Joint Session of Trade and Environment Experts · Web viewThe principal exception is the agricultural sector, for which, according to the macro-economic model, trade is forecast to

Restricted COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques OLIS : 24-May-1996Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Dist. : 29-May-1996__________________________________________________________________________________________

Or. Eng.TRADE DIRECTORATEENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE

Joint Session of Trade and Environment Experts

TRADE LIBERALISATION AND CHANGES IN INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT MOVEMENTS

Paris, 3-5 June 1996

34152 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origineComplete document available on OLIS in its original format

Restricted

CO

M/T

D/E

NV

(96)73 O

r. Eng.

The attached note addresses Part I of the Joint Session's outline on a transport sector study.

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction........................................................................................................................................II. Changes in international trade and transport flows following Uruguay Round liberalisation................

Results of the simulations:..................................................................................................................By commodity sector:.........................................................................................................................By country/region:..............................................................................................................................Forecasts for growth in international transport for 2004.......................................................................

III. Changes in European transport flows under trade liberalisation and growth scenarios.........................A) Effects on European transport of eliminating NTBs in certain manufacturing sectors......................B) Trade and transport in 2005 in the EU............................................................................................

Results............................................................................................................................................IV. Concluding remarks..........................................................................................................................

Box 1: The Uruguay Round experiments using the GTAP model...............................................................

Box 2: DRI/World Sea Trade Service data and forecast (a).........................................................................

Chart 1 - Volume of Total Exports and Output............................................................................................

Table 1 - International Air and Maritime Freight.........................................................................................

Chart 2 - International Maritime Freight......................................................................................................

Chart 3 - International Air and Maritime Freight.........................................................................................

Table 2 - Sea Transport in 2004: Changes due to Trade Liberalisation........................................................

Table 3 - Sea Transport in 2004: Changes due to Trade Liberalisation.........................................................





Table 8 - World Seaborne Trade and Transport by Commodity Sector, 2004...............................................

Chart 4 - Change in Sea Transport due to Trade Liberalisation....................................................................

Table 9 - Sea Transport in 2004: Growth Forecast by WSTS......................................................................

Table 10 - Sea Transport in 2004: Growth Forecast by WSTS....................................................................

2

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Table 11 - Sea Transport in 2004: Growth Forecast by WSTS....................................................................

Table 12 - Percentage Increases in Trade Volumes and Trade Flows............................................................

Table 13 - International Trade Flows for Europe, Intra EC-12 and EC-12 with Rest of World......................

Table 14 - International Trade within EC-12 and with Non-EC Countries....................................................

Table 15 - Modal Split of EC-12 Trade in 2005...........................................................................................

3

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

I. Introduction

1. International trade brings with it the concomitant need to transport goods from producers in the exporting country to consumers in the importing country. The transport of goods places a variety of stresses on the environment1. As trade liberalisation is designed to promote international trade, does it therefore follow that international transport and thus stress on the environment will increase?

2. Stress on the environment arising from freight transport can be approached by measuring the volume (weight) of traded goods and the distance such goods are carried. Attention is then paid to the particular environmental stresses imposed by the different modes of freight used to transport the total volume of goods from their origin to their destination. In analysing the relationships between trade liberalisation, international transport and the environment, it is necessary to keep in mind therefore the effect of trade liberalisation both on quantities traded and distances transported.

3. Quantities traded have been rising regularly and have tended to displace national production. For example, Graph 1 illustrates this well-known relationship between the growth in the volume of world exports and that of output: since 1980, the former has grown 80 per cent, or some two to three times faster, than the latter’s expansion rate of 29 per cent. Trade liberalisation, both multilateral exercises as well as regional and even unilateral reduction of trade barriers, is generally acknowledged to have played an important role in this expansion in the volume of trade.

4. With a lowering of trade barriers, patterns of production change as lower cost producers abroad more easily find markets in countries where border measures have been reduced. Viewed from the point of view of one (lower cost) foreign supply and one (higher cost) domestic producer, trade liberalization would tend to result in goods being transported greater distances.

5. But in a world with many exporting and consuming countries, transport distances will not necessarily increase following trade liberalisation. It is conceivable that a neighbouring producer may find new export markets across a close border, displacing exports from sources further away. This possibility exists particularly in the context of regional liberalisation schemes, which may raise the incidence of border measures vis-à-vis external suppliers. Thus trade creation among neighbouring states can lead to overall lowered transport.

6. At the same time, the most recent round of multilateral trade liberalisation has progressively brought greater discipline in the use of domestic and export subsidies for domestically produced goods. Thus it can also be expected that goods formerly competitive in foreign markets because they were subsidised, will have to compete with local production in these foreign markets and with other, non-subsidised exporters. This may lead to greater reliance on local production and/or to trade from other sources. For example, following the full implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, commitments to lower domestic support measures and export subsidies should lead to changed trade patterns in commodities such as wheat and beef. Consequences for overall levels of international transport for such formerly exported goods will depend on the relative locations of the former high-cost (but subsidised) suppliers and the new lower-cost (including domestic) exporters/producers.

7. On the whole, it may be expected that the global lowering of trade barriers will lead to increased quantities in transport, as in most cases the volume of goods traded increases. But since at the same time

1 An overview of such stresses by transport mode are presented in the report [COM/TD/ENV(96)73] dealing with Phase II of the transport sector study.

4

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

individual bilateral trade flows will change, the transport flows in particular commodities, that is their origin and destination and hence the distances involved, will probably vary.

8. Evaluating the overall effects of trade liberalisation on international transport flows -- both in terms of overall volume and individual inter-regional flows to determine distances goods are transported -- becomes therefore essentially an empirical question.

9. Following this introduction, Section II sets out the results of a few exercises isolating the relationship of global trade liberalization to inter-regional freight movements. The first of these reports on two comparative statics exercises simulating trade flows in 2004, attributable to full implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments to reduce import tariffs and domestic support and export subsidies in the agriculture sector. As a point of reference, these are compared with a private firm's forecast of growth in trade flows for the year 2004, based on macro-economic models and incorporating projected growth effects additional to those attributable to trade liberalisation. Two other exercises focusing on Europe are summarised in Part III. The first simulates the effect of eliminating non-tariff barriers in a few manufacturing sectors. The second again serves as a point of comparison by simulating overall transport growth, commodity sector changes and modal split in intra-European freight transport flows based on three scenarios for the year 2005. The relationship between freight related to international trade and that which is purely domestic is also discussed.

10. A final section concludes by pointing out the partial nature of these exercises. Lacunae in the analysis, particularly for modal split in North America and intra-European freight movements attributable to trade liberalisation, are emphasised.

II. Changes in international trade and transport flows following Uruguay Round liberalisation

11. In order to measure the changes in international freight movements attributable to trade liberalisation, it is necessary to try and isolate the changes in the quantity of goods moving in international trade arising from the reduction of trade barriers and then examine the changes in distance associated with these changes in regional trade flows.

12. In attempting to isolate the effect of trade liberalisation on international freight movements, the Secretariat has used a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to simulate the effects on world exports of reductions in import tariffs and domestic and export subsidies as agreed to in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Three experiments were run, two simulating Uruguay Round commitments and one combining Uruguay Round and NAFTA cuts in border and support measures. The results of this one-time price shock applied to the existing base year (1992) data for the thirteen regions in the model represents an exercise in comparative statics -- isolating only the effect of price changes arising from the changes in border measures and domestic support; no account is taken of growth in the world economy from other factors. These simulated changes in bilateral trade flows for a series of 13 commodity groups were then compared to the base year (1992) seaborne trade data.2 Table 7 gives an

2 Viewing international trade globally as the exchange of goods among the major trading partners located in Europe, North America and Asia, goods move inter-continentally mainly by sea. Table 1 shows that maritime trade in 1995 amounted to an estimated 4.7 billion (thousand million) tonnes representing some 37 trillion (thousand thousand million) tonne-kilometres. Evolution since 1980 of total maritime trade for the main commodities transported is illustrated inChart 2. In comparison, air freight moved only some 13 million tonnes internationally or some 70 billion

5

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

overview of the changes in seaborne trade, for all 13 individual sectors plus all commodities for both of the Uruguay Round simulations run with the global trade model. The third combining the effects of Uruguay Round and NAFTA trade liberalisation commitments is not reported on here. Details on the model used and the two Uruguay Round experiments appear in Box 1.

Results of the simulations:

13. As was suggested in Section I above, bilateral trade flows resulting from the simulation of full implementation of Uruguay Round commitments vary with the bilateral trade relation, and the commodity sector, in question. Put another way, certain countries/regions will export smaller quantities, for example of agricultural products to other regions, and import more of the same, but export more tonnes of, say, consumer goods. On the surface, however, measuring the changed trade flow in tonnes provides no immediate answer to the question of the total effect on international freight movements.

14. In order to obtain the corresponding change in volume of transport, the new, post Uruguay Round bilateral trade flows, measured in tonnes, were converted to a unit of weight-distance by multiplying each of the bilateral country/regional trade flows by the distance between each of the major ports in question. The results, in tonne-kilometres, were calculated as indices representing changes from the tonne-kilometre base year data. These appear in Table 2-7 for the complete origin/destination matrix of trade flows between the twelve exporting and importing countries/regions for all commodities and the two sectors showing the greatest degree of change: agricultural products and textiles, apparel and footwear. In addition, an overview of the changes in both tonnes and tonne-kilometres for all individual sectors is shown in Table 8.

15. Overall, for all regions and all commodities, full implementation of Uruguay Round commitments on import tariffs, the MFA and export subsidies would lead to an increase of 4.7 (UR1) to 4.4 per cent (UR2) in seaborne trade. Both of these figures are larger than the corresponding increases (3.6 and 3.5 per cent) in total post Uruguay Round tonnage of goods exchanged (Table 8). Globally therefore, trade liberalisation, as simulated in these two experiments, would lead to a greater quantity of goods travelling longer distances.

By commodity sector:

16. Looking at individual sectors, large above average increases in transport would occur in textiles and apparel (75 to 81 per cent) and for agriculture ( 9 to 14 per cent), sectors where pre-Uruguay Round protection and support were high. Whereas transport involved in new amounts of agricultural goods would decrease slightly, even larger increases in transport would be associated with the already large increases in trade volume of textiles, apparel and footwear. The complete elimination of the trade

tonne-kilometres or less than 0.2% of total air and maritime international freight, although growth rates in air freight are much higher (see Table 1 and Chart 3). It is clear that inter-continental trade moves almost exclusively by sea. For this reason, it is on the basis of detailed seaborne trade data that the Secretariat has carried out its simulations to isolate the global trade liberalisation factor in international transport. Details on the seaborne trade data used appear in Box 2.

6

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Box 1: The Uruguay Round experiments using the GTAP model

For this trade liberalisation/international transport study, the Secretariat had access to the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to carry out a series of Uruguay Round experiments to simulate the effects on bilateral trade flows of the reduction of import tariffs and export subsidies and the elimination of the MFA. GTAP consists both of a global database and a standard modelling framework. The trade data in the base by commodity group and region were grouped to form the 14 commodity groups shown in Table 8 and the 12 regions used in the origin/destination matrices in Tables 2-7 Within the model for each export commodity, an accounting relation exists where various domestic taxes (or subsidies), such as producer taxes, export duties are added up to the point of the border and then in the world market and domestic importing market continue to have taxes added, e.g. import tariffs, up to the final domestic sales point. Each database contains full intersectoral detail, based on published input-output tables. Model users can readily modify the closure of the model, that is the split between exogenous and endogenous variables. In the case of the simulations run for this note, the relevant price variables were changed, introducing a price shock for each of the relevant commodity groups and bilateral trade flows. Thus, for example the import tariffs in OECD countries and developing countries were reduced by the amounts indicated below for the two Uruguay Round experiments. With the new values for the composite prices, the model is closed, i.e. run to solve simultaneously all the constraining conditions to find new equilibrium output levels. A whole series of output data are available, e.g. on trade values, domestic prices, fob or c.i.f. prices, as well as other economy-wide variables (private and government consumption, welfare measures, prices etc.) In the case of the Uruguay Round experiments, the percentage change in quantity of export sales was retained. Statistical tests for the experiments showed accuracy in the results of between 3 and 6 decimal places.

First Uruguay Round Experiment: Industrialised countries’ import tariffs on agricultural products were reduced by 36 percent and on non-agricultural products by 40 percent. Industrialised countries also reduce export subsidies applied to agricultural products by 36 percent. Since domestic support measures on agriculture, also a part of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, are generally considered to have reached the agreed reductions, no further reduction was made. Other countries’ import tariffs on all products and export subsidies applied to agricultural products were reduced by 24 per cent. The Multi-Fibre Agreement was eliminated.

Second Uruguay Round Experiment: A more nuanced approach to the reduction of import tariffs was taken, based on the weighted estimates made by the GATT Secretariat in November 1994. Industrialised countries’ import tariffs on agricultural products were reduced by 25 percent and on non agricultural products as follows: minerals: 52 percent; coal, oil and gas: 50 percent; lumber, wood and paper products: 69 percent; textiles and apparel: 22 percent; transport equipment: 23 percent; other manufacturing: 55 percent. Export subsidies of industrialised countries applied to agricultural products were reduced by 25 percent. Other countries’ import tariffs on agricultural products were reduced by 15 percent and on non-agricultural products by 24 percent. Their export subsidies applied to agricultural products decline by 15 percent. The MFA was eliminated.

restrictive MFA and the large distances these goods would be travelling from Asian to European and North American markets (see Tables 4 and 7) explain this increase.

