Special Report Inland Waterway 
Transport in Europe: 
No significant 
improvements in modal 
share and navigability 
conditions since 2001EN 2015  NO 01
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-2004-2 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/824058 QJ-AB-15-001-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-1948-0 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/158305 QJ-AB-15-001-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-1999-2 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/578733 QJ-AB-15-001-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of figure 2, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
Printed in Luxembourg
Inland Waterway 
Transport in Europe: 
no significant 
improvements in modal 
share and navigability 
conditions since 2001
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 01
Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to 
performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public 
interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which specialises 
in the structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Iliana Ivanova, support -
ed by Tony Murphy, head of private office; Mihail Stefanov, attaché of private office; Pietro Puricella, head of unit;  
Enrico Grassi, team leader; Christian Wieser, auditor; Erika Soveges, auditor; Erki Must, auditor; Di Hai, auditor.
From left to right: E. Soveges, M. Stefanov, P . Puricella,  
C. Wieser, I. Ivanova, E. Must, E. Grassi, D. Hai,  
T. Murphy.
03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Abbreviations
 Glossary
I–VII  Executive summary
01–13  Introduction
01–06  The characteristics of EU inland waterway freight transport
07–10  The main policy objectives and obstacles with regard to inland waterway freight transport 
in the EU
11–13  The role of the European Commission and the Member States
14–16  Audit scope and approach
17– 49  Observations
17–27  The modal share of IWT did not significantly increase and EU‑funded projects did not effectively 
contribute to improving overall navigability conditions
18–19  There was no significant increase in the modal share of inland waterway freight transport
20–24  Only a few isolated bottlenecks were addressed, without consideration for corridor and maintenance 
aspects
25–27  Implementation delays, partly due to lengthy administrative procedures
28–49  EU strategies for IWT were not based on a comprehensive and robust analysis
29–32  EU strategies not based on robust analysis
33–40  EU strategies did not fully address important key obstacles to their implementation at Member State level
41–45  Insufficiently focused approach in selecting projects
46–49  Member States do not pay sufficient attention to river maintenance
50–54  Conclusions and recommendations
04 Contents
 Annex I —  Classification of European inland waterways according to Resolution No 92/2 of the 
European Conference of Ministers of Transport
 Annex II —  List of projects examined by the Court
 Annex III —  Modal share of inland waterway transport of all land transport modes in the 
Member States (MS) on the main inland waterway corridor from 2001 until 2012 
(in %)
 Annex IV  —  The different variants for the elimination of the bottleneck in the section 
Straubing‑Vilshofen
 Annex V  —  Cost of eliminating bottlenecks according to the Platina inventory of bottlenecks 
and missing links of 31.3.2010
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Abbreviations
CEF : Connecting Europe Facility
DG Environment : Directorate-General for the Environment
DG Mobility and Transport : Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
DG Regional and Urban Policy : Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
ERDF : European Regional Development Fund
IWT : Inland waterway transport
MS: Member State
TEN‑T : Trans -European network for transport
UNECE : United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
06
 Glossary
Boatlift : construction for lifting or lowering vessels between two levels of water.
Bottleneck : According to United Nations Economic Committee for Europe (UNECE) Resolution No 49 of 2005, 
the term is used for inland waterway sections with ‘parameter values being substantially lower than target 
requirements’.
Bridge clearance : the distance between the water surface and the lowest point of the bridge.
Comprehensive network : Part of the TEN -T network that Member States have the legal obligation to complete 
by 2050.
Core network : Part of the TEN -T network that Member States have the legal obligation to complete by 2030.
Draught : The height of the immersed part of a vessel. The more cargo is loaded, the higher is its loaded draught.
Inland waterway (IWW) : Waters located on the mainland capable of being used by ships with a minimum 50 t 
carrying capacity when normally loaded. These include navigable rivers, lakes and canals.
Lock : A device for raising and lowering boats between stretches of water at different levels on river and canal 
waterways.
Modal share : This (also called mode split, mode -share or modal split) is the share of total journeys, volume, weight, 
vehicle performance or transport performance (vehicle, ton- or passenger -kilometres) of alternative modes of 
transport, such as road, rail, inland water, maritime and air transport, including non -motorised transport. In this 
report, modal share refers to the three main land transport modes: road, rail and inland waterways.
Natura 2000 : A network of nature protection areas in the territory of the European Union.
Operational programme : A Commission -approved programme of EU -funded investments by Member State, 
which takes the form of a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual measures under which projects are 
co-financed.
RIS: River information services are modern traffic management systems enabling swift electronic data transfer 
between water and shore through in -advance and real -time exchange of information.
TEU : The twenty -foot equivalent unit is used to describe the capacity of container ships and container terminals, 
based on the volume of a 20-foot -long (6.1 m) intermodal container, a standard -sized metal box which can be easily 
transferred between different modes of transportation, such as ships, trains and trucks.
tkm : Tonne kilometres: unit of measure for recording transport output, corresponding to the carriage of 1 tonne 
over 1 km calculated by multiplying the quantity carried in tonnes by the distance covered in kilometres. Only 
the distance on the national territory of the reporting country is taken into account for national, international and 
transit transport.
07
 Executive 
summary
I
Inland waterway transport is, together with road and 
rail transport, one of the main three land transport 
modes. Goods are transported by ships via inland 
waterways, such as canals, rivers and lakes, between 
inland ports and wharfs. The EU aims at shifting traffic 
from roads to more environmentally friendly transport 
modes, including inland waterway transport, as there 
are potential benefits in terms of cost savings, reduced 
pollution and increased transport safety. The EU 
strategies identified the elimination of infrastructure 
bottlenecks as a key requisite for the development of 
inland navigation in Europe.
II
The Court examined whether inland waterway freight 
transport strategies have been implemented effec -
tively by the Commission and the EU Member States. 
In particular, it assessed two main audit questions:
(i) Have the projects co -funded by the EU budget 
contributed effectively to increasing the modal 
share of inland waterway freight transport and 
improving navigability conditions?
(ii) Were the EU inland waterway transport strategies 
coherent and based on relevant and comprehen -
sive analyses?
III
The audit covered the policy and strategy papers 
from 2001 onwards and reviewed the main policy and 
strategy documents, information made available by 
the Commission, the United Nations Economic Com -
mission for Europe (UNECE) and other third parties, 
as well as relevant financial, transport and navigabil -
ity indicators. In addition, on -the-spot audit visits 
were carried out to 12 EU-funded projects in Belgium, 
the Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary financed 
under both the trans -European network for transport 
(TEN -T) and the Structural Funds (SF) budgets during 
the 2007–13 programming period.IV
Overall, the Court found that the policy objective of 
shifting traffic from roads to inland waterway trans -
port and of improving navigability had not been 
achieved. Between 2001, when this objective was 
set, and 2012, the year for which the latest statistical 
information is available, the modal share of inland 
waterway transport did not increase substantially, 
fluctuating around 6 %. Thus the Court considers that 
the EU inland waterway transport strategies have not 
been effectively implemented.
V
The EU -financed projects examined were not always 
consistent with the inland waterway freight transport 
objectives and only a few of them improved navigabil -
ity conditions. In particular, isolated bottlenecks were 
eliminated but these were still surrounded by other 
bottlenecks. As a result, the impact of these projects 
on inland waterway transport was low.
VI
This was partly due to weaknesses in the EU strategies 
for inland waterway transport (which were not based 
on sufficiently robust and comprehensive analysis) 
and to the unfocused use of limited resources at EU 
and Member State levels. In addition, Member States’ 
approaches to inland waterway transport were incon -
sistent along the main corridors. The EU strategies did 
not give sufficient consideration to environmental 
aspects and to the attention that Member States paid 
to river maintenance.
Executive summary 08
VII
The Court recommends the following.
Recommendation 1
In order to improve the effectiveness of the EU fund -
ing of inland waterway transport and to ensure better 
project performance:
(a) the Member States should prioritise inland water -
way projects which are on the corridors, rivers or 
river segments that provide the greatest and most 
immediate benefits for improving inland waterway 
transport;
(b) the Commission should focus its funding on those 
projects that are most relevant for inland water -
way transport and for which there are already 
advanced plans in place to eliminate nearby 
bottlenecks when selecting project proposals for 
financing.Recommendation 2
As regards the future development of the EU’s strategy 
for inland waterway freight transport, and with a view 
to achieving better coordination between Member 
States:
(a) the Commission should carry out in -depth ana -
lyses of the potential market and benefits of inland 
navigation on different river segments and coord -
inate across Member States the implementation of 
the core TEN -T network, taking into account their 
potential for developing inland waterway freight 
transport corridors;
(b) the Commission and Member States should 
agree during the corridor implementation on 
specific and achievable objectives and precise 
milestones to eliminate bottlenecks on corridors 
within the framework of the Connecting Europe 
Facility — this should take due account of the 
TEN -T object  ive of completing the core network 
by 2030, the availability of funds at EU and Mem -
ber State levels and the political and environmen -
tal consider  ations in relation to building new (or 
upgrading existing) inland waterway transport 
infrastructures;
(c) the Commission should, in the context of the 
next revision of the TEN -T regulation, propose 
the strengthening of the legal base in order to 
(i) broaden the reporting requirements in rela -
tion to the navigation status of the waterways and 
(ii) require Member States to elaborate national 
inland waterway maintenance plans in a coordin -
ated way.
09
 Introduction
The characteristics of EU 
inland waterway freight 
transport
01 
Inland waterway transport is, together 
with road and rail transport, one of the 
three main land transport modes. Ves -
sels transport goods via inland water -
ways, such as canals, rivers and lakes, 
between inland ports and wharfs.
02 
Half of Europe’s population lives close 
to the coast or to inland waterways 
and most European industrial centres 
can be reached by inland navigation. 
The main international inland water -
way network is the Rhine -Danube 
network, which, with its length of 
14 360 km, represents nearly half of 
the inland waterways of international 
importance1. The most important 
 basins are:
(i) The Rhine basin, which is the most 
developed, maintained and util -
ised waterway for goods transpor -
tation purposes. It is characterised 
by the highest population and 
waterway density. Around 80 % of 
the overall inland waterway freight 
transport is carried on this river.
(ii) The Danube basin, which has the 
potential to guarantee river navi -
gation between the North Sea and 
the Black Sea. Around 9 % of the 
overall inland waterway transports 
are carried out on the Danube and 
the Rhine -Main - Danube canal.03 
More than one third of the Rhine - 
Danube basin waterways do not meet 
the standards established for water -
ways by the European Conference of 
Ministers of Transport2 (see Annex I ) 
and there are substantial differences in 
the quality of the infrastructures east 
and west of the Bavarian watershed3. 
The European Union aims at achieving 
these standards for its entire trans - 
European network (see Figure 1 ).
04 
Transporting goods on inland water -
ways can be advantageous, as compo -
sitions of pushed barges can transport 
more goods per distance unit (tkm) 
than any other type of land transport 
and could help to reduce road traffic. 
Inland navigation vessels have a load -
ing capacity that is equivalent to hun -
dreds of trucks, which could help to 
save transport costs, reduce emissions 
and decongest roads (see Figure 2 ). 
