Sustainable Solutions for Ukrainian Grain Transit Through Poland: Enhancing Terminal Infrastructure

Abstract

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has significantly disrupted global food supply chains, exacerbating existing food security challenges. To mitigate these disruptions, this study proposes a comprehensive approach to establishing sustainable intermodal terminals and technology parks along the Ukrainian–Polish border. To address this research issue, we analyzed the Ukrainian and global grain markets using publicly available statistical data. This analysis revealed the need to enhance grain transit through Poland, with terminal development identified as a crucial factor. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of the Polish freight rail transport market provided forecasts of potential demand for rail transit. Utilizing Petri nets as a modeling tool, we simulated the transit system at the macro level. Based on this simulation, we identified potential locations for freight terminals at the Ukrainian border near EU countries. Employing the AHP methodology, we evaluated these potential locations and selected Kovel in the Volyn region of Ukraine as the most promising alternative. For this location, we proposed the development of a new technological park. The implementation of this project, with the capacity to process and clear up to 600 wagons per day, would facilitate the transshipment of up to 3000 tons of grain per day from Ukraine to EU countries.

1. Introduction

The agricultural sector’s crucial role in the global economy, particularly for developing nations [1,2,3,4], is undeniable. However, sustainable global economic development—encompassing social, economic, and environmental dimensions—hinges not only on agricultural production itself but also on the efficient distribution of agricultural products to consumers. This is where agricultural logistics becomes paramount.

It is worth noting that while sustainability issues in agriculture and logistics are interconnected, they focus on different fields of productional activities. Sustainability in agriculture primarily centers around optimizing production processes to minimize environmental impact through using dedicated practices like organic farming, water conservation, and biodiversity preservation within the farm. On the other hand, sustainability in logistics concentrates on optimizing the movement of goods (including agricultural products) from the production locations to consumers. It emphasizes minimizing the supply chain’s environmental, social, and economic impact by reducing emissions, unproductive waiting times, and waste during transportation and storage.

As highlighted, the ability to effectively deliver agricultural products is inextricably linked to the sector’s overall contribution to sustainable development. Logistics operations are integral to the smooth functioning of the entire agricultural supply chain [5], acting as the bridge between production and consumption. Consequently, the adoption of modern analytical techniques and innovative logistics management strategies is not merely beneficial but essential for agricultural enterprises engaged in the supply, production, and delivery of agricultural products [6]. These advancements are vital for optimizing the flow of goods, minimizing waste, reducing environmental impact, and ensuring that agricultural products reach consumers efficiently and sustainably, thereby bolstering the agricultural sector’s contribution to overall sustainable development.

For some countries, agriculture is one of the most developed segments of the economy, and logistics activities associated with the export of harvested products significantly contribute to the increase in GDP. One such country is Ukraine, which in recent years has been ranked 1st in terms of global sunflower oil exports, 6th in wheat, and 10th in corn exports, accounting for more than 41% of the country’s overall exports [7,8]. In fact, in addition to fully meeting its own needs, Ukraine also fed and saved from hunger annually at least 400 million people around the world (agricultural products from Ukraine are exported to over 190 countries worldwide). Ukrainian agriculture is a major contributor to the country’s economy, occupying a vast land area of 42 million hectares, which is 70% of the total land fund. A significant portion of this land, 78.9%, is arable, highlighting the country’s agricultural potential. Ukraine is a major producer of various agricultural commodities. In 2023, the country threshed 71.5 million tons of oilseeds and grains, including 22.4 million tons of wheat, 21.2 million tons of corn, and 5.9 million tons of barley. Oilseeds, particularly sunflower (11.5 million tons) and soybean (4.7 million tons), are also significant crops [8] produced in Ukraine.

However, after the Russian Federation invaded the territory of Ukraine in 2022, the situation changed drastically. While the ongoing war has presented significant challenges, including landmine contamination and infrastructure damage, Ukrainian agriculture has shown resilience. Despite these obstacles, the sector continues to play a vital role in the country’s economy and contributes significantly to global food security.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which began on 24 February 2022, has had far-reaching consequences, including significant disruptions to global food supply chains [9]. The conflict has led to the destruction of Ukrainian agricultural infrastructure, including farms, warehouses, and transportation networks. Additionally, the targeting of agricultural workers and the mining of fields have hindered agricultural production and export capabilities [10,11,12]. Despite international efforts, such as the Istanbul Agreement, which was later suspended by Russia in June 2023 [13], the conflict has severely limited the export of Ukrainian agricultural products through the Black Sea ports. This has raised concerns about potential food shortages in Ukraine, Europe, and other regions, particularly in the Middle East, Asia, as well as North and East Africa [7,14,15]. Furthermore, the conflict and related sanctions have disrupted traditional trade routes between China and the European Union, impacting global supply chains [16].

The disruption of agricultural production and export markets in 2022 necessitated non-traditional solutions for transporting goods from Ukraine to EU ports via land, primarily through Poland. This situation created new perspectives on the international market of agricultural products for the main stakeholders—Ukrainian farmers, Polish terminal operators, and international donors.

The inability to export the crops threatened the livelihoods of Ukrainian farmers and the country’s economy. It created financial strain, as delayed or blocked exports led to mounting debts and an inability to invest in the next growing season. So, the Ukrainian government advocated for swift solutions to the export blockades, including alternative routes, increased infrastructure capacity, and financial support from international partners. On the other hand, Polish terminal operators met a new economic opportunity, as increased grain transit through Poland presented a significant business opportunity, potentially boosting the revenue and creating jobs. However, this opportunity met the infrastructure challenges, because handling increased volumes of agricultural products required substantial investment in infrastructure upgrades, including rail lines, storage facilities, and port capacity. Polish terminal operators are interested in long-term solutions that ensure sustained grain flows through Poland, even after the war ends. The international donors (United States Agency for International Development, European Union, World Food Program, and other UN agencies) prioritize the prevention of food shortages and ensuring food security for vulnerable populations within Ukraine and globally. They keep supporting Ukraine’s economy for its long-term recovery and stability as agricultural exports are a major contributor to the Ukrainian economy. Ensuring the unimpeded flow of Ukrainian grain helps stabilize global food markets and mitigate the risk of food crises in other parts of the world.

This paper aims to identify and evaluate strategic approaches for stabilizing the Eurasian transport market by exploring the development of new supply channels through Ukraine and Poland, focusing on the redistribution and optimization of existing intermodal land transport infrastructure.

This study contributes to the field of sustainable development of Eurasian transport logistics by the following:

• highlighting the importance of diversifying intermodal carrier activities, specifically through the utilization of grain containers, as a key strategy for market stabilization;
• demonstrating the potential benefits of expanding the logistics network of technology parks along Ukraine’s western border to facilitate efficient cargo processing and transfer;
• identifying alternative locations for a combined grain and container cargo processing technology park in the region;
• providing a detailed project proposal for the development of such a technology park, offering a practical framework for implementation and further research.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 examines the Ukrainian and global agricultural product markets, Section 3 proposes a model for selecting a grain terminal location and presents preliminary results, and Section 4 briefly discusses the benefits of the proposed delivery scheme and offers overall conclusions.

2. Problems in the Market of Grain Transportation and Prospects to Solve Them

2.1. The Situation in the Ukrainian and World Grain Markets

Agricultural products traditionally occupy the first place in Ukrainian exports. In 2021, Ukrainian farmers exported agricultural products (such as sunflower oil, corn, grains, and others) worth USD 27.8 billion [8]. Moreover, agri-food products accounted for the largest percentage of Ukraine’s total exports—approximately 41% per year. According to the analysis of statistical data, in 2021, Ukraine’s agriculture had the largest share of GDP among all sectors of the economy—about 10% [17]. It is not surprising that, in recent years, Ukraine has had the status of one of the largest guarantors of global food security and was often called the “breadbasket” of Europe. Based on the report of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine (MAPFU) in 2022, Ukraine’s agriculture showed the highest production growth—14.4%, and for grain, it increased by up to 19.2%.

Before the war, Ukraine’s contribution was equivalent to feeding approximately 400 million people per year, not including the country’s own population. According to the MAPFU, during the last years until the start of hostilities in February 2022, the program “Development of the agricultural sector of Ukraine” included in the National Economic Strategy 2030 was effectively implemented [18]. The strategy envisioned supplying food to not only 400 million, but even up to 1 billion people worldwide in the long term. According to official data from the State Customs Service, foreign trade turnover in agricultural products and food in 2021 increased by 24% compared to 2020 and amounted to over USD 35.4 billion, or 25.1% of Ukraine’s total foreign trade turnover. At the same time, exports of agricultural sector products amounted to USD 27.7 billion (or 40.7% of total exports of goods from Ukraine), which is 25% more than in 2020.

The countries that received the highest quantity of Ukrainian agri-food products are as follows: China, which accounted for 15.5% of the structure of export of agricultural products and food, India—7.1%, the Netherlands—6.4%, Egypt—5.8%, and Turkey—5.3%. The most important types of food and agricultural exports in 2021 were cereals, oils and oilseeds, solid waste from the extraction of fats, vegetable oils, and others (Figure 1).

Figure 1 indicates that the largest share of Ukrainian exports in 2021 (more than 50%) was grain. Due to the sharp increase in world grain prices in 2021, some farmers, having a sufficient money supply, stored the harvested crops in warehouses, expecting an increase in the prices of grain products as well during the sowing season. However, after the outbreak of the war, all ports and, consequently, export possibilities were blocked. About 25 million tons of wheat and corn from the 2021 harvest remained in Ukrainian warehouses for future sale; however, it would take at least three years to transport this amount of cargo by railway. Apart from the 2021 agricultural products stored in warehouses, the potential 2022 harvest should also be considered, which, for example, for wheat, was expected to be between 51 and 70 million tons. In addition, the Ukrainian sunflower oil industry also faced difficulties: sunflower seeds cannot be stored for as long as corn or wheat, and it is almost impossible to sell them raw or processed during the war. Furthermore, redirecting oil exports to the western border presents a considerable challenge, as the European market does not have enough processing capacity to handle substantial amounts of sunflower oil. Exporting or transshipping it is not a feasible option either.

In the peak season before the war, up to 5–7 million tons of grain and sunflower seeds were transported through Ukrainian ports every month. Due to port blocking, Ukraine is now able to transport only 0.7–1.0 tons of grain per month by rail. However, in July 2022, even during the war, Ukraine managed to export 2.0–2.5 million tons of products. It is important to note that almost all land transportation was planned to be carried out through Polish terminals and transport facilities, which are presently unable to handle even approximately 0.6 million tons of Ukrainian exports [19]. In addition, the operations of crossing the customs border of Ukraine for trucks (regardless of the type of cargo) currently take a long time, which further complicates the transportation process.

Most importantly, in the 2022/2023 season, it was not possible to reorient the logistics flows of grain exports and eliminate the potential global food deficit (especially in conditions of significant growth in demand in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa) at the expense of other exporters (

Table 1. The situation among the largest exporters after wheat exports in the 2022/2023 season, in million tons per month (based on [8]).

Wheat Exporter	Exports Planned Before the 2022/2023 Season	Predictive Exports Considering the Current Geopolitical and Climatic Situation	Difference
USA	21.77	20.50	−1.27
EU	35.50	30.00	−5.50
Canada	25.00	25.00	0.00
Australia	24.00	24.00	0.00
Argentina	13.50	11.00	−2.50
Russia	40.00	32.00	−8.00
Ukraine	10.00	7.00	−3.00
India	6.50	2.50	−4.00
Total	176.27	152.00	−24.27

).

After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the growing risk of halting Ukrainian agricultural exports, the EU developed a plan to partially compensate for the potential food shortages. The proposal called for the use of reserves and relied on anticipated higher harvests in Argentina and India compared to previous years. However, as can be seen from Table 1, the increase in harvests did not occur in these regions. On the contrary, the yields significantly decreased due to the climatic conditions that took place in the period from May to July 2022 (drought, fires, etc.). In addition, the intensification of the global food crisis was also influenced by the sanctions imposed on Russia (regarding the export of agricultural products), which before the war was one of the world’s largest suppliers.

The inability to export Ukrainian agricultural products can also lead to a sharp reduction in European stocks of wheat and corn. The demand for these commodities has been proliferating in European and Middle Eastern countries in recent years (

Table 2. European and Ukrainian balance of wheat and corn, in million tons (based on [8]).

Parameter	Wheat Balance						Corn Balance
	European Union					Ukraine	European Union					Ukraine
	2020/21	2021/22	Plan 2022/23	Fact 2022/23	Difference	Plan 2022/23	2020/21	2021/22	Plan 2022/23	Fact 2022/23	Difference	Plan 2022/23
Starting Stocks	13.11	10.69	14.36	12.20		5.61	7.38	7.88	8.68	5.10		6.77
Import	5.38	4.50	5.50	4.50		0.10	14.49	16.00	16.00	19.50		0.00
Production	126.69	138.42	134.10	130.50	−7.92	19.50	67.14	70.50	68.00	62.00	−8.50	25.00
Demand	104.75	109.75	107.50	107.00		10.20	77.40	80.10	79.40	76.60		10.70
Export	29.74	29.50	35.50	30.00		10.00	3.74	5.60	4.70	5.10		9.00
Final stocks	10.69	14.36	10.96	10.20	−4.16 (−40.8%)	5.24	7.88	8.68	8.58	4.90	−3.78 (−77.1%)	12.07

).

