home · Investments · Russian merchant fleet. The current state of the Russian merchant fleet

Russian merchant fleet. The current state of the Russian merchant fleet

Sea cargo ships have always been the most important component of Tf. and its main support in a financial sense. Passenger airliners continued to attract people, but in general, for society, the transportation of passengers has always been less important than the transportation of goods. Numerous and varied vessels T.f. vary in type and purpose. Total number of vessels T.f. It is also very large because it includes not only long-distance vessels, but also many of those small vessels that serve the waters of rivers, harbors and the sea coast. To T.f. - in the broad sense of this concept - includes not only ships and crew, but also numerous coastal services: operational management bodies, repair and bunkering enterprises, marine insurance agencies and much more, in addition to shipyards, docks, berths and warehouses. Merchant ships, unlike military ships, are usually owned by private owners, whose position is relatively independent (sometimes the state owns part of the country's TF and manages its activities, but this is the exception rather than the rule). All modern sea vessels have a national status, the symbol of which is the flag that the ship flies under. Raising the flag implies the presence of official ship documents and a registry certificate. National status carries with it both privileges and responsibilities. It allows you to secure naval or diplomatic support from your own and friendly states in different parts of the world, but it also gives the government the right to dispose of private vessels in emergency circumstances, and under normal circumstances to apply state regulations to them and the conditions of their operation. These standards include requirements for the national composition of the crew, for testing the qualifications of the crew and certification of command personnel. Modern merchant ships can be divided into two categories, each of which has its own advantages. Vessels of one category (liners), which includes most of the best ships, operate on specific lines, with voyages between ports on these routes occurring at regular intervals. Another category consists of the so-called. tramps - vessels serving irregular cargo flows. After World War II, significant changes occurred in maritime transport. Although the number of ships capable of carrying more than 1000 tons of cargo increased by only 34% during the post-war years, the total tonnage of T.f. countries of the world doubled, and the average deadweight rose from 6300 to 9400 tons. The number of national flags has increased sharply. Expansion of the national composition of the world T.f. led to a decrease in the share of the former leaders of maritime transport. Although the total tonnage of the entire set of British and Scandinavian ships increased from 32 to 47 million tons, its part in the total tonnage of T.f. world fell from 40 to 29%. At the same time, the US share increased from 14 to 20%. An innovation in T.f. 20th century the practice of what are known as "flags of convenience" or "runaway fleets" became common. Typically, the flag above a ship and the name of its home port indicate who owns it and under whose legal jurisdiction it operates. Maritime law was created on the basis of certain measures of responsibility and control on the part of states over their T.f. To evade such control, and at the same time save on taxes and crew costs, new “fake” fleets appeared. These fleets arose precisely from those countries that never actually had their own “legal” maritime transport, and many ships flying the flags of these countries never called at the ports whose names are written on their sterns. This began in the fall of 1922, when the US Attorney General extended Prohibition with all its amendments to all ships flying the US flag. This stopped the wholesale supply of alcohol to two large liners flying in the Caribbean. The solution was found when someone came up with the idea of ​​launching these ships under the Panamanian flag. Later, other ships, especially American tankers, used the Panamanian flag to avoid spending money on high crew salaries, and during the war it turned out to be a convenient way to evade government regulations and sail in areas closed to sea transport. Thanks to this, by the beginning of World War II, the total carrying capacity of the Panamanian merchant fleet, which consisted of 130 of its own ships, reached 1,106 thousand tons. After the war, this fleet became even larger, but in 1949 a formidable rival suddenly appeared. The Government of Liberia has granted one of the American companies preferential rights to wide sea transportation of goods. At the same time, Liberia received a welcome addition to its budget from customs duties, and the American company received a generous “service fee” for conducting specific business in New York. For 10 years T.f. Liberia came in third place in the world; there were 1,018 ships with a total carrying capacity of 18,387 thousand tons, and Panama was pushed into sixth place. Germansky T.f. by 1959 it had far surpassed the total volumes that characterized it in 1939. The Japanese, whose big T.f. was also destroyed, by 1959 they also managed to exceed its pre-war level in terms of the total tonnage of their ships, and in 1994 they reached seventh place among T.f. world and built 243 out of a total of 630 new ships. In the period from 1939 to 1959, the number of tankers in the world almost doubled (the number of registered oil tankers increased from 1,661 to 3,307 units), and their total tonnage increased more than three times (the total deadweight changed from 16,915 to 57,629 thousand tons) . Subsequently, the oil tanker fleet grew even faster. The efficiency of tankers has constantly increased, since the larger the size of the tanker, the more economically profitable its operation is, which distinguishes oil tankers from large-sized transport of other types. Another post-war innovation was the increase in the number of ships carrying bulk cargo, such as coal and ore. Already in 1959 T.f. in the world there were 940 bulk carriers with a total carrying capacity of 9058 thousand tons. Bulk carriers with a length of up to 300 m and a carrying capacity of more than 60 thousand tons were built. At the end of the 20th century. Large container ships with a horizontal loading method - unloading of the Ro-Ro type and lighter carriers have become widespread, providing transshipment on the roadstead using their own means with an increase in the productivity of cargo operations several times.


Russian maritime transport is an integral part of international shipping, and trends in global shipping have a significant impact on it. At the present stage, the main maritime sectors of the world economy continue to face long-term problems - a heavy legacy of the previous decade.

Sergey Buyanov, General Director of CJSC "TsNIIMF"

Alexander Romanenko, Head of Department at ZAO TsNIIMF

Prospects are not encouraging

On the eve of the global crisis of 2008-2009. There was a rush and speculative influx of contracts for the construction of new ships, caused by a record high rise in rates and tariffs on the freight markets. Reports from shipowners testified to unprecedented profits and the advent of the “golden age” of maritime business, into which loan capital immediately rushed. Using borrowed funds, many companies simultaneously began large-scale fleet replenishment programs, which was accompanied by gigantic deliveries of newly built tonnage, not caused by the real needs of international shipping. The shipyards barely had time to cope with the influx of orders and were constantly increasing their shipbuilding capacity. The pace of development of the world merchant fleet accelerated sharply and began to significantly exceed the moderate growth in demand for maritime transport.

