The figure includes empty containers, excluding transhipment, though the review only analyses full containers in the region \u2013 465,193 teu, said consulting and private equity firm, Informall Business Group, which conducted the review.<\/p>\n
The five countries in the study achieved total growth of over 9% in Q1 2017, compared to the same period last year.<\/p>\n
The turnover increase was in all Black Sea countries. In Q1 2017 the highest growth was achieved by Georgia, Russia and Ukraine \u2013 19%, 13% and 8% respectively.<\/p>\n
During this period, 53% of full containers handled were imported, with 46% of the volume being exported. It is estimated that laden container share was 72% and empty container share was 27%.<\/p>\n
Export volumes from the four countries increased by 6% compared to Q1 2016. Georgia had a record laden import volume growth of 19%, while the import volume of Russia and Romania totalled 10% and 7% respectively.<\/p>\n
Imports to the region increased by 11%, mainly because of Georgian import volume growth of 19,15%. There was an increase of laden import volume in Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria \u2013 15%, 14,99% and 3,97% respectively, while Romania suffered a drop of 2%.<\/p>\n
The review stated that DP World (Constanta, Romania) was still the top container terminal of the region in Q1 2017, followed by NUTEP (Novorossiysk, Russia), in terms of volume handled.<\/p>\n
The review confirmed that Maersk remained a leading carrier for the region during the period, while Arkas overcame CMA CGM and became third largest carrier of the region. Following a merger between CSCL and COSCO, the united carrier became the fifth largest in the Black Sea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Black Sea container terminals of Ukraine, Romania, Russia, and Bulgaria handled 642,308 teu in Q1 2017, a Container Market Review for Q1 2017 has shown.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":2641,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-2640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-container-cargo-handling"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2640"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2642,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2640\/revisions\/2642"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2640"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=2640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}