No C 318/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on structural improvements in inland 
waterway transport 
(88/C 318/17) 
On 1 June 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The section for transport and communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 September 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr Tukker. 
At its 258th plenary session (meeting of 29 September 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority with one abstention. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. As long ago as April 1979 the Directorate-Gen­
eral for Transport (DG VII) produced a working docu­
ment (VII/181/79) containing a proposal for reorganiz­
ing inland waterway transport in Western Europe. That 
proposal was almost identical to the one now submitted 
by the Commission, apart from one important point. 
In 1979, DG VII wanted to make it possible to refuse, 
during periods of severe crisis in inland shipping, oper­
ating licences for new vessels or vessels imported from 
other countries. The Federal Republic of Germany 
refused to accept such reorganization arrangements 
because of this clause. 
The present Commission proposal makes no reference 
to licences as these have been made superfluous by the 
second Additional Protocol to the Act of Mannheim. It 
does, however, provide for measures to discourage, but 
not to prohibit, new building during periods of crisis. 
This should remove the objections of Germany. 
It would of course have been possible to try to introduce 
EC rules (i.e. without Switzerland) in 1979, but this 
would have had no effect as it was very attractive 
at that time for inland shipping to be registered in 
Switzerland on account of its social and fiscal pro­
visions; in addition, registration there was very easy. In 
the meantime, however, Switzerland has virtually 
closed its borders to foreign inland shipping companies 
so that it no longer perpetuates overcapacity by provid­
ing an outlet for excess EC capacity. Nevertheless, it is 
advisable to include Switzerland in any EC scrapping 
scheme. 
The acceptance by the Central Rhine Navigation Com­
mission of the Additional Protocol No 4 of 5 May 1988 
means that the way is clear for the introduction of a 
scrapping scheme, including Switzerland, provided that 
the following conditions are met: 
— limited duration of the scheme, e.g. 5 years with a 
possible maximum 5 years' extension, 
— uniformity of the national scrapping funds, — ratification of the Additional Protocol by the 
Governments belonging to the Central Rhine Navi­
gation Commission. 
If these conditions are met, the Swiss Government is 
prepared to endorse the scrapping scheme. 
1.2. In the Explanatory Memorandum the Com­
mission states that overcapacity is estimated at 20%. 
On account of the fluctuations in water levels, a surplus 
of 10-15% is necessary to satisfy the demand for 
capacity even in low water periods. The 20% ought to 
be added to this reserve capacity, giving an excess 
capacity of 30-35%. This figure seems more in line with 
the situation at the moment. 
1.3. In assessing the situation the Commission states 
in the Explanatory Memorandum that this has been 
brought about by the changing pattern of demand on 
the inland waterway market. 
Nowhere, however, does the Commission point out 
that the main reasons for the growth of surplus capacity 
have been tax concessions (especially in Germany and 
the Netherlands) and investments grants. The Com­
mission proposal should therefore state that such con­
cessions must be abolished and may not be restored for 
inland shipping. 
1.4. In the case of new building or purchase of a 
modern vessel it is recommended that the tonnage to 
be scrapped be higher than the new tonnage to be 
acquired, e.g. 125% or 140%. 
A modern vessel almost always has greater engine 
power, better loading and unloading facilities and there­
fore a shorter turnaround time. This means an increase 
in capacity, hence another small contribution to the 
excess capacity or a smaller decrease in the surplus 
tonnage. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee is surprised that the Com­
mission proposal is confined to provisions aimed at 
curbing the volume of transport. 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/59 
Inland waterways offer one of the least pollutant, safest 
(also for non-users) and most energy efficient modes of 
transport. 
Here the Committee is reiterating points already made 
in various other Opinions. 
2.2. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
does not provide more figures in support of its proposal. 
Rather more data on the volume of freight, the capacity 
of the fleet and the nature of the excess capacity would 
have been desirable. 
Nevertheless, the Committee broadly endorses the 
Commission proposal. It would, however, ask the Com­
mission to amend or supplement certain important 
points. 
The Commission should ensure that Luxembourg also 
respects the provisions of the Regulation and takes part 
in a scrapping fund. It is unthinkable that Luxembourg 
should provide a means of evading the rules. Therefore 
in the penultimate line of the second paragraph of point 
6 of the general considerations Luxembourg 'carriers' 
should be replaced by 'owners'. 
2.3. Point 6 also states that the participation of 
vessels from Eastern European countries would have a 
negligible impact. This is true for 1988 and the follow­
ing few years until the Rhine-Main-Danube link-up is 
finished. Although restrictions will then be imposed on 
Eastern Bloc shipping through the second Additional 
Protocol to the Act of Mannheim, the Commission 
should strictly ensure that the effect of the Western 
European scrapping scheme is not destroyed by bilateral 
agreements between an EC Member State and an East­
ern Bloc State. 
2.4. Point 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers 
to pusher craft and cargo vessels. These terms do not 
make it clear which vessels are concerned. It should 
read: barges, lighters, powered vessels, pusher craft and 
tugs. 
2.5. Also in point 6, the last sentence of the penulti­
mate paragraph, beginning 'However, vessels which ...', 
Done at Brussels, 29 September 1988. should be deleted. There are no closed national markets, 
unless the reference is to mountain lakes, for instance, 
with passenger vessels which have to be brought in and 
removed by road. Western Europe is a market with 
interconnecting waterways (insofar as the countries 
mentioned are concerned). 
2.6. Point 8 (b): insert 'or export their vessels to a 
non-European country (e.g. Africa or Asia)'. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 2 
3.1.1. Second paragraph: 
a) Insert: 'Hence this does not apply to the five 
Member States specified in the preamble'; 
b) Retain; 
c) 'Vessels with a deadweight capacity of less than 
450 t.' 
3.2. Article 4 
3.2.1. In paragraph 2 insert 'by the owner' after 
'paid'. 
3.2.2. At the end of paragraph 3 delete 'or operated 
by the same undertaking' and insert: 
'provided these vessels have been in his possession 
for more than one year.' 
33. Article 9 
The social and financial measures to be taken in connec­
tion with the scrapping scheme must be spelt out more 
clearly by the Commission, which must ensure that 
these measures are the same for all the areas concerned 
so that unfair competition cannot arise again. 
It must also be examined whether resources from the 
EC Social Fund could be made available for this. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT