NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS Sponsored by a Grant TÁMOP-4.1.2-08/2/A/KMR-2009-0041 Course Material Developed by Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (ELTE) Department of Economics, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Balassi Kiadó, Budapest
NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS Week 11 Introducing to the environmental context of transport via the development of the waterway management on the Danube Gábor Ungvári
What to take into account and what not to in relation to shipping: • • • •
•
•
What has been known for long: Efficacy in energy-use Less problems with congestion Decreased instances of accidents What tends to be neglected: costs of developing and maintaining the waterway + indirect costs of river-transformation incurred by those living by the shores (the detailed EU-financed studies in the comments) The real questions is finding the balance between the (concentrated) advantages incurred from increasing transport efficacy and the short- and long-term disadvantages incurred by other users of the river and its vicinity. The necessary knowledge is not factored into the decision-making process. – Accounting for the effects suffered by the ecological services of the river and the flood area, and the users of these services. – A multi-layered reconsideration of the transportation sector – on both sides of the market bubbles
2
Europe’s role on the global market and the role of the continental shipping infrastructure in terms of European welfare •
•
•
•
•
The main trends of transportation evolving during the development of European industrial capitals (18-19th centuries): in-flow of raw material to market centres and the out-flow of ready-made goods from centres. The development of transport channels on the continent aided joining the Atlanticdominated trade system. Which created the opportunity of producing for the markets. Even then, the financial costs of increasing transport efficacy were absorbed by the communities – with winners and losers (this is a historical aspect of the middle section of the river that is yet to be studied!) BUT the increase in transport efficacy was equally beneficial to the European societies in terms of accessing markets and due to manufacture and production, which compensated the decrease in natural capital as: THE MULTIPLICATING EFFECTS OF MANUFACTURING, THE ANCILLARY PROFIT MANIFESTED IN EUROPE.
But Europe’s situation has changed! •
•
•
The scope of the export-oriented economic growth has slowly narrowed down, the market expanded and the distribution of comparative advantages has changed. The raw material and labour-intensive production is relocating from the continent and this process will not cease. The flow of goods has changed. The EU is facing asymmetric trade conditions. The import, partly due to its volume (in a physical sense) exceeds what the continent exports. The labour force (OURSELVES!) is now in competition with the developing world. And our position is endangered: (1) Our advantage in knowledge will slowly, but steadily frizzle out, the differences in political systems will hinder (2) the evolutions of European-type welfare systems (we have to face competitors with permanently 3
•
lower labour-costs) and (3) achieving similar environmental regulations. Consequence: The least adaptable social classes are subjected to the most competition, generating growing individual and communal cost-accommodation In this present situation, the costs of increasing transport efficacy will be absorbed by the community to a greater extent since due to the relocation of production only a fraction of its benefits will be detected on the continent, while its costs (due to the current condition formed by previous landscape-changes) will increase. Our individual consumer interests (the lower-priced the product the better) and our communal interests conditioned by usufructs from ecological system-maintenance are now in conflict.
Solutions? •
•
• •
