involve authorities on a national or international level, based on the fact that many elements of decisions are out of the sphere of power of the port operator (Psaraftis 2014). BUSS (2014) stated the implementation of security standards such as the “International Ship and Port Facility Security Code” do not make it possible to reign in administrative burdens.
Although this security standard is internationally valid there are different ways of permutation, whereas some ports have found more practical approaches than others (BUSS 2014).
6.1.4 45’ foot container
Opinions regarding the usage of the 45-foot container varied between the respondents.
Many respondents did not have a good understanding of this specific topic, but considered the usage as challenging (Malmqvist 2014; Psaraftis 2014). This was also confirmed by experts investigating usage (ISL 2014). The challenge of this type of container is that the mixture of 40- and 45-foot containers result in capacity loss for the shipper. The same situation occurs within the terminals where special storage places are needed for this type, making storage more costly (ISL 2014). The problem of storage capacity loss, however, was not confirmed by the terminal operator (BUSS 2014). Furthermore BUSS (2014) states that there is no problem with loss in storage capacity. This fact will probably change for the terminals which, due to serving deep sea vessels, have a very lean container storage habit (BUSS 2014).
60 Many freight forwarders do not consider the 45-foot container due to its lack of availability. This is in particular the case when the loading point is far from a port, thus the density and variation of containers is not that high (ISL 2014). Another problem is related to the habits of the costumer or haulier, whom always prefer trailer flexibility that can be loaded sideways due to its curtain (ISL 2014). Considering transnational transports, in particular outside of the EU, the usage of 45-foot container also faces an administrative burden of uncertainty due to the scarcity of use and the lack of knowledge by administrations e.g. the police (ISL 2014). BUSS (2014) considers the 45-foot container as the only possibility to compete in the long run with the ordinary truck trailer, due to the fact that most manufacturing companies organize their transport activities with full trailer sizes.