2. FREIGHT TRANSPORT ON INLAND WATERWAYS

• European inland waterway freight transport suffered from the difficult economic and geopolitical context as well as the low water levels of July and August 2022. Compared to 2021, the amount of cargo transported in Europe (EU-27 plus Switzerland, Serbia and Republic of Moldova), decreased by -5.5% to 485.4 million tonnes and freight transport performance decreased by -10.6% to 122.0 billion TKM.
 
• Transport volume on the entire Rhine (from Basel to the North Sea) decreased by -6.8% in 2022. Apart from coal which increased by around +10.6%, all product segments experienced a decrease, in particular containers (-12.2%), sands, stones and gravels (-12.1%), as well as mineral oil products (-9.5%).
 
• On the Upper and Middle Danube, transport volumes for all cargo segments decreased in 2022, particularly in the downstream direction for grain and other agribulk, which was near to collapse by losing 80% on the Middle Danube. The Lower Danube region, in particular the canals connecting the Danube to the Black Sea, recorded a clear upward trend in goods transport. Transport volumes on the Sulina canal more than doubled in 2022 compared to 2021 driven by the need to support Ukrainian exports of grain via alternative routes.

TRANSPORT IN EUROPE AND BY COUNTRY IN MILLION TONNES-KM (TKM)

TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE IN IWT ON THE NATIONAL TERRITORY OF EACH COUNTRY IN EUROPE – COMPARISON BETWEEN 2021 AND 2022 (IN MILLION TKM)


Sources: Eurostat [iww_go_atygo] and [iww_go_qnave], OECD (Switzerland, and the Republic of Moldova), UK Department for Transport
The share of IWT performance in Europe in 2022 for Ukraine and Italy is not available due to a delay in the publication of the data.
 

FIGURE 1: IWT TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE IN 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 AND 2022 IN MAIN EUROPEAN IWT COUNTRIES (IN MILLION TKM)


Sources: Eurostat [iww_go_atygo] and [iww_go_qnave], OECD (Switzerlandand the Republic of Moldova), UK Department for Transport. The values for Ukraine, Italy (2022) and Serbia (2017) are not available.
Note: for the UK, IWT is defined as non-seagoing traffic which takes place entirely within inland waters and sea-river transport (seagoing vessels navigating partly at sea and on inland waterways). In this figure, for the sake of consistency with the methodology used by Eurostat, only the transport performance related to the traffic taking place wholly within inland waters is reported (amounting to 76 million TKM). However, it is worth noting that most of IWT in the UK consists of sea-river transport (amounting to more than 1.3 billion TKM). Overall, the IWT performance in the UK is reported to reach almost 1.4 billion TKM.
 
• In 2022, in terms of inland navigation for Europe (EU-27 plus Switzerland, Serbia and Republic of Moldova, and excluding Ukraine), freight transport performance decreased by -10.6% compared to 2021 and -5.5% in terms of the cargo volumes transported for EU. Rhine countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland) accounted for 81.9% of total inland waterway transport performance in the EU-27, plus Switzerland, Serbia and the Republic of Moldova. The share for Danube countries was 17.8% (excluding Ukraine).

 

FIGURE 2: INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN 2022 (IN BILLION TKM) *


Sources: Eurostat [iww_go_atygo] and [iww_go_qnave], OECD (Switzerlandand the Republic of Moldova), UK Department for Transport
* Data for Ukraine and Italy were not available for 2022.

 
• From the total inland waterway transport performance in Europe in 2022, which amounts to around 122 billion TKM (without Ukraine, Switzerland, Serbia, and Republic of Moldova), 74.8% represented transport that crossed a border in one way or another – whether it be in the form of export, import or transit traffic. Transit traffic taken separately had a share of 18.1% and export and import traffic had a share of 28.8% and 27.8%, respectively.

 

FIGURE 3: YEARLY INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE IN THE EU-27 (IN BILLION TKM) *


Source: Eurostat [iww_go_atygo]
* EU-27 according to member countries in 2022

 
 

TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE BY MAIN EUROPEAN RIVER BASINS


Sources: CCNR analysis based on Destatis, VNF, Eurostat [IWW_GO_ATYGO], UK Department for Transport
Figures for the Po are from 2021, the others are from 2022.
 