17. Above average increases, but to a lesser extent, can also be noted in Table 8 for chemicals and fertilisers (6.3 to 8.5 %), metal products (7.6 to 8.2%) and lumber and wood (5.9 to 7.2%). All these commodities would be transported greater distances, although to a varied extent. Transport for

7

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

chemicals/fertilisers, which are heavy, bulk commodities, appear particularly sensitive to the importance of the cut in import tariffs: in the second UR experiment, transport increases by one-third more than under the first UR.

18. On the other hand, raw materials (non-agricultural) show below average increases in both quantities traded and transport involved. Ores/ building materials/non-metallic minerals; coal; and crude oil faced relatively low levels of protection before the Uruguay Round and were already large components of total world seaborne shipping in terms of intercontinental trade. Trade liberalisation does not change either the amounts nor the direction appreciably of this trade. Coal is one of only two sectors where transport actually decreases relative to increased quantities traded. In other words, following implementation of the Uruguay Round, more coal can be expected to travel shorter distances.

19. For one other sector, transport equipment, including automobiles, the new level of trade with full implementation of the Uruguay Round cuts, is associated with less transport. For all major export markets, except Japan, South/Southeast Asia and China/East Asia, transport associated with the changed levels of trade decreases following the Uruguay Round. In the case of the second UR experiment total trade in transport equipment actually decreases by 1.4 per cent.

By country/region:

20. For all flows in the origin/destination tables (Tables 2 and 5) for all commodities, with only three exceptions, transport associated with changed levels of trade increases. These exceptions are transport associated with the new levels of Japanese and South/Southeast Asian exports and African/Middle East imports (Table 5 for UR2). On the other hand, transport associated with all Western European and North American post UR exports increases more than the world average of 4.4 per cent in the case of the first UR experiment; in the case of the second experiment, transport of Western European exports remains just below the global average. On the import side, all Asian markets have greater than average transport increases. The largest increase in transport among the various trade flows would arise from US exports to all three Asian markets (23 to 24 per cent in the case of the first UR experiment; 18-21 per cent in the case of the second experiment). Imports from all three Asian sub-regions’ are associated with transport increases above the world average.

21. Comparing the indices for tonnes of goods traded post-UR with those in tonne-kilometres for the transport associated with these changed levels of trade flows, gives a picture of which regions have new levels of trade associated with increases (decreases) in transport; for example whether increased volumes of imports are arriving from further afield. As can be seen in Table 8, globally, inter-continental transport increases about one percentage point more than the volume of goods traded. Regionally, for Western Europe and all three North American countries, transport of post UR exports is greater than the volume of exports, implying that these regions are exporting longer distances. This can be illustrated with the case of the US with its relatively larger increases in exports (+ 18 to 24 per cent) going to the three Asian markets than to Europe (+13 %) or its NAFTA partners (+6%). On the other hand, all three North American countries, unlike Western Europe, are, on balance, importing from relatively closer to home. Japan, on the other hand, has higher levels of transport associated with its new levels of imports but lower transport for its exports: i.e. it would be importing from farther away and exporting to closer markets, following implementation of the Uruguay Round. These differences in changed levels of transport for exports and imports are illustrated in Chart 4 for six of the main countries/regions.

8

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Box 2: DRI/World Sea Trade Service data and forecast (a)

Seaborne trade data, in tonnes, from the DRI/WSTS service were used in conjunction with the GTAP model output, in terms of percentage change of export sales, to derive the new bilateral trade flows which would result from implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments on trade liberalisation. The WSTS sea trade data covers all commodities which are grouped in 40 main groups, with further detail for certain agricultural products and manufactures. For the OECD exercise, it was possible to match closely the commodity groups used by GTAP with those in WSTS. WSTS currently has 34 reporter countries, covering the OECD region and the important Asian trading countries, and 55 partner nations in their trade data base. As for all trade data bases, particularly in terms of quantity, flows between developing countries and between eastern Europe and developing countries are deficient. For this reason, in the O/D matrices, these flows appear as NA -- not available. It is estimated that approximately 85 per cent of global trade flows are reported. It was felt that the analysis could be carried forward on the basis of this coverage, particularly as it was being carried out on the basis of percentage change. It should however be borne in mind that total figures for world exports/imports of all commodities are incomplete.

The World Trade forecast is developed from a series of 59 trade models that relate country and regional macro-economic developments as well as production and consumption data to trade flows for each commodity group. This structure enables DRI to link import and export forecasts to domestic developments and to supply and demand projections. Individual region and commodity specialists then make adjustments to the baseline forecast, with their knowledge of supply problems or where trends from models produce unlikely trends. A constant process of comparison and adjustment goes on between new data as it arrives and modelling results. A complete set of forecasts is produced each quarter. The forecast used in this note was that for the first quarter of 1996. In producing its quarterly World Sea Trade Service, DRI co-operates with Mercer Management Consulting, specialists in shipping questions.

_____(a) OECD Secretariat access to the DRI/WSTS data base and forecast for 2004 was made possible through financial support from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, Office of Intermodal Planning.

Forecasts for growth in international transport for 2004

22. As a point of reference, forecasts made by DRI/World Sea Trade Service for seaborne trade in 2004, the year of full implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments, are also included, by sector in Table 8. In addition, Tables 9, 10 and 11 show the same origin/destination matrix as used for the Uruguay Round experiments for the same commodity sectors (all commodities; agriculture; textiles/apparel/footwear). These growth forecasts are based on detailed macro-economic models (details in Box 2). They do not per se take trade liberalisation commitments into account.

23. As can immediately be seen from comparing the two UR experiments with the growth forecast, the figures are of a different magnitude. Instead of increases of 4-5 per cent for international transport,

9

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

increases of 70+ per cent are foreseen for 2004. Sectoral increases, which ranged in the trade liberalisation scenarios from -2 to +9/14 % (with the exception of textiles/apparel at 75%), would according to the forecast, amount to from 45 to 188 per cent. This is the reflection of the fact that the growth in volume of trade is largely attributable to factors other than trade liberalisation.

24. As for the trade liberalisation scenarios, the forecast of growth in trade shows lower rates for primary and intermediate goods. On the other hand, trade and transport are significantly higher, by up to one hundred per cent, for intermediate products and manufactures. The principal exception is the agricultural sector, for which, according to the macro-economic model, trade is forecast to grow at about the same rate as other non-agricultural primary goods. Intermediate inputs, such as paper, chemicals and metals grow at the much higher rates associated with manufactures.

25. Overall, international transport, as expressed in tonne-kilometres, increases slightly more (+71%) than the volume of trade (+ 66%). The increase of transport relative to that for forecast trade is much less than in the trade liberalisation scenarios. In the first and second UR experiments transport increases relative to trade increases range from 25 to 30 per cent; under the WSTS forecast, growth in tonne-kilometres would only be about 9 percent greater than the increase in volumes traded. This relatively lower transport increase is undoubtedly influenced by the heavy weight of raw materials, such as ores, coal and petroleum for which transport grows less than amounts traded.