What can pose limits to the equalization of prices that a market logic assumes inevitable? – Running ahead of things: increasing the knowledge capital and improving our adaptive, innovative, entrepreneurial – Scaling back indirect costs: the more favourable production and living conditions supported by locally producible and consumable welfare services (Ecological services) – Costs incurred due to distance The problem with the current development plan for shipping on the Danube – it aims to expand based on an obsolete strategy of global commerce by incurring losses to our very capacities that are in need of development. The loss incurred by innovation profit is significant, since these resources should be invested in other areas. Within transportation: – Transportation solutions that increase internal communication and improve our reach to neighbouring regions, but which do not increase external accessibility are needed (sub-regional and north-south relations) – Mitigation along regionally already existing, successful global good-flows, rather than aiming for a potential growth (Northern Adriatic)
4
Are our expectations concerning waterway development warranted? • • • • •
The Danube is not the Rhine Are the parameters of the waterway the real problem? Why is the current capacity grossly underused? How is the supply adjusted to the demand? The basis of our verdict: A cost-benefit analysis of waterway transport development that builds on the Danube shipping traffic Further economic background: Socio-economic considerations on Plans for Inland Waterway Transport for the Danube River – Chapter 7.3: Arguments about obstacles to IWT development
5
The quantity • • • • •
Transport corridors passing through Hungary constitute 25% of the Danube international transport Goods loaded and unloaded in Hungary (green), 12,7%, Goods shipped to and from Slovakia through Hungary, 1,4% The transit traffic on the Hungarian section (blue) ,10,7% The extent of traffic on the Hungarian section in terms of transportation costs is a market of approx.110-120 million €
All products BENELUX DE-R DE-D (Bavaria) AT SK load HU HR RS RO BG UA Total
BENELUX
DE-R
13.2 1.2 0.4 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8
10.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5
DE-D 17.6 5.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7
AT 5.0 0.6 0.1 5.6 2.6 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.4 5.6 23.1
SK 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0
HU 1.2 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 3.7
HR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
RS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.0 2.5
RO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.3 8.1
BG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.7 4.8 7.8
UA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
Total 24.0 6.3 23.5 4.8 7.4 8.9 1.2 2.3 7.4 2.3 11.8 100.0
0.7
A fuvarköltség megoszlása országok szerint Tranzit Magyarország Szlovákia
Alaphelyzet megoszlás 47% 49% 4%
A fuvarköltség megoszlása gázló szakaszok szerint A teljes magyar és német szakaszon áthaladó forgalom (Tranzit 1) A teljes magyar szakaszon áthaladó forgalom (Tranzit 2) A magyar felső szakaszon és a német szakaszon áthaladó forgalom A magyar felső szakaszon áthaladó forgalom A magyar alsó szakaszon áthaladó forgalom
Alaphelyzet megoszlás 2% 49% 33% 9% 7% 6
Results for transportation costs • •
For major interventions, the share of international traffic in savings increases For Hungary to take on additional tasks that go beyond the minimum requirement only makes sense with if there is corresponding international engagement e.g. arranging replenishment of alluvium
The results, based on annual transportation costs Gázló csoport szerint Tranzit a magyar és a német szakaszon Tranzit a magyar szakaszon Magyarországról a Rajnára Magyar felső Magyar alsó Nemzetiség szerint Magyar Szlovák Nemzetközi Összesen
Alapállapot Millió €
Csúcs gázlós forgatókönyv
Forgalmi probléma szempontú foragtókönyv
Hajózó út Alapparaméter állapot szempontú forgatókönyv
Német fejlesztés esetén Csúcs Forgalmi Hajózó út gázlós probléma paraméter forgató- szempontú szempontú könyv foragtóforgatókönyv könyv
2 56 38 10 8
-4% -5% -4% -3% -4%
-7% -10% -5% -4% -5%
-7% -11% -5% -4% -5%
-3% 0% -2% 0% 0%
-7% -5% -7% -3% -4%
-11% -10% -8% -4% -5%
-12% -11% -8% -4% -5%
56 5 53
-4% -6% -5%
-5% -12% -10%
-5% -14% -11%
-2% 0% 0%
-6% -6% -5%
-7% -12% -10%
-7% -14% -11%
114
-4%
-7%
-8%
-1%
-5%
-8%
-9%
7
Results, based on the annual values of the25-year programme-cycle 12 10,5 9,5 8
8,0 5,7 4,3
4 2,4
2,9
3,0
5,4
4,6
3,6 2,9 0,8
3,0 0,8
0,3
0 -0,5 -1,1
-2,0
B eavatkozás Megtakarítás
-4
-2,8
-2,8 -4,0
-2,8 -4,0
E redmény -4,0
-5,2 -7,0
-6,7
-8 -9,7
-9,7
-9,7
-12
