road map engl

8/22/2019 Road Map Engl

1/39

A project of European Unions TRACECA programme

Motorways of the Sea for

the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea

Road MAP

March 2011


2/39


3/39

Table of Contents

1 Introduction and general objective ................................................................................................... 22 Background, principles and general guidelines for the development of MoS Pilot Projects............ 33 Implementation of MoS Pilot Projects: Specific objective and activities .......................................... 64 Extension of Motorways of the Sea................................................................................................ 125 Dissemination of MoS concept, design and technicalities ............................................................. 14

5.1. Objective in relation to MoS criteria.......................................................................................... 145.1 Commercial conditions / market expectations.......................................................................... 165.2 Project partnership.................................................................................................................... 185.3 Port conditions .......................................................................................................................... 195.4 The facilitation challenge .......................................................................................................... 245.5 Railways integration in MoS projects........................................................................................ 245.6 Inland Waterways ..................................................................................................................... 245.8. Project financing ....................................................................................................................... 26

6 Motorways of the Sea and other TRACECA related programmes ................................................ 286.1 At regional level ENPI / TRACECA / all Countries ................................................................... 28

6.1.1 ENPI................................................................................................................................. 286.2 In the Region and at national level for some beneficiary Countries ......................................... 30

6.2.1 TRACECA........................................................................................................................ 307 Matrix of Activities .......................................................................................................................... 31


4/39

1 Introduction and general objective

This Road Map for the future developments of MoS pilot projects has been prepared in the finalstage of the MoS I program with the following general objectives:

o Implement and establish the first Motorways of the Sea pilot projects;

o Prepare the development future of Motorways of the Sea within the Black Sea and the

Caspian Sea.

The goals of Motorways of the Sea defined as high quality door-to-door maritime intermodalservices are:

o Modal shifts and cohesion through the concentration of freight flows;

o On sea-based routes using improved or new viable, regular and frequent maritime links.

The general objective of this document is to lay down concrete proposals resulting from:

o The team permanent contacts with the users and operators throughout the project;

o The lessons learnt from the preparation of MoS Pilot Projects, as regularly reported andassessed by MoS stakeholders and pilot project partners who participated and, for some ofthem, were involved in the design, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies of these Pilot Projects;

o The conclusions and recommendations of the TRACECA Regional Meetings on Motorways ofthe Sea until the meeting of 11 February 2011;

o The feasibility conditions of the five Pilot Projects assessed at this latest meeting.

Consequently, the Road Map is based more particularly on:

o The first draft lines of the Road Map as set out for the Brussels TRACECA Regional Meetingson Motorways of the Sea of 29 June and 11 October 2010;

o The proposals and suggestions received during the project period up to February 2011 fromstakeholders of project Countries, represented by participants from each Country at theseregional workshops;

o Three sets of reports and studies prepared by the project team in coordination with PilotProject partners and stakeholders:

MoS Country reports describing the pre-MoS conditions in each country, synthesised in SWOTanalyses and technical notes on barriers and expectations from the trade side;

Thematic reports for all MoS relevant issues of trade and transit and for all beneficiary Countriesof the project


5/39

2 Background, principles and general guidelines for thedevelopment of MoS Pilot Projects

Historical background:

o The Black Sea Basin is and has always been an open area. Its bordering Countries - directand associated beneficiary Countries of the MoS project -, have a long common history,culture and trade traditions. Being the European gate of the Silk Road, close to Western

Europe, and even part of the EU today for some of them, they are committed to adapt totheir specific environment within the scope of regional / inter-regional and internationalpolicies, including TRACECA and EU Neighboring Policy programs. Boosting their ever-lasting relations at bilateral and regional levels and stimulating their trade with other continentsand ties to the global economy should result from new modern transport solutions, particularlyfor high value cargo carried in intermodal transport units, - rail wagons, containers and trailers.

o In comparison, the closed Caspian Sea is looking like a remote and close area. Ecologicallyendangered, it much resembles a regional playground surrounded by its five coastal Countries

and beyond in Central Asia. The question of the property of resources of the oil-rich searemains a cause for distrust between these relatively young and promising markets. Besides,specific rules, practices and behaviors are less favorable than in the Black Sea to the revival ofthe "Silk Road spirit" adapted to the global economy.

o In this context, and as a consequence of the afore-mentioned differences between the twosub-regions, it is a big challenge for the TRACECA programs to establish attractivesustainable intermodal transport schemes and solutions along the whole TRACECA corridor,between the "West of the West" of Black Sea and the "East of the East" of Caspian Sea, whichis the key objective of MoS projects in the region.

Economic traits:

o The Countries around the Black Sea have limited commodity resources and financial state-backing, so they must remain pragmatic, skilled and competitive to support their economicbalance and growth. Private operators (shipping companies, ports, transport logisticsproviders) are leading the game there, whereas the public sector is dominant and holds controlof the market in the Caspian;

o The general shipping tradition and culture and some leading transport companies working at

advanced standards of technology and organization are located in several parts of the BlackSea, whereas the business drivers in Caspian Countries are oil and gas, or mineral and grain(Kazakhstan), hence transport networks and policies which primarily based on the optimalproduction and export of these commodities.

Institutional patterns:

o The feeling of belonging to a community is much stronger among the Black Sea neighbors


6/39

Consequently:

o The need for involvement and support of Ministerial offices in favour of the TRACECA MoS isnot the same in the two Seas:

- Though desirable in the Black Sea, it does not represent the essential pre-requisite condition

for the successful implementation of pilot-projects and it could focus more on the support to

project promoters to solve or reduce administrative or similar "soft" type difficulties;

- On the contrary, nothing seems achievable in the Caspian without the strong willingness,

formal approval, and sustained commitment of the authorities at the highest level of theStates to establish most of the MoS project conditions;

o Infrastructure development is definitely a major issue for all Countries; it is dealt with at thehighest levels in the frame of the general national transport strategy and policies. In that senseit is beyond the objectives and scope of MoS projects, albeit these projects should pave theway for modernized intermodal maritime transport solutions and, reciprocally, benefit from thefuture new facilities.

o All Countries have not the same level of awareness about their asset management:

- Where resources are scarcer the organization and management issues matter more and the

cooperation between public and private sectors is encouraged. A technical assistance

program like MoS which mainly deals with such issues is therefore perceived in a positive

manner and better fitted for short term completion and full implementation of projects;

- On the contrary where the infrastructure is less developed, missing, obsolete or not used at

an optimal level, building new infrastructure is the very first priority on the agenda. The

benefits of such technical assistance programs, obviously less visible, and not always

immediately understandable, are lying more in a gradual process: several part solutions

which have been identified as feasible in the short term should sustain the preparation of

enhanced projects when the new / updated infrastructure is ready.

