A 2.1 - IWT Bottlenecks and Potentials in the BSR Final Report Activity: WP 2, Activity 1 Version: finalised Date: 22/02/2019 Marcus Engler ISL EMMA – Report This document represents the intermediate Report of the EMMA Activity 2.1. It describes a collection of bottlenecks, some ideas how to overcome and probable positive effects in the countries of participating organisations. A bottleneck is described as an existing permanent obstacle for inland navigation in the partner countries. Since the inputs towards this report are researched and elaborated by the EMMA partners, some readers might miss individual bottlenecks. However the project did not aim at covering the entirety of all possible bottlenecks, but at covering everything of relevance regarding projects requirements. The requirements for this activity are set to cover all parts of all countries except for Germany: Since a coverage of the project is the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), Germany is analysed by its north eastern part: From the River Weser via the river Elbe up to the river Oder at the German-Polish Border. The named rivers run more or less in a north/south direction, in order to cover the region, all waterways between the Weser and the Oder more or less connecting these fairways in an east/west direction, are part of the research. The research was done using a questionnaire in a table format was created, containing 28 data fields with open and multiple choice questions. This document covers the outcome of the questionnaire with accompanying information about the countries characteristics to set a context. Please find the complete questionnaire with hints but without answers in the annex of this document. A total of 39 bottlenecks were collected in the countries Finland, named parts of Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. The number per country is very different: The most information was collected in the parts of Germany – since Germany has already a well-developed IWT system with a long tradition and history. Second highest number of bottlenecks (eleven) were identified in Poland with a rather low use of IWT, Sweden reported four bottlenecks, Finland two and Lithuania one. These different amounts can be observed when reading through the individual country information: for Sweden, Finland and Lithuania each bottleneck is describes whereas for Poland and Germany a summary is given. The terms “Inland navigation” or “inland water transport” (IWT) is used throughout this document also with respect to lake sea navigation. The sequence of countries in this report is according to alphabetical order. Contrary to the description of EMMA Activity 2.1, costs regarding the overcome of bottlenecks are not included in this report. The research unveiled a range of cost from none to multi-million Euro investments for infrastructural enhancements. But these figures show just a part of the truth: anticipated costs would be given, but these figures might be completely different to real cost (e.g. cost initially expected and actual cost for the new airport in Berlin, BER) and furthermore, administration and lobby cost are not determinable. Since this project is also about such aspects, absolute or relative cost would distort the reality and might impeach credibility of this project. A 2.1 Page 1 / 29 Content A 2.1 Final Report .................................................................................................................................... 0 1 Finland .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Bottlenecks .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Assessment of effects on elimination of bottlenecks ............................................................... 6 1.3 Positive twist to regions from infrastructure investment in Saimaa Canal .............................. 7 2 Germany ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Bottlenecks .............................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Assessment of effects on elimination of bottlenecks ............................................................. 10 2.3 Positive twist to regions from infrastructure investment in Germany .................................... 12 3 Lithuania ......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Bottlenecks at the River Nemunas ........................................................................................ 13 3.2 Curonian lagoon and river Nemunas ..................................................................................... 14 4 Poland ............................................................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Bottlenecks ............................................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Assessment of effects on elimination of bottlenecks ............................................................. 17 4.3 Positive twist to regions from infrastructure investment in Poland ........................................ 19 5 Sweden .......................................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Bottlenecks ............................................................................................................................ 21 5.2 Assessment of effects on elimination of bottlenecks ............................................................. 23 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 24 6.1 Vessel Classes ...................................................................................................................... 24 6.2 Border Rivers ......................................................................................................................... 24 6.3 Maintenance Works ............................................................................................................... 24 6.4 Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................... 24 6.5 Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 25 6.6 Elemination of Bottlenecks anmd positive Twists summary .................................................. 25 7 Annex A: the IWT Bottleneck Questionnaire .................................................................................. 26 7.1 Type of Bottleneck ................................................................................................................. 27 A 2.1 Page 2 / 29 7.2 Vessel Classification .............................................................................................................. 28 7.3 Status of bottleneck elimination ............................................................................................. 28 7.4 Expected Effect ..................................................................................................................... 29 A 2.1 Page 3 / 29 List of tables and figures Figure 1.1 Map of Finland 5 Figure 1.1 Map of Germany 10 List 3.1 German IWT potential 11 Figure 3.2 Map of German IWT potentials 11 Figure 4.1 Map of Lithuania 13 Figure 4.2 The mouth of the river Atmata - Klaipeda state seaport 14 Figure 4.3 The mouth of the river Atmata - Jurbarkas 15 Figure 4.4 Jurbarkas - Kaunas 15 Figure 5.1 Map of Poland 17 List 5.1 Polish IWT potential 18 Figure 5.2 Map of Polish IWT potentials 19 Figure 6.1 Map of Sweden 21 Figure 7.1 The Questionnaire used for EMMA Bottleneck Collection 26 A 2.1 Page 4 / 29 1 FINLAND Finland is a country with about 16,200 km coastal routes and inland waterways, of which about 4,000 km are used commercially. The most important fairway is the Lake Saimaa area with a length of about 772 km and 1,200 vessels calling per year. 1.1 Bottlenecks 1.1.1 The Saimaa Canal Both bottlenecks in Finland described below are connected with the Saimaa Canal. This canal was opened in 1856 and connects Lake Saimaa with the Gulf of Finland. It connects many lakes and was always of strong interest for the Finnish forest industry. The canal is located on Finnish and Russian territory. The dimensions of the Saimaa canal defines its own vessel sizes separate from the UN ECE Blue book, this type is called Saimax1. The canal currently contains eight locks. By enlarging all locks by 12 meters in length would benefit the traffic in Saimaa inland waterway by increasing the vessel fleet from approximately 30 to 90 and thus increased efficiency and reliability of this IWT. This is seen as cost at a medium range. Another political issue is the possibility to increase the water level in the Saimaa Canal by 10 cm. This measure together with a solution to stabilise the dams in the Canal is technically possible but requires a permission of The Water Court. These measures would enhance cost efficiency and reliability of this waterway at a relatively low cost. Figure 1.1 to the right shows a map2 of Finland with the approximate location