Dr. Ashraf Hamed

1. - Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within
the context of EU Integration
RESTORING UKRAINE ROLE TRANSIT POTENTIAL OF NEW UKRAINE -
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO INCREASE
TRANSIT TRAFFIC
Results of this publication were obtained during EU funded Project IDEA
Dr. Ashraf Hamed
Kiev April 28, 2016
1

2. 1 Trends in Ukraine freight transit (2013)
2 Ukraine in TRACECA / Regional Context
3 Attractiveness of Transport corridor in Ukraine
4 Border crossing Impact and benchmarking
5 National Strategy, the road ahead
6 TEN-T corridor and Demand Forecast Scenarios
2Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

3. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Rail Road inland waterways
Freigh Traffic (tons)
2013 mln. Tons 2012 mln. Tons 2011 mln. Tons
Trends in Ukraine Freight Transport
Let us look at the numers
 Railway is the backbone 60%
 Roads at 23%
 Inland Waterways almost nothing
 Shares seems to be stable over
years
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tz/vp/vp_u/vp0813_u.htm
3Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

4. -
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Rail Road inland waterways
Freight Traffic (ton.km)
2013 mln. Tons.km 2012 mln. Tons.km 2011 mln. Tons.km
......and in Ton.km ....!!
 Railway is also seeing a slight loss
and still carry almost 60% share
 Roads is relatively stable and the
share is limited to 10%
 Inland Waterways still play no
role with a share of almost 2%
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tz/vp/vp_u/vp0813_u.htm
4Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

5. - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
RailRoadMaritime
2011
2012
2013
And what does the Transit look like.....?
 Railway losing significantly
 Roads can still maintain its share
 Maritime transit had a drop on 2012
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tz/tranz/tranz_u/tranz0213_u.htm
5Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

6. -75% -25% 25% 75%
Rail
Road
Maritime
Aviation
Pipeline
2011/ 2010
2012 / 2011
2013 / 2012
Let s look at the percents.....?
 Railway had a recovery in 2010 and losing since then almost 25%
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tz/tranz/tranz_u/tranz0213_u.htm
 Roads has a significant loss in 2012 and 2013
 Maritime had a significant loss last year and seems to recover
6Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

7. Let s look at the big Picture of Transit
 These are simulated the freight flows (base year 2008)
 Validated with UNCOM Trade values 2008
 We can see main corridors domestically and internationally and
their directions
7Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

8. And for railroad…..
 Rail roads carry significantly more than roads
 We can see main corridors domestically and internationally and
their directions
8Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

9. Model simulated SCENARIOS (2020)
Base Scenario 2008
– status including the multimodal freight network and the
freight demand of the base year 2008.
1. Reference Scenario 2020 (DO Nothing)
– The network is the same as for the Base Scenario 2008.
2. Border Crossing Scenario 2020
– Do Nothing plus improvements of the border crossings. Waiting
times at border crossings are reduced to a maximum of 6 hours
for roads and 8 hours for railway
3. Maritime Connections Scenario 2020
– Capacities for transshipment links, representing the ports were
increased by 100%.
4. Infrastructure Scenario 2020
– Infrastructure increasing capacity of certain link (Rail/Road)
9Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

10. ROADS : Do Nothing
10Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

11. ROADS :Border crossing
11Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

12. RAIL & Maritime / Do Nothing
12Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

13. RAIL & Maritime / Border crossing
13Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

14. Comparison of ports’ traffic
 There is forecast of potential of increase with the improved
border crossing for 2020
 That seem to be triggered by increase in trade
14Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

15. 2020: ODESSA 2008: ODESSA
15Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

16. 2008 AZOFF SEA PORTS
16Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

17. 2020 AZOFF SEA PORTS
17Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

18. 2020 GEORGIA PORTS
18Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

19. What could be reasons for Transit loss?
 Political reasons
 Possibly Customs unions RUS / BY / KAZ simplifying transit
movements within these countries as well as promoting trade
among them
 Possible Belorussia import via Russian ports
 Lack of clear strategy for Ukraine Transport for several years
 Incompatibility with EU documentation NCTS documentation
system add strong resistance to crossing Ukraine
19Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

20. How attractive is Ukraine Logistics
Compare with
20Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

21. Did Ukraine develop ?
LPI development
21Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

22. Is Ukraine attractive as a corridor?
 TRACECA calculated the attractiveness index TRX
 Based on driven routes journals obtained from IRU in the framework of NELTI
October 2009 for three routes
Trans Russian Route
Trans Caucasus Route
Trans Turkey / Iran Route
(relevant for Ukraine)
22Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

23. TRAX measures resistances /
Attractiveness FOR ROUTES Highest
resistance in
Ukraine- Trans
Caucasus
23Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

24. TRANS – CAUCASUS / Ukraine TRAX in detail
ROMANI
A
BULGAR
IA
POLAN
D
UKRAI
NE
GEORG
IA
AZERBAIJ
AN
KAZAKHST
AN
UZBEKIST
AN
KIRGIZST
AN
Region TRAX TCR-Europe TRAX TCR-Caucasus TRAX TCR-CA
total
Countries Ukraine,
Romania, Bulgaria
Black Sea ferry, Georgia,
Azerbajidzan, Caspian Ferry
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan
TRAX total 2765 3480 2616 8861
TRAX stretches 438 1381 549 2368
TRAX nodes 2327 2099 2067 6493
Nodes (ports and x-ing)
are the bottlenecks
Time
Cost
Reliability
Security
Bad and good news
24