-12,0 C s úcs gázlós Hajó-forgalmi Hajózóút C s úcs gázlós Hajó-forgalmi Hajózóút C s úcs gázlós Hajó-forgalmi Hajózóút forgatókönyv probléma paraméter forgatókönyv probléma paraméter forgatókönyv probléma paraméter s zempontú s zempontú s zempontú s zempontú s zempontú s zempontú forgatókönyv forgatókönyv forgatókönyv forgatókönyv forgatókönyv forgatókönyv Magyar relációk
Magyar relációk, ha van német fejles ztés
A teljes forgalomra vetített eredmény
8
Results • • •
For Hungary, the least intrusive intervention would be most beneficial in terms of the Hungarian traffic With regards to overall traffic, all interventions are profitable for the sector, but it is obvious that beyond a certain level increasing the intensity is unnecessary. Ecological aspects / indirect effects can define the optimal intervention between the peak-shallow oriented scenario and the ship circulation oriented scenario
Forgatókönyvek Csúcs gázlós forgatókönyv Hajó-forgalmi probléma szempontú foragtókönyv Hajózó út paraméter szempontú forgatókönyv
25 éves időszakra értékek (Millió €) Annualszámított values forannualizált a 25-year period Beavatkozás Eredmény = Megtakarítás - Beavatkozás A beavatkozások Magyar Magyar relációk, A teljes forgalomra (+ fenntartás) relációk ha van német vetített eredmény költsége fejlesztés -2,5
-0,1
1,1
3,3
-3,5
-0,6
0,8
5,9
-8,4
-5,4
-3,9
2,1
9
Statistics on shallows – Hungarian section Alsó
90%
Középső
80%
Felső
• The condition of the Hungarian section – occurrence probability of shallows
A teljes magyar szakasz
70%
5 éves átlag AGN
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% n ja
r uá
fe
uá br
r m
us ci ár
áp
min dm / napok 18, vagy nagyobb 22, vagy nagyobb 24, vagy nagyobb 25, vagy nagyobb 26, vagy nagyobb 27, vagy nagyobb
is ril
m
us áj
n jú
s iu
1 94% 80% 70% 65% 62% 59%
s liu jú
zt
au
s gu
us e sz
pt
em
be
r
2 93% 78% 68% 63% 59% 57%
2004-2008 / tartósság napok Felső Duna szakasz Magyarország Alsó Duna szakasz Magyarország Teljes magyaországi szakasz Straubing-Vilshofen szakasz A teljes magyarországi és a németországi szakasz együtt - felfelé fuvar esetén A teljes magyarországi és a németországi szakasz együtt - lefelé fuvar esetén
tó
ok
r be no
m ve
be
r de
m ce
be
r
Vízmélység dm
3 93% 76% 66% 61% 58% 54%
4 92% 74% 64% 59% 56% 52%
1 61% 64% 59% 47%
2 58% 62% 57% 43%
3 56% 60% 54% 40%
35%
32%
39%
36%
10 89% 67% 54% 51% 47% 44%
15 87% 61% 49% 46% 43% 39%
16 18 20 22 24 25 26 Gázlós
Magyar szakasz Március - Szeptember augusztus február 0% 0% 0% 4% 8% 11% 14% 15%
3% 11% 22% 36% 51% 58% 62% 66%
10
A Straubing-Vilshofen szakasz
100%
A teljes magyar szakasz
90%
5 éves átlag - magyar
80%
AGN elvárás - éves átlag 5 éves átlag - német
70%
•
60%
Is the condition of the
50%
Hungarian section the
40% 30%
worst? What causes the
20%
controversy?
•
10% 0%
ár nu ja
r uá br fe
m
ci ár
us
is ril áp
m
us áj
u ni jú
s
s liu jú
s tu m sz te gu ep u a sz
r be
r be tó ok
m ve no
r be
m ce de
Overall the Hungarian section appears to be of
r be
better quality, but during adverse periods the chances of extremely low water level is less likely on
Vízmélység dm 16 18 20 22 24 25 26 Gázlós
Magyar szakasz Német szakasz Március - Szeptember - Március - Szeptember augusztus február augusztus február 0% 0% 0% 4% 8% 11% 14% 15%
3% 11% 22% 36% 51% 58% 62% 66%
0% 0% 3% 7% 18% 23% 31% 38%
the German section
0% 2% 15% 34% 52% 59% 63% 68%
Conclusions •
•
•
For Hungary, the least intrusive intervention would be most profitable – in coordination with similar measures on the German section. This, in itself, already fulfils the stipulations of the AGN Agreement. By taking ecological aspects / indirect effects into consideration, the ideal level of intervention can be somewhere between the peak-shallow oriented scenario and the ship circulation oriented scenario. With regards to overall traffic, all interventions are profitable for the sector, but more intensive interventions are more profitable for the transit traffic sector, and it is obvious that beyond a certain level increasing the intensity of water-course measures is unnecessary.
11
•
In terms of total traffic (inc. international) committing to an optimal intervention is profitable for Hungary if it can agree on aspects such as: – Replenishing alluvium, – Financing maintenance works, including the maintenance of the side-arm system – Financing forecast, traffic management, and vehicle technology developments that would improve waterway transport – Improving loading and transferring capacities ports – Developing integrated railway-waterway transportation systems
12