In the post-crisis period 2010-2012. many shipyards still continued to regularly fulfill previously concluded contracts. A further influx of excess tonnage into the world fleet, and at the expense of the latest high-performance vessels, caused a sharp deterioration in market conditions, a collapse in rates, and a long-term imbalance in supply/demand in all major charter sections.

Recently, merchant shipping has been gradually overcoming a period of protracted decline. Today we can already see some signs of stabilization, and in certain areas of the tanker market the situation is even improving significantly. The burden of carriers' operating costs has been eased, as the fall in oil prices has cut ship bunkering costs in half.

The state of the entire world economy is not particularly conducive to overcoming the accumulated problems of the maritime industry. Assessments of global prospects for the coming years are not optimistic. While there is no shortage of forecasts for the coming years, they all suffer from great uncertainty and are subject to frequent revision. Recently, the financial crisis in Greece and unexpectedly sharp fluctuations in Chinese stock markets have once again worsened the forecasts for the development of the global economy, even for the current year 2015. Most scenarios show low growth rates in the coming years and do not exclude their slowdown due to various existing risks.

Shipping

Despite complex and contradictory macroeconomic realities, global maritime trade is showing positive dynamics without significant fluctuations or failures. The progressive growth of global maritime transport continues, the volume of which at the end of 2014 for the first time in human history exceeded 10 billion tons (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Dynamics of global maritime cargo transportation, million tons

The dynamics of transportation of three main categories of cargo are of decisive importance for the demand for maritime transport services: liquid (including crude oil, petroleum products and liquefied gases) - this is 30.5% of the total volume in 2014; main bulk products (iron ore, coal, grain) – 28.6%; cargo in containers – 15.8% (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Dynamics of global maritime transport of main types of cargo, million tons

Along with general factors for all cargo, there are also specific factors for each type that affect the dynamics of maritime cargo flows.

The differences in the growth rates of transportation of different types of cargo have become more noticeable.

Relatively low growth rates characterize global maritime liquid cargo trade. Over the past 15 years, the volume of these transportations has generally increased by 36%, including for crude oil - by only 11%, finished petroleum products - by 1.9 times, liquefied gas - by 2.3 times.

Higher growth was noted in the transportation of bulk cargo: in general, over 15 years, their volume increased by 2.4 times, including iron ore - by 2.9 times, coal - by 2.4 times, grain - by 1.5 times . Over the same period, global container traffic increased by 2.6 times.

It is primarily these cargoes that determine the specialization of transport fleet vessels and the specifics of the main sections of the world freight market.

World transport fleet

As of April 1, 2015, the world merchant fleet included almost 87 thousand ships (from 100 GT and more) with a total deadweight of 1,741.1 million tons. The data presented indicate a continuing increase in the world fleet: during the period from 2001 to 2014, there was a 2.2-fold increase in tonnage, from 778.8 to 1741.1 million deadweight tons.

The average annual increase in ship tonnage over the period under review is about 6%. The largest increase was noted in 2011 – 9.3% compared to the previous period. In 2012-2013 The annual growth rate of tonnage (6.7-6.9%) was at the level of 2006-2009, in 2014 the increase was only 4.1%.

Judging by the order portfolio of the world shipbuilding industry, in 2015 and 2016. The marine fleet will be replenished with approximately 70 million GT of new construction annually.

There have been major structural changes in merchant tonnage since 2001, reflecting changes in global demand for fleet transport services. The share of tanker tonnage decreased from 42.0 to 35.4%, as well as the total tonnage of general cargo vessels from 12.7 to 6.7%. At the same time, the share of bulk tonnage increased from 35.7 to 44.0% and container tonnage from 8.8 to 13.5%. In addition, the number of small-tonnage offshore fleet vessels serving offshore oil and gas fields has increased significantly, but their total share in the world tonnage is relatively small. Today, the three main types of vessels by purpose - tankers, bulk carriers and container ships - occupy almost 93% of the total cargo capacity in the merchant fleet (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Structure of the world merchant fleet by vessel assignment, % by deadweight (2015)

In previous years, the excess replenishment of the merchant fleet with new tonnage was offset by increased scrapping of older ships. If in the pre-crisis period about 500-600 ships per year were sent for scrapping on a global scale with a total tonnage of an average of 6 million GT, then in the post-crisis period the delivery of old ships for breaking began to increase rapidly and reached an average of about 1,700 ships annually in 2011-2014 with a total tonnage of over 30 million GT. As a result, total tonnage disposals in recent years have exceeded historical highs.

The average age of ships in the world fleet at the beginning of 2015 was 16.2 years. Overall, the world's merchant fleet is quite young: the share of tonnage under 10 years old is 66.5%, with ships under 5 years old accounting for 42.8%. The youngest vessels in the world fleet are container ships and bulk carriers. Their average age is 10.9 and 10.5 years, respectively.

The balance of power in global shipping has also undergone major changes. Currently, more than 150 countries and territories have ships under their own flag, but the actual control of the fleet is exercised by a much smaller number of states. Almost 63% of the total deadweight of the world merchant fleet is controlled by only 7 leading maritime powers (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Leading countries - owners of ships in the world merchant fleet, % by deadweight

The bulk of the fleet operates under “flags of convenience”, where about 70% of the total tonnage is currently registered. Therefore, formally leading positions in the world fleet today are occupied by three main countries with cheap “fake” flags - Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. These top three flag countries accounted for more than 39% of the world's total tonnage by gross tonnage and 41% by deadweight in 2015. Fleets under the “flags of convenience” of Malta, the Bahamas, Cyprus and others also occupy a prominent place.

Russian shipping companies are also resorting to the use of “flags of convenience” on a large scale. Thus, at the beginning of 2015, 70.5% of the deadweight of the fleet of domestic shipowners was registered under various foreign flags. To solve this problem, the Russian International Register of Ships was created in the Russian Federation.