RHINE BASIN

 
 
Transport volume and transport performance on the entire Rhine (from Basel to the North Sea)

• In the past, this chapter reported on the volumes transported on the Traditional Rhine only, namely the Rhine from Basel to the German-Dutch border. From now onwards, it will become possible to report on transport volumes on the entire Rhine from Basel to the North Sea.
• Cargo transport on the entire Rhine (from Basel to the North Sea) amounted to 292 million tonnes in 2022, compared to 314 in 2021 (-6.8%).
  – The Traditional Rhine (from Basel to the German-Dutch border) amounted to 155.5 million tonnes in 2022, compared to 168.6 million tonnes in 2021 (-7.8%).
  – The Rhine delta in the Netherlands (from the German-Dutch border to the North Sea³) amounted to 237.8 million tonnes in 2022 compared to 254.6 million tonnes in 2021 (-6.6%).
• When calculating the total volume of goods transported on the entire Rhine, all the steps were taken to avoid the double counting of volumes transported on both stretches. This is why the volumes on these two stretches cannot simply be added together, as certain volumes are transported on both stretches.

 

FIGURE 4: FREIGHT TRANSPORT VOLUME (IN MILLION TONNES) AND TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE (IN MILLION TKM) ON THE ENTIRE RHINE


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
The transport performance is estimated based on the transport volumes on the entire Rhine.
 

FIGURE 5: FREIGHT TRANSPORT ON THE TRADITIONAL RHINE AND ON THE LOWER RHINE IN THE NETHERLANDS (IN MILLION TONNES) *


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
* To avoid double-counting, the volumes on the different stretches cannot be added together, as certain volumes are transported on both stretches.
 
 

Transport activity at different Rhine stretches, on Rhine affluents and on canals linked to the Rhine

• In terms of geographical structure, the transport intensity is the highest on the Lower Rhine compared to the Middle and Upper Rhine, as illustrated in Figure 6. This higher intensity on the Lower Rhine can be explained by several reasons:
  – Dense delta network in the Netherlands, with important petroleum and chemical industrial hubs and a high number of container terminals.
  – Important steel and petroleum industrial hub in the Lower Rhine region in Germany.
  – High fairway depths on the Lower Rhine.

 

FIGURE 6: FREIGHT TRANSPORT ON THE DIFFERENT STRETCHES OF THE RHINE (IN MILLION TONNES) *


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
* To avoid double-counting, the volumes on the different Rhine stretches cannot be calculated together, as certain volumes are present on several Rhine stretches.

 
• Along with the overall cargo transport on the Rhine, cargo transport and vessel movements are registered at specific measurement points (locks or border points). The relevant volumes represent the transport activity only at these points and do not represent total Rhine transport. However, this approach reveals existing differences in transport intensity between different Rhine stretches, for example between the Lower and the Upper Rhine.

 

TABLE 1: MEASUREMENT POINTS FOR FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN THE RHINE BASIN

Rhine stretch or affluent	Measurement point	Name		Volume of transport (in million tonnes)			Number of cargo vessels passing
			2020	2021	2022	2020	2021	2022
Lower Rhine	Border DE/NL	Emmerich	130.0	138.1	161.9	102,555	105,886	105,275
Upper Rhine	Border DE/FR	Iffezheim	16.9	19.1	16.3	21,121	23,631	24,274
Wesel-Datteln Canal *	Junction with Rhine	Wesel-Friedrichsfeld	17.0	19.1	17.9	18,085	18,961	16,520
Rhein-Herne Canal *	Junction with Rhine	Duisburg-Meiderich	13.2	13.6	12.4	10,65	11,688	15,400
Main	Junction with Rhine	Mainz-Kostheim	13.5	12.1	11.1	16,333	15,213	14,309
Moselle	Junction with Rhine	Koblenz	8.1	9.2	8.6	7,055	8,459	9,106
Neckar	Junction with Rhine	Mannheim-Feudenheim	5.1	5.7	5.5	6,564	5,663	5,484


Sources: German Waterway and Shipping Administration, Destatis, Moselle Commission
* The source for the Lower Rhine and for the two canals is the German Statistical Office (Destatis), whereas for all other data in the table, the source is the German Waterway Administration.

 
• For the lock of Iffezheim on the Upper Rhine, a detailed dataset is available. Based on this dataset, the average loading degree of dry and liquid cargo vessels that passed this lock were calculated. Empty trips, which represent a share of 47.0% of all vessels passing the lock were not taken into account in this calculation. For dry cargo vessels, the highest average loading degree was reached in February (60.7%), and the minimum in August (31.3%), due to the low water period. The annual average loading degree for dry cargo vessels was 49.8%. For tanker vessels, the annual average was slightly lower (48.7%).
• On the river Moselle, iron ore, coal and agribulk play a large role due to the steel production in the Saar region in Germany and the agricultural production in the region of Lorraine in France. In 2022, a strong increase in the transport of coal (+63.0%) was recorded at the lock of Koblenz, mirroring similar figures observed for the Rhine. An increase in coal transport is also recorded at the lock of Apach, which is located further upstream, at the border between France, Germany, and Luxembourg. Despite the booming of coal transport, less cargo transport was registered overall on the Moselle, mainly because of dwindling volumes of iron ore, sands, stones, and gravel.

 

Rhine transport by cargo segment

• In terms of global cargo transport volumes for the entire Rhine, the segments of mineral oil products, chemicals and sand, stones, gravel, were the top three contributors both in 2021 and 2022.

 

FIGURE 7: CARGO TRANSPORT ON THE ENTIRE RHINE BY TYPE OF GOODS (IN MILLION TONNES) *




Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
* For containers: net-weight

 
• Overall, in the transition from 2021 to 2022, transport of goods on the entire Rhine was negatively affected by factors such as reduced aggregate demand, high inflation, the pandemic re-surge in China and the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine leading to a global economic slowdown. The resulting supply side shortages for commodities, the energy crisis, and ultimately, the low water levels of July and August 2022, were additional negative elements which impacted transport on the entire Rhine.
• In terms of cargo transport growth from 2021 to 2022, except for coal that increased roughly by +10.6%, all product segments experienced a decrease. Sand, stones, gravel (-12.1%); containers (-11.1%); mineral oil products (-9.5%); metals (-7.5%) and agri-food products (-5.9%) had relatively sharp decreases compared to slight reductions for iron ore (-2.8%) and chemicals (-1.6%).
• Some particularities were observed in some of the segments. In 2022, for the agri-food segment, the war between Russia and Ukraine led to a disruption in grain exports which contributed to a fallout on the sectoral cargo transport. The rise in energy prices and production costs negatively affected the iron ore and steel, mineral oil products and chemicals transport volumes. Inflation and the global economic slowdown also had a negative impact on private consumption, thereby affecting all cargo segments.
• The impact of low waters affecting Rhine navigation in July and August 2022 also contributed to this decrease. A comparison of monthly figures for 2021 and 2022 for the Traditional Rhine reveals that the segments that were most strongly hit by low waters and the war were fertilizers, chemical products, mineral oil products, building materials and containers. For fertilizer production (which is a part of the chemical segment), gas is the main feedstock, so that skyrocketing gas prices led to a decrease in fertilizer transport by as much as -26.0%.
• Coal transport experienced a surge on its transport activity due to its important substitution effect in relation to natural gas. Indeed, the rise in gas prices and the abandonment of Russian pipeline gas imports triggered the need to find substitutes. Coal was hereby chosen as a main substitute, due to its availability and because renewable energies are still not sufficiently abundant to act as a baseload energy.
• Before the start of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russian coal accounted for 50% of all coal imports of the EU. In the first half year of 2022, the EU decided on an embargo against coal from Russia. Anticipating this embargo, which came into force in August 2022, the volume of Russian coal that was unloaded in ARA seaports in the first half year of 2022 was significantly higher than one year earlier.⁴
• As hinterland transport of seaborne coal is mainly delivered on the Rhine towards Germany, coal volumes on the Traditional Rhine rose by around +27% in the first six months of 2022. For the entire year, the increase was somehow smaller (+11%). The transport of coal heightened again between September and December, which suggests that Russian coal could be substituted by coal from other parts of the world. Important coal producer countries (outside Russia) are the US, Australia, South Africa and Indonesia.
• The rising import volumes of coal for the German industry, alongside the low water effects and the transfer of dry cargo capacity from the Rhine to the Danube, led to a lack of available vessel capacity for dry cargo in the Rhine region and partly explains the negative results for other dry cargo segments, such as sands, stones, gravel and construction material. Hence, the reported drop of -17.5% by the Port of Strasbourg for construction material in 2022 compared to the previous year, which was accentuated by the low water period.
• The price increase for final products such as steel, caused by higher raw material and electricity prices, must also be mentioned. This effect propagated within the entire production chains. The result was an increase in production costs for various steel using sectors (construction sector, automobile industry, etc.), leading to less consumer confidence and less transport demand (as mentioned by the Port of Mulhouse). Supply shocks of this kind are usually propagated through the entire economy and can unfold macroeconomic downward spirals.⁵
• Mineral oil products are a market segment that immediately came under pressure due to rising oil prices. As an illustration, due to this sharp oil price increase, the Swiss government had to release a quota of certain mineral oil product volumes which resulted in the mandatory storage volumes being emptied. This explains the sharp decrease for the segment of mineral oil products in the Swiss Rhine Ports of Basel. On the contrary, the Port of Strasbourg reported an increase in the transport of mineral oil products (+5.7%), pointing out that the French government had been obliged to build up stocks and anticipate further increases in the prices of mineral oil products.
• This example above shows that individual reactions of market participants (inland ports, governments) can differ from one case to another. The agribulk market is a good example of this. The following box contains a description of such economic reactions that emerged during the year 2022 in this freight transport segment.