In addition, inland vessels have very 
good safety records.1 UNECE, White Paper on efficient 
and sustainable inland water 
transport in Europe , New York 
and Geneva, 2011.
2 Resolution No 92/2 of the 
European Conference of 
Ministers of Transport.
3 An area or ridge of land that 
separates waters flowing to 
different rivers, basins or seas.
10 Introduction
Main inland waterways in the EU (TEN‑T comprehensive and core network)
Source:  European Commission.Figure 1

11 Introduction
Potential advantages of inland navigation in terms of external costs 
(cents per tonne‑kilometre) and transport capacityFigure 2
climate gases  
air pollutants 
noise  
accidents  
 
   Source: PLANCO Consulting & Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde 2007 Cents per ton-kilometre  
1 convoy with four pushed lighters: 7 000 net tonnes  
175 railway wagons at 40 net tonnes each  
280 trucks at 25 net tonnes each  
Inland vessels beat road and rail in terms of transport capacity  
Source:  via donau  The sum of external costs for inland vessels is by far the lowest (average values for selected transports of bulk 
goods0.00.51.02.02.5
1.5
2.01 0.80 0.27
12 Introduction
05 
Inland waterway transport is energy 
efficient, as an inland vessel is able to 
transport one tonne of cargo almost 
four times further than a truck using 
the same consumption of energy  
(370 km against 300 km by rail and   
100 km by truck). Also the transport 
cost is competitive and the unit cost 
decreases over long distances (see 
Table 1 ). However, as inland waterway 
transport is slower than road transport, 
it is commonly used for goods that do 
not require fast delivery times, such as 
metal ores, agricultural products, coke 
and refined petroleum products, coal 
and crude petroleum. In the last few 
years there has also been an increase 
in container transport, especially in the 
Rhine basin.06 
However, waterways have a limited 
geographical scope. Moreover, in the 
event of problems along the route, 
such as accidents, bad weather condi -
tions or excessively low or high water 
levels, vessels can rarely be rerouted. 
In addition, cost advantages can only 
materialise under certain circumstan -
ces, depending on the distance goods 
are transported on waterways and on 
the distance of the consignor or con -
signee from the transhipment point, 
where the goods are transferred from 
or to the vessels.
Examples of transport cost per tonne‑km in euro cents for 
transport distances of 200 km and 1 000 km
Freight transport mode 200 km 1 000 km
Road 14.30 8.80
Rail 16.04 7.4 0
Inland waterway 2.73 1.95
Source:  PLANCO Consulting GmbH, Economical and ecological comparison of transport modes: 
road, railways and inland waterways , November 2007.Table 1
13 Introduction
The main policy 
objectives and obstacles 
with regard to inland 
waterway freight 
transport in the EU
07 
In June 2001, the European Commis -
sion issued a White Paper on the Euro -
pean transport policy4, in which it pro -
posed shifting the balance between 
modes of transport, revitalising the 
railways, promoting transport by sea 
and inland waterways and controlling 
the increase in air transport. In 2006, 
the mid -term review of this White 
Paper5 added the strategic object -
ive to fight against road congestion. 
These objectives were confirmed in 
the White Paper on transport of 20116, 
which envisaged shifting freight from 
road to rail and waterborne transport.08 
In order to achieve its policy objec -
tives, the European Commission 
adopted the Naiades programme7 to 
promote Inland waterway transport via 
actions in five interdependent areas 
(see Box 1 ).
09 
Both the 2001 and the 2011 White 
Papers and the 2006 and 2013  Naiades 
programmes pointed to the need 
to eliminate bottlenecks in order to 
improve navigability conditions on 
rivers and thus to eliminate the main 
infrastructure obstacles to the devel -
opment of inland navigation in Europe.
The Naiades action programmes
Naiades stands for ‘Navigation and inland waterway action and development in Europe’. The Naiades action 
plan was drafted in 2006. It was an initiative of the European Commission to enhance the use of inland naviga -
tion as part of intermodal freight solutions in order to create a sustainable, competitive and environmentally 
friendly Europe-wide transport network. It provided policy orientation for a joint approach to strengthen 
inland waterway transport and proposed actions in five areas of intervention: market, fleet, jobs and skills, 
 image and infrastructure.
The Naiades II8 programme, which was published in 2013, succeeded the Naiades programme. Its objective is 
to promote inland navigation through: (i) new infrastructure, including filling missing links, clearing important 
bottlenecks and port development; (ii) innovation; (iii) smooth functioning of the market; (iv) environmental 
quality through low emissions; (v) a skilled workforce and quality jobs; and (vi) integration of IWT into the 
multimodal logistic chain.
8 COM(2013) 623 final of 10 September 2013, ‘Towards quality inland waterway transport — Naiades II’.Box 14 COM(2001) 370 of 
12 September 2001, ‘White 
Paper — European transport 
policy for 2010: time to decide’.
5 COM(2006) 314 final of 
22 June 2006, ‘Keep Europe 
moving  — Sustainable 
mobility for our continent  — 
Mid-term review of the 
European Commission’s 2001 
transport White Paper’.
6 COM(2011) 144 final of 
28 March 2011, ‘White 
Paper — Roadmap to a single 
European transport 
area — Towards a competitive 
and resource-efficient 
transport system’.
7 COM(2006) 6 final of 
17 January 2006 on the 
promotion of inland waterway 
transport ‘Naiades’  — An 
integrated European action 
programme for inland 
waterway transport.
14 Introduction
10 
In this context, the Commission had 
identified inadequate infrastructure 
(i.e. bottlenecks and missing links) 
as a major obstacle to inland naviga -
tion. The most common types of river 
bottlenecks and missing links are as 
follows.
(i) Bridges . Bridge clearance and the 
width of the passages between 
the supports determine the size 
of inland vessels and the num -
ber of container layers they can transport. The bridges’ vertical 
clearance diminishes with high 
water levels and increases with low 
water levels (see Picture 1 ).
(ii) Fairways . The width and shape 
of the fairway determine whether 
vessels navigating upstream and 
downstream can pass simultan -
eously and the speed of naviga -
tion. The water depths available in 
the fairway determine how many 
tonnes of goods may be carried 
on an inland vessel. The draught 
loaded has a decisive influence on 
the cost -effectiveness of inland 
waterway transport (see Figure 3 ).Picture 1Inland vessel passing under a bridge
Source:  European Commission.

15 Introduction
(iii) Locks . Lock capacity can lead to 
prolonged travel times because 
of waiting times due to the size of 
the vessel or convoys that can pass 
through the chamber(s). Single chamber locks risk blocking inland 
navigation on the entire river if just 
one is closed for maintenance (see 
Picture 2 ).Figure 3Terminology used for fairway dimensions
Source: via donau.
Fairway prameters (schematic presentation)Picture 2Inland vessel at the lock in Lanaye
Source:  European Court of Auditors.

16 Introduction
(iv) Missing links.  These are parts 
of the future network of inland 
waterways of international import -
ance that do not exist at present. 
An example of a relevant missing 
link is the Seine -Scheldt connec -
tion between France and Belgium, 
which is currently being addressed 
by the Member States concerned 
and by the TEN -T (see Figure 4 ).Figure 4
Source:  European Commission.
The missing link between the Seine and the Scheldt
17 Introduction
The role of the European 
Commission and the 
Member States
11 
The European Commission implements 
its transport policies mainly through 
two Commission directorates-general: 
DG Mobility and Transport, which sets 
the transport policies and finances 
transport infrastructure projects under 
the TEN -T programme; and DG Region -
al and Urban Policy, which provides 
financial support to Member States 
and regions through the ERDF and 
Cohesion Funds (CF) that can be used 
for transport development.
12 
The EU funding provided under the 
TEN -T instrument is directly managed 
by the Innovation and Networks Exec -
utive Agency (INEA)9. The Commission 
publishes annual and multi  annual calls 
for proposals and Member States sub -
mit project proposals that the Com -
mission then selects according to pre -
defined project selection criteria. The 
trans -European network guidelines10 
require the completion of a  TEN-T 
comprising rivers and canals with 
a minimum draught of 2.50  metres, 
a minimum bridge clearance of 
5.25 metres and a minimum length of 
vessels of 80 metres (see Annex I ). The 
inland waterway transport projects fi -
nanced by the INEA under the 2007–13 
framework amount to 747 million euro, 
which corresponds to 7.9 % of the 
total TEN -T funding. Projects consisted 
of studies, generally funded at 50 %, 
or works that were funded mostly at 
10 %–20 % by the TEN -T budget. Most 
infrastructure projects consisted of 
improving the fairways to improve 
navigability, increasing bridge heights 
and constructing lock chambers.13 
As regards IWT projects funded under 
the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF) and the CF, Member 
States are responsible for select -
ing and implementing the specific 
projects. The Commission and the 
Member States have to ensure that 
assistance from the funds is consist -
ent with the activities, policies and 
priorities of the European Union and 
complements the Commission’s other 
financial instruments11. With regard to 
the field of transport, the ERDF and the 
CF regulations12 provided for the fund -
ing of transport investments, including 
improvements to the trans -European 
network, and supported the aim of 
achieving a more balanced distribution 
of freight across the various modes 
of transport (modal split). At the time 
of the audit, the budget allocated 
to inland waterways for the 2007–13 
period was 531 million euro, which cor -
responds to 0.2 % of the total SFs al -
located to Member States and to 0.7 % 
of the 76 674 million euro allocated for 
transport. Projects financed under the 
ERDF/CF operational programmes for 
transport consisted mainly of works. 
Projects financed under regional or 
transnational operational programmes 
consisted generally of smaller -sized 
works, such as bridges to connect two 
Member States, and projects aimed 
at strengthening the cooperation of 
national authorities from different 
Member States.9 INEA is the successor of the 
Trans -European Network for 
Transport Executive Agency 
(TEN -T EA), from which it took 
over the implementation of 
the legacy of TEN -T. It is also in 
charge of the Marco Polo 
programmes that were 
previously implemented by 
the former Executive Agency 
for Competitiveness and 
Innovations (EACI).
10 Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1315/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 11 December 2013 on Union 
guidelines for the 
development of the 
trans -European transport 
network and repealing 
Decision No 661/2010/EU (OJ 
L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1).
11 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 
laying down general 
provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, 
the European Social Fund and 
the Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 25).
12 Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 5 July 
2006 on the European 
Regional Development Fund 
and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1783/1999 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 1) and Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 
of 11 July 2006 establishing 
a Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1164/94 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 79).
18
 Audit scope and approach
14 
The objective of the Court’s audit was 
to examine whether the inland water -
way freight transport strategies have 
been implemented effectively by the 
Commission and the Member States. 
The following main audit questions 
were assessed.
(i) Have the projects co -funded by 
the EU budget contributed ef -
fectively to increasing the modal 
share of inland waterway freight 
transport and improving navigabil -
ity conditions?
(ii) Were the EU inland waterway 
transport strategies coherent and 
based on relevant and comprehen -
sive analyses?