The data in Table 1 and Table 2 show that even in stable EU countries there is also a significant drop in wheat and corn production and a decrease in their final stocks (by 40.8% and 77.1%, respectively). This also indicates a possible shortage of these products in the near future, provided that Ukraine’s export potential is not exploited.

The period spanning 2023–2024 witnessed widespread protests by European farmers across numerous nations, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, and the Czech Republic. These demonstrations stemmed from growing discontent over the deteriorating economic conditions faced by European agricultural producers. A key catalyst for this unrest was the influx of duty-free agricultural imports from Ukraine and South America, which placed significant downward pressure on market prices. This situation was further exacerbated by the removal of certain subsidies and benefits previously afforded to European farmers.

In Poland, the protests centered on demands for a complete ban on imports of Ukrainian grain and other agricultural commodities. Polish farmers argued that these imported products were of inferior quality and that their duty-free entry into the Polish market inflicted substantial damage on the domestic agricultural sector. This sentiment was echoed by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who publicly acknowledged the challenges faced by small and medium-sized farms in meeting the complex requirements associated with EU climate objectives [20].

Furthermore, allegations of unfair trade practices were leveled against Ukraine, with accusations of dumping accumulated and unsold agricultural products on the Polish market at artificially low prices, effectively circumventing agreed-upon transit routes to Baltic ports. This practice further destabilized the Polish agricultural market and intensified the protests. While these contentious trade disputes created significant friction, diplomatic efforts ultimately proved successful, leading to the resolution of all outstanding issues by the end of 2024. This resolution highlights the complex interplay between international trade agreements, domestic agricultural policies, and the economic well-being of farming communities within the European Union.

2.2. Directions of Rationalization of Grain Export Process

The data presented in Table 1 and Table 2 clearly indicate the significance of the problem of reorganizing the logistical process of exporting Ukrainian agricultural products, mainly grain. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the situation in the sunflower products market is quite similar to that of the grain market [21]. Therefore, to prevent possible food shortages, it is essential to implement a comprehensive program of organizing the export of Ukrainian agricultural products through the western land borders to European ports, particularly, Polish ones. Such a program should include the following measures:

• implementation of mobile transshipment capacities;
• construction of terminals;
• introduction of insurance programs for international carriers, etc.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of the necessary specialized rolling stock, European rail and road carriers are currently unable to completely replace sea transport. Hence, the proposed comprehensive program should also provide for the possibility of organizing the transportation of agricultural products in containers, and not only by wagons or cars specialized for the transportation of grain, due to their limited availability in Ukraine and Central Europe. In addition to eliminating the impact of the shortage of rolling stock and standardization of the transport and reloading operations, the transportation of grain in containers has several such advantages:

• ensuring the possibility of direct export of grain by each agricultural company, including deliveries in small batches;
• reduction in transportation and transshipment costs from one mode of transport to another;
• simplification of customs and phytosanitary control operations during the border crossing;
• reduction in time when performing loading operations, etc.

Containerized logistics not only unifies the processes of transportation and transshipment but is also a more environmentally friendly and cost-effective form of transport [22]. It leads to a reduction in cargo losses [23], tariffs (by 23%), and infrastructure costs (about 51%) [24]. However, for Ukraine, unlike EU countries, the transportation of grain in containers is not very common.

When transporting grain in containers, savings can range from 2 to 8 USD per ton compared to transportation by grain wagons, and compared to road transport, costs can be reduced by 15–40%. In addition, the construction and functioning of assembly platforms (on which containers can be transported) are 36% cheaper than using grain cars (USD 28,000 vs. USD 38,000, respectively).

In the extremely challenging conditions of war, Ukraine must not only build new terminals, but also gradually modify the technology used for grain transportation. However, to achieve the fastest possible transformation of agricultural logistics to the required level, Ukraine needs significant financial assistance and support from other countries. In July 2022, representatives of approximately 30 European railway companies, such as DB Cargo, PKP Cargo, etc., signed the “Ukrainian Declaration” in Vienna, which outlines the main principles of assistance with Ukrainian grain export. Many countries provide economic and financial support for Ukraine, but there are several donors that significantly dominate in terms of aid. Among them, a special place belongs to Poland, which provides not only enormous humanitarian aid, but also offers its services in solving transport and logistics problems. Poland has announced the plan to integrate the Ukrainian and Polish railway networks, support the export of Ukrainian agricultural products, and explore new overseas delivery options for export-import goods. Such development of events leads to the following questions:

• To what extent Poland is interested in serving as a new transit railway bridge between Ukraine and other countries for the export of Ukrainian agricultural products such as grain and sunflower, particularly in containers. What is Poland’s interest?
• Will Poland be able to continue playing the role of a link in the Eurasian goods supply chain through new channels that bypass Russia and Belarus due to the sanctions imposed against them?
• How can Poland and Ukraine solve the identified problems?

2.3. The State of the Polish Freight Transport Market Before 2022 and Its Perspectives

Following the outbreak of the war, since the main land routes between Ukraine and Western European countries pass through Poland, the main burden of Ukrainian agricultural exports falls precisely on Polish terminals and transport facilities. However, currently, Poland is unable to additionally process Ukrainian exports in the amount of more than 0.6 million tons per month. Moreover, there are problems with traffic management at Ukrainian border crossing points (outdated infrastructure, long weighting time, and heavy traffic load), and Polish infrastructure also has limited transportation and processing capabilities. Nevertheless, it is feasible to increase these capacities to meet the increased demand.

In recent years, one of the most priority goals of Poland was utilizing its advantageous geographical location and the potential of the transit transport system to serve as a land bridge between Europe and Asia. Such opportunities were primarily provided by the implementation of a transport organization system that relies on cooperation between different modes of transport. Choosing a transportation option, which includes cooperation between different modes of transport, traditionally entails several advantages, such as the modernization of the request for transport services and the possibility of providing just-in-time and door-to-door deliveries. It is worth emphasizing that such cooperation of transport modes has always led to greater punctuality of transportation, flexibility of services provided, as well as less susceptibility to road and weather conditions.