III. Changes in European transport flows under trade liberalisation and growth scenarios

A) Effects on European transport of eliminating NTBs in certain manufacturing sectors

26. In an empirical study by Gabel and Röller3, the authors examine the effects of the elimination of EC non-tariff barriers on international transport demand, including the impact on the modal split of changed demand.4 Using a series of twelve explanatory variables to represent factors associated with inter- and intra-industry trade, they use seemingly unrelated regression techniques across fourteen manufacturing industries (the remaining fifteen sectors not facing any NTBs) to calibrate past structural trade relations in order to predict future trade patterns. For each of the four main EC importers, regressions were run for exports, using 1975 to 1985 data from the other three main importers plus six groups., Benelux, Iberia, Greece, Scandinavia, Austria, and Switzerland, and COMECON, to yield 36 sets of regression results.

27. Since their purpose was to study transport patterns within Europe where tariffs were generally zero. they did not analyse the elimination of the EC common external tariff. For non-tariff barriers, a dummy ordinal variable ranging from 0 to 3 was used to represent the importance of NTBs, at the industry level, on intra-European trade. The elimination of the Multi-Fibre Agreement, and other NTBs directed towards imports from non-EC countries, were not analysed.

28. Setting the NTBs to zero, they used their regression results to predict import volumes. By comparing the predicted values with the original trade volume, they calculated trade expanded with liberalisation. Overall, trade volumes increased in all industries, though not all specific bilateral trade flows. By recalculating the changed trade volumes with distances between each pair of trading countries, they obtained a set of percentage increases in trade flows. These were labelled in unit-kilometres since

3 H. Landis Gabel and Lars-Hendrik Röller (1992), “Trade Liberalization, Transportation and the Environment”, The Energy Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 185-206.4 As the authors do not explain how they arrive at the new modal split, the results of this part of their work are not reported on.

10

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

apparently it was not possible to convert all volume data into tonnes. Unlike the results on changed volume of trade, where intra-EC trade grew more, trade flows in distance units tended to be greater for exports to the EC from non-EC countries. This indicated that the further distances imports would be travelling from outside the Community offset the greater volume increases in intra EC trade. Overall for the fourteen manufacturing industries, they found that not only did the unit volumes increase from elimination of NTBs, but on average each unit (with the exception of three sectors) had to move farther from producer to consumer.

29. Their published results for the fourteen sectors appear in Table 12, showing percentage increases in trade volumes and percentage increases in trade flows in unit-kilometres.

30. It is difficult to compare this exercise with the one carried out by the Secretariat. First of all, different kinds of trade barriers were being analysed: Gabel and Röller only study non-tariff barriers, and the comparative restrictiveness of NTBs and import tariffs is not known since only a rough scale of 0 to 3 was used to qualify NTBs. The European study only looks at one-half of manufacturing industries instead of all commodities, as in the Uruguay Round experiments. Since Gabel and Röller did not use a common unit of volume, it is not possible either to have an idea of the base levels involved (large percentage increases from very low levels could still represent insignificant increases in overall transport demand.). Instead of using a CGE model as in the Uruguay Round experiments, regression techniques were used to establish structural relations based on 1975-85 data among European trading partners. In the case of the Uruguay Round experiments, the CGE model is a price-based model and recalculates trade flows by applying changed prices (e.g. lower tariffs or export subsidies) to country/region specific trade flows. These latter experiments also treated Europe as a single bloc and did not therefore look at intra-EC trade.

31. Nonetheless, by comparing the results for the three manufacturing sectors in the Uruguay Round experiments, one can make a number of superficial comparisons. In general, both simulations found that trade volumes (quantities) increased with elimination/reduction of trade barriers. Secondly, both found that distances the increased volume of goods were transported generally increased following trade liberalisation. Thus the general directions of change coincide. The magnitude of the European study’s percentage changes are much larger. In the Uruguay Round experiments, volume increases were of the order of 0 to 9 per cent, with the exception of agriculture and textiles/apparel (two sectors not covered by Gabel and Röller); here they range from 16 to 133 per cent. Increases in transport associated with increased trade flows ranged for the European study from 17 to 160 per cent, whereas the UR experiments threw up much smaller transport increases.

32. Most fundamentally, caution should be expressed about drawing general conclusions on changes in transport demand due to the fact that overall, the manufacturing sectors examined do not represent a sizeable portion of international trade in terms of quantities transported.

11

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

B) Trade and transport in 2005 in the EU

33. In a six volume study undertaken for DG VII (for Transport) of the European Commission, the Dutch Transport research and training Institute (NEA) undertook a detailed review of the prospects in 2005 for freight transport in and amongst the (then) 12 EC member States. Whilst not specifically designed to measure the effect of trade liberalisation, one of the main impetus for the study was the realisation that freight movements were showing a shift from a national to an international perspective, due inter alia to the implementation of the Single Market. Liberalisation of the various transport markets as well as harmonisation of fiscal and other measures within the Union were also taken into account. In addition, considerable effort was expended to fill the lacunae of the existing transport data bases and develop a modal split model based on service (time) and cost considerations. For these reasons, the results of these studies are of particular interest to the Joint Session’s exercise, both the current Phase I and the future Phase III.

34. The study focuses on the 12 European Community Member States of 1993 plus Austria and Switzerland, due to their geographic contiguity and importance as transit States in European transport. Using 1990 as a base year, a coherent data base was constructed, focusing not only on trade and transport flows within and to/from each of the 14 countries, but also studying the transhipment of goods. This latter was done with a view to develop “transport chains”, to avoid double counting in amalgamating national statistics and to have one overview of trade flows and the corresponding transport from port of origin in Europe to final destination. Data was collected on a slightly adapted version of the European transport nomenclature for 11 commodity groups, with detail for five transport modes. Based on the complete 1990 data, and using a gravity trade model, parameters or elasticities were derived econometrically and combined with agreed scenarios on growth for 2005, worked out with other forecasting institutes. Due to the profound upheaval in Eastern Europe, special effort was expended by MEA to forecast trade for these countries based on structural relations within Western Europe rather than on the basis of past COMECON trade. Following calculation of total demand for trade, a separate modal split model was developed based on data and projections for transport time (e.g. taking into account planned infrastructure improvements) and costs (including those of various regulatory measures). A separate time algorithm and mode specific tariff was computed for each origin/destination relation

35. Three scenarios were constructed for the year 2005. The first or Reference scenario is based on a continuation of European integration and uses economic parameters incorporating growth rates in GDP averaging 2.1 to 2.2% for the main EU members. Transport parameters for cost and time incorporated most of the assumptions on liberalisation and EU harmonisation of road and fuel taxes and weights; speed limitation; introduction of environmental taxes and abolition of customs formalities, etc.