15 
The audit covered the policy and 
strategy papers from 2001 onwards, 
when for the first time the Commission 
set out in a White Paper the need for 
developing environmentally friendly 
modes of transport. The audit exam -
ined relevant documents made avail -
able by the Commission, the UNECE 
and other third parties, performed interviews, analyses of reports, reviews 
of evaluations and assessments of 
project data. Moreover, the audit re -
viewed the main indicators for modal 
share and navigability and based its 
review on information provided by the 
Commission, by other relevant organi -
sations such as the UNECE and by third 
parties. It also involved on -site verifica -
tion of the achievements of 12 projects 
co-financed by the SFs and the TEN-T 
budget in Belgium, the Czech Re -
public, Germany and Hungary during 
the 2007–13 programming period. Two 
of these projects concerned studies, 
nine projects related to infrastructure 
works and one project was mixed, as it 
included both of these (see Annex II ). 
When the audit was planned, the 
countries audited covered 88 % of the 
expenditure for mature IWW infra -
structure projects, i.e. projects that 
were likely to be completed by the end 
of 2013 (see Table 2 ).
16 
The Court also analysed the informa -
tion provided by DG Regional and 
 Urban Policy, DG Mobility and Trans -
port and the INEA.
Amounts (in million euro) of mature TEN ‑T, ERDF and Cohesion Funds projects at the 
date of the audit planning
Total AT BE CZ DE EU1FR HU IT NL PL RO SK
Works 253.2 0.0 3.3 138.0 93.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 9.6 0.0 0.0
Studies 47.9 3.4 7.4 0.0 16.5 4.5 7.4 5.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6
Both 5.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 306.7 3.4 16.2 138.0 110.0 4.5 14.2 5.1 2.9 2.0 9.6 0.1 0.6
1 EU stands for international projects that involve more than one Member State.
Source:  ECA analysis based on Commission data.Table 2
19
 Observations
The modal share of IWT 
did not significantly 
increase and EU‑funded 
projects did not 
effectively contribute to 
improving overall 
navigability conditions
17 
The Court assessed whether the modal 
share of IWT increased and whether 
navigability conditions improved 
significantly. In addition, it analysed 
whether EU -financed projects sup -
ported the inland waterway transport 
objectives, i.e. whether the project 
objectives were consistent with the 
inland waterway transport objectives, 
whether projects were implemented 
according to the plans and whether 
they improved the navigability condi -
tions and had the expected impact on 
inland waterway transport.There was no significant 
increase in the modal share 
of inland waterway freight 
transport
18 
In 2001, the Commission set out the 
objective of shifting traffic from roads 
to environmentally friendly modes of 
transport (see Box 7 ). Since then, the 
modal share of inland waterway has 
not increased substantially and fluctu -
ated around 6 %. While inland water -
way transport accounted for 6.4 % 
of all land transport modes in 2001, 
it dropped to 5.7 % in 2006 and 
increased until the year 2012, when 
the modal share accounted for 6.7 % 
(see  Figure 5 ).Figure 5Inland waterway transport modal share (EU 27) since 2001
Source of data:  Eurostat.Modal share in % 6.8 %
6.6 %
6.4 %
6.2 %
6.0 %
5.8 %
5.6 %
5.4 %
5.2 %
2001 2002 2012 2011 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Linear tr endline
(EU 27 modal shar e IW T)EU modal shar e IW T
20 Observations
19 
The Court, however, noted an excep -
tion to this situation in Belgium, the 
Netherlands and France, where the 
modal share showed a noticeable in -
crease13. In other Member States modal 
share basically remained steady or 
declined (see Annex III ).
Only a few isolated bottle ‑
necks were addressed, with ‑
out consideration for corri ‑
dor and maintenance aspects
20 
The Court examined whether bottle -
necks were addressed during the 
period under review. Neither the 
Member States nor the Commis -
sion have issued a progress report 
on the elimination of bottlenecks, 
with the exception of TEN -T prior -
ity projects 18 (Waterway axis Rhine/
Meuse -Main -Danube) and 30 (Inland 
Waterway Seine -Scheldt). Therefore 
the Court made a comparative ana -
lysis of the reports published by the 
UNECE in the years 2006 and 2012 that 
included an inventory of the existing 
bottlenecks.
Too few bottlenecks were 
eliminated
21 
Since 2006, only a small number of 
bottlenecks have been eliminated. The 
analysis of the list of bottlenecks pub -
lished by the UNECE in different years, 
i.e. in 2006 and 2012, indicates that 
only five of the 47 bottlenecks listed in 
the 2006 list were removed by 201214. 
Based on this rate of progress, it would 
take around 60–70 years to eliminate 
all the listed bottlenecks.22 
This poor progress was mainly due to 
the fact that Member States paid little 
attention to this mode of transport, 
as illustrated by the Court’s review of 
national strategy papers. The Court 
also compared the modal share and 
percentage of funds allocated to IWT 
to assess the priority level given to this 
mode of transport. Following the Com -
mission’s calls for proposals, relatively 
few IWT projects were proposed for 
TEN -T financing. Compared to other 
transport modes, the project pro -
posals focused on rail transport. For 
IWT they were less than proportional 
to its modal share (see Table 3 ) in 
most Member States with substantial 
TEN -T expenditure on IWT, except 
for the Netherlands, and for France 
and Belgium, which absorbed most 
of the multinational actions for the 
Seine -Scheldt connection.13 In Belgium, there is clear 
evidence that traffic was 
moved from road to IWW, as 
there was a decrease in road 
transport and a simultaneous 
increase in IWT.
14 The UNECE list of bottlenecks 
of 2012 also included 
20 additional bottlenecks 
that were not included in 
the 2006 list.
21 Observations
Total cost of TEN‑T project proposals in the Member States with highest transport 
volumes and comparison with the IWT modal share
Member StateProject proposals 
for roads  
(million euro)
AProject proposals 
for rail  
(million euro)
BProject proposals 
for IWW  
(million euro)
CPercentage  
of IWT project 
proposals
C/(A+B+C)Modal share  
of IWT  
(year  2012)
EU1170.8 9 866.8 5 399.5 35.0  %
Belgium2209.4 2 712.4 414.0 12.4  % 24.3  %3
Bulgaria 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 % 16.4  %
Czech Republic 105.2 768.0 0.0 0.0 % 0.1 %
Germany 448.4 9 482.2 218.3 2.2 % 12.3  %4
France20.0 21 302.7 347. 3 1.6 % 4.2 %
Luxembourg 811.1 0.0 0.0 % 3.4 %
Hungary 0.0 39.3 8.0 16.9  % 4.4 %
Netherlands 229.4 496.7 561.4 42.3  % 38.7  %
Austria 785.7 9 552.3 175.5 1.7 % 4.6 %
Romania 0.0 0.0 0.5 100.0  % 22.5  %
Slovakia 27.7 51.4 2.8 3.4 % 2.6 %
1 International projects that involve more than one Member State.
2  Project proposals for this Member State do not include the proposals listed under ‘EU’ for the completion of the Seine –Scheldt IWW connection.
3 Provisional figure.
4 Figure estimated by Eurostat.
Source of data:  European Commission — INEA and Eurostat.Table 3
22 Observations
Most projects examined did not 
achieve freight transport results
23 
Overall, the Court found that the 
impact of the projects examined on 
freight transport was limited, as other 
bottlenecks on the corridor were not 
eliminated nor planned to be eliminat -
ed in the near future. Of the projects 
examined by the Court, 10 related to 
works and the situation was as follows:
(a) Only one project, the lock in 
 Lanaye (Belgium), had the poten -
tial to contribute to the develop -
ment of inland waterway transport 
after its completion (see Box 2  and 
Picture 2 ).
The lock in Lanaye (Belgium)
The lock in Lanaye (Belgium) had a total cost of 151 million euro, of which 27 million euro was financed by 
the Commission. It was a good example of cross -border cooperation to eliminate an internationally relevant 
bottle  neck. The project was partly co -financed by the governments of Belgium and the Netherlands and the 
river is navigated by inland vessels transiting between different Member States.
The project is not completed yet. As the average size of vessels has increased over the past years, the in -
creased size of the lock chamber will improve navigability conditions by reducing waiting times and enabling 
the transit of larger vessels.Box 2
23 Observations
(b) Six projects could not make full 
use of the improvements result -
ing from the works because of 
nearby bottlenecks limiting their 
effectiveness. This was the case for 
the railway bridges in Deggendorf (DE) and in Kolín (CZ), but also for 
the bridges at the Albert Canal 
(BE), the lock in Fankel (DE) and the 
boat lift in Niederfinow (DE) (see 
for example Box 3  and Picture 3 ).
The boat lift in Niederfinow
A boat lift in Niederfinow, between Berlin and the Polish border, had to be renewed because the old boat 
lift had become obsolete. The new boat lift had a cost of 284 million euro, of which 48.5 million euro was 
financed by the ERDF. It was planned with a deeper draught in order to cope with vessels carrying heavier 
loads. The project was designed on the assumption that the remaining part of the channel would be dredged 
in order to increase its draught accordingly. However, according to a recent prioritisation of rivers carried out 
by the German authorities, this channel is of such low priority (category ‘C’) that no further major improve -
ments will be carried out on that river. Therefore, the improved draught of the boat lift will not be exploited.
The project is still ongoing. However, the limited fairway depth will limit the profitability of inland navigation 
and thus reduce the potential increase in transport capacity.Box 3 Picture 3Construction of the new boat lift in Niederfinow
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
24 Observations
(c) Although classified under inland 
waterways projects for transport, 
three projects were not relevant to 
the improvement of navigability 
conditions on IWW (see for exam -
ple Box 4 ).
Project that did not aim at improving inland waterway freight transport
The completion of the Vltava waterway in the section České Budějovice–Hluboká (Czech Republic) cost 32 mil -
lion euro, of which 20.5 million was financed by the ERDF under the operational programme for transport. 
Although classified as an inland waterway transport project, it was mainly a tourism -related project. The wa -
terway is only of regional importance and is not part of the European transport network. Moreover, the bottle -
neck is not listed in the lists of bottlenecks published by the UNECE and by the Platina project (see Picture 4 ).Box 4 Picture 4Port for small passenger and private boats, part of the ERDF co‑funded 
project on the Vltava waterway
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
25 Observations
Two studies did not result in 
the elimination of relevant 
bottlenecks
24 
Two projects consisted of studies 
which, although potentially addressing 
bottlenecks, were not followed by the 
relevant works to eliminate the bottle -
necks (see Box 5 ).
Ineffective studies for the elimination of bottlenecks on the Danube
The Danube section between Straubing and Vilshofen in Germany is critical for the entire inland waterway 
network. As various stakeholders, including environmentalists, had disputed the previous studies ana  lysing 
alternative variants to eliminate the bottlenecks, the European Commission and the German authorities de -
cided to carry out a new in -depth variant -independent study to analyse the possible cost and impact of two 
plausible variants. These were a variant ‘A’ aimed at a slightly lower environmental impact but less exten -
sive improvements to navigability conditions, and a variant ‘C 2.80’ aimed at better navigability conditions 
with a slightly higher environmental impact (the ecological compensation areas were 1 360 ha for variant ‘A’ 
and 1 415 ha for variant ‘C 2.80’ (see Annex IV )). The level of detail of the study was such that detailed techni -
cal plans for the implementation of both variants were produced.
The study cost 30 million euro, of which 50 % was financed by EU funds.
While according to the study variant ‘C 2.80’ resulted in better navigability conditions and a higher benefit–  
cost ratio (see Annex IV ), the German authorities decided to implement variant ‘A’, which is not going to 
provide the necessary navigability conditions for the durable development of inland waterway transport in 
Europe.
Similarly, an 8 million euro project, 50 % of which was financed from EU funds, consisting of a study on the 
improvement of navigability conditions on the Hungarian section of the Danube involved obtaining environ -
mental permits for 31 intervention sites by the end of the project. However, although the environmental 
authorities had granted some of the permits, these were then revoked. Currently, court cases are still pending 
and no works have been initiated or planned to improve navigability on the Hungarian section of the Danube 
(see paragraph 40).Box 5
26 Observations
Implementation delays, 
partly due to lengthy admin ‑
istrative procedures
25 
Furthermore, the Court assessed 
whether projects were implemented 
according to the plans. It based its as -
sessment on the analysis of the TEN -T 
multiannual programme’s project 
portfolio mid -term review and of 10 in -
land waterway infrastructure projects 
financed under the ERDF or the TEN -T 
budget.
26 
According to the TEN -T  multiannual 
programme’s project portfolio 
mid -term review, 60 % of the TEN -T 
projects were delayed, 40 % by more 
than 1 year. According to the review, 
many delays were due to the fact 
that projects were not yet mature, as 
Member States proposed projects for 
which environmental permits had not 
yet been issued.27 
Also, most of the projects examined by 
the Court faced delays. Some were due 
to the lack of environmental or con -
struction permits, such as the Briegden 
and Oelegem bridges in Belgium, or 
due to lengthy environmental or pub -
lic procurement disputes (Fankel lock 
in Germany (see Box 6 ) and Lanaye 
lock in Belgium).
Completion of the project in Fankel took more than 20 years
The Fankel lock project had been included in the German transport strategy of 1992 among the higher-  
priority projects. The project planning stage started in 1993, but the works were not inaugurated 
 until 13 years later, in June 2006, due to the fact that its implementation was systematically postponed.
The project implementation, which started in 2006, was planned to be finalised by 2011, but was completed 
in 2014. The delays were mainly due to public procurement disputes and to changes in the project design 
after the implementation had started.Box 6
27 Observations
EU strategies for IWT 
were not based on 
a comprehensive and 
robust analysis
28 
The Court assessed:
(a) whether the Commission, together 
with the Member States, had 
developed or designed coherent 
strategies with regard to inland 
waterway transport, based on as -
sessments of the current situation, 
of the transport needs and of inad -
equate infrastructure to address;
(b) whether these strategies took the 
issue of river maintenance suffi -
ciently into account.
EU strategies not based on 
robust analysis
29 
The Court analysed the White Papers 
of 2001 and 2011, which proposed the 
EU transport policy for each decade, 
and the EU and national transport 
strategies and action programmes (of 
the Member States audited), including 
the TEN -T guidelines and the Naiades 
action programme, to analyse whether 
the policy and strategy papers were 
based on robust analyses and had 
precise objectives.
30 
The European policy and strategy 
papers did not clarify whether invest -
ments in upgrading the river infra -
structure could lead to the expected 
shift in traffic from roads to inland 
waterways.31 
None of these papers assessed 
 whether the elimination of bottle -
necks in the various corridors would 
impact market demand for IWT to 
provide benefits in terms of reduction 
of road traffic, pollutant emissions 
and transport costs15. The potential 
market demand for inland waterway 
transport in the different corridors 
was not assessed. Therefore, the costs 
and benefits of investing in different 
networks, rivers or river stretches were 
not known.
32 
The policy and strategy papers also 
lacked precise objectives with re -
gard to inland waterway transport 
(see  Box 7 ).15 According to the 
Commission -financed report 
‘Medium and long-term 
perspectives of inland 
waterway transport in the 
European Union’, the modal 
share of inland waterway 
transport is going to decline in 
a low- or medium growth 
scenario, whereas in 
a high-growth scenario the 
modal share will not decline 
further and will end up at 
approximately 6.0 % in 2040.
28 Observations
EU strategies did not fully 
address important key obsta ‑
cles to their implementation 
at Member State level
Member States’ approaches were 
inconsistent
33 
Bottlenecks in one Member State may 
affect inland waterway transport in 
neighbouring countries. Therefore 
it is important that Member States’ 
transport strategies are consistent and 
coordinated. The Court found however 
that Member States’ strategies showed 
different approaches with regard to 
inland waterway transport and their 
attention towards this mode of trans -
port varied considerably.34 
For example, the Court found that 
the share of the budget allocated for 
EU- financed inland waterway trans -
port projects varied considerably 
between Member States. While the 
Netherlands allocated around 47 % 
of EU transport funds to IWT (with 
a modal share of 39 %) and Belgium 
allocated around 39 % of EU transport 
funds to IWT (with a modal share of 
around 29 %), most other Member 
States allocated a significantly lower 
percentage of funds compared to the 
modal share of IWT (see Figure 6 )17. In 
all Member States except for Aus -
tria, Belgium, the Netherlands and 
France, funds were concentrated on 
other transport modes, especially 
rail transport (see also Table 3 ). This 
resulted in less ambitious goals and in 
low budgetary allocations for imple -
menting projects that could improve 
the navigability conditions of inland 
waterways.Strategy papers lacked precise objectives with regard to the increase of modal 
share for IWT
The White Papers of 2001 and of 2011 were the Commission’s key policy papers in the transport area, but 
they were not legally binding. The first envisaged the generic objective of shifting traffic from roads to more 
environmentally friendly transport modes, which include both rail and inland waterway transport. The more 
recent White Paper of 2011 quantified this by setting a target of 30 % of medium-distance freight journeys 
to be shifted from road to rail and waterborne transport by 2030. However, none of the papers specified the 
extent to which inland waterway transport was supposed to contribute to this objective.
The TEN -T guidelines of 2010, which took the form of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Coun -
cil, had set the strategy objective of completing the TEN -T network by 2020. The TEN -T guidelines of 2013, 
which took the form of a regulation and therefore imposed legal obligations on Member States, introduced 
the requirement of completing the ‘core’ and the ‘comprehensive’ networks respectively by 2030 and 2050.
The only document that has set a quantitative target for inland waterway transport is the ‘Danube strategy’16, 
which took the form of a communication from the Commission and has a more limited geographical scope. 
It envisaged the target of increasing the cargo transport on the river by 20 % in 2020 compared to 2010.
16 COM(2010) 715 final of 8 December 2010, ‘European Union strategy for the Danube Region’.Box 7
17 As a term of comparison, the 
Netherlands was the Member 
State that allocated most 
funds to IWT (more than 40 % 
of its total funds for TEN -T 
projects while having a modal 
share of around 39 %).
29 Observations
35 
For those inland waterway corridors 
that cross different Member States, 
the Court noted that the different ap -
proaches by Member States hindered 
the smooth development of this mode 
of transport on the main European 
 rivers, as investments in upgrading 
rivers’ navigability conditions require 
coordination to be effective. Figure 6Comparison between modal share of IWT and percentage of EU funds allocated 
to IWT in the 2007–13 period in MS on the main inland waterway corridors. Funds 
include TEN‑T, ERDF and Cohesion Funds for local, regional and TEN‑T waterways
1  Project proposals for this Member State do not include the proposals listed under ‘EU’ for the completion of the Seine –Scheldt IWW connection.
2 International projects that involve more than one Member State.
Source of data:  European Commission.Percentage of transport
funds used for EU-fundedIWT projectsModal shar e for IW T50 %
45 %
40 %
35 %
30 %
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
5 %
0 %
NL BE1RO BG DE AT HU FR1LU SK CZ EU2
30 Observations
The cost of eliminating all 
bottlenecks exceeds by far the 
available funding
36 
Until 2006, the Commission had not 
provided any estimate of the cost 
of developing the inland waterways 
within the trans- European network. 
In 2006, the Naiades programme 
identified the cost for the two IWT 
priority projects (see paragraph 42) at 
around 3.7 billion euro19. In 2010 the Platina project estimated the cost for 
eliminating bottlenecks in Europe at 
more than 16 billion euro (see Box 9 ).
37 
The estimated costs for eliminating 
all identified bottlenecks exceed by 
far the limited available funding from 
the EU budget for IWT infrastructures. 
Therefore, to address this gap there is 
a need for additional financing from 
national and/or private sources.Different approaches by Member States — examples of the Elbe and Danube rivers
The performance of inland waterway transport in the Czech Republic depends, among other factors, on the 
performance of inland waterway transport on the Elbe in the German section. However, despite a recent 
classification of rivers by the German authorities according to their priority levels, the Elbe has not yet been 
classified. According to a recent agreement between the federal government and the affected Länder18, the 
current navigability conditions should be kept but Germany will limit its maintenance efforts and is not going 
to invest further in the upgrading of its navigability conditions.
Although the Danube flows through Hungary for more than 400 km, this Member State has a limited inland 
waterway fleet and only a few ports that could benefit from inland waterway transport. Therefore, it had no 
direct interest in developing the works necessary to improve navigability conditions.
18 Beschlussfassung der 6. Bund -Länder -Sitzung of 23.5.2013 in Berlin — Eckpunkte für ein Gesamtkonzept Elbe des Bundes und der Länder.Box 8
The Platina project and the inventory of bottlenecks
In order to accelerate the achievement of the Naiades objectives, the Commission created, together with 
a consortium of 23 different partners, the Platina  project. This consisted of a multidisciplinary knowledge 
network, financed under the European Union’s seventh framework programme for research (FP7) that aimed 
at creating the momentum necessary to achieve the Naiades objectives.
In 2010, the Platina project quantified the approximate cost of eliminating many of the inland waterway 
 bottlenecks identified in Europe (see Figure 7 ). According to this list, the cost of eliminating bottlenecks and 
filling missing links in countries on relevant IWT corridors20 was estimated to be more than 16 billion euro21 
(see Annex V ).
20 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria and Romania.
21 This figure does not include the cost for removing bottlenecks in Hungary, as this was not quantified, and the Saône–Moselle and Rhine link in 
France, which was estimated at around 10 billion euro.Box 919 Annex to the Naiades 
programme 
(COM(2006) 6 final).
31 Observations
Environmental protection needs 
collided with inland waterway 
transport development needs
38 
Rivers offer a natural habitat to a num -
ber of species which can be affected 
by the implementation of infrastruc -
ture projects22. Therefore, environ -
mental permits are required in order 
to start the implementation of such 
projects. The Court examined whether 
delays were caused by difficulties in 
obtaining environmental permits.39 
Inland waterway transport projects 
faced many difficulties due to the need 
to ensure an adequate level of environ -
mental protection on the one hand, 
and the need to ensure an adequate 
development of this transport mode 
on the other. Projects were often 
subject to political and environmental 
considerations and to disputes among 
the different stakeholders and with 
civil society that delayed or blocked 
their implementation. In addition, 
obtaining the relevant environmental 
permits often required time -consum -
ing administrative procedures and 
implied costly environmental compen -
sation measures.Figure 7Cost of eliminating bottlenecks (in million euro) vs. cost of Commission co‑funded 
projects implemented in the 2007–13 period in the countries visited during the audit
Source of data:  Platina inventory of bottlenecks and European Commission.2 276
1 2003 010
1 608
313
110328
131
05001 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 500
Belgium Czech Republic RomaniaCost of eliminating bottlenecks
Cost of EU co-funded projects
Germany
The cost of eliminating bottlenecks in Hungary was not quantiﬁed.
22 Many rivers’ sites are part of 
nature protection areas that 
form the so -called 
‘Natura 2000’ network.
32 Observations
40 
This led in some Member States to 
fewer projects being implemented 
or to the funding of lower priority 
projects.
(a) At the beginning of the 2007–13 
programming period, 75  mil -
lion euro from the CF had been 
allocated to IWT in Hungary. 
However, this amount was then re -
duced to only 3.2 million euro, i.e. 
a reduction of almost 96 % of the 
initial allocation. The initial alloca -
tion was based on the assumption 
that, following a TEN -T financed 
study with an 8 million euro 
budget, the subsequent works for 
the improvement of navigability 
on the Hungarian section of the 
Danube would have followed in 
a timely manner and been com -
pleted by 2015. However, the nec -
essary environmental permits were 
not issued. As the budget allo -
cated to inland waterway transport 
in Hungary was part of the same 
priority axis as rail transport, the 
funds were shifted to the latter, for 
which no prior consultation with 
the Commission was required.
(b) In the Czech Republic, the ERDF 
funds allocated to inland water -
ways for the 2007–13 period were 
based on the assumption that 
a relevant bottleneck in Děčín 
would have been removed, at an 
estimated total cost of 142 mil -
lion euro, by 2015. However, the 
environmental permits could not 
be delivered in time to enable the 
project implementation within 
the period in which such projects 
could be financed. Therefore, in 
order not to withdraw these funds 
from the operational programme, 
a number of other projects, far less 
relevant for freight transport, were 
implemented. This led to the con -
sumption of the allocated funds 
without any significant improve -
ment of inland waterway freight 
transport.Insufficiently focused 
approach in selecting 
projects
41 
The two main EU sources of funds 
for the implementation of the inland 
waterway transport strategy were the 
TEN -T budget on the one hand, and 
the ERDF and the CFs on the other (see 
paragraphs 12 to 13):
(a) The funding from the TEN -T budg -
et is in principle aligned with the 
EU transport policy objectives. Pro -
jects co -financed by this budget 
are submitted by Member States to 
the Commission following annual 
or multiannual calls for proposals 
and the Commission selects the 
projects among all project propos -
als submitted by Member States 
for different modes of transport.
(b) The ERDF and CF objectives are 
considerably wider than the 
transport objectives. Projects are 
selected directly by Member States 
following the approval of oper -
ational programmes that estab -
lished priority axes and allocated 
a budget to each of these. Only 
major projects, i.e. projects costing 
more than 50 million euro, have 
to be specifically assessed by the 
Commission.
33 Observations
42 
The TEN -T regulation and guide -
lines of 201023 had identified a TEN -T 
network of more than 30 000 km in 
length. It also included two priority 
projects in the field of inland water -
way transport, which had already 
been approved by the Commission 
in 2007: priority project 18 (waterway 
axis Rhine/Meuse–Main–Danube) and 
priority project 30 (inland waterway 
Seine–Scheldt). There were however 
no criteria to prioritise bottlenecks 
within these corridors. The only prior -
ity mentioned for bottlenecks was 
the Danube section between Straub -
ing and Vilshofen in Germany, which 
was listed in the White Paper of 2001 
as an example of bottlenecks to be 
eliminated.
43 
In order to prioritise waterways within 
the TEN -T network, the new Con -
necting Europe Facility and TEN -T 
guidelines of 201324 established a core 
and a comprehensive network, which 
Member States have a legal obliga -
tion to complete by 2030 and by 2050 
respectively (see Figure 1 ). However, 
for inland waterways there is no dif -
ference between the core and the 
comprehensive network, which does 
not help with prioritisation within the 
waterways.44 
Inland waterway transport projects 
financed by the ERDF were generally 
not located on inland waterways with 
high freight transport volumes and 
often did not target the inland water -
way freight transport needs (see para -
graphs 23 and 24). This was due to the 
fact that not all eligible countries and 
regions were on waterways with high 
transport volumes25 and that Member 
States decided to allocate ERDF/CF to 
IWT projects on rivers with low traffic 
volumes.
45 
To maximise their impact, limited 
resources should be focused on the 
highest priority needs. A prioritisation 
of rivers or river segments would be 
pertinent, as most of the benefits fol -
lowing the elimination of a bottleneck 
would materialise only once the entire 
river section is upgraded accordingly 
(see also paragraph 23 (b)). The Court 
found that EU strategies did not priori -
tise the envisaged activities, nor did 
they prioritise the rivers on which to 
invest the limited resources.23 Decision No 661/2010/EU of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 7 July 2010 on 
Union guidelines for the 
development of the 
trans -European transport 
network (OJ L 204, 5.8.2010, 
p. 1).
24 Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013.
25 Eligible countries for 2007–13 
CFs are Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Greece, 
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, 
Slovakia and Spain 
(transitional support). Regions 
eligible for ERDF funds under 
the convergence objective are 
in Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic, Germany, Estonia, 
Greece, Spain, France, Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, 
and United Kingdom.
34 Observations
Member States do not pay 
sufficient attention to river 
maintenance
46 
Despite its importance, maintenance 
is often neglected, and Member States 
did not allocate sufficient funds for 
maintenance leading to a consider -
able maintenance backlog26. The 
Court therefore analysed whether EU 
strategies covered the aspect of river 
maintenance. This was done by com -
paring relevant studies and reports on 
river maintenance in order to assess 
whether maintenance activities were 
in line with the EU strategies in place.
47 
The Court found that river mainten -
ance is a crucial aspect of inland 
navigation, as the lack of maintenance 
could result in the deterioration of the 
existing navigability conditions and 
the formation of new bottlenecks, 
reducing the effectiveness of inland 
waterway infrastructure projects. 
Therefore, it is very important that the 
Commission receives assurance about 
the effectiveness of the maintenance 
carried out by all Member States that 
are relevant for inland navigation.48 
The Court also observed that not all 
Member States have ratified the dec -
laration on effective waterway infra -
structure maintenance (see Box 10 ).
49 
Currently, with the exception of the 
Danube27 there is no evidence of sys -
tematic reporting by Member States 
to the Commission on the navigabil -
ity status, the maintenance needs, 
the  actual maintenance efforts and 
possible gaps. Therefore, the Commis -
sion itself is unaware of whether its 
co-financed projects are going to be 
sustainable in the medium and long 
term and whether navigability condi -
tions are going to be kept at satisfac -
tory levels in all sections of the main 
European rivers.
Hungary has not signed the ‘Declaration on effective waterway infrastructure 
maintenance on the Danube and its navigable tributaries’
On 7 June 2012, the ministers for transport of the countries in the Danube basin met in Luxembourg in order 
to sign a declaration on effective waterway infrastructure maintenance. This declaration committed these 
countries inter alia to ensuring that the regular fairway maintenance work on the Danube and its tributaries 
was executed and to maintaining adequate fairway parameters for a good navigation status.
The declaration on effective waterway infrastructure maintenance was signed in 2012 by all relevant Member 
State, except for Hungary.Box 1026 The report ‘Medium and 
long-term perspectives of 
inland waterway transport in 
the European Union’ 
confirmed that poor 
maintenance of waterways by 
several Member States is 
a problem, in particular on the 
East–West and Danube 
corridors.
27 As regards the Danube river, 
systematic reporting by 
Member States on the 
navigability status of the 
Danube takes place in the 
framework of the EUSDR 
Steering Group on PA1A 
(Inland Waterway Transport). 
This is organised and 
coordinated by Austria and 
Romania (the transport 
ministries and viadonau), 
together with the Commission 
(DG Regional and Urban Policy 
and DG Mobility and 
Transport) and the coordinator 
for the corridor.
35
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
50 
The Court found that, despite the 
objective of shifting traffic from roads 
to environmentally friendly transport 
modes, overall the modal share of 
inland waterway transport has not sig -
nificantly increased since 2001 within 
the EU. The Court therefore considers 
that the European IWT strategies have 
not been effectively implemented, as 
the policy objective of shifting goods 
transport from roads to inland water -
ways has not been achieved and over -
all navigability conditions have not im -
proved. More  over, the audited projects 
co-funded from the EU budget were 
not effect  ive in improving navigabil -
ity and increasing traffic volumes on 
inland waterways.
51 
The Court also notes that developing 
inland waterway transport requires 
considerable coordin  ation among 
Member States and that, as for other 
larger infrastructure projects, political 
and environmental considerations may 
affect the implementation of inland 
waterways projects.
52 
The Court considers that the failure to 
improve modal share and overall navi -
gability conditions was due to the very 
limited number of projects proposed 
and executed by the Member States, 
to the fact that frequently the imple -
mented projects were not the most 
relevant ones to eliminate bottlenecks, 
and to bottlenecks eliminated in an 
isolated manner.Recommendation 1
In order to improve the effectiveness 
of the EU funding of inland waterway 
transport and to ensure better project 
performance:
(a) the Member States should pri -
oritise inland waterway projects 
which are on the corridors, rivers 
or river segments that provide 
the greatest and most immedi -
ate benefits for improving inland 
waterway transport;
(b) the Commission should focus its 
funding on those projects that are 
most relevant for inland waterway 
transport and for which there are 
already advanced plans in place 
to eliminate nearby bottlenecks 
when selecting project proposals 
for financing.
53 
The Court found that the EU strategies 
lacked some important analyses. They 
did not identify the overall benefits of 
inland navigation in different corridors 
and did not assess the extent to which 
IWT should contribute to the policy 
objective of shifting traffic from roads 
to environmentally friendly transport 
modes. Member States adopted dif -
ferent approaches and gave different 
levels of priority to this mode of trans -
port, which led to an uncoordinated 
approach along the IWW corridors. 
Member States where inland waterway 
transport plays a significant role in the 
transport mix paid it greater attention, 
whereas Member States that expected 
fewer direct benefits gave it a consid -
erably lower priority.
36 Conclusions and recommendations
54 
Funding efforts for inland waterway 
freight transport were not concen -
trated and prioritised effectively. All 
riparian Member States were supposed 
to contribute to the strategy imple -
mentation, although the direct interest 
of some of them was low. Moreover, in -
sufficient attention was given to river 
maintenance on the main inland wa -
terway transport corridors. Therefore, 
there is scope to tackle the problem 
and to provide the necessary added 
value at the European Union level.
Recommendation 2
As regards the future development of 
the EU’s strategy for inland waterway 
freight transport, and with a view to 
achieving better coordination be -
tween Member States:
(a) the Commission should carry out 
in-depth analyses of the potential 
market and benefits of inland navi -
gation on different river segments 
and coordinate across Member 
States the implementation of the 
core TEN -T network, taking into 
account their potential for devel -
oping inland waterway freight 
transport corridors;(b) the Commission and Member 
States should agree during the 
corridor implementation on 
specific and achievable objec -
tives and precise milestones to 
eliminate bottlenecks on corridors 
in the framework of the Connect -
ing Europe Facility — this should 
take due account of the TEN -T 
objective of completing the core 
network by 2030, the availabil -
ity of funds at EU and Member 
State levels and the political and 
environmental considerations in 
relation to building new (or up -
grading existing) inland waterway 
transportinfrastructures;
(c) the Commission should, in the 
context of the next revision of 
the TEN -T regulation, propose the 
strengthening of the legal base in 
order to (i) broaden the reporting 
requirements in relation to the 
navigation status of the waterways 
and (ii) require Member States to 
elaborate national inland water -
way maintenance plans in a coord -
inated way.
This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 28 January 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA  
 President
37
 Annexes
Classification of European inland waterways according to Resolution No 92/2 
of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport
Type  
of inland  
waterwaysClasses of 
navigable 
waterwaysMotor vessels and barges Pushed convoysMinimum 
height under 
bridges Type of vessel: General characteristics Type of convoy: General characteristics
DesignationMaximum  
lengthMaximum  
beamDraught Tonnage Length Beam Draught Tonnage
L(m) B(m) D(m) T(t) L(m) B(m) D(m) T(t) H(m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Of regional importance
To west of ElbeI Barge 38.5 5.05 1.80–2.20 250–400 4.0
IIKampine‑  
Barge50–55 6.6 2.50 400–650 4.0–5.0
IIIGustav 
Koenigs67–80 8.2 2.50 650–1 000 4.0–5.0To East of ElbeI Gross Finow 41 4.7 1.40 180 3.0
II BM–500 57 7. 5 –9.0 1.60 500–630 3.0
III 67–70 8.2–9.0 1.60–2.00 470–700 118–132 8.2–9.0 1.60–2.00 1 000–1 200 4.0Of international importanceIVJohann 
Welker80–85 9.5 2.50 1 000–1 500 85 9.5 2.50–2.80 1 250–1 450 5.25 or 7.00
VaLarge Rhine  
vessels95–110 11.4 2.50–2.80 1 500–3 000 95–110 11.4 2.50–4.50 1 600–3 000
5.25 or 7.00 
or 9.10
Vb 172–185 11.4 2.50–4.50 3 200–6 000
VIa 95–110 22.8 2.50–4.50 3 200–6 000 7.00 or 9.10
VIb 140 15.0 3.90 185–195 22.8 2.50–4.50 6 400–12 000 7.00 or 9.10
VIc270–280
195–20022.8
33.0–34.2 2.50–4.0
2.50–4.509 600–18 000
9 600–18 0009.10
VII 285 33.0–34.2 2.50–4.50 14 500–27 000 9.0Annex I
38 Annexes
List of projects examined by the Court
MSProject/OP  
referenceFund Description River/corridorTotal cost  
(in million 
euro)EU funding  
(in million 
euro)Com -
plete
BE 2009 ‑BE‑00049 ‑E TEN‑TRebuilding the Noorderlaanbridge on the 
Albert CanalAlbert Canal 13.42 1.34 yes
BE 2010 ‑BE‑92214 ‑P TEN‑TRebuilding the Briegden and Oelgem  I 
bridges on the Albert CanalAlbert Canal 15.72 1.57 no
BE 2010 ‑BE‑18070 ‑P TEN‑TConstruction of a navigation lock chamber 
and a pumping station on the Albert Canal 
at LanayeAlbert Canal 151.22 26.93 no
CZ CZ. 1.01/6.2.00/09.0131 ERDF Reconstruction of the railway bridge Kolín Elbe river 41.06 28.86 yes
CZ CZ 1.01/6.2.00/09.0130 ERDFCompletion of Vltava waterway in the  
section České Budějovice–HlubokáVltava river 31.91 20.52 yes
CZ CZ 1.01/6.2.00/08.0081 ERDFPublic port Ústí nad Labem–Vaňov, 
modernisation of port quay with flood 
protection of vesselsElbe river 5.22 3.99 yes
DE 2007 ‑DE‑18050 TEN‑TIndependent variant research on the  
development of the Danube between 
Straubing and VilshofenPriority project 18 
(Danube)26.7 13.35 yes
DE 2007 ‑DE‑18030 TEN‑TNew construction of the rail bridge above 
the Danube at DeggendorfPriority project 18 
(Danube) 35.05 7.01 yes
DE 2007 ‑DE‑90602 ‑P TEN‑TConstruction of the second lock basin in 
Fankel (Mosel)Moselle 49.14 4.91 yes
DE 2009 ‑DE‑161‑PR003 (SF) ERDF Construction of the boat lift NiederfinowHavel‑Oder‑Canal 
(HVO)284.00 48.52 no
DE 2007 ‑DE‑161PO002 (SF) ERDFPartial refurbishment of the Hohenbruch 
lockRuppiner Canal 0.49 0.35 yes
HU 2007 ‑HU‑18090S TEN‑TStudies for the improvement of the  
navigation on the Danube, Hungarian  
section of priority project No 18 Priority project 18 
(Danube) 8.00 4.00 Yes
TOTAL 661.93 161.35Annex II
39 Annexes
Modal share of inland waterway transport of all land transport modes in the 
Member States (MS) on the main inland waterway corridors from 2001 until 2012 (in %)
MS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
EU 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.7 6.1 6.7
BE 11.3 11.8 12.5 13.1 14.1 14.7 14.9 15.6 14.3 17.6 18.5 24.32
BG13.1 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.8 12.6 20.7 21.0 15.0 16.4
CZ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
DE 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.8 12.0 12.3 12.1 13.0 11.2 12.33
FR 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.2
LU 3.8 3.7 3.0 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.8 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.4
HU 4.0 5.2 5.5 6.1 5.8 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 5.3 4.0 4.4
NL 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 32.1 35.0 34.7 31.3 36.0 36.7 38.7
AT 4.5 4.9 3.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.7 4.2 4.6
RO17. 3 8.2 7.1 11.0 11.0 10.0 9.8 10.8 20.6 27.0 21.7 22.5
SK 4.030.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.2 2.4 2.6
1 In 2009, Bulgaria and Romania changed method for recording inland waterway traffic. Therefore, data from 2009 onwards cannot be compared 
with previous years’ data.
2 Provisional figure.
3 Figure estimated by Eurostat.
Source of data:  Eurostat.Annex III
40 Annexes
The different variants for the elimination of the bottleneck in the section 
Straubing–Vilshofen
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
Table — Comparison between variant ‘A’ and variant ‘C 2.80’
Variant ‘A’ Variant ‘C  2.80’
Modal shift from road and train towards IWT 1.17 million t 3 million t
Yearly number of vessels 9 742 (+336 yearly) 10 896 (+ 1 490 yearly)
Annual transport cost savings 33.9  million  euro 78.6  million  euro
Differences of average waiting times on this stretch From 4.11 to 4.20 hoursDespite higher transport volumes, 
decrease from 4.11 to 2.65 hours
Total transport capacity 11.02 million t 12.83 million t
Accident rate: No of accidents/(length of section × No of vessels)  
× 1 000 00082.9 to  62.282.9 to  30.4
(in comparison to the Rhine be ‑
tween 10 and 25)
Benefit–cost — difference in euro 722 million  euro 1 728 million euro
Benefit–cost — ratio 6.6 7.7
Expenditures for flood protection measures ca 300 million euro (net) ca 280 million euro (net)
Expenditures fairway — works ca 160 million euro (net) ca 320 million euro (net)
Ecological compensation areas for flood protection measures and fairway 
works (all interventions can be compensated)ca 1 360 ha ca 1 415 ha
Draught of 2.5 m (currently on 144 days/year) 200 days/year 301 days/yearAnnex IV
Vilshof en Straubing Deggendor f
Danube dr augh t bet ween S traubing and VilshofenFigur e - B ottleneck bet ween Straubing and Vilshof en and alt erna tive varian ts for its elimina tioncurrent
Draught = 2.9 m
current
Draught = 2.7 mcurrent
draught = 
2.0 m
planned
draught = 2.2 m
for variant
‘A’ 
planned
draught = 2.65 m
for variant
‘C2.80’ 
41 Annexes
Cost of eliminating bottlenecks according to the Platina inventory of bottlenecks 
and missing links of 31.3.2010
Member State Stretch Works/problems to solve Planning horizonEstimated costs  
(in million euro)
FranceSaône–Moselle (E 10 ‑02) 
and Rhine link (E 10)In order to open up the Rhône basin — linking 
 Lyons, Marseilles, the Rhône river and the Medi ‑
terranean basin to the northern network — the 
connection of the Saône/Rhône–Northern network 
has been debated for a long time.finalised before 2025 10 000.00
Seine–Moselle link (E  80)To link Paris, the port of Le Havre and Rouen and the 
Parisian basin more directly to the northern network.finalised before 2025 to be determined
Seine –Schelde link (E  05)To link Paris, the port of Le Havre and Rouen and the 
Parisian basin to the northern network. Canal will 
be 106 km long.finalised before 2025 4 000.00
Rhône–Rhine Canal (E 10) No priority to French government   
Oise (E 80) from Conflans to 
Creil. Section to be extended 
up to CompiègnePart of the Seine–Escaut project — 75 km long. 
Project ongoning.finalised before 2025 130.00
Oise (E 80) Creil and ConflansProject to be considered inside the previous 
bottleneck. Increasing the water draught up to 4 m 
between Creil and Conflans ‑Sainte‑Honorine.finalised before 2025budget included 
in Seine –Scheldt 
project
Dunkerque–Escaut link and 
Escaut (E 01) up to CondéCanal is silted up. No navigation is possible. 
Canal has to be dredged, thus allowing for new 
traffic with Belgium.finalised before 2025budget included 
in Seine –Scheldt 
project
Moselle (E 80) Metz 
and ApachLifting of six bridges between Metz and Apach — 
59 km — enabling three ‑layer container transport.finalised before 2025 10.00
Deûle Canal (E 02) — lock 
at Quesnoy sur DeûleLock too small forcing pushed convoys to be 
separated before the lock can be crossed. The result 
of this separation is a significant amount of time lost.finalised before 2025 40.00
Port of Le Havre (E 80 ‑02)No direct access to the Port 2000 container terminals 
for inland waterway vessels.166.00
Seine (E 80 ‑04) — section 
Bray and Nogent‑sur ‑SeineImprovement of the river transport service is 
envisaged, linking the Paris area to agricultural 
industries and products, as well as quarries supplying 
building material from the Champagne region.finalised before 2025 250.00
Rhône to Sète canal (E 10 ‑04) 
Rhône to SèteRestoration of the banks and lifting of bridges 
(to 5.25 m) enabling convoys 120 m long, 11.40 m 
wide and two ‑layer containers to navigate (between 
class IV and Va).finalised before 2025 130.00
Total France  14 726.00Annex V
42 Annexes
Member State Stretch Works/problems to solve Planning horizonEstimated costs  
(in million euro)
Luxembourg Total Luxembourg None  0.00
NetherlandsZuid–Willemsvaart (E 70 ‑03)Insufficient accessibility in the waterway stretch 
between Den Bosch and Veghel. Planned activities 
are the construction of a class IV bypass around  
Den Bosch and upgrading of Zuid‑Willemsvaart  
up to Veghel to class IV.finalised before 2025 469.00
River IJssel (E 70)Class Va vessels have navigation problems due to 
dimensions and curves on the section between 
Arnhem and Zutphen.finalised before 2025 43.00
Meppel–Ramspol (E 12 ‑02)Due to low/high water levels, the lock at Zwartsluis 
is blocked for 16 days/year on average, preventing 
inland navigation during this period.finalised before 2025 47.0 0
Lemmer–Delfzijl route 
(phase 1) (E 15)The northern part of the Netherlands is not acces ‑
sible for vessels with four layers of containers. Six 
bridges on the route cause problems for four ‑layer 
container transport.finalised before 2025 205.00
Lemmer–Delfzijl route 
(phase 2) (E 15)Insufficient waiting areas finalised before 2025 to be determined
Twente Canal (E 70) Insufficient lock capacity finalised before 2025 125.00
Lek Canal (E 11 ‑02) Fairway depth and lock capacity finalised before 2025 225.00
Maasroute (E 01) Fairway depth and lock capacity finalised before 2025 1 600.00
Maasroute — Albert Canal 
(E 01)Lock capacity finalised before 2025 10.50
Juliana Canal (part of Maas 
route) (E 05)Fairway depth and lock capacity finalised before 2025 79.00
Rotterdam–Gent Corridor  
(including Canal 
Gent‑Terneuzen) (E 03, E 06)Fairway depth and width and lock capacity finalised before 2025 to be determinedAnnex V
43 Annexes
Member State Stretch Works/problems to solve Planning horizonEstimated costs  
(in million euro)
NetherlandsIJsselmeer–Meppel (E  12) Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 43.00
Amsterdam–Rhine Canal 
(E 11)Lock capacity finalised before 2025 17.0 0
Amsterdam–Lemmer (E  11) Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 16.00
Amsterdam–Lemmer (E  15) Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 7.0 0
River Zaan (E 11 ‑01) Fairway depth and/or width, bridge clearance finalised before 2025 to be determined
Rhine–Scheldt connection 
(E 06)Insufficient waiting areas finalised before 2025 to be determined
Burgemeester Delenkanaal 
(E01)Small curves project is executed
Wilhelmina Canal (E 11) Fairway width, lock capacity finalised before 2025 83.00
River IJssel (E 12) Insufficient waiting areas finalised before 2025 36.00
River Waal (E 10) Fairway depth and width finalised before 2025 187.0 0
Gouwe (E 10) Lock capacity finalised before 2025 to be determined
Merwede (E 10) Insufficient waiting areas finalised before 2025 to be determined
North Sea Canal (E 01) Lock capacity and accessibility finalised before 2025 to be determined
Total Netherlands   3 192.50
AustriaDanube–Oder–Elbe  
connection (E 20)Construction of a navigation canal (500 km)  
connecting the Danube with the Oder and the Elbe, 
featuring more than 30 locks.unknown to be determined
Danube (E 80) 
km 2 037.0 – 2 005.0Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water). finalised before 2025 65.40
Danube (E 80) 
km 1 921.0 – 1 872.7Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water). finalised before 2025 220.00
 Total Austria   285.40Annex V
44 Annexes
Member State Stretch Works/problems to solve Planning horizonEstimated costs  
(in million euro)
RomaniaDanube–Bucuresti Canal 
(E 80‑05)According to the draft ‘General transport master 
plan’ (GTMP) the construction of a canal linking 
the Romanian capital Bucharest to the Danube (at 
km 430.5) via waterway had already been started 
in 1986. Construction works were stopped in 1990 
when earthworks and dams were about 70 % 
complete, bank protection about 40 % complete 
and only a part of hydro‑mechanical equipment 
installed. Since then no maintenance work has been 
carried out to preserve these investments, which 
have been eroded by natural and human actions.finalised before 2025 900.00
Olt (E 80 ‑03)The river Olt is a Danube tributary that is planned to 
be made navigable up to Slatina.finalised before 2025 unknown
Prut (E 80 ‑07) km 407.0–0.0 Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 to be determined
Bega Canal (E 80 ‑01‑02) 
km 65.6–109.6Fairway depth and width and lock capacity finalised before 2025 to be determined
Danube (E 80) 
km 863.0–175.0Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 160.00
Danube (E 80) km 170.0–0.0 Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water) finalised before 2025 143.00
Danube–Black Sea Canal 
(E 80 ‑14) km 64.4–0.0Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water), canal 
bank reinforcement, lock rehabilitationfinalised before 2025 230.00
Poarta Albă–Midia‑Năvodari 
Canal (E 80 ‑14‑01) 
k m 27. 5 – 0.0Fairway depth and/or width (shallow water), canal 
bank reinforcement, lock rehabilitationfinalised before 2025 175.00
Total Romania 1 608.00Annex V
45
VI
The Commission considers that the EU strategies 
were underpinned by appropriate analysis. For 
instance, the White Paper was accompanied by an 
impact assessment and the Naiades programme 
was based upon a study on the medium- and long-
term perspective of the inland waterway transport 
sector. The EU finan  cing resources have been used 
in line with the priorities of the respective financing 
programmes, and prioritisation and coordination 
of Member States’ approaches to corridors will be 
strengthened under the new TEN -T framework. 
River maintenance has been strengthened recently 
under the new TEN -T framework and guidance for 
river maintenance is being developed within the 
framework of the Platina II project. Environmental 
considerations have been addressed through the 
Commission’s guidance document on inland water -
way transport and Natura 2000, adopted in 2012.
VII — Recommendation 1 (a)
The Commission supports this recommendation.
VII — Recommendation 1 (b)
For TEN -T funding instruments, the Commission 
accepts this recommendation and considers that 
this approach will be further improved through the 
implementation of the core network corridor, as 
provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. The 
first call for proposals under the newly established 
Connecting Europe Facility concentrates on remov -
ing bottlenecks and bridging missing links in the 
core network corridors. It should be noted that, 
by 2030, all bottlenecks on the core network shall 
be addressed by the Member States. This provides 
a perspective of significant benefits for all projects 
addressing these bottlenecks.Executive summary
IV
The Commission considers that use of inland 
waterway transport depends on its relative com -
petitiveness as compared to road transport, and 
therefore on many factors including the price of 
fuel, labour costs and taxation. Furthermore, the 
Commission highlights that the policy objective 
of shifting traffic from roads to inland waterway 
transport is an indicative, broad objective of which 
the materialisation is not under the full control of 
the Commission, and one which should also be seen 
against the baseline scenario which identified the 
risk of road haulage enjoying a virtual monopoly 
for goods transport if no action is taken. Moreo -
ver, the modal share of inland waterway transport 
grew between 2006, the year of the adoption of 
the Naiades programme1, and 2012. Overall, inland 
waterways still have important transport capacities 
available that, if implemented in a sustainable man -
ner, could contribute to alleviating the congestion 
on the roads, reducing at the same time the overall 
impact on the environment.
V
The Commission considers that the EU -financed 
projects were consistent with the objectives of the 
respective financing programmes. When many bot -
tlenecks need to be tackled, it is inevitable that, in 
the initial phases, the surrounding bottlenecks will 
limit the impact of these first projects. However, 
given the legal obligation of implementing the core 
network by 2030, the Commission considers that 
there is a perspective for lifting the surrounding 
bottlenecks within a reasonable timeframe and for 
increasing the impact of these projects over time.
1 For further details on the Naiades programme, refer to Box 1.Reply of the 
Commission
Reply of the Commission 46
VII — Recommendation 2 (c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
As far as the Danube River basin is concerned, ripar -
ian states are committed to periodically reporting on 
river status and maintenance to the Danube Com -
mission. At EU level, no such commitment exists.
Introduction
12
The Commission would like to add that rivers and 
canals with lower standard characteristics can also 
be included for financing their upgrading to the 
TEN -T requirements.
Observations
Common reply to paragraphs 18 and 19
The Commission considers that this conclusion is 
due to the choice of 2001 as the base date for the 
comparison. The Commission started to actively 
support inland waterway transport only in 2006 
with the adoption of the Naiades programme, and 
only since then has substantial EU funding started 
to flow to inland waterway projects.
21
The ongoing exercise of the corridor analysis 
will provide a benchmark for the future moni -
toring of the elimination of bottlenecks for IWT  
infrastructure.
23 (c) 
The Commission notes that the projects were eligi -
ble and in line with the objectives of their respect -
ive programmes.As for the European Structural and Investment 
Funds, the Commission partially accepts this recom -
mendation. In the period 2014–20, projects on IWT 
will have to contribute to the thematic objective 
‘promoting sustainable transport and removing 
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’. In addi -
tion, an ex ante  conditionality linked to the dis -
bursement of funds is the existence of a transport 
strategy and a section on inland waterways within 
that strategy. However, the decentralised nature of 
project selection does not allow the Commission to 
prioritise among eligible projects selected by the 
Member States.
VII — Recommendation 2 (a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The Commission has already carried out a first ana -
lysis, which has been done for each of the individual 
core network corridors (corridor studies) following 
the entry into force of the new TEN -T regulation. 
The corridor studies contain not only transport 
market analyses but also a thorough analysis of the 
whole corridor, including compliance of the infra -
structure with the TEN -T requirements. The analyses 
will be further refined in 2015-16. For TEN -T, Euro -
pean coordinators have been nominated for each of 
the TEN -T corridors.
VII — Recommendation 2 (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The core network corridors are the main tool for 
implementing the core network within the agreed 
timeline. For all nine core network corridors the 
European coordinator is preparing a work plan, 
which will contain the objectives of the corridors, 
including those related to IWT, as provided for in 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. This will be sent to 
the Member States for approval. They will present 
their comments, taking into consideration the pro -
jects’ feasibility and budgetary constraints.
Once the final work plans are approved by the 
Member States, implementation decisions may be 
agreed with them.
Reply of the Commission 47
The Commission has engaged in a detailed analysis 
of the nine TEN -T transport corridors identified in 
the Connecting Europe Facility regulation, which is 
the right level to assess the contribution of inland 
waterways in the multimodal corridors and the 
costs and benefits of improving inland waterways.
Box 7
The White Papers express non -binding political 
objectives. Where possible and appropriate, the 
objectives are also illustrated with quantitative 
targets. However, (non -binding) political targets 
for this length of time and for such broad policies 
are usually not under full Commission control, e.g. 
popu  lation growth and movements, economic 
development, people’s preferences, business 
choices, etc. all play a role. Making the targets more 
specific (e.g. in this case relating it to Inland water -
way transport only) would not resolve this issue.
The Commission highlights that the guide -
lines from 2013 represent a fundamentally new 
approach, with the creation of a core and a com -
prehensive network, with specific infrastructure 
requirements for the whole network, with legally 
binding target dates for implementation and with 
a multimodal corridor approach to support the 
implementation. None of these elements were 
present in the 2010 guidelines. In 2013, the Com -
mission replaced a focus on indicative quantitative 
targets — the achievement of which is not under 
the control of EU transport policy — with a focus on 
legally binding targets set at EU level with respect 
to enabling factors in support of inland waterway 
and rail transport.
33
The Commission agrees with the importance of 
coordinated and consistent inland waterways trans -
port strategies.
This is the spirit of the new TEN -T regulation, which 
envisages the creation of an EU -wide network. The 
aim of the tools for implementing the core network 
— the multimodal core network corridors — led by 
European coordinators is to provide for a concerted 
and coordinated implementation of the core net -
work. This will allow exploiting potential synergies 
and complementarity between actions undertaken 
at national levels and within different programmes.Box 5 — Third alinea 
Concerning the German project linked to the elim -
ination of bottlenecks at the Danube, the com -
petent national and regional authorities decided 
to choose Variant A despite fewer advantages for 
navigation purposes. This decision was taken on 
a unilateral basis without consultation with the 
European Commission services. In 2013, the German 
and Bavarian authorities launched an additional 
study to improve the Variant A solution.
Box 5 — Fourth alinea 
Similarly, after the study on improving navigability 
conditions in the Hungarian section of the Danube, 
the Hungarian government unilaterally decided 
to halt the developments without consultation or 
 taking into account the recommendations of the 
study.
Common reply to paragraphs 26 and 27
The Commission recognises the problem with 
the maturity of past TEN -T project proposals and 
has taken measures to improve the situation for 
the next programming period, as reflected in the 
new approach of the Connecting Europe Facility. 
The Commission’s guidance document on inland 
waterway transport and Natura 2000, adopted 
in 2012, should also help to address environmental 
considerations.
Common reply to paragraphs 30 and 31
The purpose of upgrading river infrastructure was 
indeed to increase the attractiveness of inland 
waterways, even if the link was not explicitly 
stated in all the policy and strategy papers. How -
ever, the Naiades II communication makes a clear 
link between fulfilling the IWT potential and the 
upgrading of infrastructure.
Furthermore, the relationship between market 
demand for IWT and elimination of bottle necks 
is not clear cut, as too many factors beyond the 
upgrading of infrastructure affect market demand.
Reply of the Commission 48
Since then, the European coordinator has issued 
a yearly report to the Parliament indicating the 
progress made during each year in solving the bot -
tlenecks concerned. As each bottleneck hampers 
good navigability conditions, all are considered 
important, and the Commission has supported 
progress where this was politically, technically and 
financially feasible.
The Commission coordinated the development 
of a ‘Rehabilitation and maintenance master plan 
for the river Danube and its navigable tributar -
ies’ within the framework of the EU strategy for 
the Danube Region. This document, finished in 
October 2014, identifies all bottlenecks and was 
endorsed by the ministers of the riparian countries. 
The work at this stage is to prioritise the bottle -
necks to determine the most urgent ones.
43
The European Commission points out that the 
identification of the core network derives from 
the methodology applied for all transport modes. 
Almost all waterways of international importance 
coincided with the core network thus defined. 
Hence, prioritisation for IWW within the TEN -T core 
network will be made at the level of the implemen -
tation of the network through the corridor work 
plans.
44
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 41(b).
45
All rivers and canals of international importance 
as classified in Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 are of 
high priority. The coordination of the implementa -
tion of projects is ensured within the framework of 
the TEN -T corridors.35
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 33.
Box 9 — Second alinea 
The Platina analysis has contributed to the identi -
fication of the priorities under the new TEN -T/CEF 
regulations, for which the EU funding has been 
substantially increased, in particular when the use 
of financial instruments is also taken into consider -
ation. National funding remains nevertheless the 
most important source of funding, and the Member 
States have legally committed to the implemen -
tation of the core network and hence also to its 
financing.
40 (a)
See the Commission’s reply to box 5.
40 (b)
In the Commission’s view, proceeding with other 
projects to achieve the desired objectives is normal 
in programme implementation when a key project 
faces implementation difficulties. Furthermore, it 
considers that the other implemented projects did 
make an impact and improved navigability to vary -
ing extents.
41 (b)
Cohesion policy focuses its investments on regions 
in need and lagging behind in their economic 
development. Therefore, freight transport object -
ives have been taken into account correspondingly 
to their potential for regional development.
42
The two Priority projects 18 and 30 were identified 
in the legislation adopted by the Parliament and the 
Council. The Commission decided in 2007 to desig -
nate a European coordinator.
Reply of the Commission 49
Conclusions and recommendations
50
The Commission considers that the effectiveness 
of strategies has been assessed against indicative 
broad political targets which are not under the full 
control of the Commission. Indeed, the 2001 White 
Paper expresses non -binding political objectives. 
Where possible and appropriate, the objectives are 
also illustrated with quantitative targets. However, 
(non -binding) political targets for this length of 
time and for such broad policies are usually not 
under full Commission control, e.g. population 
growth and movements play a role, economic 
development, people preferences, business choices, 
etc. The use of IWT depends on its relative com -
petitiveness as compared to road transport, and 
therefore on many factors including the price of 
fuel, labour costs and taxation.
When considering the evolution since the adoption 
of the strategy papers, the Commission points out 
that overall progress should be measured against 
baseline scenarios. As a baseline scenario, the 2001 
White Paper highlighted the ‘risk of road haulage 
enjoying a virtual monopoly for goods transport’ 
in the EU in the future, if no action is taken. Against 
this background, the increase in the modal share of 
inland waterway transport can be seen as a positive 
development.
Moreover, the Commission wants to highlight 
that the overall modal share of IWT has increased 
since 2006, which was a turning point in the Com -
mission’s inland waterway policy, with the adop -
tion of the Naiades programme and the increased 
financial support for inland waterway projects from 
the TEN -T programme.
51
The Commission considers that coordination among 
Member States is vital for the development of 
inland waterway transport. It is for this reason that 
the multimodal core network corridors have been 
set up by the Connecting Europe Facility, in con -
junction with the new TEN -T regulation, to support 
the coordinated implementation of the TEN -T core 
network.46
The Commission agrees that river maintenance is 
a crucial aspect of inland navigation.
The issue of ‘maintenance’ of waterways was 
brought up for the first time in the Naiades pro -
gramme in 2006. Until then it was considered a mat -
ter of the Member States’ exclusive competence. 
Furthermore, the regional policy put in place the 
Danube strategy, which strongly focused on the 
problem of fairway maintenance.
The Commission would like to stress that main -
tenance activities are under the responsibility of 
each riparian country and can in principle not be 
financed from the EU budget.
As regards the Danube river, the Commission facili -
tated the signing by the transport ministers of the 
ministerial conclusions on the application of the 
maintenance and rehabilitation master plan.
The new TEN -T regulation requires the IWW infra -
structure to be properly maintained (Art. 15.3(b)) 
and provides for the possibility of financing of the 
acquisition of maintenance equipment.
47
The Commission considers that receiving assurance 
about the effectiveness of maintenance carried out 
at Member State level would require a proper legal 
basis, which is currently not provided for in the new 
TEN -T regulation.
Box 10 — First alinea
Since the first meeting mentioned by the Court, 
a second Danube riparian states ministerial meeting 
was held in Brussels on 3 December 2014. All ripar -
ian states, including EU Member States and non -EU 
countries, were present. All signed the conclusions 
towards coordinated maintenance and rehabilita -
tion activities, except Serbia (indicating to join the 
conclusions at a later stage) and Hungary.
49
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 47.
Reply of the Commission 50
53
The Commission considers that the EU strategies 
were underpinned by an appropriate analysis 
conducted at EU level. An analysis corridor per 
corridor is outside the scope of EU -wide strategy 
documents. Furthermore, the potential role of 
inland waterway transport in the shifting of traf -
fic between transport modes is dependent on too 
many factors outside the direct control of EU trans -
port policies to set quantitative targets for a modal 
shift towards inland waterway transport.
The Commission agrees that some Member States 
adopted a differing approach to IWT, which is one 
of the reasons why the Commission has proposed 
a strengthened TEN -T policy.
54
The concentration on the priorities put forward by 
the Commission was partly ineffective due to a lack 
of commitment from Member States.
Under the new TEN -T guidelines, Member States 
agreed to commit to the implementation by 2030 of 
all core networks, including inland waterways.
The first call for proposals under the newly estab -
lished Connecting Europe Facility allows the fund -
ing of the acquisition of the maintenance equip -
ment, although the maintenance activities remain 
under the Member States’ responsibilities and 
budgets.
Recommendation 2 (a) 
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The Commission has already carried out a first ana -
lysis for each of the individual core network cor -
ridors (corridor studies), after the entry into force 
of the new TEN -T regulation. The corridor studies 
contain not only transport market analyses but also 
a thorough analysis of the whole corridor, includ -
ing compliance of the infrastructure with the TEN -T 
requirements. The analysis will be further refined 
in 2015-16. For TEN -T, European coordinators have 
been nominated for each of the TEN -T corridors.52
Until 2013, the Commission concentrated its sup -
port on those projects that are most important for 
IWT, such as the Seine–Scheldt canal or the upgrad -
ing of the Straubing–Vilshofen section of the Danube.
From 2013 onwards, the new set-up based on core 
network corridors, as provided for in Regulation 
(EU) No 1315/2013, will allow for increased emphasis 
on corridor benefits.
See also the Commission’s reply to paragraph 50.
Recommendation 1 (a)
The Commission supports this recommendation.
Recommendation 1 (b)
For TEN -T funding instruments, the Commission 
accepts this recommendation and considers that 
this approach will be further improved through the 
implementation of the core network corridors, as 
provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. The 
first call for proposals under the newly established 
Connecting Europe Facility concentrates on remov -
ing bottlenecks and bridging missing links on the 
core network corridors. It should be noted that 
by 2030, all bottlenecks on the core network shall 
be addressed by the Member States. This provides 
a perspective of significant benefits for all projects 
addressing these bottlenecks.
As for the European Structural and Investment 
Funds, the Commission partially accepts this recom -
mendation. In the period 2014–20, projects on IWT 
will have to contribute to the thematic objective 
‘promoting sustainable transport and removing 
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’. In addi -
tion, an ex ante  conditionality linked to the dis -
bursement of funds is the existence of a transport 
strategy and a section on inland waterways within 
that strategy. However, the decentralised nature of 
project selection does not allow the Commission to 
prioritise among eligible projects selected by the 
Member States.
Reply of the Commission 51
Recommendation 2 (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The core network corridors are the main tool for 
implementing the core network within the agreed 
timeline. For all nine core network corridors the 
European coordinator is preparing a work plan, 
which will contain the objectives of the corridors, 
including those related to IWT, as provided for in 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. This will be sent to 
the Member States for approval. They will present 
their comments, taking into consideration the pro -
jects’ feasibility and budgetary constraints.
Once the final work plans are approved by the 
Member States, implementation decisions may be 
agreed with them.
Recommendation 2 (c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
As far as the Danube River basin is concerned, ripar -
ian states are committed to periodically reporting on 
river status and maintenance to the Danube Com -
mission. At EU level, no such commitment exists.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Inland waterway transport is one of the three main land 
transport modes in Europe. The significant loading capacity 
of inland navigation vessels, which is equivalent to hundreds 
of trucks, could contribute to reducing transport costs and 
emissions and decongesting roads.
With this report, the Court assessed whether the EU inland 
waterway strategies were coherent and based on relevant 
and comprehensive analysis. In addition, the Court 
examined whether the projects co -funded by the EU budget 
contributed effectively to increasing the modal share of this 
mode of transport and helped in improving navigability 
conditions.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS