|
Topic of Discussions – Deep-water Harbour
Milda Manomaityte
Does Klaipeda need a new port? Japanese experts
raised such a question in the feasibility study of deep-water harbour. Some say that from
the economic point of view such a project would be useful for Lithuania, others oppose
confirming that a new port might bring tremendous losses for the population and nature.
The magazine JURA MOPE SEA wrote that on February 25 Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA) presented the second activity report of Klaipeda
port development.
JICA experts submitted economic valuations of Klaipeda port and preliminary costs for the
port development.
Transport planning and economic analysis specialist Tomoo Amano from JICA states that
during the coming twenty years the volumes of containers, grain and fertilizer will grow
most of all. Until 2015 the total turnover of the port should reach about 30 million
tonnes and until 2025 – more than 40 million. According to Mr.T.Amano’s calculations,
the annual growth of cargo volumes should be about 4 per cent.
Port planning and finance analyst Yugo Otsuki from JICA confirms that even after complete
development of infrastructure in the current port area, the carrying capacity of the port
will reach the deadline as soon as in 2017.
Japanese experts propose the construction of the deep-water harbour in the northern part
of the port, near Giruliai and Melnrage beaches. They think it is not expedient to plan a
deep-water harbour behind the International Ferry Terminal. In that case the carrying
capacity of the port would not be increased and in the future there would be no place for
expansion.
The magazine JURA MOPE SEA asked various specialists, if Klaipeda needed a deep-water
harbour:
There are two negative aspects
Ramunas Povilanskas
Professor assistant at Klaipeda University
Doctor of Physics
The first one – the dynamics of shores. The inclusion of
such a large object into the coastal zone is extremely dangerous. For example, due to
appearance of a new bridge in Palanga the coast is being washed out. But the bridge
can’t be even compared to the port! What would happen to Klaipeda seaside then?
Our seaside is special – we have sandy shores that are frequently visited by strong
western winds and southwest storms.
To my mind, the main rule is: if you can, do not interfere, and even if you can interfere,
you better don’t. The construction of such a port would be a crime to the nature.
The second aspect is the population - Klaipeda citizen on the whole, and Melnrage
residents in particular. The deep-water harbour would be constructed as if “straight on
the heads” of people. We would rob ourselves of part of the coastline, having only 99 km
of it, including 45 km of Neringa. Besides, we would devastate the most attractive for
visitors piece of the seaside.
Those would be very negative consequences to which, alas, we pay too little attention.
Besides, JICA states, constructing the port and leaving a stripe of water is not well
considered. Melnrage would become a bay. Even now, all sewage coming from the lagoon
accumulates near northern breakwater. From the point of view of currents, this part of the
seaside is a shadow zone. If the port was constructed as proposed by Japanese experts, a
pocket would form, and in future it would become a cloaca.
Our strength is the open sandy shores and it is the greatest property which must be
protected.
All opportunities are not yet used
Aloyzas Kuzmarskis
President of the Association of Lithuanian Stevedoring Companies,
Director General of the stevedoring company Bega
To my mind, the development of Klaipeda port is
indispensable, but it is necessary to foresee its main directions.
Let us look back: in 1980 the port canal was 10 m of depth and the draught of ships was
8,5 m; in 1990 water depth in the harbour entrance was already 12 m and the draught of
ships was 10,5 m. This year Klaipeda navigation canal is dredged up to 14,5 m and the
draught of ships reached 12 m.
If in the seventies someone said we would have such a port as it is now, it would have
been treated a fantasy. If then someone thought we would have covered warehouses with a
total storage capacity of 350 thousand tonnes at a time, others would have said that it
was not real.
But let us see how we use the existing capacities. At present the working load of the
quays is 30-40 per cent, and according to the latest calculations, Klaipeda port is able
to handle more than 35 million tonnes per year. Last year Klaipeda port handled 21 million
tonnes of cargo. Klaipeda port has also got not a few reserve territories that can be used
for development of the port. Assimilation of those territories will create new
possibilities for the port and we shall be able to handle still more cargo.
I agree that the study is necessary. We are to be capable of looking at the prospects of
the port with a fresh eye. I congratulate the work done by the foreign specialists, but
the study is not yet completed. I think that many questions will still have to be solved.
First of all – cargo flows. They are closely linked with economic cooperation between
Lithuania and countries-partners (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.) Only when the amounts
of cargo exceed the existing port capacities, a necessity to start a new level of its
development will a-ppear.
I do not neglect that the deep-water harbour might be very expedient with the appearance
of a good quantity perspective cargo – containers, for instance. But firstly we should
fully use the existing facilities, reserve territories, and the existing quays.
How much is to be invested to a new port to get payback? If this balance is positive, only
then it is possible to think about the construction of a deep-water harbour.
Investments are to get payback
Eduardas Plauska
Klaipeda Stevedoring Company (KLASCO)
Director General
At present the port is able handling up to 35 million tonnes,
but it handles just half of it.
I am a businessman and as a businessman I wish to know when my invested money will pay
back. Lithuania is not a very rich country and, to my mind, we do not need to take new
loan for the construction of a port. At present, we do not need such a large port. As I
told, we do not use the whole facilities as it is. KLASCO alone has a capacity of handling
up to twenty million tons of cargo, and all other companies have got reserves for
extension, too.
I am sceptic about the construction of a new deep-water harbour. Of course, JICA experts
made a professional and necessary study. Knowing the future prognosis, we can create some
plans, but in my opinion this study may be put “in a drawer” for some time. Now the
situation is that Russian cargo decreases significantly, international projects such as 2K
did not bring the expected results. Therefore, I do not see the source where from the
cargo might suddenly appear. I agree that container flows will grow. Maybe the EU “will
bring” new types of cargo, but I am not sure. Up till now big Panamax type vessels are
rare, and if one or another calls to the port, this does not give grounds for constructing
a deep-water harbour which will not pay back.
In my opinion the port is to be developed in the order of priority stage by stage.
Investments into future are necessary
Sigitas Dobilinskas
Director General
Klaipeda State Seaport Authority
The development is necessary. The development of
infrastructure simply cannot be suspended. Our neighbours are developing, so we have to do
the same. It is always necessary to invest part of the money into infrastructure
development.
Economics changes, cargo flows increase, the tendency to move cargo from roads to sea will
become stronger, therefore great possibilities are awaiting for our port. As Japanese
experts forecast, Klaipeda port development is indispensable. Now we it is hard to tell in
what direction the cargo flows will move, but even today it is clear that when 35 million
tonnes turnover is reached, the existing capacities will not sufficient. A lot of ships
will stay in the outer road-stead and this will have a negative impact on the port
attractiveness. Those ships will simply choose another port.
Therefore, already today we feel the necessity to construct a seventeen meter deep port.
The Lithuanian Government will have to take serious decisions in the future. At present a
ten-year development study is already approved, is under implementation and will be
implemented. On external port a special decision will be taken.
It is possible to coordinate industry and
economics
Minco van Heezen
In Rotterdam port once we had a similar situation like in
Klaipeda today. There was no space to develop an internal port, and it was decided to
expand it into the sea. We poured soil and created an artificial land territory where we
developed a new part of the port, today called Maasvlakte.
After construction of Maasvlakte in 1970, in the southern part of the port a recreation
zone was created. As planned, a green zone around the port was planted, it protects
residential areas from the port territory, fresh water lakes were created. At present we
are planning to develop good conditions for windsurfing. Besides, when Maasvlakte was
constructed, sandy dunes acquired better ecologic quality, since the new port made a
necessary mix of wind velocities and directions, and brackish water spatters.
Now we plan one more development (Maasvlakte 2) and ecologists are worried that then the
dunes will appear in leeward (less wind, less salty spatters, poorer diversity of plants).
For this reason the development is planned as much to the North as possible, though it
will cost more as the water is deeper in this part and more soil is necessary. This
situation and intensive discussions with the World Wild Fauna Fund and other state
organizations brought us to a common opinion, that even in case some natural resources
disappeared, new would be created. The new development will not decrease the length of the
coastline, but some of the beaches may become less attractive to windsurfing sports.
Having evaluated the situation, we see that technically there are no problems to
coordinate port activities, nature and recreation even in a situation when there is lack
of land territory. But those questions need creative attitude, money, time and good
cooperation with ecologists.
The development study just on time
Zigmantas Balcytis
Minister of Transport and Communications of Lithuania
The objective of the study made by Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) is to prepare proposals for the development of Klaipeda port
until 2015 and 2025. The proposals of the study will highlight in what direction the port
should be developed with respect to the dynamics of economics, forecasted cargo and
passenger flows, so that the port were ready for possible quantitative and qualitative
changes.
In 2001-2003 Klaipeda port cargo growth made 11,5 per cent annually. Hopefully, it will be
induced even more by the EU membership. It is calculated that at present Klaipeda port is
able to handle 37 million tonnes of cargo annually. In 2015, when it is planned to reach
the volume of 34 million tons, the level of services in the port will evidently be lower
due to ships waiting in the outer road-stead. In order to maintain high level services and
compete with other ports it is proposed to construct the first phase of deep-water harbour
until 2015.
Long-term development plans are prepared by our neighbouring ports, too: it is foreseen to
develop deep-water ports in Ventspils, Riga, Tallinn (Muuga). Bearing in mind that
development of infrastructure is a long-term process, I think that Klaipeda Port
Development Study under preparation is in due time.
Klaipeda Port Development Study is the first phase of a long-term port development plan.
In the second JICA progress report two chapters investigate environmental impacts of the
possible port development. One of them is the initial assessment of environment, the other
– environmental impact analysis. The latter has already been completed. The goal was to
provide the assessment of the port development impacts to the environment, to evaluate
their significance and to propose measures mitigating these impacts. If JICA study is
approved, the submitted information and conclusions will be useful for making environment
impact assessment according to the requirements of Lithuanian laws.
The use and the loss of constructing a deep-water harbour will be assessed in the economic
part of the study. Any development of infrastructure has got positive and negative sides.
Only deep and comprehensive economic analysis can evaluate all factors and answer the
question whether it is expedient to implement the proposed projects.
