Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee "Towards a pan-European system of inland waterway transport"
Date: 2003-09-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, carriage of goods, common transport policy, harmonisation of standards, inland waterway shipping

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/49

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ‘Towards a pan-European system of
inland waterway transport’

(2004/C 10/13)

On 23 January 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under the second paragraph
of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the following subject Towards a
pan-European system of inland waterway transport.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2003. The
rapporteur was Mr Simons.

At its 402nd plenary session of 24 and 25 September 2003 (meeting of 24 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 29 votes to one.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Internal waterway transport (IWT) plays a relatively
important part in the transport of goods in Europe. Although
it accounts for only 4,1 % of total goods transport in Europe (1),
in some Member States it makes a much more significant
contribution (e.g. Netherlands: 42,7 %, Germany and Belgium:
13,1 %). However, IWT has sufficient capacity to take on a
substantially greater share of total goods transport in Europe
and is therefore regarded as a mode of transport with great
growth potential. According to recent research (2) and official
forecasts, IWT is likely to grow strongly in the next few years,
and the capacity of the existing waterways is sufficient to
absorb this growth. Through the major cross-border waterways
as well as many national waterways throughout Europe it can
reach much of the continent. The sector is innovative in a
number of areas. By making itself better known as an
alternative to road haulage, IWT has already succeeded in
winning new markets.

1.2. With the enlargement of the European Union, IWT
will play a greater part in the internal market. Many of the
accession countries have navigable waterways which are used
for the transport of goods. In the framework of the policy
announced by the European Commission, IWT can play a
major role in the integration of the new Member States and
their economic development.

1.3.
IWT is regarded as being the cleanest and most
environmentally friendly mode of transport. Despite invest-
ment in cleaner engines for road haulage, IWT is still well
ahead as the cleanest mode of transport in terms of emissions

and pollution (3). The sector is thus making a contribution to
reducing the environmental
transport and, by
investing in improved environmental and safety practices, it is
striving to improve the situation still further.

impact of

1.4. With regard to the management of the problem of
waste (cargo waste, waste from vessels and household waste),
the sector has already adopted self-regulatory measures, thus
anticipating the introduction of legislation.

2. Bottlenecks

2.1.
In the context of the new European Commission
policy, efforts are being made to achieve a new balance in
transport. IWT is seen as a way of achieving a more balanced
transport market. In order to be able to exploit fully the
potential of this mode, a number of obstacles need to be
removed which are currently impeding the full development
of the sector.

2.2.
In broad terms, obstacles are encountered in relation
to infrastructure and the development of the Trans-European
Networks, as well as in relation to the lack of legal harmonis-
ation and unification of IWT.

In connection with the revision of the Trans-European
2.3.
Network directives and the laying-down of a related list of
priorities by the European Commission, the sector has com-
piled a list of bottlenecks and asked that these be added to the
list of priorities (4). Reference is made here to the EESC’s own-
initiative opinion on the subject (5).

(1) EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2002,

ISSN 1225-1095.

(2) Waardevol transport, feiten en cijfers van het goederenvervoer en
de binnenvaart (Transport of goods, facts and figures from goods
transport and IWT) 2002-2003, Bureau Voorlichting Binnenvaart,
Rotterdam.

(3) op. cit. p. 44 et seq.
(4) INE brochure ... European Barge Union (EBU) opinion on revision

of TEN directives.

(5) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on
Revision of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects up
to 2004, still to be finalised.

C 10/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

2.4. With regard to the public and private-law provisions
governing IWT, the current legal regime is fragmentary in
contrast
to the law governing the competing modes of
transport in the Community. This situation will take on the
new dimension with the enlargement of the European Union.
Taking note of the joint conclusions of the EU-Romania Joint
Consultative Committee (1),
legal problems can be seen as
bottlenecks equally hindering shipping on the Danube. The
public-law aspects of shipping on the Danube, the Rhine and
national waterways thus come under different regimes, on the
basis of supranational and intergovernmental legal regimes
and bilateral conventions (2). Cautious harmonisation of public
law provisions, which is still far from complete, is already
taking place in relation to the Rhine, the Community water-
ways and the Danube, based on mutual recognition and taking
the Rhine navigation rules as the model.