25. TRAX Ukraine
 Non-physical barriers and uncertainty are the easiest to
improve without major investments.
 Just have the will to do that
 administrative reforms and will ultimately target:
 Predictability of time and costs at border crossing including land and
maritime borders
 Overdue improvements of transit documentation to compatibility with
European Standards
In particular
 Ukraine has introduced a new Customs Code which the
importers as well as the freight forwarding and customs’
brokerage industry report as much improved and more
workable than the previous one.
 Still further alignment is needed for example the
implementation of NCTS documentation system
25Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

26. 26Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU
Integration
27,2
54,7
30,9
36,9
28,2
31,4
27,2 26,4
30,8
41,9
56,7
49,5
41,5
34,5
30,4
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
NovieYarilovichiBachevskGoptovkaDolzhansky
Novoazovsk
ReniPlatonovoeMam
aligaPorubnoeDyakovoeChop
(Tisa)Uzhgorod
Shegini
Rava-RusskaYagodin
benchmark
Time Indicator
101,6
44,5
74,6
100,7
86,5
95,0
105,5
80,0 73,4 71,0
116,7
103,7
94,8
71,8
89,4
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
NovieYarilovichiBachevskGoptovkaDolzhansky
Novoazovsk
ReniPlatonovoeM
am
aligaPorubnoeDyakovoeChop
(Tisa)Uzhgorod
Shegini
Rava-RusskaYagodin
benchmark
Cost Indicator
Indicators Scores at Ukrainian BCPs in 2015
6,0
6,8 6,6 6,3
4,9
6,0 6,1 6,0 5,7
6,3 6,6 6,3
6,7 6,4 6,5
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
N
ovie
Y
arilovichiB
achevskG
optovkaD
olzhansky
N
ovoazovsk
R
eni
P
latonovoeM
am
aligaP
orubnoeD
yakovoe
C
hop
(Tisa)U
zhgorod
S
hegini
R
ava-R
usska
Y
agodin
benchmark
Clearance Process Efficiency Indicator

27. 27Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU
Integration
36.5
11.0
15.7
8.8
18.8
5.2
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Time index
Aggregated index BCPs in 2015: country comparisons
130.1
33.0
46.6
22.0
47.9
10.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Time spent preparing documents,
sub index
45.9
18.4
26.3
12.4
40.6
12.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Time Index between arrival to the border
and beginning of passing control
6.6
3.7
5.4
3.3
5.5
4.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Ukraine
Mold…
Georgia
Belarus
Azer…
Arme…
Time Index needed from submission of the
documents for control until completion of the
control

28. 28Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU
Integration
91.8
63.5
95.1
73.7
148.6
61.3
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Cost index
Aggregated index BCPs in 2015: country comparisons
6.2
6.7
6.9
6.5
6.8
7.0
5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Clearance process efficiency, index
8.1
19.7
18.4
15.5
18.3
18.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Risk, index
10.6
9.6
11.1
10.2
9.2
10.9
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Customs procedures, index

29. 29Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU
Integration
Improvement/deterioration for road BCPs of Ukraine
2012
Ukraine made trading across borders more difficult by
introducing additional inspections for customs clearance
of imports.
2014
Releasing customs declarations quicker and reducing the
number of physical inspections.
2015
Advance exchange of information of goods and transport
means crossing the borders of Georgia and Ukraine

30. What Should be done?
With the understanding that Ukraine may still have a chance
to stop the loss of transit traffic and improve transit shares; and
align its transport network with EU network and policy guidelines
The concerns remains valid, if Ukraine is determined to do the
necessary steps….What to do?
1. Transparent transport policy
2. Updated Strategy
3. Realistic action plan
4. Legislation approximation
1. Transposition
2. implementation and
3. Enforcement)
30Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

31. Framing answers to right Questions
• Establish Policy Agenda
• Update Transport Strategy
• Fight against corruption
• Sector Reforms and Restructure
• Multimodality and role of transit
• Integrated Logistics System
• Allocate funds to rationally
prioritized investments
• What are the overarching objectives
we want to achieve?
• What fundamental policy principles
guide our efforts to achieve
objectives?
• What are the shortcomings in
existing arrangements, both now
and in the future
• Given forecast demand, the
identified shortcomings and the
investment and institutional
resources likely to be available over
the planning period …..
What are the most important first steps
in implementing these strategies?
Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration 31

32. Strategy Update
32Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

33. REGIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW
PATTERNS
Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration 33

34. Rail freight flow patterns
34

35. Roads freight flow patterns
35

36. Rail passenger flow patterns
36

37. Roads passenger flow patterns
37

38. Level of service on the EaP road
38
A Free flow
B Reasonably free flow
C Stable flow
D Approaching unstable flow
E Unstable flow
F Forced or breakdown flow

39. REGIONAL DEMAND
FORECAST DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIOS (2030)
Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration 39

40. Base Year vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
40
Rail

41. Integration vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
41
Rail

42. Stagnation vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
42
Rail

43. Base Year vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
43
Road

44. Integration vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
44
Road

45. Stagnation vs Baseline 2030 freight flow patterns
45
Road

46. Baseline 2030 LoS-
46
A Free flow
B Reasonably free flow
C Stable flow
D Approaching unstable flow
E Unstable flow
F Forced or breakdown flow

47. Integration 2030 LoS-
47
A Free flow
B Reasonably free flow
C Stable flow
D Approaching unstable flow
E Unstable flow
F Forced or breakdown flow

48. Stagnation 2030 LoS
48
A Free flow
B Reasonably free flow
C Stable flow
D Approaching unstable flow
E Unstable flow
F Forced or breakdown flow

49. Strategy Update
49Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU Integration

50. 50
Thank you for your attention
Ukraine Transport Strategy Alignment within the context of EU
Integration