Klaipeda Port Development Study is the initial long-term phase of port development. When
the conclusions of the study are approved, EIA, plan of territory and technical project
will be prepared.
The documents will be prepared with public participation in compliance with our laws. We
think that public interest in the port development at the very beginning of the planning
stage will help to make optimal solutions concerning the future of transport in Klaipeda
old city, and of Lithuanian transport system as a whole.
The Study is not comprehensive
Saulius Manomaitis
Board member of the Lithuanian Architects' Union Klaipeda branch
Our organization discussed the question of the development of the port. We decided that
the study made by JICA was not comprehensive and environment impact assessment was not
full.
In such a sensitive zone like the Lithuanian seaside, any interference is obvious at once.
For example, when the old wooden sea bridge in Palanga was changed by a new one and the
stone dam destroyed, Lithuania lost part of its territory, because the beach was washed
out.
Such a large project as the construction of a deep-water harbour in the sea cannot be
discussed seriously, if the environment impact assessment is not properly done.
Of course, the economics of the country is extremely important, but today people are more
important. The relationship of people and nature from financial point of view is of
greater value than industry.
I do not advocate for refusing the port development altogether, but on the basis of a
single study final decisions should not be made.
It should also be taken into consideration, that if constructed at sea, as JICA experts
suggest, the deep-water harbour would be separated from the city, and new transport hubs
would have to be created. Klaipeda architects are considering possibilities of removing
heavy cargo transportation and railways out of the town and constructing a roundabout. But
then it would cross the only green area of the city. If we destroy it, we will not have
another one.
Should the port be nevertheless constructed at sea? Is it necessary to do it in Klaipeda?
Butinge is a deep-water harbour, besides, the port can be developed in Sventoji, too. If
we treat the port as a strategic object of Lithuania, it may not be necessarily located in
Klaipeda.
Architects see possibilities for the development of tourism in Klaipeda and propose to
move industrial areas out of the city.
The port development is really necessary
Vytautas Smailys
Professor of Maritime Institute at Klaipeda University
The Government always needs to have a reserve plan. But
reserve is to be especially well-prepared and thought out in order not to repeat the
situation with Sventoji port.
Japanese experts submitted two alternatives of Klaipeda port development. From the present
day perspective, the southern port development project would require less investment at
the moment. Gradual investment would be possible, it would not affect the population,
single investments would not be costly.
However, this alternative has disadvantages. High maintenance costs will be necessary,
since the ecology of the Curonian Lagoon will be changed and the project depth is to be
maintained permanently because of sedimentation from the river, the balance of nature
would be disturbed.
The development of the port is carried out with the goal to receive bigger tonnage
vessels. With the alternative to develop the southern port, dredging Harbour Entrance
would be necessary again.
Nevertheless, from the economic point of view this port development alternative is better,
because investments can be made gradually and from the first sight it would not affect the
population.
Still, there is another question - air pollution. We have made a study on air pollution in
Klaipeda port and have determined that there are two critical air pollution points at the
moment. They are the Harbour Entrance and the southern part of the port.
In the future when a deep-water harbour is constructed, the intensiveness of navigation
will increase twice. Bigger vessels will come to the port and therefore, air pollution in
the city will also increase. Southern port will induce the appearance of new pollution
points. Ship service time will become longer and they will have to sail at a slow speed.
The development of the southern port would be positive from another point of view - it
would take away part of shipping from the present port. Less vessels would be able to sail
in or out the port and it would facilitate operational possibilities of ships. This port
would be more attractive for larger tonnage vessels. Besides, payback of investments would
be faster and more effective. This port would make less impact on the balance of nature of
the Curonian Lagoon.
Dwelling quarters of the city, except for Melnrage and Giruliai, would be far away from
the northern port. The city would be less polluted.
The port would take less of its land territory, which we lack already as it is. In the
future the territories in the southern part of the city will become more expensive and it
will become possible to turn them into recreational zones.
But the negative side of the development of this port is that Melnrage as a recreational
zone would be forgotten. However, I am to note that in this location air pollution would
not change. The ships are sailing in this zone even now, and after the construction of a
deep-water harbour, the number of ships sailing inside the port would a bit decrease, and
the distance from the port to the dwelling quarters would be sufficient. Besides, northern
port would be oriented to receive big tonnage vessels and thus the relative air pollution
by handling bigger tonnage vessels would be lower. Air cleaning technologies are installed
in bigger vessels that are too expensive for smaller ships.
Melnrage would be separated from the open sea. Even though they promise to leave a stripe
of water, it would have negative psychological affect - there would no longer be a view
out to horizon of the sea, the water in this place may be stagnated. All this will result
in Melnrage losing its recreational significance. Giruliai might also suffer to some
extent.
But we must admit that economic effect would be impressive. Transit flows would increase
and great opportunities for Lithuania to earn money would appear.
A port in Melnrage would be immensely beneficial for our the country economics, nothing to
mention the creation of new jobs.
Therefore, the critics, though entirely right and grounded, cannot countervail such
important economic possibilities.
If environment protection requirements are observed, impacts on nature should not be
significant. Drawing a project design of a new port environmental design should be taken
into consideration. That is a technical question.
|
