COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 06.09.1995 
COM(95)383 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
Implementation of Regulation 3577/92 
applying the principle of freedom to 
provide services to maritime transport 
within Member States - 1993-1994 

Table of contents 
Contents page 
Introduction 1 
PART I: developments in the cabotage sector in the EU (1993-1994) 
Legislative developments 2 
The Spanish request for safeguard measures under Article 5 of the Regulation 2 
Economic effects 3 
Effects by Member State 4 
Foreign flags in liberalised trade 5 
Foreign flags in non-liberalised trade 5 
Foreign flags in North European cabotage 5 
Cabotage fleets 6 
Conclusion 6 
PART II: DIS and MAR vessels and their participation in EU cabotage trades 
The DIS and MAR fleets 8 
Participation of DIS and MAR vessels 8 
Cost comparison between DIS/MAR and national EU registers 9 
Conclusion 10 
PART III: implications of extension of Regulation 3577/92 to EFTA countries 
Background 11 
Crew costs 11 
Participation of Finnish, Swedish and EFTA vessels in EU cabotage 12 
Potential competition of NIS ships 13 
Conclusion 13 
Report of the Commission to the Council 
Implementation of Regulation 3577/92 
applying the principle of freedom to 
provide services to maritime transport 
within Member States - 1993-1994 
Introduction 
1. This is the first report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 3577/92, adopted 
by the Council on 7 December 1992. The Regulation entered into force on 1 January 
1993. The report consists of three parts: 
I. a description of the implementation of the Regulation, in accordance with Article 
10 of the Regulation. This article also provides for new proposals, if deemed 
appropriate. The Commission has interpreted the obligation stemming from Article 
10 also to include an analysis of the economic effects of the liberalisation; 
II. an analysis of the effects of admission to the market of ships that do not comply 
with all the conditions for admittance to cabotage in the flag State. The analysis 
includes an examination of the market effects as well as the possible distortion 
of competition among Community flag ships in cabotage trades. This part meets 
a request by the Council, made during adoption of the Regulation and relating to 
its Article 1(2). The temporary derogation of Article 1(2) only applies to the 
second register ships of Denmark and Portugal. The Commission was also asked 
to present, if necessary, proposals before the end of 1994; 
III. an examination of the cabotage fleets of the EFTA countries, considering crew 
costs and participation in EU coastal traffic during the period 1993-1994, when 
Sweden and Finland were still members of EFTA. Regulation 3577/92 was not 
included in the 'interim package', updating the EEA agreement as adopted by the 
EEA Joint Committee on 21 March 1994. On that occasion, both the EU and 
EFTA made a statement on maritime cabotage, the EFTA side regretting that the 
Regulation had not been integrated in the Agreement and the EU side promising 
to consider integration at a later stage. For that reason, the Commission, when 
preparing its first report on the implementation of the Regulation, was asked to 
take into account the possible implications of an extension of the Regulation to 
the EEA. 
2. The maritime cabotage Regulation was finalised only after years of discussion and it 
represents a delicate political compromise between the positions of Northern and 
Southern Member States. Basically, domestic shipping has been liberalised but there 
are still many derogations. The text contains a calendar for further liberalisation by 
the Southern Member States by sector or type of service up to the year 2004. Only 
one of these sectors, that of cruise services has since been liberalised, from 1 January 
1 995. Spain was granted safeguard measures for one year, until 1 7 February 1994. 
This report is presented for information to the European Parliament, the Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 
^h,< 
PART I: developments in the cabotage sector in the EU (1993-1994) 
Legislative developments 
3. The Commission requested Member States to provide it with information on the 
application of the Regulation, including any legislation adopted. Replies were received 
from: 
- Belgium: No legislation adopted, since cabotage is free. 
- Denmark: No special reference in law to Regulation 3577/92. The only exception 
to the freedom of cabotage, i.e. trade with vessels below 500 GT, was 
abolished in 1994. 
- France: No legislation adopted, but liberalised cargoes may be carried without 
authorisation. 
- Germany: See law of 15 July 1994. 
- Greece: See Presidential Decree 215/94. 
- Ireland: No legislation adopted, since cabotage is free. 
- Italy: No legislation adopted, but the government issued a circular concerning 
Regulation 3577/92 to the maritime authorities. 
- Portugal: See Decree-Law 368/93. 
- Spain: See Royal Decree 897/93 and Order of 28 July 1993. 
- UK: No legislation adopted, since cabotage is free. 
No replies were received from Luxembourg and The Netherlands, but it is understood 
that cabotage is of little relevance and historically free in the latter Member State. 
Member States legislation concerning cabotage should have been adjusted in the line of 
the judgements of the Court of Justice (1973) ECR 101 Commission v. Italy and (1974) 
ECR 359 Commission v. French Republic to ensure that no national legislation conflicting 
with the Regulation remains in force, while at the same time ensuring that the Community 
law nature of the Regulation is not put into question by unduly repeating the same. The 
Commission services are continuing examination of conformity of Member States' laws 
with the Regulation. 
The Spanish request for safeguard measures under Article 5 of the Regulation 
4. As from 1 January 1993, the Spanish authorities adopted unilateral safeguard 
measures under Article 5 of Regulation 3577/92 and formally requested the 
Commission to grant it a 1 2 month exemption from the application of the Regulation 
pursuant to the same Article. The Commission granted Spain safeguard measures by 
two consecutive decisions. By its first decision (93/125/EEC) dated 17 February 
1993, the Commission granted an exclusion of the Spanish mainland area from the 
scope of the Regulation, with the exception of feeder services. On the basis of a study 
carried out by independent consultants on the impact on the Spanish shipping sector 
of mainland cabotage liberalisation, a second Commission decision (93/396/EEC) of 
13 July 1993 granted Spain an extension by an additional period of six months for 
safeguard measures for transport services of three types of commodity, again with 
the exception of feeder services, Each time, the exceptional nature of the derogation 
was confirmed by the inclusion of an Article whereby in the event that no Spanish 
vessel was available, at a given moment, the Spanish authorities had to allow other 
Member States' vessels to offer such services. 
Economie effects 
5. The total volume of cabotage trades in the (12) EU countries in 1993 was almost 224 
million tonnes. Half of this consisted of island trade, i.e. trade between the mainland 
and islands or between islands. The other half was trade between mainland ports. The 
oil sector represented 63% of the mainland trade. Annex I contains a detailed table 
of cabotage developments from 1984-1993. 