36. The second scenario, called Integrated (i.e. environmental considerations were integrated), is based on the assumption that EU environmental policy is harmonised with the other Western European countries. Production shifts away from polluting sectors, such as agriculture, fertilisers, ores, and primary metals and favours certain sectors, i.e. environmental services and use of advanced materials and adopts an energy-substitution strategy. For the transport sector, most of the environmental and road taxes were those used in the Reference scenario.

37. The third scenario called Growth, is one based on high growth rates, assuming a strong recovery from the recession of the early 1990s. It is not differentiated according to sector as in the integrated scenario. Average GDP growth rates move up to 2.4 per cent from 2.1 per cent in the initial period. Unlike in the Integrated scenario, environmentally damaging sectors are not growth restrained.

12

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Results

38. Table 13 sets out a succinct overview of the results, comparing the base year data with the three scenarios for the international trade components of the NEA work. Both intra-EC-12 trade and EC-12 trade with non-Community countries is presented. As a point of comparison, the share of these international trade flows as a percentage of total EC national and international freight is also given. The Secretariat has added transport equivalencies for the EC-12 trade flows, calculated with distance data. Overall differences in levels of international trade arising from the three scenarios are slight, particularly as between the first two. This is due to the relatively small differences in growth rates used in the economic parameters and the similarity of the transport policy measures used in all three scenarios. Transport flows, measured in tonne-kilometres show a slight relative increase vis-à-vis trade increases, indicating that trade travels further distances than in 1990. Overall, the share of international trade flows in total freight increases about one and one half percentage points, indicating that this component is more dynamic. However the lion’s share of total freight -- more than three quarters -- continues to come from purely domestic freight movements

39. Differentiation by commodity sector (Table 14) shows wider variations in comparison with the 1990 composition. Here, as in the Uruguay Round experiments described above in section II, trade in ores, coal and petroleum stagnate. The dynamic sectors, particularly with non-EC members, are agriculture and foodstuffs and manufactures (including textiles/apparel). Intermediate products such as fertilisers, and chemical and metal products show levels of expansion close to the all commodity average. Overall, the same relative movements can be noted as in the Uruguay Round experiments: trade shifts from non-agricultural raw materials to agriculture/food and manufactured goods, with intermediate products expanding at average rates.

40. Unfortunately the NEA study did not calculate transport flows in tonne-kilometres. However the Secretariat has done this to add indices of growth in tonne-kilometres for intra EC-12 trade. These show a small increase in distances travelled for trade among Community countries.

41. The NEA study is of particular interest to the Joint Session, in that it calculates modal split for the projected trade flows in 2005. Table 15 shows the relative shares for each of the five main modes. Road and rail show the greatest increase for international trade-related transport. The remaining three modes -- the “other” category (mostly pipelines) and waterborne freight, both on rivers/canals and maritime -- share the corresponding decreases in modal split.

42. For all freight, national and international, the road transport mode continues to grow faster and takes, in all three scenarios, some 75 per cent of total EU freight and 90 percent of domestic freight. Rail on the other hand decreases slightly and would move only 6 per cent of all freight in 2005. In this perspective, international freight movements, generally representing longer hauls, are in much better position to remain competitive with road. However, the continued omnipresence of road transport overshadows any small gains projected for rail. On the other hand, trade in the bulk commodities, carried to a large extent by water freight modes and pipelines, show stagnant growth trends, explaining the decrease in these modes’ share.

43. In conclusion, the detailed work by the NEA does not provide a direct answer concerning the contribution of trade liberalisation to changes in international freight movements. However, this study is of interest to the Joint Session’s transport sector study. It underscores the relatively small, albeit growing, role of international trade in Europe in the context of overall freight movements. It also emphasises the importance of defining growth scenarios for studying the overall likely impact on freight movements, due to the various changes in the commodity composition of trade. As for the global experiments undertaken in Section II above, the NEA study shows that transport flows change most with changes in trade for

13

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

individual commodity sectors. These in turn have a direct impact on the use of a particular transport mode. In this context, the detailed data on modal split would be invaluable for Phase III of the Joint Session’s project, designed, on the basis of case studies for Europe and North America, to add on the environmental effects of changes in international transport attributable to trade liberalisation

IV. Concluding remarks

44. Simulations based on Uruguay Round commitments to reducing trade-distorting measures indicate that overall, increases in international sea transport will increase slightly. But the magnitude and direction of such changes will vary widely by export or import flow, commodity sector and region. A few post-trade liberalisation trade flows even show relative decreases in international transport. This analysis holds globally, but has not examined changes within Europe. Nor has the analysis addressed how these inter-continental freight movements arrive at final destination, due to the lack of inland modal split data for North America. More particularly:

- overall increases in the global volume of goods traded due to the Uruguay Round liberalisation represents something of the order of 3 to 4 per cent and the international transport associated with these changes in regional trade flows is about one-quarter more -- in the range of 4 to 5 per cent. This percentage increase represents an additional 1.2 trillion tonne-kilometres of seaborne freight relative to 1992 levels;

- per cent changes among commodity sectors are important, with the previously highly protected sectors showing important increases in trade (9-14 per cent for agriculture and 44-49 per cent for textiles/apparel) but not necessarily relatively larger increases in transport. The new level of agricultural goods are transported less far, whereas the large increases in trade of textiles/apparel are associated with even greater increases in international transport;

- manufactured goods in general (with the exception of transport equipment) show above average increases in trade expansion and are transported relatively even further;

- the continued dominance of heavy, bulk commodities, such as ores, coal and petroleum, in global seaborne trade and their stagnant levels of trade and stagnant or even decreasing distances transported, dampens the total increase in world transport for all commodities;

- regional differences in terms of the changes in transport are also clearly evident: in terms of exports to all destinations, US exports would show the largest associated growth in transport, whereas all Asian sub-regions would take imports transported from above world average distances.

- regional differences are even more pronounced according to commodity sector: international transport of agricultural goods would drop by 18 per cent from Europe, whereas Japanese agricultural imports would be associated with a 37 per cent increase in transport. All OECD countries/regions show significant increases in transport of imports of textiles/apparel (+9 to +120%) and all areas (except Japan and Australia/New Zealand) also show increases in the transport of textiles/apparel exports (+9 to +22%).

45. Nonetheless, changes in international transport associated with trade liberalisation are small compared to those resulting from economic growth for all other reasons. Macro-economic model projections of growth in transport of internationally traded goods indicate that growth in 2004, the year of

14

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

the full implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments, will be 71 %, or almost 20 trillion tonne-kilometres above the 1992 level. This is more than 15 times greater than the 4.5 per cent attributable to Uruguay Round liberalisation. Sectoral projections show much greater rates of growth in international transport for all manufactured goods, including intermediate goods used as inputs into manufacturing, than for agricultural and mineral primary commodities. Similar to the results of the Uruguay Round simulations, international transport for most sectors tends to increase more under the growth forecast for 2004 than quantities traded.