 
The hoarding concept and its market implications in the context of a conflict – Example of the segment of grain in the Rhine and Danube basins in the summer of 2022
“Hoarding in economics refers to the concept of purchasing and storing a large amount of products belonging to a particular market, often creating scarcity of that product, and ultimately driving the price of that product up”.⁶ This concept can be illustrated by two specific cases which, in the context of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, had different market implications (saturation vs. scarcity).
The Port of Strasbourg reported that French grain processors, whose companies are located at the port, feared at first a shortage of raw materials. Consequently, they made additional orders to compensate for a possible lack of Ukrainian grain and to secure their supplies. But following an agreement between Ukraine, United Nations, Turkey and Russia on 22 July 2022,⁷ these food processors found themselves with a surplus of grain, due to the reopening of Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea ports. This situation resulted in a phenomenon of saturation of storage facilities throughout the Upper Rhine region.
In Serbia and Hungary, restrictions on exports of agricultural and food products were imposed by governments in order to accumulate national stocks at the very beginning of the war. Thus, by purchasing and storing a large amount of agricultural and food products, these Danube countries created scarcity on the grain market which eventually increased the price of these products further. In this case, the anticipation by such countries of a possible shortage of cereals has in fact caused an aggravation of the price surges.
 

• An analysis of cargo segments split between the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands and the Traditional Rhine enables a better grasp on the dynamics regarding transport of goods per type of products along the Rhine. The Lower Rhine in the Netherlands has a far greater share of chemicals transport compared to the Traditional Rhine. Container transport as well as transport of sand, stones and gravel are also more intense on the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands. For commodities and final products of the steel industry, as well as coal for the energy sector, the volumes are rather evenly distributed between the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands and the Traditional Rhine.

 

FIGURE 8: CARGO TRANSPORT ON THE RHINE BY TYPE OF GOODS – SPLIT BETWEEN THE LOWER RHINE IN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE TRADITIONAL RHINE IN 2022 (IN MILLION TONNES)


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
 

Container transport on the Rhine

• Between 2018 and 2022, container transport on the Rhine was impacted by a series of negative events.
  – The low water period of 2018 and 2022 caused cargo losses in both years. The 2018 low water period led to modal share losses in the following years.
  – The introduction of new tariffs in world trade in 2019 caused a deterioration in the business climate and in world trade activity, which is impacting both seaborne container throughput as well as inland container barging.
  – The year 2020 saw the appearance of the Covid pandemic.
  – In 2021, the overall business climate and world trade were still rather bleak due to disruptions in supply chains and a rising inflation.
  – In 2022, the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine broke out, causing high inflation and further disruptions in world trade.
  – During all these years, inland container barging suffered also under congestion in seaports and related delays.
• Both on the Traditional Rhine and on the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands, these factors can explain the lower average levels of container transport in the time span 2018-2022 compared to the period before 2018.
• Measured in million tonnes, the result for container transport on the entire Rhine (from Basel to the North Sea) in 2022 was -11.1% lower than in the year 2021 (-14.5% for the Traditional Rhine and -11.0% for the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands). This is the strongest year-on-year reduction since 2014, showing, in addition to the impact of low waters, the negative impact of world trade disruptions. The impact of low waters is also visible in 2018.
• In the TEU unit, the rate of decrease was -5.7% (-11.6% for the Traditional Rhine and -5.0% for the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands).

 

FIGURE 9: CONTAINER TRANSPORT ON THE ENTIRE RHINE, THE TRADITIONAL RHINE AND THE LOWER RHINE IN THE NETHERLANDS (IN MILLION TONNES, NET WEIGHT OF GOODS IN CONTAINERS), 2009-2022


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
 

FIGURE 10: CONTAINER TRANSPORT ON THE ENTIRE RHINE, THE TRADITIONAL RHINE AND THE LOWER RHINE IN THE NETHERLANDS (IN MILLION TEU), 2009-2022


Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis and Rijkswaterstaat
 

In-depth analysis regarding the Traditional Rhine: low waters and direction of transport

• An analysis of monthly figures for the Traditional Rhine allows conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact of low waters on container transport. An analysis of monthly figures from January 2016 onwards shows the impact of the severe low water period in 2018. The level of container transport on the Rhine has never been the same since this extreme hydrological phenomenon (due to modal share losses). Regarding the Covid pandemic, data suggest that container transport on the Traditional Rhine was overall resilient. In fact, during Covid, barge operators reported that the development of container numbers much depended on the type of products (consumer products or feedstock for production processes) and the type of production processes. For instance, some consumer products boomed during Covid (such as food products or those ordered online) while other consumer products decreased. Some production processes (such as the production of cars in Germany) grounded to a halt, directly resulting in a sharp decrease of container numbers in this segment. On the other hand, other production processes boomed resulting in an increase of container numbers.
• In addition, the end of the first lockdown in late 2020 clearly ‘boosted’ container transport. The return and aggravation of the pandemic in winter 2020-2021 left some traces.
• A detailed comparison between 2021 and 2022 shows that monthly figures for 2022 were generally lower than in 2021. Although the development of the curve suggests that the low water period in July and August 2022 had a far more negative impact than the war in Ukraine, it is indeed difficult to distinguish the exact relative contribution of both effects.

 

FIGURE 11: MONTHLY CONTAINER TRANSPORT ON THE TRADITIONAL RHINE (IN 1,000 TEU AND IN MILLION TONNES), 1/2016-12/2022


Source: Destatis
 

• Container transport on the Traditional Rhine can be differentiated according to direction of transport (export/import) and status of containers (filled/empty). These differentiations reveal that the main reduction taking place in 2022 is found in the category of ‘filled export’ (downstream transport of loaded containers). For this category, 748,000 TEU were recorded in 2022, representing a strong reduction of -16.6% compared to the year 2021. This pattern can be explained by a decrease in exports of machines and consumer goods from France, Germany and Switzerland towards ARA seaports.

 

FIGURES 12, 13, 14, 15: CONTAINER TRANSPORT ON THE TRADITIONAL RHINE, DOWNSTREAM VERSUS UPSTREAM TRAFFIC AND LOADED VERSUS EMPTY CONTAINERS (IN 1,000 TEU)








Source: CCNR analysis based on Destatis
 
• Data on container transport on the Moselle⁸ indicate a similar but not fully identical structure: container transport on the Moselle presents also higher values for loaded containers within the downstream or export direction. However, in contrast to the Rhine, for the upstream direction, the share of empty containers is higher than the share of loaded containers. This is a difference compared to the Rhine, where the share of loaded containers is higher for both downstream and upstream transport (although the ratio between ‘loaded’ and ‘empty’ is smaller for upstream transport).
• While container transport has followed a growth trend on the Moselle in the last ten years, this trend weakened in 2021 and 2022. The peak in container transport on the Moselle was reached in the year 2020, with 25,521 TEU. After this peak, TEU volumes started to decrease in 2021 and 2022, down to 24,438 TEU (2021) and 17,484 TEU (2022).

 

DANUBE BASIN

 

Transport volume and transport performance on the Danube
• Cargo transport on the entire navigable Danube between Kelheim (Germany) and the Black Sea via the Danube-Black Sea Canal and the Sulina Canal lies in the range between 34 and 40 million tonnes per year.⁹ Transport performance on the Danube (EU Danube countries plus Serbia) reached 23.9 billion TKM in 2022, a decrease of -20% compared to 2021.

 

FIGURE 16: FREIGHT TRANSPORT VOLUME (IN MILLION TONNES) AND TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE (IN MILLION TKM) ON THE DANUBE *


Sources: for transport volumes – viadonau, Annual reports on Danube navigation; for transport performance – Eurostat [IWW_GO_ATYGO]
* Transport performance in IWT in all EU Danube countries.

 

Danube transport at specific measurement points

• The market observation system used for observing Danube cargo transport at certain measurement points is similar to the system in the Rhine basin. The waterway administrations register data at certain borders or measurement points which are described in the following table.

 

TABLE 2: MEASUREMENT POINTS FOR DANUBE FREIGHT TRANSPORT

Danube stretch or affluent	Measurement point	Name		Volume of transport (in million tonnes)
			2020	2021	2022
Upper Danube	Border Germany/Austria	Lock of Jochenstein	2.3	2.2	2.2
Upper Danube	Vienna	Lock of Wien-Freudenau	6.7	6.4	5.5
Upper Danube	Border Slovakia/Hungary	Lock of Gabčíkovo	5.0	4.9	4.3
Middle Danube	Border Hungary/Croatia/Serbia	Mohács	6.1	5.8	4.0
Danube-Black Sea Canal	No specific point, total volumes on the canal are taken into account	Canal authority CAN10	16.5	17.3	17.3
Sulina Canal	No specific point, total volumes on the canal are taken into account	Waterway Administration AFDJ11	4.5	5.1	10.6


Source: Danube Commission market observation
 
• On the Danube, and in particular on the Lower and Middle Danube, transport by pushed convoys represents a high proportion within total goods transport. At the measurement point of Mohács on the Middle Danube, pushed convoys transported 73.0% of all cargo in 2022, compared to 78.0% in 2021, 75.7% in 2020, 79.5% in 2019 and 78.7% in 2018.
• Due to the high-water depths in the lower Danube section, in particular in the Danube delta region (also known as ‘maritime Danube’), cargo transport in the Lower Danube area attains much higher values than on river sections further upstream. This is notably the case for the Danube-Black Sea Canal, running from Cernavodă on the Danube River to Constanţa on the Black Sea (southern arm) and to Năvodari (northern arm) on the Black Sea. In 2022, this canal had a transport volume of 17.3 million tonnes (same level as in 2021). Another estuary arm is the Sulina Canal, which flows into the Black Sea in the Danube delta region near the Romanian-Ukrainian border. Transport volumes on the Sulina canal more than doubled in 2022 compared to 2021 (10.6 million tonnes in 2022 compared to 5.1 million tonnes in 2021). This exceptional increase was driven by the blockade of Ukrainian seaports and the need to support Ukrainian exports of grain via alternative routes (‘Solidarity Lanes EU-Ukraine’). In this respect, the Danube Commission undertook a number of initiatives to contribute to solving problems related to the proper functioning of the Lower Danube corridor and to facilitate existing IWT logistics. It also promoted a more active use of the transport potential of the Danube waterway based on a systematic analysis of identified cargo flows and throughput capacity of the ports on the Lower Danube, including the Port of Constanţa.

 

Danube transport by cargo segment

• While the end of 2021 and first two months of 2022 were showing positive signs towards a certain growth in transport volumes on the Danube, the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine led to the emergence of several factors weighing heavily on Danube navigation: the energy crisis, the shortage and rise in iron ore prices, restrictions to the export of grain and other food products as well as rising fuel prices.
• As a result, in 2022, volumes of transport decreased for all cargo segments. This decrease was particularly marked in the downstream direction for grain and other agribulk, which nearly collapsed by losing -80% on the Middle Danube. Food products and feedstuff – although of a lower importance in terms of volume – diminished by -90%. This can partly be explained by the fact that Middle Danube countries, in particular Hungary and Serbia, imposed export restrictions for agricultural and food products in order to accumulate national stocks at the very beginning of the war. Fears of a future shortage of grain and foodstuff, and the possibility of another period of severe drought fuelled this phenomenon, known as ‘hoarding effect’ (see previous box on hoarding).

 

FIGURE 17: GOODS TRANSPORT ON THE MIDDLE DANUBE (IN MILLION TONNES)


Source: Danube Commission market observation
* At Mohács (southern Hungary – border area with Croatia and Serbia)

 
 

CONTAINER TRANSPORT PER COUNTRY IN EUROPE

THE WHOLE EUROPE AND GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURE

• With 12 billion TKM, more than 6 million TEU and over 52 million tonnes of cargo in containers, container transport on EU inland waterways represents 9.8% of the total IWW transport performance of approximately 122 billion TKM in the EU. Moreover, 99.4% of the container transport performance (TKM) takes place in Rhine countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg). Container transport on the Danube accounts for 0.5% and 0.1% in Sweden.

 

RHINE COUNTRIES

• In 2022, container transport measured in TEU regressed by -4.4% in the Netherlands, by -11.3% in Germany, by -8.6% in Belgium and progressed by +3.8% in France. In the Netherlands, 45.6 million tonnes of cargo were transported in containers (-9.8% compared to 2021), making this country the frontrunner in inland waterway container transport in Europe.

 

FIGURE 18: IWW CONTAINER TRANSPORT PER RHINE COUNTRY (IN MILLION TEU) *


Source: Eurostat [iww_go_actygo]
* In Luxembourg, 17,436; 14,132; and 9,995 TEU were recorded for 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively.

 

DANUBE COUNTRIES

• The two Danube countries with the highest container transport are currently Romania and Hungary. In 2022, 4,360 TEU were transported on Hungarian inland waterways. In Romania, container transport amounted to 22,675 TEU in 2022, which was a spurred increase compared to 2018, 2019 and 2020. Considering the weight of cargo, container transport on Hungarian waterways represented 9,000 tonnes in 2022. In Romania, 190,000 tonnes of cargo were transported in containers. These values illustrate the immense gap towards Rhine countries. In 2022, 45.6 million tonnes were transported in containers on inland waterways in the Netherlands, 19.0 million tonnes in Belgium, 18.3 million tonnes in Germany and 3.5 million tonnes in France.
• Container transport in Bulgaria reached 3,156 TEU in 2022. Over the last 15 years, no upward movement has been observed, and with a strong decline in 2017 and 2021, this has since remained at a more or less low level. In 2022, Austrian container transport reached 1,168 TEU.

INLAND NAVIGATION AND OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT

FIGURE 19: MODAL SPLIT SHARE OF INLAND TRANSPORT MODES IN THE EU-27 (IN %) 2009-2021


Source: Eurostat [tran_hv_frmod]
 
• Over the last decade, modal split shares have overall remained rather stable. However, the modal split of IWT at the level of the EU-27 has lost a 1.8 percentage point in the last 10 years, to reach 5.6% in 2021, its lowest level since 2005. It is well behind road transport (77.3% in 2021, +3.4 percentage points in the last 10 years) and rail transport (17.0%, -1.7 percentage point in the last 10 years). As many EU countries do not have inland waterways, the overall modal split of IWT at the EU level should not be used as a performance indicator for the success of inland waterway transport in the EU.

 

FIGURES 20 AND 21: IWW MODAL SPLIT EVOLUTION IN RHINE AND DANUBE COUNTRIES (IN %, BASED ON TONNE-KILOMETRES) *




Source: Eurostat [tran_hv_frmod]
* Share of inland waterway transport performance in total (IWT + Road + Rail) transport performance
 
• In the Netherlands, the IWW modal split increased until 2012, to reach a peak at 47.2%. It decreased in the following years, reaching 41.9% in 2021. Similar trends are visible in Belgium, Germany and France. In Luxembourg, the modal split of IWT has increased in recent years and has remained stable since 2019 (8.0% in 2021). Within Danube countries, Romania and Bulgaria record high IWT modal shares reaching respectively 25.1% and 24.4% in 2021. But the IWT modal share in both countries lost respectively 3.7 and 4.3 percentage points between 2020 and 2021, to the benefit of road transport. In 2020, the IWT modal share in Bulgaria had already lost 3 percentage points, which also benefited road transport.