Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The institutional framework for inland waterway transport in Europe
Date: 2006-04-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, common transport policy, inland waterway shipping, trans-European network, transport network

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/101

4.9
A scheme covering intra-EU flights will affect EU opera-
tors in different ways. Firstly, differences in price elasticity will
result in significant variations in the effect on demand. In addi-
tion, the effect could depend on the percentage of an operator's
overall output represented by intra-EU services. Concerns have
been expressed that operators with small percentage coverage
could engage in cross subsidising between fare types or with
their longer haul services to the detriment of those carriers
with a large (or total) percentage of operations covered by the
scheme. These aspects require further consideration as part of
the impact assessment.

There are still many aspects of air transport in an EU
4.10
ETS which the EESC feels require study, for example in the
proposed and already active Working Group of Experts, before
a definitive position can be taken on methods and timing:

— lessons learned from the evaluation of emissions trading for
fixed sources, before aviation measures can be imple-
mented;

— problems arising from the introduction of aviation into the
EU ETS after the commencement of the second trading
period;

— future trading prices and their impact on the growth of

aviation;

— the overhead costs of emissions trading for aviation in rela-

tion to the planned targets;

— feasibility and manageability of emissions trading for avia-

tion;

— possibilities of aviation emissions trading into a worldwide
system via the ICAO and, if not feasible, the benefits and
losses of potentially purely regional implementation;

— further research into interference between slot allocation

and emissions trading in aviation;

— further

research into the effects of possible trade-offs
between CO2 and NOx emissions (a greenhouse gas, but
also a ‘local issue’ in the vicinity of airports in urban areas
in the EU).

Brussels, 21 April 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The institutional framework for
inland waterway transport in Europe

(2006/C 185/18)

On 14 July 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29 (2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: The institutional framework for inland waterway transport in
Europe

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 March 2006. The rapporteur
was Mr Simons.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 21 April) the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 57 votes with one abstention:

1. Recommendations

1.1
In its opinions of 16 January 2002 and 24 September
2003, the EESC called upon all stakeholders to continue to
work towards the goals of harmonising and integrating inland
waterway transport in Europe. Whilst they have lost none of
their validity, these opinions can be fleshed out in respect of
the issue of the institutional framework, in the light of develop-
ments which have occurred since its publication.

the CCNR and the Danube Commission, is a highly relevant
factor in this context. A permanent form of cooperation must
be set up and operate at a fundamental, structural level, as well
in the various inland
as at an early stage in the process,
waterway transport fields, and where appropriate involving the
social partners fully, so as to make policy-preparation as
robust, uniform and comprehensive as possible.

1.2
The further direct expansion and intensification of coop-
eration between the key players, i.e. the European Commission,

1.3
If we are ultimately to bring about a uniform system of
law governing pan-European inland waterway transport,
account must be taken of a number of aspects.

C 185/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

First, there is the issue of the geographical scope of
1.3.1
such provisions; unlike the situation with regard to,
for
example, other modes of transport such as air transport and
inland waterway transport does not directly
road transport,
involve all EU Member States.

1.3.2
Secondly, states which are not members of the EU are
still key players for the inland waterway sector and therefore
also for Europe.

1.3.3
Thirdly, only joint political action can bring about the
requisite infrastructure adjustments to and in respect of inland
waterways, tasks which fall within the remit of the national
authorities of all states.

it

Fourthly,

is clear that not all rules need to be
1.3.4
applied in full and with the same rigour in the case of all Euro-
pean rivers, in view of the variety of natural conditions and
differences in infrastructure and the volume of inland waterway
transport.

1.3.5
The abovementioned factors demonstrate that consid-
eration of how pan-European inland navigation is to be struc-
tured has, above all, to be seen as a task which is unique and
specific.

1.4
Political pressure is being exerted with a view to
achieving a pan-European system of law governing this field, as
highlighted by the pronouncements made at ministerial confer-
ences but, up to now, no specific and forceful pressure has
been brought to bear in this regard. The ministerial conference
to be held in Romania in 2006 will have to indicate the extent
to which action can now indeed also be taken in the political
field.

1.5
The introduction of a uniform, integrated system of law
must not jeopardise the high level of protection, safety and
uniform application of the law which exists, particularly in
respect of the Rhine. It is likely that the CCNR Member States
will want to maintain the so-called Rhine system should a new
system of law be introduced. The high level of standards and
‘acquired rights’ which have been achieved also include close
and direct relations with inland waterway transport enterprises.

