The difficulty to specify suitable core indicators for monitoring, in particular to monitor the impacts of the initiative on labour mobility and the filling of the demand supply gap of IWT workers, should be noted. As explained in the introduction of section 6 (analysis of impact), this is due to the existing situation where the availability of specific data for IWT us very limited. Quantitative monitoring is therefore focussed on measurable outcomes expected to result from the future implementation of the initiative.

Impact on different regions has not been inserted as by its nature it cannot be expressed in one single trend.

Panteia et al (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.11.

The figures shown in the table as administrative costs for boatmaster practical exam represent average costs between two averages: 1) for the scenario where the MS would opt putting an assessment only through a theoretical exam and 2) for a combination of both theoretical and practical exams. In each case, several options including various form of exams have been taken into account. Source: Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures to Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical support for an impact assessment.

The figures shown in the table as administrative costs for boatmaster practical exam represent average costs between estimates in case exam has to be carried out on a dedicated training ship that needs to be chartered for a day or in case the candidate uses his own. Source: Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures to Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical support for an impact assessment.

Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures on safety impact in the context of the technical support for the impact assessment on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation.

In 2013, STC Group organised exams for 32 applicants at boatman level and for 7 candidates at boatmaster level. “Onderwijscentrum Binnenvaart” reported that 54 applicants passed the boatman practical exam program in 2013 and that, for the first half of 2014 they had an average of 8 applicants a month. In June 2014, they also reported 10 candidates enrolled for the practical exam at boatmaster level.

see: http://www.ccr-zkr.org/12020300-en.html Putting the issue of KSS apart, all boatmasters have additional conditions to fulfil with the exception of those from DE.

657 boatmasters from France + 20 from Croatia - 19 French boatmasters that have a Rhine patent. This results in 658 boatmasters that have more difficulties to be accepted the Rhine. Note, that French boatmasters are allowed on the Rhine too if they possess a Directive 96/50/EC license and can prove at least 4 years (720 days under CCNR system instead of 400 under the French system) of navigation experience.

Boatmasters still need to prove knowledge of specific situations on the Rhine.

Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical support for an impact assessment, Appendix 5 as adjusted by the Commission.

Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical support for an impact assessment, Final report, p. 45-46. Ranging from a decrease of 2 workers in case of alignment with existing CCNR standards, to an increase of respectively 2-4 and 6-9 workers in case alignment on Directive 96/50/EC or new frequency.

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ C 111, 6.5.2008. http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/policy-context/european-vet-initiatives/european-qualifications-framework.aspx .

Full application of measures 5 and 6 together does not make sense (see footnote 96). For the sake of simplification they are however integrated in the same option.

Directive 2013/55/EU sets the conditions for CTT/CTFs adoption and of their potential scope. CTT/CTFs are introduced by delegated acts of the Commission. The Directive clearly provides that Member States may, under certain conditions, opt out of the delegated act. It is not legally possible for a delegated act by the Commission to deny Member States a right that they enjoy under the Directive itself and which is not conditional upon a decision of the Commission.

Measures 5 and 6 are rather to be seen as alternatives as these are two different ways aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of qualifications. The two measures/instruments target similar population, both in terms of scope (crew) and voluntary Member States. Analysis of impacts of these measures will therefore be very similar as shown under section 6. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is possible that the two measures co-exist in a limited way. In particular if the sector would opt for measure 6 it is likely that a number of CCNR arrangements would remain/be needed to cover countries or limited aspects not covered by CTT/CTF. This would of course add a certain legal and administrative complexity compared to BAU.

Under Directive 96/50/EC, medical check-up is foreseen at minimum every year after 65 years old. Under RNP every 5 years between 50-65, yearly after 65 years old. Based on a study, a "Dutch proposal" has been put forward i.e. medical checks at 60, 65 and 70 and thereafter every two years. When the IAR refers to the "new proposed frequency", it refers to that proposed measure.

Though RNP mentions a possible maximum reduction of 3 years under article 7.01. Appendix 1 to the instructions for the services mentions in practice a maximum of 2 years. See http://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/reglementSTF/stf2_122013_fr.pdf

The assumptions, methodology and calculations behind these figures can be found in Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical support for an impact assessment, p. 100-110.

Council Directive 2014/112/EU of 19 December 2014 implementing the European Agreement concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport, concluded by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) Text with EEA relevance , OJ L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 86–95.

As in the calculations the lateral in/outflow has not been taken into account, it is not possible to exactly predict how large the gaps exactly are. Furthermore, it must be noted that the “hidden reserve” can be used but is not integrated in the supply/demand model.

The demand for workers has been estimated in relation to the total number of vessels (and the amount of cargo transported) and the manning requirements. Assumptions used to determine the supply of workers are based on expert judgements from the external consultant.

Regarding boatmasters, the ageing is more significant in BE, FR and DE (with majority that will retire within 10-20 years). As far operational workers are concerned, ageing is an issue for BE and DE but not for FR and NL that have an age curve below the EU average. Source: CCNR, EC, Panteia (2014), Market Observation 2014, p.97-98.

NEA et al (2011), Medium and Long Term Perspectives of IWT in the European Union. p.21” for an estimation of the forecasted IWT performance in the EU up to 2040. It is consistent with the 2013 EU Reference Scenario ( http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/publications/doc/trends-to-2050-update-2013.pdf )

Within PLATINA, the European network of nautical schools (EDINNA) is elaborating Standards for Training and Certification in Inland Navigation (STCIN), similarly to the existing system of Standards for Training and Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW) by the international maritime organisation (IMO).

Administrative Arrangement concerning a Framework for Cooperation between the Secretariat of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission (2013). See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/inland/doc/2013-05-22-rhine.pdf

In the aftermath of 2004 EU enlargement, the possibility to recognize non CCNR document was given by the entry into force in December 2004 of the additional Protocol No. 7 to the Mannheim Convention.

In total, € 2,613,661 of extra costs are made on the Danube due to pilotage. On the Rhine, this figure equals € 2,990,652. Also the Maritime Seine has got a large contribution to pilotage costs: € 2,058,778 .

Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in Inland Navigation, Technical support for an impact assessment, Final report, p.106-107. The assumptions, methodology and calculations behind KSS figures and a regional breakdown of the costs can be found in pages 100-110 of the report.

i.e. 27 boatmasters and 7 operational workers. Source: Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in Inland Navigation, Technical support for an impact assessment, Final report, p.91-93 based on Nederland Maritiem Land (2012) and Guy Sulpice (2011).

Germany is however less strict regarding lateral inflow, as it generally requires only six months experience in inland navigation.

In December 2015 the bilateral agreements that recognise specific training programmes provided by the training institutes of Decin (CZ) and CERONAV (RO) should enter into force. In view of the different education systems, recognition was only made possible thanks to the use of the STCIN and following a relatively long process. The reference framework allowed the CCNR to indicate the shortcomings in terms of competence and find an agreement on the adjustments to be made to reach CCNR standards. Both Romania and Czech Republic emphasised how important such recognition is for the mobility of their workers and the attractiveness of the profession.

Countries that are not part of the interconnected IWT network but already issue boatmasters certificate in line with Directive 96/50/EC and could therefore more likely consider issuing also other qualifications in line with EU requirements. Note that if we would also add workers from Portugal, Italy and United Kingdom (2848), it is a total of 7,136 operational workers, i.e. 27% of the operational workers within the EU, who do not have their qualification recognised on the Rhine and in other EU member states.

Overview prepared by EDINNA as input for meetings with the Common Expert Group E01036, focused on recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation. This overview was meant to support the discussion and to reach an agreement on the relation between the existing functions and professional qualifications. EDINNA is the educational network of inland waterway navigation schools and training institutes, see http://www.edinna.eu

Panteia et al (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.10. From the total mentioned, the Commission has deducted the figures related to ES, DK, LV, SI and CH.

For example, the Netherlands grants a reduction of only two years to a seafarer on all its waterways. This is based on Dutch regulation: Besluit tot goedkeuring examenreglementen en examenprogramma's voor de binnenvaart 2013. Most of the EU countries outside of the Rhine grant a reduction of three years.

Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the relevant directives related to the initiative on recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation (Directives 91/672/EEC and 95/50/EC), p.29-30, p.48.

Panteia et al (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.10. Figures for 2011.

Other countries like Portugal, United Kingdom, Italy and Luxembourg do not issue certificates in line with Directive 96/50/EC.

As far as the boatmasters are concerned, the focus in this IAR is mainly on the differences between the RNP and Directive 96/50/EC. This is because the Danube Commission and UNECE do not issue binding legal rules, and because the national certificates issued by EU member states that fall out of the scope of Directive 96/50/EC are considered not to affect free navigation in the EU (source: study on the evaluation of the existing legal framework).

Ecorys et al (2014), Danube+20, Job creation scenarios from a 20% increase of IWT on the Danube by 2020 compared to 2010.

Panteia et al (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.53-57.

Panteia/PWC(2014),Analysis of the trends and prospects of jobs and working conditions in transport,Annex 13.

The "hidden reserve" is a capacity reserve which consists of persons with the right qualifications but that are available for IWT work on an incidental basis only. This concerns for example persons that are of an age older than 65 years and/or relatives that may provide support in exceptional cases.

Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, Panteia et al, 2014, p.66.

For the Danube corridor, countries concerned are AT, BG, HU, SK and RO. The Rhine countries are BE, CH, DE, FR and NL. The North-South corridor includes the following river basins: Scheldt, Rhône, Meuse and Seine. In terms of countries, it includes NL, BE and FR. The East-West corridor includes the following river basins: Elbe, Weser and Odra. In terms of countries, it includes NL, DE, PL and CZ.

Study on the costs and benefits of the implementation of the European Agreement on working time in inkand waterway transport – A comparison with the status quo, Ecorys, 2013, p.12.

Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, Panteia et al, 2014, p.15.

See Annex 2. Source: Panteia et al (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.10. Figures for 2011. Source Ecorys (2013) updated by Panteia. These employment figures include the owner-operators, part-time and temporary employment in the IWT freight and passenger transport (excluding land-based personnel). From the total mentioned, the Commission has deducted the figures related to ES, DK, LV, SI and CH. It is important to note that these numbers do not include a ‘hidden reserve’ of personnel who have the necessary sailing licenses, but are not active on a regular basis.

The evaluation of the current framework can be found on:

Within PLATINA, the European network of nautical schools (EDINNA) is elaborating Standards for Training and Certification in Inland Navigation (STCIN), similarly to the existing system of Standards for Training and Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW) by the international maritime organisation (IMO).

Note that the way some issues are presented might be different in the publication consultation report and in the IAR. For example, as explained under section 2.2. safety is no longer a problem driver but a key element in the analysis of impacts; level of safety has to be maintained (and even possibly improved). In a similar way, language is not considered any more as an individual problem driver but is included in the more global need for 'competence-based standards'. As one of the consequence, 'River Speak' is no longer proposed as an individual measure but remains targeted as a 'communication' competence under the common minimum standards on competence. The specific issue of SRB has been addressed under section 3.3.1.2.

UNECE, ‘Resolution No. 31 Minimum Requirements for the Issuance of Boatmasters Licenses in Inland Navigation with a view to their Reciprocal Recognition for International Traffic’, Doc ECE/TRANS/SC.3/WP.3/2009/8/Rev.1 (18 May 2009).

Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L. 255, 30.09.2005, p. 22.

The composition and functioning of these agreements will be developed under section 3.2.1. Service Record Books (SRBs) register navigation time and qualifications. They as also provide proof that mental and physical fitness requirements have been met by each crew member. In this respect, SRBs are an important factor for obtaining a certificate to operate in a certain Member State or river basin.

The Moselle Commission is an international intergovernmental institution established by the Moselle Convention signed by DE, FR and LU in 1956. http://www.moselkommission.org

The Sava Commission is an international organisation established by the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB) in 2002 between HR, SR, BA and SI. See http://www.savacommission.org

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has 56 member states and two working parties dealing with inland waterways. See: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/sc3/sc3.html

The DC is an international intergovernmental organization established by the Convention regarding the regime of navigation on the Danube signed in Belgrade on 18 August 1948. The Member States of the Danube Commission are AT, BU, HU, DE, MD, RU, SR, SK, UA, HR). See http://www.danubecommission.org

The CCNR is an international intergovernmental organization established by the Revised Convention for Navigation on the Rhine - referred to as the Mannheim Convention - of 17 October 1868. It has five member states: BE, CH, DE, FR and NL. See: http://www.ccr-zkr.org

E.g. Extract from TEN-T project “Upper Rhine, a connected corridor”: La région du Rhin Supérieur dispose d'une offre infrastructurelle dense. D'une part, le Rhin, et son réseau de canaux connectés (notamment au Danube, au Neckar et au Main), constitue la voie fluviale la plus fréquentée d'Europe mais dispose encore d'importantes réserves de capacités. D'autre part, les réseaux ferroviaire et routier présentent une offre de capacités très importante. Plusieurs points de saturation ont néanmoins été relevés aux niveaux ferroviaire et routier dans le cadre de l'étude sur les capacités des réseaux magistraux et portuaires conduites par les ports du Rhin Supérieur en 2014. According to the Study on TEN-T Core Network Corridor “Rhine–Danube” (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-guidelines/corridors/doc/2014-11-05-tent-rhi-dan-draft-final-report-v4.pdf), lock capacity utilization on the Danube is situated between 11 and 37%.

European Commission (2014) EU transport in figures: Statistical pocketbook 2014, p.82.The figure is the average for the 28 EU Member States. The average also includes Member States in which there are no navigable rivers, which results in a downward distorting effect. Figures on modal split share is according to CCNR-EU-Panteia (2014) Market Observation, p.50-51.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank on A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy, COM/2015/080 final

AT, BE, BG, DE, CZ, FR, HR, LU, NL, HU, PL, RO, SK as well as EE, IT, LT, FI, PT, SE and UK. CY, DK, EL, ES, IE, LV, MT and SI are considered not having inland waterways transport in the framework of this study.

Recent research carried out by the PLATINA II project indicates that seizing the potential for IWT continental container transport would reduce transport costs for the industry every year with 899 million of Euros ( http://naiades.info/repository/public/documents/Downloads/118_Study_Market_Potential_Continental_Market_2015_04_24.pdf )

1 convoy with four pushed lighters (=7 000 net tons) is the equivalent of 280 trucks at 25 net tons each. Source: Via Donau.

A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change Political Guidelines for the next European Commission, Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session Strasbourg, 15 July 2014

- number of exam programs of training and education institutes in line with the EU minimum requirements

- number of river streches for which KSS requirements are withdrawn or reduced by Member States

- increase of KSS authorization delivered on those stretches where they are maintained.

Ensure that KSSs requirements are proportionate to their safety goal and do not unnecessarily hamper labour mobility

The Commission services will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this initiative through a set of core progress indicators, listed in the table below. It is foreseen that seven years after the end of the transposition period date of the proposed legislation, the Commission services will carry out an evaluation to verify whether the objectives of the initiative have been reached. This evaluation will be carried out inter alia based on the core progress indicators referred to below. This evaluation will be in line with Commission's evaluation requirements.

Regarding implementation and compliance issues with respect to option C, it should be noted that a final decision has not been taken yet on the form of the legislative instrument to be proposed (directive or regulation). There was already some discussion with the sector in CEG about a reasonable implementation period as well as specific and realistic transitions measures and periods for various measures.

The two suboptions are also in line with the proportionality principle. In line with measures taken for other modes of transport, competence-based EU minimum requirements, verified through examinations, are only foreseen for skilled crew - boatmen and boatmasters. For unskilled crew, such as deckhands, only minimum requirements with regard to age, physical and mental fitness are proposed. The recognition of a third path via an intensive training programme is proportionate as its introduction is made optional. Under option C1, the measure to certify training programmes is considered proportionate to its goals as it does not interfere with the national education curricula on general subjects and it allows preventing those who have already successfully completed an approved training programme in the EU be obliged to pass additional administrative exams on the same subjects that were already covered by their training programme. To instil the necessary confidence for the mechanism of mutual recognition, the requirements of quality standards with respect to assessment of competences, recognition of programmes and monitoring of the whole certification system are considered proportionate. Finally, introducing common criteria for establishing requirements for knowledge of specific situations is necessary as the establishment of such requirements should be justified on safety grounds and the knowledge required should be proportional to the safety issues at stake.

The two suboptions are in line with stakeholders' opinion expressed both in the online public consultation and in the Common Expert Group (CEG). Opinions indicated a high level of support towards regulatory measures in relation to the harmonisation of professional requirements, qualifications and examinations, whereas the introduction of voluntary measures received a considerably lower level of support. The experts from the competent authorities in the Member States represented in the CEG considered the mutual recognition of diplomas and training certificates based on competence-based standards as a necessary step towards improved mobility of workers.

This Impact Assessment Report leaves it up to the political decision-makers to decide on the preferred policy suboption under option C. The difference between suboption C1 and C2 is the introduction under C1 of minimum competence-based standards for examination of future boatmen and boatmasters in education and training institutes and additional administrative exam waivers for those with a diploma or certificate issued by those institutes. The minimum standards only cover the aspects with are relevant for the safe operation of vessels and therefore don't interfere with the general education aspects which remain under the competence of the Member States. Similar Union legislative requirements for education and training institutes already exist for the rail and air transport sector. In these sectors, the requirements go further as they also entail continuous training requirements. Under option C2, no requirements are set for training and education institutes as all boatmen and boatmasters are required to pass an administrative exam organised under the responsibility of a competent authority in order to have their qualifications recognised across the EU, also if they are already in the possession of a diploma or certification of an IWT education or training institute.

Taking into account effectiveness, efficiency and coherence, option C is preferred over option A and B. Under option C, suboption C1 is judged to be slightly more effective and efficient than suboption C2.

("+" refers to the intensity of a positive correlation, “0” refers to a neutral impact, the small sign “+” just above the main sign indicates an (additional) positive effect but of a lower magnitude than a “+”, no negative correlation has been identified)

Operational objective 2: Ensure that KSSs are proportionate to their safety goal and do not unnecessarily hamper labour mobility

The policy options were developed with a balance between economic and social measures, in order to avoid that action on one pillar would negatively affecting the other. No significant environmental impacts are expected.

Compared to the baseline scenario, options B and C are more coherent with the completion of the internal transport market and the EU policy objectives reflected in the Europe 2020 growth strategy and the political priorities of the Juncker Commission. As option C (regardless of its suboption) will be most effective in contributing to the mutual recognition of workers, it would also contribute most to the EU energy efficiency, growth and industrial development political priorities of the Juncker Commission. Therefore, option C is considered to be more coherent than option B. The competence-based standards for examination of future boatmen and boatmasters appears to be necessary to fully achieve the mutual recognition of professional qualifications of boatmen and boatmasters. As both boatmen and boatmasters are skilled workers and need to possess certain competencies, another Member State needs to be confident about the skill levels of these workers before granting the recognition of professional qualifications. For workers using the education path to access the profession, these skills are developed and tested through the education system. In order to come to mutual recognition of diplomas and training certificates, EU minimum requirements would need to be set for the competencies to be demonstrated by candidates before the award of their diplomas and certificates. These competencies only cover the aspects which are relevant for the safe operation of vessels and therefore do not interfere with the general education aspects which remain under the competence of the Member States. The EU minimum requirements set minimum levels of competencies, necessary for the safe navigation of vessels. These requirements do not entail a full harmonisation of training and education in IWT. Member States can continue to differentiate IWT training and education to take account of the national situation. The identification of the required minimum competencies is supported by the efforts of the European network of nautical schools (EDINNA) which has developed (competence-based) Standards for Training and Certification in Inland Navigation (STCIN). In the framework of two recent bilateral agreements, the CCNR considered these standards necessary for assessing training institutions prior to granting recognition of diplomas. The approach is coherent with the spirit of the European Qualifications Framework CXXXVIII which focuses on learning outcomes rather than on the duration of training schemes. The reference to these minimum standards is considered essential for developing a European internal market for employment in IWT as it helps Member States, education institutions, employers and individuals compare qualifications across the EU’s diverse education and training systems. Moreover, in line with measures taken for other modes of transport, competence-based EU minimum requirements are only foreseen for skilled crew - boatmen and boatmasters. For unskilled crew, such as deckhands, only minimum requirements with regard to age, physical and mental fitness are considered, in order to facilitate labour mobility. As such the proposed intervention is necessary and proportionate to its goals.

Investment and administrative costs are expected to be lower for option B compared to option C. However, the positive effects are more than proportionally lower, due to the partial uptake of instruments. Option B is therefore less cost-effective than option C. More information can be found in sections 6.2.1. and 6.2.2.

Apart from these available monetised impacts, other impacts are also relevant for assessing the efficiency of option C. For example, as far as labour mobility is concerned, the impact was calculated in terms of extra workforce available on the labour market, and not in monetary terms. It has been demonstrated in section 6 that a positive impact is to be expected in this respect. A significant number of boatmasters would be added to the available workforce on the Rhine if all certificates issued under Directive 96/50/EC are recognized on the Rhine and those that are already part of the CCNR recognition system will also benefit from a more automatic recognition. Moreover, whereas a significant number of operational workers will directly benefit from the measure on recognition of qualifications as they are currently facing downgrading; many others will see mobility as a real opportunity since they can access sooner with equivalent qualification to navigation on the Rhine. Finally, other main impacts for which qualitative assessments are available (e.g. reduction of vacancies in the sector – ‘the employment effect’) further add to the effectiveness and efficiency of policy option C.

Comparing only the total monetised cost and benefits for option C yields benefits in terms of safety (NPV of around € 75 million (2030) and € 191 million (2050) and job quality/attractiveness (around € 31 million (2030) and € 47 million (2050)) which more than compensates the upfront investment costs (NPV estimated at € 8 million for suboption C1 and € 5.6 million for suboption C2). Investment costs are all borne by the public sector. Considering only the benefits in terms of administrative savings (€ 13.2 million by 2050 due to the new medical check-up frequency), they would already outweigh the to-be-incurred administrative costs (for suboption C1 around € 4 million by 2030 and € 6 million by 2050 and for suboption C2 around € 5 million by 2030 and € 8 million by 2050). It should also be noted that the administrative cost for suboption C1 are significantly lower than for suboption C2. Under suboption C2, education/training institute examinations for boatmen and boatmasters are not mutually recognized, which generates a substantial additional administrative burden compared to suboption C1 as candidates have to go through additional examinations before obtaining their qualification (administrative exams after education exams). It is estimated that this would affect 85% of the candidates. Suboption C1 is therefore considered to be more efficient than suboption C2. Further details on these estimates can be found in Annex 15.

As shown in previous sections, it was not possible to monetize all costs and benefits. Some estimates are available for option C for investments costs, administrative costs, safety effects and job quality/attractiveness. For other impacts, only qualitative assessments are available.

With a broadly comparable impact in terms of mobility, the effectiveness of suboptions C1 and C2 is comparable, with some advantage for suboption C1, in particular if the linkage with attractiveness is considered. This is due to the more positive impact on attractiveness generated by the recognition of diplomas and training certificates during the procedure for obtaining a qualification.

Policy option C is judged to be more effective than options B and A, as all boatmasters and a larger proportion of operational workers on interconnected waterways would be mutually recognised throughout the EU (operational objective 1). In comparison to option B, all the remaining drawbacks from the use of the new instruments under Directive 2005/36/EC or the administrative arrangements with the CCNR would be eliminated. The fact that Member States will be allowed to organise exams and issue authorisations for all KSS in Europe could further promote the proportionality of KSS; the same applies to binding EU criteria framing the use of KSS (operational objective 2).

Moreover, the adoption of a CTF/CTT does not exclude maintaining parallel training structures in the Member States. In addition, CTF/CTT cannot address a number of supporting or organisational elements needed to support the recognition of qualifications that would still need to be regulated for the profession e.g. the procedure for obtaining and checking SRB. Finally, in view of the possibility of exemption for Member States to adopt CTT/CTF under Directive 2005/36/EC, it is likely that the CCNR would maintain their agreements or conclude new ones to cover the exempted countries. The existing fragmentation of the legal framework would even likely increase since Directives 96/50/EC and 91/672/EEC would most likely not be repealed. When a new CCNR administrative arrangement would be created, existing problems related to the coverage and legal uncertainty linked to the form of the arrangement as explained in sections 3.3.1. would remain.

However, the improvement of the effectiveness of option B is uncertain, because these measures rely on initiatives and commitments to be made at the initiative of the profession, which proved to be only partially effective in the past. (see section 3.4).

it is most likely that a Commission Recommendation on KSS will only marginally impact the proportionality of KSS requirements (operational objective 2).

the mutual recognition of professional qualifications of workers (operational objective 1) will be promoted further by the use of new instruments under directive 2005/36/EC (CTF and CTT) and/or through a CCNR multilateral agreement covering crew qualifications.

Policy option B is expected to be more effective than option A in reaching the objectives of this initiative based on the following considerations:

The ineffectiveness of policy option A, the baseline scenario, has been demonstrated above when describing the identified problems and its likely evolution in the future (see section 3).

Apart from investment and recurrent costs, all the other impacts are estimated to be positive. This was also confirmed through the online public consultation. More than 75% of the respondents expect a positive impact on labour mobility and more than 85% on safety in case of regulatory intervention (option C). As regards impact on job quality 70% of the respondents have a positive opinion and for impact on SMEs, 65% of the respondents expect a positive impact. For the voluntary support measures (option B), the respondents estimate the positive impacts to be considerably lower. Certain categories of stakeholders expect more positive impacts than others: boatmasters, public authorities and training institutes. But each stakeholder category the balance is always positive: a substantial larger proportion of the respondents expects positive impacts from the proposed measures.

(number of "+" refers to the strength of a positive correlation, “ –“ refers to a negative correlation; ; the small sign “+” just above the main sign indicates an (additional) positive effect but of a lower magnitude than a “+”).

The table below summarizes the impacts addressed under sections 6.1., 6.2. and 6.3. CXXXVII Information on quantitative estimations of the costs and benefits for the private and public sector can be found under section 7.2. and in Annex 15.

While an increased use of IWT will contribute to the overall energy-efficiency of the whole transport system, the proposed policy options on their own are not expected to have a significant impact on modal shift and thus on the environment including fuel use, emissions, pollution etc.

Measures related to KSS are considered to have little impact on third countries. There would be benefits if some KSS requirements are dropped or reduced or if boatmasters of third countries could take their KSS exams in one single country.