- As a result of the above situation the projects are in fact of a different nature:

Pilot projects in the Black Sea

These projects are discussed first and foremost between private operators:o UkrFerry and Navibulgar and the ports, for the Varna-Illyichevsk-Kerch-Poti-Batumi one,

o UkrFerry, Navibulgar and Samsun port for the Illyichevsk-Samsun-Poti-Batumi project

B d h ' k k l d h d h b id ifi d d h j h f


7/39

Governmental Authorities have already brought their official support and help to improve the projectsin all above cases and this will be all the easier as the intergovernmental working frame already existsand functions, which is a fundamental asset in case of difficulties.

The Container Block Train pilot project

This is a middle case:

o It links a Black Sea Country and a Caspian Sea Country,

o It lies in the backbone of the TRACECA Corridor connecting the two seas,

o A joint transport cooperation committee has been very recently set-up under the auspices ofthe Presidents of both Countries,

o Pushing supports at the political level are needed in order the necessary coordination betweenthe two main involved stakeholders (i.e. the Georgian and Azerbaijan National RailwayCompanies) can start and an action plan can be further implemented,

o To work out an attractive solution based on experience of similar cases and on the users'

requirements to give their support and commitment, the involvement of an independentcompany having a deep professional experience of block train operations seems to benecessary.

Pilot projects in the Caspian Sea

o The important point is the strong market demand and potential. In actual facts the users(Turkish business associations) are ready to participate in the implementation of the projects,

bring their know-how and experience and even possibly support the operation financially.

o Stakeholders at the operating level (Ports and Shipping line) are all showing good will andunderstanding.

o The main issue remains to ascertain if and how much the pilot projects fit in with the nationaleconomic and transport policies set up by the Authorities at governmental level in theconcerned project Countries.


8/39

3 Implementation of MoS Pilot Projects: Specific objective andactivities

The priority objectives are to implement the Pilot Projects which passed the pre-feasibility andfeasibility phases within the framework of the first Motorways of the Sea Project (MoS I) and toset up concretely the concept of Motorways of the Sea in the TRACECA Region, in accordanceto the key objectives, features and criteria retained at the first stage of the project:

o To establish a safe, modern, efficient and environmentally sustainable maritime basedintermodal transport schemes to attract cargo flows from the dominant all road routes Northand South of TRACECA corridor;

o To develop a seamless interconnectivity between maritime transport, ports and land transport,prioritizing railway and inland waterways (this latter mode being less ready than the former:see below);

o To help the next project (MoS II) in the elaboration of a program of actions not only for theimplementation and consolidation of Pilot Projects but also to set up and launch new Pilotprojects and to prepare future developments.

Note: it is worth noting that the assessment of the feasibility conclusions at the TRACECA RegionalMeeting of 11 February 2011 is not a complete final clearance of the Pilot Projects: as reported in theconclusions of the meeting below, these are still subject to essential conditions and commitments thatmust be confirmed by key stakeholders.

QUOTE

The fourth TRACECA working group on the Motorways of the Seas in the Black and Caspian SeasProject - held during the final presentation of other EU-funded Projects Inland Logistics Centers inWestern NIS and Caucasus, Inland Logistics Centers in Central Asia and Strengthening ofTransport Training Capacity in NIS Countries:

o Reviewed the final assessment from the feasibility studies conducted over the period

November 2010- January 2011 for the draft pilot projects which had been retained after thepre-feasibility assessment of the third meeting 11

thOctober 2010 and the conclusions of the

study on Ro-Ro services for Turkey;

o Emphasized the positive results achieved in disseminating the MoS concept and working onreducing barriers hampering competitive and attractive intermodal transport solutions in theTRACECA region and on raising awareness and interest for Pilot Projects from direct key


9/39

o Understood that some investment needs are required to sustain projects and recommend thatthe finance raising for these investments should follow during the next project alongside thetechnical assistance activities;

o Agreed to include the present conclusions of the meeting in the Road Map for the developmentof Motorways of the Seas in the Black and Caspian Seas;

o Welcomed the Georgian invitation supported by the European Commission to organize the 5th

TRACECA working group on Motorways of the Seas in the framework of the follow up projectin Tbilisi preferably around the beginning of July 2011;

o Thanked the expert team for its excellent contribution as a key facilitator towards the results ofthe project.

Final assessment from the feasibility studies

1. The project Varna Ukrainian Ports Georgian Ports is considered as realistic and feasibleas it meets most criteria and conditions:

o Based on existing service supported by Authorities within frame of governmental agreementsand operators' Joint Venture;

o Longstanding experience with fair market bases / knowledge;

o Technically well prepared, with identification of operation solutions and equipment needs toimprove efficiency and quality;

o Benefits of increased cargo volume and consolidation of freight on the axis and linkedcorridors are expected from higher regularity;

o Added value for end users, maritime operators (same vessels), ports terminals (existinginfrastructure), and railways companies (infrastructures and network connections).

Recommendations:

o Prioritize the objective of service regularity and target fixed day service to meet customers'expectations;

o Involve more the Railways companies in their double quality of operators and users ofmaritime services;

o Continue between all concerned stakeholders to work out cost / tariff issues and progresstowards competitive gate-gate prices (port-THC / sea freight / port-THC);

o Elaborate promotional plan including market targets;

D fi f t t d i di t ithi th t h i l t d ti ti


10/39

2. The new Black Sea Ro-Ro + Rail ferry Project Ukrainian Ports / Samsun (Turkey) / GeorgianPorts under preparation seems feasible (depending on tests):

o Fair and fast track preparation by / with Samsun port and involving interested key partners ofthe existing service

o High market potentials at inter-regional crossroads in Turkey

Recommendations:

o Prepare action plan based on results of tests and customers' interest to integrate Samsun callsin service schedule with the key objective of regularity;

o Focus on best relevant trades and target optimal cargo mix fitting with vessel regularschedules and yielding best freight value;

o Work out attractive cost / tariff conditions for the 3 techniques and for each segment from / toSamsun, benchmarking existing tariffs on other cross Black Sea routes (Turkey Ukraine and

Turkey Russia);o Elaborate promotional plan including market targets;

o Define operational targets and performance indicators and monitor the service performance.

Key preconditions

o The formal involvements and firm commitments by high level Authorities of concernedCountries, materialized by inter-governmental and technical working agreements;

o Complete the short term tests of port operations and vessels' calls and evaluate the results.

3. The Inter-Seas Project Train Poti Baku container block train is technically feasible butcommitment of key partners needs further materialisation.

o with existing infrastructure and equipment operated by the two National Railways Companies;

o long awaited service (since earlier discontinued experience) by container carriers (beyondNATO users) who need regularity and competitive tariffs to use the corridor by Rail;

o high level intergovernmental agreement to develop the railways corridor;

o progressively set up door-to-door schemes for containers with East Caspian Sea, and createnew containerization opportunities;

o Contribute to alleviate road traffic along the Central Caucasus corridor.