1.6
Social policy, which has been largely neglected in the
existing inland navigation regulatory regimes in Europe, must
be given special attention in this new system. The social part-
ners must be fully involved in the development.

1.7
All things considered, the EESC endorses the ultimate
aim of establishing an independent organisation, enshrined in a
treaty, which can embrace at least both the international organi-
sations, such as the EU itself, EU Member States involved in
waterway transport and also non-EU states, such as Switzerland
and the non-EU Danube riparian states. Within an organisation,
comprising various parties, covered by such a treaty, political
decisions, enforceable in law, can be taken by a meeting of
ministers, which can also monitor national controls. All the
knowledge and expertise currently available in the various
existing bodies could also be brought together in the proposed
organisation. Care should also be taken to ensure that the
existing level of protection and safety is at least maintained and
that sectoral social dialogue continues.

1.8
The EESC again calls upon all the parties involved to
continue to work towards the achievement of the abovemen-
tioned objectives, particularly the goals of closer cooperation
and setting up an independent organisation as indicated above.
As already evident from the Committee's active participation in
various forums relating to inland waterway transport, the EESC
will also continue to work towards the introduction, as soon as
possible, of all these measures. Accordingly, the EESC plans to
take part this year in the relevant hearings of the European
Parliament and if possible also in the Ministerial Conference on
Pan-European Inland Waterway Transport at the end of 2006
in Romania.

2. Introduction

2.1
In its opinions of 16 January 2002 on The future of
the trans-European inland waterway network and of 24
September 2003 entitled Towards a pan-European system of
inland waterway transport, the European Economic and Social
Committee assessed the situation of inland waterway transport
in Europe (1). The second of
these opinions examined the
bottlenecks in inland waterway transport and addressed the
need to harmonise rules in this field, in respect of both the
public-law and private-law aspects involved. This opinion also
the labour-
tackled issues such as the environment, safety,
market situation and social aspects. The latter issue is being
further expanded upon in the own-initiative opinion of
September 2005 entitled Social policy within a pan-European
system for regulating inland waterway transport.

In the second of

the abovementioned opinions,

2.2
the
EESC calls upon all inland waterway stakeholders to step up
their efforts to achieve integrated legal provisions and uniform
law governing inland waterway transport. With a view to
promoting inland waterway transport on a pan-European level,
it is regarded as essential to bring about the harmonisation of
existing treaties, conventions and bilateral agreements applic-
able to national and international waterways.

2.3
All these opinions also point out that the Committee
itself will continue to press for the establishment, as soon as
possible, of integrated legal provisions covering all European
inland waterways.

2.4
The EESC's intention in this regard is underpinned by
the conviction that inland waterway transport, which is the
cleanest and most environmentally friendly mode of transport
and one which has adequate potential for growth, will in future
be able to make a key contribution towards ensuring the
sustainability of the inevitable growth in transport.

2.5
One of the causes of bottlenecks in inland waterway
transport is the fact that three differing systems of law apply in
this sector in Europe;
these systems do, however, overlap
geographically to some extent.

2.6
In view of the fact that a number of relevant develop-
ments with regard to this specific aspect have taken place
recently, it is, in the EESC's view, both useful and necessary, at
to draw up a more detailed own-initiative
this juncture,
opinion on this issue.

(1) See OJ C 80 of 3 April 2002 and OJ C 10 of 14 January 2004.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/103

3. Existing institutional framework

In its opinion of 24 September 2003, the EESC exam-
3.1
ines
law governing inland
the three existing systems of
waterway transport in Europe, namely the Revised Mannheim
Act of 1868 on Navigation of the Rhine, the 1948 Belgrade
Act governing navigation of the Danube and the area of appli-
cation of Community treaties and the existing body of EU law.

3.2
There are currently five signatory states of the Revised
Mannheim Act, namely four EU Member States (Belgium,
Germany, France and the Netherlands) and one non-EU state
(Switzerland). The establishment of freedom of navigation on
the Rhine and the introduction of a uniform, harmonised body
of legal provisions governing navigation of the Rhine and its
tributaries gave rise in the 19th century to the creation of an
‘internal market before the term existed’; this internal market has
been and continues to be of major importance to the economic
development of Europe.

Contrary to what might be assumed in view of its age,
3.3
the Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) is
an extremely modern organisation which has its own small
secretariat, backed up by a large network of (national) experts,
and it has close ties with those working in the inland waterway
sector. The CCNR is in a position to respond quickly to devel-
opments, with a view to ensuring that the legal provisions
governing navigation of the Rhine continue to be optimal, up-
to-date provisions.

the CCNR into national

3.4
The CCNR has regulatory powers and takes its decisions
by a unanimous vote. The signatory states are obliged to trans-
pose the decisions of
law, where
required. The powers of the CCNR embrace matters such as
technical standards, crews, safety aspects, the environment and
freedom of navigation. The Mannheim Act stipulates that the
signatory states are to promote inland waterway navigation.
The CCNR has jurisdiction in disputes falling within the scope
of the Act.

3.5
The Belgrade Act sets out legal provisions governing
navigation of the Danube. The Danube riparian states which
are signatories to the Act have seats on the Danube Commis-
sion which, unlike its Rhine counterpart, possesses only advi-
sory powers. Furthermore, the sole intention of the Belgrade
Act is to regulate inter-state inland waterway transport. The
issue of cabotage (which, in the case of the Rhine, is indeed
covered by the Mannheim Act) does not fall within the scope
of the Belgrade Act. There is thus no question of a clear-cut
single legal regime for the Danube. The Danube Commission
comprises EU Member States, Balkan candidate countries and
other states such as Serbia and Montenegro, Moldova, Ukraine
and Russia.

3.6
Following the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957,
the internal market in the EU came into being gradually and
In the
was extended to take in inland waterway transport.
course of this process, tasks have been assigned to the Euro-
pean Commission in various fields, such as technical standards,
crews, the environment and safety.

3.7
In practice cooperation is taking place, happily to an
increasing extent, between the CCNR, the Danube Commission
and the European Commission; in this context the technical

expertise and experience of the CCNR, in particular, is having a
major influence. Cooperation between the CCNR and the Euro-
pean Commission was given fresh stimulus by the conclusion
of a cooperation agreement on 3 March 2003. Cooperation
with the Danube Commission is, at present, of a more
secondary nature.

4. Recent developments

leading,

In October 2004 a group of

independent
4.1
figures from both eastern and western Europe drew up a report
which analysed the current institutional framework of inland
waterway transport at European level and put forward recom-
mendations with a view to consolidating this framework. This
project was initiated by the Netherlands and received the
support of Germany, Belgium, France and Switzerland. The
group involved, which was chaired by the former Netherlands
Minister for Economic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Jan
Terlouw, assumed the title of the European Framework for
Inland Navigation (EFIN) Group and issued a report entitled
A new institutional framework for European inland navi-
gation. In addition to Mr Jan Terlouw, the Group had a further
seven members,
France,
Hungary, Austria, Romania and Switzerland.

representing Belgium, Germany,

that

In its

report,

the Group pointed out

4.2
inland
waterway transport had considerable potential, the value of
which was not adequately appreciated. Inland waterway trans-
port was in a position to make a key contribution towards
improving the goods transport system in Europe. The Group
took the view that the institutional framework for inland navi-
gation did not make a full contribution towards ensuring the
optimal use of this mode of transport in Europe. The Group
also considered that the existing institutional framework was
too weak to secure the political attention required to further
develop this sector.

4.3
As already recommended by the EESC in its opinions of
16 January 2002 and 24 September 2003, the EFIN report sees
the need for closer harmonisation of technical requirements,
qualifications, certification procedures and market-access condi-
tions for all European inland waterways. The Group also
considered it desirable that a body be created to provide
support for the achievement of the following objectives: to
improve the infrastructure of inland waterway transport; to
develop on-board technical equipment; to stimulate innovation
and to promote professional qualifications. Active institutional
support was essential
the obstacles
preventing the development of inland waterway transport to be
removed. There was a need to establish a new structure in
order to achieve that goal.

to enable

in order

4.4
The Group looked at a series of options with a view to
creating such a new structure, bearing in mind the need for a
new pan-European dimension. Whilst advocating increased
cooperation between the existing bodies, particularly the
CCNR, the Danube Commission and the European Commission
(but also the European Conference of Ministers of Transport
(ECMT) and the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE)), the Group took the view that that such coop-
eration was not in itself sufficient to bring about the creation
of the proposed new structure.

C 185/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

4.5
The Group therefore called for the establishment of a
European Organisation for Inland Navigation which should
be given an extensive remit to enable it to cover all aspects of
inland navigation. The proposed organisation would not need
to be enshrined in a new treaty. The existing treaties and
systems of law should thus remain in tact and not be amended.
The proposed new organisation should be an ‘evolutionary’
body, i.e. a body capable of being adapted to take account of
should also comprise various
changing requirements;
modular bodies, which would also be able to operate indepen-
dently of each other.

it

The proposed organisation should therefore comprise
4.6
three component bodies, namely: a political assembly, taking
the form of a Conference of European Ministers with responsi-
bility for Inland Navigation; an administrative body, namely the
European Bureau for Inland Navigation; and a financial instru-
ment, namely the European Intervention Fund for Inland Navi-
gation. Persons requiring further details are asked to consult
the report drawn up by the Group.

The European Framework for Inland Navigation Group
4.7
also examined, as one of the options, the possibility of estab-
lishing a Community agency for inland navigation. The Group
wondered whether there was sufficient political will to establish
such an agency. It was also considered that, by its very nature,
such an agency would have no regulatory powers but would
rather be given responsibilities in respect of implementation,
supervision and the gathering of information. Bearing in mind
that many waterways were not covered by EU law, such an
agency would thus have limited geographical scope. All things
considered, the Group decided to reject the option of setting
up such an agency.

4.8
On 14 July 2005, the European Commission published
a consultation paper entitled An Integrated European Action
Program for Inland Waterway Transport. In its document the
Commission identifies a number of areas in which it wishes to
improve inland waterway transport on EU waterways. The
forward their
stakeholders
comments on the consultation paper, based on which the Euro-
pean Commission published its ‘NAIADES’ Communication of
17 January 2006 on promoting inland waterway transport, An
integrated European action programme for inland waterway trans-
port (2).

involved were

asked to put

4.9
As well as providing for a raft of measures in five stra-
tegic areas, the Commission also looks at ways of modernising
and adapting legislation to meet future challenges. This is to be
achieved by updating and improving the organisational struc-
ture, which is currently fragmented, resulting in a lack of effi-
ciency and political impact. These changes in existing instru-
ments must take account of existing obligations under interna-
tional agreements, i.e. respect what has already been achieved.

4.10
The Commission states that this process has already
begun, referring to the Recommendation of 1 August 2003
from the Commission to the Council to negotiate membership
of the two River Commissions, and to the EFIN report. Four
options are currently under discussion: (a) further increasing
cooperation between the River Commissions and the European
Commission, (b) EU accession to both River Commissions, (c)
creation of a Pan-European Inland Navigation Organisation,
and (d) tasking the Community with the strategic development

(2) COM(2006) 6 final.

inland waterways,

of
account.

taking third country interests

into

5. Pan-European inland navigation

5.1
The idea of introducing a pan-European system of law
for inland navigation and thereby stimulating inland waterway
transport throughout the continent of Europe,
is not a new
idea but one which has wide support. Similar views were
already expressed in 1991 at a ministerial conference held in
Budapest. On 5-6 September 2001, the Pan-European Conference
on Inland Waterway Transport, held in Rotterdam,
issued a
declaration drawing attention to the need to speed up pan-
European cooperation with a view to achieving a strong, free
inland waterway transport sector. The declaration identified a
number of preconditions, objectives and actions. One of the
prerequisites is that harmonisation must not be achieved at the
expense of the existing level of safety and quality standards and
that favourable social conditions — at any rate those already
existing — have to be safeguarded. In its declaration, the Pan-
European Conference called for the creation of ‘a transparent
and integrated Pan-European inland waterway transport market
based on the principals of reciprocity, freedom of navigation,
fair competition and equal treatment of the users of inland
waterways’.

5.2
In addition to efforts in areas such as infrastructure —
which, as is well known, remains a national responsibility in
the EU,
in its
too — the Pan-European Conference called,
declaration, for the consolidation of cooperation between the
European Commission, the UNECE and the two River Commis-
sions in the field of pan-European harmonisation of technical,
safety and crewing requirements and collaboration on the
improvement of vocational education and training with a view
to promoting these requirements. The Pan-European Confer-
ence also requested UNECE, the European Commission, the
two River Commissions and the ECMT to cooperate closely
with a view to identifying, by the end of 2002, the legal obsta-
cles standing in the way of the establishment of a harmonised
and competitive pan-European inland waterway transport
market and to considering how this problem could be resolved.

5.3
It may be said that, since the abovementioned Pan-Euro-
pean Conference was held in Rotterdam in 2001, the process
of reflection on the institutional framework for inland naviga-
tion is now well under way. In this context, attention may also
be drawn to the workshop organised by the ECMT, the UNECE
and the River Commissions in Paris in September 2005 under
the highly expressive title of On the Move.

In the wake of

5.4
in
Rotterdam in 2001, a follow-up ministerial conference is to be
held in Romania in 2006.

the Pan-European Conference

6. Comments

6.1
The EESC considers the EFIN report a valuable contribu-
tion to the discussion about the institutional issue. The report's
analyses are particularly useful and we agree with them.
However, we feel that the logical conclusion has not been fully
drawn from the analysis insofar as the solution proposed does
not make decisions sufficiently binding. In addition, the EFIN
report, like existing agreements and systems, ignores aspects of
social policy.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/105

that

6.2 We welcome the fact
the Commission is now
keeping the discussion about institutional reform completely
open, which was not previously the case. The fact that it sepa-
rates the issue from the five strategic areas clearly helps in this
respect. As regards the options presented, the EESC notes that
increased cooperation is certainly required in the short term, as
recommended in Option 1. Community accession to the
CCNR, on which a decision by the Council has been pending
for two years, could also be a phase of this. But in order to
achieve the degree of efficiency desired, and to increase political
interest in inland waterway transport, more steps will have to
be taken in this direction.

As regards the other

two options, a Pan-European
6.3
Inland Navigation Organisation and a Community solution,
which are intended for the final phase of reform, the Commis-
sion keeps the discussion open by weighing advantages and
disadvantages, but without making a choice.

6.4
The EESC wants to contribute to the discussion, after
considering the arguments presented, by making a choice. We
note that the Community solution proposed by the Commis-
sion would not cover the whole territory of the Union. The
Rhine and (to a lesser extent) Danube system would continue
to exist, creating an extra administrative layer and maintaining
the need for coordination. This option also requires that agree-
ments be concluded with third countries, which could lead to
discrepancies. In practice, cooperation with the River Commis-
sions would mean that the Rhine and Danube Commissions
would have to provide knowledge and skills. The Community
expertise to be developed would effectively duplicate that of
the River Commissions, which is precisely something the
Commission says it wants to avoid.

6.5
On the other hand, the EESC absolutely agrees with the
Commission's arguments in favour of the option of a Pan-Euro-
pean Inland Navigation Organisation, in which all the European
countries and organisations concerned, including the European
Union, would cooperate within a single framework. Such an
organisation would raise
inland
waterway transport so that it can be strategically developed,
and it would promote legislative harmonisation. We support

the political profile of

Brussels, 21 April 2006

the Commission's neither positive nor negative argument that
this organisation must be co-financed by all
the parties
involved, precisely because with this option non-EU states
would also contribute to the development of inland waterway
transport.

6.6
this
As regards the Commission's arguments against
option, it is true that it would take time to draw up and ratify a
convention, but this process has effectively begun already and
could be completed within a few years with the necessary poli-
tical motivation. The success of the ministerial conferences on
inland waterway transport held in 1991 and 2001 and the
holding of another conference later this year in Romania indi-
cate that the will exists. The objection that such an organisation
would operate outside the Community framework would not
be valid if the Community link were ensured by the EU taking
part in the organisation. The actual
implementation of deci-
sions taken by the organisation can also be guaranteed by a
convention, along the lines of the Mannheim Act for the Rhine.

6.6.1
At the recent industry congress at the Inland Naviga-
tion Summit (held in Vienna on 13-15 February), the European
Commission put forward an additional argument against the
convention option, namely that inland waterway transport falls
fully under the remit of the EU and responsibility for it cannot
be devolved by another
It
should be noted here that inland waterway transport in Europe
the Revised
is now characterised by the fact
Mannheim Act certain powers, especially regarding Rhine navi-
gation, are reserved to the Rhine riparian states. It is also a fact
that non-EU countries wish to be involved in a European legal
regime, for which of course the Community does not compe-
tence.

intergovernmental convention.

that under

6.6.2
The convention option would therefore mean that
even non-EU states could be covered by the same legal regime.
Furthermore ‘river chambers’ could be set up with varying
powers. On EU waters, EU inland waterway law would
continue to apply in full. The major advantage of such an
option would be that pan-European matters could be tackled
and resolved, and in addition new powers — e.g. in the field of
infrastructure — could be laid down in conventions.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND