Tourism, Joint UNCTAD - Commonwealth Secretariat - International - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oceans Economy and Trade, Sustainable Fisheries, Transport and Tourism, Joint UNCTAD - Commonwealth Secretariat - International Ocean Institute Seminar, 10-12 May 2016 - Geneva, Switzerland This expert paper is reproduced by the UNCTAD secretariat in the form and language in which it has been received. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the United Nations.

The Blue Economy in Perspective Volume of World Trade (%) Value of World Trade (%) 14.3 10.0 72.7 89.8 13.0 0.3 Seaborne Airborne Overland Seaborne Airborne Overland

The Blue Chain Hong Kong, Netherlands, UK & Scandinavia Singapore & UAE (44%) Philippines & Indonesia Financing and Insurance Global Terminal Operators Seafarers SUPPORT BLUE CHAIN 1. Building 2. Ownership 3. Registration 4. Operations 5. Scrapping Korea & China Greece, Japan & Panama, Liberia Denmark & India, Bangladesh, China & (72%) China (38%) & Marshall Islands Switzerland (30%) Pakistan (92%) (42%)

Feeling the Blues… International Seaborne Trade and Exports of Goods, 1955-2014 20 2.5 19 Seaborne Trade (billions of tons of goods loaded) - Left Axis 18 Exports of Goods (trillions at current $US) - Left Axis 17 Ratio Exports / Seaborne Trade - Right Axis 16 2.0 15 14 Seaborne Trade & Exports of Goods 13 12 1.5 11 10 9 8 1.0 7 6 5 4 0.5 3 2 1 0 0.0

Blue Highways: Maritime Shipping 15% 5% 30%

The Blue Pinch: Terminal Surface Controlled by the Main Global Terminal Operators 17,242 hectares (172.4 km2)

The Big Blue: Evolution of Containerships 6 6 containers across Early Containerships (1956-) 4 137x17x9 (LOA – Beam – Draft) 4 containers high on deck meters 500 – 800 TEU 8 A 4 200x20x9 10 Fully Cellular (1970-) 5 215x20x10 1,000 – 2,500 TEU 4 containers high below deck 4 13 6 Panamax (1980-) 250x32x12.5 5 3,000 – 3,400 TEU B 13 8 Panamax Max (1985-) 290x32x12.5 3,400 – 4,500 TEU 6 15 9 Post Panamax I (1988-) 285x40x13 4,000 – 5,000 TEU 5 C 17 9 Post Panamax II (2000-) 300x43x14.5 6,000 – 8,000 TEU 6 20 10 D New-Panamax (2014-) 366x49x15.2 12,500 TEU 6 Post Panamax III (2006-) 397x56x15.5 ; 22 – 10 – 8 (not shown) 23 15,000 TEU 10 E Triple E (2013-) 8 400x59x15.5 18,000 TEU

World’s Major Container Ports, 2012

Transshipment Volume and Incidence by Major Ports, 2007-12

Emerging Structure of the Ocean Economy

The Spatial Organization of the Ocean Economy: Maritime Clusters Port Clusters Terminal Clusters Port / Logistics Clusters Port Container Terminal Port Port-Centric Multiport Gateway Logistics Zone First Tier Logistics Second Tier Logistics Terminal operator A (Container) Terminal operator B (Container) Bulk Terminal operator C (Bulk) Transshipment cluster Port authority

The Geographical Setting of Multi-port Gateways Regions Pacific-Asia North American West Coast (e.g. Pearl River Delta) (e.g. LA/Long Beach) Landbridge North Europe Container port / terminal (e.g. Rhine Scheldt Delta) Logistics zone / site Strongly developed corridor Poorly developed corridor Multi-port gateway region

The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions

The North-American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions

The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions

Inter-firm Relationships in the Main Container Ports of the Pearl River Delta, 2015 GUANGZHOU APM Terminals 39% Cosco Pacific Guangzhou South China 20% (AP Moller Group) Oceangate Container Terminal 41% China Shipping Group 40% Nansha Container Terminal 60% Guangzhou Port Group Nanhai International Container 50% Terminals ZHUHAI 51% Guangzhou Huangpu Xingang PSA Terminal Zhuhai International Container 50% Terminals 49% Guangzhou Huangpu Xinsha Terminal Shenzhen Yantian Port Modern Terminals Dongguan Container Terminal 25% 50% Group COSCO-HIT Terminal 50% 50% Yantian International Container Cosco Pacific 15% 55% Terminals HUTCHISON PORT 20% 67% Hong Kong International Terminals HOLDINGS Da Chan Bay Terminal One 35% 65% 100% Shenzhen Municipal Asia Port Services Modern 40% Government Shekou Container Terminals 20% Terminals 40% Asia Container Terminals 80% 8% China Merchants Chiwan Container Terminal 25% 33% DP World DP World Hong Kong Holdings International 84% China Merchant Mawan Port HONG KONG SHENZHEN Shipping Line Terminal Operator PORT Terminal Financial Holding

Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of North America, 2015 Ontario Teachers' APL 100% Global Gateway South Pension Plan NYK 100% 100% Yusen Terminals Mitsui OSK 61% TraPac Los Angeles Berth136 Global Container Terminals APM Terminals 100% APM Terminals Pier 400 (AP Moller Group) 100% Evergreen 70% 30% Evergreen Terminal New York Container Terminal Yangming 40% West Basin Container Terminal 20% 20% Global Terminal and Container LOS ANGELES China Shipping Services Deutsche Bank RREEF 100% LONG BEACH APM Terminals Port Elizabeth 100% 65% Matson 35% Terminal C60 MSC 100% 50% Maher Terminals Terminal A Maher Terminal 50% OOIL 100% Long Beach Container Terminal Ports America 50% Port Newark Container Terminal K-Lines 50% 100% Pier G Berth NEW YORK 100% Hyundai 100% California United Terminals Stevedoring Services MSC of America 49% Cosco Pacific Pacific Container Terminal 51% Macquarie Hanjin 20% 34% AIG Highstar Capital Total Terminals International Infrastructure MSC 46% PORT Shipping Line Terminal Operator Terminal Financial Holding

Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, 2015 HUTCHISON PORT PSA 20% HOLDINGS Majority 100% shareholding ANTWERP Minority Shareholding (4) MSC Home terminal ECT NYK 50% 50% North Sea Terminal 50% 50% MSC Europe Terminal 100% PSA HNN Delta MSC Terminal CYKH Deurganck Terminal Alliance 50% 93% Delta Terminal 50% Antwerp International Terminal New World Shipping Line 50% (AIT) Waal- and 100% Alliance Eemhaven DP World Delwaidedock 100% (Global) Terminal DP World Operator 60% Euromax 42.5% 51% phase 1 Antwerp Gateway (3) ZIM Line (1) 20% Terminal 30% 20% Rotterdam World Gateway Cosco Pacific PORT (Maasvlakte II) 10% 10% CMA-CGM (2) Financial Holding 65% OCHZ 35% APM Terminal Rotterdam 100% Zeebrugge International Port 100% APM Terminals Maasvlakte II APM Terminals 100% 75% ROTTERDAM APM Terminal Shanghai International 25% Port Group (SIPG) ZEEBRUGGE

The Massification and Clustering of Transportation in Inland Systems Inland Load Center Network Formation and Logistics Port Port Port On-dock / near Port-Centric dock rail IT Direct truck IT Corridor Rail / Barge Inland Inland IT IT IT Terminal Port Intermodal Industrial Park End haul

International Inventory of Inland Ports and Port Centric Logistics Zones