11/39

Key preconditions

o Confirm commitment of all key public and private partners to the project;

o The formal involvements and firm commitments by high level Authorities of concernedCountries, materialized by inter-governmental and technical working agreements;

o Short term establishment of bilateral committee to materialize high level Agreement enablinginception of block train Agreement under ratification process.

4. The Transcaspian Baku Aktau project is commercially feasible but subject tocommitment of key partners

o Noticeable increase in rail ferry trade in 2010;

o Actual and potential concrete demand on the truck (Ro-Ro) and container markets (beyondNATO);

o Targeting first a reasonable share of Ro-Ro (trucks) and container trade fitted to current

capacities for which predictability of intermodal transport service in essential to test reliabilityand;

o Using existing rail ferry service and Ro-Ro vessel and upgrading port call organization with theaim to offer regular schedule;

o Prepare future Ro-Ro operations with new Ro-Ro freighters to meet more volumes.

Recommendations:

o Translate the ongoing improvements in the service (resulting from conjonctural opportunities)into firm commitments at high State level;

o Focus on regularity through a close coordination between the two ports and the maritimecompany;

o Plan implementation of practical measures to set up regular operations and services startingwith reduction of waiting times of vessels and trains in ports;

o Pilot project solutions to be retained and adapted for large volumes when future port

infrastructures are ready in both ports;o Elaborate promotional plan including market targets;

o Establishment of a joint Committee involving all key partners for the implementation of the pilotproject, including the definition of targets and a transparent performance indicators scheme.


12/39

5. The Transcaspian Baku Turkmenbashi project is commercially feasible but subject tocommitment of key partners

o actual and potential concrete demand on the truck (Ro-Ro) and container markets;

o targeting first a reasonable share of Ro-Ro (trucks) and container trade fitted to currentcapacities for which predictability of intermodal transport service is essential to test reliabilityand;

o using existing rail ferry service and Ro-Ro vessel and upgrading port call organization withaiming at offering regular schedules;

o Prepare future Ro-Ro operations with new Ro-Ro freighters to meet more volumes.

Recommendations:

o materialize interest and intentions to develop cooperation and partnership through formalagreement at high State level and technical bilateral Committee for operational matters;

o focus on regularity through a close coordination between the two ports and the maritimecompany;

o plan implementation of practical measures to set up regular operations and services startingwith reduction of waiting times of vessels and trains in ports;

o pilot project solutions to be retained and adapted for large volumes when future portinfrastructures are ready in both port;

o elaborate promotional plan including market targets;

o Establishment of a joint Committee involving all key partners for the implementation of the pilotproject, including the definition of targets and a transparent performance indicators scheme.

Key preconditions

o the formal involvements and firm commitments by high level Authorities of concernedCountries, materialized by inter-governmental and technical working agreements;

Conclusions of Turkey Ro-Ro study

Black Sea

o The Turkish Ro-Ro market is showing maturity with new developments resulting from goodpractice of combined users' and operators initiatives;


13/39

Caspian Sea

o The strong market demand from Turkish users is representing a strong commercial marketbasis for the corresponding Transcaspian pilot projects, beyond the existing vessel typecapacities;

o Contacts are established between Turkish users and operators and key stakeholders inCaspian project Countries.

Recommendations

o receive official confirmation of high level commitments to support implementation of pilotprojects with the involvement of Turkish stakeholders

o materialize the interest and intentions of participants to develop actual cooperation and formalpartnership through corresponding technical agreement

o follow up of planned meetings between regional stakeholders

UNQUOTE


14/39

4 Extension of Motorways of the Sea

The above recommended actions on the implementation of Pilot Projects (MoS I) are for the shortterm. The extension of Motorways of the Sea and new projects are more for the midterm, after aperiod of preparation. The principle of this schedule should be consistent and in line with the durationof the contract (MoS II).

Lessons expected from the Pilot Project implementation

The essential conditions to be met for the implementation of the selected Pilot Projects are those ofeach and all feasibility studies, as reported in the above conclusions of the TRACECA MoS meeting of11 February 2011.

The technicalities of these conditions are found in the individual project feasibility reports. Mostexpected decisions and planned activities are detailed in these reports and will clearly result from thedescription of each feasibility condition.

Several of those conditions pertaining to the fields linked in V. below could be replicated in futureprojects.

The issue of investment financing will require a particular attention. Pilot project operators are keen toknow what type of needs could be financed, by what source, and under what conditions. The resultsobtained in this field with the help of the Technical Assistance project team will be important for thedevelopment of pilot projects and new projects.

"Fund finding" and assistance to prepare subsidy or loan applications in accordance with the financinginstitutions processes and procedures should be the case for a specific activity.

Extension of MoS concept to new beneficiary Countries (direct and associated)

In parallel to the technical assistance activities which will have to be fine-tuned for these actions, newactivities of awareness, promotion and mobilisation should be launched in Countries which were not orless directly associated in the MoS I project. This should start with the non beneficiary Countries ofMoS I, namely Moldova as a Black Sea Country and all direct and associate beneficiary landlockedCountries.

Proposals for future projects

The identification of potential markets and feasible links within the scope of MoS I can be consideredas complete and exhaustive enough to cover all existing and possible port-to-port links in the Black

Sea and in the Caspian Sea between direct beneficiary ports Countries as well as between the twoseas with the container block train project, albeit other technical schemes could be envisaged on thislatter axis.

Whichever the above limits, it will be useful to seize the opportunity of the new project (MoS II) toupdate the answers to the following questions that were raised during the (MoS I) project about:


15/39

More and better connections between the whole TEN-T and TRACECA Transport Networks andMotorways of the Sea projects are required by connections between TRACECA GeneralSecretariat and by the European Commission for the development of MoS projects.

This was taken into consideration during the MoS I project, but without any significant move,except:

o when checking that ports of MoS projects are duly acceptable as gates between inland routesof the Transport Network and the sea;

o in the particular case of the pilot project involving Ukraine, which has planned to look forsynergy with the Viking (and similar South-North) Railway service.


16/39

5 Dissemination of MoS concept, design and technicalities

5.1. Objective in relation to MoS criteria

As shown in the impact assessment report, and confirmed at all TRACECA MoS meetings, thereis now a sound degree of awareness and mobilization among stakeholders of beneficiaryCountries of the first project (MoS I).

However it must be observed that:

o information should be maintained and enlarged when new staff responsible are designated ineach Country;

o a high level of mobilization is needed with the support of TRACECA National Secretaries

o the market side, - users and operators - must be convinced at all times, the best of argumentsbeing the implementation of pilot projects designed taking the demand into due account;

o all stakeholders of the new beneficiary Countries must be informed and made aware of the

concept and value of Motorways of the Sea;

o Indirect stakeholders or observers whose views and position could be of importance, forinstance from the financing sector should be also informed regularly and associated in certaincases.