Taking into account the entire controlled tonnage, Russia in the world fleet today closes the top ten leading maritime countries in terms of the number of ships, but in terms of their total deadweight it is only in 19th place. In the world tanker tonnage, Russia is in prominent 10th place, and in the tonnage of general cargo ships, it is in 16th place. In the bulk carrier and container ship sectors, the share of Russian owners is extremely small. The largest among Russian shipowners, PJSC Sovcomflot, with a large fleet of tankers and gas carriers, occupies a notable 6th place in the list of the main shipping companies in the world.

World freight market

A prolonged and deep downturn in all three major sections of the freight market will inevitably have adverse consequences for the dynamics of demand for existing transport tonnage and new shipbuilding products.

The situation is particularly critical in the dry bulk tonnage market, which has experienced the most pressure from massive deliveries of new ships. Freight rates in this section have dropped to extremely low levels, often not even justifying the operating costs of carriers. For the largest ships of the Capesize class, last year there was a long-awaited increase in the level of rates, but in the first half of 2015 the rates again hit rock bottom. The owners of numerous Panamax class bulk carriers are also going through hard times.

The consolidated dry bulk market index Baltic Dry Index this year dramatically dropped below 600 points, while its average level even in the difficult years of 2011-2014. varied between 1000-1500 points (compared to a peak of 11,793 points in 2008).

Against the backdrop of a long-term depressed state of the bulk carrier market, a new trend was a significant improvement in the conditions in the oil tanker section during 2015. Falling global oil prices are driving up demand for liquid fuels and increasing global shipping. As a result, in the first quarter of this year there was a rise in freight rates for tanker tonnage to a level not seen since the pre-crisis period. On average, rates have increased by approximately 70-75% compared to that period in 2014. By the middle of this year, 12-month time charter rates for large-capacity VLCC tankers had jumped to $45,000/day, up from an average of $28,000/day in 2014 and less than $20,000/day in 2013 .

This restoration of activity in the tanker market is perceived with great optimism in the shipping community. One can note the quick response of shipyards, ready to resume massive deliveries of liquid tonnage. In other main segments of the freight market, the situation remains unstable.

The situation in global shipbuilding

Today, in the context of globalization, Russian shipbuilding, like other sectors of the domestic economy, is highly dependent on global trends. The situation in the global shipbuilding market has a tangible impact on our shipbuilding industry against the backdrop of intense international competition in prices, terms and quality of ship construction. As in previous years, part of the orders for new transport vessels for the Russian civil fleet continues to go to foreign shipyards.

In recent years, the placement of new contracts has been affected by the fall in world prices for shipbuilding products, caused primarily by a huge oversupply of shipbuilding capacity and weakened demand from international shipping, which is also suffering from persistent oversupply of tonnage in the freight markets.

The order portfolio of the world's shipyards after the financial and economic crisis of 2008 experienced a strong and prolonged decline (Fig. 5). Compared to the peak level of 2008, the volume of orders by the end of 2012 fell by 2.3 times, which put most shipyards in a very difficult situation. Over the next three years, there has been a gradual resumption of the influx of orders for new ships, although on a moderate scale, far from ensuring the utilization of shipbuilding capacities.

Rice. 5. Dynamics of global orders for new vessels, million reg. tons

Severely fallen prices for the construction of ships gradually recovered to the level of 2006-2007. But for container ships and some other types of ships, contract prices now remain the lowest in the last decade.

All leading shipbuilding countries are facing a chronic shortage of new contracts today, so it is not surprising that they are pursuing an unusually active marketing policy, trying in every possible way to attract customers from all over the world, offering discounts and other preferences.

As of March 1, 2015, world shipyards received orders for the construction of more than 5 thousand ships with a total deadweight of 308 million tons, and almost half of all ship orders by deadweight were concentrated in Chinese shipyards (Fig. 6).

Rice. 6. Global volume of orders for new ships by country, % by deadweight (2015)

But it is China that provides a striking example of the fact that in these difficult times, even large shipyards sometimes fail to maintain their positions. The largest private Chinese shipyard, Rongsheng Heavy Industries, which previously (2008-2011) built a series of 6 large-tonnage tankers for Sovcomflot, is in the stage of bankruptcy due to losses and lack of utilization. It is well known in the shipbuilding market for having recently completed a prestigious Brazilian order for a series of the world's largest bulk ore carriers with a deadweight of 400 thousand tons. However, now, as a result of the long-term downtime of the enterprise and financial problems, 30 thousand of its employees are threatened with dismissal.

To date, almost the entire geography of world transport shipbuilding has been focused in one region of the world - in East Asia, in the countries of the “Big Three” (China, Korea and Japan). These three countries annually provide 92-94% of all global deliveries of new transport fleet. A large gap behind them is now also a group of Asian countries that are striving to develop national shipbuilding - these are the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, India.

The entire European shipbuilding industry currently accounts for less than 1% of global ship orders by deadweight. Almost all European countries that once had developed national shipbuilding - Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, France and others - have lost their competitiveness on the world stage in the mass production of standard transport ships, unable to withstand Asian competition.

The balance of power in global shipbuilding looks different from the point of view not of tonnage volume, but of the cost of received contracts. In terms of this indicator, South Korea now remains the world leader; the positions of shipbuilders in European countries, which specialized in the construction of technically more complex and expensive vessels, such as offshore and cruise ships, look much better.

On the global shipbuilding market, Russia is a fairly prominent investor in the construction of a new merchant fleet. At the end of 2014, Russia accounted for over 13% of the total volume of such investments in European countries or 4.5% of the global volume of investments in new ships. However, almost all orders are placed at foreign shipyards. Over the ten-year period 2004-2014. Only 4% of the Russian fleet was replenished from domestically built vessels. The vast majority of the new tonnage was built at shipyards in South Korea (76%), China (8%), Croatia (5%) and other countries (7%).

The current portfolio of shipbuilding orders from different countries shows that the employment of shipyards is determined primarily by export contracts. Orders from national shipping companies account for 30% of total orders in China, 11% in South Korea, and 26% in Japan. But in the developing BRICS countries, shipbuilding is more focused on fulfilling their national needs, in particular in Brazil - by 77%, in India - by 50%.