The transportation of cargo using two or more carriers from different modes of transport has traditionally taken various forms, such as split, mixed, combined, intermodal, and multimodal transport. The mode of freight transport could be selected depending on the type of cargo, the requirements imposed by its specificity, transfer budget, and speed, as well as characteristics of loading, transshipment, and destination points. Traditionally, the most common concept of transportation for Poland is intermodal mode, which means the complex process of cargo transportation by several modes of transport, but in the same unit (ITU—Intermodal Transport Unit), e.g., in a container or a semi-trailer. Between 2003 and 2021, there was a significant increase in intermodal transport in Poland (Figure 2).

As can be seen from Figure 2, the weight of goods transported in intermodal transport by rail increased almost five times in 2020 compared to 2010. Moreover, the market situation at the beginning of 2022 showed the possibility of further development of this mode of transport. Despite the decrease after February 2022, the expected volumes of rail deliveries remain at a high level.

The potential of intermodal transport for Poland in the year 2024 was investigated using various prediction models, including polynomial and smoothing models. The obtained results lead to the conclusion that in Poland, before the start of the war in Ukraine, the constant growth of intermodal transportation (both in millions of tons and in thousands of TEUs) was quite expected. The preliminary analysis showed that the empirical data in the analyzed period are stochastic. In situations where random fluctuations and a development tendency occur together (as in intermodal transportation in Poland in recent years), predictive calculations using the Holt method were more beneficial. This is explained by the fact that the Holt model allows the smoothing of time series in which development trends and random fluctuations occur:

$${\widehat{y}}_{t+k-1}=F_{t-1}+S_{t-1},$$

(1)

where $k=1,2,\dots ,n$; $t=2,\dots ,n-1$; $F_t$ is a smoothed value of the time series for the period $t$; $S_t$ is a smoothed value of trend growth for the period $t$:

$$F_t={\alpha ·y}_t+(1-\alpha )·(F_{t-1}+S_{t-1}),$$

(2)

$$S_t=\beta ·\left(F_t-F_{t-1}\right)+(1-\beta )·S_{t-1},$$

(3)

$\alpha$ and $\beta$ are smoothing coefficients, $\alpha ,\beta \in \left[0;1\right]$.

The values $F_t$ and $S_t$ are calculated recursively. The parameters of the Holt model $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are chosen to minimize the errors of expired forecasts. When analyzing forecast errors ex-post (

Table 3. The model parameters and error values.

Parameter	Value
$\alpha$	0.950
$\beta$	0.050
RMSE	210.33
MAPE	0.158
ME	46.159

), both absolute and relative indicators were used.

The indicators of the forecast model quality shown in Table 3 are the following:

• mean ex-post prediction error:

  $$ME={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}·{\sum }_{t=1}^n\left({\widehat{y}}_t-y_t\right),$$

  (4)
• the root mean squared error:

  $$RMSE=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}·{\sum }_{t=1}^n{\left({\widehat{y}}_t-y_t\right)}^2},$$

  (5)
• the mean absolute percentage error:

  $$MAPE={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}·{\sum }_{t=1}^n{\displaystyle \frac{\left|{\widehat{y}}_t-y_t\right|}{y_t}},$$

  (6)

  where $n$ is the number of observations; ${\widehat{y}}_t$ is the predicted value and $y_t$ is an observed value of the studied variable.

It is important to emphasize that the presented forecasting model is not designed for precise prediction of future freight traffic volumes. Rather, its purpose is to establish a baseline trend of freight traffic under relatively stable, pre-conflict conditions. This baseline serves as a benchmark for understanding the potential capacity requirements of the proposed infrastructure in a normal operating environment.

The obtained model suggests that Poland could expect a consistent increase in the volume of transportation in TEUs before the onset of the war in Ukraine (

Table 4. Forecast of intermodal rail transportation in Poland, thousand TEUs.

$\mathbf{Year}\mathit{t}$	$\mathbf{Empirical}\mathbf{Value}{\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{t}}$	$\mathbf{Smoothed}\mathbf{Mean}{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{t}}$	$\mathbf{Smoothed}\mathbf{Trend}{\mathit{S}}_{\mathit{t}}$	$\mathbf{Forecast}{\widehat{\mathit{y}}}_{\mathit{t}}$
2003	234	234	48.0	-
2004	282	282	48.0	282
2005	282	284	45.7	330
2006	413	409	49.6	330
2007	540	536	53.5	458
2008	693	688	58.4	589
2009	430	446	43.5	746
2010	570	566	47.3	489
2011	799	790	56.0	613
2012	1054	1044	65.8	846
2013	1123	1122	66.5	1109
2014	1142	1144	64.3	1189
2015	1152	1155	61.6	1209
2016	1436	1425	71.9	1216
2017	1667	1658	79.9	1497
2018	1894	1886	87.3	1738
2019	2137	2129	95.0	1973
2020	2672	2650	116.1	2224
2021	2923	2915	123.5	2766
2022	2734	2749	109.1	3039
2023	2437	2458	89.3	2858
2024	-	-	-	2547

).

It is worth noting that despite the external threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic for the EU economy in 2020 (such as increased unemployment, decline in production and international trade volumes, etc.), the growth trend of rail transportation remained almost unchanged in recent years. This is explained by the fact that, regardless of the significant decrease in global air and sea traffic, transcontinental rail transport between China and Europe (for instance, in January–May 2020) recorded double-digit growth [26]. This trend also contributed to a 17% increase in the weight of cargo transported in containers through Poland even in the most critical first and second quarters of 2020.

According to the analysis carried out by the Center for EU Transport Projects, the Office of Rail Transport, and other experts, the baseline scenario for the development of intermodal transport also envisaged a further moderate increase in intermodal rail transportation to approximately 3.5 million TEU [24]. However, such growth was projected by 2030, which indicates much lower dynamics in 2021–2030 than during the previous ten years. First, changes in the forecast are influenced by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted the current trend since 2020 and may still affect transport dynamics even in 2022–2023 [27]. In addition, at the beginning of 2022 (even before the start of the war in Ukraine), experts identified several threats, including the following that can be highlighted:

• changes in the economic situation, sensitivity to macroeconomic and geopolitical factors;
• the possibility of a significant decline in trade with China because of the intensification of the US–China conflict;
• popularization of railway routes that bypass Poland;
• the possibility of carrying out railway transport using alternative routes running through neighboring countries.

Unfortunately for Poland, in the middle of 2022, all the threats mentioned above unexpectedly reached a new, much higher level. At the same time, new challenges constantly arise, which causes negative trends in the development prospects of freight transport. Analyzing the cargo flow in Poland before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, recently the dominant direction of transportation for Poland was its western border, namely the Oderbrücke border station. It was the main entry or exit point to the PKP network for more than 14,000 trains per quarter (i.e., 4.7 thousand trains or 360 routes launched on average every month), representing approximately 50% of all container depots.

Among all container depots in Poland, the share of east–west transit trains on the Belarus–Germany route was significant, exceeding 50% (destination stations in the Małaszewicze and Brest complexes). Transit between Belarus and the Czech Republic (Terespol–Zebrzydowice) was also of great importance. Most of these intermodal connections have emerged as part of the New Silk Road initiative, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is the main infrastructure that enables the exchange of goods between Europe and Asia.

2.4. Barriers and Directions for the Development of the Rail Transport Market in Poland

The New Eurasian Land Bridge system, which is a railway-based corridor connecting western China (Jiangsu and Xinjiang provinces) with Europe (Rotterdam in the Netherlands) via Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany, is currently blocked. On the one hand, the reason for the blocking was the sanctions imposed by EU countries on Russia (as well as on Belarus, on a slightly smaller scale), and on the other hand, China’s reluctance to openly cooperate with the aggressor country for fear of falling under similar sanctions. Therefore, in the nearest future, China does not plan any investments in the BRI corridor project and is freezing all its intermodal transportation through Russia and, accordingly, through Polish train routes connecting China to Europe along the New Eurasian Land Bridge [16]. However, when analyzing transit options, it is crucial to keep in mind that Poland is not the only possible connecting point. The BRI spans three continents and multiple economic corridors, offering competitive alternatives to Poland. Even apart from the China–Mongolia–Russia–Germany economic corridor (running through the Baltic ports of St. Petersburg, Riga, and Klaipėda leading to Hamburg) blocked by sanctions, there are at least three competitive to Poland viable supply options can be distinguished:

• The China–Central Asia–West Asia Economic Corridor (CCAWEC) is a land transportation corridor connecting the Xinjiang province in China with the Central Asian railway network, reaching the Arabian Peninsula and the Mediterranean coast. The route passes through Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan), the Middle East (Iran), and Europe (Turkey);
• The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) connecting China’s Xinjiang, Uighur Autonomous Region with the Pakistani deep-sea port in Gwadar and further by sea to Europe through the ports of Italy and Greece;
• Maritime corridor, which connects major ports of South China and the Mediterranean Seas, through the Bay of Bengal, the seaport in Pakistan’s Gwadar, the coast of East Africa, and the Suez Canal.

The Transport Corridor Europe–Caucasus–Asia (TRASEKA) and the Trans–-Caspian International Transit Route (TITR) should also be considered. They connected China to Ukraine by means of a ferry crossing through Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and the Black Sea (the ports of Odesa and Chornomorsk) and further with Poland (the port Gdańsk). However, since 2014, China has almost completely terminated transportation along this route, and after the blockade of Ukrainian ports by Russian warships, this transportation option is also excluded.

Therefore, in the current unfavorable situation for Poland, all BRI corridors bypass its territory, which leads to a significant decrease in the level of transportation and the necessity to search for new opportunities for obtaining profit (including containerized transport). Thus, in the nearest future, Poland is forced to look for all possibilities to continue playing the role of a “gateway” in the supply chain to Europe while considering the sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus. It should be noted that the share of train transit through Belarus (in the east–west direction to Germany and east–south to the Czech Republic) exceeded 76% of all intermodal flows for Poland (50% and 26%, respectively).

Considering the current circumstances, the best option for Poland is either the development of alternative channels of intermodal flows from southern Europe through the southern borders of the country, or the urgent reorientation of the existing reserves of container capacity. These reserves may not be in high demand in the upcoming years, but they could help to handle traffic flows from Ukraine. As a potential land railway bridge, Poland could facilitate the export of Ukrainian agricultural products, such as grain, sunflower, and containerized cargo, to other countries. This collaboration can enhance Poland’s image as a country that joins forces with Ukraine to combat global food shortages and hunger.

Alternative non-maritime transport channels for grain delivery from Ukraine through Poland have many disadvantages, including the following:

• different width of railway tracks in the EU and Ukraine (1435 vs. 1520 mm);
• insufficient infrastructure of logistics terminals in Ukraine;
• impossibility of weighing each container with grain and other agricultural products separately when organizing the transportation of grain in containers, etc.

Since investing in infrastructure development is crucial for the region’s economic growth, the need for new infrastructure and terminals in the border areas of Poland and Ukraine is evident. It is worth noting that while Poland has opened 41 intermodal terminals by 2022, Ukraine only has 7 terminals, including those in areas temporarily occupied by Russia, which emphasizes the urgency to increase connectivity and invest in infrastructure development in Ukraine. Consequently, the Ukrainian government announced additional full support for projects related to the construction and operation of terminals, particularly for industrial and technological parks. In accordance with the amended legislation, tax and customs relief were approved both for investors of such projects and their potential clients in 2022.

3. Proposed Measures to Develop the Terminal Infrastructure

Given that this paper addresses a pressing practical challenge arising from a force majeure event—the Russian invasion of Ukraine—our approach focuses on applying established methodologies to develop a viable solution rather than formulating a novel theoretical framework. To achieve the core objective (to enhance the efficiency and capacity of rail deliveries of agricultural products originating from Ukraine), we employ a two-stage analytical process. First, we utilize a simulation model based on Petri nets to explore and identify potential alternative locations for a new transshipment terminal. Petri nets, with their capacity to model discrete event systems and concurrency, provide a robust framework for simulating complex logistical processes and evaluating the performance of different infrastructure configurations. Subsequently, we employ the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to rigorously evaluate the identified candidate locations. AHP, a structured multi-criteria decision-making technique, enables us to systematically compare and rank the alternatives based on a set of relevant criteria, such as infrastructure availability, connectivity, proximity to transportation networks, and potential environmental impact. This structured approach allows for a transparent and justifiable selection of the optimal location. Finally, based on the location selected through the AHP analysis, we develop a detailed project proposal for the construction of a new technological park, outlining its key features, operational capacity, and potential impact on the flow of agricultural goods from Ukraine to international markets.

3.1. Determining the Location of the Terminals

By analyzing the challenges facing the global food market, the European intermodal transportation situation, the existing barriers and threats to the food supply chains, and its assessment by logistics service providers, the current study focuses on identifying suitable locations for the construction of a new complex of intermodal terminals. We propose to place the new terminals on the western border of Ukraine in close proximity to Poland, as well as near Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Moreover, for the selection of terminal location, a comprehensive assessment of the potential area for development and the existing infrastructure was carried out since the functionality and accessibility of terminals are the most important factors for the efficient operation of the intermodal transport system [28]. To ensure these features, each proposed new terminal was designed with spur lines, groups of railway tracks of appropriate length (preferably with track gauges of both 1520 mm and 1435 mm), and modern transshipment facilities.

Simulation models of international corridors and cross-border stations of Ukraine, developed by the authors of the study [29], were adapted to explore the choice of transport border nodes. By analyzing the characteristics of these crossing points, it is possible to identify the most favorable locations for potential terminals or industrial and technological parks. One of the most convenient and widely used tools for modeling concurrent events in transport processes is the Petri nets, which allows the mathematical representation of discretely distributed systems, such as transport corridors [30,31,32]. Figure 3 shows a fragment of the model of Ukraine’s international transport corridors.

The simplest version of the Petri net, depicted in Figure 3, consists of positions (controlled states of the system), transitions (describing the processes of transportation and processing of transport flows), and directed edges connecting positions with transitions. In the presented model of the Petri net, after a series of iterations, the stations near Lviv, Chop, Mostyska, Kovel, and Mukachevo turned out to be the most favorable locations for the development of new terminals. Moreover, the model suggested another 14 prospective locations with convenient access to transport infrastructure and relative proximity to state borders. However, more than half of these sites were rejected after the initial analysis (for example, Chernivtsi—since the city is connected to the southern, rather than the western border of Ukraine). Therefore, 10 potential terminal locations were chosen for further analysis.

After performing simulations by using the specialized software PIPE (version 4.2), the selected technological parks demonstrated the best suitability for organizing land supplies of grain from Ukraine to the EU (Figure 4).

The list of potential locations and their proximity to the borders of EU countries by rail is presented in

Table 5. Potential locations of terminals for organizing land deliveries.

Number	Potential Location	Region of Ukraine	Proximity to the EU States Borders (By Rail), km
1	Kovel	Volyn	Poland (73 km)
2	Lutsk	Volyn	Poland (13 km)
3	Lviv	Lviv	Poland (80 km)
4	Mostyska	Lviv	Poland (14 km)
5	Stryi	Lviv	Poland (151 km)
6	Ivano-Frankivsk	Ivano-Frankivsk	Poland (212 km)
7	Uzhhorod	Transcarpathian	Poland (70 km), Slovakia (6 km), Hungary (40 km)
8	Chop	Transcarpathian	Slovakia (1 km), Hungary (1 km)
9	Mukachevo	Transcarpathian	Poland (114 km), Slovakia (45 km), Hungary (45 km), Romania (73 km)
10	Zdolbuniv/Rivne	Rivne	Poland (232 km)

.

The selection of the potential location of a new terminal for the organization of land transport of grain was carried out using one of the most popular hierarchical decision-making methods—the Analytic Hierarchy Process [33]. The process of hierarchical analysis using the AHP method is often used in solving transportation and logistics problems [34,35,36].

The following criteria, which describe each region and significantly influence the decision regarding the location of the new terminal, have been identified for further analysis:

• access to transport infrastructure;
• economic development of the region;
• transport and logistics attractiveness;
• access to railways with a gauge of 1520 and 1435 mm;
• proximity to other terminal infrastructure;
• social attractiveness.

Access to transport infrastructure was defined as the sum of the density of public roads and railway lines. Infrastructure density was defined as the number of kilometers of roads and railway lines per 100 square kilometers of area. Consequently, the region with the highest value of this criterion was assumed to be the most desirable.

The economic development of the region was established as GDP per capita: the higher the value of GDP, the more developed the region.

Transport and logistics attractiveness was determined as the number of companies from the agricultural, industrial, logistics, warehousing, and transport and forwarding sectors located in the region. A larger number of such companies increases the number of potential customers.

Access to a standard-gauge railway of 1435 mm was defined as the distance from a marshaling or shunting station located in the vicinity of a large city to the nearest line of either standard (1435 mm) or wide gauge (1520 mm). The closer such standard tracks are located, the easier and less expensive it is to organize access from tracks directly to the terminal.

The proximity to the terminal infrastructure was defined as the distance from large cities near which the construction of a new terminal is planned (Kovel, Lutsk, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Uzhhorod, Chop, etc.) to the nearest existing intermodal terminal (including Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania). The criterion was aimed at maximization since too high a density of terminals in a certain area negatively affects the profitability of the construction of such a facility.

Social attractiveness was determined using a point scale, assigning points based on three components. The unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people were interrelated parameters. The unemployment rate was expressed as a percentage and the number of unemployed people—in thousands. The number of university graduates was the number of people living in a given region with higher education. The higher the values of the parameters, the better, since more people willing to work would be found and the probability of recruiting educated employees increased.

Based on the research [12] and directives [24], a weight was assigned for each of the criteria, i.e., an indicator of importance, which points out the advantage of one criterion over the other (

Table 6. Weights of the criteria for selecting the terminal location.

Number	Criterion	Weight
1	Access to transport infrastructure	0.30
2	Economic development of the region	0.20
3	Transport and logistics attractiveness	0.10
4	Access to railways with a gauge of 1520 mm and 1435 mm	0.15
5	Proximity to other terminal infrastructure	0.20
6	Social attractiveness	0.05

). The weights assigned to the individual criteria were similar and were determined based on the analysis of the ratings given by potential customers and logistics service providers.

Table 6 shows the weighting factors assigned to individual criteria. The criterion of access to transport infrastructure has gained the greatest importance since the transportation of agricultural production without access to appropriate infrastructure will not be efficient and fast. Therefore, the availability of infrastructure plays the most significant role. Such indicators as economic development of the region and distance from the existing terminal infrastructure were distinguished as equivalent. To eliminate the subjectivity of weights provided by potential logistics service providers and clients, each criterion was later adjusted according to the AHP methodology.

To reduce subjectivity and check the consistency of the ratings assigned to individual variants and categories, the consistency index was also determined using the AHP method. To eliminate the influence of the criteria on the ranking of the final ratings, three additional AHP simulations were conducted. In addition, the rank of the selected criteria was changed, considering their correction during the trade negotiations at the 12th Gdańsk Grain Exchange which took place in July 2022. The averaged simulation results regarding the selection of a potential location for a new terminal are presented in Figure 5.

Based on the factors analyzed in Figure 5, the optimal location for a new industrial and technological park in Ukraine is near Kovel station in the Volyn region. Locations near Lviv and Chop stations also hold promise, although their existing intermodal terminals might influence development.

If proximity to existing infrastructure is less critical, constructing a technopark near Lviv, perhaps in Mostyska, is highly advantageous. Similarly, a new terminal near Chop, such as in Uzhhorod, could be beneficial. While Lutsk and Mukachevo offer potential, they are less prioritized than the aforementioned options. Stryi, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Zdolbuniv appear less attractive for new terminals or technoparks compared to the other proposed locations.

Given the strategic advantages of Kovel station, this location has been selected for further exploration as the site for a new technopark. The park will focus on facilitating grain shipments by rail, including container transportation, from Ukraine to Poland. This choice aligns with the broader goal of enhancing trade and economic cooperation between the two countries.

3.2. The Project for the Development of the New Technological Park Next to Kovel Station

The conducted SWOT analysis highlights the following weaknesses and threats to grain supplies through the Kovel node:

• poor level of development of the Volyn region;
• low social attractiveness of the region;
• proximity to the borders with Belarus (Russia’s current ally in the war with Ukraine).

Among the strengths and opportunities in organizing grain supplies through Kovel, the most noteworthy are as follows:

• convenient strategic location on the border of Poland and Ukraine;
• Kovel is one of the largest Ukrainian railway junctions;
• the presence of standard and wide railway tracks (1435 and 1520 mm) directly at the Kovel station;
• the Warsaw–Lublin–Kovel–Kyiv highway passes through the location.

Furthermore, another essential advantage of the potential location near Kovel is the availability of a large area suitable for construction and the necessary infrastructure. The owners of the industrial object Jupiter LLC are interested in investments for the fastest possible reconstruction and establishment of a modern industrial and logistics technopark on this territory (current Kovelsilmash plant).

The company’s premises are located 4 km from the Kovel junction railway station, where in addition to 1520 mm tracks, European-gauge tracks of 1435 mm have also been implemented. The potential technopark on the northern side has 4 km of connected railway tracks with a width of 1520 mm, and in 2022 the project of a railway siding line with a width of 1435 mm was approved. The potential location of a new technology park is positioned along the Kovel–Jagodin–Sławków railway line, which has both 1520 mm and 1435 mm gauges. Additionally, the Kovelsilmash plant is connected to a 60 MW network and is equipped with the gas supply, electricity, sewage system, and other necessary facilities. The advantages listed above derive from the possibility of setting up a new technopark within the boundaries of the current Kovelsilmash plant, instead of building it in an undeveloped area. The plant is situated on a plot of land with an area of 48 hectares (as shown in Figure 6) and includes three production workshops (points 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 6). The railway infrastructure that was previously used for the plant’s operation (currently only for 1520 mm) and road infrastructure are still functional.

The proposed reconstruction project was approved in July 2022 by infrastructure managers and potential investors. It was showcased to prospective business partners and customers at the 12th Gdańsk Grain Exchange.

As outlined in the reconstruction plans (Figure 7), the former production workshop no. 3 and its surrounding area will be transformed into a dedicated container yard. This yard will feature specialized containers designed for grain transportation. Additionally, the project includes comprehensive rail infrastructure, such as arrival and departure tracks, shunting areas, and maintenance yards, to accommodate both 1520 mm and 1435 mm gauge tracks (represented by blue and red lines in Figure 7, respectively).

The former boiler house and unused production buildings will be repurposed to accommodate essential infrastructure. This includes a transshipment complex equipped with loading platforms, elevators, and other mechanized facilities for handling various commodities like grain, oils, fats, bulk cargo, and scrap metal.

Between workshops no. 1 and 2 (Figure 7), the plan incorporates transshipment and maneuvering tracks for both 1520 mm and 1435 mm gauge lines, along with infrastructure for road transport operations.

To comply with regulations, local conditions, and the estimated project scope, the planned technology park will also feature the following:

• a customs operations complex;
• necessary building structures;
• communication systems;
• water supply and sewage networks.

As part of the industrial and logistics project, the Kovel technology park will offer such opportunities:

• reception, processing, and clearance of up to 600 wagons per day (up to 300 wagons for each line of 1520 and 1435 mm, respectively);
• volume of grain transshipment up to 3000 tons per day;
• transshipment volume of oily and fatty liquid products up to 1500 tons per day;
• volume of overloading of bulk materials and scrap up to 2000 tons per day;
• simultaneous placement of up to 1500 TEU and feu in the container yard (in which grain transportation can also be planned);
• cumulative transshipment of all types of cargo over 2 million tons per year.

It should be noted that several policy frameworks, including EU regulations and international trade agreements, could influence the feasibility of establishing a terminal for Ukrainian agricultural products. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), designed to support European farmers and ensure EU food security, is a key consideration. A large-scale terminal for Ukrainian imports could potentially affect the EU market, potentially triggering CAP measures to protect domestic producers. EU Competition Law, which prohibits anti-competitive practices, is another relevant factor. The construction of such a terminal could raise competition concerns if it leads to market dominance or anti-competitive behavior. Environmental regulations within the EU are also crucial. The terminal’s construction and operation would need to adhere to stringent EU environmental standards related to air and water pollution, waste management, and biodiversity protection. Finally, trade agreements play a significant role. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement, which facilitates trade between the EU and Ukraine and includes provisions on agricultural products, may require adaptation to accommodate increased trade through a new terminal. Additionally, World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, which govern international trade and include regulations on agricultural products, must be adhered to in any measures related to the terminal to prevent trade disputes.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The impossibility of exporting Ukrainian agricultural products from 2022 due to Russian aggression and the blockade of Black Sea ports led to a sharp reduction in global stocks of wheat, corn, sunflower, and other goods. To eliminate the potential food deficit and prevent the increase in food insecurity and hunger, a comprehensive program of organizing the export of Ukrainian agricultural products to European ports through the western, primarily Polish, land borders is necessary.

Due to the blocking of transport through the territory of Russia and Belarus, which exists within the framework of the New Silk Road project, Poland may be left without a large part of container transport. Therefore, Poland can redirect unrealized reserve capacities of the transport infrastructure to organize the export of Ukrainian agricultural products.

The extremely insufficient number of intermodal and logistics terminals in Ukraine, including those located near the Polish–Ukrainian border, and the shortage of specialized mobile warehouses necessitate the search for alternative technological and design solutions. According to the analysis, such a solution can be the transportation of grain in containers and the development of a network of terminals and technology parks for the processing of containers and grain loads. Technological parks should be designed in locations that have both, a favorable strategic location on the western borders of Ukraine and high production and labor potential. General support for technology park construction and operation projects introduced in 2022 by the government of Ukraine, including promised tax and customs reliefs, will further stimulate the introduction of such solutions to the food crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The implementation of projects for the construction of industrial and technological parks in Kovel will have many advantages for Ukraine, EU countries, as well as throughout the world. Such benefits include the following:

• the prospect of an alternative option for Ukrainian grain deliveries to EU seaports, including in containers;
• the possibility of direct participation of Ukraine and Poland in the BRI project. For example, as a link in the alternative supply chain under the New Silk Road during the sanctions and blockade of transport through Russia and Belarus;
• integration of transport systems of Poland and Ukraine;
• the development of new opportunities for Poland regarding the organization of intermodal transportation due to the change in specialization into the transport of grain loads, etc.

One of the most promising sites for investing in the expansion of the industrial and technological park is the developed Kovel railway junction. In addition to a direct connection to the network of international railway corridors TEN-T (both 1435 and 1520 mm), the Kovel station has a large area open for investment (48 ha) with access to the necessary infrastructure and engineering networks.

This study demonstrates that diversifying Polish transport activities not only stabilizes the global agricultural export market but also positions Poland to address the infrastructure surplus resulting from the decline in its China–EU transit role. Moreover, it highlights the potential for sustainable economic development in both Poland and Ukraine.

As for the real-world implementation of the proposed project, the Ukrainian government has approved the inclusion of the Kovel Porto, as well as Dobrosyn and Green Laktik parks in the Register of Industrial Parks at a meeting on 5 July 2024 [37]. According to official data, approximately 4500 new jobs will be created through the establishment of three new industrial parks in the Volyn, Lviv, and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. The Kovel Porto industrial park, covering 11.6 hectares, will host processing industry enterprises engaged in the production of finished metal products, machinery, and equipment, and the repair and installation of such equipment. The park’s development plan anticipates the creation of 587 jobs and approximately 358 million UAH in investment.

4.1. Study Limitations

This study, while contributing to the technological advancement of sustainable agricultural product delivery from Ukraine and its positive impact on the world economy, has certain limitations.

First, our focus has been primarily on the technological aspects of developing a more efficient logistics system. Consequently, we have not explicitly estimated the social and environmental effects of the proposed solutions. While improved logistics can indirectly contribute to positive social and environmental outcomes, a dedicated analysis of these dimensions is lacking.

Second, our study does not incorporate a stakeholder analysis. We have not proposed a specific methodology for considering the perspectives of various stakeholders involved in the development and operation of the terminal infrastructure, such as farmers, transport companies, government officials, and local communities. Incorporating these diverse perspectives would provide a more holistic understanding of the project’s potential impacts and challenges.

Third, while we utilize GDP per capita as an indicator of economic development related to the proposed solution, we acknowledge that this metric alone does not fully capture the long-term economic sustainability of the terminal model. A more comprehensive assessment considering factors such as market demand, operational costs, long-term investment strategies, and resilience to external shocks is needed.

Finally, our analysis lacks a detailed exploration of long-term sustainability, particularly concerning the potential impact on Ukraine’s agricultural sector in a post-conflict scenario. The long-term effects on agricultural production, land use, and market dynamics after the conflict are crucial considerations that have not been fully addressed within the scope of this study.

The listed issues do not present the complete set of limitations; however, they provide the points for formulating the prospects for further research.

4.2. Directions of Future Research

Future research should build upon this study to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the proposed logistical solutions and their long-term impact.

Given the inherent complexities of grain supply chains—characterized by seasonality, perishability, price volatility, and geographically dispersed production and consumption—robust planning, coordination, and execution across all stages, from harvesting and storage to transportation, processing, and distribution, are essential. As highlighted in [38], optimizing logistics and transportation is crucial for minimizing environmental impact and ensuring sustainability. Integrating data technology offers significant opportunities to enhance decision-making throughout grain transportation supply chains.

Real-time data sets on weather, yields, storage, transport availability, and market prices provide valuable insights for proactive decision-making. Data-driven insights enable supply chain actors to adjust transportation routes to avoid congestion or adverse weather, minimizing delays and losses. Furthermore, data technology improves traceability and transparency, enhancing food safety and quality control. As discussed in [39], digital technologies significantly enhance efficiency and competitiveness in globalized industries. Similarly, in grain transportation, data technology can improve the position of various stakeholders within the value chain.

Advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning, can further enhance decision-making by identifying patterns and trends in large datasets. This echoes the use of machine learning in other sectors, such as analyzing online word-of-mouth and its influence on pricing [40]. This translates well to agriculture, where data on market demand, weather, and transport costs can optimize pricing and distribution. Therefore, strategically implementing data technology in grain transportation supply chains is crucial for enhancing efficiency, resilience, and sustainability.

Firstly, future work should develop scenario-based analyses incorporating varying levels of political stability, different potential sanctions regimes, and fluctuations in global agricultural demand. This would allow for a more robust assessment of the proposed logistical solutions and their resilience to external shocks. Such scenarios could model best-case, worst-case, and likely outcomes, providing stakeholders with a clearer picture of the potential risks and opportunities associated with the proposed transport infrastructure.

Secondly, further research should delve deeper into supply chain management principles within grain transportation, investigating best practices in coordination, collaboration, and risk management specific to this sector. Future studies should also explore how data technology, including advanced analytics, AI, and blockchain, can enhance decision-making across the entire grain supply chain. This could involve developing data-driven models for optimizing existing transportation corridors, managing inventory at freight terminals, predicting demand fluctuations, and improving overall supply chain efficiency and resilience.

Finally, a crucial direction is a more thorough exploration of the long-term sustainability of the proposed solutions. This should extend beyond purely economic considerations to include environmental and social dimensions. This entails conducting life-cycle assessments of the proposed infrastructure, evaluating its environmental footprint, and analyzing its potential social impacts. This long-term sustainability analysis should also specifically consider the post-conflict context in Ukraine, assessing how the proposed solutions can contribute to the long-term recovery and sustainable development of the agricultural sector in a post-conflict environment, including the adaptability and scalability of the solutions to different post-conflict scenarios and their integration with broader reconstruction efforts.

A full risk assessment of the results of the proposed project for the terminal system development with the corresponding mitigation plan requires dedicated future research. The following potential approaches must be considered as promising directions for future studies:

• developing different scenarios based on varying levels of instability in demand for agricultural products and the political situation in the region will help identify the potential impacts of these factors on the sustainability of the supply chains;
• further examining how changes in key variables, such as transportation costs, material availability, and security conditions, could affect the proposed project outcomes.

While the multipurpose design of the technology park provides a degree of inherent flexibility, further exploration of the post-conflict adaptability of the Ukrainian agricultural sector is needed. Future research could address this by using the following measures:

• analyzing potential shifts in Ukraine’s agricultural sector by considering changes in crop production, land use, farming practices, and market demand post-conflict;
• evaluating infrastructure scalability by assessing the capacity of the proposed infrastructure to handle potential increases or shifts in cargo volumes and types;
• exploring alternative uses of the infrastructure by identifying potential post-conflict uses beyond agricultural exports, such as reconstruction efforts, humanitarian aid distribution, or trade with other partners;
• evaluating how international support could contribute to the long-term development of Ukraine’s agricultural sector and sustainable infrastructure utilization.