2.5.
Private law relating to transport agreements and liab-
ility is different in the EU Member States and non-EU countries.
Recent initiatives in this area have resulted in international
conventions which require ratification and implementation in
national law.

2.6.
The lack of uniform systems of public and private law
legal clarity and certainty for the parties
means lack of
concerned (carrier, shipper, insurer) in an industry which is
mainly international. This problem also needs to be addressed
in order to bring about the modal shift envisaged in European
transport policy.

2.7.
This own-initiative opinion, which follows on from
earlier EESC opinions on IWT in general, its infrastructure,
corridors and the Danube (3), aims to look at the bottlenecks
referred to above, in particular in the context of the harmonis-
ation and unification of IWT law, and thus to point the way to
pan-European rules for IWT.

3. Harmonisation/unification of rules

3.1.

Public-law aspects

3.1.1.
of law, which overlap geographically to some extent:

European IWT is covered by three distinct systems

— The area of application of the Mannheim Act of 1868 (4).

— The area of application of the Community treaties and

the acquis communautaire.

— The area of application of the Belgrade Act of 1948 (5).

3.1.1.1.
The Mannheim Act is the oldest European treaty
still in force. It was concluded in 1868 between the Rhine
riparian states (6). Under the Mannheim Act the EU Member
States which are also signatory states transferred responsibiliti-
es falling within the scope of the Act to the Central Com-
mission for Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR). The Act in
principle guarantees freedom of navigation on the Rhine. A
series of regulations and resolutions have been drawn up by
the CCNR in implementation of the principles of the Act.
These deal, inter alia, with technical standards, manning, and
the safety and freedom of shipping. The CCNR has jurisdiction
in disputes falling within the scope of the Act. Its decisions are
binding on the signatory states and are required to be
implemented in national law. There is a uniform system for
the Rhine which has been implemented uniformly in all the
signatory states. Switzerland is the only signatory state which
is not also a member of the EU.

3.1.1.2. With the establishment of the European Com-
munity (7), and the subsequent Treaty changes, additions and
derived legislation, responsibility for establishing a Community
internal market was transferred by the Member States to the
European Commission. Powers in the field of goods transport,
inter alia, were assigned to the European Commission, and the
Commission has since developed secondary European law in
this area by means of regulations and directives. European law,
the European
in the Member States of
which applies

(1) Joint Conclusions adopted at the 5th meeting of the EU-Romania
Joint Consultative Committee held in Bucharest on 23-24.5.2002
on Optimisation of the Danube as a pan-European TEN Corridor.
(2) These will lapse with enlargement, to the extent that they concern

Community powers.

(3) The documents referred to are: Joint conclusions adopted at the
5th meeting of the EU-Romania Joint Consultative Committee
held on 23-24 May 2002 on Optimisation of the Danube as a
pan-European TEN corridor, on Implementation of the structured
social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors and the
EESC Opinion on The future of
the trans-European inland
waterway network, OJ C 80, 3.4.2002.

(4) The current signatory states of the Mannheim Act are Switzerland,

France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

(5) The current signatory states of the Belgrade Act are Bulgaria,
Germany, Croatia, Moldavia, Austria, Romania, Russia, Serbia and
Montenegro, Slovakia, Ukraine and Hungary.

(6) Mannheim Act — Revised Mannheim Act on Navigation of
the Rhine (Mannheim Convention or Act of 17.10.1868 and
protocols, Official Gazette, 1869, p. 75).

(7) Treaty establishing the European Community, 25.3.1957.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/51

Community, also covers scrutiny of technical standards, man-
ning and safety, and the Commission has supplemented the
law in these areas by recourse to the decisions and resolutions
of the CCNR, which are applied in the Community.

