Global container movements are increasing in comparison to actual trade, due to increasingly complex liner networks and the need for transhipment. These structures necessitate the repositioning of empty containers across the globe (e.g. from western importers back to eastern exporters) as well as within regions or port ranges (e.g. from feeder ports back to hub ports). This means that both loaded shipments and empty containers may travel much further than necessary if they were to go directly between the two ports nearest to the origin and destination. The number of empty container handlings has risen sharply but the percentage of total handlings has changed little since 2000. In 2011, 20.6% or 122m TEU of containers handled at ports worldwide were empty (Drewry, 2012). In an ideal scenario, a loaded container would travel from origin to destination, where it would be stripped and then reloaded for export to a new destination. In practice, there is not always an export load waiting; therefore, once a container has been emptied the empty box will be taken back to the nearest port or nominated depot. It may then wait there for a period of time until a local exporter requires it, or it may be sent back or “repositioned” to the Far East, where most exporting is done. Western countries generally are net importers, meaning there are not enough export loads to fill all the containers that arrive there with imported goods. Even if an export load is likely to be available, if the container must sit idle for more than 1-2 weeks then the loss of revenue becomes an issue and the container owner would rather send the container to China where a load will definitely be found. The problem arising from this system is that containers cost money to move, so the more empty or unproductive moves that take place, the higher the cost. The total cost in 2008 for worldwide empty container repositioning (both land and sea movements) was estimated at US$33 billion (Drewry, 2009). Initially this cost is borne by the shipping line, but, particularly in difficult economic periods, this cost is often passed on to the shipper. Exporters in peripheral regions face a disadvantage compared to better located competitors who do not have to pay this additional cost. The problem is further complicated in the case of a peripheral exporting region within a country that is an overall net importer. Thus exporters in a peripheral country like Scotland who require the provision of empty boxes have to pay this additional cost, which disadvantages shippers, penalising their trade costs compared to their competitors located near large ports with a greater supply of empty containers without an additional cost. The majority of papers on this topic use cost optimisation models to find the lowest cost balance of allocation and distribution of containers across a complex system. But the cost must still be paid. Such decisions are often made at the global level to manage containers on a macro scale with little consideration for a small exporting region requiring around 50,000 TEU of empty containers per year. Therefore, most papers on cost optimisation have also treated the decision on a global level (Braekers et al., 2011). This paper will address this gap in the literature by examining how this process can be influenced by local and regional stakeholders, particularly policy makers and planners who seek to support their exporting industries. This paper takes a regional approach, where the simplest and shortest distance to move a container is known, therefore cost reductions are not the issue. In this case, price is the issue, as when east-west freight rates were high, this repositioning cost was not passed on in full to peripheral shippers. Now that freight rates are at historic lows, carriers are passing on the full cost, so policy makers have an interest in innovative solutions to reduce the price paid by their shippers. Sections two and three review the literature on empty container repositioning to establish the reasons for the problem and potential solutions, the vast majority of which relate to cost optimisation models. Section four outlines the qualitative methodology of a single case study based on the Scottish case which is then presented in section five, including a detailed analysis of the movement of empty containers to and from Scottish ports, new structures of feeder shipping via British and continental hubs and inland movements of maritime containers in the context of other unitised trade flows (i.e. road trailers). Challenges identified in this analysis are used as the basis for the interview stage of the research, in which actions by four sets of stakeholders (shipping lines, ports, shippers, public sector agencies) are tested in semi-structured interviews and the findings presented in section six. The results are summarised in section seven, followed by conclusions. (Author/publisher)
Abstract