The impact of measures linked to mutual recognition of professional qualifications would be positive for both options B and C. The external study CXXXVI has identified the following benefits by 2030 under option C for third countries: firstly, administrative savings as a consequence of the new frequency of medical check-ups (€ 0,6 million); secondly, gains in salary due to the quicker recognition of qualifications of boatmasters resulting from a competence-based approach (€2,1 million); and thirdly, and this would also be valid for option B, gains in salary due to the recognition of harmonized qualifications of other crew members (€1 million). Conversely, the introduction of certificates for large convoys would be associated with some limited costs, corresponding to the loss of salaries for the additional experience the boatmaster has to gain on large convoys before obtaining the special authorization (€ -0,1 million). The benefits from prevented accidents however are expected to largely outweigh these costs.

The impact on third countries is limited for options B and C. Switzerland would need to adapt its legislation in case of changes in regulations on the Rhine river. The same would apply for Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in case of changes of the legislation for the Sava river. Ukraine, Russia, and Moldova may adjust their legislation in case of modification of the Danube recommendations. In any case, crew from third countries will need to adhere to the future new prescriptions on crew qualifications.

The European Skipper Organisation (ESO) which represents the independent IWT entrepreneurs has actively participated in the preparation of the initiative at EU level, including the impact assessment, through its active participation in the CEG meetings. ESO is in favour of the adoption of a modern and flexible regulatory tool for training and certification at EU level, which will improve safety and provide fair and competence-based access to the profession.

The IWT is sector composed almost exclusively of SME's. CXXXIV Therefore, the direct private sector impacts described in the previous sections are all affecting SME's only. 90% of enterprises in the Netherlands are micro-enterprises with 1 to 5 people employed CXXXV . In many cases, the vessels are owned and operated by a family. The rest of the Western part of Europe where most of the IWT activities takes place i.e. Belgium, France and Germany, shows a similar business structure. Policy options B and C will both positively impact SMEs. As described above, these policy options will have positive effects on labour mobility and safety compared to the baseline scenario. In particular, increased labour mobility resulting from option B and – with significantly higher effectiveness – from option C will make it easier for SMEs to recruit staff from across the European Union, thereby reducing labour shortages. Increased safety will also reduce accident costs for SMEs. Effectiveness with regard to safety is expected to be higher under option C compared to option B. These benefits are estimated to largely off-set administrative and investment costs, which are anyway largely borne by the public sector, rather than the private sector. SMEs will therefore have to bear only a small proportion of the costs (e.g. those related to participating in some Member States in administrative exams), which will be more than off-set by the positive labour effects with respect to labour mobility, safety and attractiveness of the profession. In addition, under suboption C1, significant benefits for SMEs are expected in terms of reduced administrative burden compared to C2 as candidates entering the profession via the education path will be exempt from taking an administrative exam. More information on quantitative estimations of the costs and benefits for SME's can be found in a table under Annex 15.

As far as KSS is concerned, the Rhine, the Seine and the Danube area will be more significantly affected, as they represent the largest share of transport affected by KSS requirements (see 3.3.2). Therefore, those regions will be more impacted by the KSS related measures under both options B and C. It should be noted that CEG experts from FR and UK opposed KSS examination by other Member States.

As a side note, the online public consultation indicates that mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and training standards (option C) will, according to 54% of CCNR and more than 70% of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on the administrative burden. For voluntary measures (option B) these percentages are respectively around 23% and 62%.

Option C will also reduce the administrative burden of the CCNR countries and the countries with which the CCNR has concluded administrative arrangements (AT, BG, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SK), because these recognition agreements could be abolished and related administrative costs for their implementation would no longer be incurred.

Regarding suboption C1, Member States with more education/training programmes will in general face higher costs for their recognition (RO, NL, FR, BE, DE). Furthermore, non-CCNR countries will face more significant costs per programme for their adaptation to the new competence-based requirements. These Member States are in favour of establishing such a recognition system for professional training as recognition/employment benefits should largely compensate the costs. CEG experts unanimously supported the establishment at EU level of a quality system for recognition that would allow using the recognised diplomas/training certificates in the procedure for the issuance of boatmasters' certificates.

Under option C, the introduction of mandatory practical examinations for boatmasters will impact regions and individual Member States in a different way as certain Member States do not have such exams (e.g. DE, NL, CZ or SK) nor use training ships or simulators (most Danube countries e.g. BG, CZ, HR). It should nevertheless be stressed that the measure is supported by all stakeholders, including from the expert in the CEG that do not organise such exams for the moment.

By the way, the online public consultation indicates that mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and training standards (option C) will, according to around 90% of CCNR stakeholders, and more than 85% of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive safety effects. For voluntary measures (option B) these percentages are for both rivers only around 60%.

In general, the Member States on the interconnected IWT network with more IWT freight transport volumes will have more safety benefits i.e. CCNR Member States (NL, DE, BE and FR). From the point of view of the workers, the competence-based qualification system should have more safety benefits for workers from non-CCNR countries as training standards in general have kept up less with technological developments.

Depending on its effectiveness as regards mutual recognition, option B could also have similar effects with respect to operational workers in case of full uptake of the instruments. As explained in previous sections, it is however unlikely that option B would achieve similar results as option C. On a different note, the online public consultation, when comparing harmonised requirements (option C) with the voluntary approach (option B) for two important river areas, the Rhine and the Danube, indicates that mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and training standards will, according to 85% of CCNR stakeholders, and a bit less than 80% of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on labour mobility. For voluntary measures these percentages are respectively around 50% and 60%.

The increased labour mobility resulting from options B and C will have a positive effect on reducing the gap between the supply and demand of workers and on labour mobility in the different regions. As mentioned under section 6.1.1., it is impossible however to estimate the exact impact on the worker supply-demand gap because the number of IWT workers that will ultimately take advantage of increased labour mobility is unknown. The Rhine region - which under the baseline scenario is expected to face a large labour deficit – is very likely to benefit much more in this respect. Indeed, due to increased labour mobility, workers from the Danube (AT, BG, HU, RO and SK), the East-West (NL, DE, PL, CZ), and the North South (BE, FR, NL) corridor will gain access to the Rhine labour market more easily. On the other hand, surplus workers from the Danube, the East-West and the North South (till 2020) corridors will also benefit as they will be able to leave the saturated labour market in their own region.

Suboption C1 will have a higher impact in non-CCNR countries with IWT training/educations institutes (AT, BG, CZ, HU, PL, RO and SK) as their education/training programmes are, with only a few exceptions, not recognised by CCNR countries. In view of the yearly number of entrants in IWT institutes per country, RO will by far be the biggest beneficiary among these countries, followed to a much less extent by PL, CZ and BG (see table 2 under Annex 2).

With regard to mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the workers from non-CCNR countries and from FR will enjoy larger benefits. This is because in policy option C, non-CCNR countries' boatmaster certificates and operational workers’ qualifications will, contrary to the BAU situation, automatically be recognised on the Rhine, thereby increasing possibilities for labour mobility.

In general, the Member States on the interconnected IWT network with the largest workforce will have more benefits: CCNR countries (NL, DE, FR, BE), and RO.

This said, some European regions or individual Member States may be affected in a different manner depending on the measure. The section below highlights the most significant variations of impacts.

All IWT Member States will be positively affected in terms of labour mobility, safety and increased attractiveness of the profession. Any implementation costs are outweighed by benefits. Experts from IWT Member States, representatives from the main River Commissions (Rhine, Danube, Sava) as well as social partner organisations representing at EU-level the IWT employers and the employees actively contributed in a positive way to the development of EU initiative and did not signalled any overall negative impacts on certain regions or countries. Only the representative of some non-interconnected countries (in particular from UK and SE) called upon the Commission to keep the possibility of exemption as currently foreseen under Directive 96/50/EC.

Under option B, no significant savings are generated as there is no measure tackling medical check-up for boatmasters. On the other hand, less administrative costs will be incurred as the number and scope of measures are less important. However, for the CTF or CTT for operational workers (measure 6), there will be similar recurrent costs related to organising the competence based approach. These relate, in particular, to the management of the quality system including the compliance check that will be required on a regular basis. In addition, under Directive 2005/36/EC, also for professions under automatic recognition, in case of provision of services, there is an obligation to submit a declaration to the authorities of the host country. Beyond the administrative burden it represents, this could involve some costs for applicants as some Member States charge a fee for processing the declarations. This might also be the case under CTT/CTF. The setting up by the CCNR of a multilateral agreement for the recognition of crew qualifications (measure 5), would require less administrative costs as no permanent quality system is put in place. Only costs inherent to regular meetings related to the implementation of the agreement would be incurred. In view of the fact that these already exist for the agreement for SRBs, additional costs are considered negligible. For both measures, due to the fact that mandatory examination may not be included under option B, related administrative costs that were unavoidable under option C might not be incurred under option B. At EU level, administrative costs to incur under option B will be lower than under option C since the number of Member States adopting CTT/CTF will be lower. With the Commission guidelines on KSS, no significant administrative costs are expected. In total, however, in the absence of significant savings, the ratio savings/costs is expected to be less favourable under option B.

-For a number of measures, e.g medical checks or exams, it is not possible to clearly identify whether the private or the public sector will bear the costs. Already in BAU this varies from one Member State to another. However suboption C1 should be more costly for the public sector (due to quality assurance system covering also education/training institutes) but less costly for the private sector (SMEs). Comparing both suboptions, C1 represents overall less administrative burden due the exemption from taking administrative exams for those using the education path.

-Significant costs are also related to the organisation of practical exams for lateral entrants but this is optional for the Member States.

-The most significant administrative costs are related to the mandatory examination to test the competencies at boatmen and boatmaster levels (more significantly for boatmen and under C2) and, in case of C1 only, to the recognition/accreditation system for exam programs. For the first cost category, it should be noted that that the estimates take into account a number of scenarios related to the examination, including more costly ones. As regards the second cost category, the estimates is based also upon the assumption that that some Member States will opt for an accreditation system whereas it is likely that most Member States adopt a (cheaper) recognition that will be integrated in existing national quality assurance systems.

-With regard to the minimum standards linked to the frequency of the medical check-up, the suboption “new frequency” has the most beneficial cost-benefit ratio over time (based on the comparison between negative safety impact of only 3.3 million by 2050 and the above-mentioned administrative costs benefits). This new frequency already received explicit support in the CEG from some experts (e.g. from NL and FR). Savings generated by this measure are relatively high resulting in a positive ratio for total administrative costs/savings.

-The total administrative savings for suboptions C1 and C2 are relatively similar, with a small advantage on the long term for suboption C1.

From the above table the following conclusions can be drawn:

Total administrative costs (on the basis of the new frequency for medical check-up and excluding costs for optional measures 12 and 16)

Organisation of exams and issuance of authorisations for all KSS in Member States (optional measure 16)

For boatmasters and boatmen, recognition/certification system for education/training programs and mutual recognition of diplomas (measure 3 and 9)

Table 3: NPV (in million) of the recurrent administrative costs under option C 2030 and 2050

The impact on recurrent administrative costs is presented in the table below for option C. The impacts for option B are presented thereafter. Further information on the assumptions and the underlying calculations can be found in Annex 14.

(the sign’-’ just above the main sign indicates a negative effect i.e. costs but of a lower magnitude that a ‘-’).

In total, upfront investment costs of 8.0 million for suboption C1 and of 5.6 million for suboption C2 are expected for the public sector and, in case of C1, for IWT education and training institutes. For the private IWT sector itself, no significant investment costs are expected, neither for employers nor for employees.

9000 per programme accreditation. For the Member States potentially concerned, this would represent a maximum of 216,000 for two programmes (boatmaster and boatman) in all these Member States. More realistically, investment costs could be estimated at 0.1 million assuming that within the 11 interconnected Member States which have training institutes, the "participation rate" would be 50%, either because a number of Member States would organize such a programme only at one level (boatmaster or boatman) or would not organize it at all. However, as this measure is optional, neither the investment costs nor the benefits have been taken into account.

Optional introduction of an intensive training programme for workers entering from outside the sector (measure 12)

For 43 programmes, roughly an investment in the range of 0.4 – 4 million. It could also be considered that these costs although significant are inherent to the necessary adjustments education and training system have to make anyway if they wish to keep up with external (including technological) developments. For an estimation based on average costs for all programmes, a rough estimation of 2.2 million can be given knowing that this could also be reasonably considered that the marginal cost of this would be negligible in view of the ongoing activities under the BAU.

9000 per programme accreditation, which would make max 0.4 million if all 43 programmes among the 11 interconnected Member States having training institutes are accredited. Note that a recognition process is much less costly than an accreditation. Costs in this case could be considered as insignificant.

0.01 to 0.1 million per Member States for the development of the exam programme (only needed in some countries where practical exams do not exist yet e.g. Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia). In addition, investment costs for a ship or simulator for the purpose of examination may have to be considered in countries where not available. Asking candidates to bring the boat (their own or rented) could be an alternative entailing no investment. This option is already used in several Member States (0-2.6 million per MS). For an estimation based on average costs for all MS, a rough estimation of 5.5 million can be given knowing that cheaper alternatives exist.

Investment costs related to option C are presented in the table below. Only significant costs are presented. They are all related to measures linked to mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Further information on the underlying assumptions and calculations can be found in Annex 13.

Under option B, the investment in human resources time for the implementation of new instruments proposed under the amended Directive 2005/36/EC (measure 6), in particular for national administrations and training institutes, is significant as the sector has to take the initiative and come with a CTF or CTT proposal. Some of the costs related to developing a competence-based approach for operational workers will also be needed for the CTF or CTT. Costs will be linked to the setting up a quality system which includes certifying/recognising training institutes and their curricula. However, few costs for adapting the curricula should be incurred at EU level since setting up the platform does not require replacement of the national system, unless a Member State decides otherwise. Investment costs would also be incurred if the CCNR set up a multilateral administrative arrangement for the recognition of crew qualifications. This would include audit, reporting and meeting costs for Member States and staff costs to manage the recognition process for the CCNR. The CCNR estimated that two audits could be processed per year with a maximum of 5-6 additional requests in total. Contrary to CTT/CTF, there will be costs for adaptation of curricula of education institutes as the CCNR requires alignment to their standards. For both alternatives, it is possible that mandatory examination is not included under option B. In this case, the related investment costs (in particular for the development of the programme) may not be necessary under option B. At EU level, investment costs under option B will be lower than under option C since the number of participants will be lower. No significant investment costs are expected for the Commission Recommendation on KSS.

Transport costs could be marginally influenced by changes in labour costs in the IWT sector (that only concern a small proportion of the total transport costs). However, as explained under section 6.1.5. the impact of all policy options on labour costs is insignificant from an EU-wide point of view. Furthermore, IWT is facing fierce competition with other transport modes. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any subsequent effect on transport costs. Nevertheless, there may be an indirect benefit for transport costs as inland waterway transport is more cost-efficient compared to other modes of transport under certain conditions. Eliminating barriers for the uptake of inland waterway transport can therefore reduce the overall costs of transport for certain industry sectors. However, it is unlikely that any of the policy options influence consumer prices of goods at a European scale, knowing also that transport costs only concerns a small proportion of the price of goods.

As discussed in section 3.2.2, the IWT sector has a role to play in strengthening the European industrial base. Under the baseline scenario, this contribution is threatened as the suboptimal labour mobility will hamper the efficient functioning of the IWT sector. As under option B and C, the functioning of the labour market will be improved, these options will also contribute to maintaining or improving the contribution the IWT sector can make to energy efficiency goals by taking up a higher part of the overall transport in the EU. For each option, the impact will be proportionate to their impacts on mobility and attractiveness.

As discussed in section 3.2.2, the IWT sector has a role to play in strengthening the European industrial base. Under the baseline scenario, this contribution is threatened as the suboptimal labour mobility will hamper the efficient functioning of the IWT sector. As under option B and C, the functioning of the labour market will be improved, these options will also contribute to maintaining or improving the strength of the European industrial base. For each option, the impact will be proportionate to their impacts on mobility and attractiveness.

Compared to the baseline scenario, options B and C are not expected to result in significant job creation or job losses for inland waterway crew. However, options B and C aim to contribute to reducing the supply-demand gap by stimulating job mobility across regions and improving the sector's attractiveness in order to fill existing vacancies. Options B and C will therefore have a positive impact on employment through a higher filling-rate of vacancies. For each option, the impact will be proportionate to their impacts on mobility and attractiveness. On a very small scale new jobs could be created as a result of option C (and particularly under C1) in the fields of quality standards, assessment of competence and examination, as well as in the embryonic simulator business. With respect to potential negative impact, KSS creates a small but distinctive labour market for pilots. Under all scenarios, but slightly more likely under C, some pilots could lose their jobs if a stretch is no longer considered as KSS or if the demand for pilotage services decreases if KSS examination for the stretch is facilitated. It is difficult to make projections for both aspects, but in practice the impact on pilot employment should remain very limited. In view of the expected shortage of skilled personnel, pilots who could lose their job should be expected to find easily a job as boatmaster.

To conclude, as other external factors will also play an important role in wage levels, it is almost impossible to accurately single out the effect of the policy options on wages. However, as argued above, compared to the baseline scenario the effects are expected to be limited.

In the last round of stakeholder consultations during the process of revising the first IAR, representatives of the industry confirmed that they do not expect higher labour costs as a result of the policy options B and C.

In all options, also in the baseline scenario, several vacancies related to skilled workers remain open. Under the baseline scenario there is thus already a willingness to pay from the employer side for more skilled crew. To a large extent, options B and C will make it easier for employers to recruit these required skilled workers, thereby giving them the opportunity to further expand their businesses. This is particularly valid for SMEs who often face difficulties in fulfilling their staffing needs.

The effect of possible wage gains by individual workers resulting from higher classification and fasters career paths, as described in section 6.1.4, on labour costs for employers, is limited. This is because an employer will not have to face higher labour costs for the same set of required qualifications. Policy options B and C only make it possible for employees to move faster towards certain higher crew categories, but this does not result in a higher pay for a given crew category. Taking into account manning requirements as set in the relevant manning regulations, it remains the prerogative of the employer to determine the composition of its crew.

Policy options B and C will increase labour mobility and attractiveness and could to some extent reduce the supply/demand gap of workers. Labour shortages would therefore decrease in the respective regions and could as a result diminish the upward pressure on IWT labour costs, compared to the baseline scenario.

In the baseline scenario, several regions face a supply/demand gap of workers. In line with general wage trends in these countries, differences also exist in IWT wages. In regions with labour shortages, e.g. in the Rhine area, this might result in labour cost increases. However, the way wages will react to this supply/demand gap in the baseline scenario cannot be estimated, as a lot will depend on the rigidity of wages in the various countries and on other external factors. As the EU as a whole and certain regions face shortages of workers, it is however likely that no decrease in labour cost will occur in regions with labour surpluses.

The benefits of option B for job quality and attractiveness will be smaller than those under option C if CTT/CTF are put in place, because mobility benefits will be smaller. Also, if a CCNR multilateral agreement is signed for the mutual recognition of qualifications, the impact on attractiveness would be smaller than under option C, because existing CCNR standards are likely to remain predominant over a potential competence-based approach. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the degree of uncertainty of the effect is rather high.

Overall, option C is expected to lead to faster career paths compared to option B and the baseline option, thereby positively influencing job attractiveness.

- The mutual recognition of harmonised competence-based qualifications for operational crew members: as under BAU 6.6% of the operational workers do not have their qualifications recognised, resulting in a lower function and a lower salary, the effects of mutual recognition of their qualifications can also be calculated in terms of wage gains. The external study CXXX estimated the NPV benefits up to around € 10.4 million in 2030 and € 15.9 million in 2050.

- The introduction of the competence-based approach for boatmasters: there is a positive effect in terms of salaries paid to workers that now work on the Rhine, as it will only take one year before they become boatmaster, against two under the baseline scenario. The external study CXXIX estimated the NPV at around € 21.0 million by 2030 and € 31.6 million in 2050.

- The boatmaster certificate for large convoys: one extra year of experience in the function of helmsman is needed before becoming a boatmaster on large pusher vessels. During that year, the wage level could be lower. The external study CXXVIII estimated the NPV of the total accumulated salary difference for the EU workers at around € -0.1 million in 2030 and € -0.2 million in 2050.

A number of measures under option C will affect the speed of the career path of workers: some measures will speed up the career path, whereas others will slow it down. The career path is expected to influence the received wage in a given year, thereby affecting job attractiveness from the point of view of the workers:

Table 1 shows that suboption C1 with its recognition of diplomas and training certificates brings additional benefits compared to option C2 in terms of attractiveness. As already explained previously this is due to the exemption from taking additional examinations with an administrative authority for candidates coming from education institutes.

Source : Panteia (2014), adjusted by the Commission. Total score takes into account the size of the impact and of the targeted group.

Boatmasters and boatmen-Competence-based standards for examination in education and training institutes implying mutual recognition of their diplomas and certificates (option C1 only)

The impact of option C: Measures that introduce EU wide minimum competence-based standards for boatmen and boatmasters also increase job quality as they positively influence work autonomy and participation as well as workers' health. The external study used indicators CXXVII for the various aspects of job quality/attractiveness and assessed which aspects were affected by each measure. Table 1 shows the overall score for each of the measures included in Option C, taking into account the population size of the targeted group. Measures related to the mutual recognition of competence-based minimum requirements, both for boatmasters and boatmen have the highest (positive) impact on job quality and attractiveness.

Regardless of the policy option, most of the measures are aimed at reducing labour market barriers in the EU. The job quality and attractiveness of IWT careers in the sector will improve. As a result of measures which have positive impact on safety, job quality and attractiveness will also improve as the risk of accidents decreases.

None of the KSS related measures of options B and C are expected to impact safety as all measures aim at ensuring that KSS requirements are proportionate to their safety goals and do not unnecessarily hamper labour mobility. The intention is only to target disproportionate KSS requirements. Any changes would therefore not affect the safety levels.

Figure 9 Percentage of relevant competences mentioned in STCIN covered by boatmasters and operational workers curricula in two groups of Member States

All the benefits in terms of safety outlined for option C are valid both for suboptions C1 and C2 as all candidates will have to go through examination in accordance with the same high level and up-to-date standards to obtain their qualification. Under suboption C1, a higher impact can be expected in terms of less work-related accidents involving boatmen from non-CCNR countries as the standards used in education will improve more significantly for these countries as shown in the comparative analysis of curricula of navigation education institutes of figure 9 below. The analysis has been elaborated by the external study based on the work of the PLATINA I project CXXVI . The analysis presented in figure 9 also indicates that not only non-CCNR countries can benefit from competence-based standards in education, but also CCNR countries, in particular for the level of boatmaster.

A positive impact on safety is expected from the new possibilities for external workers to enter the IWT labour market through the recognised third path consisting of an intensive training and testing programme (measure 12). This results from the additional guarantees the required competencies are obtained, in comparison with the experience path (based on number of years of navigation) as defined under the baseline scenario. The impact would remain modest however in view of the size of the population targeted (i.e. a maximum 15% of new entrants CXXV in countries having put in place such a system).

The SRB is mainly a support for the other measures and the logbook a means to check the information inserted in the SRB. The single SRB format and improved registering of related information will contribute to improved compliance and have a positive effect on safety.

Impact on safety due to harmonised content of SRB and logbooks (measure 10): the effect on safety from the harmonisation of the models can be considered small but not insignificant.

The external study has provided some indication of possible safety effects due the competence-based approach and mutual recognition at operational level. CXXIV The NPV of harmonised standards as foreseen under option C for 2030 and 2050 amounts to around €4.2 million and €11.8 million respectively in terms of work related accidents avoided. These results should only be seen as illustrative and a methodological remark has been included in Annex 12. It can nevertheless be noted that these estimates take into account only the impact for non-CCNR Member States whereas – as mentioned above – a positive impact is also expected for candidates from CCNR Member States.

The competence-based standards for boatmen tested through examination (measure 8) will in a significant way positively affect safety in terms of avoided accidents on a yearly basis in both CCNR and non-CCNR countries. This is because - compared to the baseline scenario – the competence-based approach introduces an examination of competencies as a prerequisite to becoming a boatman; competencies which are based on high standards that are up-to-date with technological development. In principle, a more significant impact is generally expected from the application of the measure to workers that acquire their qualifications through the experience-based path as they do not go through specific tests/training under the baseline scenario.

The harmonised qualifications with regard to age and fitness for all operational workers (measure 7) is expected to have an insignificant effect on safety as these EU standards are expected to be very similar to those applied under the baseline scenario. The possible reduction of minimum navigation time required is not considered to have a safety impact in view of the higher safety benefits of the competence-based approach.

Impact on safety due to certificates for large convoys: A complementary boatmaster certificate for navigating on large convoys will have a positive impact on safety. It is difficult to quantify the safety effects of this measure as no data is available on the number of accidents in which large convoys are involved. However, public authorities responsible for the Danube (river commissions and Member States) have been asking with a single voice for an EU regulatory qualification framework including that aspect for safety reason. According to them the lack of specific competence/experience in navigating on large convoys is the cause of a significant number of accidents involving this type of vessels.

Impact on safety due to limited certificates for vessels between 20 and 40 m: in order to obtain such a certificate, reduced navigation time would be required. Although it could be expected that less experienced boatmasters have a higher accident probability, option C includes a competence-based approach built on relevant competencies to be tested, including a practical exam. In addition, accidents involving smaller ships on average cause less damage than larger ships and, under the baseline scenario, there is a small patent under the RNP that can be considered as an equivalent to the new EU limited certificate. As a result, it is concluded that the safety effect of this certificate is insignificant.

The external study has provided some indication of possible safety effects in monetary terms. CXXIII Results should only be seen as illustrative. A methodological remark has been included in Annex 12. Overall, according to the study, the NPV of the benefits of competence-based minimum requirements and mutual recognition as defined under measure 2, in terms of accidents avoided per year is estimated at around €73 million for 2030 and € 183 million for 2050.

Increased mutual recognition in itself will also slightly improve safety by increasing the size of the workforce and thereby ending (or at least limiting) the use of the "hidden reserve" which is more accident-prone as not active on a regular basis.

The practical examination as a prerequisite to becoming a boatmaster will ensure that every candidate has the required competencies. Under the baseline scenario, only a theoretical examination is imposed. This new practical examination will target the entire new boatmaster population. This should result in a yearly increasing safety effect in countries where such an exam was not required (e.g. the Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Czech Republic.) and particularly for the candidates using the experience path.

The competence based approach – in comparison to the baseline scenario – sets high standards. Increasing the coverage of competence required and making them up-to-date with technological development will have a positive effect on safety both in CCNR and non-CCNR countries.

Impact on safety due to competence-based minimum requirements and mutual recognition: Positive effect on safety in terms of avoided accidents is expected thanks to the following elements:

Impact on safety due to standards linked to the frequency of the medical check-up: As mentioned under section 5.2, three levels of standards on the frequency of the medical check-up are considered for application at EU level. The CCNR standards would be most stringent: as a result, more accidents will be avoided, thereby positively affecting safety. The new frequency proposing the lowest frequency of the medical check-ups, results in a negative impact on safety. Directive 96/50/EC standards score in between. If all costs and benefits are taken into consideration and considering proportionality, the new frequency (with savings in terms of administrative costs estimated at 13,2 million by 2050) can be considered as the most efficient level of minimum standards. Compared to the baseline scenario, according to the estimates of the external study, the new frequency could lead to a limited number of extra accidents, estimated at a maximum of 5 yearly, potentially leading to extra costs (NPV) up to 3.3 million by 2050. CXXII

Operational workers: the impact on safety from the implementation of CTF/CTT, as proposed under amended Directive 2005/36/EC (measure 6), would be positive because the common minimum standards for operational workers' qualifications would refer to common standards that ensure a high degree of safety. The extent of the effect however is unsure (for the same reasons as those mentioned under section 6.1.1.). The impact of the extension of the CCNR mutual recognition system to operational workers (measure 5) would also be positive but limited. The arrangement would be based on an alignment with CCNR standards that ensure that navigation safety levels are high. However, participation would be limited to those that already signed the administrative arrangement for SRBs and the inherent limits of the instrument, as described under 3.3.1.2., would remain. Moreover, the administrative arrangement cannot put in place a competence-based system with an organised and permanent quality system. For ensuring stability and sustainability of the system, a stronger legal framework is needed that establishes clear responsibilities of the Member States regarding verification and evaluation of assessment and certification methods.

Boatmasters and workers from outside the sector: no effect is expected as no specific measures are foreseen.

A)Impact of the policy options on safety due to measures linked to mutual recognition of professional qualifications

Under the baseline scenario (option A) the profession is regulated in a different way at various levels, e.g. the UN ECE level, the European level, the level of River Commissions (CCNR level and administrative arrangements) and the national and regional levels. As described under section 3.3.1 this has led to difficulties with regard to mutual recognition of professional qualifications, thereby making access to the profession more difficult in certain countries. As both policy options B and C will have a positive impact on the conditions for mutual recognition of professional qualifications (see section 6.1.1.), these options will also to the same extent ease the access to the profession, both for workers having started their career in the IWT sector or for lateral entrants. The impact of option B will thus be smaller than for option C. Under option C, the benefits of the career prospects offered by the competence-based minimum requirements (see also section 6.1.4 on 'job attractiveness') for boatmen and boatmasters are expected to largely outweigh the difficulties that the necessary examination requirements could represent for a number of individual candidates (in particular boatmen using the experience-based path). The recognition of diplomas/training certificates and the associated exemption from exams taken with an administrative authority under suboption C1 represents significant additional benefits for access to the profession compared to C2. Overall the competence-based approach should not be perceived as imposing stricter requirements for the access to the profession as its expected impact on the inflow of new intrants is positive.

(“0” refers to a neutral effect compared to the baseline scenario; "+" refers to the strength of a positive correlation; the small sign “+” just above the main sign indicates an (additional) positive effect but of a lower magnitude than a “+”).

Option C Measure 15 will oblige Member States to re-evaluate existing river stretches that are subject to KSS. Removing or adapting non-justified KSS requirements may have a positive impact on labour mobility. As the detailed effects of this measure are not known as long as the stretches have not been evaluated by the Member States in the context of a revised EU regulatory framework, its magnitude cannot be estimated. It is nevertheless expected that there will be a greater impact than under option B because of the mandatory evaluation and the requirement to justify the KSS. The Seine, Rhine and Danube are most affected by this measure. A second impact from option C may arise through measure 16 from the possibility of Member States organising exams and issuing authorisations for all KSS river stretches in Europe. Compared to the baseline scenario, taking the KSS exam in a worker's home country may sharply reduce the cost as a percentage of a worker's monthly salary. According to the external study, CXX estimations of exam costs would be reduced to maximum 5% of a worker's monthly salary. At present, this percentage reaches 57% and 66% for workers from Romania and Bulgaria respectively. Although workers from all Member States would benefit from this measure, the greatest savings would be for Central and Eastern European countries. Reduced costs would increase labour mobility as a labour mobility barrier – attending a KSS exam in order to navigate on KSS stretches –, is lowered. In view of the estimated number of boatmasters per year that can’t do KSS exams in their own country CXXI , the Elbe and the Seine are particularly concerned by this measure. The exact impact of option C will depend on the extent to which Member States make use of the possibility of organising KSS exams for stretches located in other Member States.

Option B (measure 14) could result in increased labour mobility, as the Commission Recommendation on KSS may incentivise Member States to re-evaluate their rivers stretches which are subject to KSS. If judged no longer appropriate or necessary, Member States may remove these stretches from their KSS list or may consider decreasing their knowledge related requirements. As a result, there might be positive effects on labour mobility. However, as the Commission Recommendation would not be binding, the effects are uncertain and no estimates can be given. Moreover, no detailed assessments are currently available which would indicate which specific rivers or Member States would be more likely to take this measure up. Each Member State would be expected to make its own judgement.

The total effect as regards increased labour mobility on the supply-demand gap of workers: As described above, options B and C have both a positive impact on labour mobility, but to a varying extent. It is impossible however to estimate the exact impact on the worker supply-demand gap because the number of IWT workers that will ultimately take advantage of increased labour mobility possibility is unknown.

Option C introduces with measure 12 mutual recognition of a fully-fledged ‘third path’, an intensive training programme which includes a series of competence-based practical exams that allow lateral entrants to enter the IWT sector more quickly. The impact on cross-sector mobility is shown by the recent results of such programmes in the Netherlands where demand has increased since commencement of the programmes CXIX . It should be even more significant if mutual recognition of the qualification is guaranteed by an EU legislative framework. The extent to which other Member States would integrate this 'third path' is uncertain. The effect over the long-term is therefore difficult to quantify. However it is likely that countries with training capacity and/or a workforce deficit would put such a programme in place as the first experiences showed that it is a useful tool for increasing the attractiveness of the IWT sector for lateral entrants. Option C will therefore increase labour mobility possibilities for these workers: the ‘third’ path in place in some countries will be mutually recognized by all Member States. In the Member States where the 'third' path is not put in place, a positive but much smaller positive impact on the mobility of lateral entrants is expected. This would be due to a larger reduction of required navigation time for maritime or fisheries sector workers switching to IWT. This would be a consequence of the introduction of the mandatory exam as foreseen under measure 8. The external study estimated that aligning all EU IWT-interconnected countries with the reduction presently offered in Directive 96/50/EC by 2030 would benefit around 500 candidate-boatmasters originating from outside the sector and that furthermore, reducing the required navigation time by 3/4, instead of 2/3 as presently applied, could yield up to 250 additional lateral entrants at operational level.

Impact on labour mobility impact due to harmonised content of SRB/logbooks (measure 10): since almost all SRBs and logbooks on interconnected waterways are mutually recognised under BAU through the CCNR multilateral agreement, the impact of this measure on mobility should per se not be significant; it is mainly a supporting tool for the implementation of the other measures.

Labour mobility effect is broadly similar for suboptions C1 and C2 but is somewhat higher in case of C1 through the recognized diplomas or certificates issued by education and training institutes (measure 9) which prevents that candidate-boatmen with a recognised diploma/training certificate would be required to take additional exams with an administrative authority.

In the same way as for boatmasters, it should be underlined that the mutual recognition of qualification at EU level is made possible because of a competence-based system is put in place through measure 8. It is only thanks to the increased confidence generated by a system based on objectives (competence) that experience (navigation time) becomes less central in the recognition process. As a result, the competence-based approach should generally allow boatmen, in particular those using the experience path, to access the qualification sooner.

Boatmen from individual Member States like France that currently do not have the qualification of boatman in their system and would wish to have their competence recognised in another country.

Concretely, around 13% of the crew below boatmaster level CXVIII operating on the interconnected IWT network who are currently working on the Rhine and are being downgraded (as described under 3.3.1.2.) due to the absence of a qualification system harmonised at EU level. This may concern workers from both CCNR and non-CCNR countries. Although no estimates exist, this phenomenon also exists outside of the Rhine depending upon the national legislation.

All skilled workers from any Member States who might postpone or renounce working on the Rhine or on another river in another Member State due to the fact that they have not reached yet the sailing time required for the qualification they have already been granted in their country of origin (as mentioned under section 3.3.1.2. close to 40% of all operational workers could potentially be concerned).

Impact on labour mobility due to mutual recognition of EU harmonized qualifications and additional competence-based requirements for boatmen (measures 7, 8 and 9): due to mutual recognition of qualifications, positive impact is expected for all Member States and on all rivers:

Labour mobility effect is broadly similar for suboptions C1 and C2 but is somewhat higher in case of C1 through the recognized recognized diplomas or certificates issued by education and training institutes (measure 3), which prevents that candidate-boatmasters with a recognised diploma/training certificate (85% of the inflow CXVII ) would be required to take additional examinations with an administrative authority. Section 6.2.3. shows the main difference between suboptions C1 and C2, namely, a reduced administrative burden in option C1 due to the fact that candidate boatmasters with a recognised diploma/training certificate do not need to take additional exams with an administrative authority.

Impact on labour mobility due to the introduction of an extended certificate for large convoys: This measure will have a limited impact as it would only concern a very small number of crew yearly on the Danube corridor only (where these large convoys are found). For these workers the impact will be negative as they access boatmaster level less quickly than in the baseline scenario CXVI .

Impact on labour mobility due to the introduction of a limited certificate for vessels between 20 and 40 metres: this measure will have some effect on new entrants to the sector as they will be able to become boatmasters more quickly as less navigation time would be required. The expected impact of this measure is limited however considering the estimated number of additional boatmasters that would apply for limited boatmaster certificates CXV .

The competence-based approach produces an additional benefit with respect to labour mobility compared to the baseline scenario as boatmasters will be active sooner on the labour market (workers operating on the Rhine would only need one year of professional experience after they have graduated instead of the two years before). The impact of this measure could be slightly lower if some Member States decide to keep two years as minimum required navigation time.

It should be underlined that the mutual recognition is made possible because of a competence-based system is put in place through measure 2. The most significant example is the case of France as highlighted under 3.3.1.1. It is only because of the increased confidence generated by the shift from a common means (time)-based system of qualifications to a system based on objectives (competence) that the automatic mutual recognition is possible.

All Member States concerned by the CCNR bilateral arrangements would also enjoy mutual recognition benefits due to the elimination of the limitations inherent to the bilateral agreements as described under 3.3.1.1. In particular, the vast majority of their boatmasters would enjoy direct benefits as additional requirements would no longer be imposed on them CXIV . This concerns boatmasters coming from Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands.

6.6% of the total estimated boatmaster workforce CXI and around 15% of the number of boatmasters working on the Rhine corridor could benefit from an automatic recognition of their qualification CXII if EU certificates are recognized on the Rhine. 65% of these boatmasters operate on interconnected IWT network (in particular from France and Croatia) CXIII and the remaining 35% come from Member States that have no interconnected inland waterways but issue certificates in line with the requirements of Directive 96/50/EC (i.e from Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Estonia).

As the existing EU Directives already ensure mutual recognition in EU Member States with the exception for the Rhine, the most substantial impacts due to mutual recognition of boatmasters' certificates is expected on the Rhine River, with benefits for all Member States issuing EU boatmasters' certificates.

Impact on labour mobility due to medical check-up frequency requirements: the impact will be limited, as the estimated difference in the yearly number of boatmasters entering and exiting the market resulting from changes in frequency (available workforce) is very small. CX

Option C is expected to significantly affect labour mobility in a positive way due to measures 2 and 3, in particular as regards the recognition of EU boatmasters' certificates on the Rhine.

Operational workers: the introduction of CTT or CTF as proposed under amended Directive 2005/36/EC (measure 6) will have a positive impact on mobility. The impact however is expected to be rather small since CTT/CTF is a voluntary agreement on common standards for operational workers' qualifications and there is high uncertainty about the use of exemptions, which can be easily invoked by Member States. The adoption of a CTF/CTT in the IWT sector does not exclude maintaining parallel national training structures in the Member States. Training/examination schemes that are not elaborated according to CTF/CTT could remain valid (a) in the Member States opting-out or, (b) in the Member States adopting CTF/CTT. Workers who obtained their qualifications under these schemes would not be able to benefit from the mobility offered by CTF/CTT (in Member States that have adopted CTF/CTT), but could still exercise their profession in Member States by making an application under the general system of Directive 2005/36/EC which as explained in point 3.3.1.2 is rather burdensome in a cross-border industry such as IWT. In addition, CTF/CTT cannot address a number of supporting or organisational aspects that would need to be regulated for IWT professions in order to facilitate the recognition of qualifications e.g. the procedure for obtaining and checking SRBs. Finally, it is likely that the introduction of CTT or CTF would co-exist with the CCNR multilateral administrative agreement (measure 5), which would further fragment and complicate the framework for mutual recognition of qualifications. Alternatively or additionally to CTT/CTF, a CCNR multilateral administrative arrangement for the recognition of qualifications for crew members under boatmaster level (measure 5) could also have a positive mobility impact, though this is also expected to be minor as access would be limited to those that have signed the administrative arrangement for SRBs and the limitations inherent to the form of the arrangement as described under 3.3.1.2.will remain.

Boatmasters and workers entering the profession from outside the sector: no effect on labour mobility is expected as no specific measures are foreseen.

Each policy option has been analysed in terms of its economic, environmental and social impact against the baseline scenario. Where possible, quantitative estimates are given. Because of the nature and diversity of the IWT sector and the lack of quantitative data, the calculations and assumptions needed to be aggregated and sometimes generalised. Thus, while the quantified estimates do indicate a trend-line, caution is needed in the interpretation of the figures. This is the reason why the quantitative estimates are often presented as being indicative or a means to illustrate the points made in the qualitative assessment. Under each section only measures are presented for which an impact has been identified or for which a specific explanation was considered useful. The impacts for option B and C (and when relevant making distinction between C1 and C2) are presented compared to the baseline scenario (option A).

Stakeholders have been extensively consulted on the policy options on several occasions to ensure the largest possible outreach. The CEG has been intensively involved in the process of the formulation of the options. They are most supportive of option C and more specifically of option C1. There is strong support for a regulatory competence-based approach, including practical exams for boatmasters and exams for boatmen. They support EU criteria framing the use of KSS. The CEG is not in favour of option A and judges option A (in particular the CCNR administrative arrangements) as only a transitory step towards EU regulatory action (option C). In the online public consultation, the wider inland waterway stakeholder community was targeted. With regard to mutual recognition of professional qualifications, stakeholders do not favour keeping the CCNR scheme of bilateral/multilateral agreements as the main regulatory framework (option B): only slightly more than 10% of the respondents agree that this scheme fully serves its purpose of removing labour mobility barriers. It is seen as a transitory instrument as a suboptimal response to the substantial shortcomings of the current EU legal framework which has not been revised since 1996, pending further action at EU level. EU mandatory requirements for professional qualifications and training standards (option C1) receive support from around 90% of the respondents (who find the measure either “somewhat appropriate” or “very appropriate"). The introduction of KSS related measures also receive large support from the respondents. Section 5 of Annex 1 provides more detailed information (e.g. on support per stakeholder category).

A third example of discarded option is a 'fully harmonised competence-based legal framework for operational workers and boatmasters on the whole EU territory'. Adopting EU requirements for qualifications in a uniform manner (identical instead of minimum requirements), including for KSS, and extending the requirements to crew working on non-connected inland waterways has been discarded for reasons of subsidiarity and proportionality. As a last example, the option of stopping all current EU action in the field was discarded. EU action is needed because there are problems which need to be addressed as shown by this impact assessment. Stakeholders are asking for EU intervention and the Commission CIX has already announced its intention to act under the NAIADES II framework.

Also, the possible option to introduce mutual recognition of competence-based professional qualifications for boatmasters only, in combination with only soft instruments for boatmen, has been discarded as it would not have been a coherent approach and because of the limited overall impact. There are synergies between the regulatory measures for operational crew and boatmasters, which would be lost if only boatmasters would be addressed. This is particularly the case for the competence-based system which should be seen as a global approach to crew qualifications. Not addressing operational crew through EU regulatory measures would result in a much lower global impact as only one third of the workers are boatmasters and many of them already enjoy mutual recognition of their qualifications through the existing legal frameworks.

For example, the option to adopt minimum standards identical to the Rhine standards or to those of the Directive 96/50/EC without a competence-based approach was discarded from the outset as it would not tackle adequately the problem linked to the lack of proven competencies in the inland waterway sector, as described in section 3.3.1. (knowing that scope and level of minimum standards in legal instruments is different). Action towards a competence-based approach is also a necessary move towards a modern qualification policy and the standard approach to qualifications in the European labour market. In the last two decades training and education systems in general have been moving away from the traditional focus on knowledge and experience towards more competence-based teaching and assessment, in particular in the field of transport. This reflects the desire to assess the knowledge and practical skills of candidates with differing abilities, cultural and linguistic backgrounds CVII , with the objective of favouring mobility. This is also expected to better accommodate future trends in man-machine interface in the context of training and assessment. The approach is in the line of the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establis