3.1.1.3.
In 1948 the Belgrade Act was concluded by
the Danube riparian states (1). The Act set up the Danube
Commission, which monitors the Danube regime on the basis
of the Belgrade Act and develops it further. The Belgrade Act
regime in principle sets out to regulate cross-border Danube
shipping. In implementation of this principle, a series of
recommendations have been made to the signatory states
under the auspices of the Danube Commission, covering,
among other things, technical standards, safety and manning
rules. The decisions of the Danube Commission under the
Belgrade Act are recommendations to the signatory states,
which have in some cases been implemented in national law.
In view of
the Danube
Commission, there is no uniform system for shipping on the
Danube,
in the sense that decisions are not implemented
automatically and unchanged in the signatory states. With the
forthcoming accession of one Balkan state to the EU, possibly
with others to follow, a number of signatory states, such as
Russia, Ukraine and Moldavia, will in future remain which are
not also members of the EU.

the decisions of

the nature of

As European IWT is currently governed by different
3.1.2.
systems,
instruments and
leading to differences in legal
divergent rules, de jure and de facto obstacles arise, inter alia,
in relation to:

— restrictions on market access;

on the obstacles in a document. This looked at restrictions in
transport rights for foreign vessels, free access to shipping on
the various waterways, differences in technical standards,
boatmasters’ certificates and crewing requirements, as well as
the incomplete harmonisation of the civil-law framework. In
the light of the planned convergence of the CCNR and the
Danube Commission, initiatives aimed at mutual recognition
of various decisions, EU enlargement and the consequent
lapsing of bilateral agreements to the extent that they concern
Community powers, harmonisation is to be expected in the
foreseeable future in a number of areas.

The EESC has already looked at obstacles in this area in a
Report on optimising the Danube as a pan-European corridor
by the EU-Romania Joint Consultative Committee.

3.1.3.
The completion of the link between the Rhine and
the Danube in 1992 has given an impetus to increased
economic activity and transport between East and West.
Moreover, with the opening of the markets of the Eastern
European countries and their transition from planned to
market economies, the accession of many of these states to the
EU has ushered in a new era which requires that a pan-
European system of rules for IWT be tackled with determi-
nation. This is called for in the final declaration of
the
ministerial conference referred to above.

— restrictions on transport rights for ‘foreign’ vessels;

3.2.

Private-law aspects

— disparities in technical standards and certificates.

Following the 2001 Rotterdam pan-European ministerial
conference, these disparities were listed and discussed (2) in a
recent study by the international organisations concerned (UN/
ECE group of volunteers). This group listed and commented

3.2.1.
Unlike transport by sea, road or rail, the carriage of
goods by inland waterway is still governed by various national
rules.

3.2.2.
to bring about harmonisation and unification in this area.

Recent efforts have resulted in conventions intended

(1) Belgrade Act — CAP Convention regarding the regime of
navigation on the Danube — signed at Belgrade on 18.8.1948,
1949 United Nations, Treaty Collection, Translation No 518.
Some countries consider that de jure the international Danube
Act of 1856 and the European Danube Act of 1921 are still in
force.

(2) UNECE Group of Volunteers ‘Legislative obstacles’: ‘Inventory of
existing legislative obstacles that hamper the establishment of a
harmonised and competitive pan-European inland navigation
market (Rotterdam Declaration, item 13)’.

3.2.3.
In the past years, partly on the initiative of industry
(IWT and insurance), conventions have been drafted which
aim to lay down uniform rules for goods transport in Europe
with a view to legal certainty and availability of insurance. The
conventions listed below aim to introduce a uniform private-
law regime for IWT, which, in view of the nature of the sector,
is based on comparable international maritime transport and
road haulage conventions.

C 10/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

3.2.3.1.

Strasbourg Convention on the Limitation of Liability
of Owners of Inland Navigation Vessels (CLNI):

limits third-party liability for inland waterway
The CLNI
vessels. The Convention was originally drawn up and signed
by Rhine riparian states. Having entered into force in 1997,
the Convention has been opened up to the Eastern European
countries as well (1).

Of the above conventions, to date only one has
3.2.4.
entered into force in some five IWT countries (Strasbourg
Convention on the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Inland
Navigation Vessels (CLNI)); the others are awaiting either
ratification and entry into force (Budapest Convention on the
Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterway
(CMNI)) or completion (draft European Convention on liability
for damage in connection with the carriage of hazardous and
noxious substances by inland waterways (CRDNI)).

3.2.3.2. Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Car-
riage of Goods by Inland Waterway (CMNI):

4. Environment and safety

The CMNI provides for a uniform IWT regime for the
carriage of goods by inland waterway comparable to the rules
applicable to other modes of transport (cf. the Hague-Visby
Rules and Hamburg Rules for maritime transport and the CMR
Convention for road haulage). The regime is at present based
on divergent national rules in the EU Member States. In the
future Member States and other Danube states private law is
still being developed, and this process and further legal
fragmentation could be prevented by the introduction of an
international convention. The Convention was signed in 2001
by all the European IWT countries and is currently awaiting
ratification and implementation by the countries in question.

3.2.3.3. Draft European Convention on liability for damage
in connection with the carriage of hazardous and
noxious substances by inland waterways (CRDNI):

Conscious of its social responsibility, the IWT sector is striving
for uniform rules covering liability for damage occurring in
connection with the carriage of hazardous substances via
inland waterway, which is currently dealt with in different
ways in the various states, with different levels of protection
for the injured party. The CRDNI introduces a single liability
regime as regards the — steadily increasing — carriage of
hazardous goods by inland waterway. Based on the principle
of a high degree protection for the injured party, the draft sets
out to introduce a system based to a great extent on maritime
transport provisions and on the following principles:

— assignment of liability;

— risk liability;

— compulsory insurance.

4.1. With regard to environmental impact, energy use per
tonne-kilometre for goods transported by water is only one
fifth (2) of that for goods transported by road and three fifths
of that for goods transported by rail. Innovation ensures that
new vessels have better engine technology, with correspond-
ingly reduced emissions, while the engines of older vessels are
in many cases being brought up to date.

4.2. With regard to policy on waste, the Central Com-
mission for Navigation of
the Rhine has drawn up the
Convention on the Collection, Discharge and Reception of
Waste arising from Rhine and Inland Navigation. Aware that
arrangements for preventing, as well as collecting, discharging
and receiving waste for reprocessing and disposal are necessary
for IWT and related sectors, in order to protect the environ-
ment and the health and safety of the crews and transport
users, the member states have agreed on a system for the
discharge and reception of waste.

4.3.
Taking as a basis the polluter pays principle, the
Convention provides for the collection of ship-borne waste,
including oily and fatty waste, as well as for the reception and
disposal of cargo waste.

4.4.
Pending the entry into force of this Convention, the
reception of shipping waste is still governed by divergent
national rules and procedures which are an impediment to
improved protection of the environment and safety.

4.5. With regard to the safety of shipping, there are strict
requirements governing the technical equipment of vessels in
general, as well as specific requirements relating to the
transport of hazardous cargoes.

(1) Entered into force on 1.9.1997. Ratified by Germany, Luxem-

bourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

(2) From the EESC Opinion on The future of the trans-European
inland waterway network, OJ C 80, 3.4.2002, points 3 and 4 of
which provide detailed figures on IWT.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/53

The transport of hazardous cargoes on the Rhine is
4.6.
governed by the ADNR (1). This lays down the conditions
under which hazardous goods may be transported on the
Rhine.

4.6.1.
In Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France
the ADNR is also applied on waterways other than the
Rhine. On the Danube the ADN-D has the status of a
recommendation. The rules are based on the ADN recommen-
dation of the ECE-UN. In 2000 the ADN Treaty was drawn up
under the auspices of the ECE-UN and in collaboration with
the CCNR. The Treaty in principle applies throughout Europe
and enters into force following seven ratifications. When the
Treaty enters into force its appendices will be incorporated
into the current ADNR appendices to ensure continuity of the
In a 1997 draft directive (2)
rules applied.
the European
Commission proposed that the ADNR rules be adopted by the
EU Member States.

4.7.
Attention should be paid to the monitoring of com-
pliance with these rules, which still leaves something to be
desired.

5. Social issues and labour market situation

States, and this can lead to difficulties in recruiting workers
and with regard to the free movement of workers.

Under the Mannheim Act, the member states of the
5.2.2.
Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) have
introduced legislation relating to boatmasters’ certificates and
crew composition which is uniform and which applies in the
participating countries (3). These rules, which apply to Rhine
shipping, serve as a point of departure for national waterways
in the CCNR member states.

As a result, the rules governing working hours, crew
5.2.3.
composition, rest times, qualifications and training in relation
to IWT are part of the various systems of public law. This is
not only unclear, but also gives rise to disparities with regard
to monitoring of compliance with the rules.

5.2.4.
The Belgrade Act only lays down rules on boatmas-
ters’ certificates for Danube vessels. The provisions of the
Belgrade Act are, however, only recommendations, and it is
not clear to what extent the requirement for boatmasters’
certificates is actually implemented in the member states.
There are, however, arrangements for mutual recognition of
boatmasters’ certificates by the member states of the Danube
Commission.

5.1.

Freedom of movement for workers and general labour market
situation

Community rules on boatmasters’ certificates already
5.2.5.
exist and a start has been made on legislation covering crews.
The aim is a broad common basis, with provision for more
flexible provisions at local and regional level.

5.1.1.
The social aspects in the European Union are closely
connected with the organisation and operation of the Com-
munity market. The powers laid down in the EC Treaty with
regard to social measures refer, inter alia, to the principle of
free movement of workers and the related coordination of
social security (Article 39 TEC, OJ 136 EC).

5.2.6.
The existing law covering IWT crews is linked to the
rules governing the equipment of vessels, in order to ensure
that minimum crew requirements are complied with. These
requirements are closely connected with technical standards
for inland waterway vessels.

There is a lack of skilled IWT workers in the existing
5.1.2.
EU Member States. There is, however, a pool of skilled workers
in the future Member States.

5.3.

Social dialogue

5.2.

Law applicable to crews

5.2.1.
Qualification and certification requirements for the
IWT sector differ between the current and future Member

There is little or no social dialogue in the IWT sector. In the
CCNR states rules on crews apply uniformly to all crew
members and contain no specific provisions for employees. At
the same time, the rules on protection of workers, e.g. with
regard to working time and conditions, take no account of the
conditions specific to IWT or existing regulations applicable
to crews. It should also be pointed out that the IWT sector
relies to a great extent on the self-employed.

(1) European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of

Dangerous Goods on the Rhine.

(2) COM(97) 367 final.

(3) Rhine vessels inspection regulation, chapter 23.

C 10/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

5.4. Harmonisation

5.4.1.
Harmonised European rules on crew qualifications
and clarity with regard to mutual recognition promote social
integration and safety at European level and help create a level
playing field in the interest of all parties concerned.

5.4.2.
Recent discussions between the CCNR and the
inter alia, on mutual
Danube Commission have focused,
recognition of boatmasters’ certificates by the respective
signatory states.

5.4.3.
The European Commission dealt with the mutual
recognition of boatmasters’ certificates in Directives 91/672/
EEC and 96/50/EC.

5.4.4. With regard to qualifications and other requirements
applicable to crews, there is a need for harmonisation at
European level and for clarity regarding the mutual recognition
of the relevant certificates. Harmonised training can make an
important contribution to achieving the desired harmonisation
of European law relating to crews.

5.5. Communication

5.5.1.
One issue is communication in European IWT.
Different languages are used in the European IWT countries,
which, in view of the mobility of workers, have in the past led
to communication problems between crew members and
between the various participants in shipping and may continue
to do so in the future.

Being the most environmentally-sound and safest
6.1.2.
form of transport, IWT is still able to grow and can thus play
an important role in modal shift as well as in intermodality.

6.1.3.
According to the conclusions of the EU-Romania
Joint Consultative Committee (2), the ultimate political goal, as
regards the optimisation of the Danube as a pan-European
TEN corridor, is the close linking of Corridor VII (3) to the rest
of the pan-European transport system. The linking of the
various components of the pan-European transport network
has been given a major boost recently in a wider context.

6.1.4.
The EESC has repeatedly called for a permanent and
structured social dialogue in the pan-European corridors; there
is a need to improve contacts between the CEEC socio-
economic partners (4).

6.2. Commission White Paper on European transport policy for

2010: time to decide (5)

The Commission has decided to tackle the problems
6.2.1.
identified in the transport sector and is putting forward policy
solutions aimed, inter alia, at shifting the balance between
modes of transport.

5.5.2. Mutual comprehension is very important in ensuring
safety, and this issue requires attention. In this connection,
reference should be made to the ‘Guide de radiotéléphonie
pour la navigation intérieure’. This handbook contains instruc-
tions as to the language to be used for communication between
vessels and in ship-to-shore communications.

6.2.2.
Bearing in mind the main goals referred to in the
transport policy, the Commission pointed out in its White
Paper that IWT, which has hitherto been underused, could
provide a means of coping with the congestion of certain road
infrastructure.

6. Current European policy framework

6.1. Views of the European Economic and Social Committee on

the future of IWT

6.1.1.
The EESC pointed out in its recent opinion on The
future of the trans-European inland waterway network (1)
that
the importance of which is
underestimated.

IWT is a real option,

(1) See EESC opinion on The future of the trans-European inland

6.2.3.
The Commission seeks to improve and strengthen
the situation of IWT through fuller harmonisation of the
technical requirements for inland waterway vessels, of boat-
masters’ certificates, as well as of crewing conditions, which
will inject fresh dynamism into this sector.

(2) EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2002,

ISSN 1225-1095.

(3) Austria, Croatia, Germany, Moldavia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania,

Bulgaria and Slovakia.

(4) See EESC opinion on the ‘Implementation of the structured social
dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors’ — CESE 1351/
2002.

waterway network, OJ C 80, 3.4.2002.

(5) COM(2001) 370 final, 12.9.2001.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/55

In the framework of the new European transport
6.2.4.
policy, the Commission is intending to strengthen the position
of the Community in international organisations, including
the CCNR and the Danube Commission (1).

connected with the cooperation which has existed for a
number of years between the Danube Commission and the
CCNR in the form of joint committees. The negotiations on
possible revision cover the following areas:

6.3. The European Parliament’s comment on the Commission
White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide

— the question of principle as to the definition of freedom
of shipping on the Danube (freedom of shipping only or
freedom of shipping and other forms of transport);

In its report on the Commission White Paper (2) the
6.3.1.
Parliament regards IWT as a useful instrument of transport
policy, as it is an innovative, environmentally sound and
relatively cheap mode of transport, and the Parliament express-
es the view that inland waterways should be modernised,
upgraded and extended by means of appropriate investment.

— the legal status of the decisions of the Danube Com-

mission (recommendations or binding).

6.4.

European Commission and Central Commission for Navi-
gation of the Rhine (CCNR)

6.6.

Pan-European policy plans

On 3 March 2003 the European Commission and
6.4.1.
the CCNR signed a cooperation agreement. The European
Commission and the CCNR share common goals with regard
to the development of IWT. Both organisations are therefore
determined to promote the unification of the IWT market on
the basis of the principle of freedom of shipping. Both the
European Commission and the CCNR make it clear that
effective cooperation is necessary in order to create the
conditions enabling European IWT to develop its potential to
the full.

6.4.2.
On 28 November 2002 the member states of the
CCNR signed the seventh protocol to the revised Mannheim
Act, which makes it possible to recognise certificates and
licences issued on a basis comparable with the regulations
applicable to Rhine navigation. This measure, which will apply
in particular to Community documents, sets out to harmonise
the different regimes in a pragmatic way and to simplify the
administrative responsibilities of IWT firms.

The importance of IWT has been recognised in recent policy
decisions, and a positive contribution thus made to improving
the situation.

— At the pan-European conference on inland waterway
transport, held in Rotterdam on 5 and 6 September
2001 (3), the representatives of the European govern-
ments and international organisations and the observers
from other countries with an interest in IWT acknowl-
edged the impetus which the Ministerial Conference on
Timely Issues of European Inland Waterway Transpor-
tation (Budapest, September 1991) had given to the
discussions and measures aimed at promoting IWT and
eliminating obstacles to its development, and they called,
among other things, for the establishment of a transparent
and integrated pan-European IWT market on the basis of
the principles of reciprocity, freedom of navigation, fair
competition and equal treatment of inland waterway
users.

6.5. Danube Commission

The Danube Commission is currently considering modernis-
the Belgrade Act. This is
ation and possible revision of

— At the end of the 4th IVR/TAIEX colloquium on future
prospects for IWT, held on 21 and 22 March 2002,
representatives of international bodies, ministries, the
IWT sector,
insurers, shippers and representatives of
other sectors adopted a resolution calling for unification
of IWT.

(1) At the section meeting the Commission representative announced
that a decision had been taken on 1 August to begin negotiations.
(2) Report on the Commission White Paper (COM(2001) 370 final

— C 5-0658/2001 — 2001/2281(COS) — 9.12.2002).

(3) Declaration adopted by the Rotterdam conference on 6.9.2001.

C 10/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

7. Recommendations

7.1.

Scope and legal instruments

In order to bring about integrated legal regimes and
7.1.1.
uniform law covering IWT, harmonisation is needed of existing
treaties, conventions and bilateral agreements applicable to
national and international waterways.

7.1.2.
The harmonisation aimed for applies to the current
and future EU Member States and non-EU countries which
maintain navigable waterway links with these states.

7.1.3.
The legal instruments, by means of which harmonis-
ation and unification can be achieved, consist of the integration
of existing regimes and mutual recognition of related regu-
lations governing the public-law aspects, and the drawing-up
and ratification of international conventions governing private-
law aspects.

7.2.

Public-law aspects

7.2.1.
European IWT is currently regulated by different
regimes, which leads to disparities in legal instruments and
regulations with differing content. This concerns the states
which fall under the CCNR regime, the Member States falling
under the EC regime and the countries falling under the
Danube Commission regime. Whilst the CCNR and EU regimes
are legislative in nature and cover all the Member States to
some extent, the Danube Commission regime is based on
recommendations.

7.2.2.

I n t e g r a t e d s y s t e m s

— The rules laid down by the European Union and the
CCNR regarding IWT sometimes already correspond to
some extent, or will
in the foreseeable future. The
overriding principle is the highest possible level of
protection of shipping in terms of safety and technical
equipment. Further integration of rules on the basis of
reciprocity is to be recommended, based on the highest
existing standards.

— From the moment of accession of the new Member States
the relationship between the rules of the European Union
on the one hand and the Danube Commission on the
other, as they apply to the new Member States, will
become less complicated. In view of the advisory nature

of the current rules of the Danube Commission, the
future Member States are required, from the time of their
accession, to have implemented the acquis communautaire
in national law. In view of the Danube Commission’s
position and coordinating role between East and West, it
can play an important role as a link between the European
Union (and the EU Member States) and the other Danube
Commission member states in an enlarged Europe. A
new Danube Treaty, as recommended in the Report of
the EU-Romania Joint Consultative Committee on the
optimisation of the Danube as a pan-European TEN
corridor,
following the CCNR-EU rules, would be a
positive step.

— It is virtually certain that the relevant Balkan states will
also be joining the European Union — the accession of
Bulgaria and Romania is scheduled for 2007, Croatia
has also recently become a candidate and Serbia and
Montenegro are certain to follow. The Danube countries
will then come under the ambit of European inland
waterway law under the acquis communautaire. With the
accession of
the EU to the CCNR, as proposed in
the Commission White Paper, the Community will be
recognising the binding nature of the Act as a basis for a
pan-European IWT regime.

7.3.

Private-law aspects

All other modes of transport have been subject to uniform
international private-law rules for decades, and clearly IWT,
as a cross-border mode of transport par excellence, needs
harmonised and uniform rules. The early entry into force of
international conventions is therefore necessary for IWT in
order:

— to achieve European policy objectives;

— to prevent the development of new inland waterway
legislation in the future EU Member States and other
Danube countries and thus further fragmentation of IWT
law;

— to complete the missing link in the international transport

chain.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/57

7.4. Drawing-up and ratification of international conventions

The (current and future) EU Member States are therefore called
on:

— to ratify and implement international conventions already
concluded: Budapest Convention on the Contract for
the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterway (CMNI),
Strasbourg Convention on the Limitation of Liability of
Owners of Inland Navigation Vessels (CLNI);

— to draw up a comprehensive and legally balanced inter-
national convention on liability for damage and/or loss
occurring during the carriage of hazardous substances by
inland waterway, based on the draft European Convention
on liability for damage in connection with the carriage of
hazardous and noxious substances by inland waterways
(CRDNI) drawn up by the industry;

— to adopt all other measures needed to prevent fragmen-

tation of the law in various areas and to bring about
unification in the various areas of IWT.

7.5.

Social policy

A Community basis for the law relating to crews in the EU is
needed in order to create a level playing field for IWT. A social
dialogue between organisations of employers, employees and
the self-employed could make an important contribution here
and promote improved coordination between rules relating to
crews and those relating to the protection of workers.

7.6.

Further action

The EESC calls on all the parties to continue working in this
direction. The Committee will continue to work for the earliest
possible entry into force of uniform rules for all European
inland waterways.

Brussels, 24 September 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH