Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:the Communication from the Commission Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping, andthe Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Intermodal Loading Units(COM(2003) 155 final — 2003/0056 (COD))
Date: 2003-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, combined transport, common transport policy, maritime transport

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/67

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea

Shipping’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Intermodal

Loading Units’

(COM(2003) 155 final — 2003/0056 (COD))

(2004/C 32/15)

On 29 April 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee under
Articles 71(1) and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

On 7 April 2003 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

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 10 October 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 403rd plenary session of 29 and 30 October 2003 (meeting of 29 October) the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 83 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The development of the European Single Market as
proposed in the 1985 Communication implied a structural
change in the way business was being conducted until that
moment. A consequence of the free circulation of people,
goods, capital and services proposed to start on 1 January
1993 was a direct increase of transport services. In view of the
expected pressures on the environment that such mobility
could cause, the European Commission carried out a study on
the impact of transport on the environment and its outcome
was presented on the same day the Maastricht Treaty was
signed (1). This document presented a comprehensive assess-
ment of
transport impact on the environment, and also
proposed the strategy for a Community response. The objective
was to create a public debate with the participation of
Community institutions and respective stakeholders on issues
concerning transport and environment (2). At the same time, it
provided an insight into how should it be possible to integrate
the environmental component into transport policy and it

proposed to create an awareness of its importance given the
objective of the Treaty of Maastricht to develop a sustainable
growth for Europe. Transport is never environmentally neutral;
its effects depend on the mode of transport under consider-
ation (2).

1.2.
In view of the findings, the principles of sustainable
development and economic growth were seen as being at the
core of European policy as a strong global economy can
it
only be sustainable if
integrates economic, social and
and benefits within its develop-
issues
environmental
ment (3) (4). To meet
the
the above-mentioned objectives,
Commission presented the 1992 White Paper on the future
common transport policy (5). Two important
issues have
resulted from this document. Firstly, transport is seen as an
element without which the completion of the internal market
cannot be achieved even if artificial regulatory barriers were

(1) Green Paper on the Impact of Transport on the Environment. A
Community Strategy for sustainable mobility. COM(92) 46 final,
20.2.1992.

(2) Communication from the Commission — The future development
of the common transport policy — A global approach to the
construction of a Community framework for sustainable mobility,
COM(92) 494 final, 2.12.1992.

(3) Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. (1994) — It’s not easy being green,
Harvard Business Review, Boston, United States, Volume 72,
Issue 3, pp. 46-52.

(4) Clark, R.A. (1994) — The challenge of going green, Harvard
Business Review, Boston, United States, Volume 72, Issue 4,
pp. 37-50.

(5) COM(92) 494 final, 2.12.1992.

C 32/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

eliminated; this presupposes the promotion of fair competition
in the field of transport. Secondly, this document considered
that transport should adopt an overall approach rather than
one based on the individual characteristics of the modes,
which promoted the shift of goods from road to sea. This
met the objectives of the Maastricht Treaty in promoting
sustainable development as set out in Article 2 and came as a
response to the Green Paper presented in February 1992.

short

sea shipping,

1.3.
Short sea shipping as a valid instrument for achieving
sustainable mobility moved to the centre of transport policy
and the European Commission subsequently presented a
number of communications on the issue. The most important
ones were released in 1995 (1), 1997 (2) and 1999 (3). The
1995 Communication presents an overall approach of short
sea shipping. Besides presenting its advantages
it also
addresses the challenges that short sea shipping has to
overcome if it is to eliminate its present drawbacks. The
Commission addressed three issues: to improve the quality
and efficiency of
to improve port
efficiency and port
infrastructures and finally to prepare
short sea shipping for an enlarged Europe, which will take
place on 1 May 2004. The 1997 document presented as a
Commission Staff Working Paper was a response to the
Council Resolution of 11 March 1996 on short sea shipping.
It called for progress reports to be delivered every two years.
the Commission presented a number of measures
In it
undertaken and planned. Finally, the 1999 Communication
examined short sea shipping potential
in the light of a
sustainable and safe mobility framework, of its image and
existing barriers to its development, and as part of a process
In
integration in European logistic transport chains.
of
addition,
the
it recommends further action. Once again,
three main reasons for promoting short sea shipping are
stressed: (1) to promote the general sustainability of transport
the Community,
in order to strengthen the cohesion of
(2) to facilitate connections between the Member States and
between regions
in Europe and to revitalise peripheral
regions; and (3) to increase the efficiency of transport in
order to meet current and future demands arising from
economic growth.

(1) Communication from the Commission — Development of Short
Sea Shipping in Europe. Prospects and Challenges, COM(95) 317
final, 5.7.1995.
(2) Progress Report

from the Commission services following a
sea shipping of 11.3.1996,

resolution on short

Council
SEC(97) 877, 6.5.1997.

(3) Communication from the Commission — The development of
SSS in Europe. A dynamic alternative in sustainable transport
chain. A second two-yearly progress report, COM(1999) 317
final, 29.6.1999.

On the Commission website a web page is devoted to
1.4.
short sea shipping (4) and there a list of success stories can be
seen (5). In 1992 (6), 1994 (7) and 1996 (8), the Commission
supported three roundtables where industry and academia got
together to discuss short sea shipping issues. Parallel to this
and following the outcome of the APAS report on short sea
shipping and the Euret report on maritime logistics, the
Commission has been supporting numerous research projects
under the fourth and the fifth research framework pro-
grammes. Information concerning this research can be seen
on a web page that the Commission has prepared (9). The
output of these projects is huge and short sea shipping can
benefit from its application. The sixth framework programme
is now under evaluation. A lot of progress has been made on
the basis of efficient cooperation between the Government
appointed Focal Points on Short Sea Shipping, the Promotion
Centres and the Maritime Industries Forum (MIF), supported
by heavy investments and sales efforts of the shipping industry.
According to Eurostat 2002, the short sea shipping market
share has increased from 34 % in 1970 to about 41 % in
2000. This growth is less notable from 1990 until 2000;
within this period, the short sea shipping market share has
stabilised. Despite this and within the very same period, road
and short sea shipping annual growth rates are very similar,
i.e. 3.4 % and 3.3 % respectively. Rail transport has lost market
share in that period and the share of inland waterways has
remained, with a small increase recently.

1.5.
In order to promote short sea shipping, the Com-
mission has extended the PACT — Pilot Action on Combined
Transport Programme to this transport mode. This was seen
as a step forward to introducing short sea shipping in
intermodal transport services. Although the PACT programme
no longer operates since 31 December 2001, it has neverthe-
less been replaced by the Marco Polo Programme. Being

(4) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/maritime/english/

sss/index–sss.html, accessed 1 July 2003.

(5) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/maritime/english/

sss/sss–successstories–files/sss–successtories-1.htm,
1 July 2003.

accessed

(6) Proceedings from the First European Research Round Table
Conference on Short Sea Shipping, 26–27.11.1992, Technical
University Delft, London: Lloyds of London Press, 1993.

(7) Conference Papers of the Second European Research Round Table
Conference on Short Sea Shipping: Strategies for achieving
cohesion in Europe through short sea shipping, 2–3 June, Athens/
Vouliagmeni. Delft: Delft University Press, 1994.

(8) Conference papers of the Third European Research Round Table
Conference on Short Sea Shipping, 20-21.6.1996, Bergen, Nor-
way. Delft: Delft University Press, 1996.

(9) http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy–transport/en/pfs–5–en.html,

accessed 1 July 2003

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/69

broader in scope, the Marco Polo intends to foster modal shift
projects in all segments of the freight market, on the basis that
only modal shifts from road towards short sea shipping, inland
waterway and rail
transport are eligible for Marco Polo
support.

Despite all this support, the demand for road transport,
1.6.
as shown by the recent Eurostat statistics, has increased and
will go on increasing if no measures are taken to curb this
growth.

2. The Commission proposal

In view of the mixed performance of the common
2.1.
transport policy, of
the congestion due to the effect of
imbalance between modes, the expected growth in transport
in an enlarged European Union and the need for integration of
transport in sustainable development as proposed by the
European Council meeting in Gothenburg 2001 in which
European citizens were guaranteed economic stability, social
security and a clean, sustainable environment, thereby stipulat-
ing that important policy areas be assessed for their economic,
social and ecological effects (1), the White Paper on European
Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide (2) sets a number of
ambitious targets to ensure competitiveness and sustainability
of transport by 2010.

2.2.
In this Communication, the European Commission
addressed the issue of intermodality and stressed the need to
make use of underused capacity, namely short sea shipping
and rail, to avoid the numerous bottlenecks that are still
affecting transport and consequently the environment. Given
the characteristics of both modes and of short sea shipping in
particular, it is obvious that the latter has a role to play in
reaching the objectives of European Union policy as a whole
and of
the common transport policy in particular. This
importance is such that more recently the informal meeting of
the European Union Transport Ministers in June 2002 in
Gijón, Spain, reconfirmed its role in saying that ‘Short sea
shipping is an important option for alleviating road traffic
growth in situations where the transport market is suited to
its specific economic and operational characteristics. It can
contribute to reducing traffic congestion, accidents, noise
and air pollution. Short sea shipping in Europe should be
intermodal and, as a consequence, it must be based on the
complementarities of maritime and land transport modes.

its development implies the integration of the
Therefore,
different transport modes through the interconnection and
interoperability of maritime and land transport networks
(which includes road, railways and inland waterways trans-
port)’. The important role of short sea shipping was also re-
affirmed at the recent informal meeting of EU Transport
Ministers that took place in July 2003 in Naples, Italy.

2.3.
In response to the invitation made by the European
Union Transport Ministers by which the Commission and the
Member States were invited to develop an action plan on key
issues that promoted short sea shipping,
including its full
integration into intermodal transport chains under efficient
and cost-effective conditions, and which is expected to be
assessed by the Council
in the second half of 2004, the
Commission presented on 7 April 2003 a Communication on
an Action Programme for the Promotion for Short Sea
Shipping and a Proposal for a Directive on Intermodal Loading
Units (3).

2.4. A programme for the promotion of short sea shipping

2.4.1.
The objective of the action programme is to address
in a systematised way what has been done in a non-
systematised way; in this context, the European Commission
proposes a path to be followed. The present Communication
comprises fourteen individual actions which are divided into
measures. For each measure proposed, the responsible actors
and timetable for its implementation are given. The fourteen
individual actions embrace legislative, technical and oper-
ational issues to be taken from 2003 onwards as follows:

A.

Legislative actions

1.

Implementation of the Directive on certain reporting
formalities for ships to arrive in and/or depart from
ports in the Member States (IMO-FAL)

2.

Implementation of Marco Polo

3.

Standardisation and harmonisation of intermodal
loading units

4. Motorways of the Sea

5.

Improving the environmental performance of Short
Sea Shipping

(1) http://eu2001.se/eu2001/news/

news–read.asp?iInformationID=16063, accessed 2 July 2003

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

(3) COM(2003) 155 final, 7.4.2003.

C 32/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

B.

Technical actions

the CSC Approval plate and also amend some of the test
loads and testing procedures required by the Convention.

1. Guide to Customs Procedures for Short Sea Shipping

2.

Identification and elimination of obstacles to making
Short Sea Shipping more successful than it is today

— To gain up to 50 % of time along transhipment points
which translates into 20 % savings of the direct transfer
costs.

3. Approximation of national applications and com-
puterisation of Community Customs procedures

— To obtain a compromise solution between sea containers

and swap-bodies.

4.

Research and Technological Development

2.5.2.

The objectives of the proposal are:

C. Operational actions

1. One-stop administrative shops

2.5.2.1. The harmonisation of interoperability characteristics

of intermodal loading units

2.

3.

4.

Ensuring the vital role of Short Sea Shipping Focal
Points

Ensuring good functioning of and guidance to Short
Sea Promotion Centres

— To standardise the handling of intermodal loading units
(ILUs), facilitate their storage and to secure ILUs on
transport equipment more efficiently; in other words, to
guarantee the efficiency of transhipment operations, the
handling and securing devices of ILUs need to be made
more uniform.

Promote the image of Short Sea Shipping as a
successful transport alternative

— To define harmonised standards for each class and

category of ILU.

5.

Collection of statistical information

2.5. A proposal for a directive on intermodal loading units

The second part of the present Communication is
2.5.1.
the proposal for a directive, which was announced in the 2001
White Paper. By proposing a sustainable solution to transport
problems that can reduce congestion, particularly road conges-
tion, the directive aims at making intermodality more attractive
for transport users. With a focus on the several modes of
transport rather than only short sea shipping, the proposal
deals with the issue of containers and swap bodies. The reasons
behind the present proposal are threefold:

— With the exception of Ireland, all Member States are
signers of the International Convention for Safe Con-
tainers, 1972 (CSC); this is a consequence of the 1979
Council Recommendation (1). Additionally, only the
Netherlands have signed the 1993 amendments to the
Convention. These concern the information contained on

2.5.2.2. The creation of the European intermodal loading

unit (EILU)

— Europe needs an optimal intermodal loading unit, the
EILU that combines the benefits of containers (their
solidity and stackability) with those of swap bodies (in
particular their greater capacity). The creation of this
loading unit can also be seen within the scope to
substitute the 45’ container; this one will be allowed in
Europe until the end of 2006. Such an EILU could be
used by the four modes of transport (rail, road, sea
and inland waterways), be stacked four-high and its
transhipment between the different modes simplified.

— The use of EILU will not be compulsory.

— The EILU will comply with the Council Directive 96/53/
EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road
vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum
authorised dimensions in national and international traff-
ic and the maximum authorised weights in international
traffic (2).

(1) Council Recommendation of 15 May 1979 on the ratification of
the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC), OJ L 125,
22.5.1979, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/71

2.5.2.3.

Safety and security of Intermodal loading units

— To guarantee the safety of transport.

— The new ILUs will have to integrate anti-intrusion alarm

devices, such as electronic seals.

— The Directive presents provisions on maintenance and
periodic inspections which are in accordance with the
provisions presented in the 1972 United Nations’ and
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention
for Safe Containers (CSC). The objectives of the latter are
to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the
transport and handling of containers and to facilitate
the international transport of containers by providing
uniform international safety regulations, equally appli-
cable to all modes of surface transport. The CSC Conven-
tion is made up of two Annexes; Annex I
includes
Regulations for the testing,
inspection, approval and
maintenance of containers; Annex II covers structural
safety requirements and tests, including details of test
procedures.

2.5.2.4.

Procedures for assessing conformity of ILUs and
periodic inspections

— To comply with all relevant requirements established by
Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concern-
ing the modules for the various phases of the conformity
assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and
use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to
be used in the technical harmonisation directives (1).

— To develop procedures regarding assessment and inspec-
tion which are in accordance with the provisions made
in the CSC.

3. General remarks

3.1.
The drawing up of an action programme with a view
to promoting short sea shipping is a positive development.
This market segment needs to be given more transparency/
visibility since for many years it has been hidden. People
seldom think how the goods have come to supermarket or
retail store shelves and what alternatives exist other than

transport,

in particular road transport. Current
unimodal
European logistics trends and business practices have forced
the wide use of road transport with its particular character-
istics (2), despite the advantages of short sea shipping and
potential as presented in the literature. In fact, awareness only
exists of the shipping industry when accidents occur with
ships, especially when pollution results. Such accidents do not
offer a very good image of the industry as a whole and of short
sea shipping in particular, and the key role it plays in the
international and regional trades. The burden will naturally fall
on the national contact points and on short sea shipping
promotion centres; they will have the responsibility to change
that image.

issues that

The promotion plan being proposed addresses some
3.2.
important
for some time have been causing
bottlenecks in the intra-European movement of cargo by
waterborne transport; these have to be overcome in the
shortest possible time, if short sea shipping is to be the leading
transport mode in the movement of goods. The existence of
these bottlenecks also explains why the demand for short sea
shipping has stabilised between 1991 and 2000 as shown by
the statistics released by Eurostat
in 2002. Despite this,
substantial work has been done on short sea shipping bottle-
necks although more progress has to be made. The Com-
mission, the National Focal Points, the Promotion Centres and
industry (the MIF) are working on this.

3.3. On the proposed action programme for the promotion of short

sea shipping

3.3.1.

t h e d i r e c t i v e o n
I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
c e r t a i n
f o r
f o r m a l i t i e s
r e p o r t i n g
s h i p s t o a r r i v e i n a n d / o r d e p a r t f r o m
p o r t s i n t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s ( I M O - F A L )

3.3.1.1.
The IMO ship formalities are not new and should
have been implemented a long time ago. The Convention on
Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention),
adopted on 9 April 1965 entered into force on 5 March 1967.
It comprises two aspects: the FAL Forms and Certificates. The
FAL Forms comprises a list of documents which public

(1) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

(2) Road transport inherent characteristics are: service reliability,
service regularity and frequency, it allows the shipment of small
consignments which meets time-based management strategies
such as just-in-time.

C 32/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

authorities can demand of a ship and recommends the
maximum information and number of copies which should be
required (1).

3.3.1.2.
The problem with its non-implementation is partly
due to the ports and the Customs Authorities. The latter do
not implement existing EU Regulations in a coherent way,
thus, imposing different requirements to ships Also shipping
companies are willing to use their own formats rather than
those of IMO; this allows using the company’s logo on their
own documents. In the light of this and of § 3.3.1.1 its
implementation by 9 September 2003 should be seen as a
strict deadline. The electronic delivery of ships’ formalities
implementation, even when ships are at sea, should be
considered. Very often goods are lost in port calls because the
information flow does not accompany the physical one. By
the time ships arrive in port all port formalities should have
been handled so that no delays exist along the international
supply chain. Streamlining the interface/port processes is
the next step to improve interface/port performance and
consequently short sea shipping position vis-à-vis other trans-
port modes.

should be taken into consideration that the degree of Marco
Polo success will depend upon short sea shipping owners’
willingness to participate and to take advantage of such a
programme; in view of this a change in short sea shipping
operators’ attitude towards research is required. With few
exceptions the short sea shipping is unwilling to participate in
these projects for fear of giving knowledge away and therefore
of losing market to their competitors. There is also a fear that
subsidies particularly for starting up of services would distort
competition with existing services. The project has therefore
to be implemented in a way which safeguards full transparency
based on objective criteria.

Figure 1:

Level of success of pact projects involving a

maritime leg

3.3.2.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f M a r c o P o l o

3.3.2.1.
The Marco Polo programme is a good support for
the development of short sea shipping services integrated in
multimodal logistics supply chains. The reduced number of
PACT projects which included a maritime leg and its level of
success is a good indicator of the success that Marco Polo
projects are expected to achieve (see Figure 1). However, it

3.3.3.

S t a n d a r d i s a t i o n
o f i n t e r m o d a l l o a d i n g u n i t s

a n d

h a r m o n i s a t i o n

(1) These include: IMO General Declaration, Cargo Declaration, Ship’s
Stores Declaration, Crew’s Effects Declaration, Crew List, and
Passenger List, Dangerous Goods. Two other documents are
required under the Universal Postal Convention and the Inter-
national Health Regulations. The list of certificates to be carried
on board ships and depending on the type of ship include:
International Tonnage Certificate; International Load Line Certifi-
cate; Intact stability booklet; Damage control booklets; Minimum
safe manning document; Certificates for masters, officers or
ratings;
International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate; Oil
Record Book; Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan; Garbage
Management Plan; Garbage Record Book; Cargo Securing Manual;
Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificate
(International Safety Management (ISM) Code).

3.3.3.1.
Lack of standardisation complicates and delays
handling operations resulting in additional friction costs to
intermodality. Furthermore, this complicates investments in
intermodal loading units. Swap bodies are confined to land
transport and short roll-on-roll-off journeys while containers
are mainly used for waterborne modes. The proposed action
aims at addressing the standardisation and harmonisation of
intermodal loading units so that the movement of these units
between modes is done in the most effective and efficient way
given that time lost in their handling in port and/or inland
terminals should be limited to the minimum required. A
standardised and harmonised system can therefore only be of
value to the intermodal
industry and to the sustainable
mobility of Europe. This issue is further addressed in § 3.4.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/73

3.3.4. M o t o r w a y s o f t h e s e a

sea being seaways

that
the
3.3.4.1. Motorways of
adequately serve short sea shipping routes and which are
selected according to a set of criteria including safe navigation,
shorter/faster port-to-port distances,
integration into trans-
European networks and the promotion of intermodality, have
as their objectives to overcome present European bottlenecks.
Those include geographical and urban constraints which
hinder the seamless movement of goods. In addition, they
must comply with the shippers’ requirements regarding their
logistics’ strategies and be used to promote other modes of
maritime transport other than liner transport, i.e., bulk trans-
port (dry and liquid). Shippers do not regard as important the
means by which port cargo is moved. They operate on a just-
in-time basis and for that they must be sure that the cargo will
be available when they need it. The motorways of the sea
concept and those that are chosen to promote the concept,
must be bottleneck free, which means that some of the actions
being adopted in the COM(2003) 155 final need to be
implemented before the motorways of the sea are a reality.

3.3.6. G u i d e

t o
s h o r t s e a s h i p p i n g

c u s t o m s ’

p r o c e d u r e s

f o r

3.3.6.1.
Customs issues are crucial for short sea shipping.
They were addressed by the Commission in 2002 (3) where the
EC Customs Rules were set as they apply to short sea shipping,
in order to facilitate its use. In this document, the Commission
makes use of the concept proposed in 1998 of ‘regular
shipping service’ which is equivalent to road haulage and in
which ships sailing only between European ports do not need
to prove that the goods being carried are carried by an
‘authorised regular shipping service’. In reply to the Com-
mission exercise on customs procedures for short sea shipping,
maritime industries made a priority point of enhancing the use
of the simplified procedure on the basis of the Authorised
Regular Shipping Status. However, this in itself is not enough as
the underlying problem relates to the speed of implementation
since some countries may give more importance to their
national shipping policy than others. Likewise this deadline
for implementation should be seen as a strict one. Unless this
is overcome, short sea shipping will not be able to operate and
to achieve the desired results as expected by the European
Commission.

3.3.5.

I m p r o v i n g
f o r m a n c e o f s h o r t s e a s h i p p i n g

e n v i r o n m e n t a l

t h e

p e r -

3.3.7.

3.3.5.1.
Shipping is already an environmentally friendly
transport mode vis-à-vis other modes (1). Although it
is
understandable that to meet the Kyoto Protocol environmental
pollution should be reduced, an additional burden will be
placed on the transport industry. If the cost structure of a ship
is examined, it can be seen that certain resources are being
used to comply with international environmental regulation
on marine emissions as required by Solas/Marpol. The industry
is carrying out research and development which is already
contributing to reduce pollution. This is the case for example
with the EcoSilencer system developed by the Canadian
company Marine Engineer (2). Therefore, and even though this
is an action to promote short sea shipping, it is not seen as a
crucial one. The problem is not so much with shipping but
rather with road transport that is still a long way from
is also an
complying with the legislation. Air transport
important source of pollution. Attention should be focused on
other modes of transport and whether they follow the same
‘polluter pays’ principle?

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o b s t a c l e s
t o m a k i n g s h o r t
p i n g m o r e s u c c e s s f u l t h a n i t i s t o d a y

o f
s e a s h i p -

e l i m i n a t i o n

a n d

3.3.7.1.
This problem has been very much discussed and
talked about in the various European communications on
short sea shipping, in the media and in some academic work
being carried out. A recent work has been carried out by
Paixão and Marlow (2002) which addressed the strengths and
weaknesses of short sea shipping and aimed at carrying out a
literature review and concentrating the elements in one
paper (4). As such, the existing bottlenecks must be addressed
thoroughly wherever they exist. However, if in the future new
bottlenecks are to be identified and eliminated this is to be
done on a trade corridor basis and in that sense the Marco

(1) International Union of Railways (2000) — The way to sustainable
mobility. Cutting the external costs of transport. International
Union of Railways.

(2) Fairplay Solutions (2003). Scrubbing out the Sox. Ferry trials

promise cleaner air. Fairplay Solutions, June, p. 6.

(3) Commission Staff Working Paper: Guide to Customs Procedures

for Short Sea Shipping, SEC(2002) 632, 29.5.2002.

(4) Paixão, A.C. and Marlow, P.B. (2002). Strengths and weaknesses
of short sea shipping, Marine Policy, Pergamon, London, United
Kingdom, Vol. 26, Issue 3 (May), pp. 167-178.

C 32/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

Polo programme will contribute in an important way to their
elimination. This action can be seen also as a sub-action of the
implementation of the Marco Polo approach; and if this is
accepted they should be addressed together. In addition, and
although a study has been carried out on routes with the most
potential for short sea shipping, it would be valuable if that
study were to be updated (1). The European Commission
could therefore suggest the routes which present the greatest
potential for short sea shipping.

programmes for short sea shipping. This requires a close
collaboration with the industry and they need to work together
with the short sea shipping promotion centres to develop a
concerted action on a national basis. It is important therefore
that their work is monitored to ensure that they play a vital
role within short sea shipping.

3.3.8. A p p r o x i m a t i o n

a p p l i -
o f
c a t i o n s a n d c o m p u t e r i s a t i o n o f C o m -
m u n i t y C u s t o m s p r o c e d u r e s

n a t i o n a l

3.3.12.

E n s u r i n g
g u i d a n c e
c e n t r e s

g o o d f u n c t i o n i n g o f
t o

a n d
p r o m o t i o n

s h o r t

s e a

3.3.8.1.
This is also a crucial action and is closely linked to
action presented in § 3.3.6. Priority should be given to the
implementation of electronic systems to promote the fast
delivery of information/documentation, and to accelerate the
customs’ process for both the cargo and the ship. Without the
functioning of proper information flows, the physical flows
cannot proceed causing friction costs to the whole chain.

3.3.9. R e s e a r c h a n d T e c h n o l o g i c a l D e v e l o p -

m e n t

3.3.9.1.
This is a valuable support as it will help substan-
tially to overcome some technological issues encountered in
the integration of short sea shipping in multimodal logistics
supply chains. However, research should also examine the
strategic aspects of short sea shipping. It is a point that most
research studies avoid dealing with but it is time that these are
taken into consideration as well.

3.3.10. O n e - s t o p a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s h o p s

3.3.10.1.
This must be dealt with in association with
§ 3.3.1, § 3.3.6 and § 3.3.8. On its own it will not work out
and this implementation should be carried out in the shortest
possible time. The implementation should take place at the
same time and at a European level.

3.3.11.

E n s u r i n g t h e v i t a l r o l e o f s h o r t s e a
s h i p p i n g f o c a l p o i n t s

The focal points which are representatives of
3.3.11.1.
national maritime administrations should be more proactive
in identifying existing bottlenecks and in creating promotion

This

should be done

3.3.12.1.
together with para-
graph 3.3.11. Their work should also be monitored. It is not
useful to have a network of short sea promotion centres if its
working activities do not meet the expected requirements and
outcomes.

3.3.13.

P r o m o t e t h e i m a g e o f s h o r t s e a s h i p -
p i n g a s a s u c c e s s f u l t r a n s p o r t a l t e r -
n a t i v e

3.3.13.1.
This is part of the work carried out by short sea
shipping focal points and short sea shipping promotion
centres (see paragraphs § 3.3.12 and § 3.3.11). However, from
a marketing point of view, the best way of promoting short
sea shipping is to deliver effective and efficient transport
services. In this way, it is also the role of short sea shipping to
develop the correct logistics strategies that will lead to its
integration in multimodal logistics supply chains (2). The best
way for promoting a service is to give customers what they
want and to satisfy them. In the same way that word of mouth
has a negative effect, it can also have a positive one.

3.3.14. C o l l e c t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n

3.3.14.1.
This has been an issue addressed previously in
several communications from the Commission. The lack of
statistical information emerges as being a problem to carry out
market analysis. This should be done to help short sea shipping
operators in defining where they are going to operate and
which new potential services could be developed. However,
without this sort of data market research is minimal and
prevents the development of studies regarding the viability of

(1) Communication from the Commission — The Development
of Short Sea Shipping in Europe: Prospects and Challenge,
COM(95) 317 final, 5.7.1995, pp. 8-12.

(2) See Casaca, A.C.F.C.P. (2003) — The competitiveness of short sea
logistics supply-chains. Unpublished

shipping in multimodal
Ph.D. Thesis, Cardiff University.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/75

potential trade corridors. This work has been proposed in the
1992 Communication but its implementation is still lagging
behind. This subject requires a very strict monitoring.

3.4. On the Directive concerning Intermodal loading units

As indicated in § 2.5 this directive addresses four
3.4.1.
(1) the harmonisation of
important issues which include:
loading units;
interoperability characteristics of intermodal
(2) the creation of the European intermodal
loading unit
(EILU); (3) safety and security of intermodal loading units; and
(4) procedures for assessing conformity of ILUs and periodic
inspections.

Items (1),

(3) and (4) aim at solving the lack
3.4.2.
of
intermodality in short sea shipping and to drive the
implementation of certain rules and regulations within national
Member State law. This action must be seen as a step forward
since much is yet to be done at port level and in relation to
short sea shipping integration along transport chains. The
latter players will be the drivers promoting the changes still to
be achieved by this industry.

is concerned,

As far as item (2)

3.4.3.
the proposed
European intermodal loading unit aims to provide a solution
that meets the transport characteristics of road, rail and short
sea shipping/inland waterways. For this reason, the EILU has
been designed according to Council Directive 96/53/EC of
25 July 1996, and applies to all modes of transport. The EILU
is not to be adopted by short sea shipping on a compulsory
basis as may be the impression when reading the whole
Communication. In this context the Directive is clear when
stating that the use of EILU will not be compulsory.

types of trades: the feeder and the pure intra-European ones.
While the first implies a standard maritime transport from A
to B and is an extension of deep-sea trades, the second is a far
more dedicated approach which covers the specific require-
ment of shippers. The first trade particularly applies to the
north-southbound short sea trades where the fleet being
operated consists mainly of
fully cellular containerships.
However, even in these trades there is also the possibility to
carry a reduced number of EILU in the aft of the ship or in
front of the ships superstructure if the EILU is designed in
accordance with the width of the traditional 20’/40’ containers.
If that is achieved, then the shift of goods from road to sea
may be a reality.

3.4.6. Within this environment, and given that the earning
capacity of a container ship is dependent upon the number of
units it will carry and not a function of the actual cargo being
carried in a container, it is important that short sea operators
negotiate directly with buyers of short sea services in the
provision of door-to-door transport services rather than with
freight forwarders or other third party operators. This for two
reasons:
the short sea shipping market suffers from an
overcapacity and there are always alternative means for
conveying the goods.
the
conclusion reached by APAS in its 1996 report on short sea
shipping and which is part of the research study carried out to
develop the 4th Framework Programme is extremely important.
Shippers are willing to give up unimodal transport in favour
of an intermodal transport comprising a sea leg when door-
to-door costs are reduced by 35 % to compensate for the
amount of cargo that must be along the logistics pipeline. This
suggests that the transport of the EILUs by short sea operators
will be balanced between service quality and costs.

In the absence of new data,

3.4.4.
The proposed EILU must be seen as a possible
alternative to the present 45’ containers that are allowed to
circulate on European roads until the end of 2006 following
which 1 January 2007 they will be banned from European
roads, and which are being offered by some short sea operators.
As such, the proposed EILU aims to fill a gap that will
eventually occur at some point in time. Also it will allow road
transport to make best use of its capacity since these boxes are
able to carry 30 % more pallets, which eventually will reduce
the number of trucks on the European road network, and
therefore reduce environmental impact levels.

3.4.5.
Not all trades and not all ships will be able to receive
the European loading unit. If short sea shipping is to break
even in certain trades, as it does now, it needs to mix two

3.4.7.
However, if both units, i.e. the EILU together with
the traditional 20’/40’ containers, keep their own dimensions
as presented in the proposal,
its adoption by short sea
operators in the north-southbound trades will be almost
impossible given the logistics nightmare that the two disparate
units can cause. One first drawback is the fixed dimensions of
the ships’ cell guides which also extends to the cargo being
carried on deck despite the fact that the market already
provides moveable cell guides that adjust to the dimensions of
the cargo units. The problem with the latter is that its use is
very expensive not to mention the space that may be lost in
the ships’ holds, resulting eventually in a decrease in revenue.
Attention therefore needs to be drawn to the width and/length
of these units and to the present dimensions of the fixed cell
guides. Second,
the new EILU in the north-
southbound short sea trades, means that short sea operators

to adopt

C 32/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

will have to make new investments in new purpose built ships,
which in the present market conditions seems doubtful. In
addition, this new unit will require new tracking and tracing
systems. In this case, the question to be raised is ‘Who will pay
for this new innovative and revolutionary transport system?’
The probable scenario is that many short sea operators will go
on trading as they have been doing for a long time and may
even disregard the pure short sea operations. They may prefer
the establishment of contracts with the bigger operators that
ply the deep-sea trades and that give them certain income,
even if that income is low, rather than being exposed to the
risk of implementing a new system that will cost hundreds of
euros and will not be used since shippers will go on using road
transport. Road haulage industry opposition to this new cargo
unit also contributes to this situation.

3.4.8.
The introduction of the EILU poses problems for the
inland navigation sector which are not readily surmountable:
as far as the width is concerned, the proposal itself admits that
the loading capacity for some barges will decrease, due to the
fact that only three EILUs can be placed side by side on board,
instead of four, which will cause problems from a commercial
point of view. The height of the EILU is also of relevance given
the standard height of many bridges in Europe. The EILU is
higher (2,67 m) than a high cube ISO-container (2,59 m),
which already causes a problem for a number of bridges. If
one layer less can be carried as a consequence of the height of
the EILU, the intended efficiency advantage concerning the
number of pallets will be nullified.

In view of the above statements, the market will
3.4.10.
determine the number of European loading units to be
employed by short sea operators, at a time when short sea
operators will
involve themselves in their acquisition only
when they are sure that they have a market share that will
cover the investment being made. However, short sea operators
will eventually have to operate two systems for controlling the
traditional sea containers and the new intermodal units. This
represents an additional cost to an industry that is suffering
from numerous pressures. One important outcome that may
result
is the
possibility for transport operators to think beyond the oper-
ation of their own transport mode, and for the first time to
address the issue of complementarity between modes which
contribute towards the development of intermodal transport
chains. This aspect is of particular importance to short sea
shipping as for many years this industry has very much
adopted a centralised management approach which reflects
the reluctance to delegate decision-making processes which is
synonymous with a control culture implemented by the
founder family (Evangelista and Morvillo, 1998) (1).

from the introduction of

this loading unit

3.4.11.
Despite this, the following thoughts must be kept
in mind whenever a new technology or legislation is brought
into the shipping industry in general and short sea shipping in
particular. The shipping industry is already struggling with
cost increases arising from the safety and environmental rules
and regulations that are required to be implemented for the
development of safe maritime transport. The new European
intermodal loading unit will oblige short sea operators to incur
additional investments. When freight rates are as low as they
are and road transport is a long way from internalising its
external costs, are short sea operators willing to go ahead and
implement the new system?

Furthermore, contrary to what is suggested in the proposal,
the adjustment of vessels, especially when for instance it
involves container cell guides, is a very expensive matter. At
present all new vessels are built based on the width of the
current sea containers. Lock widths are also based on these
dimensions.

3.5. Other issues

3.4.9.
Therefore, and under present circumstances the
probable market for the EILU is the short-distance short sea
shipping trades where operators employ roll-on-roll-off ships
and where the trade routes have a strong component made up
of trailers and semi-trailers and have the experience of using
units such as the STORA Box. This applies particularly to the
North-European including the Baltic geographical area where
most ships of this type are already being employed. Another
is the industrial
issue that very much contributes to it
concentration in this region; about 70 % of the European
Union industry is located in the United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and the Nether-
lands.

3.5.1.
Although not envisaged in the present Communi-
cation, the new ISPS Code must be borne in mind. With a
view to fight organised crime and illegal
its
implementation will constitute one more additional require-
ment that short sea shipping has to overcome. It is time that
shippers are given the responsibility to comply with the Hague
and Hague-Visby Rules concerning bills of lading. Shippers are
often reluctant to say what type of cargo is being carried in a
container. This practice, even though an old one, should be
changed. The way that this will be done requires deep thought,

immigration,

(1) Evangelista, P. and Morvillo, A. (1998) — The Role of Training in
Developing Entrepreneurship: The Case of Shipping in Italy.
Maritime Policy and Management, 25(1), pp. 81-96.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/77

in order to avoid frightening shippers and making them choose
road transport rather than short sea shipping. Short sea
shipping must be seen as the truck of the sea.

If these actions were to be listed according to their
3.5.2.
importance in promoting the short sea shipping industry, the
following outcome could be achieved:

regarding the issues achieved within the proposed programme.
The strategies that such an actor would adopt on a national
basis would depend on the national context although they
should be designed in such a way to apply the proposed
measures.

Rank

Type of Action

4. Conclusions

First

1.

6.

8.

Implementation of the Directive on certain
reporting formalities for ships to arrive in and/
or depart from ports in the Member States
(IMO-FAL)

Guide to customs procedures for short sea
shipping

Approximation of national applications and
computerisation of Community customs pro-
cedures

10.

One-stop administrative shops

Second

14.

Collection of statistical information

Third

2.

3.

Implementation of Marco Polo

Intermodal loading units

4. Motorways of the sea

Fourth

Fifth

7.

5.

9.

11.

12.

13.

Identification and elimination of obstacles to
making short sea shipping more successful than
it is today

Improving the environmental performance of
short sea shipping

Research and technological development

Ensuring the vital role of short sea shipping
focal points

Ensuring good functioning of and guidance to
short sea promotion centres

Promote the image of short sea shipping as a
successful transport alternative

3.5.3.
Overall the promotion programme is positive but
the most important point is to keep the deadlines as tight as
possible.

3.5.4.
As far as the actors responsible for applying the
foreseen measures are concerned, the more that are brought
into the system, the worse the situation will be. There may
even be conflicts of interest between them. It would be sensible
that only one national actor is responsible for applying the
measures and that actor would respond to the Commission

In the light of the above and without prejudice of the
4.1.
remarks set out, the Economic and Social Committee supports
the Communication from the Commission on the action
programme for the promotion of short sea shipping.

4.2.
The success of short sea shipping depends on the strict
implementation of the deadlines proposed by the Commission
in its communication. Without certain bottlenecks being
removed short sea shipping cannot evolve into intermodality.

4.3.
A continuous monitoring of implementation should be
carried out; immediate measures should be applied whenever
actions for implementation are not meeting the proposed
deadlines.

4.4. With respect
for a directive on
to the proposal
intermodal loading units, the European Economic and Social
Committee supports the objectives contained therein, but
considers that certain issues still have to be addressed. The list
that follows presents some of the issues that ought to be taken
into consideration:

— A clarification of the European intermodal loading unit
concept must be given to transport modes operators.
The present proposal targets all
transport
industries,
i.e. road, rail and waterborne, and not a
particular transport mode.

individual

— The definition of the European intermodal loading units
dimensions as these do not meet the technical specifi-
cations of the present container ships that
trade in
European waters:

— in respect to width only if these units are to be

carried on deck like the 45’ containers;

— in respect to both width and length if these units are

to be carried in the hold of the ships.

— The difficulties that will arise in using the new intermodal
loading units in certain transport modes and certain
routes because of
its bigger dimensions (constraints
because of tunnels, bridges, etc.).

C 32/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

— The high costs involved in order to adapt the existing
infrastructures ashore and at sea for the use of the new
intermodal loading unit.

Unless this is done, the performance of intra-European short
sea trades will be affected considerably and additional pressures
will be put on short sea shipping operators.

Brussels, 29 October 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and their
families moving within the Community, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 fixing the
procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in respect of the alignment of rights
and the simplification of procedures’

(COM(2003) 378 final — 2003/0138 COD)

(2004/C 32/16)

On 10 July 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The European Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Peter Boldt as rapporteur-general
for its opinion.

At its 403rd plenary session on 29 and 30 October 2003 (meeting of 29 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 71 votes in favour and two
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 has often been amended
to reflect changes to Member State social security systems and
to the case law of the European Court of Justice, which impacts
on the future implementation of the regulation. In 1999, work
began on reviewing the regulation in order to simplify and
modernise it. The European Economic and Social Committee
has commented on the proposed amendments in several
opinions, including: ‘Amendments to Social Security — unem-
ployment’ (1), ‘Social Security — Application’ (2), ‘Social Secur-
ity when moving within the Community’ (3),
‘Extension of

Social Security to non-EU nationals’ (4), ‘Application of Social
Security systems to employed persons when moving within
the Community’ (5) and ‘Social Security systems’ (6).

1.2.
For reasons of consistency, amendments to Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 need to be accompanied by amendments
to Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, which covers application of
the former.

In recent years, particular attention has been paid to
1.3.
facilitating the free movement of people within the Union. It
is therefore extremely important that EU citizens can access
without undue difficulty the treatment they need during a
temporary stay in a Member State other than their own.

(1) OJ C 295, 7.10.1996.
(2) OJ C 89, 19.3.1997.
(3) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998.

(4) OJ C 157, 25.5.1998.
(5) OJ C 101, 12.4.1999.
(6) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000.