Action fields

The following is a synthesis of the recommendations retained for all pilot projects and for thefuture in the main domains of Motorways of the Sea, as first reviewed in the series of thematicreports and relevant to the approved characteristics and criteria, then deepened in the case offeasibility studies.

o Potential trade market report and its annexes (July 2010)

o Report on Facilitation in all countries (July 2010)

o Legal environment synthesis (July 2010)

o Railways thematic report (July 2010)

o Report of Inland waterways (July 2010)

o MoS Market approach (July 2010)

o Port and Maritime links (July 2010)


17/39

MoS criteria

1. Partnership

o Three levels

- National partnership: key stakeholders

- Bilateral: between stakeholders of:

land neighbouring Countries

port linked Countries.- Regional:

between stakeholders of all concerned Countries

contribution to TRACECA network.

o Involvement of institutional stakeholders

- Political support

- Public stakeholders' involvement.

o Operation and commercial partnership:

- Between port operators both sides of sea links and with maritime operator (a pre-requisite).

- With other market and operation players.

2. Market relevance

o Shared awareness and understanding of market expectations and challenges.

o Competitiveness vs all land corridors.

3. Quality criteria

o Organization of operations and services

- Maritime

- Ports

- Intermodalo Indicators and milestones

4. Facilitation

o Domains


18/39

5.1 Commercial conditions / market expectations

The Pilot Projects designed and studied thoroughly until approval at the MoS Regional Meeting of 11February 2011 have proven market potentials and existing demands.

The commercial and competitive market conditions identified to capture a share of these potentials arerecalled hereafter.

It will be of the utmost importance that a regular follow up of these conditions is conducted during the

implementation phase of pilot projects. The approach might be improved then for the next projectsbased on these experiences.

The market approach carried out with market players throughout the project has ascertained thefollowing basic expectations and requirements from the users' and transport operators' viewpoints.These should be retained to guide the MoS implementation and developments.

Attractiveness

o Reliability

The transport chain must be seamless and remain fully operational throughout the wholetransport operation. The service established should be closely/regularly monitored in orderthe solutions retained to eliminate or reduce the factors of irregularity remain efficient / aretimely and successfully adapted as well as to create a ready mechanism for solvingunexpected difficulties.

o Predictability

The components of the offer, on the basis of which the transport operation is performed in

terms of mode of transport, costs, transit-times, legal and regulatory frame (customsprocedures, administrative and other formalities of all kinds), must be always and easilyaccessible, transparent, precise and without unexpected (or unexpectedly changing)conditions (including of public tariff levels). Operators and users should timely exchangeinformation between them and anticipate measures to limit the impact of delays or otherproblems.

o Safety

The safe delivery without damage, loss or theft of the cargo to the final consignee must be a

guarantee of the MoS product service.o Information

Cargo-owners and their contractors must be sure that the information is clear, complete andunaltered during the movement of the cargo. The status and location of the cargo must bedetermined and known easily at all times along the chain.


19/39

o Export, import and transit customs procedures and all other administrative formalities must beeasy to understand, simple and consume as less time as possible. Complexity must bereduced when and wherever applicable.

To ensure the sustainability of the pilot-project all these conditions must remain valid over fixedperiods of time and be changed only with due and sufficient notice to all users. As far as feasible theconsultative advice of the users should be taken into account when working out and implementingchanges, whichever the nature of these changes.

MoS indicators

o MoS pilot project partners have agreed on the principle to keep indicators in order to follow theimplementation and development process of their project.

This will be all the more necessary as the MoS approach and method aim at adoptingimproved competitive solutions matching the dominant land corridors.

o The outstanding questions are:- identifying key indicators how to adopt and how to apply improvements

- confirming these improvements are successfully leading to the desired effects

This should be addressed in the very short time, together with the partnership agreementbelow, and involve the key project operators, namely the maritime companies and portoperators as the core MoS partners.

o It is suggested that the KPI list is not too lengthy or complex, and should rather cover the

essential conditions and factors and be of easy use.Pilot project partners should be assisted by the project team in the selection of the mostrelevant, adequate and feasible KPIs to be chosen among the best practitioner' measuringtools.

o A reporting process should be adopted simultaneously.

o The following "board" type to monitor the price / cost advantage of competing corridors vs MoSpilot project should be updated regularly.

From TO

MoS Point A Point B Eastbound Westbound TOTAL

H l


20/39

5.2 Project partnership

Cooperation between key stakeholders is a success key for the implementation and developmentof Motorways of the Sea. A one-sided or non-collaborative behavior is a major cause of failure ofseveral unsuccessful MoS experiences in other regions.

The project Team (MoS I) prepared in the feasibility phase the structure of a draft memorandumof agreement to be used as a model for MoS project partnership.

It is recommended to avoid an excess of formalism for these agreements in consideration of thefollowing:

o Motorways of the Sea are primarily operators' projects, irrespective of their public or privatestatus; the draft agreement structure is open to operating partners, prioritizing project portsand maritime carriers.

o as stressed in the conclusions of the TRACECA MoS Meeting of 11 February 2011, theinvolvement of high level officials is most necessary to support MoS projects, but this does not

imply for them to be part of technical or commercial agreements. Bilateral or multilateralcooperation and letters of endorsement would be much more important.

o single and clear commitments by these operators as well as indicators and milestones (actionplan) will be a guarantee of the shared willingness to implement action.

MoA / MoU structure.

1. Context and objectives

References of Motorway of the Sea Pilot Projects.

General objective: a technical / operational Agreement

2. Core partners / operators' side

Role of all and each partner

3. Institutional partners and supports

Transport Institutions

Other sectors f.i. customs

National and regional Authorities


21/39

10. Reporting

Performance-related information: traffic, transport conditions, etc.

partnership's achievements

on-going developments and prospects

updated action plan including solutions

11. Promotion / Communication

12. Financing

13. Contacts

Annex: Documents attached to the Memorandum of Understanding

These documents are to specify the technicalities of the project and attach letters of support,

related agreements, technical notes etc.

Indicative examples of specific technical agreements:

Agreement between Port Authorities

Exchange between Custom Authorities

Information system agreement

Operators / users contract model (Ex: service contract draft)

5.3 Port conditions

The following lists of measures concern each MoS related project port. This way to detail the activitieshas been retained in consideration of the importance of ports in Motorways of the Sea, as the nodewhere all intermodal operations, services and formalities must be improved significantly in a MoSperspective.


22/39

Endeavour to obtain AISCP principle agreement to the allocation of a dedicated berth and acorresponding priority for this Ro-Ro service,

Assist AISCP in nurturing the growth of containerization in conjunction with Baku/ Alyat andTurkmenbashi,

Initiate discussions with the Aktau Economic Free Zone, assess and monitor the potential effectson the sea-borne trade to/from Aktau,

Maintain and develop contacts with freight-forwarders based in Aktau.

BAKU (Baku International Sea Commercial Port CASPAR)

Considering the overall growth of the traffic, the development of the container trade based on the

NATO traffic (although unwanted and due to political reasons only), the planned developments at

Alyat on one hand and the on-going plans at other Caspian Sea ports and fleets on another

hand, assist CASPAR in changing its market approach, developing a marketing capability,

introducing free-market economic concepts in its management methods, getting ready for outside

competition and altogether improving the efficiency of its performance,

Induce BISCP / Alyat together with CASPAR to respond now to the demand of the Turkish

truckers for efficient / scheduled Ro-Ro services to /from Turkmenbashi and Aktau,

Get the same stakeholders to start discussing, now, also, with Turkmenbashi (TISCP) and the

SSMR of Turkmenistan to check if and how CASPAR existing service and the Turkmen proposed

Ro-Ro line could be operated complementing each other in order to ensure the smoothest and

most efficient possible use of respective port facilities and the best possible service to customers,

Assist BISCP and CASPAR in nurturing the growth of containerization in the Caspian in

conjunction with AISCP and TISCP,

Assist BISCP and CASPAR in nurturing the growth of containerization in conjunction with ADDY

with a view to attract/diver international container flows via Alyat through the Poti-Baku-Poti Block

Container Train,

To this effect, assist BISCP, CASPAR and ADDY in establishing a permanent dialogue with theGlobal Container Carriers,

Permanently gather and up-date traffic data and prospects helping CASPAR redefine the fleet

needed to cover present and future MoS transport demand to/from Baku/Alyat and accordingly

raise IFIsawareness and interest as/if and when needed,


23/39

TURKMENBASHI (Turkmenbashi International Sea Commercial Port State Service ofMaritime and River Transportation of Turkmenistan)

Keep in touch regularly with TISCP and the SSMRT of Turkmenistan regarding port planned

developments, especially the Ro-Pax terminal, Ro-Pax fleet acquisition and contemplated

implementation of service to Baku and Anzali,

Promote a more efficient coordination between the Railways of Turkmenistan, TISCP and

CASPAR with a view to optimize the use of the railferry ramps at Turkmenbashi and reduce the

duration of railferry calls, enabling CASPAR to run a regular schedule, perform a greater number

of voyages and free space for additional rolling cargo,

Follow-up and assist if/as/when needed in raising IFIsinterest in the rehabilitation of the second

railferry ramp,

Raise awareness of the progressive siltation of the lengthy approach channel that now has only

just sufficient dredged depth to accommodate the current ferry vessels, and assist in obtaining

IFIssupport if/as/when needed,

With the support of Turkish truckers associations, keep on raising awareness about the

considerable Turkish demand for Ro-Ro services via Baku, underlining the need for easy /

predictable / reasonably-priced port transit procedures (including Customs),

Assist TISCP and SSMRT of Turkmenistan in nurturing the growth of containerization in

conjunction with BISCP and CASPAR,

Initiate discussions with the Avaza Economic Free Zone, assess and monitor the potential effects

on the sea-borne trade to/from Turkmenbashi,

Maintain and develop contacts with freight-forwarders based in Turkmenistan,

POTI (Poti Sea Port)

Continue discussions with Poti Sea Port regarding provision of appropriate Ro-Ro / railferry berth

facilities at the proposed new port and revamped existing port,

Promote Ukrferry and Navibulgar fixed liner schedule initiative, ensuring the coordination

between shipping, port and railway operators is enhanced,

Reassess port handling tariffs for TIR trucks to promote sea transport versus driving overland,

Considering:


24/39

Technical meetings should therefore be organized between all concerned stakeholders(including main users) for the purpose of making the carriage of containers by rail moreattractive and competitive,

Reassess port tariffs (Disbursement Account) for container vessels (calling at the existing facility

and forecasted to call at the new Port) taking into account:

o The tariffs of other ports around the Black Sea, especially those which have served or stillserve as hub ports (Constanza, Turkish Maramara) for feedering containers to/from Poti,

o The resulting cost per each handled box based on the total volumes handled per call,

Initiate discussions with the Poti Economic Free Zone, assess and monitor the potential effects

on the container trade to/from Poti by sea and overland through Caucasus, promoting rail

carriage inasmuch as feasible.

BATUMI (Batumi Sea Port - Batumi International Container Terminal)

Continue discussions with Batumi Sea Port and BICT regarding provision of appropriate Ro-Ro /railferry berth facilities,

Promote Ukrferry and Navibulgar fixed liner schedule initiative, ensuring the coordinationbetween shipping, port and railway operators is enhanced,

Reassess port handling tariffs for TIR trucks to promote sea transport versus driving overland,

Keep in close touch with and assist all local, national and foreign business associations and

public organizations involved in the process of reforming the Georgian Customs system to:

o make the Customs Code easier in terms of procedures (aiming, in particular at reducing thepaperwork/number of required documents to perform the clearance of the cargo) andunequivocal,

o bring it in line with European standards and international conventions and treaties signed byGeorgia (WCO in particular).

ILLYICHEVSK / ODESSA / YUZHNIY (TIS) / KERCH

Preamble

The Ukrainian multi-port system of Illyichevsk (Black Sea terminus of the TEN-T corridor IX), Odessa,Yuzhniy (TIS) and Kerch account for the vast majority of the total relevant MoS trade volume handledat Ukrainian ports.

Kerch, in the Crimean Peninsula, is the first deep-sea port at the mouth of the Azov Sea and primarily


25/39

One of the recurrent reasons given by users for receiving their cargo at one port rather than another isa variable customs approach (i.e. a different reading of the Customs Code resulting in a differentlevel of duty and taxes) depending on the type of cargo between the various port Customs offices.

Given the above and taking into account the already existing well-developed infrastructure and thesignificant on-going and planned investments in all ports (for instance, Ilyichevsk Port Authority, withMoT approval, has designated a substantial area to be made available for a multimodal rail ferry / Ro-Ro and container terminal able to handle 120,000 Teus plus 10,000 trucks per year with a berthingplace of 240 metres long at 12.5m draft between berths 25 and 26), the MoS port issues to beaddressed at Ukrainian ports and activities to be performed relate mostly to regulatory matters:

Keep in close touch with and assist all local, national and foreign business associations and

public organizations involved in the process of reforming and straightening the Ukrainian

Customs system to:

o improve Customs officers and Customs brokers vocational training (including compulsoryperiodical up-dates and exams),

o make the Customs Code clearer, easier, unequivocal and predictable in terms of procedures(aiming, in particular at reducing the paperwork/number of required documents to perform theclearance of the cargo) and costs,

o bring it in line with EU standards and rules and international conventions and treaties signedby Ukraine,

o introduce a real risk-management system entailing a shorter dwell of the containers in ports,

o allow as swift transhipment of containers at Ukrainian ports as at other Black Sea ports,

Reassess port tariffs (Disbursement Account) for container vessels taking into account:

o The tariffs of other ports around the Black Sea, especially those which have served or stillserve as hub ports (Constanza, Turkish Maramara) for feedering containers to/from otherBlack Sea ports,

o The resulting cost per each handled box based on the total volumes handled per call,

Initiate discussions with the MoT in this respect to check how/if Ports could be given a freer hand

in their commercial deals with mainly Ship-owners,

Follow-up the development of container feeder services from Ilyichevsk and/or Odessa up the

Dnepr River.

VARNA

Assist in obtaining IFIssupport for the needed revamping of the Varna Ferry Complex,


26/39

5.4 The facilitation challenge

All stakeholders are fully aware trade and transit procedures and formalities can be major barriers thatmight hamper the development of Motorways of the Sea in general and more particularly in theTRACECA region and it is firmly recommended:

to insist on these issues in all activities of the implementation and developments of MoS Pilotprojects,

to recall the challenge to reduce the complexity and difficulties which are not faced to the sameextent by the competing land corridors, with:

o the number of Border Points (BCPs) in ports and on land routes along the transport chain.The number of B.C.Ps in a single sea service is two (2), but the cargo carried by inter-seasservices linking Western Black Sea Countries and Eastern Caspian Sea Countries must passthrough a minimum of five (5) BCPs and more in the case of longer multicountry transit (e.g. atEU border) trades;

o the number of modal movements, handling and intermediate operations taking place along sea

based transport chains, commonly three (3) transfers plus minimum six (6) handling operations(on / off) plus two (2) storage / terminal transit waiting's in the case of a single sea leg, andmore in the case of the inter-seas link;

o the difficulties leading to actual barriers which have been identified, analyzed and discussedwith operators and users, and practical solutions including legal measures and IT solutionsbeing prepared in project Countries.

The Technical Assistance required in this field will have to be re-assessed regularly in all beneficiaries

Countries with a particular focus on issues concerning neighboring Countries and sea linked Countriesand ports.

5.5 Railways integration in MoS projects

Railways operators have been associated in the preparation of MoS pilot projects when these projectsare involving Rail ferries and of course for the Container Block Train project.

As explained in 5.2. above (Market expectations) and in the thematic report on Railways, the role andfunctions of these companies in Motorways of the Sea projects are to ensure the most efficient andattractive intermodal / co-modal conditions, through:

Adequate capacities in terms of infrastructure and equipment.

Organisation / management of operations.

Coordination between themselves at bi/multi lateral levels.


27/39

The main conclusions for the potential development of MoS as door-to-door maritime basedintermodal transport chains using inland waterways are that the key operational criteria of Motorwaysof the Sea should be worked further for:

Intermodal transport units, dedicated to container first, or to a cargo mix of containers and otherunit loads.

Regular services / preferably fixed day.

Optimal located river ports and seaport connections.

Integrated operations services, information system and marketing between river and seaports.

Quality factors of competitiveness and attractivity.

Opportunities for future development of MoS type projects should be explored for both:

Sea-river (single leg) services linking inland ports and sea ports in the Black Sea, the CaspianSea and between the two seas through the Volga-Don Complex.

Inland River + maritime transport (two legs).

The opportunities for the three rivers / inland navigation systems of the region are all the moresignificant as:

These systems are the most advantageous in environmental terms and,

They may become a real economical alternative to all road transport,

Several first market potentials have been identified.

The Dnepr

The challenge for inland navigation on the River Dnepr in relation to MoS projects lies in therehabilitation and upgrading of port facilities, navigation, equipments and operations to restore thecredibility of river based transport solutions in line with the main MoS characteristics.

Unless innovative and dynamic operators are investing in this type of projects, the high scepticism and

weak cooperation between stakeholders will be the first barrier to overcome before working moreconcretely at real developments.

The Volga-Don Complex

The challenges here will be:


28/39

5.8. Project financing

The investment sheet below was designed to describe the possible investment needs directlyrelated to MoS projects. It was filled for each MoS Pilot Project in liaison with their key promotersbased on the following principles and grounds:

o Motorways of the Sea are not infrastructure projects. As organizational and operational onmaritime based intermodal transport solutions, MoS are utilizing the existing main ports,railways and road infrastructure, and vessels are not considered as infrastructure.

o Future MoS developments should benefit from ongoing or planned infrastructuredevelopments, particularly for ports and railways (and inland waterways in a longer term), andMoS projects are designed in turn to bring the benefits of their expected efficient andcompetitive practices to these new or upgraded facilities.

As a consequence, MoS investments are of a particular nature, for a shorter term than forinfrastructure, and should rather help to meet the project characteristics.

Generally and for all projects, stakeholders and experts have identified the following types of

investments, among which each project had its own specific needs:

o adaptation / upgrading of existing port and intermodal facilities

o purchase or adaptation of transport units and handling equipments

o inland facilities: dry ports, container depots and associated to logistic centres

o IT systems and solutions - hardware and software

o Related training assistance.

The next project team (MoS II) will be in charge of the follow up of the financing of these investments,as well as possible new requirements.


29/39

INVESTMENT SHEET

MOS PILOT PROJECT COUNTRIES

1. Objectives of investment in relation to MoS pilot project

2. Type and Description of the Investment

3. Project partners

MoS project

Project Investors

4. National stakeholders support

5. Current status / Maturity

6. Indicative cost

7 Fi i


30/39

6 Motorways of the Sea and other TRACECA related programmes

The MoS initiative is related to earlier and ongoing transport projects which have been taken intoconsideration and account during the pilot project preparation phase as much as they might inter-actand benefit from each other, and when national / country stakeholders suggested so.

The main following links between MoS projects and other programme have been identified for thisRoad Map ^

6.1 At regional level ENPI / TRACECA / all Countries

6.1.1 ENPI

Support to the Integration of Ukraine in the Trans-European Transport Network, TEN-T

(2008-end 2011)

Providing assistance to the MTCU in achieving a closer harmonization of transport policies andpractices should bring positive results for freight transport services by all modes and, by strengthening

the links with the EU, improve Ukraines transit transport potential.

The project also aims promoting a wide range of transport modernization issues that cover suchareas as multimodal transport, cross-border transit arrangements and the all-important area oflogistics and ensuring that Ukraine has well trained people in the right positions in every transportmode.

Given the geographical location of Ukraine at the mouth of the Pan European corridor number IX,reaching the afore-mentioned goals is crucial for the sustainable development of MoS links throughthe Black Sea and, more generally, for the efficient operation of the TRACECA corridor .

Ukrainian ports strategy development and feasibility (as part of the above-described project)

(2008-end 2010)

The overall objective of the project which is to contribute to the development and promotion oftransport on a west-east axis from Europe, across the Black Sea, through the Caucasus, across theCaspian Sea to Central Asia by developing ports on the corridor IX in Ukraine, improving logisticscapabilities, interoperability and multimodal transport falls completely in line with the MoS one.

The project aims at reducing ports congestion, increasing the carrying capacity of rail, road andlogistical corridor connections to ports, optimizing the ports' cargo handling capacities and improvingcargo handling efficiency to enable them to handle increased traffic volumes, reduce ship waiting timeand associated costs. All these are major concerns for the implementation of attractive andcompetitive MoS solutions whereby the corresponding barriers have been addressed by the MoS Iproject and will have to be addressed by the following projects


31/39

The SCIBM, apart from training on Integrated Border Management at executive level and promotingstrengthened bilateral cooperation between Georgia and Armenia and Georgia and Azerbaijan inareas of export/import declarations, risk analysis, primary and secondary control standards andidentification of fraudulent documents, also launched pilot border crossing points that implementactivities on the borders, in areas such as mobile checks (train or ferry) and implementation of riskinformation exchange systems which bear a close and direct relation to the MoS I pilot projects,especially the Block Container Train Poti - Baku - Poti.

The development of containerization in the Caucasus and beyond to Central Asian countries is one ifnot the main stake for the TRACECA Program as it does not result in higher cargo flows only but alsoin a progressive modal shift from road to rail transport and has therefore a vital and highly need inthis part of the world - ecological and economic impact. However, it primarily depends upon the fluidityof the borders.

Owing to the short duration of the MoS I project and rather long time taken by the stakeholders indesigning the contents of the pilot projects, the issue of cooperation between border-controllingagencies, users and operators and the need for a much improved EDI network has been identifiedonly at a very late stage.

It is therefore recommended the next project team liaises with the SCIBM and pays special attention

and efforts to scrutinizing these questions and bringing forward adequate, reasonable proposals inorder a number of the already selected MoS I pilot projects can be implemented.

EC multi-country cooperation instruments for reform and transition processes: TWINNING

The experience of MoS I evidence that, given the lasting heritage of Soviet Union and specific culturaltraits of the Caucasian and Central Asian countries, a number of public sector transport operators arein need of new ideas and concepts to design and plan their future in order to integrate the global

economy.

Developing structural reforms is a matter of survival for some of them. Nevertheless the adaptation ofexisting systems or implementation of new ones call for a guiding partnership with and transfer ofexpertise from EU public enterprises and bodies which already went through the same process.

Railway and shipping companies seem to be the most likely candidates.

TWINNING has been successfully implemented with candidate countries in the past including in thetransport industry.

It would therefore be worthwhile the next project team checking the possibility and willingness of anumber of public stakeholders such as GR, ADDY and CASPAR to apply for the benefits ofTWINNING with a view to a quicker and sustainable implementation of the already selected pilotprojects in which they are involved.


32/39

6.2 In the Region and at national level for some beneficiary Countries

6.2.1 TRACECA

1. Practically all TRACECA past and on-going projects relate to MoS.

2. Recent projects, such as Land Transport Safety and security - which include all TRACECA directbeneficiaries as well as associated countries - as well as Maritime safety Black Sea and

Caspian Sea and Strengthening of Transport Training Capacity - which both also includeTurkmenistan - support the implementation of the very basic frame of global, state-monitoredreliability needed to build confidence and attract users to ship via the TRACECA corridor andtherefore potentially use MoS-related transport solutions (likewise the Civil Aviation Safety andSecurity project is of paramount significance for the International Logistics Centres projects).

3. Former ones, such as Aktau Port Development, Master plan and feasibility study for Port of Aktauin Kazakhstan and Navigational Channel for Turkmenbashi Port respectively completed in 2008and 2007 addressed maritime technical issues which remain unfortunately unsolved and stillrepresent challenges for the implementation of MoS pilot projects.

4. Among on-going projects, Transport dialogue and interoperability between the EU and itsneighbouring countries and Central Asian countries (2009-2012) aims at facilitating cooperation inthe field of transport through capacity building and training measures, developing transportforecasts and investment appraisals and promoting effective regional transport dialogue amongthe TRACECA countries and between them and the EU.

5. The Traffic Forecasting and Database is a long-awaited measurement tool for effective trade andtransport forecasts, which could prove useful for planning MoS developments in the future.

The Interregional Transport Dialogue is meant to strengthen regional transport cooperation throughdeveloping coordinated strategies. Along the same lines, the design, development and implementationof any MoS project implies the mobilization, shared willingness and views, sustained commitment andinteractive dialogue of a great number of stakeholders at national, bilateral and regional levels: MoSpilot projects each involve minimum 2 countries and usually many more as a rule.

Indeed the geographical scope of any such project reaches far beyond the ports it is linking. As anexample the development of containerization into Central Asia through the TRACECA central corridorrequires the set-up of a seamless uniformly-standardized transport chain through 3 to 5 countries. Thiscan obviously be achieved only through a close regional cooperation.

Finally there is an evident potential synergy between MoS and the recently completed projects,International Logistics Centres for Western NIS and the Caucasus and International Logistics Centresfor the Central Asian countries (ILC). All 3 projects had the same overall objective of supportinginternational trade and facilitate the movements of goods along the TRACECA corridor through


33/39

Where MoS is aiming at the development of efficient inter/multimodal sea-links based on the marketdemand, ILC primarily rely on efficient hinterland connections to major economic centres. Togetherthey represent the core components of the TRACECA intermodal transportation network. The workperformed separately by the MoS and ILC projects to help improve the asset-management of theexisting infrastructure, up-grade its condition and develop new one, and enhance the performance ofthe whole transport and logistics operation through the implementation of new or revised economic,legislative and administrative concepts and rules, is therefore reciprocally beneficial for both.

The set-up of an efficient, sustainable, integrated multimodal transport system is also necessary to

give a number of countries directly or indirectly (with no direct access to open seas such as Caspianbordering countries) landlocked in the TRACECA region, an alternative for their foreign trade throughnew hubs and routes. This seems feasible capitalizing on MoS and ILC achievements.

Being located in existing or planned ports and capital cities (which could be connected by regularblock trains), the projected Logistics Centers in the TRACECA countries will form cornerstones toachieve the critical mass by feeding additional cargo flows and allow high service frequency that isessential to the success of the MoS links.

7 Matrix of Activities

(See following pages)


34/39

Motorways of the Sea for the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea

32/39 Egis International in association with Copetrans, Italferr, Euro-Ukraina Consulting

Project partnership & cooperation

Objectives Needs / requirements Activities Expected results

Ministerial / institutions level

Obtain as supportive

endorsements, encouragementsand involvement of high level

officials.

Official letters with clear endorsements

and commitments as agreed atTRACECA MoS Meeting February2011, with dissemination at Ministryand possibly public stakeholder's level.

Coordination by / with TRACECA

National Secretaries.

Involvement of TRACECA ISG.

- Reference frameworks helping to

enforce project implementation anddevelopment.

Establish cooperation between

institutional stakeholders.- Possibility to retain this reference

vis--vis Ministries / institutions incase of administrative difficulties or

delays.

Project partnership operatorsand users level

Structure MoS pilot projects

partnership.

Adopt milestones, indicators and

follow up method.

- Formal agreement (MoA / MoU)

- general framework

- technical annexes

- Short list of easy concreteindicators to monitor performanceand quality.

- Plan steps for implementation of

project measures.

- Assistance to complete draft MoAand specific project technicalitiesannexes.

- Sustained support and follow up ofproject developments.

- Regular milestones throughpreviously agreed periodic projectmeetings and reporting.

- Implementation / developmentplanning based on commitments,milestones and indicators.

- Regular reporting / progress reviewand technical notes on difficultiesand solutions.

Multimodal interoperabilityoperability and networkconnections / integration.

- Global attractive and competitiveinteroperability.

- Interconnections into / withTRACECA and TEN networks.

Objectives to be pursued in the frameof all activities of the Road Map.

- Synergies with network relatedprogrammes of TRACECA, EU /ENPI and EU programmes.


35/39


Egis International in association with Copetrans, Italferr, Euro-Ukraina Consulting 33/39

Marketing / Commercial conditions


General market knowledge

Update statistical review.

Fine-tune trade forecasts in

relation to TRACECA data

basis.

- Extend study of MoS tradepotentials for new projectCountries.

- Update statistics for all projectCountries.

- Compare and harmonize trafficforecasts.

- Prepare a synthesis of existingpotentials and forecast based onreliable statistical analyses,hypotheses and scenarios.

Liaison with IDEA / generalTRACECA forecasts / database.

-Availability of regularly up datedtrade and traffic data:

- General, use for institutionalstakeholders.

- Close to market changes andtrends, for project operators.

- Synthetic clear and concreteforecast figures to support pilotand future projects.

Follow market demand and

expectations.

- Meet end users' andintermediaries' expectations to

utilize MoS project axes andsolutions.

- Extend contact lists of largeusers: shippers, traders,

forwarders, Road hauliers.- Annual survey of market

conditions.

- Update contact list for allCountries.

- Knowledge of market conditions,changes and trends, focusing ondoor-to-door prices and coststructure.

- Assessment of MoS competitionposition and other attractivefactors.

Promote MoS projects andsolutions.

- General promotion.

- Specific supportive marketing.

- TRACECA Web site and MoSlink.

- Participation in regionaltransport logistics events.

- Tailor made activities tosupport individual pilotprojects.

- Dissemination of informationon markets.

- Involvement / possiblecommitments of large users.


36/39



Port conditions


Improve Port transitconditions of each Pilot

project:

- Implement pilot project solutions. - Involvement / commitments ofproject port partners as assessedby performance indicators.

- Implement and develop theupgraded or new conditions ofprojects.

In all port related fields

involving vessels, cargo and

intermodal operations.

- See Road Map and conclusionsof TRACECA MoS MeetingFebruary 2011 for specifictechnical, operational andcommercial conditions expectedfrom project ports.

- More and better awareness ofinland stakeholders on theimportance of the role of ports.

- Extend good practices for otherMoS (non-project) ports.

For duplication of MoS port

conditions.- Work at harmonizing: common /

shared project ports conditions.

- Solutions and good practices.

- Information and awareness ofstakeholders of new projectCountries including landlockedCountries.


37/39



Integration of railways in MoS projects


Involvement of Railwaystransport system and networkin MoS projects and moregenerally in intermodal seabased in transport schemes:

for MoS pilot projects

for new project Countries

for future projects

- Identify better the role andpotential contributions of railwaysin the development of projects.

- Share information; reach commonassessment of barriers or otherdifficulties.

- Work jointly on pilot projectsolutions.

Strengthen or establish contacts andconsultation:

- Between Railways, Ports and

maritime Companies.

- Between Railways Companiesconcerned by pilot projects.

- With intermodal railways basedservices as relevant (f.i. Viking).

- Higher involvement of Railways inMoS projects "from Railwaystation to Railway station".

- Improved transport of freight byrail from / to inland and landlocked markets of new projectCountries.

Integration of inland waterways in MoS projects


Prepare future MoS projectsusing Inland Waterways.

- Pre-feasibility conditions oftransport schemes integratingInland Waterways + Sea + otherland modes.

- Based on knowledge acquired inbeneficiary Countries.

- To be identified for new projectCountries.

- Contacts with Inland Waterwaysstakeholders in each concernedCountry to explore conditions andimprovements needed for:

- inland ports

- river / seaport connections

- potential operators

Technical / commercial conditions forpre-feasibility / feasibility of projectsintegrating river and canals:

- for existing Pilot projects

- for future projects


38/39



Facilitation


Assess / re-assess thetechnical assistance (T.A.)needs in facilitation fieldsincluding:

Legal measures

IT solutions

Update review of barriersresulting from complexity / lackof clarity in procedure,formalities and controls:

based on an synthetic survey of

all MoS pilot projects and other

TRACECA projects.

- Regular re-assessment with MoSI Pilot Project Countries.

- Assessment with nationalstakeholders of new projectCountries.

- Clearer views and sharedknowledge / understanding of thefacilitation challenge to reduce

complexity of multi-countryintermodal sea + land basedtransport chains.

- Focus on common key difficulties.

Work on details of frameworkand practical solutionsreducing complexity in order

to establish attractivity ofMoS intermodal operationsand services.

for ports as operations and

border crossing nodes.

for land bordercrossing points.

along the physical and nonphysical (information /

procedural) transport chain.

- Liaise at national and regionallevels with:

- Ministerial and other

institutional structures incharge of facilitation

professional bodies.

- Trade and transport

associations: Chambers of

Commerce (national, bilateral,

ICC).

- Integrate facilitation issues in

the mechanism to solve

difficulties of Pilot projects.

- Good practices method andoutput at national, regional(TRACECA) and international

levels.


39/39



Fund finding solutions for MoS related investments


Follow up and supportfinance raising for MoSrelated investment needs

[Ref: Decision of TRACECA MoS

Meeting 11 February 2011]

- Information on subsidy or loansources, project eligibility andprocedural process

- Specific requirements for eachpilot project: See pilot projectfeasibility studies and conclusionsof MoS Meeting 11 February 2011

- Identify financing sources,channels and contacts (EBRD...)

- Clarify eligibility conditions and

funding process

- Support implementation of pilotprojects

- In case of success (depending

also / more on other supportsthan project):

- Stimulus for the development

of projects

- Positive signals for MoS Pilot

and future projects.