Total volume of EU cabotage, 1993 (million tonnes) 
Total North European Trades 100,6 
Liberalised South European trades 22,4 
Protected South European Trades 100,8 
Total 223,8 
Source: MERC (Maritime Economic Research Centre) 
6. In general, the economic effects of liberalisation have been modest during the periods 
covered by this report. This can be partly attributed to the relatively small portion of 
cargo which became legally available in the Southern Member States. This concerned 
non-strategic cargo in the mainland trade and only if it was carried by vessels above 650 
GT. This amounted to only 18% of their total cabotage trade, equal to 22.4 million 
tonnes. 
7. However, although 22.4 million tonnes was liberalised, only 1.3 million tonnes or 6% 
was actually carried by non-national flag vessels. This volume represents one percent 
of the total maritime cabotage of the Southern Member States. 
8. Access to the remaining 100.8 million tonnes, including all cargoes in island trade, is still 
reserved for the national flag vessels of the Southern Member States. Regulation 
3577/92 exempts temporarily a number of mainland cabotage trades of the latter 
Member States1 and all their island trades2. 
EU cabotage, still protected, 1993 (million tonnes) 
(Protected South European Trades) 
< 650 Tonnes 4,4 
Strategic mainland 33 
Strategic islands 28 
Bulk cargo (islands) 14,9 
Gen, cargo (islands) 20,5 
Total protected trades 100,8 
Source: MERC 
Cruise services to be liberalised by 1.1.1995; strategic goods by 1.1.1997; services by ships 
< 650 GT by 1.1.1998; regular passenger and ferry services by 1.1.1999. 
F, I, P and SP: all services to be liberalised by 1.1.1999. GR: regular passenger and ferry 
services and services by ships <650 GT by 1.1.2004; all other services by 1.1.1999. 
Effects bv Member State 
9. The volume of liberalised cargoes during the period of review, based on 1993 figures, 
was the following (in million tonnes): 
Liberalised cargoes, including captive cargo, by Member State in 1993. 
country 
France 
Greece 
Italy 
Portugal 
Spain 
sub total 
captive (own 
account)0' 
total dry bulk 
0,4 
1,9 
0,1 
3,7 
6,1 
5,2 
11,3 gen. cargo 
5,2 
4,4 
9,6 
— 
9,6 chemicals/gases 
0,2 
0,5a' 
0,1 
0,7 
1,5 
~ 
1,5 total 
0,6 
7,6 
0,2 
8,8bl 
17,2 
5,2 
22,4 
a) estimated 
b) until February 1994 (end of safeguard measures): 0.5 - 0.8 m. 
c) Captive (own account) means cargoes able to be shipped by industrialists which have their own 
fleet . Those which may be offered on the open market (F: 1 m., GR: 0.2 m., I: 3 m., SP: 1 m.). 
10. Another 4.4 million tonnes of non-strategic cargo was carried by ships of less than 
650 GT. Obviously this cargo was shipped in such small volumes that larger ships 
were not needed; if they had been carried by ships larger than 650 GT, these cargoes 
would have been freely accessible as well. 
11. The participation of foreign flag vessels was marginal: 
France: the volume of 0.6 million tonnes bulk cargo was apparently not of 
interest to foreign flag carriers (perhaps being too small or too special); 
Greece: since virtually all mainland trade consists of strategic cargo, captive 
industrial cargo or cargo carried by ships smaller than 650 GT, no 
foreign flag ships were involved;. 
Italy: operators in the market must have been largely unaware of the changes; 
11 million tonnes of cargo were liberalised, yet foreign (EU arttfnon-EU) 
flag ships carried only 0.2 million tonnes in 1993. The fleet owned by 
Italian industrial enterprises has a capacity of 3 million tonnes, which is 
captive cargo for the national flag; 
Portugal: the volume of liberalised cargo is negligible; 
Spain: since the non-strategic cargoes, except cargo carried by vessels under 
650 GT, became accessible only as from 17 February 19943, it has not 
yet been possible to assess the impact of this liberalisation. 
Foreign flags in liberalised trade 
12. Foreign flag involvement was relatively high (12%) in the liberalised part of the 
Spanish cabotage market (i.a. iron ore). This may have been caused by a lack of 
sufficient national flag tonnage, although the foreign ships used were often Spanish 
controlled. This situation, however, already existed before the liberalisation of 
mainland trade, when foreign flag ships were being operated under waivers. 
13. Foreign flag involvement in the transport of chemicals and gas has been particularly 
high (45%) and not only in Spain. The same applies as in point 11 : foreign ships were 
already being used to carry these cargoes under waivers. 
14. There are two other reasons for the modest effect of the present liberalisation: 
most of the liberalised bulk cargoes which are transported between mainland 
ports in the South of Europe are of little interest to foreign shipowners. Either 
freight rates are too low or there is no return cargo available; 
there is still insufficient knowledge among shipowners and shippers concerning 
the recent liberalisation; even if they knew more about it, shippers tend to stay 
with their traditional national carriers as long as foreigners do not offer regular 
services. 
Foreign flags in non-liberalised trade 
15. Between 6 and 6.5 million tonnes of non-liberalised cabotage cargoes were carried by 
foreign flag ships under waivers. This is about 6% of the 101.5 million tonnes which 
are still reserved for the national flag. Foreign flags carrying reserved cargoes were 
only identified in France (0.3 - 0.5 m. tonnes), Spain (1 m. tonnes) and Portugal (4.9 
m. tonnes). For Portugal the ships registered in the Madeira ship register have been 
included as "foreign ships", since they need waivers to operate in Portuguese 
cabotage. 
The Commission is examining whether the derogations accorded by Article 6 (the non 
liberalised trades) remain justified when Member States' provisions on waivers for 
access to those trades do not include a preference system in favour of EU flags by 
which waivers would only be granted to non EU flag vessels if no EU flag vessel were 
available. 
Foreign flags in North European cabotage 
16. Cabotage trade in the Northern Member States is open to foreign flags with the 
exception of Germany, where cabotage trade is reserved to EU flag vessels. Although, 
in Denmark and the UK, the national flag is predominant in the ferry trade and in the 
Commission Decisions 93/125/EEC of 17.2.1993 and 93/396/EEC of 13.6.1993 concerning 
the application of safeguard measures pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation 3577/92. 
transport of general cargo, Danish and British ships carry only 20% of bulk cargoes. 
UK flag ships, however, carry virtually all British North Sea oil. In Germany, national 
flag ships carried 58% of the cabotage trade in 1993 against 75% in the previous 
year. 
Cabotage fleets 
17. Annex II contains data relating to the cabotage or "coastal" fleets of the Member 
States per 1 January 1994. Ships registered in DIS and MAR are not included; they 
are referred to in Part II of this Report. 
18. It has been difficult to identify cabotage fleets in the Northern Member States, since 
the vessels concerned may easily shift from international trade to cabotage trade. 
Therefore, the "coastal" fleet has been the yardstick for this Report. This is generally 
understood to be the fleet of vessels below 6,000 GT (10,000 DWT), although larger 
ferry ships may also be considered for this purpose. It is estimated that about 80% 
of all genuine cabotage voyages, made by the vessels concerned, took place in the 
trades of the Northern Member States, notably those of the UK and to a lesser extent, 
Germany. 
19. In the Southern Member States, dedicated cabotage fleets can be easily identified, for 
instance on the basis of a "Limited Certificate of Seaworthiness". 
20. It should be noted that, in general, the cabotage fleet under Community flag decreased 
in size in the period between 1992 and 1994. The reduction ranged from being not 
significant as in Greece and Italy to 30% in Spain. Both in the North (notably in 
Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) and in the South (in particular in Spain), the 
decline is attributed to general market conditions and the high cost of operation and 
therefore flagging-out to open registers such as Cyprus and Malta, Antigua, the 
Bahamas and Vanuatu. In France, an increasing number of ships was registered in the 
Kerguelen register. 
21. Since 1 July 1993,,Spanish ships have been allowed to register in the Canary Islands; 
however, they are not then permitted to operate in those Spanish cabotage trades 
where restrictions are still applied4. Between 1992 and 1993, the Spanish cabotage 
fleet shrank from 1 24 vessels to 85 vessels. The number of seafarers decreased from 
3,000 to 2,100, a 30% reduction. It is assumed that the prospect of increased 
liberalisation of the Spanish market contributed to the decisions taken by some 
Spanish owners. Similar moves by shipowners in the other Southern Member States 
were not reported. 
Conclusion 
22. In general, it might be expected that further cabotage liberalisation in the coming years 
will lead to increased efficiency in this sector, which will result in an improvement in 
the competitiveness of maritime cabotage operators by comparison with operators of 
other modes of transport. It is understood that Greek cabotage owners, for example, 
are preparing themselves for full liberalisation. Regulation 3577/92 will put national 
Cruise services have been liberalised for all operators with effect from 1.1.95, although the 
liberalisation for Canary Islands registered vessels took place earlier (1.1.94). 
cabotage trades on an equal footing with intra-European short sea shipping with the 
exception of the flag requirement. Since the latter mode of transport is increasingly 
considered an alternative, especially for long haul road transport, a shift of part of the 
cargo to maritime cabotage is not unlikely. However, this postulates not only a benefit 
to the shipper, but also the availability of sufficient ship's capacity at the right time. 
This will require a greater commitment by shipping companies to gain the confidence 
of shippers. At present, the cabotage sector in some Member States suffers from a 
poor image while inland infrastructure projects (pipelines, new roads) enhance the 
attraction of land-based trade flows. 
PART II: DIS5 and MAR6 vessels and their participation in EU cabotage trades 
The PIS and MAR fleets 
23. Annex III describes the composition of the DIS and MAR fleets. The number of ships 
registered in DIS remained more or less the same during the years 1993 and 1994. 
Out of the total number of 478 on 1 July 1994, 223 vessels could potentially 
participate in cabotage outside Denmark. The fleet is relatively young: 84% is less 
than 15 years old. There are no restrictions on the nationality of seafarers, except for 
the master. However, in practice most of the seafarers on board Danish coastal 
vessels are Danish. To the extent that Filipinos and Indians are employed, the wages 
under the collective agreements concerned are comparable with the ITF (International 
Transport Federation) 'basic crew rate' (as opposed to the ITF 'Far East rate' which 
is lower). Seafarers on board DIS vessels are exempt from payment of income tax. 
24. The MAR fleet is relatively small, 35 ships in 1994. The tanker section alone 
represents half of the vessels and by far the greater part of the deadweight tonnage. 
About 40% of the fleet is foreign-owned. Nine vessels are owned by Spanish 
companies. The master and half the crew must be Portuguese or other Community 
nationals but dispensation is possible. Seafarers are exempt from income tax. 
25. DIS and MAR vessels are not allowed to participate in their national cabotage trades 
although waivers may be granted. Since Regulation 3577/92 only allows freedom to 
provide cabotage services to ships which are permitted to operate in their own 
cabotage, DIS and MAR ships needed a derogation in order to have access to 
cabotage in other Member States. This derogation has been granted until 31 
December 1996 (Article 1(2) of the Regulation). The Council requested the 
Commission to start analysing the participation and possible distortion of competition 
caused by DIS and MAR ships in the cabotage trades of Member States and to devote 
part of its first Report to its findings. 
Participation of PIS and MAR vessels 
26. Although 223 DIS ships could have been potentially active in foreign cabotage, it is 
estimated that in reality a maximum of 50 ships were employed in EU cabotage 
outside Denmark. Most of them participated in the British or German domestic trades. 
Some vessels were used in the French, Portuguese and Spanish cabotage, primarily 
in cases where no national tonnage was available. This mainly concerned chemical 
and gas tankers. Since the participation of DIS ships in these trades increased to 
some extent in 1994, it might be assumed that the liberalisation has had some effect. 
However, the turn-over of the DIS fleet earned from cabotage activities is estimated 
at 1-2% of the total turnover and only one quarter of this percentage stems from 
activities in the South of Europe. 
DIS: Danish International Ship register 
MAR: Madeira International Ship register. 
27. MAR vessels participate mainly in Portuguese cabotage through waivers; a few 
voyages were made in British coastal trades. These concern oil, gas and chemical 
cargoes; both in 1992 and in 1993, virtually all these cargoes were carried in Portugal 
by MAR ships only. It is not yet known what the situation was in 1994. 
Cost comparison between PIS/MAR and national registers of EU and EEA partners 
28. Annex /^contains the ranking of seafarers' wage costs for 1993, split into the wages 
of Chief Officers and Able Seamen. Annex V gives details of comparative manning 
costs for three types of vessels. In calculating these costs, support measures, if any, 
have been taken into account. For the purposes of this report, the German ISR7 
register has been considered to reflect an average cost register, on the basis of 
various sources. 
29. The derogation granted to PIS and MAR vessels until 31 Pecember 1996 has given 
rise to some concern since such vessels are thought to have cost advantages over the 
vessels of other national registers of the EU. 
30. It becomes clear from the tables in Annex V that much depends on how the manning 
rules are applied or in practice whether the ship is manned with Community nationals 
or partially or wholly with foreigners. Information on manning costs was received 
from the International Shipping Federation for several cabotage vessels registered in 
PIS and MAR and in the other registers. For PIS vessels, a "minimum" and a 
"realistic" situation has been assumed, reflecting, respectively, the minimum manning 
costs achievable under PIS rules and the situation which, reportedly, applies in reality 
in the case of coastal vessels. In the latter case, a PIS ship of 3,300 GT will be 
manned by 14 persons, i.e. 10 Panes and 4 Filipino ratings. The following table, 
which is an extract from Annex V (2), demonstrates this. 
Estimated crew costs for a 3,300 GT vessel registered in ISR, DIS and NIS8 (in 
1,000 USD and Index ISR = 100) 
Register 
German - ISR 
PIS - minimum 
PIS - realistic 
NIS Crew (number) 
Officers 
German (3), 
Filipino (2) 
Oanish (1), 
Filipino (5) 
Panish (6) 
Norwegian (1), 
Filipino (5) Ratings 
German (1), 
Filipino (4) 
Filipino (8) 
Panish (4), 
Filipino (4) 
Filipino (8) Annual costs 
$1000 
709 
334 
876 
356 Index 
100 
40 
106 
43 
Source: Tecnecon (Economic and Transport Consultants) 
7 ISR: German International Ship register. 
8 NIS: Norwegian International Ship register. 
31. In general, crew costs for coastal vessels are a relatively high proportion of overall 
costs in comparison with the situation for ocean-going vessels. A case in point would 
be that a Putch coastal ship benefits from lower costs than the Panish ship in the 
"realistic" situation because it has a lower crew complement, which has also a bearing 
on the level of costs for holidays, sick leave and training time. Filipino seafarers on 
Putch coastal vessels are paid in accordance with Putch collective labour agreements; 
they may not be employed at home country wages. 
Conclusion 
32. Operating costs under the various registers differ considerably. This may give rise to 
particularly fierce competition where Member States with relatively expensive registers 
open their cabotage trades to competition for the first time. Whereas the MAR fleet, 
which operates mainly in Portuguese cabotage will not have a significant impact on 
the Community market, PIS vessels may have a considerable advantage compared 
with other registers. This depends on whether the number of non-nationals 
approaches the maximum allowable percentage. Since this remains a possibility and 
the time for assessment has sofar been short and too few trades have been opened 
in the Southern Member States, the Commission is not in a position to propose an 
amendment to Regulation 3577/92 with a view to allowing PIS (and MAR) vessels 
permanent access to EU cabotage. 
33. The above conclusion should be accompanied, however, by three notes: 
PIS vessels in the realistic situation could already be highly competitive and 
attractive to shippers for reasons other than potentially low crew cost, including 
technological advantages, efficiency, reliability and punctuality; 
there are other registers in the EU - second registers and even first registers -
which can be highly competitive in the cabotage trades as can be seen in the 
Annexes. Closure of these trades to PIS and MAR ships as from 1 January 1997 
would not rule out fierce price competition, although PIS ships opting for the 
"minimum" cost situation could affect such competition most; 
the overriding question, therefore, remains whether ships which are not allowed 
in their own cabotage should have permanent access to that of other Member 
States; if this question is answered in the negative, modification of the national 
legislation on such registers might be one way to give PIS and MAR vessels 
permanent access to the cabotage trades of the other Member States. 
10 
PART III: implications of extension of Regulation 3577/92 to EFTA countries 
Background 
34. On 21 March 1994, the EEA Joint Committee adopted a decision to integrate all 
relevant new EU legislation, adopted between the conclusion of the EEA negotiations 
and the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, into the Agreement. This did not 
include Regulation 3577/92. The European Union made a statement, agreeing that: 
"when preparing its first report on the implementation of the 
Regulation the Commission shall also take into account the 
possible implications of an extension of the Regulation to the 
EEA. At that time the EEA Joint Committee shall promptly 
examine the question of the inclusion of the Regulation in the 
EEA Agreement". 
35. Ouring the accession negotiations with Norway, it was agreed that NIS vessels 
(according to the law, not allowed in Norwegian cabotage trades) would not benefit 
from the derogation provided for in Article 1(2) of Regulation 3577/92. Norway 
undertook not to modify its NIS legislation before 1 January 1997. 
36. The enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 1995 means that the 
Regulation now applies also to Austria, Finland and Sweden. When preparing its 
report, the Commission collected information on the legislation of the then four main 
maritime EEA partners; see Annex VI. It appeared that both Finland and Sweden 
have restricted cabotage. Finland, however, adopted legislation to open its coastal 
trade to other EU flag vessels (Law 1362/94). Sweden had already concluded 
bilateral agreements with six EU Member States, granting reciprocal access to first 
and second register ships. It is now in the process of legally abolishing restrictions 
as far as all EU flag vessels are concerned. 
37. A study relating to the fleets of the former and present EFTA countries included data 
on the participation of the fleets of Finland and Sweden in EU cabotage trades and 
the most important findings are laid down in this Part and in Annex VII. The 
participation of NIS vessels is shown in Annex VIII. 
Crew costs 
38. Pata on the crew costs of Finnish, Swedish, Icelandic and Norwegian vessels can be 
found in Annexes IV and V, already referred to in Part II. Annexes IV and V 
demonstrate that Finnish and Icelandic ships should be ranked as medium to high cost 
EU flag vessels, whereas Swedish flag ships appear to compete at least on equal 
terms with relatively low cost second registers in other EU States, such as the 
German I.S.R. and the PIS (in the "realistic" situation). The Swedish flag and the 
Finnish second register allow the reimbursement of taxes and social security 
contributions, which enable shipowners to make a 25-30% saving on crew costs. 
39. The first Norwegian register - NOR - seems to be more expensive than other EEA 
flags and almost all EU registers. On the contrary, crew costs of vessels registered 
in the Norwegian International Ship register (NIS) are lower than those of all first and 
11 
second registers in Europe apart from PIS in the "minimum" situation. These costs 
are 30-40% less than those for ships registered in relatively low cost EU registers. 
They are only 20% of the cost of the most expensive EU flags. 
Participation of Finnish. Swedish and EFTA vessels in EU cabotage 
40. Annexes VII and VIII contain information of the estimated participation of Finnish, 
Swedish and EFTA vessels in EU cabotage trades during the period November 1 993 -
November 1994. An analysis has been made of Swedish, Finnish and NOR vessels 
on the one hand and NIS ships on the other; Swedish and Finnish ships now have 
access to cabotage in all Member States and NOR ships will obtain it if Regulation 
3577/92 is extended to the EFTA. For NIS ships, as long as Norwegian legislation is 
not amended, this would not be the case . Participation of NIS vessels was analysed 
only in the Member States with an open coast line. It is possible, however, that some 
ships were chartered for voyages in the Southern Member States. 
41. The data shown in the annexes result from an analysis of vessel movements, the 
elimination of ships obviously not suitable for cabotage and interviews with owners 
of the remaining vessels, which are mainly small cargo ships and oil- and chemical 
tankers. The figures indicate the total gross tonnage of the ships participating in 
these trades, but they do not show the shares of the Nordic vessels in the total 
carryings. However, the following table prepared by the UK Oepartment of Transport 
shows shares in the UK market: 
Market shares of EFTA flag vessels in UK coastal trades in 1993. 
Flag 
NIS 
Sweden 
Norway 
Finland 
Total Volume of dry 
cargo goods 
lifted (mt) 
0.16 
* 
* 
* 
0.16 % share of UK 
Trade 
0.9 
# 
* 
* 
0.9 Volume of 
liquid goods 
lifted (mt) 
2.95 
1.77 
0.56 
0.54 
5.82 % 
share 
of UK 
trade 
7.0 
4.2 
1.2 
1.2 
13.6 
* insignificant 
42. Annexes VII and VIII show that Norwegian (NIS) and Swedish flag oil and chemical 
tankers were prevalent in EU coastal trades, in particular in those of the UK, which 
is of course an important oil products market. These ships were also active in 
Penmark, Germany and the Netherlands. It is not likely that all vessel movements 
were related to voyages which should be considered genuine cabotage. 
12 
43. The above table on market shares of total carryings in the UK coastal trades shows 
that EFTA vessels as a group had an overall market share of almost 14% of the liquid 
bulk trade, with a share of 7% for NIS ships. NIS ships had a share of 5.2% of all UK 
carryings, which seems relatively modest. The explanation is that UK coastal trade is 
open to all flags and British ships, ships of other Northern Member States, EFTA 
(including NIS) ships and those under other non-EU flags, inter alia flags of 
convenience, were able to compete freely. 
Potential competition of NIS ships 
44. Although the NIS share of the market does not seem to be high in the Northern 
Member States, the number of ships which could be seen as potentially suitable for 
cabotage in all EU States is estimated to be between 200 and 420 vessels9. Around 
250 are ships over 10.000 PWT (6000 GT) but below 30.000 PWT. Some Spanish 
ships of that size participate in Spanish cabotage, although usually such larger 
vessels operate in the international market. As a rule, many ships, especially vessels 
purposely built for a particular trade, are not easily transferable to another trade. 
Moreover, according to the Norwegian authorities, most, if not all, small NIS and NOR 
vessels operate exclusively in Norwegian import/export trades. Yet, in spite of this, 
the potential of so many ships, operated under extremely low cost conditions, should 
not be underestimated. The smaller multi-purpose type NIS vessels may try to find 
additional markets, if present restrictions were lifted. 
Conclusion 
45. The EEA Agreement provides for the creation and maintenance of a homogeneous 
European Economic Area covering in particular all four freedoms. To achieve this there 
must be a continuous and comprehensive extension of relevant Community acquis to 
the EEA. The question of how Regulation 3577/92 can form part of the relevant 
Community acquis is connected to the solution of the following issues. 
Provided that NIS vessels continue to be excluded from free participation in EC 
cabotage as they would be on the basis of Article 1(1) of the Regulation, extension 
of the Regulation to the EFTA/EEA States is unlikely to cause significant changes in 
the present trade patterns for EC cabotage. It should be made clear that the 
derogation foreseen in Article 1 (2) of the Regulation should not be made available to 
NIS vessels since it was only intended for the EU Member States at the date of 
adoption of the Regulation. Moreover, Norway should make the commitment not to 
change its NIS legislation before 1 January 1997. By that time the Commission will 
have had the opportunity to analyse, in the framework of its second implementation 
report, the effects of liberalisation of maritime cabotage on a broader factual basis. 
Both points had already been accepted by Norway in the accession negotiations. 
Should Norway consider to allow NIS vessels access to their own domestic market 
after 1 January 1997, the situation may need to be reconsidered in the light of 
Norwegian manning requirements and practices prevailing at that time. 
Ro-ro and passenger ferries have not been taken into account since they are often dedicated 
to particular service routes. 
13 
ANNEX I 
OVERVIEW OF CABOTAGE DEVELOPMENTS BY EU MEMBER STATE (MLN. TONNES) 
Category-
country 
Belgium 
1984 
1992 
1993 
Denmark 
1987* 
1992* 
1993* 
France 
1984 
1992 
1993* 
W.Germ. 
1987 
unified 
1992 
1993 
Greece 
1984 
1992 
1993* 
Ireland 
1984 
1992 
1993 
Italy 
1984 
1992. 
1993* 
Netherl. 
1984* 
1992 
1993 
Portugal 
1984 
1992 
1993 
Spain 
1984 
1992 
1993 
Un.King. 
(incl. 
offshore) 
1984 
1992 
1993 
All EU 
member 
states 
1984/7 
1992 
1992/3 DRY BULK 
mainl. 
NA 
NA 
NA 
3.9 
5.25 
4.25 
2.4 
1.8 
1.6 
0.5 
1.45 
0.95 
3.0 
3.7 
3.7 
0.05 
0.15 
0.3 
4.85 
5.4 
5.0 
0.3 
0.4 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
7.6 
5.6 
4 .75 
4.7 
8.5 
7.4 
27.1 
32.25 
28.45 islands 
-
3.0 
2.05 
1.9 
0.3 
0.3 
0.2 
_ 
3.55 
4.1 
4.1 
_ 
8.35 
10.8 
10.0 
1.0 
1.45 
1.25 
0.5 
0.5 
0.5 
1.8 
0.6 
0.55 
2.0 
2.0 
18.5 
21.8 
20.5 LIQUID BULK 
mainl. 
NA 
NA 
0,05 
0.5 
0.55 
0.45 
7.2 
7.2 
6.5 
1.5 
7.35 
6.05 
6.5 
6.0 
6.0 
0.45 
0.55 
0.55 
7.5 
6.65 
6.2 
-
3.0 
5.0 
4.3 
18.3 
13 .6 
10.8 
32.5 
26.1 
28.9 
77.45 
73.0 
69.8 islands 
-
2.6 
2.65 
2.5 
0.3 
0.4 
0.3 
0.1 
0.1 
0.9 
2.0 
2.0 
. 
21.4 
23.15 
21.5 
-
0.2 
0.4 
0.4 
4.7 
3.9 
3.85 
30.0 
29.7 
23.8 
60.1 
62.3 
54 .5 GEN CARGO 
mainl. 
NA 
NA 
-
-
0.5 
0.5 
0.6 
0.4 
0.4 
-
4.0 
5.85 
5.45 
-
-
2.7 
4.4 
4.4 
-
7.3 
10.7 
10.3 islands 
-
8.6 
8.2 
9.5 
1.2 
0.9 
0.9 
_ 
2.0 
2.4 
2.4 
6.9 
11.65 
10.85 
0.15 
0.2 
0.2 
0.4 
0.8 
0.8 
4 .9 
5.2 
5.6 
8.8 
9.0 
9.5 
33.0 
38.9 
40.3 TOTAL 
mainl. 
NA 
NA 
0.05 
4 .4 
5.8 
4.7 
9.6 
9.0 
8 .1 
2.0 
8.85 
7.05 
10.1 
10.1 
10.1 
0.5 
0.7 
0.85 
16.35 
17.9 
16.65 
0.3 
0.4 
3.1 
5.1 
4 .4 
28.6 
23.6 
19.95 
37.2 
34 .6 
36.3 
111.9 
116 .0 
108.6 islands 
-
14.2 
12.9 
13.9 
1.8 
1.6 
1.4 
0.6 
0.6 
6.45 
8.5 
8.5 
_ 
36 .65 
45.6 
42.35 
1.15 
1.65 
1.45 
1.1 
1.7 
1.7 
11 .4 
9.7 
10.0 
38 .8 
40.7 
35.3 
111.6 
123 .0 
115.2 TOTAL 
NA 
NA 
0.05 
18.6 
18.7 
18.6 
11.4 
10.6 
9.5 
2.0 
9.45 
7.65 
16.55 
18.6 
18.6 
0.5 
0.7 
0.85 
53.0 
63.5 
59.0 
1.15 
1.95 
1.85 
4 .2 
6.8 
6.1 
40.0 
33 .3 
29.95 
76.0 
75.3 
71.6 
223.4 
238.9 
223.8 
* includes estimated data on trade volume, 
allocation 
Source : Merc trades area or commodity 
IH 
ANNEX II 
The 'coastal fleets 
1.1.19941 of Northern EU Member States per 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
- national 
-ISR 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Un. Kingdom 
Total Northern 
EU members No. 
23 
129 
551 
268 
283 
54 
12 
237 
•237 
•1243 GRT 
78,000 
199.000 
774.000 
312.000 
462.000 
95.000 
50.000 
378,000 : 
•302.000 
•1,876.000 DWT 
37,000 
92,000 
1,040,000 
413.000 
627,000 
128.000 
84.000 
602.000 
•463,000 
*2,446.000 comments 
mainly ferries 
mainly intra-island ferries 
mainly normal coastal vessels 
mainly normal coastal vessels 
total fleet below 10.000 DWT 
Belgian owned, < 10,000 DWT 
mainly normal coastal vessels 
mainly cargo vessels 
North European intra-Europe 
operating coastal fleets 
• estimated 
Source: Merc 
The cabotage fleets of Southern EU Member States per 1.1.1994 
Country | No. 
France 
-RoRo 
- other 
Greece 
- RoRo 
- other 
Italy 
-RoRo 
- other .- ; 
• 
Portugal . 
Spain 
- mainland 
- islands Total Southern 
EU members 86 
14 
72 
448 
220 
228 
377 
228 
149 
21 
172 
85 
87 
1104 GRT 
538,831 
136,374 
402.457 
721,934 
381,934 
•340.000 
672,500 
385,000 
287,500 
63,000 
580,411 
198.402 
382,039 
2,576,676 DWT 
712387 
•55.000 
657,387 
365,000 
•185.000 
•180.000 
623,500 
•150.000 
473.500 
82,000 
702,279 
•320,000 
382,279 
2,485,166 comments 
RoRo/ferries from/to Corsica 
mainly cabotage/intern.tankers 
RoRo/ferry incl. 38 hydrofoils 
small inter island cargo fleet 
RoRo/ferries + 53 hydrofoils 
mainly tankers 
only dry cargo vessels 
only cargo vessels 
mainly liners/ferries/RoRo 
Total cabotage fleets of South 
European Member States 
* estimated 
Source* Merc 
For the difference between "coastal1; fleets and 
cabotage fleets see paragraphs 17-19 of th 
Report. 
IS 
ANNEX in 
DIS FLEET, JULY 1992 AND JULY 1994, BY TYPE OF VESSEL 
Ship type 
Trampers 
Liners 
Tankers 
Pass.+ 
Ferries 
Other 
Total Number 
1.7.1992 
237 
86 
100 
6 
44 
473 1.7.1994 
228 
98 
98 
7 
46 
478 GRT/GT 
1.7.1992 
917.548 
1.990.075 
2.159.765 
84.120 
55.663 
5.207.171 1.7.1994 
888.612 
2.093.198 
1.567.504 
122.433 
65.697 
4.737.444 DWT 
1.7.1992 
1.555.736 
2.216.618 
3.965.287 
16.360 
64.753 
7.818.754 1.7.1994 
1.491.373 
2.360.305 
2.740.587 
19.875 
75.058 
6.687.198 
(source: Danish Shipowners Association) 
MAR FLEET, JULY 1993 AND JULY 1994, BY TYPE OF VESSEL 
Ship type 
Pass.vessels 
Gen. cargo 
Bulk carriers 
Oil tankers 
Container vessels 
Gas carriers 
Chemical tankers 
Total fleet NO 
1993 
2 
5 
5 
16 
3 
2 
33 1994 
2 
9 
3 
15 
3 
2 
1 
35 GRT 
1993 
2.168 
10.205 
77.563 
742.623 
6.055 
7.605 
846.221 1994 
13.443 
16.021 
21.152 
693.958 
6.055 
7.605 
3.575 
761.992 DWT 
1993 
674 
17.311 
126.112 
1.437.567 
10.941 
9.557 
1.602.162 1994 
2.722 
29.239 
34.132 
1.371.684 
10.941 
9.557 
6.260 
1.464.535 
(source: DGPNTM) 
\c-
ANNEX IV (1) 
RANKING OF SEAFARERS WAGE COSTS 1993: CHIEF OFFICERS 
Nationality Monthly Earnings 
Index Earnings Plus Social 
Costs Index 
EU: 
Denmark 
Germany 
France 
UK 
Denmark (DIS) 
Netherlands 
Spain 
Italy 
Belgium (Lux) 184 
166 
126 
118 
103 
100 
84 
84 
79 156 
150 
148 
115 
89 
100 
92 
90 
97 
NEW MEMBER STATES: 
Sweden 
Finland 90 
106 100 
102 
EFTA: 
Iceland 
Norway (NOR) 
Norway (NIS) 98 
125 
136 92 
120 
130 
Foreign Low Cost(a): 
Indian (MUI/ITF) 
Indian (NIS) 
Filipino (ITF/TCC) 
Filipino (DIS) 
Filipino (NIS) 
Polish (NIS) 53 
43 
44 
39 
37 
43 43 
37 
36 
33 
32 
35 
(a) Abbreviations in brackets refer to type of agreement 
Source: IS F 
\* 
ANNEX IV (2) 
RANKING OF SEAFARERS WAGE COSTS 1993: ABLE SEAMEN 
Nationality Monthly Earnings Earnings plus Social 
Index Costs Index 
EU: 
Germany 174 161 
Denmark 128 107 
Denmark (DIS) 102 86 
Netherlands 100 100 
France 95 118 
Italy 91 97 
UK 78 73 
Belgium (Lux) 75 90 
Greece 63 61 
Portugal 27 25 
NEW MEMBER STATES: 
Sweden 84 93 
Finland 135 129 
EFTA: 
Iceland 115 106 
Norway (NOR) 141 128 
Norway (NIS) ; 144 139 
Foreign Low Cost(a): 
Indian (NUS/ITF) 33 30 
Indian (DIS) 32 28 
Indian (NIS) 24 22 
Filipino (ITF/TCC) 30 25 
Filipino (DIS) 38 32 
Filipino (NIS) 29 26 
Polish (NIS) | 31 26 
(a) Abbreviations in brackets refer to type of agreement 
Source: ISF 
IS 
ANNEX V(1) 
COMPARATIVE MANNING COSTS/ GENERAL CARGO VESSEL 1,500 GRT 2* \ 
Cost 
ranking 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
(a) inclu Register 
Cargo vessel 1,500 
DIS minimum 
NIS 
Madeira (MAR) 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Sweden 
DIS (realistic) 
Germany (ISR) 
Italy 
Finland 
Spain 
Iceland 
Norway (NOR) 
Germany 
France 
des social costs Crew Complement 
(number/ nationality) 
Officers 
• 1E + 4F 
1E + 4F 
3E + OF 
4E + OF 
3E + OF 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
3E + 2F 
4E + OF 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
4E + OF 
4E '+ OF 
3E + OF 
6E + OF Ratings 
OE +.5F 
OE + 5F 
3E + OF 
OE + 3F 
4E + OF 
6E + OF 
2E + 3F 
1E + 4F 
5E + OF 
6E + OF 
7E + OF 
6E + OF 
6E + OF 
5E + OF 
6E + OF Total Manning 
Cost (a) 
US$ 1000/year 
266 
300 
340 
448 
561 
610 
648 
709 
736 
769 
784 
826 
978 
1.029 
1.454 Index (German 
ISR = 100) 
38 
42 
48 
63 
79 
86 
91 
100 
104 
108 
111 
117 
138 
145 
205 
Source: TecnEcon/Merc; estimates based on ISF data. 
E: EEA nationals 
F: Foreign low cost 
ANNEX V (2) 
COMPARATIVE MANNING COSTS/ GENERAL CARGO VESSEL 3,300 GRT J 
Cost 
ranking 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. Register 
Cargo vessel 3,300 
DIS minimum 
NIS 
Madeira (MAR) 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Germany (ISR) 
Finland 
DIS (realistic) 
Iceland 
Italy 
Spain 
Norway (NOR) 
Germany 
France Crew Complement 
(number/ nationality) 
Officers 
1E + 5F 
1E + 5F 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
3E + 2F 
4E + OF 
6E + OF 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
7E + OF 
4E + OF 
5E + OF 
7E + OF Ratings 
OE + 8F 
OE + 8F 
4E + OF 
OE + 4F 
7E + OF 
4E + OF 
2E + 5F 
7E + OF 
4E + 4F 
7E + OF 
8E + OF 
8E + OF 
7E + OF 
OE + 7F 
10E + OF Total Manning 
Cost (a) 
US$ 1000/year 
334 
356 
470 
566 
655 
778 
826 
836 
876 
896 
1.015 
1.027 
1.055 
1.575 
1.928 Index (German 
ISR = 100) 
40 
43 
57 
69 
79 
94 
100 
100 
106 
108 
123 
124 
128 
191 
233 
(a) includes social costs 
E: EEA nationals 
F: Foreign low cost Source:TecnEcon/Merc; estimates based on ISF data. 
ANNEX V (3) 
COMPARATIVE MANNING COSTS/ PRODUCTS TANKER 9,000 GRT ^ 
Cost 
ranking 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. Register 
Cargo vessel 9,000 
DIS minimum 
NIS 
Madeira (MAR) 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Germany (ISR) 
DIS (realistic) 
Spain 
Finland 
Italy 
Norway (NOR) 
Germany 
France Crew Complement 
(number/nationality) 
Officers 
1E + 6F 
1E + 6F 
4E + OF 
6E + OF 
5E + OF 
7E + OF 
4E + 3F 
7E + OF 
7E + OF 
7E + OF 
5E + OF 
7E + OF 
6E + OF 
8E + OF Ratings 
OE + 11F 
OE + 1 IF 
4E + OF 
OE + 7F 
4E + OF 
11E + OF 
2E + 11F 
6E + 5F 
10E + OF 
11E + OF 
8E + OF 
11E + OF 
OE + 8F 
12E + OF Total Manning 
Cost (a) 
US$ 1000/year 
400 
413 
573 
729 
1.063 
1.089 
1.092 
1.102 
1.285 
1.379 
1.410 
1.749 
1.848 
2.248 Index 
(German ISR 
= 100) 
37 
38 
52 
67 
97 
100 
100 
101 
118 
126 
129 
160 
169 
206 
(a) includes social costs 
E: EEA nationals 
F: Foreign low cost Source:TecnEcon/Merc; estimates based on ISF data. 
ANNEX VI ^4 
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND - SUMMARY 
Country 
Finland 
Sweden 
Iceland 
Norway Basic 
Principle 
on 
Cabotage 
Closed to 
foreign 
vessels. 
As from 
accession 
open for 
"EU. 
Closed to 
foreign 
vessels. 
As from 
accession 
open for 
EU. 
Open 
coastline 
Open 
coastline 
•a1 = Comment 
Limited derogations. 
Bilateral agreements 
make it possible for 
various foreign flagged 
vessels to operate in 
cabotage. Exemption 
can be gained from the 
Swedish Board of 
Maritime Transport in 
special cases. 
-
NIS registered vessels 
excluded. Scheduled 
passenger services must 
obtain a licence. Bilateral Agreements 
Relevant to Cabotage 
No agreements either with 
EU or other EFTA 
countries which grant 
mutual access to cabotage. 
Include Norway, Belgium, 
Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, France and the 
UK, allowing reciprocal 
cabotage. The agreement 
with Norway extends to NIS 
vessels. 
None relevant to coastal 
maritime transport. 
Include Sweden, Iceland, 
Denmark, UK and Portugal 
although open door policy 
towards cabotage means 
special arrangements are not 
required. Crew Nationality Requirements 
1st 
Register 
Finnish 
citizens 
None. All 
crew retained 
on collective 
wage 
agreements 
regardless of 
nationality. 
EEA citizens 
None except 
that master 
must be 
Norwegian. 
All crew 
retained on 
collective 
wage 
agreements. 2nd Register 
May recruit foreign crew 
members in certain 
conditions by way of 
derogation from the usual 
collective labour contracts. 
Half of the crew may consist 
of members domiciled in the 
EEA. 
None. 
-
General requirement for 
Norwegian master. However 
exemptions for other 
nationalities are readily 
obtainable. Ownership Requirements 
1st Register 
60 percent of the vessel owned 
by Finnish citizens or Finnish 
registered companies. 
More than 50 percent owned by a 
Swedish citizen or corporation 
although the Government 
reserves the right to permit 
foreign vessels to fly the Swedish 
flag. 
Open to citizens of EEA 
countries. 
Owner is Norwegian citizen or 
resident, or owner is an unlimited 
partnership- where at least 60 
percent of the ownership is with 
Norwegian citizens, or the owner 
is,a limited company where at 
least 60 percent of the capital and 
operating powers are in 
Norwegian hands. 2nd Register 
Same as 1st Register. 
Registration not permitted for 
'passenger /car ferries or vessels 
engaged only in cabotage. 
Not applicable. Owners can 
charter foreign flag vessels for 
cabotage services. 
60 percent owned by Norwegian 
citizens or companies, or limited 
company with head office in 
Norway, or ship-owning 
partnership with Norwegian 
based managing owner, or owner 
has appointed a representative to 
accept writs on behalf of the 
owner. Fiscal Rebates 
A proportion of the taxes 
withheld and social security 
fees paid by the owner may 
be refunded for vessels 
registered in the parallel 
register. 
Shipowners receive full 
rebate of tax paid on 
seafarers' income and an 
additional cash sum of SEK 
29,000 per full time 
employee for social cost 
contributions. 
Approximately 25 percent 
savings on total crew costs. 
-
All Norwegian seafarers are 
given special tax deduction 
up to 30 percent of gross 
income subject to a 
maximum of NKr70,000 per 
year. Restricted to seafarers 
working for a minimum 
sailing period. Shipowners 
receive tax rebates for crew 
resident in Norway and/or 
liable for taxation in 
Norway. Restricted to NOR 
vessels except where NIS 
vessels' entire crews fulfil 
the necessary 
residency/taxation 
requirements. 
1 \ '•• ' • ===== 
Source: icon 
ANNEX VII ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION BY SWEDISH, FINNISH AND EFTA VESSELS IN EU CABOTAGE TRADES BY VESSEL 
TYPE (EXCLUDING NIS). NOV. 1993 - NOV. 1994 
part I 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Irish Republic 
France 
Germany Flag 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE General Cargo 
No 
4 
6 
2 Gt 
10,190 
6,156 
3,842 Bulk 
No 
-Gt 
-Tanker 
No 
-Gt 
-Lpg/Lng 
No 
1 Gt 
6,726 Chemical Tanker 
No 
2 
1 Gt 
4,779 
4,311 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 11 
43 
22 23,017 
38,184 
18,631 1 
1 1,199 
8,383 26 91,347 - -1 
3 
7 13,974 
3,967 
30,013 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 1 
1 
4 4,303 
493 
3,810 - - - - - - -
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 1 
3 
3 3,826 
5,228 
3,758 - - 1 
1 3,998 
7,285 - -1 
5 
2 6,763 
11,388 
11,303 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 10 
16 
14 28,291 
11,148 
15,311 1 1,199 1 
12 3,998 
53,841 - - 3 
4 9,790 
22,218 
Total Total 
No 
5 
8 
3 
16 
12 
47 
56 
115 
1 
1 
4 
6 
2 
9 
6 
17 
10 
21 
30 
61 Gt 
16,916 
10,935 
8,153 
36,004 
37,081 
43,350 
148,374 
228,805 
4,303 
493 
3,810 
8,606 
10,589 
20,614 
22,346 
53,549 
28,291 
26,135 
91,370 
145,796 
Source: TecnEcon, based on LMIS data part II 
Country 
Greece 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Spain 
UK Flag 
NOR 
Total 
FIN 
SWE 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 
Total 
NOR 
SWE 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 
Total 
FIN 
NOR 
SWE 
Total General Cargo 
No 
3 
1 
2 
13 
20 
9 
11 
2 
8 
4 
10 
28 
14 Gt 
2,477 
4,303 
11,691 
38,171 
19,248 
20,577 
8,351 
8,606 
15,734 
6,676 
45,023 
37,425 
32,475 Bulk 
No 
-
-
-
-
-
3 Gt 
-
-
-
-
-
27,773 Tanker 
No 
-
-
1 
2 
13 
-
-
2 
2 
19 Gt 
-
-
8,773 
4,497 
52,960 
-
-
56,584 
4,497 
116,840 Lpg/Lng 
No 
-
-
1 
-
-
2 Gt 
-
-
6,726 
-
-
11,505 Chemical Tanker 
No 
-
-
1 
8 
4 
1 
1 
1 
7 
9 Gt 
-
-
6,763 
17,519 
17,467 
5,774 
5,774 
6,763 
16,219 
56,246 Total 
No 
3 
3 
1 
2 
3 
16 
30 
26 
72 
11 
1 
12 
2 
8 
5 
15 
15 
37 
45 
97 Gt 
2,477 
2,477 
4,303 
11,691 
15,994 
60,433 
41,264 
91,004 
192,701 
8,351 
5,774 
14,125 
8,606 
15,734 
12,450 
36,790 
119,875 
58,141 
233,334 
411,350 
ANNEX VIII CURRENT ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION OF NIS VESSELS IN EU CABOTAGE TRADE ^ 
dù 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Irish 
Republic 
Netherlands 
UK 
Source: TecnEc General 
Cargo 
No 
15 
42 
9 
44 
69 
:on, bî Gt 
28,133 
65,167 
11,090 
65,026 
142,8 
ised on LM Bulk 
No 
1 
3 
1 
3 
7 
ISdat Gt 
2,468 
8,022 
18,839 
14,242 
76,716 
a Tanker 
No 
-
6 
1 
10 
16 Gt 
-
75,670 
6,973 
108,297 
229,494 Ipg/ Ing 
No 
2 
2 
-
3 
13 Gt 
9,210 
13,593 
-
12,699 
86,683 Chemical 
Tank 
No 
4 
2 
1 
8 
23 Gt 
14,306 
13,593 
2,564 
30,639 
152,400 Container 
No 
-
1 
-
2 
3 Gt 
-
2,282 
-
5,904 
7,078 Total 
No 
22 
56 
12 
70 
131 Gt 
54,117 
178,723 
34,466 
236,807 
695,171 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 383 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 07 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-407-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-92244-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg