December 2018 · Number 5 Logistics Infrastructure Along the Belt and Road Initiative Economies Christina Wiederer countries. Increasing the logistics performance of a low-income country to the average performance of a middle-income country can Introduction increase trade by 15% or more.3 Better logistics allow more market access and Logistics is the network of services that support can thus foster trade. 4 Failing to move goods the physical movement of goods, trade across seamlessly hampers trade: a one-day delay at borders, and commerce within borders. It the border leads to an average 1% decrease in comprises an array of activities beyond trade.5 Better logistics have a greater effect on transportation, including warehousing and trade promotion than tariff cuts: Logistics costs storage, terminal operations (e.g. in ports and influence trade costs more than tariff barriers in airports), express delivery, customs brokerage, most countries.6 as well as data and information management. The global turnover generated by logistics Global production chains also depend on a exceeds US$ 4.3 trillion.1 robust logistics sector. Coordinating the various stages of product development, A country’s logistics performance is key to a component production, and final assembly country’s productivity and its attractiveness to requires the ability to move goods across outside investment. 2 Inefficient logistics raise borders quickly, reliably, and at low cost. A the cost of doing business and reduce the lack of logistics infrastructure is one of the potential for international and domestic market main reasons for companies to abstain from integration, especially for developing extending their procurement network to countries. The gains from improving logistics emerging and developing countries. 7 performance are especially high in poorer 1 Boston Consulting Group (2016): Transportation 4 Carruthers, R., J.N. Bajpai, D. Hummels (2004): and Logistics in a Changing World: The Journey Back to “Trade and Logistics: An East Asian Perspective”. Profitable Growth. Boston: Boston Consulting Group. In: Krumm, K., H. Kharas, eds.: East Asia Integrates: 2 Hausman, W.H., H.L. Lee, U. Subramanian (2013): A Trade Policy Agenda for Shared Growth. “The Impact of Logistics Performance on Trade”. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 77-94. Production and Operations Management Vol. 22, No. 2, 5 Djankov, S., Freund, C., Pham, C. (2006): “Trading March-April 2013, 236-252. on Time”. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3 Qureshi, Zia (2011): “The G-20 and Global 3909. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Development”. In: World Bank (2011): Postcrisis 6 Gonzalez, J.A., J.L. Guasch, T. Serebrisky (2008): growth and development. Available at “Improving Logistics Costs for Transportation and http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL Trade Facilitation”. World Bank Policy Research /EXTDEC/0,,contentMDK:22757059~pagePK:64165 Working Paper 4558. Washington, DC: The World 401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469372,00.html, 119- Bank. 151. 7 Straube, F., A. Özgen, O. Ouyeder (2011): International Procurement – Challenges and This note summarizes information relevant to leading to difficulties in land-based understanding the logistics infrastructure- transit trade. related bottlenecks impeding international and intra-regional connectivity along the Belt and • Across BRI economies, logistics Road Initiative (BRI) economies. Data professionals perceive gaps in rail originates in the Logistics Performance Index, infrastructure as more prevalent than published by the World Bank8. gaps in road infrastructure, with port and airport infrastructure receiving Key Findings higher marks for perceived quality. • The developing countries that are part • The share of logistics professionals of the BRI exhibit substantial gaps in rating the quality of trade- and trade- and transport-related transport related infrastructure in infrastructure. their country of operation as having “improved” or “much improved” • There are large differences in score between 2015 and 2017 is higher than between the BRI economies as the share rating infrastructure quality measured by the World Bank’s 2018 as “worsened” or “much worsened”. Logistics Performance Index: 3 of the The same goes for ICT infrastructure. bottom 20 LPI performers are BRI economies (Afghanistan, Bhutan, • The competence and quality of rail Iraq), as are 3 of the top 20 performers service providers is rated as lower (Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, UAE). than the competence and quality of service provided by road, maritime, • The seven BRI economies with the and air transport providers. weakest infrastructure performance Warehousing, transloading and are Afghanistan (score of 1.81 out of distribution services are rated 5), Bhutan (1.91), Myanmar (1.99), comparatively highly as well. Moldova (2.02), Iraq (2.03), Mongolia (2.1) and Yemen (2.12). The four highest-performing BRI economies in Structure, Sample and Ranking of the terms of infrastructure are China Logistics Performance Index (3.75), Hong Kong SAR (China) (3.97), United Arab Emirates (4.02), and The Logistics Performance Index (LPI) is a Singapore (4.06). multidimensional assessment of logistics performance. The 2018 edition allows for • When viewed by region, BRI countries comparisons across 160 countries. The LPI is in South Asia exhibit the weakest based on a worldwide survey of operators on infrastructure performance, while BRI the ground (global freight forwarders and economies in East Asia Pacific and in express carriers), providing feedback on the high income countries exhibit the logistics “friendliness” of the countries in highest. which they operate and those with which they trade. They combine in-depth knowledge of the • A challenge for China is that it is countries in which they operate with informed surrounded by several economies qualitative assessments of other countries with high perceived infrastructure where they trade and experience of global gaps, e.g. Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, logistics environment. Mongolia, Myanmar, and Pakistan, Opportunities in Emerging Markets. BVL, German 8 Arvis, J.F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Logistics Association. Bremen: Deutscher Verkehrs- Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K., Kiiski, T. (2018): Verlag. Connecting to Compete 2018: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy. The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank. December 2018 · Number 5 · 2 The LPI measures performance along the Whereas the first three components constitute logistics supply chain within a country and areas for policy regulation (inputs), the latter offers two perspectives: domestic and three constitute supply chain performance international. outcomes, related to time, cost and reliability (see figure 1). The International LPI includes a In the Domestic LPI, logistics professionals country ranking which is based on countries’ provide qualitative and quantitative scores. The ranking is based on around 5,000 assessments of their own country of operation. individual country assessments by close to It includes detailed information on the logistics 1,000 international freight forwarders9 around environment, core logistics processes, the world. institutions, as well as time and cost data. The Domestic LPI does not include a country The International LPI ranking should not be ranking or country scores. over-interpreted. As in any data collection exercise, sample variations occur. Upper and The International LPI provides qualitative lower bounds are provided for the score and evaluations of a country in six areas by its the rank.10 A country’s score (rather than rank) trading partners – logistics professionals over time provides a better picture of its working outside the country. In the logistics performance. More information on the International LPI, respondents are asked to rate LPI methodology, including how countries are 8 countries (not including their own country of selected in the International section of the LPI operation) on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) survey, can be found in Appendix 5 of the 2018 across six core components. The International report. LPI’s six core components are: International LPI: Quality of Trade – and 1. Efficiency of clearance processes (e.g. Transport-Related Infrastructure customs) 2. Trade- and transport-related The developing countries that are part of the infrastructure BRI exhibit substantial gaps in trade- and 3. Ease of arranging competitively priced transport-related infrastructure. The BRI international shipments economies’ average score of perceived quality (“International shipments”) of trade- and transport-related infrastructure is 4. Competence and quality of logistics 2.7 on a scale from 1 to 5, pointing to important services gaps (Figure 2). Yet there are large differences 5. Ability to track and trace consignments in score between the BRI economies: 3 of the 6. Timeliness of delivery bottom 20 LPI performers are BRI economies (Afghanistan, Bhutan, Iraq), as are 3 of the top 20 performers (Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, UAE). Among the BRI economies, China (score of 3.75 out of 5) and Hong Kong (China) (3.97) are almost on par with global best performers (G7 11 ) (4.04) in terms of perceived quality of trade- and transport-related infrastructure, and Singapore (4.06) lies above the G7 average. Figure 1: Input and output indicators of the LPI 9 Freight Forwarders are professionals whose role is 10 The interval for ranks is built from the ranks organize the movement of goods through borders corresponding to the upper and lower values in the and domestically, organizing consolidation, current distribution. transportation by typically other providers, and 11 Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United dealing with trade paperwork. They work Kingdom, USA independently or as part of larger companies. December 2018 · Number 5 · 3 2.33 Europe and Central Asia… 2.50 2.55 Sub-Saharan Africa (BRI) 2.55 2.70 East Asia and Pacific (BRI) 2.73 2.75 High-income economies… 3.25 4.04 LPI top performer (DEU) 4.37 1 2 3 4 5 LPI score (min = 1, max = 5) Figure 2: Quality of trade- and transport-related Figure 3: Average Infrastructure Score by region; infrastructure of BRI economies; Source: Source: International LPI 201813 International LPI 201812 The average infrastructure score for BRI and The BRI economies with the weakest non-BRI economies is virtually the same. This infrastructure performance are Afghanistan is because the non-BRI list includes both most (score of 1.81 out of 5), Bhutan (1.91), Myanmar highly performing economies (high-income (1.99), Moldova (2.02), Iraq (2.03), Mongolia countries), but also the lowest performers. (2.1), Yemen (2.12), Cambodia (2.14), Tajikistan (2.17), Nepal (2.19), Pakistan (2.20), and Ukraine (2.22). The four highest-performing Domestic LPI: Quality of Infrastructure by BRI economies in terms of infrastructure are Transport Mode China (3.75), Hong Kong SAR (China) (3.97), United Arab Emirates (4.02), and Singapore A caveat for the following section: Like data (4.06). from the International LPI, data in the Domestic LPI is context-dependent and reflects A challenge for China is that it is surrounded perceptions. In the Domestic LPI, data is based by several economies with high perceived on logistics operators’ perceptions of their own infrastructure gaps, e.g. Afghanistan, country of operation. In countries with mature Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Myanmar and logistics systems (those that tend to score Pakistan, leading to difficulties in land-based higher on the International LPI), demands by transit trade. When viewed by region, on operators tend to be higher than in countries average, the South Asian BRI economies with nascent logistics systems, leading to a exhibit the weakest infrastructure performance higher percentage of respondents in highly among all BRI economies, whereas those in the performing countries rating the domestic East Asia and Pacific Region exhibit the highest infrastructure as lacking.14 (see Figure 3). Quality of Trade- and Transport Related Infrastructure in BRI Economies by Infrastructure Type Question 18 in the Domestic LPI asks respondents to "Evaluate the quality of trade- and transport-related infrastructure in your country of work". Figure 4 to Figure 9 show the share of respondents answering "low" or "very 12 The following BRI economies are not featured in groups do not include high-income economies; see the 2018 International LPI: Azerbaijan, Palestine, separate “High-income economies (BRI)” group. Tanzania, Timor-Leste 14 Data from the Domestic LPI is available for up to 13 “BRI” in brackets denotes that this group only 28 BRI economies; the remaining BRI economies are covers BRI members in a given group. Regional only featured in the International Section (except for Azerbaijan, Palestine, Tanzania, Timor-Leste). December 2018 · Number 5 · 4 low". Answers are grouped by infrastructure numbers are: the share of German respondents type.15 who perceive the rail infrastructure quality as “low” or “very low” (23%) is almost as high as For BRI economies in the sample, the share of the share of Indian respondents who perceive respondents perceiving the quality of road their country’s rail infrastructure as lacking infrastructure as “low” or “very low” (Figure 4) (26%). The corresponding share of respondents is highest in Indonesia, the Russian Federation in the top 20% of LPI performers overall at 33% and Romania, and lowest in Singapore, Poland is even higher, and the same goes for and Oman. For rail infrastructure, the picture respondents in the G7 countries (35%, not looks different (Figure 5): The United Arab including Japan). Given the differences in the Emirates and Oman are among the countries countries’ rail infrastructure, those numbers with worst perceived rail infrastructure most likely reflect that infrastructure quality quality, together with Tanzania and Indonesia. demands of German logistics professionals are China, Singapore and India fare best. To higher than those of their Indian peers. illustrate how context-dependent these Indonesia 83% Tanzania 83% Russian Federation 75% United Arab Emirates 83% Romania 69% Oman 83% Vietnam 60% Indonesia 80% Pakistan 60% Greece 77% Myanmar 59% Myanmar 76% Tanzania 50% Romania 67% India 48% Saudi Arabia 63% Greece 36% Pakistan 60% Egypt, Arab Rep. 33% Bulgaria 52% Bulgaria 33% Russian Federation 50% Uzbekistan 20% Egypt, Arab Rep. 50% China 18% Turkey 50% Turkey 15% Poland 50% Saudi Arabia 10% Uzbekistan 40% United Arab Emirates 10% Singapore India 26% 0% Poland 0% Singapore 17% Oman 0% China 9% G7 (w/out Japan) 19% G7 (w/out Japan) 35% Top LPI quintile 15% Top LPI quintile 33% Top performer (DEU) 14% Top performer (DEU) 23% Figure 4: Quality of road infrastructure perceived as “low” Figure 5: Quality of rail infrastructure perceived as or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 “low” or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 In the sample, the largest problems in the LPI 2018 top performer Germany (Figure 6). For perceived quality of port infrastructure ( Figure airport quality (Figure 7), a similar picture 6) are by far in Indonesia (83%), followed by emerges: Indonesia (67%), the Russian Myanmar (52%), the Russian Federation (50%) Federation (50%), Myanmar (47%) and and Romania (50%). In three BRI economies not Romania (42%) have the highest proportion of a single respondent rated the port respondents rating their countries’ airport infrastructure quality as “low” or “very low”: quality as “low” or “very low”, whereas none China, Singapore, and Poland – the same as in of the respondents in China and Singapore did. 15For all charts in the Domestic LPI section: US, as Japan was not featured in the 2018 Domestic numbers for the G7 economies only include LPI. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the December 2018 · Number 5 · 5 Indonesia 83% Indonesia 67% Myanmar 53% Russian Federation 50% Russian Federation 50% Myanmar 47% Romania 50% Romania 42% Vietnam 40% Poland 33% Oman 33% Vietnam 30% Bulgaria 30% Pakistan 20% India Uzbekistan 20% 23% India 18% Uzbekistan 20% Tanzania 17% Saudi Arabia 20% Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% Tanzania 17% Bulgaria 17% Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% Oman 17% Turkey 15% Greece 14% Greece 14% Turkey 13% United Arab Emirates 10% Saudi Arabia 11% China 0% United Arab Emirates 10% Singapore 0% China 0% Poland 0% Singapore 0% Top LPI quintile 16% Top LPI quintile 10% G7 (w/out Japan) 12% G7 (w/out Japan) 8% Top performer (DEU) 0% Top performer (DEU) 0% Figure 6: Quality of port infrastructure perceived as “low” Figure 7: Quality of airport infrastructure perceived as or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 “low” or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 Warehousing refers to the commercial storage Poland, Singapore, the Russian Federation (0% of goods that will be sold or distributed later. each), as well as China and Romania (8% each). They are used by manufacturers, importers, Telecommunications and IT infrastructure is exporters, wholesalers, transport providers relevant to logistics operations as it allows for and customs authorities. Warehouses are part rapid information sharing among all supply of the logistics infrastructure of a country, chain actors, which is indispensable for along with transportation networks (road, rail, modern production processes and the air and waterway networks), dry ports, avoidance of stock-outs and the need for logistics zones, inland container depots, expensive buffer stocks. The highest perceived container freight stations, and ICT quality gaps in telecommunications and IT infrastructure. Warehousing is essential to infrastructure in the BRI sample are in maintain an uninterrupted flow of goods and Indonesia (67%), Uzbekistan (50%) and the materials from the source to the point of Russian Federation (50%) (Figure 9); the lowest consumption. For the BRI economies in the gaps are in Oman, Singapore, the United Arab sample, the largest perceived quality issues in Emirates (0% each) and India (4%). As for the warehousing and transloading infrastructure comparator countries, quality gaps in occur in Uzbekistan (80%) and Vietnam (60%) telecommunications and infrastructure are (Figure 8). The least problems are seen in perceived as higher in the G7 countries (8%; not including Japan) and Germany (14%). December 2018 · Number 5 · 6 Uzbekistan 80% Indonesia 67% Vietnam 60% Uzbekistan 60% Indonesia 40% Russian Federation 50% Pakistan 40% Poland 25% Greece 29% Vietnam 20% India 26% Myanmar 18% Myanmar 24% Tanzania Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% 17% Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% Greece 14% Oman 17% Turkey 13% Turkey 16% Saudi Arabia 10% Saudi Arabia 10% China 8% United Arab Emirates 10% Romania 8% Bulgaria 9% Bulgaria 6% Romania 8% India 4% China 8% United Arab Emirates 0% Russian Federation 0% Singapore 0% Singapore 0% Poland 0% Oman 0% Top LPI quintile 10% Top LPI quintile 4% G7 (w/out Japan) 6% G7 (w/out Japan) 8% Top performer (DEU) 0% Top performer (DEU) 14% Figure 8: Quality of warehousing/ transloading Figure 9: Quality of telecommunications and IT infrastructure perceived as “low” or “very low”; infrastructure perceived as “low” or “very low”; Source: Source: Domestic LPI 2018 Domestic LPI 2018 Figure 10 shows changes in the perceived country with the highest share of perceived quality of trade- and transport-related improvements (92%), followed by Singapore infrastructure (e.g. road, rail, port, airport, (88%), Oman (83%), Pakistan (80%) and warehousing, and telecommunications Uzbekistan (80%). Countries where infrastructure) in select BRI economies since respondents perceived few positive changes 2015. Answers are grouped by “much include the Philippines (25%), Romania (25%), worsened or worsened” and “improved or the Russian Federation (25%) and Nepal (0%). much improved”. 16 China stands out as the 100% 92% 88% 83% 80% 80% 75% 80% 69% 67% 65% 58% 54% 53% 53% 60% 50% 50% 50% 45% 40% 36% 40% 25% 25% 25% 20% 0% 0% Much worsened or worsened Improved or much improved Figure 10: Changes in the perceived quality of trade- and transport-related infrastructure in BRI economies since 2015; Source: Domestic LPI 16Improvements are marked in blue for BRI values are marked in red. Data labels refer to economies and in green for comparators; worsened “improved or much improved” category December 2018 · Number 5 · 7 Figure 11 shows changes in the perceived improvements (91%), followed Bulgaria (88%), quality of telecommunications and IT Myanmar (87%), Greece (85%) and Egypt infrastructure in BRI economies since 2015. (85%). The corresponding figure for the top LPI Answers are grouped by “much worsened or quintile is 67%. BRI countries with the lowest worsened” and “improved or much share of perceived positive change in quality of improved”. 17 China again stands out as the telecommunications and IT infrastructure are country with the highest share of perceived Indonesia (40%) and the Philippines (0%). 100% 91% 88% 87% 85% 83% 83% 82% 75% 75% 75% 75% 80% 67% 67% 65% 60% 67% 60% 50% 50% 57% 40% 40% 20% 0% 0% Much worsened or worsened Improved or much improved Figure 11: Changes in the perceived quality of telecommunications and IT infrastructure in BRI economies since 2015; Source: Domestic LPI The share of respondents perceiving the Competence and Quality of Logistics Services competence and quality of road transport in BRI Economies by Services Type service as “low” or “very low” is highest in Uzbekistan (80%) and the Philippines (50%), and lowest in Saudi Arabia (11%), China (8%) Question 19 in the Domestic LPI asks and Singapore (0%), i.e. in those countries respondents to "Evaluate the competence and satisfaction with road transport services is quality of service delivered by the following in highest (Figure 12). As for rail transport your country of work". Figure 12 to Figure 16 service, its quality is perceived as “low” or show the share of respondents answering “very low” mostly in Vietnam (90%), "low" or "very low". Answers are grouped by Myanmar (82%), Oman (80%) and the services type. Philippines (75%) (Figure 13). 17Improvements are marked in blue for BRI values are marked in red. Data labels refer to economies and in green for comparators; worsened “improved or much improved” category. December 2018 · Number 5 · 8 Uzbekistan 80% 90% Philippines 50% Myanmar 82% Tanzania 33% 80% Vietnam 30% Philippines 75% United Arab Emirates 30% 67% Greece 29% Saudi Arabia 67% Serbia 25% 67% Russian Federation 25% United Arab Emirates 67% Nepal 25% 60% Malaysia 25% Egypt, Arab Rep. 60% Romania 23% 50% Turkey 23% Turkey 44% Pakistan 20% 43% Oman 17% Uzbekistan 40% Kenya 17% 25% Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% Malaysia 25% India 14% 25% Myanmar 12% India 21% Saudi Arabia 11% 19% China 8% Singapore 17% Singapore 0% 17% Top LPI quintile 5% Top LPI quintile 24% G7 (w/out Japan) 0% 20% Top performer (DEU) 0% Top performer (DEU) 10% Figure 12: Competence and quality of road transport Figure 13: Competence and quality of rail transport service providers perceived as “low” or “very low”; service providers perceived as “low” or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 Source: Domestic LPI 2018 The competence and quality of maritime “very low” (Figure 14). The picture looks transport service providers is not a major different for air transport services, where 75% bottleneck in BRI economies featured in the of respondents in Nepal and 60% of 2018 Domestic LPI. Only between 0 and 25% respondents in Uzbekistan indicate that the of respondents in all featured economies rate competence and quality of air transport maritime transport service quality as “low” or service providers is “low” or “very low” (Figure 15). December 2018 · Number 5 · 9 Philippines 25% Nepal 75% Malaysia 25% Uzbekistan 60% Vietnam 20% Philippines 25% Uzbekistan 20% Vietnam 20% Pakistan 20% Oman 17% United Arab Emirates 20% Oman 17% Kenya 17% Myanmar 12% United Arab Emirates 13% Saudi Arabia 11% Myanmar 12% Turkey 8% Saudi Arabia 10% Greece 7% Turkey 8% China 7% China 8% Bulgaria 7% India 5% Greece 0% Singapore 0% Singapore 0% G7 (w/out Japan) Top LPI quintile 7% 8% Top LPI quintile 7% G7 (w/out Japan) 3% Top performer (DEU) 0% Top performer (DEU) 0% Figure 14: Competence and quality of maritime Figure 15: Competence and quality of air transport transport service providers perceived as “low” or “very service providers perceived as “low” or “very low”; low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 Source: Domestic LPI 2018 The quality of warehousing, transloading and 16). In the top performing countries distribution operators is perceived as (Germany, G7 economies, and the top LPI reasonably high in BRI economies in the quintile), only between 0 and 5% of sample, with the highest rating in Singapore, respondents perceive the quality of Oman, and China (0% each of respondents warehousing, transloading and distribution indicating “low” or “very low” quality (Figure operators as “low” or “very low”. United Arab Emirates 30% Russian Federation 25% Philippines 25% Nepal 25% Malaysia 25% Vietnam 20% Pakistan 20% India 19% Myanmar 18% Tanzania 17% Egypt, Arab Rep. 17% Turkey 11% Saudi Arabia 10% Romania 8% Greece 8% Singapore 0% Oman 0% China 0% Top LPI quintile 5% G7 (w/out Japan) 0% Top performer (DEU) 0% Figure 16: Competence and quality of warehousing, transloading and distribution operators perceived as “low” or “very low”; Source: Domestic LPI 2018 December 2018 · Number 5 · 10 Conclusion About the author: Christina Wiederer, Economist, World Bank Macroeconomics, Trade & Investment Global Several countries that are part of the BRI have Practice large gaps in trade- and transport-related cwiederer@worldbank.org infrastructure, constraining their productivity, raising the cost of doing business, and reducing attractiveness to outside investors. As gains from improving logistics performance are especially high in poorer countries, improving trade- and transport- related infrastructure (along with logistics performance overall) in developing countries that are part of the BRI could increase trade as well as enhance international and domestic market integration. Improving logistics performance in those countries could lower logistics costs and enable countries to become part of international procurement networks. Coordinating the various stages of product development, component production, and final assembly requires the ability to move goods across borders quickly, reliably, and at low cost. The BRI economies which would benefit most from infrastructure investments (based on their LPI infrastructure score) are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar, Moldova, Iraq, Mongolia, Yemen, Cambodia, Tajikistan, Nepal, Pakistan, and Ukraine. In most BRI countries, perceived infrastructure gaps are highest in rail transport, followed by road transport. Infrastructure investments in these transport modes seem sensible as road transport is the dominant transport mode in most countries, and rail transport – along with maritime shipping – has the lowest environmental footprint among transport modes. December 2018 · Number 5 · 11