46. It has not been possible to analyse by which transport mode these large inter-continental freight movements will arrive at final destination. Preliminary evidence from a detailed study on all freight movements in Europe in 2005 suggest that shifts in the commodity composition of trade would shift the modal composition of transport. Higher rates of growth in European international trade for manufactures and lower or stagnant growth for non-agricultural bulk commodities would favour road and rail over pipelines and waterborne freight.

15

COM/TD/ENV(96)73

Chart 1 - Volume of Total Exports and Output

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

EXPORTS OUTPUTSource: GATT/WTO, International Trade, various years

16

Table 1 - International Air and Maritime Freight

Tonnes (million)1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992* 1993* 1994* 1995*

Air 4.4 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.8 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.9 8.5 8.9 8.4 9.1 10.0 11.5Maritime 3,606 3,461 3,199 3,090 3,292 3,293 3,385 3,461 3,675 3,860 3,977 4,110 4,221 4,339 4,506 4,678

Tonne-Kilometers (billion)1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992* 1993* 1994* 1995*

Air 20.2 21.7 22.6 24.9 28.7 28.9 32.2 36.4 41.2 45.0 46.6 45.2 50.1 55.7 64.1Maritime 30,843.2 29,106.0 25,096.5 23,401.9 24,879.8 24,235.3 25,661.3 26,483.6 28,333.7 30,345.0 31,708.1 33,100.8 33,771.2 35,169.5 36,299.2 37,391.9

Growth Indices(1980=100)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992* 1993* 1994* 1995*Air (tonnes) 100 105.5 106.2 113.2 131.9 131.2 145.1 159.9 180.9 194.5 202.5 191.1 207.5 228.5 262.9Air (t-kms) 100 107.3 111.9 123.1 141.9 143.0 159.2 180.1 203.9 222.3 230.4 223.2 247.7 275.3 316.9Maritime (tonnes) 100 96.0 88.7 85.7 91.3 91.3 93.9 96.0 101.9 107.0 110.3 114.0 117.1 120.3 125.0 129.7Maritime (t-kms) 100 94.4 81.4 75.9 80.7 78.6 83.2 85.9 91.9 98.4 102.8 107.3 109.5 114.0 117.7 121.2

*=estimated

Source: IATA, World Air Transport Statistics, various years and Fearnleys Review 1995, Oslo

Chart 2 - International Maritime Freight

0.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

35,000.0

40,000.0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992* 1994*

Bill

ion

Tonn

e-K

ilom

eter

s

Other (est.)GrainCoalIronOil ProductsCrude Oil

Source: Fearnleys Review 1995, Oslo

Chart 3 - International Air and Maritime Freight

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

35019

80

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

*

1993

*

1994

*

1995

*

Air (tonnes)Air (t-kms)Maritime (tonnes)Maritime (t-kms)

(1980=100)

Source: Table 1

Table 2 - Sea Transport in 2004: Changes due to Trade Liberalisation

First Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: All Commodities

tonne-kilometers 1992=100

Flowing to: Western USA Canada Mexico Japan South & China & Australia Latin Africa & Eastern Other TOTALEurope SE Asia East Asia & N Z America Mid East Europe Regions

Originating in:West. Europe n.c. 106.1 104.1 101.4 112.5 111.1 107.3 110.5 103.6 94.3 n.a. 102.8 104.6USA 113.3 n.c. 106.0 105.9 124.5 122.8 122.6 110.2 106.2 107.2 113.1 116.0 116.7Canada 103.3 106.6 n.c. 101.0 115.6 112.5 98.3 111.8 103.0 105.2 107.4 110.9 107.2Mexico 103.6 103.8 103.2 n.c. 108.5 n.a. 114.7 108.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 105.0Japan 110.8 101.0 88.3 100.8 n.c. 108.4 101.6 100.9 87.7 91.7 100.2 99.3 100.5South & SE Asia 108.7 106.3 120.1 n.a. 89.5 n.c. 90.6 90.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100.3China & East Asia 109.7 98.6 107.0 101.7 100.8 110.5 n.c. 102.0 101.2 101.2 106.0 90.0 104.0Australia/N Z 93.1 98.9 93.7 105.1 101.8 109.8 109.6 n.c. 99.2 103.3 105.9 101.6 102.1Latin America 104.5 99.0 93.7 n.a. 107.0 n.a. 109.4 104.1 n.c. n.a. n.a. n.a. 103.7Africa and Mid. East 100.0 98.2 96.0 n.a. 104.6 n.a. 105.3 104.4 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.a. 101.8East. Europe n.a. 102.7 100.0 n.a. 106.7 n.a. 110.3 107.6 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.a. 107.1Other 111.1 103.9 110.8 n.a. 109.9 n.a. 109.6 108.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.c. 109.6TOTAL 103.3 100.2 101.1 103.3 106.2 113.6 109.1 104.7 102.0 98.9 108.7 101.0 104.7

Source: OECD calculations based on GTAP model


First Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: Agriculture and Foodtonne-kilometers 1992=100





First Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: Textiles Apparel and Footwear



Originating in:West. Europe n.c. 46.3 65.0 130.4 138.7 210.8 131.9 119.7 134.1 118.7 n.a. 116.5 122.9USA 55.4 n.c. 65.7 126.3 123.7 189.9 134.5 151.1 123.3 119.4 120.1 121.7 115.1Canada 58.9 48.5 n.c. 126.5 135.4 184.5 144.8 106.3 127.9 122.1 124.7 n.a. 108.8Mexico 101.0 125.7 133.0 n.c. 111.9 n.a. 138.5 110.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 113.5Japan 46.7 37.6 54.0 102.9 n.c. 168.0 126.4 100.5 112.8 101.4 102.3 103.7 74.7South & SE Asia 317.0 382.0 403.8 n.a. 93.5 n.c. 104.1 87.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 319.4China & East Asia 165.2 131.5 181.1 105.0 113.0 165.8 n.c. 115.5 105.3 98.1 97.9 97.7 142.7Australia/N Z 44.0 40.6 51.1 n.a. 91.9 172.1 108.6 n.c. 116.5 106.6 n.a. 92.6 80.7Latin America 87.5 115.1 97.1 n.a. 110.2 n.a. 119.2 121.7 n.c. n.a. n.a. n.a. 111.0Africa and Mid. East 87.8 78.0 85.2 n.a. 102.7 n.a. 108.5 102.7 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.a. 86.6East. Europe n.a. 66.7 87.5 n.a. 110.9 n.a. 123.6 104.3 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.a. 91.6Other 84.7 74.6 87.9 n.a. 117.6 n.a. 120.3 135.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.c. 94.7TOTAL 220.4 185.2 168.5 109.1 118.6 186.3 124.1 114.3 118.6 108.6 104.9 99.8 180.9



Second Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: All Commodities





Second Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: Agriculture and Foodtonne-kilometers 1992=100


Originating in:West. Europe n.c. 104.0 106.3 79.5 110.2 94.5 83.9 111.2 80.9 75.6 n.a. 96.8 87.3USA 122.3 n.c. 112.8 103.9 138.0 129.3 131.9 110.7 106.4 105.9 109.9 112.4 122.4Canada 113.7 109.1 n.c. 98.6 131.6 117.6 90.5 106.6 101.8 104.3 105.5 109.9 107.7Mexico 109.9 114.1 95.8 n.c. 108.3 n.a. 139.8 112.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 110.2Japan 116.1 105.3 98.3 110.3 n.c. 140.9 115.1 113.9 112.7 114.1 112.9 106.6 116.2South & SE Asia 96.1 84.3 76.9 n.a. 83.1 n.c. 94.8 89.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 94.1China & East Asia 113.1 97.8 89.9 96.5 110.2 125.7 n.c. 104.6 105.9 108.3 108.2 100.2 111.0Australia/N Z 98.3 107.7 104.6 106.2 116.8 116.0 103.2 n.c. 104.5 103.2 104.4 102.5 107.2Latin America 114.2 101.3 92.7 n.a. 112.2 n.a. 125.6 105.0 n.c. n.a. n.a. n.a. 111.8Africa and Mid. East 110.8 102.3 93.6 n.a. 97.0 n.a. 116.9 105.9 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.a. 108.5East. Europe n.a. 109.1 101.7 n.a. 121.4 n.a. 114.1 108.8 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.a. 118.9Other 112.9 110.7 121.0 n.a. 115.2 #VALUE! 104.0 112.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.c. 112.1TOTAL 107.7 97.8 100.5 97.8 125.2 118.2 114.7 106.2 101.0 94.0 108.9 107.8 109.2



Second Uruguay Round ExperimentSector: Textiles Apparel and Footwear



Originating in:West. Europe n.c. 45.2 61.0 117.6 130.3 204.9 128.9 116.5 129.8 116.6 n.a. 110.8 119.3USA 55.0 n.c. 62.2 117.2 124.2 188.8 134.5 133.7 122.1 120.0 120.8 115.0 113.8Canada 57.0 47.2 n.c. 117.7 130.8 179.2 141.5 111.1 123.7 119.9 122.5 n.a. 107.4Mexico 101.8 122.0 131.9 n.c. 113.4 n.a. 141.0 109.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 113.8Japan 43.4 35.4 48.4 90.8 n.c. 155.8 117.9 93.0 104.2 95.1 96.0 91.2 69.5South & SE Asia 309.1 366.5 386.7 n.a. 94.4 n.c. 105.6 87.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 310.1China & East Asia 158.8 123.7 168.0 97.2 108.5 163.0 n.c. 106.2 103.1 97.5 97.4 n.a. 136.3Australia/N Z 45.5 40.4 52.7 n.a. 98.9 171.9 109.2 n.c. 115.9 107.7 n.a. 94.7 82.0Latin America 87.0 111.7 95.4 n.a. 112.1 n.a. 121.8 115.3 n.c. n.a. n.a. n.a. 110.2Africa and Mid. East 83.8 73.7 82.6 n.a. 107.6 n.a. 109.6 104.0 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.a. 82.9East. Europe n.a. 66.2 84.1 n.a. 111.2 n.a. 124.6 104.2 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.a. 91.4Other 79.0 69.3 82.4 n.a. 114.8 n.a. 118.1 119.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.c. 89.7TOTAL 213.9 176.6 159.4 99.7 114.9 181.4 123.4 107.3 116.4 106.5 101.3 94.2 175.0


Table 8 - World Seaborne Trade and Transport by Commodity Sector, 2004

(1992=100)

First UR Experiment

Agriculture Ores & Coal Crude Petroleum Lumber Paper & Chemicals Primary Textiles Transport Cosummer All

& Food Building & Coke Oil Products & Wood Paper & Fertilizers Metals & Apparel & Equipment Goods & Other Commodities

Materials Manuf. Metal Prdts Footwear Machinery

Tonnes 114.6 101.9 102.7 100.0 102.2 105.5 103.0 106.2 104.7 148.6 101.8 104.1 103.6

Tonne-Kms 114.3 102.3 102.2 100.8 103.1 105.9 104.2 106.3 108.2 180.9 101.7 104.5 104.7

Second UR Experiment




Tonnes 109.7 102.7 103.7 100.1 102.7 107.1 103.6 106.6 106.2 143.6 98.6 106.0 103.5

Tonne-Kms 109.2 103.1 103.1 100.9 103.6 107.2 104.7 108.5 107.6 175.0 97.7 106.8 104.4

WSTS Forecast




Tonnes 156.0 158.7 171.4 137.6 163.4 136.4 245.2 268.4 268.5 243.6 273.6 215.3 165.6

Tonne-Kms 160.2 157.1 169.7 145.1 162.2 149.5 258.5 275.2 287.5 239.6 277.8 215.0 171.3

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on GTAP model and DRI/WSTS data

Chart 4 - Change in Sea Transport due to Trade Liberalisation

FIRST URUGUAY ROUND EXPERIMENTALL COMMODITIES

104.6

116.7

107.2

100.5

102.1

104.0103.3

100.2101.1

106.2

104.7

109.1

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

Western Europe U S A Canada Japan

(199

2=10

0)

Origin (Exports) Destination (Imports)

(tonne-kilometers)

Source: Table 2

AustraliaNew Zealand

China andEast Asia

Table 9 - Sea Transport in 2004: Growth Forecast by WSTS

Sector: All Commodities





Sector: Agriculture and Foodtonne-kilometers 1992=100




Sector: Textiles Apparel and Footwear



Originating in:West. Europe n.c. 203.0 146.3 242.9 194.4 271.6 314.4 121.8 232.4 227.7 n.a. 257.1 238.5USA 162.5 n.c. 219.3 537.5 245.7 161.2 166.0 151.1 162.2 141.4 233.3 700.0 170.6Canada 187.0 300.0 n.c. 300.0 83.3 50.0 200.0 100.0 83.3 166.7 400.0 n.a. 142.5Mexico 172.7 1427.3 377.8 n.c. 100.0 n.a. 675.0 100.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 374.8Japan 188.9 167.3 192.5 121.1 n.c. 147.3 165.6 154.3 227.3 92.4 n.a. 165.5 155.6South & SE Asia 267.7 211.5 318.6 n.a. 292.7 n.c. 696.5 230.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 268.0China & East Asia 234.7 154.3 182.0 308.7 291.2 278.8 n.c. 187.8 295.5 188.8 571.4 674.1 213.4Australia/N Z 385.1 310.0 200.0 n.a. 200.0 78.9 89.2 n.c. 100.0 116.7 n.a. 240.0 241.3Latin America 159.6 165.8 117.2 n.a. 200.0 n.a. 947.1 85.7 n.c. n.a. n.a. n.a. 428.4Africa and Mid. East 241.4 252.7 257.1 n.a. 250.0 n.a. 633.3 200.0 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.a. 257.0East. Europe n.a. 616.2 200.0 n.a. 100.0 n.a. 357.1 150.0 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.a. 418.0Other 476.5 285.7 400.0 n.a. 672.7 n.a. 364.7 333.3 n.a. n.a. n.c. n.c. 433.1TOTAL 246.9 180.0 213.1 266.6 255.4 237.0 498.2 167.8 205.6 177.9 174.8 525.3 239.6

Source: calculated from DRI/WSTS data

Table 12 - Percentage Increases in Trade Volumes and Trade Flows

Industry All countries Intra-EC Trade Exports to ECfrom non-EC

volume unit-kms volume unit-kms volume unit-kms

Foodstuffs 18 23 22 20 1 25Foodstuffs-other 24 28 27 25 2 32Beverages 26 26 30 29 4 39Tobacco 27 25 30 28 10 11Wood 22 34 32 33 3 35Wood-furniture 30 39 34 35 10 43Paper 20 28 28 28 9 28Printing-publishing 27 35 31 32 5 39Pharmaceuticals 16 17 22 17 -6 18Stone and non-metallic 35 35 56 50 -17 22 mineral products Tools and finished 22 28 29 31 0 25 metal goods Electrical machinery 133 160 150 150 66 181Motor vehicles, railway, 26 32 28 26 8 42 aerospace Surgical, optical 27 34 32 32 5 37 instruments

Source: Gabel and Röller, Tables 6 and 7.

Table 13 - International Trade Flows for Europe, Intra EC-12 and EC-12 with Rest of World

1990 and 2005 scenarios Share in total (nat'l + int'l) freight in EC-12 of:

Intra EC-12 EC-12 with Rest of World Total EC-12 Intl Trade Intra EC-12 EC-12 Int'lmio tonnes index mio tonnes index mio tonnes index % %

1990 (Base year) 694 100 1425 100 2118 100 7.4 22.6

2005: scenariosReference 942 135.7 1927 135.2 2868 135.4 7.9 24.1Env't Integrated 940 135.5 1948 136.8 2888 136.3 7.9 24.2Growth 997 143.7 1981 139.1 2978 140.6 8.1 24.2

TRANSPORT Intra EC-12bn tonne-kms index

1990 (Base year) 336 100

2005: scenariosReference 462 137.4Env't Integrated 462 137.6Growth 488 145.1

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations on NEA data. Distance data from Boisso and Ferrantino.

Table 14 - International Trade within EC-12 and with Non-EC Countries

(million tons and 1990=100)

1990 2005: REFERENCE ENV'T. INTEGRATED GROWTHintra EC-12 with Total EC intra EC-12 with Total EC trade intra EC-12 with Total EC trade intra EC-12 with Total EC tradeEC-12 non-EC trade EC-12 non-EC (tons) (index) EC-12 non-EC (tons) (index) EC-12 non-EC (tons) (index)

Agric. Products 64 92 156 95 155 250 159.9 90 160 250 160.5 102 163 265 169.9Foodstuffs 70 107 177 100 187 287 162.0 94 194 288 162.6 108 196 303 171.5Solid Min Fuels 19 122 141 19 135 154 109.1 19 135 154 109.2 19 135 154 109.4Crude Oil 45 380 426 45 384 429 100.8 45 384 429 100.8 45 384 430 100.9Ores/Metal waste 27 152 179 27 153 180 100.5 27 153 180 100.5 27 153 180 100.6Metal Products 54 56 110 67 84 151 136.7 68 85 153 138.6 70 87 157 142.8Building Min/Mater 130 74 204 158 104 262 128.1 158 104 262 128.4 164 107 271 132.7Fertilizers 19 34 53 23 41 65 121.9 22 41 63 119.2 24 43 67 125.7Chemicals 76 77 154 103 117 219 142.7 102 117 219 142.2 109 122 230 149.6Machinery/Manuf 73 87 160 112 154 266 166.2 118 159 277 173.2 118 162 280 175.1Petroleum Prods 117 240 357 195 413 608 170.3 197 416 613 171.6 211 430 641 179.4Total 694 1423 2117 943 1927 2869 135.6 940 1948 2888 136.4 997 1981 2978 140.7

Source: calculated from NEA data

Table 15 - Modal Split of EC-12 Trade in 2005(per cent share and growth, 1990=100)

OTHER (mostly pipelines) ROAD RAIL

1990 2005: Reference Env't Integrated Growth 1990 2005: ReferenceEnv't Integrated Growth 1990 2005: ReferenceEnv't IntegratedGrowth% Index % Index % Index % % Index % Index % Index % % Index % Index % Index %

Intra EC-12 10.1 139.0 10.3 138.9 10.4 146.7 10.3 39.7 149.2 43.6 148.3 43.5 157.7 43.6 7.3 127.1 6.8 128.1 6.9 132.4 6.7

EC-12 trade 18.2 126.6 17.0 127.0 16.9 129.1 16.9 16.5 149.1 18.2 152.0 18.3 155.2 18.4 6.9 181.4 9.3 182.8 9.3 189.1 9.4w/ non EC

TOTAL INT'L 15.6 129.3 14.8 129.6 14.8 132.8 14.7 24.1 149.2 26.5 150.0 26.5 156.6 26.8 7.1 163.0 8.5 164.2 8.5 169.9 8.5

IWW SEA TOTAL1990 2005: Reference Env't Integrated Growth 1990 2005: ReferenceEnv't Integrated Growth 1990 2005: ReferenceEnv't IntegratedGrowth

% Index % Index % Index % % Index % Index % Index % % Index % Index % Index %Intra EC-12 17.4 105.2 13.5 105.2 13.5 111.5 13.5 25.5 137.4 25.7 137.0 25.7 145.8 25.8 100 135.9 100 135.5 100 143.7 100

EC-12 trade 10.2 136.3 10.3 138.1 10.3 139.8 10.2 48.1 127.2 45.2 128.6 45.2 130.3 45.0 100 135.4 100 136.9 100 139.2 100w/ non EC

TOTAL INT'L 12.6 122.2 11.3 123.2 11.3 126.9 11.3 40.7 129.3 38.8 130.3 38.9 133.5 38.6 100 135.6 100 136.4 100 140.7 100

Source: calculated from NEA data

Documents

Joint Session of Trade and Environment Experts · Web viewThe principal exception is the agricultural sector, for which, according to the macro-economic model, trade is forecast to