The demand for the construction of new ships is currently generated by three groups of countries - the economically largest and most developed with large volumes of maritime trade (USA, Japan, UK, Germany), traditional sea carriers (Greece, Norway) and the so-called new industrial countries (China, Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries). The world leaders in terms of investment in fleet construction are companies from the USA, Greece, Norway, China and Japan.

Large funds have recently been allocated to the construction of specialized ships - gas carriers, large-capacity container ships, supply ships, cruise ships. The influx of investment in the construction of tanker and bulk carrier fleets has sharply decreased, although their share in the order portfolio remains the highest (Fig. 7). In all three main sectors - bulk carriers, tankers and container ships - there is a clear trend of renewed demand for the construction of the largest vessels.

Rice. 7. Structure of the order portfolio in global shipbuilding by type of vessel, % by deadweight (2015)

Eight main takeaways

In conclusion, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Global maritime transport of goods has been increasing almost every year over the past 15 years (an overall increase of 1.7 times), including for the main types of cargo - liquid, bulk and cargo in containers.

2. The composition of the world transport fleet is also growing every year; over the same period, the composition of the world fleet has increased by 2.2 times.

3. Compared to 2001, serious structural changes have occurred in the merchant fleet: tankers, bulk carriers and container ships account for almost 93% of the total deadweight in the fleet.

4. There is a constant influx of excess tonnage into the world fleet, thanks to the latest high-performance vessels. Despite the significantly increased volume of tonnage disposal, there is an imbalance in the supply/demand balance regarding fleet availability.

5. Freight rates in the dry bulk market are at a fairly low level. The oil tankers section has seen a significant increase in freight rates in the first half of 2015. In other main segments of the freight market, the situation remains unstable.

6. The order portfolio of the world's shipyards experienced a prolonged decline after the financial and economic crisis of 2008. Over the past three years (2012-2014), there has been a gradual resumption of orders for new ships, albeit on a moderate scale.

7. The geography of world transport shipbuilding is focused in one region of the world - in East Asia, in the countries of the “Big Three” (China, Korea and Japan). These three countries annually provide 92-94% of all global deliveries of new transport fleet.

8. Russia is a fairly prominent investor in the construction of a new merchant fleet on the global shipbuilding market. At the end of 2014, Russia accounted for over 13% of the total volume of such investments in European countries or 4.5% of the global volume of investments in new ships.

2.5. Merchant navy

Acquiring or chartering the right ship at the right time was a crucial condition for success in international commerce. If investment costs were not too high, merchants willingly invested in the purchase of ships. Regarding the era of the sailing fleet, there are no known cases of Russian trading companies extending their interests to the shipping sector. Until the middle of the 19th century. ship ownership had not yet become an independent type of business in Russia, although in the practice of international trading firms owning their own ships was not something unusual. Some Western European trading houses that participated in Russian foreign trade in the first half of the 19th century. and earlier, had such ships, as the example of Brandt, the Rally and Vogau brothers shows. By the middle of the 19th century. the Rally brothers invested about 30 thousand pounds in merchant ships. Art. 194

In the 18th century Some Russian-owned trading houses involved in international trade operated with the help of their own ships, although they did not achieve any noticeable commercial results 195. An exception was the “Russian Columbus” Grigory Shelikhov (1747-1795), who established profitable trade shipping between Siberia, the Aleutian Islands and the coast of North America, founding in 1781 the Northeast American Company, the predecessor of the Russian-American Company 196. In general, Russian foreign trade at sea during this period continued to be serviced mainly by foreign ships 197.

Some progress was still evident 198. By the end of the 18th century. 9.2% of ships participating in international trade belonged to Russian citizens 199 , although one cannot help but notice that foreign captains often accepted and persuaded part of the crew to accept Russian citizenship in order to take advantage of the benefits granted by law to Russian shipowners 200 In the 1870s the captains of such largest merchant ships as "Peter the Great", "Catherine II" and "Rurik" were foreigners by origin 201. In the 1880s The Society for Promoting Russian Merchant Shipping complained that due to loopholes in the law, “foreigners are not only the owners of our (i.e. Russian - S.T.) steamships, but also command them.” The fictitiously Russian companies, as stated, were such companies as Brodsky and Tweedy, Webster and Kovalenko and Anatra Brothers, the Russian names of whose co-owners served as a screen for foreigners 202 . Such reviews were more likely a manifestation of a wounded national feeling than a reflection of Russia's real economic interests. The echo of such imperial sentiments was clearly heard at the beginning of the 20th century. 203

The Russian Empire in any case did not have serious advantages for effective competition in the field of merchant shipping. Its coastal regions were sparsely populated and, with the exception of the coasts of the White, Caspian and Azov Seas, poor in fish. The cumulative result of these unfavorable factors was a shortage of potential sailors in the country, especially those suitable for long-term voyages, which was further hampered by the persistence of serfdom in the country until 1861 204 . Coastal shipping in the Russian Far East was dominated by Koreans and Manchus; In the Black and Azov Seas, intense rivalry developed between Greeks, Turks, Italians and other non-Russian entrepreneurs for control of the coastal trade. During the lucrative summer season, they posed as Russian nationals, often renting out their vessels to Russian citizens during this period, in order to circumvent regulations against foreign participants in the coastal trade. On the White Sea, the number of sailors fell due to competition from the increasingly labor-intensive timber industry following the granting of a timber concession to Britain in the region 205 .

The problem of shortage of human resources was aggravated by geographical difficulties. The country's northern ports were frozen for 3-7 months a year, and as a result, Russian ships were locked in ports, while foreign ships could deliver goods to Russia over the open sea. The Black Sea coast had few natural harbors, and the sea routes to the ports were so shallow that ship owners could not use large-capacity ships here. In addition, a large imbalance in the physical volume of exports and imports interfered. In the 1880s - early 1890s. the volume of exports was 3.5-4 times higher in weight ratio than the volume of imports, and therefore ballast was an important item in Russian import statistics 206 .

Yet, despite the rivalry of railways and obstacles to the development of maritime trade, 3/4 of Russian foreign trade turnover at the beginning of the 20th century. carried out by sea transport. At the same time, only 8% of goods were transported on Russian ships 207. One should not have expected a different ratio. For the above reasons, Russian shipping could not compete with foreign companies in terms of transportation costs. Outside the country, there was clearly a lack of Russian trading firms that could act as active agents of Russian shipping companies. As a result, it was often unprofitable for Russian ships to enter foreign ports with small cargo, since port dues at times exceeded revenue from the sale of goods. In the 1890s. in some ports of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Russian government-supported Russian Society of Shipping and Trade (ROPiT) did not receive enough revenue even to pay the consular fee, not to mention other duties 208. In addition, ship brokers in the main Russian ports, acting in the interests of trading firms, although they were obliged to accept Russian citizenship for the right to engage in brokerage, were not very favorable towards Russian shipping companies.

Major changes in shipping in the second half of the 19th century. occurred in other countries, particularly in Great Britain. There has been a tendency towards the separation of ownership of sea vessels and commercial entrepreneurship. Technological progress, including the use of compound steam engines, has led to an increase in capital investment and increased management requirements in merchant shipping. Supported by the Joint Stock Company Acts of 1856 and 1862, which extended the practice of joint stock business organization to shipping, British shipping companies quickly achieved hegemony on the main routes. Shipping business and foreign trade were separated. Alfred Holt, a major Liverpool steamship owner, noted on this occasion that the leading trading houses of the city “can never make their ships profitable, and this is the beginning of the end of the trading business” 209. The trading company Butterfield & Swire, which operated in the Far East and initially combined shipping business and trade, abandoned independent trading operations after 1902, concentrating on cargo transportation within the framework of the Chinese Navigation Company established by it in 1872 210. As for Russian trade, mainly for the same reasons, the shipbuilding and shipowning company R. R. Ropner & Co. from Stockton, which was associated with steamship owners and grain merchants in Odessa and Berlin “X. Neufeld & Co., as well as with shipping agents in London and Odessa, McNabb, Rougier & Co., were able to insist that management in this area be left entirely to her order 211.

As investment in shipping increased, economic advantages accrued to those countries where capital was relatively cheap and abundant. In the second half of the 19th century. Specialized shipping companies, often British, emerged and dominated Russian foreign trade routes. Among the many similar companies on the Baltic Sea, the following should be mentioned: Bailey & Leetham, K. Norwood & Co., Brown, Atkinson & Co., Hornstedt & Gawthorne, and especially T. Wilson and Sons" (T. Wilson & Sons) from Hull 212. The last of the named companies also conducted trading operations in the Black Sea. According to the testimony of W. Overton, who until 1914 served in the McNab, Rouge and Co. company in Odessa and Novorossiysk, “T. Wilson and Sons was the leading shipping company on the Black Sea. The next most important were the German-Levantine Company from Hamburg; Royal Hungarian Shipping Company from Fiume; "Helmsing & Grimm" from Riga; “U. Miller & Co. (W. S. Miller & Co. from Glasgow; Dall’Orso & Co. from Genoa; and Scaramanga Bros. from London.

Perhaps due to the fact that the shallow Black Sea ports precluded the use of large-tonnage vessels, many firms participating in international trade were more interested in developing their own fleet, the creation of which was cheaper in the Black Sea than in the Baltic. In addition to the Scaramanga brothers mentioned above, other leading grain trading firms on the Black Sea, such as Sechiari, Sifneo and Vagliano, had their own ocean-going ships. The development of Greek shipping companies involved in the export trade on the Black Sea was particularly promoted by Panagiotis Vagliano (1814-1902). His significant financial resources made it possible to provide loans to Greek shipowners, making it easier for them to replace sailing ships with steam ones, for which he received the title of “the founder of modern Greek shipping” 213.

Since larger and therefore more expensive ships were used on the Baltic Sea, the combination of shipping and trading business was less common here than on the Black Sea. St. Petersburg company "U. Miller & Co. (Wm. Miller & Co) was a notable exception. The connection between shipping and trade turned out to be a consequence of a marriage in this case. In 1832, William Miller (1809-1887) arrived in St. Petersburg, where he began trading in herring. For this purpose, he started a small merchant fleet. In 1860, his relative, nee Elizabeth Marshall, married Edward Cazalet (Cazalet, 1827-1887) 214, who had trading interests in St. Petersburg. Cazalet became the owner of a third of the shares in Miller's company, and he, in turn, received a share of capital in Cazalet's company. The resulting shipping, trading and industrial concern continued to conduct operations in Russia until 1917. 215

Turning now to the problem of the impact of government policy on the development of the Russian merchant fleet, we note that the state in Russia, as in other European countries of the second half of the 19th century, sought to support merchant shipping. The country's loss of freight from transporting goods on foreign ships and the acute need for its own merchant fleet as a trump card in international trade negotiations were debated at many important meetings, at which strategic motives still prevailed over commercial ones. During the discussions, the desire to strengthen the country's naval power obviously prevailed 216.

These motives dominated the formation and subsidization of Russian shipping companies. In 1872, the Imperial Society was created to promote Russian merchant shipping. Judging by its annual reports and statements in the press by such active members as Prince. D. N. Dolgorukov, A. K. von Meck, M. K. Sidorov, and, above all, its founder, Latvian by birth, H. M. Valdemar 217, this society took on the mission of a fighter for the needs of the Russian merchant fleet .

For example, reports about the terrible state of naval schools and port facilities left a very gloomy impression on the reader 218 .

For its part, the government encouraged the development of the domestic merchant fleet, granting the right to coastal shipping only to Russian citizens and providing them with cash subsidies. This assistance was very generous and included reimbursement of postal expenses, subsidies for the expansion of operations and the construction of new ships, duty-free imports on foreign ships (since 1898) and priority in the carriage of official cargo 219 . In addition, since 1876, Russian steamships plying between the ports of European Russia, India and the Far East were reimbursed for the duties levied on them when passing through the Suez Canal. This amount amounted to up to 1 million rubles per year. 220

The amount of government support for the Russian merchant fleet has increased over time. There is no doubt, however, that it was not sufficient to significantly increase the share of export-import goods transported on Russian ships. In the 1880s Russian shipowners complained that the level of government subsidies per registered ton did not exceed 3.8 rubles, while the corresponding figure in France, Japan and Italy was 19, 15 and 9 rubles. In the UK, it should be added, it was only 0.9 rubles. 221 At the beginning of the 20th century. ROPiT leaders complained that in terms of the level of government subsidies they received, their society was inferior to competitors from Germany, Austria, France and Japan 222 .

Despite these criticisms, the Russian government was still able to significantly increase the domestic merchant fleet and modernize it. In 1897, the Russian steam merchant fleet was still inferior in displacement to the sailing fleet, but by 1913, more than 2/3 of the displacement was accounted for by steamships and motor ships, and the total carrying capacity of the Russian merchant fleet increased quite significantly (see Table 15). However, in comparison with other maritime powers, successes have so far been small. At the beginning of the 20th century. about 92% of Russian maritime cargo transportation was carried out on foreign ships; this figure was lower only at the end of the 18th century. 223

As for individual Russian companies, the government supported the most significant of them more for the sake of increasing Russian naval power than for economic reasons. Under the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, the Black Sea was declared neutral. Neither Russia nor Turkey were allowed to have naval forces here 224. The Russian government, seeking to maintain a maritime presence in the Black Sea, authorized the creation of the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade. His merchant ships, as the leadership of the empire believed, could, if necessary, be quickly converted into naval vessels.

Table 15

Russian registered merchant fleet, 1859-1913.


* The reasons for such sharp changes in statistical indicators compared to the previous period are not given in the relevant publications.

Source: Mitchell B.R. European Historical Statistics. London, 1975. Table G4. Data for 1906 missing from this publication were extracted from the following publication: Nos A.E. Russian merchant fleet in 1906 // News of the Imperial Society for the promotion of Russian merchant shipping. 1907-1908. No. 66. P. 226.

N.A. Novoselsky, who had experience in organizing steam navigation on the Volga, was appointed head of the company, and a member of the board in 1864-1868. consisted of Edward Cazalet, co-owner of the trading companies “A. Cazalet and Co. and U. Miller and Co. in St. Petersburg. The new company was provided with a government subsidy in the amount of 2 million rubles. per year, which subsequently decreased until it was finally abolished in 1876. After a discouraging start, when the company's shares fell in price from 300 (par value) to 125 rubles, then, under the new composition of the administration, things improved, and the exchange rate shares exceeded 2.5 par value 225.

In addition to coastal trade, ROP&T concentrated on the Eastern Mediterranean region, transporting agricultural products from Southern Russia to the ports of Haifa, Beirut and Port Said. The company was also involved in the transportation of goods from the ports of China and India 226. Y. Yanson noted that in the 1860s. ROPiT ships were little involved in the export trade, although the company was engaged in the commission sale of flour in such Mediterranean ports as Alexandria and Beirut. ROPiT continued to concentrate its activity on short flights to the Eastern Mediterranean, but in the early 1900s. opened a new line between Odessa and Bassor in Southern Iran, intending to supply Russian goods to the local market through its agents 227. For these purposes, the society was provided with a government subsidy 228. And yet, despite the fact that ROPiT sent its ships to India and China, and the pace of Russian economic development was rapidly increasing, it only achieved relative commercial success for a short time 229.

From the point of view of increasing naval power, ROPiT did not fulfill the task assigned to it. Development of naval artillery in the 1870s. ended the previous practice of converting merchant ships into warships. To the disappointment of the Imperial Society to promote Russian merchant shipping, during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. ROPiT was able to offer the Russian navy only the worst of its ships, which were no longer suitable for commerce, since they did not meet the conditions of trade on the Black Sea, and did not provide “a single warship, captain or sailor” 230.

The creation of ROPiT occurred largely at the initiative of the government, which was concerned about maintaining a naval presence in the Black Sea. But, despite the failure of plans to strengthen the combat power of the fleet, which became obvious during the Russian-Turkish war, a new project was born that pursued the same goal as the creation of ROPiT. The significant difference was that the idea of ​​​​creating the so-called Voluntary Fleet came from Russian private enterprise circles. At the end of the 1870s. The tea trading company Ponomarev and Co., operating in Hankou (China), intended to found its own shipping company as a result, as stated in one of the company’s circulars, “arbitrariness of the Anglo-Chinese Shipping Company,” which operated on the Hankou-Shanghai-Tianjin and Fuchou lines -Shanghai-Tianjin and did not serve a number of tea suppliers for Russia. From Ponomarev’s point of view, only a Russian shipping company could free domestic Chinese tea traders from the “painful dependence” on foreign shipping companies 231 .

At the same time, the Imperial Society to promote Russian merchant shipping, citing the weakness of Russia’s position on the Black Sea, which became a serious obstacle during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, came up with the idea of ​​​​creating a fleet of high-speed steam ships, which would become the core of the domestic merchant fleet in peacetime 232. In case of war, these ships could be converted into warships 233. The project was approved by the government in April 1878 in the face of a threatening military conflict with Great Britain. The importance of this undertaking for the Russian ruling circles is revealed by the fact that the heir to the throne, the future Emperor Alexander III, was elected chairman of the Committee for the Organization of the Voluntary Fleet, and control over the current activities of the company was entrusted to one of the most influential people in Russia - K. P. Pobedonostsev, who took the position post of vice-chairman of the Committee 234. The funds necessary for the implementation of the project were collected with the assistance of a number of prominent figures of that era. The subscription to the company's shares was carried out in Moscow under the control of Governor General Prince. V. M. Dolgorukov, who attracted wealthy entrepreneurs to participate in the creation of the society and thereby provided capital for the enterprise 235.

By September 1878, 3 million rubles had been collected, and this amount was enough to purchase three steamships 236. The ships were in 1880-1881. assigned to the Pacific squadron of Admiral S.S. Lesovsky, but later the fleet increasingly acquired a commercial character. In 1886, according to the highest approved “Temporary Regulations on the Voluntary Fleet,” the company’s purpose was officially declared to be the transportation of mail, goods and passengers between Odessa and the ports of the Far East, as well as points along the route of ships 237 .

The leadership of the Voluntary Fleet was in the hands of a special Committee (board), which included two representatives from the Maritime Ministry and one from the Ministry of Finance, and the Committee itself was directly subordinate to the manager of the maritime department 238. The committee immediately tried to develop commercial activities by establishing contact with the aforementioned tea trading company Ponomarev and Co. A dispatch was sent to her with a proposal to use the vessels of the Voluntary Fleet until the company acquired its own ships. Similar proposals were also made to Moscow tea trading firms to attract the Voluntary Fleet to deliver their goods.

This initiative met with a sympathetic reception from tea traders. In subsequent negotiations, Pyatakov, co-owner of the trading house Pyatakov, Molchanov and Co. (Hankou), played an active role, as a result of which his company assumed the function of representative of the Voluntary Fleet in the ports of Hankou and Fuzhou 239 . Another tea trading company, Shcherbachev, Skokov and Co., was an agent of the Voluntary Fleet in Singapore and Colombo, and in Moscow this mission was carried out by the tea trading company of the Zenzinov brothers 240.

Close contacts between this semi-governmental company and the tea traders were expressed in annual meetings attended by members of the Committee and representatives of the Moscow business community. Data on the growing income of the Voluntary Fleet from the transportation of tea cargo reveal the reasons for such a caring attitude of the company’s management towards tea traders. The volume of tea cargo from 4256 tons in 1886 increased to 9249 tons in 1887, 13840 tons in 1888 and 15852 tons in 1889. 241 Although sea freight on the Odessa-Vladivostok line fluctuated quite noticeably, rising from 27 kopecks. per pood in the 1880s. up to 48 kopecks per pud in 1890, then up to 60 kopecks. in the late 1890s. and dropping to 35 kopecks. at the beginning of the 20th century, the income of the Voluntary Fleet at the end of the 19th century. was about 1 million rubles. per year 242. Apparently, the transportation of tea brought in almost half of the company's income from sea freight 243, and no less importantly, tea ensured that the Voluntary Fleet ships were loaded on their way back from the ports of the Far East, since otherwise they would have to return with virtually empty holds 244. The opening of the Trans-Siberian Railway in 1903 reduced the importance of the Voluntary Fleet in the field of mail and passenger transport, so that without income from sea freight of tea cargo, the company would be forced to depend entirely on government subsidies and official cargo transportation. Such a situation, of course, could not suit the Russian government.

In any case, the authorities had to subsidize private Russian shipping companies on the Black Sea. Trading house, founded in 1880 by the brothers of Prince. Yuri and Feofil Gagarin, who intended to develop passenger and cargo connections between Odessa and the Romanian and Bulgarian ports at the mouth of the Danube, also received government support. 1881 and 1882 turned out to be relatively successful, prompting the brothers to expand the operations of the trading house. In 1883 they founded the Black Sea-Danube Shipping Society. So that the new enterprise could compete with the Austrian Danube Shipping Company, in 1884 the brainchild of Prince. The Gagarins were provided with an annual government subsidy in the amount of 153 thousand rubles, as well as other privileges. Unfortunately, in the late 1880s. the company lost one of its ships, and the acquisition of a new one was delayed, which led to large losses 245. Even the Caucasus and Mercury shipping company, which operated on the Caspian Sea, which was profitable for cargo transportation, enjoyed government subsidies. Admittedly, an annual government subsidy of at least 400 thousand rubles. in the early 1880s was compensated by society to the government in the form of additional tonnage for postal and official cargo 246.

The situation in the Baltic was little more favorable, since the efforts of the Latvians, Estonians and Finns only made it possible to relatively compensate for the weak presence of Russian shipping companies in this region. At the beginning of the 20th century. The shipping company of the Lassman brothers, which owned three ships (Irkutsk, Kurgan and Vologda), carried out regular flights between Riga, Vindava, St. Petersburg and London 247.

In addition to two semi-state trading shipping companies, ROPiT and the Voluntary Fleet, at the beginning of the 20th century. we can name only two more significant Russian enterprises in the field of water transport: the Russian East Asian Shipping Company and the Northern Shipping Company (see table 14). However, the first was, in fact, a Danish company that raised the Russian flag on its ships, and the second was subsidized by the Hamburg-America shipping company, which similarly counted on a portion of the profits from trading under the Russian flag 248 .

On the eve of the First World War, the manager of the McNab, Rouge and Co. agency in Novorossiysk compiled a list of shipping companies in the Black and Azov Seas (ROPiT and Volunteer Fleet are not included in the list), which reflects the significant participation of entrepreneurs of foreign origin in the shipping business of the region (see Table 16).

Table 16

Russian shipping companies operating in the Black and Azov Seas, 1913-1914.



MERCHANT NAVY, the totality of the country's courts, together with their personnel, engaged in commercial activities. Sea cargo ships have always been the most important component of the merchant fleet and its main support in a financial sense. Passenger airliners continued to attract people, but in general, for society, the transportation of passengers has always been less important than the transportation of goods. The numerous and varied merchant marine vessels vary in type and purpose. The total number of merchant fleet vessels is also very large because it includes not only long-distance vessels, but also many of those small vessels that serve the waters of rivers, harbors and the sea coast. The merchant fleet - in the broad sense of this concept - includes not only ships and crew, but also numerous coastal services: operational management bodies, repair and bunkering enterprises, marine insurance agencies and much more, in addition to shipyards, docks, berths and warehouses.

Merchant ships, unlike military ships, are usually owned by private owners, whose position is relatively independent (sometimes the state owns part of a country's merchant fleet and manages its activities, but this is the exception rather than the rule). All modern sea vessels have a national status, symbolized by the flag that flies over each vessel. Raising the flag implies the presence of official ship documents and a registry certificate. National status carries with it both privileges and responsibilities. It allows you to secure naval or diplomatic support from your own and friendly states in different parts of the world, but it also gives the government the right to dispose of private vessels in emergency circumstances, and under normal circumstances to apply state regulations to them and the conditions of their operation. These standards include requirements for the national composition of the crew, for testing the qualifications of the crew and certification of command personnel.

Modern merchant ships can be divided into two categories, each of which has its own advantages. Vessels of one category (liners), which includes most of the best ships, operate on specific lines, with voyages between ports on these routes occurring at regular intervals. Another category consists of the so-called. tramps - vessels serving irregular cargo flows.

After World War II, significant changes occurred in maritime transport. Although the number of ships capable of carrying more than 1,000 tons of cargo increased by only 34% in the post-war years, the total tonnage of the world's merchant fleets doubled, and the average deadweight jumped from 6,300 to 9,400 tons. The number of national flags increased sharply.

The expansion of the national composition of the world merchant fleet has led to a decrease in the share of the former leaders of maritime transport. Although the total tonnage of the entire population of British and Scandinavian ships increased from 32 to 47 million tons, its share of the total tonnage of the world's merchant fleet fell from 40 to 29%. At the same time, the US share increased from 14 to 20%.

An innovation in the merchant fleet of the 20th century. the practice of what are known as "flags of convenience" or "runaway fleets" became common. Typically, the flag above a ship and the name of its home port indicate who owns it and under whose legal jurisdiction it operates. Maritime law was created on the basis of certain measures of responsibility and control on the part of states over their merchant fleet. To evade such control, and at the same time save on taxes and crew costs, new “fake” fleets appeared. These fleets arose precisely from those countries that never actually had their own “legal” maritime transport, and many ships flying the flags of these countries never called at the ports whose names are written on their sterns. This began in the fall of 1922, when the US Attorney General extended Prohibition with all its amendments to all ships flying the US flag. This stopped the wholesale supply of alcohol to two large liners flying in the Caribbean. The solution was found when someone came up with the idea of ​​launching these ships under the Panamanian flag. Later, other ships, especially American tankers, used the Panamanian flag in order not to spend money on high crew salaries, and during the war it turned out to be a convenient way to evade government regulations and sail in areas closed to sea transport. Thanks to this, by the beginning of World War II, the total carrying capacity of the Panamanian merchant fleet, which consisted of 130 of its own ships, reached 1,106 thousand tons. After the war, this fleet became even larger, but in 1949 a formidable rival suddenly appeared.

The Government of Liberia has granted one of the American companies preferential rights to wide sea transportation of goods. At the same time, Liberia received a welcome addition to its budget from duties, and the American company received a generous “service fee” for conducting specific business in New York. Within 10 years, Liberia's merchant fleet had become the third largest in the world; there were 1,018 ships with a total carrying capacity of 18,387 thousand tons, and Panama was pushed into sixth place.

The German merchant fleet by 1959 had far surpassed the total volumes that characterized it in 1939. The Japanese, whose large merchant fleet was also destroyed, by 1959 also managed to exceed its pre-war level in the total tonnage of their ships, and in 1994 they took seventh place among merchant ships. world fleets and built 243 of a total of 630 new ships.

In the period from 1939 to 1959, the number of tankers in the world almost doubled (the number of registered oil tankers increased from 1,661 to 3,307 units), and their total tonnage increased more than three times (the total deadweight changed from 16,915 to 57,629 thousand tons) . Subsequently, the oil tanker fleet grew even faster. The efficiency of tankers has constantly increased, since the larger the size of the tanker, the more economically profitable its operation is, which distinguishes oil tankers from large-sized transport of other types.

Another post-war innovation was the increase in the number of ships carrying bulk cargoes such as coal and ore. Already in 1959, the world's merchant fleet numbered 940 bulk carriers with a total carrying capacity of 9,058 thousand tons. Bulk carriers up to 300 m long and with a carrying capacity of more than 60 thousand tons were built.

At the end of the 20th century. Large container ships with a horizontal loading method - unloading of the Ro-Ro type and lighter carriers have become widespread, providing transshipment on the roadstead using their own means with an increase in the productivity of cargo operations several times. see also RIVER AND COASTAL NAVIGATION VESSELS; HARBOR.

The merchant marine fleet is a collection of ships with personnel currently engaged in commercial activities.

Purpose of the merchant marine fleet

The department is responsible for performing these types of tasks:

  • maintaining peaceful and maintaining military order;
  • protection of territorial maritime borders;
  • protection of national interests of citizens.

In addition to the main ones listed above, there are also secondary, but no less important tasks, which are carried out by the merchant fleet.

During the existence of the freight structure, it played an important role in the development of the economic state of the country, being the financial support of the state.

The fleet is the basis of shipping. Today, the merchant fleet includes not only ships and long-distance ships, but also small water transport. Small vessels are engaged in servicing the sea coast and water area.

What vessels are part of the merchant fleet?

In addition to large and small vehicles, the country's merchant fleet also includes:

  • organizations and enterprises engaged in repair and towing work;
  • operational management bodies;
  • marine insurance agencies;
  • maintenance centers for sea bunkers, shipyards, berths.

The merchant marine fleet is a unit that for the most part belongs to private structures. Thus, their activities are carried out independently of the leadership of the head of state. But there are cases when the head of the republic interferes in the activities of the merchant fleet.

How to recognize a merchant ship

A vessel automatically acquires the status of official maritime transport if the national flag of the country is flown on it. This is a symbol of the status of a sea vessel.

The flag of the state raised on the ship means that the ship is officially registered in the register of marine vessels, has a certificate confirming this and a full package of ship documents.

Thanks to its national status, the ship receives privileges in the form of diplomatic support not only from the ruling state, but also from neighboring friendly countries. The government has every right to dispose of private merchant ships in case of emergency.

The merchant fleet is a unit whose management and operation is subject to government regulations.