Assessment of potential of maritime and inland ports and inland waterways and of related policy measures, including industrial policy measures : final report.
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: EU study report, economic growth, harbour installation, industrial policy, inland waterway transport, maritime economy, maritime transport, trans-European network

ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL 
OF MARITIME AND INLAND 
PORTS AND INLAND 
WATERWAYS AND OF RELATED 
POLICY MEASURES, INCLUDING 
INDUSTRIAL POLICY MEASURES 

Final Report 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate D – Waterborne 

CONTRACT No. MOVE/B3/SER/2015-224/SI2.721484 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any 
person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may 
be made of the information contained therein. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

ISBN : 978-92-76-18919-0 
Doi :  10.2832/03796 

© European Union, 2020 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

May 2019  I  2/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

4. 

5. 

2. 

5.1. 
5.2. 

1.1. 
1.2. 

4.1. 
4.2. 
4.3. 

2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 
2.4. 

Table of Contents .................................................................................................. 3 
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... 5 
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ 7 
Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 10 
Introduction ........................................................................................ 11 
1. 
Context and overall purpose ................................................................. 11 
Objectives of the study ........................................................................ 11 
Methodology and approach ................................................................... 12 
Overall approach ................................................................................. 12 
Desk-based research and analysis ......................................................... 12 
Consultation with stakeholders and the European Commission .................. 15 
Limitations ......................................................................................... 17 
3. 
Critical  review  of  major  developments  and  strategies  related  to  the  EU 
waterborne system .............................................................................................. 18 
3.1. 
Analysis  of  major  geopolitical,  economic  and  trade  issues  and  technological 
developments .................................................................................................. 18 
Analysis of transport and logistics needs ................................................ 25 
3.2. 
3.3. 
Assessment  of  existing  waterborne  industrial  development  and  clustering 
strategies ........................................................................................................ 28 
Circular economy in sea ports, inland ports and inland waterway transport . 30 
3.4. 
Development of policy measures and policy scenarios .............................. 35 
Summary of identified obstacles ............................................................ 35 
Identification of policy measures ........................................................... 36 
Design of the scenarios and their variants .............................................. 39 
Modelling tool and definition of the baseline scenario ............................... 51 
Results on the modelling tool and base year 2010 ................................... 51 
Results for Business as usual (BAU) and baseline scenarios (2030) ............ 65 
Test of the policy scenarios with the modelling tool .................................. 74 
Modelling results for policy scenario ....................................................... 74 
Modelling results for variants ................................................................ 82 
Assessment of policy measures ............................................................. 90 
Assessment framework ........................................................................ 90 
Actions to be assessed ......................................................................... 98 
Assessment methodology ................................................................... 100 
Results ............................................................................................. 101 
Assessment of policy scenarios ............................................................. 105 
Assessment framework ...................................................................... 105 
Scenarios to be assessed .................................................................... 107 
Results ............................................................................................. 108 
Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................... 119 
The policy scenarios ........................................................................... 119 
8.1. 
8.2. 
Freight demand is expected to grow by +16% between 2010 and 2030 ... 120 
8.3.The  relative  market  shares  of  seaports  are  not  expected  to  change  significantly
 .................................................................................................................... 120 
8.4. 
Policy scenarios supporting waterborne transport can have a dramatic impact 
on the market share of inland waterway transport .............................................. 122 
8.5. 
Focus on the selected RoRo links ......................................................... 123 
8.6.Impacts of a variation of the concentration of container flows on the largest seaports
 .................................................................................................................... 124 
8.7.A faster uptake of new technologies could strongly harm inland waterway transport
 .................................................................................................................... 124 
8.8.Assessment  of  environmental  and  multimodality  aspects  of  policy  scenarios
 .................................................................................................................... 125 
Most promising policy measures .......................................................... 126 
8.9. 

6.1. 
6.2. 
6.3. 
6.4. 

7.1. 
7.2. 
7.3. 

6.1. 
6.2. 

6. 

7. 

6. 

8. 

May 2019  I  3/196 

 
 
 
7. 
8. 
9. 

Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling tool ........................... 128 
Appendix B – Transportation costs ........................................................ 142 
Appendix C – List of references ............................................................ 160 
9.1.Appendix  C  –  Analyses  of  major  geopolitical  and  technological  developments
 .................................................................................................................... 160 
Appendix C –Analysis of transport and logistics needs ............................ 170 
9.2. 
9.3. 
Appendix C – Assessment of existing waterborne industrial development and 
clustering strategies ....................................................................................... 178 
9.4.Appendix  C  –  Circular  economy  in  sea  ports,  inland  ports  and  inland  waterway 
transport ....................................................................................................... 182 
10.Appendix  D  –  List  of  interviews  with  ports  and  inland  waterway  infrastructure 
managers .......................................................................................................... 185 
screened  policy 
11.Appendix  E  –  Summary  of 
measures .......................................................................................................... 186 
Appendix F – Socioeconomic data for 2030 ............................................ 192 
12. 

final  proposition  of 

the 

May 2019  I  4/196 

 
 
List of Figures 

Figure 1: 

Overall approach .............................................................................. 12 

Figure 2: 

Overall architecture of the modelling tool ............................................. 14 

Figure 3: 

Illustration of the results of the modelling tool ...................................... 14 

Figure 4: 

Trend analysis approach .................................................................... 19 

Figure 5: 
Trends  comparison  of  Ports,  IWW  traffic,  non-bulk  trade  and  GDP,  annual 
growth rate by period .......................................................................................... 20 

Figure 6: 

Exemplary transport chain ................................................................. 21 

Figure 7:Harvested  production  of  agribulk  crops  in  2014  in  Europe  by  NUTS1  region
......................................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 8: 

Repartition of the selected ports within the items of the circular economy 31 

Figure 9: 
Truck  cost  function  for  containers  in  €  /  HGV  x  km  and  €  /  TEU  x  km  for 
business as usual and baseline scenarios ............................................................... 48 

Figure 10: 
IWT cost function for containers in c€ / T x km and € / TEU x km for business 
as usual and baseline scenarios ............................................................................ 48 

Figure 11: 
IWT cost function for containers in c€ / T x km and € / TEU x km for baseline 
and maximum potential scenarios ......................................................................... 49 

Figure 12:  Container traffic projections ............................................................... 52 

Figure 13:  Annual growth rate by partner ............................................................ 52 

Figure 14: 

Intra-EU traffic generated by countries ................................................ 55 

Figure 15: 

Intra-EU growth rate by product ......................................................... 55 

Figure 16:  Seaport traffic in 2010 Observed / simulated ........................................ 56 

Figure 17:Examples  of  market  share  of  seaport  on  their  hinterland  (container  market)
......................................................................................................................... 58 

Figure 18:  RoRo traffic at seaports in 2010 Observed / simulated ........................... 60 

Figure 19:RoRo  chain  traffic  (maritime  link  –  Port  –  Road  haulage)  -  Base  year  2010
......................................................................................................................... 62 

Figure 20: 

Inland waterway simulated traffic for base year 2010 ............................ 64 

Figure 21:  Seaports traffic by corridor ................................................................. 66 

Figure 22:  Evolution of port traffic by products:  Base Year 2010 & Baseline 2030 .... 67 

Figure 23:Seaports  traffic  in  baseline  (2030)  and  evolution  Baseline  –  Base  Year 
(2030/2010) ....................................................................................................... 68 

Figure 24:MoS traffic (maritime links and road haulage) in the baseline scenario in 2030
......................................................................................................................... 69 

Figure 25:  Constanta hinterland for container market ........................................... 70 

Figure 26:  

IWT use by scenario and type of products ......................................... 72 

Figure 27: 

IWT traffic baseline 2030 (left) and differential 2030/2010 (right)........... 73 

Figure 28:  Global seaport traffic by products ....................................................... 75 

Figure 29:  RoRo chain traffic in Maximum Potential scenario (2030) ....................... 76 

Figure 30:Effect  of  the  Maximum  Potential  Scenario  on  RoRo  maritime  links  and  Road
......................................................................................................................... 77 

May 2019  I  5/196 

 
 
 
Figure 31:  Modal share of the IWT for maritime container ..................................... 78 

Figure 32: 

IWT use by scenario and type of products ............................................ 80 

Figure 33: 
IWT  traffic:  Maximum  potential  scenario  (left)  –  Differential  Maximum 
Potential / Baseline (right).................................................................................... 81 

Figure 34:  Evolution of seaport traffic (terrestrial access) with redistribution of flows 83 

Figure 35:  Attraction area of Atlantic French ports ................................................ 84 

Figure 36:  Matrix of relevance of each measure ................................................. 102 

Figure 37:  Traffic in M tons.km in 2030 by scenario ............................................ 108 

Figure 38:Traffic  in  M  tons.km  in  2030  by  scenario  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario
....................................................................................................................... 108 

Figure 39:Variation  of  generalised  cost  in  2030  by  scenario  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario ........................................................................................................... 109 

Figure 40:  Modal share in 2010 and 2030 by scenario ......................................... 109 

Figure 41:  Emissions by scenario in 2030 compared to baseline ........................... 110 

Figure 42:  Transport externalities by scenario in 2030 compared to baseline ......... 111 

Figure 43:  Usage of Core network corridors in tons.km in 2030 ............................ 111 

Figure 44:  Container traffic in 2030 in tons.km – baseline and variants ................. 112 

Figure 45:  Container traffic in 2030 in tons.km –variants compared to the baseline  112 

Figure 46:Generalised cost by variant for container in 2030  – variants  compared to the 
baseline ........................................................................................................... 113 

Figure 47:  Modal share 2030 by variant ............................................................ 113 

Figure 48:Emissions by variant for containers in 2030 – variants compared to the baseline
....................................................................................................................... 114 

Figure 49:  Transport externalities by variant for containers in 2030 – variants compared 
to the baseline .................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 50:Usage  of  core  network  corridors  in  tons.km  in  2030  –  baseline  and  variants
....................................................................................................................... 115 

Figure 51:Traffic  of  containers  in  tons.km  in  2030  –  maximum  potential  and  variant
....................................................................................................................... 115 

Figure 52:  Key figures for the variant of the maximum potential scenario .............. 116 

Figure 53:  Evolution of simulated port traffic by products:  Base Year in 2010, BAU in 
2030 and Baseline in 2030 ................................................................................. 120 

Figure 54:  Seaports traffic for the Baseline in 2030 and difference between Baseline in 
2030 and Base Year in 2010 ............................................................................... 121 

Figure 55: 

Inland waterway volume by scenario ................................................. 122 

Figure 56: 
Evolution of IWW traffic: baseline/base year (left) – Maximum Potential / 
Baseline (right) ................................................................................................. 123 

Figure 57:  Structure of the PortPrint model ....................................................... 131 

Figure 58:  Sea container traffic from the Netherlands to Asian countries ............... 132 

Figure 59:Sea container traffic projection by region (reporter) and by continent (partner)
....................................................................................................................... 133 

Figure 60:  Example of georeferenced data......................................................... 136 

May 2019  I  6/196 

 
 
Figure 61:  Structure of the graph model ........................................................... 137 

Figure 62: 

IWT intermodal services included in the modelling tool in 2012............. 138 

Figure 63: 

IWW gauge in the modelling tool ...................................................... 139 

Figure 64:  Example of ports hinterland for container market ................................ 141 

Figure 65: 

Link between barrel & automotive gas oil without taxes ....................... 148 

Figure 66: 

Long distance truck for general cargo in HGV x km and ton x km .......... 150 

Figure 67:  Truck for containers in HGV x km and TEU x km ................................. 151 

Figure 68:  Trucks for bulk in HGV x km and ton x km ......................................... 151 

Figure 69:  Variant  3  –  faster  uptake  of  new  technologies  for  road  –  impact  on  long 
distance trucks for general cargo in HGV x km and ton x km .................................. 152 

Figure 70:  Variant 3 – faster uptake of new technologies for road – impact on trucks for 
containers in HGV x km and TEU x km ................................................................. 152 

Figure 71: 

Link between barrel & fuel oil ........................................................... 155 

Figure 72:  Variation of IWT transport costs according to the penetration of the market 
for the trends identified ..................................................................................... 158 

Figure 73:  Evolution of IWT costs for solid bulk per t x km and containers per TEU x km 
for baseline scenario .......................................................................................... 159 

Figure 74:  Evolution of IWT costs for solid bulk per t x km and containers per TEU x km 
for maximum potential scenario .......................................................................... 159 

List of Tables 

Table 1: 

List of meetings................................................................................... 15 

Table 2: 

Interviews in the studies analysed ......................................................... 16 

Table 3:  Summary of the impacts of the identified trends ..................................... 22 

Table 4:  Selected market segments ................................................................... 25 

Table 5:  Summary of the final proposition of the policy measures .......................... 37 

Table 6:  Macro-economic assumptions of the Baseline scenario ............................. 39 

Table 7:  Summary of the traffic model parameters and their codes ........................ 40 

Table 8:  Business As Usual scenario parameters .................................................. 40 

Table 9:  Baseline scenario parameters ................................................................ 41 

Table 10: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 1 .............................................. 42 

Table 11: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 2 .............................................. 42 

Table 12: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 3 .............................................. 43 

Table 13:  Maximum Potential scenario parameters .............................................. 44 

Table 14: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 4 .............................................. 44 

Table 15: 

Target oriented scenario – sustainable competitiveness ......................... 45 

Table 16: 

Impacted parameters in each scenario compared to the baseline scenario 46 

Table 17: 

Expected impact of scenarios by each DG MOVE objective...................... 47 

Table 18: 

Final list of variants ........................................................................... 47 

May 2019  I  7/196 

 
 
 
 
Table 19:  Modal share for access to seaports (observed / simulated) ..................... 59 

Table 20: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level and scenario ....................................... 65 

Table 21: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level: for container market ........................... 67 

Table 22: 

IWT modal share .............................................................................. 71 

Table 23: 

IWT traffic (in tons.km) by corridor and scenario .................................. 71 

Table 24: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level and scenario ....................................... 74 

Table 25: 

RoRo chain for maximum potential & target oriented scenarios ............... 75 

Table 26: 

IWT traffic for container market .......................................................... 77 

Table 27: 

IWT modal share .............................................................................. 79 

Table 28: 

IWT traffic (in tons.km) by corridor and scenario .................................. 79 

Table 29: 

Seaport traffic with Hub and Spoke and Redistribution variant ................ 82 

Table 30: 

Terrestrial access to the seaports (container market) ............................ 85 

Table 31: 

Effect of new technologies for road sector on seaport traffic ................... 86 

Table 32: 

Effect of new technologies on the modal share for the container market .. 87 

Table 33: 

Effect of new technologies on the modal share of the RoRo market ......... 87 

Table 34: 
Effect  of  new  technologies  and  waterborne  improvement  on  the  container 
traffic by port ..................................................................................................... 88 

Table 35: 
Effect  of  new  technologies  &  waterborne  improvement  on  the  modal  share 
for the container market ...................................................................................... 89 

Table 36: 
Effect of new technologies and waterborne improvement on maritime links of 
the RoRo market ................................................................................................. 89 

Table 37: 

List of policy measures to be assessed ................................................. 98 

Table 38: 

Emission factors based on EMEP 2016 ............................................... 106 

Table 39:  Marginal cost of externalities per mode in €/tons.km based on Handbook on 
external costs of transport - Version 2019 ............................................................ 106 

Table 40: 

Summary of scenarios and variants ................................................... 107 

Table 41:  Main impacts of the scenarios ........................................................... 117 

Table 42:  Main impacts of the baseline variants ................................................ 118 

Table 43: 

Traffic projection on selected RoRo links ............................................ 123 

Table 44:  Quantitative assessment of policy scenarios ....................................... 125 

Table 45:  Quantitative assessment of the variants ............................................ 126 

Table 46: 

Database for Intra-EU flows ............................................................. 129 

Table 47: 

Database for Sea market ................................................................. 129 

Table 48:  Macro-economic assumptions for all scenarios .................................... 144 

Table 49: 

List of all trends from A1 report and maximum impact ......................... 145 

Table 50: 

List of trends for road transport and expected impact .......................... 148 

Table 51: 

List of trends for rail transport and expected impact ............................ 153 

Table 52: 

List of trends for inland waterway and expected impact ....................... 155 

Table 53: 

Greening of IWT mode on the different scenarios ................................ 158 

May 2019  I  8/196 

 
 
Table 54: 
Summary  of  the  final  proposition  of  screened  policy  measures  (in  grey: 
measures not selected) ...................................................................................... 187 

Table 55: 

Evolution of GDP 2010 – 2030 .......................................................... 192 

Table 56: 

Evolution of population 2010 – 2030 ................................................. 193 

Table 57: 

Evolution of population 2010 - 2030 .................................................. 194 

May 2019  I  9/196 

 
 
 
Abbreviations 

AGR 

CCNR   

EU 

GIS 

IWT 

IWW 

NACE 

NUTS 

OSM 

TEN-T  

TEU 

Annual Growth Rate 

Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine 

European Union 

Geographic Information System 

Inland Waterway Transportation 

Inland Waterway 

Nomenclature  statistique  des  activités  économiques  dans 
Communauté européenne 

la 

Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 

Open Street Map 

Trans-European Transport Network 

Twenty-foot equivalent unit 

May 2019  I  10/196 

 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

1.1.  Context and overall purpose 

The  study  “Assessment  of  potential  of  maritime  and  inland  ports  and  inland  waterways 
and of related policy measures, including industrial policy measures”, is one of the four 
lots of the “Study on support measures for the implementation of the TEN-T core network 
related to sea ports, inland ports and inland waterway transport”. Its aim is to identify 
policy measures which could promote the development of waterborne transport, 
covering maritime and inland transport and ports. The outcome of the study will be used 
to provide support to EU programs, in particular, the  revised Trans-European Transport 
Network guidelines (TEN-T)1, the Strategy “Ports: an engine for growth”2 and the NAIADES 
II package “Towards quality inland waterway transport”3. These three documents set out 
the  main  priorities  and  actions  to  be  taken  in  order  to  achieve  the  transport  policy 
objectives of the White Paper 20114. 

1.2.  Objectives of the study 

The objectives of this Study are: 

  To identify and analyse the existing role and the maximum realistic potential of EU 
waterborne transport along the TEN-T core network in a forward-looking way. 
  To develop recommendations for strategies and measures to realise this potential 
in a 2020-2030 timeframe at TEN-T core network, TEN-T corridor and port levels. 

In line with these objectives, the main results presented in this report include: 

  An in-depth analysis of (i) intra-EU and extra-EU freight flows; (ii) main economic 
trends; and (iii) main technological trends impacting the competitiveness of ports 
and transport modes; 

  A  critical  analysis  of  logistic  needs  for  the  most  relevant  market  segments  for 

waterborne transport; 

  The identification of obstacles preventing waterborne transport from achieving its 

maximum potential, and policy measures to address them; 

  Most updated European wide freight traffic projections for waterborne transport; 
  Thorough modelling to allow evaluation of policy scenarios (combinations of policy 

measures); 

  A set of recommendations on most promising measures; 

1 Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 
2 COM/2013/0295 final  
3 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/inland/promotion/naiades2_en 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en 

May 2019  I  11/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
2. Methodology and approach 

2.1.  Overall approach 

The overall approach of the study is detailed in the figure below: 

Figure 1: 

Overall approach 

The study involves four key steps: 

  Firstly,  a  critical  review  of  the  past  trends,  current  situation  and  recent 
developments, in order to idenfiy the main obstacles limiting the development of 
ports, inland waterways and waterborne transport 

  Then, more than 30 policy measures have been identified aiding to remove those 
obstacles.  The  20  most  promising  policy  measures  have  been  selected,  and 
combined into 4 policy scenarios and 4 variants 
In the third stage of the study, the potential of these scenarios and variants has 
been  tested  using  a  European  Network  Transport  Model  dedicated  to  freight 
transport at EU level 

 

  The  final  stage  of  the  study  provides  an  assessment  of  the  policy  measures  and 
policy  scenarios  against  the  goals  of  the  European  Union’s  transport  policy;  the 
political, financial, legal and technologial feasibility of each policy measure has also 
been checked. 

A consultation process with stakeholders has also been maintained throughout the study, 
to discuss and validate the assumptions used and the intermediate results. 

2.2.  Desk-based research and analysis 

The  review  of  the  current  situation  has  mainly  been  based  on  desk-based  research,  as 
there is an extensive literature available on the topic. More than 200 sources have been 
analysed during the course of the study. Detailed reference can be found in Appendix C – 
List of references. 

May 2019  I  12/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As described above, the following process has been followed: 

  Based on the analysis of the current situation, identification of the main obstacles 

limiting the development of waterborne transport 

  Development of policy measures to address these obstacles 
  Development of policy scenarios combining several policy measures 
  Translation of the policy scenarios into impacts on the parameters of the modelling 

tool 

  Test of the policy scenarios with the modelling tool 
  Assessment of the policy measures and policy scenarios 

One of the key components of the study is the modelling tool, which can deliver transport 
analysis at different spatial levels, from local port or network section level to national and 
international levels. The modelling tool also integrates the impact of transport projects on 
the modal split. 

Therefore, the use of a European Network Transport Model is required: this has been done 
with an adaptation of the network models PORT-PRINT and LOGIS of BG which covers the 
28 EU Member States and has been applied in different EU and national researches and 
studies in the past years with frequent updates of data and regular improvements5. 

There are five major  modules in the  PORT-PRINT model with interrelation shown in the 
figure below: 

  Module of generation where the volume between each origin – destination is 

estimated. This module provides results: 

o  At nuts2 – Extra-EU zone for extra EU traffic. The module is considering six 
extra-EU zones: Asia, Mediterranean, North America, South America, Africa, 
CIS) 

o  Between nuts2 for intra-EU traffic 

  Transport operation module where the transport cost of each transport chain, point 
to  point,  is  calculated  using  unit  costs  by  mode  and  characteristics  of  the 
infrastructure. Generalized cost is then calculated by adding transport cost, value 
of time and a mode-specific constant by port. 

  Module  of  distribution  between  ports:  the  relative  attractiveness  of  each  port 
(relative market share), for a given relationship (Asia, Med, America…) is evaluated 
with  a  gravity  model  integrating  “weight  of  port”  (assessed  in  tons)  for  this 
relationship and best generalized cost (all mode) to reach the port. 

  Transport  modal  split  module,  which  identifies  the  best  solutions  between  two 
points  (choice  of  mode  and  route)  and  the  distribution  of  volume  between  each 
solution (probabilistic distribution). 

  Assignment module, which assigns the flows on the best transport chain identified 
in the transport modal split module. The module is using sections of IWW, Road, 
and  Rail  networks,  and  also  intermodal  platforms,  including  maritime  and  inland 
ports. 

5  Detailed  description  of  the  modelling  tool  can  be  found  in  Appendix  A  –  Detailed 
description of the modelling tool 

May 2019  I  13/196 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 2: 

Overall architecture of the modelling tool 

The modelling tool is then able to provide results at ports level, at EU level, at corridor 
level as shown in the figure below: 

Figure 3: 

Illustration of the results of the modelling tool 

May 2019  I  14/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally,  an  assessment  framework  has  been  developed  to  analyse  policy  measures  and 
policy  scenarios  proposed.  This  assessment  framework  is  based  on  the  three  following 
policy packages: 

  2011  Transport  White  Paper,  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area. 
system 

competitive 

transport 

resource 

efficient 

and 

Towards 
(COM(2011)144final), 

a 

  The  European  Maritime  Transport  Strategy  2009-2018,  Strategic  goals  and 
transport  policy  until  2018 

the  EU’s  maritime 

for 

recommendations 
(COM(2009)8final), 

  The 2014’s European Parliament report, the Cost of Non-Europe, in concern to the 
most  relevant  gaps  identified  on  missing  regulation  and  barriers  to  a  fully 
integrated internal market.  

In  this  sense,  proposals  are  assessed  in  relation  to  their  contribution  to  the  European 
Roadmap for the Common Transport Policy (CTP), particularly to the Maritime Policy, and 
in relation to identified regulatory gaps in the Single Market.  

Specific criteria in relation to the goals of each of these packages have been developed, 
which are partly fed by the results of the modelling tool presented above. 

2.3.  Consultation with stakeholders and the European Commission 

This  study  has  been  developed  in  close  collaboration  with  sector  associations  but  also 
strong support from ports and inland waterway infrastructure managers. 

The consortium attended the following meetings / workshops6: 

Table 1: 

List of meetings 

Date 
16/01/2016 
22/03/2016 
07/04/2016 
22/04/2016 
05/06/2016 
13/12/2016 
26/01/2017 
27/03/2017 
28/04/2017 
11/12/2017 
12/12/2017 
27/02/2018 
29/03/2018 
24/04/2018 
11/06/2018 
14/12/2018 

Meeting 
NAIADES 
Port Directors meeting 
ESPO 
ESPO technical committee 
ESPO conference 
ESPO 
INE 
Port Directors meeting 
ESPO 
Port Forum 
ESPO workshop 
NAIADES 
Workshop with INE, ESPO and EFIP 
ESPO ILICO committee 
Port Forum 
Port Forum 

Place 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 
Dublin, Ireland 
Brussels, Belgium 
Luxembourg, Luxembourg 
La Valletta, Malta 
Civitaveccia, Italy 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 
Diegem, Belgium 
Turku, Finland 
Brussels, Belgium 
Brussels, Belgium 

Moreover, two discussion paper have been disseminated in the course of the study: 

  A  first  one  on  suggestions  for  scenarios,  developed  by  the  consortium  and  DG 

MOVE, just before the Port Directors meeting in La Valletta in April 2017 

  A second one in March 2018, just before the workshop with INE, ESPO and EFIP, 
on the main obstacles identified and the proposed policy measures. More than 50 

6 Excluding meetings in relation with corridor studies, which were linked with Task C of the 
contract. 

May 2019  I  15/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
comments  have  been  collected  following  this  workshop,  all  of  which  have  been 
taken into account. 

The  conclusions  of  the  analysis  have  also  been  discussed  with  inland  waterways 
infrastructure managers and seaports through 25 interviews. The final list of interviews is 
presented in Appendix D – List of interviews with ports and inland waterway infrastructure 
managers. 

Finally,  it  was  not  deemed  necessary  to  carry  out  a  large  number  of  interviews  with 
stakeholders from the industry or logisticians, as the extensive literature identified already 
relies on a large set of interviews, as illustrated by the table below on a sample of studies 
used for the analysis of transport and logistic needs, which already represent more than 
450 interviews: 

Table 2: 

Interviews in the studies analysed 

Study name 

Study about the port development plan of the Saône-Rhône-
Mediterranean basin (Etude du schéma portuaire du bassin Saône-
Rhône-Méditerranée) 
Orientation development plan for ports on the Rhin basin (Schéma 
d’orientation portuaire du bassin du Rhin) 
Traffic study and socio-economic assessment of the waterborne link 
proposed between Saône-Moselle and Saône-Rhin (Etude de trafic et 
évaluation socio-économique du projet de liaison fluviale Saône-
Moselle. Saône-Rhin) 
Amsterdam - Marseille corridor - services multimodaux rail - voie 
d'eau 

Study for the motorway of the sea Transgascogne (Bilbao-Nantes) 
Study for the reopening of the Canfranc rail line (Zaragoza-Toulouse) 
Assessment of the impact of infrastructure constraints on railway 
development projects in the European freight corridor n°4 
Prognose des Importkohlebedarfs Deutschland (Forecast of imported 
coal demand Germany) 
Added value network Greenports and Mainports (Toegevoegde waarde 
Netwerk Greenports en Mainports) 
study on market structures in IWT (Versterking van de markstructuur 
in de binnenvaart, een inventarisatie van mogelijkheden voor 
commerciële samenwerkingsverbanden) 
Metallurgy made in and for Europe, the perspective of producers and 
end-users, roadmap; Directorate-General for Research and 
Innovation, 2014 
Report on market transfer conditions Market Analysis Danube Corridor 
Smart data for logistics innovations 
Monitoring Topsector logistics (Monitoring Topsector Logistiek) 
Opportunities for Continental synchromodal transport (De kansen van 
continentaal synchromodaal vervoer) 
Opportunities for strengthening of the food cluster in the Amsterdam 
Area (Kansen voor versterking Foodcluster MRA)  
Internalisation of external costs in freight transport (Internaliseren 
van externe kosten in het goederenvervoer) 
Containerization and Conditioning in Flower and Plant Chains 
(Containerisatie en Conditionering in Sierteeltketens) 
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015-2024 

Date 

2010 

# of 
interviews 
66 

2013 

15+ 

2012 

100+ 

2016 

2005 
2013 
2015 

2014 

2013 

2015 

2014 

2014 
2016 
2017 
2014 

2013 

2012 

2010 

2015 

30 ITWs, 415 
questionnaires, 
18 workshops 
5 
15 
1 

15 

46 

5 

10 

10 
25 
40 
10 

8 

8 

10 

40+ 

May 2019  I  16/196 

 
 
 
 
2.4.  Limitations 

Like all studies using modelling tools, this study has several limits: 

  Projections for 2030 are using assumptions on GDP growth, price of oil, exchange 
rate between € and $... which are uncertain. The study, however, is using the same 
assumptions  as  the  “EU  Reference  Scenario  2016,  Energy,  transport  and  GHG 
emissions, Trends to 2050”7 which is consistent with other EU studies. 

  The  modelling  tool  is  using  several  database:  Eurostat  (port  statistics,  Comext), 
database coming from surveys (CAFT), ETIS database, annual reports from port or 
infrastructure managers…: however  information might be missing sometimes, like 
for instance data on market share of each port for each NUTS2 of its hinterland, or 
the modal split for the flows to / from the port. The consortium has made the best 
use of the data available for calibration, but the data set is not comprehensive. 

Beyond the modelling tool, the study is also facing other limitations: 

  Some stakeholders did not answer our request for interviews; therefore, our panel 
for the validation of the findings might not have a perfect geographical coverage – 
though it has representative from North, South, East, West and Central Europe. 
  The study did not consider the impact of the Brexit, as the agreement between the 

EU and the United Kingdom in 2030 is not known yet 

  The study did not consider the impact of changes in the patterns of global trade 

7 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713%20draft_publication
_REF2016_v13.pdf 

May 2019  I  17/196 

 
 
 
 
                                           
3. Critical review of major developments and strategies 

related to the EU waterborne system 

The purpose of the critical review of major developments and strategies was to identify, 
analyse and assess those that will have an impact on the seaports, inland ports and inland 
waterway transport in the short term and long term. It includes: 

  Analysis  of  major  geopolitical,  economic  and  trade  issues  and  technological 

developments 

  An analysis of transport and logistic needs 
  An assessment of existing waterborne industrial developments 
  A  focus  on  circular  economy,  which  was  deemed  of  uttermost  importance  for 

waterborne transport 

The findings have been discussed and validated with stakeholders; the outcomes of this 
work have served as the input for: 

 
 
 
 

the identification of obstacles limiting the development of waterborne transport 
the development of the policy measures addressing those obstacles 
the design of consistent policy scenarios 
the analysis of the results of the modelling tools (comparison with past trends and with 
the feedback from stakeholders on each market segment) 

3.1.  Analysis  of  major  geopolitical,  economic  and  trade  issues  and 

technological developments 

a. 

Identification of major geopolitical, economic and trade issues and 
past trends  

Methodology 

The  trend  analysis  has  been  made  for  ports  and  IWT  traffic  of  Europe,  which  is  the 
perimeter of the study. These traffic trends are related to GDP and trade evolution, Intra-
EU and Extra-EU trade. 

Therefore,  this  perimeter  of  the  study  covers  different  market  segments  which  do  not 
follow  the  same  trends  depending  upon  the  type  of  exchanges  as  well  as  the  type  of 
products concerned, implying different types of transport organization. 

The approach to identify the major geopolitical, economic and trade issues, in relation to 
the freight traffic of maritime ports and inland waterways, was based on the analyses of 
past trends. Indeed, this traffic is related to GDP and trade evolution, Intra-EU and Extra-
EU trade, as pointed out in most recent publications, such as "ITF transport outlook 20158", 
or  "The  capacity  to  growth:  Transport  Infrastructure  Needs  for  Future  Trade  Growth9" 
more directly related to traffic generated by ports. The analysis has contributed to design 
the baseline scenario, described in §4. 

As illustrated in the next figure, the analysis of the trends has been done for: 

  Trade in tons, with a split between extra-EU and intra-EU flows and a split between 

bulk and non-bulk products 

8   OECD/ITF 2015 
9   OECD/ITF 2016 

May 2019  I  18/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Port traffic in tons per country, with a split between extra-EU and intra-EU and a split 

 

according to the type of shipment: container, bulk (liquid and solid), RoRo 
IWT traffic in tons, with a split between national and international flows, and a split 
between containers and bulk 

Figure 4: 

Trend analysis approach 

Moreover, the following specific analysis have been carried out: 

 

”past" traffic trends have been correlated to several factors: 

  GDP economic drivers at EU and national level 
 

trade  drivers  estimated  in  "tons"  using  COMEXT  data  base10,  which  provides 
data  by  product  according  to  different  product  nomenclatures11.  With  this 
information, a distinction can be made between products transported in units 
and products transported in bulk. 

 

traffic of all ports have been aggregated per country, in order to compare the evolution 
of port traffic of a given country to its trade. 

Projected trends have been estimated using (i) observed past correlations with GDP and 
(ii) projections of GDP per EU country as defined in the EU scenario called "last decade 
scenario" (EU reference scenario 2013 Trends to 2050- EU Energy, Transport, and GHG 
emissions12). 

As these estimations do not integrate changes in infrastructure or competitiveness of the 
different transport modes and ports, they cannot be considered as transport projections 
or projections for 2030. But they have been used as a reference for checking the results 
of the modelling tools. 

10 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/international-trade-in-goods/data/focus-on-comext  
11  Combined  Nomenclature  (CN8,  HS6,  HS4  and  HS2),  Standard  International  Trade 
Classification  (SITC),  the  Broad  Economic  Categories  (BEC)  and  the  Classification  of 
Products  by  Activity  (CPA),  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/international-trade-in-
goods/data/focus-on-comext  
12   European Commission 2013d 

May 2019  I  19/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Key findings 

The  analysis  of  the  trends  has  showed  that  over  the  period  2000-2014,  for  an  EU  GDP 
growth of 2.3% per year: 

 

the total EU traffic in ports has increased by 1.7% per year, with a high increase of 
container traffic (5.5% per year) as compared to bulk traffic (1.3% for dry bulk and 
0.5% for liquid bulk); 

  a  growth  of  Extra-EU  traffic  in  ports  higher  than  growth  of  Intra-EU  traffic  with 

respectively 2.6% versus 0.9% per year; 

  a moderate growth of IWT traffic of 1.1% per year, with, however a remarkable growth 

in IWW container traffic of 5% per year on average. 

But the 2000-2014 period can be split in two very different periods: 

  Between  2000-2007,  annual  growth  of  EU  port  traffic  was  3.9%  (8.4%  for 

containers), and annual growth of ITW traffic was 1.3% 

  Between  2007-2014,  annual  growth  of  EU  port  traffic  was  -0,4%  (2.3%  for 

containers), and annual growth of ITW traffic was 1.1% 

For  port  traffic,  the  sharp  decrease  of  the  growth  can  be  linked  with  economic  growth, 
with a 2.3% average growth rate before 2007 followed by a 0.2% growth over the second 
period. 

IWT traffic appears more stable with a small difference between the two periods (1.3% 
versus 1.1%), although an important drop followed by an important increase is observed 
in Benelux’s IWT traffic. 

Figure 5: 

Trends comparison of Ports, IWW traffic, non-bulk trade and GDP, 

annual growth rate by period 

Source: Authors based on Eurostat (2016d, 2016f, 2016g and 2016h) 

The trend projection between 2010 and 2030 for container traffic in EU ports is 3% 
for Extra-EU trade and 2% for Intra-EU, with an average annual growth of 1.3% for EU 
GDP. This is an alignment with world trade which is expected to increase at a rate of 3.5% 
over the long run (ITF for horizon 2050, "Capacity to grow (ITF 2016)"), which is about 
half of the rate of growth observed between 1990 and 2007 (6.9%), taking into account 
the fact that the share of EU trade in the world trade will decrease. Bulk traffic evolution 
is expected to be stagnating, depending on the type of product and upon energy policies 
affecting energy products trade of EU. 

May 2019  I  20/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b. 

assessment 
Identification 
organisational and logistical issues 

and 

of  major 

technological, 

Technological and organisational as well as logistics trends often appear at the same time, 
since  technology  is  not  a  goal  on  its  own  but  is  used  and  serves  the  goal  to  optimise 
operations  for  some  actors  in  the  maritime  and  inland  waterway  transport  chain. 
Technological  advancements  have  an  impact  on  organizational  and  logistics  issues  and 
cannot be discussed independently from these topics. 

Technological advancements are implemented by several categories of stakeholders, such 
as (i) the customers of the ports (e.g. shipping lines); (ii) stakeholders which use the port 
but are not directly customers such as forwarders and hauliers; and (iii) the seaports and 
hinterland ports themselves. Hence, advancements can be observed at links and nodes of 
the maritime transport chains: 

Figure 6: 

Exemplary transport chain 

Source: Authors 

Globally,  almost  90  percent  of  international  trade  is  moved  by  maritime  transport 13. 
Seaports are the nodes linking waterborne transport and hinterland transport modes. Their 
competitiveness  relies  on  the  quality  of  their hinterland  connections,  which  refers  to  all 
individual transports modes as well as to intermodal or multimodal combinations of them. 
Road, rail and inland waterway transport are facilitators of extra seaport volumes, but at 
the same time competitors of maritime transports depending on the origin and destination 
of the transport flows and the geography. 

A study of the technological, organizational  and logistical trends of the maritime sector, 
particularly of ports and vessels, has been carried out to identify the major transformations 
that  this  sector  will  experience  and  to  assess  their  impact  on  the  maritime  transport 
activity and on its parameters (costs, time, performance, etc.). The results of this analysis 
have contributed to the definition of the scenarios in the following section.  

Indeed, the current digital transformation of the industry and the ambitious EU targets on 
GHG  emissions  can  dramatically  impact  the  relative  competitiveness  of  all  modes  of 
transport.  Digitalization  will  support  the  development  of  multimodality  and  automated 
vehicles, but also improve the management of transport flows and therefore might be an 
opportunity to decrease congestion. Ambitious targets on GHG will lead to a complete shift 
from combustion engines to alternative engines for all modes of transport. 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  identified  technological,  organizational  and  logistics 
trends  related  to  maritime  vessels,  seaports  and  inland  modes  of  transport  and  their 
expected impacts. 

13 International Chamber of Shipping, “Key Facts”, http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-
facts/key-facts  

May 2019  I  21/196 

Maritime pre-haulMaritime main-haulmaritime post-haulOriginLand transportvia inlandwaterway, railand/orroadOverseastransportDestinationSeaportterminal in ladingportSeaportterminal in portof dischargeLand transportvia inlandwaterway, railand/orroadEmptycontainer(Supply)Empty container(Return) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 3: 

Summary of the impacts of the identified trends 

#  Trend 
Vessels 

1 

Autonomous 
shipping and drone 
ships 

2 

Ultra Large Vessels 

3 

4 

5 

Stricter 
environmental 
regulations for 
waterborne 
transport 
Innovative Vessel 
Design 
Interpretation and 
use of data 
Carrier Alliances 

6 
Seaports 

7 

Automation of 
Terminals 

8 

Green Logistics 

Impact in terms of what? 

  Reduction of crew costs
  Reduction of accident costs
  Increase of efficiency
  Reduction of ship operation costs per transported ton of 

cargo on board of the vessel

  Increased hinterland transportation costs, due to congestion 

or port shifts

  Increase of fuel costs (marine diesel fuel instead of crude 

oil) in the short-term in ECAs

  Decrease of fuel costs due to new fuels (e.g. LNG being 

cheaper than conventional oil) and innovative propulsion 
technologies in the medium- and long-term

  Reduction of ship operating costs
  Increase of energy efficiency and safety of vessels
  Reduction of ship operating costs (e.g. fuel consumption)
  Reduction of accident costs
  Increase in efficiency 

  Improvement of productivity 
  Reduction of maintenance costs
  Reduction of staff costs (in countries with high wage levels) 
  Contribution to increased safety and security (less human 

errors) 

  Contribution to environmental sustainability 

  Improvement of image and satisfaction of customer 

requirements 

  Establishment of a competitive advantage as environment is 
expected to become more important in the logistic choices 
of the shippers 

  Reduction of logistics costs and optimization of logistics 

flows

9 

Smart Ports, Smart 
Infrastructure 

  Increase of efficiency and better capacity utilization
  Reduction of congestion
  Increased attractiveness of ports due to additional services 

10 

Increased use of 
ICT and Terminal 
Networks 

11 

European Maritime 
Single Window and 
e-Maritime concept 

12 

Sustainable and low 
noise Inland Ports 

13  Port Policy 

for customers

  Increase of efficiency 
  Reduction of congestion 
  Reduction of the total logistics costs 
  Reduction of other logistics costs than transport, handling, 

storage, capital commitment and charges 

  Increase of sustainability 
  Improved use of infrastructure 
  Reduced number of delays 
  Faster turnarounds  
  More effective and efficient deployment of resources 
  Increased transparency 
  Reduced administrative costs 
  Sustainable future strategy for the Inland Port 
  Reduction of pollution 
  Long-term strategy for inland ports 
  Opening of port services 
  Achieve overall economic competitiveness of Europe versus 

other world regions 

May 2019  I  22/196 

 
 
 
#  Trend 

14  Port Governance 

Impact in terms of what? 
  Reduction of administrative costs 
  Guaranteed volumes because of companies’ investments 
  Increased acceptance of ports (better image)  
  Reduction of volumes that have formerly been imported via 

the port 

15  3D-Printing 

  New goods handled in the ports which needs to be 

transported 

  Cost-saving potential for companies 
  Increase of control over costs, pricing, entry and exit 

behaviour  

  Access to technology and knowledge  
  Reduction of uncertainties 
  Supply assurance 
  Reduction of complexities 

  Reduction of fuel consumption
  Increase of efficiency
  Reduction of accident costs
  Reduction of fuel costs
  Reduction of emissions
  Reduction of congestion and queues 
  Improvement of road traffic safety 
  Reduction of truck operating costs 
  Increase of efficiency 
  Decrease of empty running and increase of efficiency 
  Decrease of truck operating costs 
  Reduction of fuel costs 
  Reduction of port congestion 
  Reduction of costs for road transportation 

16  Vertical Integration 

Road Transport 

17 

18 

19 

Automation and 
smart vehicles 

Alternative fuels for 
trucks 

Intelligent 
transportation 
system (ITS) 

20 

Increasing 
efficiency in 
operations 
Smart port / smart 
terminal scheduling, 
and appointment 
systems 
Railway Transport 

21 

22 

23 

Increased train 
length 
Alternative fuels 
such as hydrogen or 
LNG 

24  Noise reduction  

25 

26 

27 

28 

European Rail 
Traffic Management 
System (ERTMS) 
European rail 
freight corridors 
(RFCs) 

Intermodal rail 
concepts 

Logistics integration 
and disintegration 

  Increase of efficiency 
  Reduction of operating costs per transported ton 
  Reduction of energy costs (for links where electrification is 

too expensive) 

  Secure competitiveness in rural areas 
  Overcome technological and operational hurdles in cross 

border railway transport 

  Increase of safety and reduction of costs 
  Reduction of delays 
  Increased priority of freight trains 
  Reduction of tie dependent costs 
  Reduction of transport duration 
  Reduction of transport costs 
  Increase of competitiveness to other transport modes 
  Reduction of number of competitors 
  Low economic success of some freight railway services 

Inland Waterway Transportation 

29 

30 

Green barge and 
eco competitive 
fleet 

Innovations in 
transport 
techniques 

  Decrease of fuel costs due to new fuels (e.g. LNG) and 

innovative propulsion technologies in the medium- and long-
term 

  Reduction of ship operating costs 
  Increase of energy efficiency and safety of barges 
  Transport of bigger amounts  
  Shift from road to waterways 

May 2019  I  23/196 

 
 
#  Trend 

Good Navigation in 
Inland Waterway 
Transport through 
AIS and RIS 
Innovations in 
engine sector 

31 

32 

33  Synchromodality 

34 

Digital services for 
collaborative 
logistics 

Intermodal Transport 
Cyber Security - 
Secure logistics 
transport chains 
against ICT crime 

35 

36 

Multimodal Logistics 
Platforms 

37 

Full integration of 
transport modes for 
a seamless supply 
chain 

Impact in terms of what? 
  Support traffic and transport Management 
  Modernization of information exchange 

  Reduction of CO2 
  Reduction of pollution 
  Efficient multimodal transport 
  Increasing flexibility and resilience 
  Support traffic and transport Management 
  Modal Shift 
  Modernization of information exchange 

  Reduces the barriers to implement innovative ICT solutions 

and innovations related to ports 

  Increase of regional trade and industry 
  Reduction of hinterland transport costs 
  Reduction of dwell-times in seaports 
  Support traffic and transport Management 
  Modal Shift 
  Efficient multimodal transport 

The consequences of most of those trends have been assessed quantitatively in order to 
be used as parameters of the modelling tool. The expected impact is a long- or medium-
term  impact  which  can  be  delivered  when  the  high  initial  investments  costs  have  been 
depreciated. These investment costs have not been quantified here. These trends and their 
impacts have been linked with policy measures and policy scenarios and  translated into 
parameters for the modelling tools; more details are presented in §4.3 and in Appendix B 
– Transportation costs. 

May 2019  I  24/196 

 
 
 
 
3.2.  Analysis of transport and logistics needs 

A  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis  of  transport  and  logistics  needs  of  eight  market 
segments for which waterborne transport (both maritime and inland waterway transport) 
and economic activities in port areas have a potentially important contribution has been 
carried out. The findings of this analysis have contributed to the definition of the policy 
measures and the design of the scenarios, but also for checking the results of the modelling 
tools per category of goods. 

Table 4: 

Selected market segments 

IWT market segments 

Key characteristics 

Metallurgical industry 

Bulk cargo and heavy units of general cargo 

Automotive industry 

Heavy units and Ro-Ro 

Energy production (coal, oil, gas) 

Continuous stream of bulk cargo 

Petro-chemicals and fertilizers 

Hazardous cargo to/from sea ports 

Agro (liquid and dry bulk) 

Seasonal fluctuations in types of cargo 

Construction materials (bulk) 

Low value, project specific transports 

Consumer electronics (in 
containers) 

Perishable products (food, 
horticulture) 

Valuable cargo with high value of time 

(refrigerated) containerized cargo 

a. 

Seaports and maritime transport 

For  seaports  and  maritime  transport,  the  potential  for  dry  bulk  freight  flows  is 
expected to be limited, but for agro bulk. The flows of coal transport are expected to 
decrease  due  to  energy  transition  to  more  sustainable  sources.  In  the  imports  of 
metallurgical  ores,  it  is  expected  that  European  companies  will  be  focusing  more  on 
specialized steels, with faster lead-time and lower volumes per segment. There is thus a 
potential for smaller ships, which have lower loading-and-unloading times and which have 
a better suited cargo capacity. Moreover, due to consolidation of production sites in the 
metallurgical  industry  outside  Europe,  the  imports  of  finished  steel  are  expected  to 
increase. 

The agro bulk throughput in export regions is expected to grow as the demand for 
several products in Europe is expected to be outpaced by production. Most notably these 
are the Baltic area, the Black Sea and the Atlantic French ports. 

May 2019  I  25/196 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: 

Harvested production of agribulk crops in 2014 in Europe by 

NUTS1 region 

Source: TNO (2016) based on Eurostat 2016 

Liquid  bulk  freight  flows  are  expected  to  stagnate  or  even  decline.  Three  main 
products ought to be highlighted. The oil transport is expected to decrease in the longer 
term due to the high emphasis on decarbonisation in all EU masterplans. Both the use of 
oil as a source  for electricity and transport fuel  are  expected to decrease.  However,  for 
LNG terminals there is high potential for growth, as this market (both for energy and as a 
transport fuel) is expected to grow. Furthermore, higher demand for fertilizers could create 
opportunities. There is also a large growth foreseen in the worldwide chemical industry. 
This growth is however mainly expected outside of Europe (mostly in China). 

In  the  markets  for  containers,  two  main  sources  for  growth  can  be  identified. 
Firstly, new reefer techniques create potential for perishable products, both food 
and horticultural products to be transported via sea instead of air. Increasing demand from 
emerging economies could create export opportunities for the food sector, in combination 
with the development in refrigerated containers, for perishable products like meat, dairy 
and  fish.  Secondly,  the  willingness  of  companies  to  reduce  transports  costs  will 
foster  the  freight  maritime  transport.  Indeed,  air  cargo  has  kept  a  relatively  large 
share  of  the  intercontinental  transport  of  electronics  (7%  of  imports,  9%  of  exports). 
Companies are actively searching for opportunities to switch their air freight to maritime 
cargo to save costs. For shorter distances (for instance imports from Turkey), short sea 
transport can be an alternative.  

May 2019  I  26/196 

 
 
 
 
b. 

Inland waterway transport 

For inland waterway transport, the growth of dry bulk freight flows is expected to be 
moderate: 

  Demand for coal and iron ore are expected to decrease, hence the transport via IWW 

is expected to decrease as well. 

  Potentially,  a  market  for  specialised  steels  (in  small  quantities)  could  emerge.  This 

market could be relevant for small/medium size vessels. 

  Furthermore, scrap metal is potentially an important growth market for IWT, especially 

in the Danube region.  

  The increased intercontinental demand for agricultural products creates opportunities 
for  bulk  transport  via  inland  shipping  from  production  sites  in  North-West  Europe 
(Rhine, Meuse, Seine, Rhône, and Elbe) and Romania/Bulgaria (Danube). 
IWW is also relevant for construction materials, but assessing accurately the potential 
requires  an  analysis  at  local  level,  as  transport  of  raw  materials  is  usually  done  on 
short distances. 

 

The growth of liquid bulk freight flows is expected to be moderate, since there is 
limited  additional  potential  growth  of  oil  and  gas,  which  are  mostly  transported  by 
pipelines. For the crude oil transport, pipelines are used for large quantities and smaller 
volumes go via road. For the gas, only smaller quantities could be transported by barges. 
For instance, small quantities for small scale applications. 

Significant  potential  has  been  identified  for  maritime  containers,  based  on  two 
main factors. The first factor is related to the containerization (including reefer containers), 
which creates potential for perishable food and horticultural products to be transported via 
IWW instead of road and to a lesser extend rail. The first pilot projects in these fields show 
promising  results.  The  second  identified  factor  is  the  increasing  demand  of  speed  and 
reliability.  For  fast  moving  consumer  goods,  such  as  consumer  electronics,  speed  and 
reliability are important aspects considered on the shipping options. If limiting things can 
be done on IWT speed, new logistical concepts such as synchromodality could improve the 
reliability of IWT up to the service level agreement of the shipper. This could lead  to an 
increase of the use of IWT. 

On  the  other  hand,  IWT  has  a  very  low  share  today  on  continental  transport  of 
generalized cargo, for instance from distribution centers to wholesale or retail locations. 
In order to increase the share of IWT in continental transport, several barriers need to be 
overcome,  such  as  the  size  of  the  container  (loading  of  pallet  wide  45  ft  containers  on 
barges), the connection with existing maritime container flows and the return logistics of 
empty containers. 

May 2019  I  27/196 

 
 
 
 
3.3.  Assessment  of  existing  waterborne  industrial  development 

and clustering strategies 

A review of the measures and strategies implemented at the European, national and 
regional level on the use of ports, inland waterway transport and short sea shipping 
has  been  carried  out.  The  objective  was  to  identify  the  main  comparisons  and 
differences, the good practices and gaps between goals set out by policy makers, the 
needs  identified  by  stakeholders  and  the  existing  policies.  Additionally,  this 
assessment has provided inputs for the identification of the policy measures and the 
design of policy scenarios in §4. 

The policies and strategies have been analysed according to three major policy areas: 

Infrastructure policy measures 

 
  Transport and logistics policy measures 
  Environmental and spatial policy measures 

a. 

Infrastructure policy measures 

For  port  infrastructure,  projects  are  related  to  (i)  the  maritime  and  hinterland 
connectivity; (ii) the development of terminal capacity or industry locations; and (iii) 
the acquisition of port equipment and fuelling infrastructure. 

Investments in  inland  waterway  infrastructure include (i) the construction of 
new  canal  segments  (most  notably  Seine-Nord);  (ii)  the  deployment  of  River 
Information  System  (RIS);  (iii)  improvements  of  the  sailing  conditions  on  current 
waterways by widening and deepening of the fairway and (iv) removing bottlenecks 
by  renovating  locks  and  bridges.  Furthermore,  investments  are  made  on  new 
terminal  facilities.  Limited  investments  are  made  today  in  digitalization  of  inland 
waterway beyond RIS. 

Investments  in  railway  and  road  connections  are  considered  as  important 
measures  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  ports.  Improvements  include  the 
last mile connection between ports and main network and improvements on longer 
infrastructure sections. 

Overall,  these  policy  options  can  achieve  positive  impacts,  but  they  are  capital 
intensive,  and  suffer  from  current  budgetary  constraints  at  EU,  national  and  local 
level. Moreover, focus is still on “classical” infrastructure, and maybe not enough on 
modernization and digitalization of existing ones. 

b. 

Transport and logistics policy measures 

Transport  and  logistics  policy  measures  aim  to  create  a  level  playing  field  for  all 
modes and to improve the accessibility of important economic regions. 

Countries and regions use financial incentives to influence behaviour of the transport 
sector. This can involve (i) the introduction of a pricing scheme to internalise external 
costs; (ii) providing direct subsidies for modal shift; or (iii) supporting the setup of 
new services. 

Besides financial incentives, other policy measures can achieve the same result, such 
as  (i)  the  set-up  of  information,  marketing  and  promotion  campaigns  to  stimulate 
the  use  of  multimodal  transport;  (ii)  or  through  the  set-up  of  ICT  measures  and 
efficiency measures. 

But  there  is  limited  support  today  for  the  modernization  of  waterborne  transport, 
especially inland waterway transport, whereas the sector is suffering from its limited 
financial capacity. Only a few examples of initiatives promoting innovation have been 
identified,  especially  in  countries  where  IWT  is  already  strongly  developed  (for 
instance WenZ in Belgium). But there has not been any uptake of those initiatives at 

May 2019  I  28/196 

 
 
a larger scale yet. Therefore, modernization of inland waterway transport is going at 
a  slower  pace  than  road  and  even  rail  at  EU  level,  which  could  endanger  its 
competitiveness in the medium term. Maritime sector is suffering less from this issue; 
for instance, EU ship-owners have already been investing in new technologies without 
public support (like Maersk with its blockchain project14). 

Overall,  these  policy  options  are  achieving  good  results  with  a  limited 
budget,  and  they  constitute  relevant  measures  to  accompany  the 
development  of  waterborne  transport  in  Europe.  Nevertheless,  their  impact 
remains marginal at EU level and they will not generate alone an important modal 
shift from road to maritime transport and inland waterway, unless stronger effort is 
put on supporting the modernization of inland waterway transport. 

c. 

Environmental and spatial policy measures 

Environmental  and  spatial  policy  measures  are  measures  aiming  at  reducing  the 
impact of external costs of transport, safeguard the quality of living surrounding and 
develop a climate for the development of competitive sectors. 

Environmental policies include development of legislation on emission levels, water 
quality and safety. Other environmental policies are aimed at stimulating the use of 
environmentally  friendly  transport  equipment.  Modal  shift  policies  are  also  often 
mentioned as environmental stimulation policies. 

Spatial  development  policies  include  concession  strategies  in  ports  to  stimulate 
clustering of certain types of industries and policies aimed to safeguard growth of the 
port in coexistence with the growth of other activities, most notably development of 
residential  areas.  But  the  capacity  for  national  or  local  government  and  port 
authorities to influence the development of the industrial activities next to ports and 
inland  waterways  is  limited,  as  land  in  ports  and  next  to  inland  waterways  is  in 
competition with other land available at European level, and many other factors are 
taken  into  account  by  private  companies,  such  as  the  existence  of  a  good  road 
network,  the  presence  of  a  well  trained  workforce,  the  cost  of  the  workforce,  the 
availability of primary resources, etc. For instance, the cluster of steel along the Mosel 
has been created because of the availability of two key inputs to produce steel: coal 
and  water  for  cooling,  not  because  of  possibility  to  carry  goods  through  inland 
waterways.  Similarly,  chemical  clusters  next  to  seaports  have  been  developed 
because of the presence of crude oil in seaports. 

Moreover, a key conclusion of the review of all industrial policy documents 
is  that  transport  issues  are  not  taken  into  consideration 
in  their 
recommendations. Transport policies and industrial policies have been and are still 
separated in EU countries. But there might be an opportunity to better bring together 
both policies thanks to: (i) the development of new economic activities, like circular 
economy; (ii) the increased pressure on logistics in urban hubs; and (iii) the Paris 
agreement on climate change which requires a total change in the set of minds of 
policy makers in order to achieve the ambitious objectives. 

14  https://www.maersk.com/press/press-release-archive/maersk-and-ibm-to-form-
joint-venture  

May 2019  I  29/196 

 
 
 
                                           
3.4.  Circular  economy  in  sea  ports,  inland  ports  and  inland 

waterway transport 

a. 

Pillars  of  the  circular  economy  within  the  waterway 
infrastructure 

In  a  context  of  increasing  awareness  in  the  past  fifty  years  about  the  Earth’s 
resources  being  finite  and  the  effects  of  gas  emissions  and  human  activities  on 
climate  change,  the  impact  of  industry  on  these  aspects  has  been  questioned. 
According to industrial ecology principles, industry is seen as functioning in a manner 
similar  to  an  ecosystem,  where  for  instance  what  is  considered  as  waste  by  some 
actors can be seen as a resource by others. 

The  classic  model  of  consumption  consists  in  a  linear  succession  of  patterns  that 
impact a resource, from its extraction to its transformation into a product that is then 
used  and  disposed  of.  The  steps  of  this  process,  and  the  challenges  –  including 
environmental – they raise, are often addressed independently by different actors. 
The circular economy model suggests optimising the quantity of resources required 
to produce a specific product, and creating closed loops between the different stages 
and actors of the life cycle of the product, to increase the duration of the life cycle 
and promote the reuse or recycling of resources once that cycle has ended. 

With  such  a  large  scope  of  action,  the  circular  economy  model  requires  the 
involvement of all members of the economic sector, as well as legislators to facilitate 
and regulate the resulting synergies. Furthermore, the circular economy concept is 
particularly  relevant  when  approached  on  a  territorial  level,  as  the  geographic 
proximity between different actors of the system helps reduce environmental impacts 
and develop an inclusive and sustainable economic model.  

In  that  sense,  due  to  their  significant  impact  on  the  development  and  economic 
growth  of  a  region,  waterway  infrastructures  and  port  zones  are  ecosystems  that 
have a crucial role to play in the development of the circular economy. On the one 
hand,  they  exemplify  the  important  industrial  and  resource  challenges  that  can 
benefit from a more circular approach to consumption, in particular, since energy is 
one of the main operating costs of shipping companies and port operators15. On the 
other hand, they represent entry or transit points for international trade and travel 
within territories and can thus capitalise the massive flows of all types of resources 
(financial, energy, materials) that characterise the global economy and make use of 
those  resources  on a regional level in collaboration with other actors.  Overall, it is 
also an effective way to tackle socio-environmental challenges that sea and inland 
ports and their environments face and manage the potential damage their activities 
can generate. 

For  European  ports  to  stay  economically  profitable,  competitive  and  sustainable  in 
the  long  term,  investments  in  research,  innovation  and  infrastructures  seem 
necessary, not only within the ports themselves, but also in a larger area that can 
include the entire port ecosystem - the local industrial base, the surrounding city or 
cities  and  the  related  transportation  systems  and  hubs.  The  circular  economy  can 
play  a  role  in  stimulating  investments  from  local  actors  or  attracting  investments 
from more distant stakeholders into the port areas and ecosystems. The transition to 
circular economy would be an efficient way for port-related actors to encourage the 
development  of  more  embedded  models  (through  industrial  symbiosis  or  port-city 

15  Rodrigue,  Jean-Paul,  Theo  Notteboom,  and  Athanasios  A.  Pallis.  “The 
Financialization  of 
the  Port  and  Terminal  Industry:  Revisiting  Risk  and 
Embeddedness.” Maritime Policy & Management 38, no. 2 (2011): 191–213. 

May 2019  I  30/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
integration for instance), leading to less or better assessed and mitigated risks, and 
to  a  “healthier”  financialisation  of  their  activities,  including  internal  and  external 
investments.  

By combining the economic actor’s production and supply, the consumers’ demand 
and  behaviour,  and  the  management  of  waste,  the  ADEME  identified  seven 
approaches characterising the circular economy model and minimising environmental 
impacts: 

  Extraction:  optimise  the  extraction  of  resources  (energy,  minerals,  agriculture, 

forestry – both non-renewable and renewable); 

  Eco-conception: take the whole life cycle of a product into account at the moment 

 

of its conception; 
Industrial  and  territorial  ecology:  create  symbioses  between  companies, 
encouraging exchanges and mutualisation of needs; 

  Functionality economy: offer services related to products instead of the products 

themselves, favour use over ownership; 

  Responsible consumption: encourage consumer to take environmental impacts at 

 

all the stages of the product’s life cycle into account; 
Increased use time: favour repair and reuse, notably by promoting second-hand 
buying and selling;  

  Recycling: maximise the use of raw materials contained in waste. 

b. 

Circular economy in practice: facts & figures 

To  identify  the  major  trends  and  their  impacts  on  maritime  transport  and  ports 
planning  and  governance,  10  seaports  or  inland  ports  have  been  analysed.  The 
selection,  based  on  their  relevance  from  a  circular  economy  perspective,  was  as 
broad as possible to have a big diversity. The Kawasaki port does not belong to the 
European Union, it was chosen because it is a pioneer port in the circular economic 
implementation.  

The figure below shows the repartition of each circular economy principle among the 
ports. All these 7 items rely on the effectiveness of the regional infrastructures to be 
well  developed.  However,  industrial  symbiosis  and  port-city  integration  can’t  be 
efficient without strong regional infrastructure networks. 

Figure 8: 

Repartition of the selected ports within the items of the 

circular economy 

This finding is not surprising since the recycling and over waste recovery treatments 
are  the  most  advanced  technologies  throughout  Europe.  These  are  mature 
technologies that are already well implemented in the ports. On the other hand, the 
biobased  economy  is  the  second  most  developed  principle  within  the  ports.  The 

May 2019  I  31/196 

0123456789Straubing-SandRotterdamMarseilleKawasaki (Japan)HAROPA Ports (FR)Galicia (Portos de )Copenhagen Malmö Port (DK-SE)Bristol Port (UK)AntwerpenAmsterdam 
 
 
 
 
 
 
biobased  principle  has  a  great  potential  within  the  ports  (bio  refineries,  bio  fuels, 
algae, methanisation…) but it is still at a very early stage.  

The major trends on which the ten studied ports seem to focus are the following: 

Industrial symbiosis (eight out of the ten studied ports); 

The  industrial  symbiosis  concept  refers  to  two  or  more  industries  that  evolve  in 
different sectors or at different stages of the value chain and can develop a beneficial 
long-term  collaboration.  An  interesting  example  of  industrial  symbiosis  is  the 
aforementioned upcycling or recycling of rubber, plastic and ferrous waste in the port 
of Amsterdam. Each type of waste is handled by a different company, in collaboration 
with  the  port,  which  creates  the  connection  between  the  waste  generators  and 
collectors. 

The port of Marseille-Fos partnered with institutions and local industries to develop 
PIICTO,  an  innovation  industrial  platform.  PIICTO  aims  at  transforming  the  port-
industry zone, notably by creating favourable regulatory, financial and geographical 
conditions for the development of synergies and mutualisation of services between 
the different actors. 

In Kalundborg, located in the Copenhagen-Malmö area, an industrial symbiosis park 
has been developed. However, the involvement and participation of the port in this 
logic of industrial symbiosis has so far been limited, mainly to providing some of the 
waste that companies in the park reuse and/or recycle. It can be assumed  - based 
on previously cited examples - that both the port and the industrial symbiosis park 
would greatly benefit from working together in that process. 

Port-city integration (six ports out of ten); 

In  a  long-term  vision  of  the  development  of  ports  and  of  their  role  at  a  regional, 
national and even international level, it seems relevant to rethink the relationships 
and connections, both existing and potential, between the port and the nearby city, 
which often developed based on the port activities. Ports are mainly focused on their 
profitability in order to remain relevant in a highly competitive sector, whereas cities 
answer to internal requirements or demands from authorities or citizens. However, it 
seems  that  rather  than  simple  geographic  proximity,  both  the  port  and  city  could 
benefit from more convergent models. By developing institutional and organisational 
coordination and interaction, the port and the city developed efficient networks that 
can help them both to tackle current and future economic, environmental and social 
challenges.  

Interesting examples of such integration between a port and its surrounding city are: 

  Safi in Morocco, where a new port was built outside of the city but in a logic of 
promoting exchanges and interdependence between the different stakeholders16; 
  Kawasaki in Japan, where an “Eco-town plan” developed jointly by the city and 
the port to enable the sustainable growth of the town thanks to recycling facilities 
notably; 

  Waste prevention (six ports out of ten). 

Due  to  the  large  volume  of  resources  or  products  transiting  through  ports,  waste 
plays a significant role in the port and waterway environments. In order to handle 
this issue, many ports have developed waste prevention systems in order to reduce 
the  volume  of  waste  generated  in  or  transported  to  the  ports.  In  the  port  of 

16  Myriam  Donsimoni,  Chapter  4  in  Cerceau,  Juliette,  Nicolas  Mat,  and  Yann  Alix. 
Economie Circulaire et Systèmes Industrialo-Portuaires. EMS Management & Société. 
Les Océanides et Fondation Sefacil, 2015.  

May 2019  I  32/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Rotterdam for example, residual heat is distributed to local companies, greenhouses 
or urban communities.  

Another circular way to tackle the volume of waste generated or collected in ports is 
to implement an efficient system to reuse or recycle this waste. The port of Antwerp 
for instance has developed an innovative economic model based  on the collecting, 
processing and shipping of waste that is later recycled in the Middle and Far East. In 
a functional economy approach, available and empty containers are filled with waste 
and exported to recycling facilities.  

Bio-based economy (in half of the ports). 

In  order  to  remain  competitive  and  to  mitigate  their  environmental  impact,  most 
businesses will therefore likely transition gradually from fossil energy to renewable 
bio-based  energy.  Indeed,  the  Climate  Change  Package  (CCP)  includes  mandatory 
goals for 2020, one of which is a 20 % share for renewable energy in the total EU 
energy mix. As a consequence of both their location and their business model, port 
zones have access to bio-waste, surrounding bioenergy resources as well as to the 
biomass supply chain17. Considering this context, the development of infrastructures 
and activities related to bio-energy seems to be an interesting development path for 
ports, as well as for their ecosystem, requiring relatively limited or already available 
resources and potentially generating new sources of economic revenue. 

The Symbiotic bio-Energy Port Integration with Cities by 2020 project  (EPIC 2020) 
aims at promoting the development of bio-based economy in four port cities: Malmö 
(Sweden), Mantova (Italy), Navipe-Akarport (Greece) and Wismar (Germany). These 
four cities are at very different stages of the development of a bio-based economy, 
however it seems apparent that they could all benefit from it. 

As  mentioned  before,  the  port  of  Straubing-Sand  has  developed  an  activity  of 
biomass  handling  and  freight,  leading  to  local  development  in  food,  energy  and 
chemicals. In Rotterdam the port collaborates with companies involved in bio-energy 
in order to produce biofuel. In Marseille, the PIICTO project involves many different 
players  of  the  biobased  economy  such  as  biorefineries  or  the  JUPITER  1000 
methanisation program.  

More  marginally,  some  ports  have  developed  repair  and  reuse  initiatives  (Ports  of 
Galicia and Port of Bristol) as well as functional and sharing economy projects (Port 
of Antwerp and HAROPA Ports). 

Far from being exclusive of one another, the listed solutions can be implemented by 
the same port infrastructures, and act complementarily.  

As a conclusion, it can be asserted that the main axis of development for ports in 
order to transition to a beneficial circular economy is the building of networks. These 
networks can connect ports to the surrounding industries (industrial symbiosis), to 
the cargo and transportation companies that use their facilities (bio-based economy) 
as well as to their environment (port-city integration). The development of networks 
enables  to  create  the  closed  feedback  loops  that  are  paramount  to  the  circular 
economy model; due to their structure and business model, it is apparent that ports 
are in a position to both create and benefit from such networks and from a transition 
to a more circular system. 

17 Leo W. Baas, Chapter 6, in Cerceau, Juliette, Nicolas Mat, and Yann Alix. Economie 
Circulaire  et  Systèmes  Industrialo-Portuaires.  EMS  Management  &  Société.  Les 
Océanides et Fondation Sefacil, 2015. 

May 2019  I  33/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
However, one of the main barriers to the circular economy in and around ports and 
waterway infrastructures is, as mentioned by Ezzat18, the current relatively low cost 
of raw materials, that does not press the various stakeholders to transition to a more 
resource efficient system – which is the main component and objective of the circular 
economy. However, the prices of raw materials and energy are highly volatile, and 
considering  that  energy  is  one  of  port  and  shipping  companies’  main  operating 
costs19, resource and energy efficiency could become very strategic in the future. It 
is therefore apparent that the ports that have already started to rethink their model 
and promote circular economy principles would be more resilient or even competitive 
in a context of high energy and materials prices. 

18  Ezzat,  Ahmed  Mohamed.  “Sustainable  Development  of  Seaport  Cities  through 
Circular  Economy:  A  Comparative  Study  with  Implications  to  Suez  Canal  Corridor 
Project.” European Journal of Sustainable Development 5, no. 4 (2016): 509–22. 
19 Ibid.  

May 2019  I  34/196 

 
 
 
                                           
4. Development  of  policy  measures  and  policy 

scenarios 

4.1.  Summary of identified obstacles 

The list of obstacles limiting the development of waterborne transport is presented 
below. They draw on the findings of the analyses presented above. 

I – Lack of infrastructure developments and maintenance (inland waterway and sea 
transport) 
Infrastructure of waterborne transport still needs to be developed and upgraded in 
many  regions  of  the  EU.  The  needed  investments  include  the  IWT  and  ports 
infrastructure  itself  (fairways,  locks,  quays…)  and  the  hinterland  connections  of 
seaports and inland ports. On this aspect, the rules and calls of the Connecting Europe 
Facility for Transport (CEF Transport) represent a barrier for ports which is  limiting 
their development. 

II – Lack of qualified IWT staff (inland waterway transport) 
A lack of qualified IWT staff for both operational and management has been identified. 
Another obstacle to find qualified employees is the absence of a regulatory framework 
for workers’ professional qualifications across-borders. 

III  –  Lack  of  collaboration  /  coordination  among  stakeholders  (inland  waterway 
transport) 
Shippers  prefer  transporting  goods  using  trusty  and  well-known  and  tested  routes 
and modes. They might consider transhipments to different modes as a risk. 
Moreover, the poor integration between IWT and the other actors within the logistics 
chain hinder the development of alternative solutions. 

IV  -  Progressive  loss  of  its  environment-friendly  image  &  compliance  with  more 
stringent standards on environment (inland waterway and sea transport) 
Due to high emissions of NOx and particulates (PM) compared to road transport, the 
latter  is  becoming  more  environment-friendly  at  a  much  faster  pace  than  inland 
shipping. 

The standards for IWT are covering both:  
 

increasing  demands  by  environmental  regulations  at  EU,  national  and  regional 
level for all modes of transport; 
increasing demands by shippers for more sustainable logistic chains. 

 

V - Market accessibility for waterborne transport (inland waterway and sea transport) 
The poor market accessibility of waterborne transport is mainly related to two factors: 

  a geographic one. The  development of inland waterway depends essentially on 
the respective locations of production and consumption sites in relation to inland 
waterway network. The total cost of waterborne transport, location, handling and 
last miles may turn out to be very high. Indeed, the use  of waterway depends 
essentially  on  each  territorial  context  and  the  geographical distribution  of  each 
site; 

  a logistic one. Waterborne transport is not always a realistic option as IWT vessels 
cannot carry all kind of goods due to  packaging issues (for instance pallets) or 
size of shipments. 

VI  -  Competitiveness  and  environmental  performance  of  waterborne  transport 
against other modes (inland waterway and sea transport) 
It has been noticed that waterborne transport might be slower than other modes to 
invest  in  innovation.  Business  case  for  those  new  investments  are  difficult,  as 

May 2019  I  35/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
important investments are required upfront and benefits will  – or might – come in 
the longer term. 
Thus, it is critical to increase the uptake of existing innovative solutions in order to 
modernize the fleet, which will improve the competitiveness of waterborne transport 
(and subsequently also improve its environmental performance). 

VII - Administrative burden for waterborne transport (sea transport) 
Administrative processes in ports, controls and customs clearances are currently too 
complex  and  time-consuming.  It  can  hinder  the  development  of  waterborne 
transport, especially the short sea shipping. 

4.2.  Identification of policy measures 

Drawing  on  the  trends  analysis  and  the  discussions  with  the  stakeholders,  one  or 
more  measures  have  been  defined  to  address  obstacles  and  remaining  challenges 
identified. For each obstacle, one or more measures have been proposed. Conversely, 
some policy measures address several obstacles. More specifically, the twenty policy 
measures have been defined considering the following four criteria:  

  Effectiveness  (the  extent  to  which  options  can  be  expected  to  achieve  the 

objectives) 

  Efficiency  (the  extent  to  which  objectives  can  be  achieved  for  a  given  level  of 

resources) 

  Consistency (the extent to which options do not generate trade-offs across the 

economic and social domain) 

  Coherence (the extent to which the options are coherent with EU transport policy) 

Furthermore,  the  measures  have  been  classified  in  3  groups  as  requested  by  DG 
Move: 

 

“Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport”: measures that promote or improve 
both modes of transport 

  Maritime Transport: measures that promote maritime transport 
 

Inland Waterway Transports: measures that promote inland waterway transport 

An analysis has been carried out to assess each policy measure regarding the overall 
objective defined by DG MOVE (digitalization, multimodality and environment). The 
analysis is presented in Appendix E – Summary of the final proposition of screened 
policy measures. 

May 2019  I  36/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: 

Summary of the final proposition of the policy measures 

Measure 
code 

Description 

Obstacle:  All 

Category 

0.1 

Financial support to the uptake of innovation: blending calls or 
blending facilities at EU level, grants or similar mechanisms at 
national or local level.   

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

0.2 

Share of best practices for all kind of obstacles identified. 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

Obstacle:  Lack of infrastructure developments & maintenance 

I.3 

Development of maritime and river information system (better 
information about the depth/ clearance of waterways, better use of 
the length of waterways and locks, better information of real time 
traffic cargos' routes, etc). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

I.4 

Improvements in ports & terminals (automation, better use of ICT, 
smart port...). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

I.5 

Encourage ports to invest in the infrastructure supporting new 
vessels that are more efficient and environmental friendly (e.g. 
facilities for bunkering of alternative fuels, shore-side electricity 
etc.). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

I.6 

Adapt CEF calls according to port needs, which means that there 
should be multiple multi-annual calls. 

Maritime Transport 

I.7 

Adopt a whole life-cycle approach for infrastructure maintenance at 
national and local level in order to have good maintenance at the 
good cost. 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

Obstacle:  Lack of qualified IWT staff 

Training programs on multimodality, maritime and inland waterway 
transportation complement based on a recognition of professional 
qualifications and minimum competence requirements including 
examination standards for training and educational institutes 
following recommendations (c) of article 19 of European Parliament 
directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland 
navigation (Directive EU/2017/2397) and repealing Council Directive 
91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC. 
Lack of collaboration / coordination of the different 
stakeholders 

II.1 

Obstacle: 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

III.2 

Develop a broader and more accurate data base concerning waste. 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

III.3 

Support to the short sea shipping inland waterway promotion 
centers (to be coordinated with MoS DIP). 

Maritime Transport 

III.4 

Development of multimodal traffic management and information 
systems. 

Inland Waterway Transport 

May 2019  I  37/196 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Improvement of coordination in the container chain in order to 
promote the development of synchromodality: 
- Development of bundling & unbundling in order to prepare 
shipments for IWT. 
- Coordination between all stakeholders to propose a seamless and 
optimized logistic chain. 
Progressive loss of its environment-friendly image & 
compliance with more stringent standards on environment 

III.5 

Obstacle: 

IV.1 

Internalization of external costs for all transport modes. 

IV.2 

Setting up ambitious targets for recycling. 

Inland Waterway Transport 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

IV.3 

Encourage port authorities to include targets for rail & IWT modal 
share in their contacts with terminal operators. 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

Obstacle: 

Competitiveness and environmental performance of inland 
waterborne transport against other modes 

VI.1 

Promotion of the development of a sustainable urban logistics 
through the use of IWT:  preservation of the infrastructure in the 
city, development of new vessels, development of multimodal 
logistic hubs next to inland waterway in the suburb… 

Inland Waterway Transport 

VI.2 

Support the development of the pallet wide (45ft) containers for a 
cost effective modal shift. Adapt the rules on vessels design & 
operation. 

Inland Waterway Transport 

VI.3 

New vessel design: deployment of energy efficient vehicles 
(decrease energy demand through new engines, material and 
design, automated vessels). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

Obstacle:  Administrative burden for waterborne transport 

VII.1 

More consistency in admission policy (definition of the applications 
for exemption with respect of allowing vessels of a larger than 
permitted dimensions). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

VII.3 

Facilitation of the transportation of wastes within EU and outside to 
promote the development of circular economy (status of waste, e-
waste flows and trade, …). 

Maritime and Inland 
Waterway Transport 

May 2019  I  38/196 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
4.3.  Design of the scenarios and their variants 

This section is presenting successively: 

  The  parameters  of  the  traffic  modelling  tool  which  can  be  impacted  by  the 

different scenarios and their variants 

  The four (4) policy scenarios and the four (4) variants 
  The consolidated view of the translation of the scenarios and their variants into 

parameters for the modelling tool and a qualitative pre-assessment. 

a. 

Parameters of the traffic modelling tool 

The parameters that have been built into the modelling tool are the following: 

  (A)  Economic  growth:  Macro-economic  assumptions,  based  on  PRIMES 

2016 study20: 

o  Annual GDP growth 
o  Energy price in 2030 & 2050 
o  Exchange rate between the dollar and the euro 

Table 6: 

Macro-economic assumptions of the Baseline scenario 

Macro-economic 
assumptions 

GDP growth 

Energy 

Exchange rate 

Baseline Scenario 

  2010-2020: 1.2% p.a. 
  2020-2050: 1.5% p.a. 

  $ 110 / barrel in 2030 
  $ 130 / barrel in 2050 

  1.12 $/€ in 2015 
  1.20 $/€ in 2025 and beyond 

  Transport infrastructures 

o  (B) Transport infrastructure projects (TEN-T) 

  Development of new economic activities 

o  (D) Circular economy 

 

In  the  scope  of  our  work,  circular  economy  covers  industrial 
symbiosis,  port-city  integration,  biobased  economy,  waste 
prevention and recycling. The three first topics, which are very 
important  for  circular  economy,  are  expected  to  have  very 
limited impacts  on  transport  flows;  therefore,  focus  has  been 
put  on  the  waste  prevention  and  recycling.  Additional  flows 
related  to  waste  treatment  can  be  included  in  the  modelling 
tools from the biggest cities to the nearest inland or maritime 
port, using ratio of waste generated / inhabitant. 

o  (E) New energies 

  Development of LNG which will impact transportation costs for 

maritime transport and inland waterway. 

  Transport services for land & maritime transport 

o  (C) Transportation costs: Performance of transport modes in terms 

of costs and travel time 

20 EU Reference Scenario 2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050 

May 2019  I  39/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
o  (F) Seaport costs: Performance of ports in terms of costs and transit 

time 

o  (G) New services & continental containers: Development of new 
services  to  and  from  inland  ports  and  seaports,  such  as  continental 
containers 

Table 7: 

Summary of the traffic model parameters and their codes 

Parameter code  Parameters 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Economic growth 

Transport infrastructure projects (TEN-T) 

Transportation costs 

Circular economy 

New energies 

Seaport costs 

New services & continental containers 

b. 

Scenarios and variants 

S0: Business As Usual  

The  objective  of  the  “Business  As  Usual”  scenario  is  to  assess  what  would  be  the 
modal  share  of  waterborne  transport  if  no  action  is  taken  by  MS  and  European 
Commission. The whole set of hypotheses are detailed in the Table 8. 

Table 8: 

Business As Usual scenario parameters 

Code  Parameters 

Business As Usual 

A 

Economic growth 

The main macro-economic assumptions are the same ones 
summarised in Table 6 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

No major development in transport infrastructure. 

Transportation costs 

No evolution of transportation costs. 

Circular economy 

New flows from municipal wastes (from 44% of recycling 
to 50% according to EU target in 2020). 

New energies 

No evolution compared to today. 

Seaport costs 

The  assumptions  for  the  market  share  for  seaports  are 
“Business As Usual”, which means that the market share 
of each port in 2030 is supposed to be the same as for the 
year of calibration of the modelling tool (no major change 
in the global patterns of maritime traffic). 

G 

New services & 
continental containers 

No. 

S1: Baseline 

The objective of the baseline scenario is to provide a reference to compare the other 
scenarios. It is the more realistic scenario if no policy measure is taken beyond the 
ones already programmed. Thus, it considers on-going trends and projects already 
planned.  Nevertheless,  projections  for  2030  are  facing  strong  uncertainties.  It  is, 

May 2019  I  40/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
therefore, preferable and more prudential to test 4 variants for the baseline scenario, 
that are presented below. 

The  first  set  of  assumptions  is  grouped  in  the  main  baseline  scenario  called 
“Baseline”.  This  scenario  is  based  on  the  assumptions  detailed  in  Table  9.  This 
scenario  differs  from  the  previous  one  regarding  major  investments  projects 
identified in the present Core Network Planning process for 2030, which are supposed 
to  be  achieved  in  the  base  line  scenario.  This  is  consistent  with  the  ongoing 
implementation of TEN-T policy (2013 Directive). For transportation costs, detailed 
assumptions are provided in Table 9. 

Table 9: 

Baseline scenario parameters 

Code 

 Parameters 

Baseline 

A 

Economic growth 

The  main  macro-economic  assumptions  are  the 
same summarised in the Table 6. 

B 

C 

D 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

This scenario takes into account the 3rd 
generation of the Work Plan. 

Transportation costs 

Limited relative changes in transportation costs. 

Circular economy 

New flows from municipal wastes (from 44% of 
recycling to 50% according to EU target in 2020). 

E 

New energies 

F 

Seaport costs 

Deployment of LNG refuelling stations in all core 
maritime ports by 2025 and in all core inland 
ports by 2030. 

The assumptions for the market share for seaports 
are  “Business  As  Usual”,  which  means  that  the 
market share of each port in 2030 is supposed to 
be  the  same  as  for  the  year  of  calibration  of  the 
modelling  tool  (no  major  change  in  the  global 
patterns of maritime traffic). 

G 

New services & 
continental containers 

No. 

May 2019  I  41/196 

 
 
 
 
 
S1 Variant 1: Hubs & Spoke 

This variant of the Baseline assumes that  European  seaports  will follow a hub and 
spoke  development  trend  instead  of  the  “Business  as  usual”.  It  could  be  partly 
explained by the increase of Ultra Large Vessels. For this reason, there would be a 
concentration of traffic in the bigger ports (the hubs) even more important. The whole 
set of assumptions are detailed in the Table 10. 

Table 10: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 1 

Code  Parameters 

Baseline - Variant 1: Hub & spokes 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Economic growth 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transportation costs 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Circular economy 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

New energies 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Seaport costs 

Increase  of  the  “port  weight”  difference  between 
ports in the gravity model for containers. 

New services & 
continental containers 

No. 

This variant is only tested on maritime containers and maritime links of the Motorway 
of the Sea. 

S1 Variant 2: Redistribution 

This  variant  of  the  Baseline  assumes  that  the  European  seaports  will experience  a 
traffic  redistribution  trend  instead  of  the  “Business  as  usual”.  It  could  be  partly 
explained by increased congestion in the hinterland of the largest seaports if no action 
is taken to improve their accessibility. The whole set of hypotheses are detailed in 
the Table 11. 

Table 11: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 2 

Code  Parameters 

Baseline - Variant 3: Redistribution 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Economic growth 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transportation costs 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Circular economy 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

New energies 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Seaport costs 

Decrease  of  the  “port  weight”  difference  between 
the ports in the gravity model for containers. 

New services & 
continental containers 

No. 

This variant is only tested on maritime containers and maritime links of the Motorway 
of the Sea. 

May 2019  I  42/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S1 Variant 3: Faster uptake of new technologies for road 

This  variant  of  the  Baseline  scenario  parameters  assumes  that  the  uptake  of  new 
technologies for road will be faster, especially for containers and general cargo. This 
assumption  is  realistic,  as  progress  in  automation  made  by  road  transport  are 
happening at a fast pace21. Transportation costs for road will sharply decrease. Even 
though the technology will be ready for maritime transport (see section 2.1.b. trends 
#1, 7), the deployment of those new technologies is not expected to be important 
by 2030 due to the level of investments required and the life expectancy of the fleet 
and port equipment. For instance, “At the beginning of 2017, the average age of the 
commercial fleet was 20.6 years. Compared with historical averages, however, the 
world  fleet  is  still  relatively  young,  especially  in  the  bulker  and  container 
segments.”22. On the  other hand, average age  of the truck fleet in 2017 was 11.7 
years23  –  with  strong  differences  between  Eastern  Europe  and  Western  Europe  for 
instance. Therefore, large part of the fleet is expected to be renewed in the coming 
years – at least once or even twice by 2030. 

For inland waterways and inland ports, those new technologies are not mature yet to 
expect an important development of automation by 2030. 

The whole set of hypotheses are detailed in the Table 12. 

Table 12: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 3 

Code  Parameters 

Baseline - Variant 3: Redistribution 

A 

B 

Economic growth 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

C 

Transportation costs 

Sharp decrease of transportation costs for road (-
25% decrease of driving costs), for containers and 
maritime links of MoS. 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Circular economy 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

New energy 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Seaport costs 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

New services & 
continental containers 

No. 

This variant is only tested on maritime containers and maritime links of the Motorway 
of the Sea. 

S2: Maximum Potential 

The Maximum Potential scenario assumes that all measures promoting waterborne 
transport are applied. It considers the modal shift from other modes of transport, the 
redistribution  of  current  transport  flows  and  the  strengthening  of  industrial  ports 

21 
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/transportation/automated/pdf/automated_ve
hicles.pdf, 
https://www.trucks.com/2016/04/07/autonomous-trucks-improve-
safety-fuel-economy/ 
22  Review  of  maritime  transport,  2017,  United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and 
Development 
23 ACEA Report, Vehicles in use Europe, 2017 

May 2019  I  43/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
clusters and induced traffic due to the decrease of transportation costs. The whole 
set of hypotheses are detailed in the Table 13. 

Table 13:  Maximum Potential scenario parameters 

Code  Parameters 

Maximum Potential 

A 

B 

Economic growth 

Same as the baseline scenario. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

TEN-T 

Beyond 
regulation,  with  massive 
investments  in  terms  of  rail  &  inland  waterway 
connections to seaports and inland ports. 

C 

Transportation costs 

D 

Circular economy 

E 

New energies 

Development  of  SSS  connections  on  Origin-
Destination with high potential. 

Limited  relative  changes  in  transportation  costs 
(rail remain competitive against road) but for IWT 
and Maritime links of the MoS with the deployment 
of all disruptive technologies. 

Optimistic assumptions: recycled waste  target  for 
the municipalities in 2030 is 70%. 

High  uptake  of  LNG  fuel  with  LNG  terminals 
working close to their maximum potential. 

F 

Seaport costs 

Same as the baseline scenario for traffic. 

the  automation  of 

Benefits for EU economy of disruptive technologies 
terminals)  will  be 
(like 
considered  through  a  decrease  of  transportation 
costs for EU industries and consumers. 

G 

New services & 
continental containers 

Yes. 

S2 Variant 4: faster uptake of new technologies for road and waterborne transport 

This  variant  of  the  Maximum  Potential  assesses  the  potential  impact  of  a  faster 
uptake  of  new  technologies  for  road  and  waterborne  transport  (for  the  latter,  this 
faster uptake is already considered in the Maximum Potential scenario). The whole 
set of hypotheses are detailed in the Table 14. 

Table 14: 

Baseline scenario parameters: Variant 4 

Code 

Parameters 

Maximum Potential - Variant 4: faster uptake 
of new technologies for road and waterborne 
transport 

A 

B 

Economic growth 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

C 

Transportation costs 

Sharp decrease of transportation costs for road (-
25% decrease of driving costs), for containers and 
maritime links of MoS. 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Circular economy 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

New energy 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

Seaport costs 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

New services & 
continental containers 

Same as the maximum potential scenario. 

May 2019  I  44/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This variant is only tested on maritime containers and maritime links of the Motorway 
of the Sea. 

S3: Target oriented scenario – sustainable competitiveness 

In  July  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  “A  European  Strategy  for  Low-Emission 
Mobility”24. This document sets the EU target for greenhouse gas emission by 2050: 
-60% compared to 1990. To achieve this target, three priority areas for action are 
identified: 

  Increasing the efficiency of the transport system by making the most of 
digital technologies, smart pricing and further encouraging the shift to lower 
emission transport modes, 

  Speeding  up  the  deployment  of  low-emission  alternative  energy  for 
transport,  such  as  advanced  biofuels,  electricity,  hydrogen  and  renewable 
synthetic fuels and removing obstacles to the electrification of transport 

  Moving towards zero-emission vehicles. While further improvements to 
the internal combustion engine will be needed, Europe needs to accelerate the 
transition towards low- and zero-emission vehicles. 

This scenario translates those priorities into modelling parameters  and parameters 
for the assessment of policy measures and policy scenarios. 

The set of assumptions used in the modelling tool are detailed in the Table 15. 

Table 15: 

Target oriented scenario – sustainable competitiveness 

Code  Parameters 

A single rule for maritime transport 

A 

B 

Economic growth 

Same as the maximum potential. 

Transport infrastructure 
projects (TEN-T) 

Same as the maximum potential. 

C 

Transportation costs 

Same as maximum potential + transhipment costs 
decreased by 50%. 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Circular economy 

Same as the maximum potential. 

New energies 

Same as the maximum potential. 

Seaport costs 

Same as maximum potential + transhipment costs 
decreased by 50%. 

New services & 
continental containers 

Same as the maximum potential. 

24 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0501  

May 2019  I  45/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
c. 

Summary of scenarios and the impacted parameters 

Each scenario described above has impacts on one or more parameters of the traffic 
modelling tool presented in Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling tool 
below.  The  following  table  presents  the  parameters  impacted  compared  to  the 
baseline scenario for each scenario. 

Table 16: 

Impacted parameters in each scenario compared to the 

baseline scenario 

Scenario  Scenario name 

Parameters changed regarding the Baseline 

S0 

S1 

Business as Usual 

Baseline 

B & C & E 

Baseline 

S1_v1 

Hub & Spokes 

S1_v2 

Redistribution 

S1_v3 

Uptake of new technologies 
for road 

G 

G 

C 

S2 

Maximum potential 

B & C & D & E & F & G 

S2_v4 

Uptake of new technologies 
for road and waterborne 
transport 

C 

S3 

Target oriented scenario – 
Sustainable competitiveness 

C & emission factors (not in the modelling tool) 

Then, those scenarios have been classified according to the overall objective defined 
by DG MOVE: 

  Digitalization  
  Multimodality 
  Environment 

Business as Usual (S0) is not expected to contribute to any of the overall objective. 
Baseline scenario (S1) is expected to contribute significantly to objectives linked to 
include 
digitalization  and  multimodality,  due  to  TEN-T  deployment,  which 
infrastructure projects but also IT projects (e.g. RIS). It is only expected to contribute 
moderately  to  environmental  objectives,  as  greening  of  the  fleet  and  uptake  of 
innovation is not fully supported in the baseline scenario. 

The  Maximum  potential  scenario  (S2)  is  expected  to  have  a  massive  impact  on 
digitalization,  and  to  improve  significantly  multimodality  and  the  environmental 
impact of transport compared to the baseline. 

Waterborne  transport  could  still  do  better  on  multimodality  and  environment,  as 
represented in the Target oriented scenario (S3) but policy measures to achieve these 
objectives are not identified yet. 

May 2019  I  46/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The following table summarizes the development of these objectives in each scenario.  

Table 17: 

Expected impact of scenarios by each DG MOVE objective 

Moreover, the final list of variants selected is presented in the table below: 

Table 18: 

Final list of variants 

d. 

Summary of evolution of transport cost in 2030 

The assumptions on transport costs have been introduced directly in the modelling 
tool:  these  assumptions  might  differ  between  baseline  scenario  and  maximum 
potential  scenario.  These  assumptions  on  transportation  costs  are  detailed  in 
Appendix B – Transportation costs. 

Therefore, average evolution of costs does not mean much for the evaluation of the 
impact of the technological trends identified above and the policy measures, if not 
disaggregated at the level of the different items of the cost functions, depending upon 
modes or transit through nodes. 

The figure below shows the evolution of transport cost structure for a truck carrying 
containers between 2010 and 2030, taking into account the evolution of the different 
items of the transport cost function expressed in Vehicle.km and tons.km. 

May 2019  I  47/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: 

Truck cost function for containers in € / HGV x km and € / 

TEU x km for business as usual and baseline scenarios 

A similar exercise has been done for bulk cargo or general cargo and is presented in 
Appendix B – Transportation costs. 

For  containers  on  IWT,  the  evolution  of  transportation  costs  are  presented  in  the 
figures  below  for  business  as  usual,  baseline  scenario  and  maximum  potential 
scenario: 

Figure 10: 

IWT cost function for containers in c€ / T x km and € / TEU x 
km for business as usual and baseline scenarios 

May 2019  I  48/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: 

IWT cost function for containers in c€ / T x km and € / TEU x 
km for baseline and maximum potential scenarios 

A similar exercise has been done for bulk cargo or general cargo and is presented in 
Appendix B – Transportation costs. 

May 2019  I  49/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e. 

Summary of evolution of other parameters in 2030 

The  second  type  of  transport  assumptions  for  description  of  transport  scenarios  is 
more  directly  related  to  transport  policy  measures  which  in  particular  are  the 
measures taken to improve transport performances along corridors.  These policies 
measures can be: 

  New infrastructures, new links or new intermodal transport nodes like Seine-

 

Scheldt missing link for IWW  
Improvements  of  infrastructure,  gauge  (with  for  example  more  layers  of 
containers  for  IWT),  control  command  (such  as  ERTMS  for  rail)  involving 
better performances in use of these infrastructure, or increased capacity 
  New services and in particular intermodal services: Rail/Road, IWW/Road, or 
even  IWW/Rail  for  terminal  to  terminal  services  including  services  through 
trimodal  Port  of 
"hubs"  with 
Freudenau/Vienna or on the Linz terminal 

improvement  of 

for  example 

the 

  Better  services  along  given  routes  (such  as  better  navigability  policy  along 

Danube) 

All  policy  measures  of  this  kind  on  TEN-T  corridors  have  been  integrated  in  the 
network description for 2030, as attributes assigned to sections and nodes of the EU 
network. Therefore, they are taken into account in the assignment process for choice 
of mode, combination of modes, and choice of route within the network. 

May 2019  I  50/196 

 
 
 
 
5. Modelling  tool  and  definition  of  the  baseline 

scenario 

5.1.  Results on the modelling tool and base year 2010  

The modelling results are presented in the three following sections: flow generation; 
modelling  results  for  the  base  year  2010;  business  as  usual  scenario  and  baseline 
scenario for 2030. 

a. 

Traffic generation 2010 - 2030 

These projections are prepared separately for maritime traffic and continental traffic 
between EU regions, using the two generation modules. For Extra-Eu container flows, 
the  maritime  potential  is  considered  as  independent  of  the  choice  of  port  and 
corresponds to a  change in demand in the EU  economy, in particular by using the 
COMEXT  trade  database.  Traffic  generation  methods  for  Extra-Eu  (time  series 
approach)  and  Intra-Eu  (gravity  model)  flows  of  containers  are  developed  in 
Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling tool. 

Generation for container market 
The  estimation of container  flows for the base  year is based on COMEXT database 
(Exchange database in tons per category of products) and containerisation rate. In 
2010, the total tonnage of goods produced and transported in containers for trade 
outside the EU is estimated at 322 million of tons (MT). 

Germany is ranked first with more 50 MT, followed by the Netherlands, the UK and 
Italy with about 40 MT, Spain and Belgium with almost 30 MT and France with just 
over  36  MT.  Containerised  traffic  with  partner  countries  outside  the  EU  consists 
primarily  of  Asian  countries  with  44%  followed  by  Med  countries  20%  and  North 
America with 15%. Intra-EU container flows25 is estimated at 56 MT in 2010. 

This  value  can  be  compared  with  seaport  container  traffic  from  Eurostat  (port 
database  which  includes  double  counting  linked  to  transhipments)  on  the  same 
perimeter26.  According  to  Eurostat,  seaport  container  traffic  is  around  630  MT  in 
Europe. Without transhipments27, port container traffic can be estimated at 423 MT 
in 2010. This value is closed to the estimation calculated in this study: 434 MT (322 
MT for Extra-EU and 56 x 2 MT for Intra-EU). 

By  2030  the  total  amount  of  container  traffic  is  expected  to  increase  by  80%  for 
Extra-Eu containers and reach 588 MT as shown in the following figures. The average 
annual growth rate is 3.1% in tons for the 28 EU countries. The growth rate between 
2010 and 2030 is higher in Spain and Netherlands (4%). The growth rate is between 
2% and 2,5% for Belgium, Germany and UK and around 3 % for Italy, France and 

25 This value is estimated for EU country to EU country exchanges and doesn't include 
feeder services for Extra-EU flows. 
26 EU 28 and continental ports excluding ports in ultraperipheral regions (Canaries, 
Madeira, Réunion….). 
27 Transhipment rates come from several sources: 

  Activity reports from port authorities, 
  Modal share of freight transport to and from EU ports, European Parliament, 

 

2015, 
ITTMA (Theo Notteboom), Economic analysis of the Europe seaport system, 
ESPO, 2009. 

May 2019  I  51/196 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
other EU countries including Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Austria. The growth rate 
of  imports  is  generally  lower  than  the  growth  rate  of  exports:  2.9%  compared  to 
3.2%, except for France and countries of Eastern European, and to a lesser extent, 
Belgium & Netherlands. 

Figure 12:  Container traffic projections 

Following the first panel of results, it is interesting to compare the trends over the 
past 15 years with the projections from  2010 to 2030.  The  results differ  from  one 
country  to  another,  however,  for  the  EU  countries  the  difference  in  tons  is  not  so 
significant  since  trend  in  the  projections  with  3.1%  difference  (in  tons)  is  close  to 
that of 3.0% observed for the past trend. 

Figure 13:  Annual growth rate by partner  

However, it should be mentioned that the period of the last 15 years was marked by 
a  severe  crisis  from  2007  to  2010,  characterized  by  a  sharp  decline  in  container 
traffic, followed by a catch-up in traffic. In fact, the trends before and after the crisis 
is significantly different with weaker growth after the crisis. 

Furthermore, such a 3% annual growth trend can characterize the market as very 
dynamic  compared  to  the  trend  observed  at  national  or  EU  level  with  an  annual 

May 2019  I  52/196 

 
 
 
 
growth rate close to 1% -1,5% for unit products, and often between 0.5 and 1% for 
all products. 

Extra-EU Generation for bulk market 
The case of bulk traffic through ports is treated differently, it includes a more specific 
available analysis for import or export from countries (in tons)28 : 

  For  coal  and  petroleum  products,  demand  projections  are  strictly  adjusted 
according  to  the  evolution  of  consumption  and  production  per  country  (EU 
reference scenario) 

  For  Extra-Eu  Agricultural  bulk,  the  growth  rate  between  2010  and  2030  is 
based on the results (by country) of the gravity modelling tool used for intra-
Eu flows (see Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling tool). 

Intra EU Projections29  
The  results  of  generation  projections  for  continental  intra  EU  exchanges  can  be 
presented within countries (and eventually within regions) and between EU countries, 
which represent international intra-EU exchanges, by product type. 
The base year of the generation for intra-Eu projection is 2010. Traffic volumes come 
from several databases (see Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling tool) 
and especially ETIS 2010. 

The results of the 2030 projections are presented in the table below, followed by a 
table providing annual rate of growth in tons by type of O/D traffic. 

Table 1 : Intra-EU traffic in 2030 by country -tons in million 

National 

International 

Countr
y 

inter 
Nuts2 

intra 
Nuts2 

total 

Origin 

destinat
ion 

total 

BE 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

NL 

UK 

216 

180 

396 

1 432 

1 654 

3 086 

191 

625 

893 

321 

1 181 

1 310 

1 501 

1 922 

2 547 

673 

338 

568 

1 566 

659 

1 749 

173 

340 

72 

163 

80 

239 

27 

190 

328 

56 

163 

114 

182 

38 

363 

668 

128 

325 

193 

421 

65 

EU28 

6 274 

10 751  17 025 

1 500 

1 470 

1 803 

Total 
(not 
including  
intra 
Nuts2) 
579 

2 100 

319 

950 

1 087 

741 

1 246 

8 077 

Total 
(including  
intra 
Nuts2) 

759 

3 755 

1 629 

2 873 

1 759 

1 080 

1 814 

18 828 

28 For bulk products, the total volume of trade is adjusted according to the total port 
traffic taking into account the differences in the scope of the databases, in particular 
for agricultural products. 

29 Excluding container market. 

May 2019  I  53/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Table 2 : Annual growth rate 2010-2030% for Intra-EU traffic 

National 

International 

Countr
y 

inter 
Nuts2 

intra 
Nuts2 

total 

origin 

destinatio
n 

total 

Total 
(not 
including  
intra 
Nuts2) 

Total 
(includin
g  
intra 
Nuts2) 

BE 

1.42% 

1.49% 

1.45%  0.92% 

1.40% 

1.17% 

1.26% 

1.31% 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

NL 

UK 

0.19% 

0.18% 

0.18%  0.87% 

0.57% 

0.72% 

0.35% 

0.28% 

0.09% 

0.10% 

0.10%  0.94% 

0.36% 

0.68% 

0.32% 

0.14% 

1.06% 

1.07% 

1.06%  1.03% 

0.86% 

0.95% 

1.02% 

1.05% 

0.37% 

0.29% 

0.33%  0.41% 

1.21% 

0.86% 

0.45% 

0.39% 

0.99% 

1.07% 

1.03%  0.70% 

0.95% 

0.81% 

0.88% 

0.94% 

0.74% 

0.51% 

EU28 

0.73%  0.64% 

0.67%  0.83% 
0.68
% 

0.93
% 

1.48% 

0.92% 

1.20% 
0.92
% 

0.76% 

0.68% 

0.79% 

0.70% 

The total continental traffic for the EU in 2030 is expected to reach 18.8 billion tons 
(BT). International traffic within the EU is almost 1.5 BT which represents about 8% 
of total traffic and almost 20% of total interregional traffic in continental Europe (7.8 
BT).  Total  intra-regional  traffic,  over  short  distances  represents  a  high  volume  of 
nearly 11 BT, in which there is a high proportion of low-value bulk products such as 
building  material,  energy  products  distributed  at  regional  or  local  level  and  bulk 
agricultural products. 

However, the traffic of these products is often more difficult to estimate in the traffic 
database but cannot be ignored in this study as inland waterways transport can be a 
relevant mode of transports for bulk products over short distances, especially when 
the emitting and receiving centres are close to IWT network. 

The volumes by country in 2010 and 2030 are illustrated in the figure below, with 
higher traffic generation volumes for Germany and France, followed by Poland, Italy, 
UK  and  Spain,  but  also  very  contrasting  growth  between  countries  from  0.14%  or 
0.28% for Spain and Germany, or even Italy with 0.39% and relatively higher growth 
of traffic for France with 1.05% or Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Ireland well 
above 1%. 

May 2019  I  54/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: 

Intra-EU traffic generated by countries 

Figure 15: 

Intra-EU growth rate by product 

The results by product type are also contrasted with a sharp decrease in oil and coal 
transport, as has already been observed for trade outside the EU, which also has an 
impact  on  continental  transport.  It  can  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  contrasting 
growth observed previously by country could be partly explained by the difference in 
the traffic structure by product type, as shown below. The transports of manufactured 
goods and food products is increasing faster than the transport of raw materials and 
commodities. 

May 2019  I  55/196 

 
 
 
 
b. 

Calibration on the base year 2010 

The  reference  year  is  2010  taking  into  account  the  availability  of  databases,  in 
particular ETIS. Before presenting the results on the base year and, also, for the base 
line, the modelling tool must be validated. 

At seaport level 
The following graphs show port traffic for containers and dry-bulks (agricultural bulk 
and  coal).  It  appears  that  the  results  of  the  modelling  are  good,  especially  for 
container simulation. For bulk products, however, the R² results are partly explained 
by the adjustments at the main ports. 

Figure 16:  Seaport traffic in 2010 Observed / simulated 

May 2019  I  56/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, this benchmarking on port traffic is not sufficient, other dimensions (market 
share, modal share by product) should be assessed. The difficulty lies in the lack of 
data to validate the modal share by product type or hinterland area. 

At seaport hinterland level 
In fact, it is almost impossible to calibrate the port choice module for containers and 
even more for bulk market (this data does not exist). The maps below only verify the 
plausibility of the results for the container market.  

For some areas, the limitations of modelling tools appear: 

  For islands considering the discontinuity of the access cost 
  For some areas where feedering practices are highly developed. For a Finland 
-  China  trade  flow  recorded  in  Comext  database,  a  Finland  -  Germany  and 
Germany - China flows would be registered in port databases. 

May 2019  I  57/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17:  Examples of market share of seaport on their hinterland 
(container market) 

May 2019  I  58/196 

 
 
  
 
  
 
At the modal share level for seaport access 

The following table shows the simulated modal share of container traffic from selected 
seaports30: 

Table 19:  Modal share for access to seaports (observed / simulated) 

Observed (2013) 

Simulation (2010) 

Modal share 
In % 

Algeciras 

Antwerpen 

Barcelona 

Road 

96% 

56% 

89% 

Bremerhaven 

50% 

Felixstowe 

Gdansk 

Gdynia 

Genova 

Göteborg 

Hamburg 

Koper 

La Spezia 

Le Havre 

Rotterdam 

Sines 

Trieste 

Valencia 

Zeebrugge 

75% 

64% 

66% 

86% 

54% 

64% 

40% 

76% 

90% 

53% 

76% 

60% 

77% 

61% 

IWT 

0% 

35% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

38% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

Rail 

4% 

9% 

11% 

47% 

25% 

36% 

34% 

14% 

46% 

34% 

60% 

24% 

3% 

9% 

24% 

40% 

23% 

33% 

Road 

98% 

57% 

84% 

57% 

79% 

65% 

64% 

88% 

56% 

61% 

43% 

77% 

86% 

53% 

78% 

68% 

77% 

82% 

IWT 

0% 

32% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

36% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Rail 

IWT+Rail 

2% 

8% 

16% 

42% 

21% 

35% 

36% 

12% 

44% 

37% 

57% 

23% 

6% 

9% 

22% 

32% 

23% 

18% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Globally, it appears that the modal share module reproduces fairly well the observed 
modal shares with some differences for  

  Zeebrugge where the modal share of rail observed is significantly higher than 

the results of the modelling. 

  and  to  a  lesser  extent  for  Le  Havre  (overestimation  of  intermodal  mode), 

Bremerhaven or Trieste (overestimation of the road). 

For the RoRo maritime link 
The  calibration  for  the  RoRo  maritime  link  model  is  correct  with  a  correlation  rate 
(R²)  around  0,8.  This  lower  level  can  be  explained  by  the  different  perimeters 
between the model and port statistical traffic: 

  Only Intra-EU perimeter for the demand, effectively limiting traffic on Trieste, 

the Mediterranean or the Black Sea. 

  The lack of traffic measurement on certain routes: intra DK, Intra UK… 
  A part of RoRo traffic in port statistics is container traffic by truck, in particular 
between  the  Benelux  and  the  UK,  in  particular  for  relations  between  the 
Hull/Immingham region and Zeebrugge & Rotterdam Area. 

30 Modal share of freight transport to and from EU ports, European Parliament, 2015. 

May 2019  I  59/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  As  explained  in  §2.3,  not  all  maritime  relations  are  integrated  into  the 
modelling tool. The RoRo maritime links network considers 150 maritime links 
for the whole perimeter. 

  The different solutions between RoRo maritime links services or road routes 
multiply  the  combinations  on  very  narrow  spaces.  For  example,  the  model 
overestimated  traffic  between  Sweden  and  the  Schleswig-Holstein  (+4.5 
million  of  tons)  and  underestimated  the  relationship  between  Sweden  and 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (-3.5 million of tons), 
In other cases, the demand of traffic is overestimated in the demand database 
(ETIS 2010) for Sicily for example. 

 

Figure 18:  RoRo traffic at seaports in 2010 Observed / simulated 

c. 

Results  of  the  modelling  tool  for  the  reference  base  period 
(2010) 

The previous chapters show that the modeling tool  can provide satisfactory results 
for: 

  port traffic by product type, 
land access to ports by mode of transport, 
 
  and traffic related to the RoRo maritime link. 

Before examining the traffic results for the business as usual scenario in 2030, the 
following elements illustrate the results of the modelling tool for the 2010 reference 
year. The 2010-2030 changes will be measured against this reference year. 

Modelling results at seaports level 
Modelled seaport traffic is presented, by corridor, for the 2010 reference year with a 
high concentration of seaport traffic on the North Sea – Med corridor, North Sea Baltic 
corridor and Rhine-Alpine corridor. All the main ports represent 1,95 billion of tons, 
83% of simulated traffic and respectively: 96% of containerized traffic, 68 % for MoS 
maritime links traffic and about 80% for liquid and dry bulk traffic. In the reference 
year, petroleum products are clearly predominant with 1,1 billion tons (47% of the 
simulated volume). 

May 2019  I  60/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 : Seaport modelled traffic - base year 2010  

Seaport traffic : tons in million -  

Tons in 
millions by 
product 

All 
ports 

Core 
ports  

Baltic 
Adriati
c 

North 
Sea - 
Baltic 

MED 

Orient 
East - 
Med  

  Scan 
- Med 

  Rhine 
Alpine 

Atlanti
c 

  North 
Sea - 
Med 

  Rhine 
Danub
e 

TOTAL 

2 321  1 947 

107 

680 

250 

215 

368 

529 

226 

866 

25 

Container 

630 

606 

18 

276 

98 

117 

143 

189 

67 

244 

6 

RoRo 

310 

209 

4 

24 

8 

18 

81 

20 

2 

86 

Agricultural 
Bulk 

129 

103 

9 

27 

16 

11 

12 

21 

21 

36 

Coal 

166 

133 

19 

50 

13 

13 

17 

50 

11 

71 

0 

9 

2 

Petroleum 
Products 

1 087 

897 

57 

304 

115 

56 

115 

249 

125 

429 

9 

Modelling results for RoRo maritime links  
In terms of volume, the simulated market represents 310 million tons for the 2010 
reference  year  and  132  billion  tons.km.  The  RoRo  market  includes  two  different 
segments,  which  are  approximately  the  same  size:  the  road  haulage  and  the 
maritime link itself with 69 and 63 billion of tons.km respectively. 

Indeed, maritime links can be very short for some services, like between Calais and 
Dover  or  in  the  Strait  of  Messina;  or  very  long,  such  as  between  Ancona  and 
Igoumenitsa or between Finland and Germany. 

Table 4 : Market of maritime links of the RoRo (maritime links and 
Pre/post haulage) - Base year 2010  

Tons.km in billion 

BASE Year 2010 

All Road 

Pre and Post road haulage  

Maritime Link 

TOTAL RoRo Chain (Road haulage + maritime link) 

Port volume in tons (millions) 

2314 

69 

63 

132 

310 

The pre-&-post road haulage corresponds to the road segment represented above. 

May 2019  I  61/196 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
The following map illustrates these different segments: 

Figure 19:  RoRo chain traffic (maritime link – Port – Road haulage) - 
Base year 2010 

Modelling results for inland waterway 
After  presenting  the  results  of  maritime  trade  through  ports  and  continental  trade 
between EU regions, and after distributing these exchanges within regions (whether 
traffic from or to ports or continental traffic between EU regions) point by point, it is 
then  possible  to  identify  the  most  efficient  intermodal  transport  solutions  (mode 
combinations,  choice  of  routes)  within  the  European  intermodal  EU  network  by 

May 2019  I  62/196 

 
 
 
 
 
applying PORPRINT and LOGIS model presented in Appendix A – Detailed description 
of the modelling tool. 

Traffic projections for IWT are the result of this entire modelling process for links and 
ports in the inland waterway network. These results are presented in tons.km, which 
is a more relevant unit for network use, including transportation distances along a 
corridor. 

The following modelling results indicate the Inland Waterway use in the base year by 
product  and  corridor.  In  2010,  these  simulated  traffic  represented  142  billion  of 
tons.km31. 

Table 5 : IWT modelled traffic - base year 2010  

The core network concentrated 94% of tons.km in 2010 with 134 billion of tons.km. 
Rhine – Alpine and North Sea – Baltic and North Sea Med corridors being the most 

31 Results quite close to the traffics record in "EU transport in figures" from DG MOVE 
with 155 billion in 2010. The network of the small canals is however not included in 
the modelling tool. 

May 2019  I  63/196 

TON.km in billionAll Iww TOTAL on core corridorBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeTOTAL141.7133.90.056.60.06.50.075.62.343.220.3Raw Material32.729.50.011.80.01.60.013.50.89.74.1Agriculrual Bulk22.922.10.05.50.01.50.09.30.53.97.5Petroleum20.619.50.09.20.00.80.012.90.26.72.2Coal15.915.30.05.90.00.90.09.10.44.52.3Container13.913.90.07.70.00.30.09.50.35.60.6Chemical products13.312.40.05.80.00.50.08.10.04.81.1Ores9.99.50.05.60.00.40.06.80.03.80.9Others7.46.70.03.20.00.40.03.70.12.80.7Metallic products5.14.90.02.00.00.20.02.80.01.60.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
used  inland  waterways.  They  are  all  connected  to  the  Rhine  catchment  area.  As  a 
result, the Rhine – Alpine corridor represents 76 billion tons.km, North Sea – Baltic 
57  billion  tons.km  and  North  Sea  –  Med  43  billion  tons.km.  The  inland  waterway 
traffic in the Rhine – Danube is 20 billion tons.km. 

Raw  materials  are  the  main  market  for  the  use  of  IWT  with  33  billion  of  tons.km 
(23% of the volume), bulk agricultural products and petroleum products represent 
more than 20 billion of tons.km (15% of the volume). Coal, containers and chemicals 
represent  nearly  10%  of  the  volume  with  16,  14  and  13  billion  of  tons.km 
respectively. 

The following map illustrates the IWT simulated traffic by section in Europe (2010). 

Figure 20: 

Inland waterway simulated traffic for base year 2010 

May 2019  I  64/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.  Results for Business as usual (BAU) and baseline scenarios 

(2030) 

The BAU scenario is the extension in 2030 of the base year 2010. The results of this 
scenario  are  directly  linked  to  the  results  of  the  generation  module.  The  "BAU 
Scenario"  in  which  there  is  no  change  in  the  conditions  of  competition  between 
modes and ports (seaports and inland ports) nor in other transport nodes (such as 
rail/Road intermodal terminals); only the impact of economic growth on trade is taken 
into account between base year 2010 and 2030. 

The  Baseline  scenario  corresponds  to  the  EU  planning  objectives  for  the  Core 
Network  Scenario  for  the  horizon  2030:  this  means  an  integration  into  the  EU 
transport network of an important number of investments in modes and nodes, for 
all  modes  and  nodes  since  there  is  competition,  as  well  as  the  improvement  of 
transport operations linked to increased  competition or improved performance due 
to the use of new technologies and the development of new services. 

a. 

At seaport level 

Seaports traffic at corridor level 
The  following  table  shows  the  traffic  for  seaports  for  the  two  scenarios  tested. 
Seaports traffic is presented at the corridor level. 

Table 20: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level and scenario32 

Therefore, considering the markets included in the modelling tool, ports traffic at the 
European level will increase from 2.3 billion of tons in 2010 to 2.7 billion of tons in 
2030  (+16%)  according  to  (i)  the  projections  of  the  generation  module;  (ii) 
transhipment for containers; and (iii) traffic from RoRo maritime links. This represent 
an annual growth of 0.75% p.a. between 2010 and 203033. 

Core  seaports  represent 84%  of the traffic in 2010 and 86% of maritime traffic in 
2030 for all scenarios. At seaport level, the evolution of the traffic is mainly due to 
the projection of demand in 2030 and the specialization of ports on some products. 

32  Seaports  traffic  integrate  transshipment  rate  for  container  market  and  Intra-EU 
container market. 
33 This growth is lower than the EU Reference Scenario 2016 with a global increase 
of 1,4% per year.  

May 2019  I  65/196 

All Core portsBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - Baltic  Mediterranean  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBase Year 20102 3211 94710768025021536852922686625BAU Scenario 20302 6832 3241198373402644516382731 00831Baseline Scenario 20302 6822 3131238473412674326412711 01131ONLY CORE PORTS All portsPorts Traffic  All markets(Tons in millions) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Modelling  results,  in  the  baseline  2030,  show  that  the  traffic  of  seaports  is 
concentrated in North Sea – Mediterranean corridor, North Sea - Baltic Corridor and 
Rhine  –  Alpine  corridor  with  1  billion  tons,  850  million  tons  and  640  million  tons 
respectively. Rhine-Danube main seaports, according to specific geographical scope, 
have the lowest seaport traffic with 30 million tons. The largest increase in seaport 
traffic is for the Mediterranean corridor with a 36% growth between the base Year 
(2010) and BAU Scenario (2030). This is due to high growth rates for Spain and Italy 
with Asia and the Mediterranean. 

The difference between BAU and Baseline at the seaport traffic level is related to the 
change in RoRo-chain where the changes in transport costs have a direct impact on 
competition between road and maritime links. 

The lower growth of the Scan-Med corridor in the Baseline scenario is mainly due to 
the  implementation  of  the  Fehmarn  Belt  project  and  therefore  the  reduction  of 
maritime traffic between Sweden and Germany. 

Figure 21:  Seaports traffic by corridor 

The results are different depending on the nature of the maritime markets particularly 
the products. These results depend directly on the generation module. 

Seaports traffic by product  
The  table  below  represents  the  container  seaport  traffic  by  corridor.  Overall,  the 
concentration on core ports is very high for all scenarios: 96% of containerised traffic 
is concentrated on main seaports in 2010 and 97% for the two scenarios by 2030. 

May 2019  I  66/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 21: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level: for container market 

However, in the modelling tool, there are two contradictory trends between the BAU 
scenario and the Baseline Scenario: 

  The  implementation  of  TEN-T  projects  strengthens  the  main  ports  by 
improving  their  accessibility.  This  effect  can  be  observed,  for  instance, 
between the BAU scenario and the reference scenario for the North Sea – Med 
corridor with the implementation of the Seine-Scheldt project.  

  The  increase  of  transport  cost  (see  Appendix  B  –  Transportation  costs), 

especially for road and inland waterway tends to favour proximity. 

The following figure illustrates seaport traffic by product category: 

Figure 22:  Evolution of port traffic by products:  Base Year 2010 & 
Baseline 2030 

May 2019  I  67/196 

All Core portsBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - Baltic  Mediterranean  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBase Year 20106306061827698117143189672446BAU Scenario 20301 1021 0644345121017623532313441310Baseline Scenario 20301 1021 0664345920518023732513141610ONLY CORE PORTS Ports Traffic  Container(Tons in millions)All ports 
 
 
 
 
However,  in  general,  container  traffic  increases  significantly  with  a  75%  growth 
(+470 million of tons) between the base year 2010 and the baseline scenario in 2030. 
Agricultural  bulk  (for  import/export)  and  RoRo  maritime  links  traffic  are  each 
increasing  by  20%.  Products  related  to  energy  decrease  by  12%  for  petroleum 
products (from 1087 million tons to 950 million tons) and 43% for coal (from 166 
million tons to 95 million tons). For each product, there is a distinction by country 
with  a  very  sharp  decrease  in  coal  traffic  for  France,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and 
stagnation for German seaports by 2030. 

Locally, the evolution of a port’s traffic depends on its specialization and the share of 
coal and oil in its activity. The following maps represent seaport traffic at European 
scale for the baseline scenario in 2030 and the differences between the Base Year in 
2010 and baseline scenario in 2030. 

Figure 23:  Seaports traffic in baseline (2030) and evolution Baseline – 
Base Year (2030/2010) 

Looking ahead to 2030, the number of ports specializing in the container market is 
increasing significantly. For other ports with a high proportion of petroleum products 
or coal, the traffic could decrease due to the shift from fossil energies to renewable 
energies.  The  RoRo  traffic  between  Sweden  and  Germany  decreases  due  to  the 
completion of the Fehmarn Belt project. 

May 2019  I  68/196 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure 24:  MoS traffic (maritime links and road haulage) in the baseline 
scenario in 2030 

Effects of the baseline scenario in 2030 on ports hinterland 
As  we  have  seen,  the  effects  of  transport  costs  and  infrastructure  projects  do  not 
radically  change  the  volume  of  port  traffic  at  local  or  corridor  level.  The  global 
structure is stable between horizons. This stability is also because all seaports have 
their own simultaneous development strategy, which effectively limits the imbalances 
between horizons. In the end, structural changes depend more on generation growth 
rates than on transport effects. 

However, locally, effects on market share can emerge as shown in the example of 
the port of Constanta presented below.  

May 2019  I  69/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25:  Constanta hinterland for container market 

In the baseline scenario (2030), the improvement of Romania’s transport relations:  
  via  inland  waterway  with  better  navigability  along  Danube  or  via  rail  link 

from/to Constanta, 

  allows the extension of Constant's attractiveness to Budapest / Bratislava, 

  But on the other hand, improved accessibility leading to increased competition 
from  the  ports  of  North  Range  and  Koper  in  the  historic  hinterland  of 
Constanta. 

b. 

At Inland Waterway level 

Traffic projections for IWT are the result of this entire modelling process focusing on 
outputs for IWT network links and ports. These results are presented as follows: 

  Overall in tons and modal share, 
 

in  tons.km,  which  is  a  unit  relevant  for  network  use  (at  corridor  level) 
including distances of transport, 

  along the corridors of the core network, which is the EU’s preferred approach 

to planning  

  and by product type, bearing in mind that overall traffic projections for inland 
navigation  resulting  from  the  growth  in  demand  for  certain  transported 
products,  are  the  outcome  not  from  changes  in  the  performance  of  inland 
navigation, but from structural developments in the European economy and 
the choice of new energy sources (such as coal and oil, and these important 
traditional markets for the EU have a significant impact on global results)  

Simulated  inland  waterway  traffic  represents  470  million  of  tons  in  the  base  year 
(2010)  and  539  and  576  million  of  tons  for  the  Business  as  Usual  scenario  and 
baseline  scenario  (2030).  The  growth  of  traffic  is  respectively  15  and  23%.  The 
average distance travelled by IWT is 300 km. 

May 2019  I  70/196 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Table 22: 

IWT modal share 

In terms of modal share, the inland waterway transport represents a modal share of 
3% for all European flows (Intra-Eu & Extra-Eu) but with large differences depending 
on the products. For example, for the baseline scenario in 2030, the modal share of 
the maritime container is 14%, 21% for coal and 16% for agricultural bulk. On the 
other hand, the share of the inland waterway is very low for “all other” products due 
to the high proportion of intraregional traffic. 

Table 23: 

IWT traffic (in tons.km) by corridor and scenario 

As  we  have  seen,  the  inland  waterway  traffic  increases  from  2010  to  2030  due  to 
changes  in  demand  and  the  transport  context.  In  2010,  these  simulated  traffics 
represent 142 billion tons.km. The core network concentrates 94% of the tons.km in 
2010 with 134 billion tons.km 

For the BAU scenario (2030), the evolution of demand leads to an overall increase of 
12% in the use of inland waterway with 159 billion tons.km for all the perimeter, i.e. 
an annual growth of 0.6%. 
For the baseline scenario (2030), IWT traffic reaches 171 billion tons.km, an increase 
of 21% compared to the 2010 base year. The most important growth is on the North-
Sea - Mediterranean corridors, linked to the completion of the Seine – Scheldt project. 
This project also has side effects on the North Sea – Baltic and Atlantic corridors.  

On  the  East-East  Mediterranean  corridor  the  growth  rate  is  lower  due  to  the  large 
amount of bulk product converging in this area.  Inland waterway  solutions on this 
corridor  face  strong  competition  from  efficient  rail  transport  from  the  ports  of 
Hamburg and Bremerhaven, particularly for containers. 

May 2019  I  71/196 

YearSimulated modal share of IWW (in %)All productsMaritime containerCoal from seaportAgricultural bulk from seaportPetroleum productsRaw materialsAll Others2010Base year3%11%16%14%9%5%1%2030Business as usual3%10%21%14%10%5%1%2030Baseline3%14%21%16%10%5%1%TON.km in billionAll Iww TOTAL on core corridorBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBASE Year - 20101421340570.03607624320SCN 1 - BAU 20301591500650.04708425122SCN2 - Baseline 20301711620680.04708635925BAU / Base Year12%12%14%12%7%12%3%17%11%Baseline / Base Year21%21%20%14%7%14%23%37%22% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  evolution  of  this  traffic  varies  according  to  the  type  of  product  and  mode  of 
transport. In general, the use of inland waterways is predominant for some products: 
  Dry bulk, especially construction materials, agricultural bulk, coal and ore, 
  Liquid bulk with oil products, 
  Container, 
  Chemical products (bulk, manufactured or fertilizer). 

Figure 26:   IWT use by scenario and type of products 

Raw materials are still the main user  of inland waterway with 38,5 billion tons.km 
(23%  of  IWT’s  use).  Between  2010  and  2030,  the  shares  of  oil  products  and  coal 
decline.  They  represent  11%  and  7%  of  total  inland  waterway  traffic  respectively, 
compared to 15% and 11% for base year in 2010. 

Container  traffic  increases  substantially  between  2010  and  2030  with  14  billion 
tons.km  and  31  billion  tons.km  in  the  baseline  scenario.  The  container  market 
represents 10% of IWT traffic in 2010 and 18% for the baseline scenario (2030). This 
increase is due to three reasons:  

  Active growth of the container flows between 2010 and 2030. 
  Effects  of  infrastructure  projects  improving  technical  characteristics  (width 

and air draught) and the improvement of intermodal nodes. 

  Evolution  of  transportation  costs  with  direct  impacts  on  the  competition 

IWT/Road on intermodal solutions. 

Maps 

The following map show at European scale the inland waterways traffic in the Baseline 
scenario  (2030).  It  illustrates  the  concentration  of  waterway  flows  on  Rhine 
catchment area or in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Seine – Scheldt project also 
appears with the Danube especially on the section between Linz - Bratislava and the 
downstream portion between Vidin – Constanta/Galati. 

May 2019  I  72/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27: 

IWT traffic baseline 2030 (left) and differential 2030/2010 

(right) 

May 2019  I  73/196 

 
 
  
 
6.  Test of the policy scenarios with the modelling tool  

6.1.  Modelling results for policy scenario 

Business As Usual Scenario and Baseline scenario are presented in §4.3. Two other 
scenarios  have  been  tested  in  2030:  the  Maximum  Potential  scenario  and  Target 
Oriented Scenario. 
The "Maximum Potential Scenario" is a scenario considering that all policy measures 
promoting  waterborne  transport  are  put  in  place.  For  instance,  this  scenario  is 
considering  all  measures  improving  competitiveness  of  waterborne  transport.  This 
scenario  also  includes  the  development  of  new  markets  such  as  continental 
intermodal solution for IWT and circular economy. 
The  Target-Oriented  Scenario  goes  beyond  the  policy  measures  identified,  and 
considers  a  seamless  integration  of  waterborne  transport  into  the  logistic  chains, 
leading to reduced costs and times of transhipments. The Target-oriented scenario 
also takes into account a better environmental productivity of inland waterway, which 
is not used in the modelling tool but in the assessment of the policy scenarios (see 
§6) 

a. 

At seaport level 

The  following  table  shows  the  traffic  for  the  seaport  for  the  baseline  and  the  two 
above-mentioned  policy  scenarios.  The  maximum  potential  and  target-oriented 
scenarios  have  no  effect  on  the  trade  volumes  from  the  generation  volume. 
Therefore, the effects of these two scenarios on port traffic are limited. 

Table 24: 

Seaports traffic at corridor level and scenario34 

The previous graphic represents the evolution of seaport traffic by products where 
only traffic from the Roro maritime links market evolves with transportation costs. 

34  Seaports  traffic  includes  transshipment  rate  for  container  market  and  Intra-EU 
container market. 

May 2019  I  74/196 

All Core portsBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - Baltic  Mediterranean  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBaseline Scenario 20302 6822 3131238473412674326412711 01131Max Potential Scenario 20302 6982 3291238553412664376512691 02031Target Oriented Scenario  20302 7112 3371238593422594366602691 02932Variation  Max Potential / Baseline1%1%0%1%0%0%1%1%-1%1%0%Variation  Target Oriented / Baseline1%1%0%1%0%-3%1%3%-1%2%1%Ports Traffic  All markets(Tons in millions)All portsONLY CORE PORTS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 28:  Global seaport traffic by products 

At seaport level, effects of the two scenarios compared to the baseline focus on: 

  Variation  of  port  hinterlands  and  competitiveness  according  to  transport 

access cost. This effect is marginal at the European or corridor level, 

  The RoRo maritime links where competition with road transport has a direct 

impact on traffic volumes. 

  Modes of transport to access ports. 

Zoom on the RoRo maritime links 

In terms of volume, the market represented 374 million tons for the baseline scenario 
in  2030.  In  the  case  of  higher  performance  of  maritime  links  of  the  MoS  (lower 
transport cost or better efficiency at connecting points), the market volume can reach 
390  million  tons  in  the  maximum  potential  scenario  and  404  million  in  the  target 
oriented scenario. 

Table 25: 

RoRo chain for maximum potential & target oriented scenarios 

Tons.km in billion 

SCN 
Baseline 
2030 

SCN Max 
Pot 2030 

  SCN - 
Target 
oriented 
2030 

Variation 
Max Pot / 
Baseline 

Variation 
Target 
Oriented / 
Baseline 

All Road 

2746 

2733 

2723 

0 

-1% 

Pre and Post road 
haulage  

Maritime Link 

TOTAL RoRo chain (Road 
haulage + maritime link) 

Port volume in tons 
(millions) 

85 

79 

86 

86 

89 

89 

1% 

9% 

5% 

12% 

164 

172 

178 

5% 

8% 

374 

390 

404 

4% 

8% 

May 2019  I  75/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
The  improved  efficiency  of  the  RoRo  maritime  links  in  the  Maximum  potential  and 
Target-Oriented scenarios compared to the baseline scenario has two consequences: 
  The  higher  performance  of  the  Roro  maritime  links  compared  to  road.  This 
leads  to  an  increase  in  seaport  traffic.  However,  the  modal  shift  is  limited 
considering for example that the modal share is, already, of 100% for islands 
in the baseline scenario in 2030 (or even in 2010). 

  A  reinforcement  of  the  long  maritime  links  against  road  haulage  and  short 
maritime links. This fact is particularly visible between the baseline and the 
maximum potential scenario where the 5% increase in RoRo Chain traffic has 
no  effects  on  pre-post  haulage  (+1%)  and  clear  effects  on  maritime  links 
(+9%)  

The  following  maps  illustrate  the  traffic  volume  in  2030  and  the  effects  of  the 
maximum potential scenario on the RoRo maritime links and the Road compared to 
the baseline scenario. 

Figure 29:  RoRo chain traffic in Maximum Potential scenario (2030) 

May 2019  I  76/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30:  Effect of the Maximum Potential Scenario on RoRo maritime 
links and Road 

Zoom on port access modes: example of maritime containers 
The  following  table  shows  the  evolution  of  the  modal  share  for  containers  for  the 
baseline, the maximum potential scenario and the target-oriented scenario in 2030. 
The  higher  performance  of  inland  waterway  results  in  a  significant increase  of  the 
volume of its traffic volume and modal share. 

Table 26: 

IWT traffic for container market 

May 2019  I  77/196 

Baltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeAll terrestrial access73469939313100115131232593198IWW104104094032943962Modal share Baseline 203014%15%0%30%0%2%2%41%5%30%27%All terrestrial access73470038316100114131234583227IWW135135012204312241252Modal share Baseline 203018%19%0%39%0%3%2%52%7%39%31%All terrestrial access73470038319100110129239583278IWW181181016106416071653Modal share Baseline 203025%26%0%51%0%5%3%67%12%50%41%Maximum Potential 2030Target oriented 2030AccessAll portsCore ports Container maket : seaport traffic by terrestrial access and IWW useScenarioBASELINE 2030 
 
  
 
 
 
In the baseline scenario in 2030, IWT (simulated) traffic for the container market is 
104 million tons. The average modal share of the maritime container market is 14%. 
The  higher  values  are  for  Rhine-Alpine  (modal  share  of  41%),  North  Sea  – 
Mediterranean (modal share of 30%) and North Sea – Baltic (modal share of 30%) 
and Rhine – Danube (modal share of 27%) corridors. 

With the maximum potential scenario, the IWT traffic for the container market is 135 
million tons with an average modal share  of 18%.  The modal share on the Rhine-
alpine corridor is above 50%. With the target-oriented scenario, the traffic volume is 
180 million tons (modal share of 25%). For Rhine-Alpine, North Sea – Mediterranean 
and North Sea – Baltic corridors the IWT modal share is over 50%. 

Figure 31:  Modal share of the IWT for maritime container  

At  seaport  level,  the  different  scenarios  in  2030  do  not  necessarily  change  the 
distribution of traffic between ports. But on the other hand, the conditions of access 
to seaports are changing with the increased use of IWT for some markets. 

b. 

Inland waterway traffic 

The  maximum  potential  and  the  target-oriented  scenarios  highlight  the  greater 
attractiveness of IWT compared to other modes and in particular road transport, as 
well as the development of new markets. The effects of this higher performance have 
direct consequences on the use of inland waterway overall and by corridor. 

The  maximum  potential  and  target-oriented  scenarios  result  in  an  increase  of  the 
waterway traffic. This growth is due to: 

  The  higher  performance  of  IWT  transport  compared  to  rail  but  most  of  all 

compared to road. 

  The  emergence  of  new  markets  such  as  waste  and  continental  intermodal 

transport (80 to 90 million tons) 

May 2019  I  78/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Therefore, the simulated inland waterway traffic is equal to: 
  576 million tons for the baseline scenario (2030), 
  714 million tons for the maximum potential scenario (2030) + 24%, 
  785 million tons for the target-oriented scenario (2030) + 36%, 

In  terms  of  modal  share,  the  maximum  and  target  oriented  scenario  generates 
changes in particular in the maritime container market. 

Table 27: 

IWT modal share 

The following table indicates the evolution of IWT use (in tons.km) at corridor level. 
The  "Maximum  Potential"  and  "Target-Oriented"35  scenarios  show  an  increase  of 
inland  waterway’s  efficiency  compared  to  other  categories  of  transportation, 
especially road. This leads to an increase of inland waterway traffic by 11% and 21% 
respectively compared to the baseline scenario. 

Table 28: 

IWT traffic (in tons.km) by corridor and scenario 

35 As a reminder, Target-Oriented scenario considers the trends of Maximum Potential 
scenario.  

May 2019  I  79/196 

YearSimulated modal share of IWW (in %)All productsMaritime containerCoal from seaportAgricultural bulk from seaportPetroleum productsRaw materialsAll Others2030Baseline3%14%21%16%10%5%1%2030Maximum Potential4%18%24%19%10%6%1%2030Target Oriented4%25%27%21%10%6%1%TON.km in billionAll Iww TOTAL on core corridorBaltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeSCN2 - Baseline 20301711620680.04708635925SCN 3 Maximum Potental 20301911800740.25809346728SCN4 - TARGET Oriented  20302081970800.289010047431Variation Max Potential - Baseline11%11%-9%Non representative19%-8%25%13%13%Variation Target Oriented - Baseline21%21%-18%Non representative32%-16%55%25%24% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
The  effects  of  the  scenarios  are  quite  symmetrical  for  all  corridors,  with  a  few 
exceptions: 

  These effects are relatively small on the Rhine – Alpine and North Sea – Baltic 
corridors where inland waterway transport is already important in the Rhine 
basin. 

 

In  the  context  of  the  Atlantic  corridor,  the  effects  of  the  Target-Oriented 
scenario  are  significant.  Some  of  this  is  due  to  competition  from  road 
transport,  especially  on  the  Seine  axis.  Thus,  the  improvement  in  the 
efficiency of inland waterway transport is getting through a threshold in the 
Target Oriented scenario. 

In  terms  of  product,  the  raw  materials  and  container  market  represent  the  main 
inland waterway market with: 

  42,2  billion  tons.km  and  44,9  billion  tons.km  for  raw  materials  and  for  the 

maximum potential scenario respectively; 

  37,4 billion tons.km and 46,9 billion tons.km for container and for maximum 

potential scenario respectively; 

  New markets (continental units and waste) are relatively marginal compared 

to historical IWT markets. 

Figure 32: 

IWT use by scenario and type of products 

The  development  of  an  intermodal  solution  mixing  IWT  and  road  transportation  is 
limited  in  the  Maximum  Potential  and  Target-Oriented  scenarios.  The  relevance  of 
this intermodal solution is subject to many constraints:  

  Barges  configuration  compared  to  the  unit  size  of  road  transportation  does 

not always allow an acceptable loading factor to be reached. 

  For  short  distances,  a  classic  intermodal  pattern  implies  transhipment 

operations restricting the performance.  

May 2019  I  80/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  For  long  distances,  the  speed  limits  of  inland  waterways  have  a  negative 
impact  on  generalized  cost  of  transport  due  to  the  value  of  time  of  the 
products. The solution competes with rail transport which is faster. 

Finally,  the  attractiveness  of  such  an  intermodal  solution  is  limited  by  the 
configuration  of  the  modelling  tool  designed  for  an  EU  geographical  scope.  But  its 
development may be an efficient answer to the strategic choice of a company located 
close to inland waterway. 

Maps 
The following map illustrates IWT traffic at a European scale and the differential of 
traffic by section between the maximum potential and the baseline scenario. 

Figure 33: 

IWT traffic: Maximum potential scenario (left) – Differential 

Maximum Potential / Baseline (right) 

May 2019  I  81/196 

 
 
 
 
  
6.2.  Modelling results for variants 

a. 

Distribution Versus Concentration 

Both variants were designed to evaluate two contrasting situations of distribution of 
container flows between European seaports: 

  Variant 1 "Hub & Spokes" corresponds to a greater concentration of flows on 

ports  

  Variant  2  "Redistribution"  illustrates  a  situation  where  container  flows  are 
better distributed across all ports. This variant is only tested in the container 
market. 

In methodological terms, the process of concentration and redistribution is introduced 
at the stage of the port selection module (see Appendix A – Detailed description of 
the modelling tool). This module is based on an attractiveness relationship based on 
the weight of the port, the cost of terrestrial transport and an impedance factor. In 
the “Hub and Spokes” variant, the difference from the average is added to the mass 
of the ports, whereas in the case of redistribution this difference from the average is 
subtracted. In the first case, the difference between mass of the ports increases and 
in the second case the difference between mass of ports decreases. 

The following table indicates seaport traffic on the basis of the  reference year and 
the two variants for the container market considering only terrestrial access. 

Table 29: 

Seaport traffic with Hub and Spoke and Redistribution variant 

The Hub and Spoke variant concentrates container traffic on Core ports. In this case, 
the container traffics on non-core ports are lower in the variant (2030) than in the 
base Year in 2010 and the decrease compared to the baseline scenario is over 40% 
for these ports. The main increases are concentrated on the Rhine-Alpine or North 
Sea - Baltic Corridors, where the main ports of the North Range are located. However, 
container  traffic  decreases  on  Baltic-Adriatic  corridor,  Atlantic  corridor  and  Rhine-
Danube corridor. 

A better redistribution leads to a significant increase in container traffic for non-core 
ports, the volume goes from 36 to 71 million tons, but the container traffic on core 
ports only decreases by 5%. The increase mainly impacts the Baltic-Adriatic corridor 
and  Rhine-Danube  corridor.  The  case  of  the  Atlantic  corridor  is  specific  due  to  a 
transfer on non-core ports. 

May 2019  I  82/196 

Baltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBaseline - 20306993639313100115131232593198Hub & spoke - 20307142036331100122134247573317Redistribution - 2030663714228797105120214583028Hub & spoke / Baseline2%-43%-7%6%0%6%2%7%-4%4%-5%Redistribution/ Baseline-5%98%10%-8%-2%-8%-9%-8%-3%-5%5%ONLY CORE PORTS Tons in millionsOnly terrestrial accessAll Core portsNon Core Ports 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maps 
The  following  maps  show  the  evolution  of  port  and  hinterlands  traffic  with  better 
redistribution. The first map illustrates the decrease in traffic on the main ports and 
the transfer to the other ports. 

Figure 34:  Evolution of seaport traffic (terrestrial access) with 
redistribution of flows 

A  better  redistribution  results  in  an  increase  in  market  shares  for  small  and 
intermediate ports, the following maps directly illustrate this trend. In the baseline 
scenario, the catchment area of the French Atlantic ports is limited due to competition 
with Le Havre, Marseille-Fos, Antwerpen and Bilbao. Their catchment area remains 

May 2019  I  83/196 

 
 
 
 
local.  Considering  a  better  redistribution,  this  attraction  area  remains  local  but 
increases inland. 

Figure 35:  Attraction area of Atlantic French ports 

Effects on access to transport 
Changes in hinterlands of the ports have a direct effect on land transport conditions. 
The  following table indicates the main results in terms  of land transport for inland 
waterway, road, rail and pre-and-post-haulage. 

May 2019  I  84/196 

 
 
 
   
 
 
Table 30: 

Terrestrial access to the seaports (container market) 

Tons.km in billion 
Container market 

Baseline 

Hub and 
Spoke 
Variant 

Redistribution 
Variant 

Variation 
Hub & 
spoke / 
Baseline 

Variation 
Redistribution / 
Baseline 

ROAD 

98 

109 

92 

12% 

ROAD pre & post 
haulage for IWW  

ROAD pre & post 
haulage for RAIL 

6 

7 

11 

13 

6 

9 

5% 

17% 

-7% 

-6% 

-20% 

All ROAD 

116 

129 

106 

12% 

-8% 

IWW 

31 

33 

RAIL 

103 

123 

29 

81 

6% 

-6% 

20% 

-22% 

TOTAL 

250 

285 

216 

14% 

-13% 

In the baseline scenario (2030), land transport to/from seaports for container market 
corresponds  to  250  billion  of  tons.km  for  container  market  in  Europe  with  the 
following distribution: 

  116 billion tons.km for road (54%). 

  31  billion  tons.km  for  IWT  (12%)  with  higher  level  in  the  areas  benefitting 

from a navigable inland waterway network. 

  103 billion tons.km for rail (41%). The distances travelled increase the share 

of rail in tons.km. 

Compared to the baseline scenario in 2030, the “Hub and Spoke” variant leads to an 
increase in land transport distances for all modes, with a total traffic of 285 billion 
tons.km (+14% compared to the baseline). This growth is particularly important for 
rail transport given the concentration of flows on major ports where (i) rail services 
are available and (ii) the long distance from seaports to final destination of the good 
(or  conversely).  The  increase  of  IWT  traffic  is  lower  due  to  the  geographical 
morphology of the network. The road traffic also increases due to longer distances 
between major ports and their new hinterland. 

In the case of the redistribution variant, land transport decreases, with a total traffic 
of 216 billion tons.km (-13%). Main effects are concentrated on rail transport with a 
decrease of 22% of tons.km. This result for rail is due to:  

  The  reinforcement  of  local  and  intermediate  ports  favoring  short  distance 
flows.  For  instance,  rail  flows  between  Le  Havre,  Antwerpen  or  Fos  to 
Bordeaux could be transferred to local road trips from port of Bordeaux to the 
city. 

  There are no intermodal services  on the  smaller ports, the  road is the only 

mode available. 

Symmetrically to the hub and spoke variant, the road and IWT decrease by 8% for 
road and -6% for IWT. 

Overall traffic concentration leads to longer distance travelled for all modes including 
road.  On  the  other  hand,  redistribution  promotes  the  proximity  and  has  a  strong 
impact on rail transport. 

May 2019  I  85/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b. 

Uptake of new road technologies (variant 3) 

The  uptake  of  new  road  technologies  has  a  potential  impact  on  the  cost  of  road 
transport.  The  third  variant  considers  a  25%  reduction  in  driving  costs,  improving 
road  competitiveness  against  other  modes  of  transport.  In  this  perspective,  this 
evolution  has  been  tested  in  the  container  and  RoRo  market  (maritime  link  and 
terrestrial haulage). 

Effects on the container market 

The  following  table indicates  the  evolution  of  seaports  traffic  with  faster  uptake  of 
new technologies for road transport. 

Table 31: 

Effect of new technologies for road sector on seaport traffic 

With  the  adoption  of  new  road  technologies,  seaport  traffic  is  relatively  constant. 
Non-core ports traffic increase by 5% because: 

  Generally, they don’t have a good access to rail or IWT 

  Moreover,  the  reduction  in  road  costs  improves  their  relative  accessibility 

compared to the main ports connected to the core network. 

The following table indicates for the container market the effects (in tons.km) of the 
adoption of road technology on land access to the port: 

May 2019  I  86/196 

Baltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeBaseline - 20306993639313100115131232593198Uptake of new technologies for road 6973839308100114130229613168Road Technology / Baseline0%5%1%-1%0%-1%-1%-1%2%-1%2%Tons in millionsOnly terrestrial accessAll Core portsNon Core PortsONLY CORE PORTS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 32: 

Effect of new technologies on the modal share for the 

container market 

Tons.km in billion 
Container market 

Base Year 

Baseline 

ROAD 

ROAD pre & post haulage 
for IWW  

ROAD pre & post haulage 
for RAIL 

71 

3 

5 

Uptake 
technology of 
road 

Variation 
Uptake 
technology of 
road / 
Baseline 

98 

6 

11 

108 

11% 

5 

10 

-17% 

-14% 

All ROAD 

IWW 

RAIL 

80 

14 

47 

TOTAL 

141 

116 

31 

103 

250 

123 

7% 

27 

88 

-14% 

-14% 

238 

-5% 

The reduction in road cost has direct impact on land transport, as there is: 

  A decrease in the length of the trips (-5%), due to the relative reinforcement 

of the local port with shorter road trips to their hinterland. 

  A modal shift from IWT and rail solutions to road solutions (-14%). Thus, the 

road use increase by 7% (11% if direct road routes are considered). 

Effects on the RoRo chain market 
The development of new technologies on the road has a limited impact on port traffic 
with a decrease of 8 million tons (-2%), as RoRo maritime links essentially connect 
islands. 

Table 33: 

Effect of new technologies on the modal share of the RoRo 

market 

Tons.km in billion 

SCN Baseline 2030 

Variante 3 - Uptake 
of new technologies 
for road  

Road Technology / 
Baseline 

Road 

2746 

2747 

0% 

Pre and Post haulage 
(Maritime link) 

Maritime Link 

TOTAL RoRo chain 
(Road haulage + 
maritime link) 

Port volume in tons 
(millions) 

85 

79 

86 

73 

164 

158 

1% 

-8% 

-3% 

374 

366 

-2% 

May 2019  I  87/196 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
But on the other hand, the effects of new technologies have a direct impact on the 
choice of the type of RoRo maritime links and the pre-post haulage strategies with: 
  A decrease of the tons.km for RoRo maritime links + Pre-post haulage (-3%) 

partly due to lower volumes in tons (-2%), 

  An 8% decrease in tons.km on RoRo maritime links due to the transfer from 
long distance RoRo maritime links to short distance RoRo maritime links 
  The consequence of the latter being an increase in distance covered for pre- 

and post-haulage by road. 

c. 

Uptake of new technologies for road and waterborne transport 
(variant 4) 

This variant considers both the adoption of faster uptake of new technologies for road 
(-25% of the cost to the drive) and the improvement of waterborne transport in the 
context  of  maximum  potential  scenario.  This  variant  has  been  tested  on  container 
and RoRo maritime links market. 

Effects on the container market 
The  following  table  indicates  the  evolution  of  seaports  traffic.  The  impacts  on 
container port traffic are small considering the variation between the variant and the 
maximum potential. 

Table 34: 

Effect of new technologies and waterborne improvement on 

the container traffic by port 

Nevertheless,  this  variant  has  significant  effects  on  land  transport.  The  overall 
volume of traffic is similar between the maximum potential scenario and the variant 
with 256 and 252 billiontons.km respectively.  

May 2019  I  88/196 

Baltic AdriaticNorth Sea - BalticMED  Orient East - Med   Scan - Med  Rhine Alpine  Atlantic  North Sea - Med  Rhine DanubeMaximum Potential - 20307003538316100114131234583227New technology & Waterborne improvement698373931399111129234603228New technology & Waterborne improvement / Maximum Potential0%6%1%-1%0%-3%-2%0%2%0%4%Tons in millionsOnly terrestrial accessAll Core portsNon Core PortsONLY CORE PORTS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 35: 

Effect of new technologies & waterborne improvement on the 

modal share for the container market 

Tons.km in billion 
Container market 

Maximum Potential 

Technology of road & 
Waterborne 
improvement 

Technology of road & 
Waterborne 
improvement / Max 
Potential 

Road 

Road pre & post 
haulage for IWW  

Road pre & post 
haulage for Rail 

All ROAD 

IWW 

RAIL 

TOTAL 

84 

8 

13 

89 

10 

11 

5% 

14% 

-15% 

106 

38 

112 

256 

109 

41 

102 

252 

3% 

9% 

-9% 

-1% 

However,  the  traffic  increases  by  3  billion  tons.km  for  road  and  inland  waterway 
transport, representing 3% and 9% of growth respectively. The modal shift is coming 
from rail, with a decrease of rail traffic by 10 billion tons.km (-9%). 

Effects on the maritime links of the RoRo market 

The following table illustrates the main results of this variant for the  maritime links 
of the RoRo market. 

Table 36: 

Effect of new technologies and waterborne improvement on 

maritime links of the RoRo market 

Tons.km in billion 

SCN Maximum 
Potential 2030 

Variante 4 - Uptake of new 
technologies for road & 
improvement waterborne 

Technologies for 
road & waterborne / 
Max potentiel 

Road 

2733 

2725 

Pre and Post haulage 
(Maritime link) 

Maritime Link 

TOTAL RoRo chain (Road 
haulage + maritime link) 

Port volume in tons 
(millions) 

86 

86 

172 

390 

90 

81 

171 

395 

0% 

5% 

-6% 

0% 

1% 

The effects of this variant are similar to those of previous variant with a decrease in 
the traffic on the RoRo maritime links (-6%) in favour of pre and post road haulage 
(+5%).  This  trend  is  a  direct  consequence  of  the  better  performance  of  road 
compared to maritime links. 

May 2019  I  89/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
6. Assessment of policy measures 

The aim of this chapter is to assess the impact of the 20 policy measures identified 
before in relation to  their contribution to realise the projected uptake potential for 
the maritime and IWT transport, as well as the contribution to achieve the goals of 
the European Union’s transport policy, and its feasibility in relation to the political, 
financial, legal and technologic implications involved. 

6.1.  Assessment framework 

Three main packages have been put at the departure point for the elaboration of a 
proper assessment framework for actions proposed in this report in relation to SSS 
and IWW sectors. These policy packages are the 2011 edition of DG Move’s Transport 
White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area. Towards a competitive 
and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011)144final), the European Maritime 
Transport  Strategy  2009-2018,  Strategic  goals  and  recommendations  for  the  EU’s 
maritime transport policy until 2018 (COM(2009)8final), and the most relevant policy 
gaps identified by 2014’s report by the European Parliament, the Cost of Non Europe, 
where  missing  regulation  and  barriers  to  a  fully  integrated  internal  market  are 
discussed.  

In this sense, proposals are assessed in relation to their relative contribution to the 
European  Roadmap  for  the  Common  Transport  Policy  (CTP),  in  particular  to  the 
Maritime Policy, and in relation to identified regulatory gaps to the Single Market.  

Next,  assessment  criteria  in  relation  to  the  goals  of  each  of  these  packages  are 
introduced and discussed.  

a. 

EC 2011 Transport White Paper, steering EU’s CTP 

The Common Transport Policy (CTP) is an essential component of the EU policy since 
the  Maastricht  Treaty  of  1992,  when  the  concept  of  Trans-European  transport 
Networks  (TEN)  was  introduced  for  the  first  time,  with  a  special  emphasis  on 
interconnection and interoperability of the diverse national networks. The main policy 
instruments of the CTP are the White Paper on Transport and the TEN-T programme. 
The TEN-T programme  is intended to increase  the co-ordination in the planning of 
infrastructure projects by the member states. Progress in the TEN-T implementation 
has  been  relatively  slow  due  to  the  scale,  complexity  and  cost  of  the  proposed 
projects in the past. TEN-T policy is currently also being updated to easy the process 
of  implementation.  The  White  Paper  on  Transport  is  the  document  of  strategic 
reflection  providing  the  conceptual  framework  for  the  CTP,  having  had  substantial 
influence  on  EU,  national  and  regional  policies  since  1992  (e.g.  liberalisation  of 
transport markets and modal change from road to rail). The 2009 EC Communication 
on the Future of Transport (COM(2009)279) triggered the debate for the 2011 White 
Book revision, proposing that focus should now turn on improving efficiency of the 
transport  system  through  co-modality,  technology  development,  and  prioritise 
infrastructure investment on links with highest returns.  

According to the 2011 Transport White Paper, one of the major challenges in the field 
of  transport  is  to  break  the  system’s  dependence  on  oil  without  sacrificing  its 
efficiency  and  compromising  mobility,  in  line  with  the  flagship  initiative  “Resource 
efficient  Europe”  set  up  in  the  EU2020  Strategy  and  the  following  policy  packages 
Energy  Roadmap  2050  (COM(2011)885final),  Low  Carbon  Economy  Roadmap 
(COM(2011)112final) 
Europe 
(COM(2011)571final),  accompanyied  by  binding  targets  in  the  2020  Climate  and 

the  Roadmap 

a  Resource 

Efficient 

to 

May 2019  I  90/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Energy  Package  (Energy  Efficiency  Directive),  substituted  in  2030  by  the  2030 
Climate and Energy Framework (COM(2014)015final). Curbing mobility as stated in 
previous  2001  Transport  White  Paper  ceased  being  an  option.  The  EU  and 
Governments stated had to provide clarity on the future policy frameworks, relying 
to the greatest extent possible on market based mechanisms, for manufacturers and 
industry so that they are able to plan investments.  

The concept of co-modality proposed by the 2011 White Paper, oposed to the prevous 
concept  of intermodality more linked to the modal shify towards rail, implyed that 
greater numbers of travellers could be carried jointly to their destination by the most 
efficient  of  the  modes  available,  or  their  combiation.  Oposite  to  the  urban 
environments  and  short  distance  trips,  in  the  intermediate  distances  new 
technologies are less mature and modal choices are fewer than in the city, both for 
passenger and for freight transport. However, this is where EU action was seen as 
having the most immediate impact. Better modal choices would result from greater 
integration of the modal networks: ports, inland waterways, railways, airports, were 
perceived should increasingly be linked and transformed into multi-modal connection 
platforms for mobility.  

In this sense, an EU-wide multi-modal TEN-T ‘core network’ was proposed to become 
fully functional by 2030. The core network would ensure efficient multi-modal links 
between the EU capitals and other main cities, ports, airports and key land border 
crossing, as well as other main economic centres. It focussed on the completion of 
missing  links  –  mainly  cross-border  sections  and  bottlenecks/bypasses  –  on  the 
upgrading of existing infrastructure. Progress in this relates has been uneven, with 
some links and even full networks having developped very fast, especially in eastern 
Europe,  whereas  a  substantial  number  of  missing  links  and  transport  barriers  still 
remain in Western Europe.  

The cost of EU infrastructure development to match the demand for transport was 
estimated in 2011 to be over € 1.5 trillion for 2010-2030. The completion of the TEN-
T network required about € 550 billion until 2020 out of which some € 215 billion can 
be  referred  to  the  removal  of  the  main  bottlenecks.  This  numbers  did  not  include 
investment in vehicles, neither in guidance and information systems. The 2008-2014 
European financial and economic crisis, and the increased fragmentation of European 
common  policies  that  came  afterwards,  have  been  an  obstacle  limitating  the 
development of the TEN-T according to originally imagined progress paces.  

Other key elements in relation to EU transport according to the 2011 transport White 
Paper  concerned  the  improving  of  the  energy  efficiency  performance  of  vehicles 
across all modes and using transport and infrastructure more efficiently through use 
of improved traffic management and information systems. The gradual phasing out 
of ‘conventionally-fuelled’36 vehicles is a major contribution to significant reduction 
of oil dependence, greenhouse gas emissions and local air and noise pollution. The 
use  of  smaller,  lighter  and  more  specialised  road  passenger  vehicles  was  to  be 
encouraged. Low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation would have to reach 40% by 
2050; at the same time it should be reduced EU CO2 emissions from maritime bunker 
fuels by 40% (if feasible 50% ). RIS should encourage IWW naviagation.  

The key policy goals of the 2011 EC Transport White Paper are synthesised below. 

  Competitive  seamless transport of people and  goods across Europe. 
To  address  European  bottlenecks.  Cross-border 
links  and  network 
interconnections;  A  transport  network  composed  of  a  first  layer  constituted 
by high efficient multi-modal networks. the Core Network. and a second layer 
constituted  by  an  EU-wide  cohesive  network.  the  Comprehensive  Network; 

36 

Vehicles using non-hybrid, internal combustion engines (ICE). 

May 2019  I  91/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
increasingly  segregated  freight  and  passenger  traffics  (enhanced  flows  and 
safer transport); increasingly balanced network between EU15 states and New 
Member  States.  Transport  terminals  conceived  as  multi-modal  connection 
platforms. 

  Better  service  and  infrastructure  management.  Efficient  corridor 
planning  approach  rather  than  project  approach.  Elimination  of  remaining 
barriers  between  different  modes.  Missing  links.  Missing  interconnections 
between  different  transport  networks  (rail,  road,  maritime,  iww,  air). 
Increasing  the  cohesion  of  transport  network  by  establishing  binding 
commitments  of  Member  States  towards  implementation  of  TEN-T  core 
network projects. Increasing separation between passenger and freight traffic 
to  optimise  traffic  flows  (traffics  with  different  needs)  and  increase  safety. 
European transport terminals and logistic hubs to be operated as businesses 
in  a  competitive  environment.  Elimination  of  distortionary  subsidies  to 
infrastructure financing and to service operation. 

ICT…);  European 

  Boosting  co-modality  and  modal  efficiency.  Pricing  and  scheduling  to 
enhance  infrastructure  management  and  increase  effective  capacity  (ATM. 
Information  and 
ERTMS. 
Management Plan.  Providing real-time network information all over  Europe. 
River  information  systems  for  the  establishment  of  an  interoperable, 
intelligent traffic and transport system to optimise the existing capacity and 
safety  of  IWW  and  improve  interoperability  with  other  transport  modes. 
Efficient multi-modal planners passenger and freight planners.  

Integrated  Multi-modal 

  Increased  efficiency  of  investment,  diversification  of  funding  for 
transport.  Increased  use  of  PPP  schemes;  better  coordination  of  funding 
sources to meet Common Transport Policy objectives and targets: ERDF, CF, 
CEF,  EIB  loans,  bonds  initiative,  “user-pays”  principle.  Ex-ante  project 
appraisal  with  cost  benefit  guidelines;  competitive  tendering,  even  when 
services  of  public  interest  may  not  operate  under  competition;  clarification 
and uniform treatment of public funding.  

  Technological  development  and  innovation  in  processes.  Technology 
for  smarter  network  management,  for  smarter  and  cleaner  vehicles.  More 
technology  development  focussed  on  key  thematic  elements  (alternative 
fuels,  smart  vehicles,  efficient  traffic  and  infrastructure  management); 
European  industry  leader  in  the  global  market.  RTD  programmes.  More 
focused  R&D  efforts  to  face  competing  R&D  in  China  and  other  world 
competitors, eventually more concentrated in most promising areas. 

  Resource-efficiency and environmental sustainability. Internalisation of 
external  costs  of  transport;  further  vehicle  efficiency  (euro-standards  and 
binding  targets);  visible  links  between  the  “polluter-pays”  and  “user-pays” 
principles and use of issued revenues. Alternative fuels for the maritime and 
IWW  sector  (biofuel,  hydrogen,  LPG  and  LNG).  Wind  based  solutions  for 
waterborne transport.  

  Single  European  Transport  Area.  Elimination  of  remaining  barriers 
between  different  national  transport  systems.  Less  unnecessary  regulation 
and  bureaucracy,  and  more  technical  compatibilities.  Overcoming  EU 
regulation gaps to allow fair competition across Europe in the market and for 
the  market.  Single  European  Railway  Area,  with  award  of  public  service 
contracts under competition, strengthening role of the European Rail Agency 
and enhanced separation between IMs and operators. 

b. 

EU Maritime Strategy 2009-2018 

The  goal  of  the  EU  Maritime  Strategy  (COM(2009)/8final)  was  to  setup  the  main 
strategic goals for the European maritime transport system up to 2018 and to identify 
key areas for action where action by the EU should strengthen the competitiveness 
of  the  sector  while  enhancing  its  environmental  performance.  According  to  the  EC 

May 2019  I  92/196 

 
 
 
Staff Working Paper on the implementation of the strategy, published in 2016, the 
implementation  of  the  Strategy  has  been  marked  by  a  rapid  evolution  of  the 
challenges  and  by  evidence  that  interaction  and  cross-dependencies  between  the 
different areas of work become ever more relevant. Relevance of the overall goals 
for EU Maritime Transport specified in the 2009 Communication are still high.  

Assessment criteria is drawn upon the goals of the 2009 Maritime Transport Strategy 
and their relevant developments having taken place since then.  

  Maritime  Safety  and  Security.  The  2009  Communication  highlighted  the 
need to give priority to the enforcement of existing EU and international rules 
and to speedy implementation of measures introduced with the 3rd Maritime 
Safety Package. Port State Control has been reinforced since 2009 with the 
implementation  of  new  risk-based  approaches  to  vessel  inspections. 
Persistently substandard vessels can be banned from European waters. The 
Union  Maritime  Information  and  Exchange  System  (SafeSeaNet)  is  fully 
operational and covers all European coastal waters, tracking ship navigation 
identification  of  high-risk  vessels,  earlier 
with  AIS,  enabling  early 
precautionary  actions,  and  improved  emergency  response  to  incidents  or 
pollution. There is today an operational integrated information management 
system in place operated by European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).  

  Digitalisation  and  Administrative  Simplification.  A  second  goals  of  the 
2009  Strategy  was  to  setup  the  necessary  tools  to  allow  for  a  maritime 
transport space without barriers, mainly removing unnecessary administrative 
obstacles  to  maritime  transport  within  the  Internal  Market.  The  associated 
action  plan  proposed  to  simplify  customs  formalities  and  administrative 
procedures,  improve  electronic  transmission  by  creating  “e-maritime” 
systems and rationalise relevant EU regulations. Since 2009, SafeSeaNet has 
been a useful tool which has developed into the Union Maritime Information 
and  Exchange  system.  The  Reporting  Formalities  Directive  (Directive 
2010/65/EU) required that by 1 June 2015, a selected list of documents are 
reported  only  once  in  electronic  format  to  harmonised  National  Single 
Windows  (NSW),  with  harmonised  guidelines.  The  Blue  Belt  initiative 
(COM(2013)510  final)  was  also  launched  in  2013  to  relieve  EU  goods 
transported  between  EU  seaports  from  the  administrative  and  customs 
formalities that apply to goods arriving from overseas. The shipping industry 
full  EU  harmonisation  of  reporting 
urges 
requirements  and  wider  coverage  of  formalities  through  a  harmonised 
electronic cargo manifest (e-Manifest).  

further  progress  towards 

  Environmental  Sustainability  and  Decarbonisation.  The  long-term 
objective  for  maritime  transport  is  ‘zero-waste,  zero  emission’  transport. 
Cleaner  shipping  focuses  both  in  Greenhouse  Gas  emissions  (GHG)  and 
emissions of air pollutants (sulphur-oxides, particulate matter and nitrogen-
oxides). Clean shipping should be further promoted with the implementation 
of Directive 2014/94/EU on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure 
(in particular with the promotion of LNG) ensuring standardization and set up 
of basic supply infrastructure by 2025, with EU financial support. The CEF also 
foresaw over EUR 185 million (including Motorway of the Sea projects) funding 
for  the  promotion  of  green  shipping,  including  studies,  pilot  actions  and 
infrastructure  projects  to  support  new  technologies  and 
innovation. 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/757  forced  monitoring,  reporting  and  verification  of 
carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport (MRV Regulation) for ships 
above 5000 GT calling at EU ports, as of 2018.  

May 2019  I  93/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Raising  the  Profile  and  Qualifications  of  Seafarers  and  Maritime 
Professions.  In  2009,  the  Strategy  claimed  that  the  growing  shortage  of 
maritime  professionals,  officers  and  ratings  entailed  the  risk  of  losing  the 
critical  mass  of  human  resources  that  sustained  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European maritime industries in general. To address that issue, the Strategy 
proposed, among others, action to facilitating lifelong career prospects in the 
maritime  clusters,  promoting  cooperation 
for  upgrading  seafarers’ 
competences, developing advanced skills and qualifications of EU officers and 
adapting  requirements  to  the  prerequisites  of  today’s  shipping  industry, 
working  in  partnership  with  training  institutions  and  the  industry  towards 
establishing 
‘maritime  certificates  of  excellence’  (European  maritime 
postgraduate courses), enhancing the image of shipping and careers at sea, 
supporting fair treatment of seafarers, improving quality of life at sea.  

  EU  Shipping:  A  stronger  global  player.  The  Strategy  calls  for  the 
achievement  of  a  comprehensive  international  regulatory  framework  for 
shipping,  therefore  becoming  key  elements  like  cooperation  and  active 
presence  from  both  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  IMO  and  in  the 
ILO.  The  EU  supports  the  inclusion  of  an  annex  on  the  liberalisation  of 
maritime transport services as well as ambitious market access commitments 
in  the  ongoing  negotiation  of  a  plurilateral  agreement  on  Trade  in  Services 
(TiSA) between 23 partners of the WTO.  

c. 

European regulation for a Single European Maritime Market 

The two former formal transport strategies by the EU are complemented by a more 
regulatory driven approach, derived from the studies by the European Parliament in 
2014 in the framework of the European Added Value Assessment on the Cost of non-
Europe  in  the  Single  Market  of  Transport  (MCRIT,  OIR,  VVA  and  T33,  2014).  In 
particular in relation to the Water Transport volume (Maritime and IWW). 

In  relation  to  the  Maritime  sector,  main  areas  in  which  legislative  gaps  or 
implementation problems persisted in 2014 are listed next: 

  State  direct  aid  to  terminal  managers  and  maritime  companies  (indirect  aid 

through infrastructure investment, taxation, R&D) 

  Port Regulation (liberalisation and transparency, cargo handling...) 

  Reducing  reporting  formalities,  removing  administrative  and  custom  costs 
(“European  Maritime  Transport  Space  Without  Barriers”,  “Blue  Belt”, 
“eCustoms”) 

  Association of non-European ports to Motorways of the Seas 

  Environmental externalities: emission´s taxation. 

  Block exemptions for Shipping Consortia (antitrust regulation) 

  Port planning, when infrastructure investments may create market distortions 

On the other hand, Inland Waterways are fully liberalised, including cabotage rights. 
The Rhine became liberalised in 1868 in the Mannheim Convention, as well  as the 
international shipping in the Danube, and since 2000s all inland waterways are open 
to competition. Areas in which problems remain, however, are the following: 

  Administrative and regulatory barriers because of harmonisation gaps (in vessel 
insurance, ship certification, mutual recognition of boat master’s certificates) 

  Capacity regulation (due to the tendency to overcapacity) 

  Environmental externalities: emission’s taxation 

May 2019  I  94/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Next,  main  gaps  and  need  for  improving  of  existing  regulation  are  identified  in 
relation to main transport policy aims:  

  Single European maritime transport area (in line with Blue Belt Initiative 
and  Directive  2006/87/EC  on  technical  harmonisation  of  IWW).  Traffic 
between European port pairs is technically considered to take place  outside 
the  Union  if  ships  exit  territorial  waters,  and  therefore  require  for  customs 
processing  at  destination.  A  facilitation  mechanism  for  vessels  that  call  in 
third-country ports is needed. The planned revision of Directive 2002/59/EC 
on Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information Systems and the implementation 
of the Reporting Formalities Directive will address this issue, and support the 
implementation of an expanded Blue Belt. In 2011, a pilot initiative was issued 
in  cooperation  with  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA),  and 
demonstrated  the  potential  to  reduce  administrative  burden  of  SafeSeaNet 
(SSN), the information system for vessel traffic monitoring. 
Major  efforts  to  improve  the  market  conditions  are  made  by  the  European 
action  programme  on  the  Promotion  of  Inland  waterway  transportation 
NAIADES (2006-2013), endorsed by the European Parliament and PLATINA, 
the platform for the implementation of NAIADES. Both NAIADES and PLATINA 
involved  several  initiatives  with  the  aim  to  harmonize  and  improve  market 
conditions, also in terms  of legislation. Further the amendment  of Directive 
96/50/EC  on  boatmaster  certificates,  i.e.  the  recognition  of  national 
boatmasters certificates issued pursuant to EU law as valid certificate for the 
Rhine navigation, will have a positive effect on the job situation in IWT. The 
free movement of boat masters across Europe is thus no longer hampered. 
To  lessen  the  shortage  of  qualified  crew  currently  perceived,  is  a  main 
prerequisite for the competitiveness of the industry. 

  Reducing  Shipping  Formalities  (in  line  with  Directives  2002/6/EC  and 
2010/65/EU).  In  recent  years  an  important  step  to  a  harmonized  transport 
market  was  made  by  the  EU  Regulations  concerning  the  technical 
specifications of river information services (RIS). The RIS Regulations define 
a  set  of  standards  in  term  of  the  Inland  Electronic  Chart  Display  and 
Information  System  (ECDIS),  the  Vessel  Tracking  and  Tracing  (VTT),  the 
Notice  to  Skippers  (NtS)  as  well  as  the  Electronic  Reporting.  The  feedback 
after  the  implementation  of  RIS  was  positive  from  all  stakeholders. 
Administrations  and  shipping  companies  approve  the  more  efficient  and 
quicker locking procedures, while the captains appreciate the better overview 
on  the  traffic  situation.  There  are  ongoing  projects  to  expand  the  RIS 
functionality  on  the  European  inland  waterways,  e.g.  enhance  cross-border 
Information services (IRIS Europe II) or the provision of tracing and tracking 
services to the shipping industry and their clients. The joint extension of RIS 
functionalities  will  be  vital  for  the  market  competition  of  Inland  waterway 
transport (IWT) as it enables to better embed IWT into logistic chains and to 
provide new logistic concepts.  
The  reporting  formalities  Directive  2002/6/EC  was  a  first  step  towards 
simplified  administrative  procedures  (it  harmonised  reporting  procedures 
across Europe using standardised IMO FAL forms), and was later repealed by 
Directive  2010/65/EU  (“Reducing  Formalities  Directive”  -  RFD)  forcing  EU 
countries to accept electronic reports via a single window (NSW) at the latest 
by 1 June 2015. Member States are struggling to comply with the Directive 
due to (i) the budgetary impact of RFD implementation, (ii) a large amount of 
stakeholders  and  authorities  involved  its  implementation  process,  (iii)  legal 
difficulties regarding exchanging confidential (sensitive) information, (iv) lack 
of sufficient technical specifications at EU level, (v) the tight implementation 
implementation  deadline  (1.06.2015).  Simplification  of 
timing  with 

May 2019  I  95/196 

 
 
 
 
 
procedures needs to involve also vessel crew, in issues related to visas and 
shore  leave.  On  a  longer  term,  the  European  Customs  Code  will  need 
adjustments 

  Development of infrastructure (in line with TEN-T Networks, SSS and Core 
Ports; CEF and EFSI). The TEN-T programme is intended to increase the co-
ordination  in  the  planning  of  infrastructure  projects  by  the  member  states, 
but  progress  in  the  TEN-T  implementation  has  been  relatively  slow  due  i) 
lacking  budget  (EU  grants  represent  no  more  than  5-6%  of  the  total 
investments needed on the TENs), ii) difficulty on coordinating undertakings 
due to differing interests among Member States; iii) poor project preparation 
and non-optimal institutional settings. Air and maritime Horizontal Packages 
for traffic management in the air and the maritime sectors represented 7.3% 
of European budget on transport between 2007 and 2010, mostly allocated to 
SESAR (€350 million) and Motorways of the Sea (€135 million), and to a lower 
degree ATM-FABs (€30 million) and River Information Systems (€25 million). 
The missing infrastructure needed to match the traffic demand, estimated in 
€1.500  billion  2010-2030  overall,  with  €1.000  billion  additional  for  vehicles 
and equipment. 

  Shipping  competition  and  antitrust  regulation  (in  line  with  Regulation 
1419/2006,  Articles  81  and  82  of  the  EC  Treaty).  Regulation 1419/2006 
introduced  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of Articles  81 and 82 of  the EC 
Treaty on maritime transport (non distorsion of competition within the internal 
market).  A  block  exemption  was  applied  to  liner  conferences  allowing 
shipowners  to  jointly  organise  services  until  2008  (cooperate  in  price-  and 
capacity-fixing  arrangements).  Regulation  (EC)  906/2009  banned  collective 
pricing  through  conferences,  because  it  prevented  price  competition,  but 
allows to continue to form vessel-sharing consortia to use common services 
(e.g. ships) provided that market shares remain below 30%. Larger alliances 
are not necessarily unlawful, but self-assessment is then required to ensure 
there  is  no  abuse  of  dominant  positions.  This block  exemption  is  due  to  be 
renovated in 2015. Some experts argue that the rules should be renewed, and 
threshold raised to 50% to bring it into line with other jurisdictions. Others 
claim block exemption should be fully removed. A public consultation is to be 
launched by the EU in 2014 in regards to the application of the EU competition 
law concerning the liner consortia block exemption. In the maritime transport 
sector, subsidies are rarer now than in the past, but may still include failure 
of Member States to require financial sustainability of port authorities (recover 
operating  and  labour  costs  and  finance  investments);  state  aid  to  port 
authorities  for  strategic  investments;  predatory  pricing  to  increase  port 
throughput;  inappropriate  use  of  marginal  cost  pricing  for  capital  intensive 
activities whose assets will eventually require replacement  

Competition  in  Ports  and  Port  Services  (in  line  with  Regulation  (EU) 
2017/352). Harmonisation of port charges is still incomplete. To promote fair 
port  competition,  the  EC  provided  the  White  Paper  on  Fair  Payment  for 
Infrastructure Use in 1998, proposing a system based on short term marginal 
social  costs  (including  external  costs),  aimed  at  recovering  costs  of  new 
investments,  operating  and  external  costs,  thereby  ensuring  fair  port 
competition (Strandenes and Marlow, 2000). Most of the times, this system 
does not provide sufficient revenue to allow the financial coverage of upfront 
investments on infrastructure, and in practice, it has not been implemented 
in Europe. Excessive port tariffs commonly come from a lack of competition; 
abuse of monopoly power (cross-subsidization of high competition services by 
those  where  ports  have  a  monopoly;  price  competition  for  terminal 
concessions,  which  are  sometimes  overbid  in  the  knowledge  that  high 

May 2019  I  96/196 

 
 
 
 
 
concession  fees  can  be  recovered  subsequently  from  users);  imperfect 
knowledge of costs; inheritance of past tariff structures. Though subsidies are 
now  relatively  less  frequent,  they  may  still  provide  for  sub-optimal  port 
pricing.  

Free access to and competition in port services (in line with Regulation (EU) 
2017/352). The strong opposition of groups such as dock labour unions and 
short-term national positions have blocked already two times the approval by 
the  Parliament  of  the  Port  Package  on  liberalisation  measures.  Despite  the 
support  of  ship-owners,  freight  forwarders,  ship  agents  and  shipbrokers  as 
well as cargo owners, the strong opposition of the trade union’s managed to 
block  the  approval.  "Self-handling”  activities,  aimed  at  addressing  labour 
monopolies  at  ports,  are  the  main  issue  preventing  the  approval  of  a 
legislation on ports market access liberalisation, i.e. the option for a shipping 
company to provide certain port services, normally provided by the port, using 
its own land-based personnel. Self-handling activities in ports are not likely to 
be  included  into  the  port’s  regulation  under  development.  Liberalisation  of 
port services has also been discussed at WTO level since the Uruguay Round 
(1986-1994) with little progress. 

  Safety  and  Environment.  Further  legislation  already  amended  or  sent  on 
the  way  deals  with  the  filling  of  gaps  in  international  contract  standards 
agreed  in  CMNI  (Budapest  Convention  on  the  Contract  for  the  Carriage  of 
Goods  by  Inland  Waterways),  such  as  issues  related  to  the  communication 
and exchange of data for international hazardous goods transport marked. A 
comprehensive  funding  guide  for  IWT  in  Europe  was  developed  within  the 
project PLATINA, informing about funds and state aid schemes. 

Admission rules for inland waterways vessels in the European Union (Directive 
2006/87/EC).  The  coexistence  of  various  technical  regulations  on  navigable 
waterways  in  the  Community  has  long  obstructed  the  free  movement  of 
vessels. With the progress of the technical state of the art, amendments of 
the technical specifications are  coming up ever  since.  Instead  of translating 
these amendments into law, the Commission decided to change the admission 
rules  into  framework  law,  meaning  that  the  Annexes  of  this  regulation  will 
hold the technical specifications. These technical specifications would further 
be  decided  by  a  Joint  Working  Group  and  CCR  was  assigned  with  the 
establishment of such a group. CCR agreed on taking this task and mastered 
the  problem  of  not  being  representative  for  all  Member  States  by  inviting 
experts  of  the  other  Member  States.  However,  decisions  –  even  if  jointly 
agreed  by  the  Working  Group  –  lack  the  legal  background  to  be  translated 
into European law. Consequently, no amendments of technical specifications 
were realised up to now. 

Council Directive 82/714/EEC laying down technical requirements for inland 
waterway vessels as well as the technical specifications of river information 
services (RIS). In particular, ship owners of new vessels or adapted vessels 
who would like to get the admission of a ship which is not completely in line 
with  the  current  technical  specifications,  but  can  provide  the  equivalent 
technical  and  security  standards  by  other  measures  are  forced  to  request 
admissions  from  Rhine  and  thus  face  significant  time  delays  for  vessel 
admissions. In other words, ship owners cannot claim for equivalent security 
standards  by  addressing  European  legislation,  but  have  to  detour  to  Rhine 
regulations.  Innovative  adaptations  or  the  construction  of  new  innovative 
vessels are thus not feasible within an appropriate time horizon. 

May 2019  I  97/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  full  internalisation  of  environmental  externalities.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
important legislative gaps, common for both Air and Water Transport sector. 
The  gradual  internalisation  of  environmental  externalities  will  result  in 
dramatic changes in the industry, making carriers more sensitive to shorten 
the  lengths  of  their  services,  both  in  the  air  and  maritime  sectors.  The 
application  of  taxes  on  emissions  throughout  the  EU  would  induce  air  and 
maritime  carriers  to  adjust  their  hub  and  spoke  networks,  particularly  for 
intercontinental  services  and  would  have  an  impact  on  modal  shift  towards 
rail. The application of the Eurovignette on roads may favour a shift towards 
short-sea  shipping,  IWW  and  rail.  But  the  internalisation  of  externalities  in 
maritime  transport  (marine  fuels  are  currently  under  taxed),  especially  for 
SSS,  will  increase  strong  competition  from  road  freight  transport.  Directive 
No  2008/101  set  up  the  inclusion  of  all  flights  taking  off  and  landing at  EU 
airports in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 2012, but 
application  of  the  Directive  has  been  postponed  to  allow  for  a  negotiation 
aiming at an ICAO common positioning on this matter. 

6.2.  Actions to be assessed 

Next table presents the 20 actions proposed for assessment of their strategic interest.  
Measures are classified according to: 
the obstacle being addressed  
in  relation  to  the  typology  measure  (encouraging,  financial  support, 
infrastructure charging, taxation, regulation) and  
in relation to their implementation scale (EU, National or Local level).  

 
 

 

Measures are briefly described, and identified with codes. 

Table 37: 

List of policy measures to be assessed 

Measure 
code 

Measure 
typology 

Obstacle:  All 

Measure description 

Responsible 

0.1 

Financial support  

0.2 

Encouraging 

Financial  support  to  the  uptake  of  innovation: 
blending  calls  or  blending  facilities  at  EU  level, 
grants or similar mechanisms at national or local 
level.  
Share  of  best  practices  for  all  kind  of  obstacles 
identified. 

EU,  National  and 
Local level 

EU,  National  and 
Local level 

Obstacle:  Lack of infrastructure developments & maintenance 

I.3 

I.4 

I.5 

Regulation, 
financial 
and Encouraging 

support 

Encouraging 

Tax/infrastructure 
and 
charges 
financial support 

Development  of  maritime  and  river  information 
system  (better  information  about  the  depth/ 
clearance of waterways, better use of the length 
of waterways and locks, better information of real 
time traffic cargos' routes, etc). 
Improvements in ports & terminals (automation, 
better use of ICT, smart port...). 
Encourage ports to innovate in the infrastructure 
supporting  new  vessels  that  are  more  efficient 
and environmental friendly. 

EU  &  National 
level 

National  &  Local 
level 

EU  &  National 
level 

May 2019  I  98/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure 
code 

Measure 
typology 

I.6 

Regulation 

I.7 

Encouraging 

Measure description 

Responsible 

Adapt  CEF  calls  according  to  port  needs,  which 
means that there should be multiple multi-annual 
calls. 
for 
Adopt 
infrastructure  maintenance  at  national  and  local 
level  in  order  to  have  good  maintenance  at  the 
good cost. 

a  whole 

approach 

life-cycle 

Obstacle:  Lack of qualified IWT staff 

II.1 

Encouraging 

Training  programs  on  multimodality,  maritime 
and inland waterway  transportation complement 
recognition  of  professional 
based  on  a 
competence 
and  minimum 
qualifications 
requirements including examination standards for 
training  and  educational 
following 
recommendations  C  of  European  Parliament 
directive  on  the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications  in  inland  navigation  and  repealing 
(Council  Directive  91/672/EEC  and  Council 
Directive 96/50/EC). 

institutes 

EU level 

National  &  Local 
level 

EU  &  National 
level 

Obstacle:  Lack of collaboration / coordination of the different stakeholders 

III.2 

III.3 

III.4 

III.5 

Obstacle: 

IV.1 

and 

EU level 

Regulation 

Regulation 

Financial support 

Regulation 
financial support 

EU,  National  and 
Local level 

A  broader  and  more  accurate  data  base 
concerning waste. 
Support to the short sea shipping inland waterway 
promotion  centre  (to  be  coordinated  with  MoS 
DIP). 
Development  of  multimodal  traffic  management 
and information systems. 
Improvement  of  coordination  in  the  container 
chain  in  order  to  promote  the  development  of 
synchromodality: 
- Development of bundling & unbundling in order 
to prepare shipments for IWT. 
-  Coordination  between  all  stakeholders  to 
propose a seamless and optimized logistic chain. 
Progressive  loss  of  its  environment-friendly  image  &  compliance  with  more 
stringent standards on environment 
Tax/infrastructure 
charges 

Internalization  of  external  costs  for  all  transport 
modes. 

EU  &  National 
level 

EU  &  National 
level 

IV.2 

Regulation 

Setting up ambitious targets for recycling. 

National  &  Local 
level 
EU,  National  and 
Local level 

IV.3 

Encouraging 

Encourage port authorities to include targets for 
rail  &  IWT  modal  share  in  their  contracts  with 
terminal operators. 

EU  &  National 
level 

Obstacle: 

Competitiveness  and  environmental  performance  of 
transport against other modes 

inland  waterborne 

VI.1 

Regulation 
financial support 

and 

VI.2 

Regulation  

VI.3 

Regulation 
financial support 

and 

through 

logistics 

the  use  of 

Promotion  of  the  development  of  a  sustainable 
IWT: 
urban 
preservation  of  the  infrastructure  in  the  city, 
development  of  new  vessels,  development  of 
multimodal logistic hubs next to inland waterway 
in the suburb… 
Support the development of the pallet wide (45ft) 
containers for a cost effective modal shift. Adapt 
the rules on vessels design & operation. 
New  vessel  design:  deployment  of  energy 
efficient  vehicles  (decrease  energy  demand 
through  new  engines,  material  and  design, 
automated vessels). 

EU,  National  and 
Local level 

EU  &  National 
level 

EU  &  National 
level 

May 2019  I  99/196 

 
 
 
  
Measure 
code 

Measure 
typology 

Measure description 

Responsible 

Obstacle:  Administrative burden for waterborne transport 

VII.1 

Regulation 

VII.3 

Regulation 
financial 
and Encouraging 

/ 
support 

More consistency in admission policy (definition of 
the  applications  for  exemption  with  respect  of 
allowing  vessels  of  a  larger  than  permitted 
dimensions). 
Facilitation of the transportation of wastes within 
EU  and  outside  to  promote  the  development  of 
circular economy (status of waste, e-waste flows 
and trade, …). 

EU  &  National 
level 

EU level 

6.3.  Assessment methodology 

The assessment consists of a qualitative evaluation of the impact of the measures 
against the main objectives of the three policy packages chosen for the assessment 
framework. 

Next we present the list of objectives that have been identified in the packages: 

  EC 2011 Transport White Paper 

Increased efficiency of investments 

o  Competitive seamless transport of people and goods across Europe 
o  Better service and infrastructure management 
o  Boosting co-modality and modal efficiency 
o 
o  Diversification of funding 
o  Technological development and innovation in processes   
o  Resource-efficiency and environmental sustainability 
o  Single European Transport Area 

  EU Maritime Strategy 2009-2018 
o  Maritime Safety and Security 
o  Digitalisation and Administrative Simplification 
o  Environmental Sustainability and Decarbonisation  
o  Raising  the  Profile  and  Qualifications  of  Seafarers  and  Maritime 

Professions 

o  EU Shipping: A stronger global player 

  European regulation for a Single European Maritime Market 

o  Single  European  maritime  transport  area    (in  line  with  Blue  Belt 
Initiative and Directive 2006/87/EC on technical harmonisation of IW) 
o  Reducing Shipping Formalities (in line with Directives 2002/6/EC and 

2010/65/EU)   

o  Development of infrastructure (in line with TEN-T Networks, SSS and 

Core Ports; CEF and EFSI) 

o  Shipping competition and antitrust regulation (in line with Regulation 

1419/2006,  Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty) 

o  Competition  in  Ports  and  Port  Services  (in  line  with  Regulation  (EU) 

2017/352) 

o  Safety and Environment 

For each of these objectives and each measure we assign a numerical value indicating 
whether the objective is addressed by the measure (1 means lowest impact, 4 means 
highest impact). These values are obtained from a Delphi exercise run among five 
experts on transport policy. This exercise was conducted on 25 of September 2018 
at MCRIT premises.  

May 2019  I  100/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Delphi Method is a technique to structure group communication processes to deal 
with  complex  issues.  It  involves  expert  survey  responses  in  a  series  of  iterative 
learning  rounds.  Delphi  first  establishes  the  group's  initial  view,  presents  instant 
feedback on differing opinions, and goal seeks an agreed position in the final round. 
At  the  beginning,  the  organiser  formulates  questions  and  presents  these  to 
contributors. Contributors respond by adding their rankings and comments. (GCPSE 
& UNDP 2014). Delphi is a well-established technique that involves repeated polling 
of  the  same  individuals,  feeding  back  (sometimes)  anonymised  responses  from 
earlier rounds of polling, with the idea that this will allow for better judgements to be 
made without undue influence from forceful or high-status advocates. They are most 
often employed to elicit views as to whether and when particular developments may 
occur, but the technique can be used for any sort of opinion or information – such as 
the desirability of specific outputs, impacts of policies or technologies, etc. (Keenan 
and Popper 2007) 

The experts answered questionnaires in two rounds. After the first round, a facilitator 
provided an anonymised summary of the experts' forecasts from the previous round 
as  well  as  the  reasons  they  provided  for  their  judgments.  Thus,  experts  were 
encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of 
the panel. During this process,  the range  of the answers decreases  and the group 
converges towards the "correct" answer. 

The  result  of  this  exercise  is  a  value  for  each  measure  against  each  objective, 
meaning a total of 522 evaluations that is presented as an annex to this report in an 
Excel table. 

6.4.  Results 

The evaluation of the measures has resulted in a matrix of relevance of each measure 
in  relation  to  each  objective  of  the  policy  packages  selected  for  the  assessment 
framework. 

This matrix is shown below. 

May 2019  I  101/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36:  Matrix of relevance of each measure 

May 2019  I  102/196 

Measure codeMeasure typologyMeasure descriptionResponsibleEC 2011 Transport White PaperEU Maritime Strategy 2009-2018European regulation for a Single European Maritime MarketObstacle:Competitive seamless transport of people and goods across EuropeBetter service and infrastructure managementBoosting co-modality and modal efficiencyIncreased efficiency of investments. Diversification of fundingTechnological development and innovation in processesResource-efficiency and environmental sustaianbilitySingle European Transport AreaMaritime Safety and SecurityDigitalisation and Administrative SimplificationEnvironmental Sustainability and DecarbonisationRaising the Profile and Qualifications of Seafarers and Maritime ProfessionsEU Shipping: A stronger global playerSingle European maritime transport area  (in line with Blue Belt Initiative and Directive 2006/87/EC on technical harmonisation of IWW)Reducing Shipping Formalities (in line with Directives 2002/6/EC and 2010/65/EU)Development of infrastructure(in line with TEN-T Networks, SSS and Core Ports; CEF and EFSI)Shipping competition and antitrust regulation (in line with Regulation 1419/2006,  Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty)Competition in Ports and Port Services(in line with Regulation (EU) 2017/352 )Safety and Environment0.1Financial support Financial support to the uptake of innovation: blending calls or blending facilities at EU level, grants or similar mechanisms at national or local level.  EU, National and Local level3222432323121311130.2EncouragingShare of best practices for all kind of obstacles identified.EU, National and Local level222112122211221112Obstacle:I.3Regulation, financial support and EncouragingDevelopment of maritime and river information system (better information about the depth/ clearance of waterways, better use of the length of waterways and locks, better information of real time traffic cargos' routes, etc).EU & National level343222332212311113I.4EncouragingImprovements in ports & terminals (automation, better use of ICT, smart port...).National & Local level443231223222222112I.5Tax/infrastructure charges and financial supportEncourage ports to innovate in the infrastructure supporting new vessels that are more efficient and environmental friendly.EU & National level122132211312212113I.6RegulationAdapt CEF calls according to port needs, which means that there should be multiple multi-annual calls.EU level212411211111213111I.7EncouragingAdopt a whole life-cycle approach for infrastructure maintenance at national and local level in order to have good maintenance at the good cost.National & Local level241311131112112112Obstacle:II.1EncouragingTraining programs on multimodality, maritime and inland waterway transportation complement based on a recognition of professional qualifications and minimum competence requirements including examination standards for training and educational institutes following recommendations C of European Parliament directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing (Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC).EU & National level112212221143311112Obstacle:III.2RegulationA broader and more accurate data base concerning waste.EU, National and Local level111123111311111112III.3Financial supportSupport to the short sea shipping inland waterway promotion center (to be coordinated with MoS DIP).EU level233221211211221111III.4Regulation and financial supportDevelopment of multimodal traffic management and information systems.EU & National level333131221112321111RegulationImprovement of coordination in the container chain in order to promote the development of synchromodality:- Development of bundling & unbundling in order to prepare shipments for IWT.- Coordination between all stakeholders to propose a seamless and optimized logistic chain.Obstacle:IV.1Tax/infrastructure chargesInternalization of external costs for all transport modes.National & Local level112123111312111113IV.2RegulationSetting up ambitious targets for recycling.EU, National and Local level111223111311111113IV.3EncouragingEncourage port authorities to include targets for rail & IWT modal share in their contracts with terminal operators.EU & National level232122111211112112Obstacle:VI.1Regulation and financial supportPromotion of the development of a sustainable urban logistics through the use of IWT:  preservation of the infrastructure in the city, development of new vessels, development of multimodal logistic hubs next to inland waterway in the suburb…EU, National and Local level222112111111111111VI.2Regulation  Support the development of the pallet wide (45ft) containers for a cost effective modal shift. Adapt the rules on vessels design & operation.EU & National level332342111212111111VI.3Regulation and financial supportNew vessel design: deployment of energy efficient vehicles (decrease energy demand through new engines, material and design, automated vessels).EU & National level111143111312111113Obstacle:VII.1RegulationMore consistency in admission policy (definition of the applications for exemption with respect of allowing vessels of a larger than permitted dimensions).EU & National level332211331212321112VII.3Regulation / financial support and EncouragingFacilitation of the transportation of wastes within EU and outside to promote the development of circular economy (status of waste, e-waste flows and trade, …).EU level121112111211212112Progressive loss of its environment-friendly image & compliance with more stringent standards on environmentCompetitiveness and environmental performance of inland waterborne transport against other modesAdministrative burden for waterborne transportAllLack of infrastructure developments & maintenanceLack of qualified IWT staffLack of collaboration / coordination of the different stakeholdersIII.5EU & National level444221311112111111 
 
 
 
 
a. 

Assessment by policy package 

The  battery  of  measures  has  in  general  a  higher  impact  on  the  objectives  of  the  EU 
transport  White  paper  2011  compared  to  EU  Maritime  strategy  and  the  European 
regulation for a single maritime market. 

In concrete for the White paper, the proposed measures have a significant impact on 
the objectives of delivering better transportation services, having better infrastructure 
management  and  fostering  technological  development  and  innovation  in  the  different 
processes of the transportation chain. 

The objectives that are less prone to be addressed by the measures are the promotion 
of a single European transport area and the diversification of funding, as the measures 
are concentrated on the waterborne modes only. 

For  the  EU  maritime  strategy  2009-2018,  the  proposed  measures  address  in  an 
adequate  way  the  objectives  of 
improving  the  environmental  sustainability, 
decarbonisation of transport and making the EU a stronger player in the global shipping 
market. 

In contrast, the measures almost have no impact on the improvement of qualifications 
of the maritime professions, as only one specific measure addresses this issue (II.1). 
Similarly, the objective of digitalisation and simplification of administrative procedures 
is only addressed partially by one measure (I.4). 

The objectives of the European regulation for a single maritime European market are 
not well addressed in general. The ones that are best covered are the improvement of 
safety and environment as well as the development of a single maritime transport area. 

On the other hand, the objectives of improving internal shipping competition (antitrust 
regulation) and the improvement of competition among ports and port services are not 
adequately addressed, with just a couple of measures partially addressing these issues 
(I.3 and VII.1) 

b. 

Assessment by measures 

The  measures  that  are  most  effective,  addressing  in  a  significant  way  many  of  the 
objectives of the policy packages are the following ones: 

 

  0.1 – Transversal financial support for the uptake of innovation. This measure 
effectively addresses several objectives related to the efficiency, environmental 
friendliness  and  competitiveness  of  the  seaborne  modes,  improving  them  in 
relation to the inland modes of transport. 
I.3  –  Development  of  maritime  and  river  information  systems.  This  measure 
improves greatly the availability of information on the seaborne modes, making 
them much more competitive and efficient. It is a very cost-effective measure, 
as  it  has  a  relatively low  implementation  cost  but  could  potentially  yield  a  big 
increase in seaborne traffic. 
I.4 – Improvements in ports & terminals. The automation of terminals and better 
use of ICT coupled with the application of the smart port concept, has a direct 
positive  impact  on  almost  all  the  objectives  of  the  Transport  White  paper, 

 

May 2019  I  103/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

especially  on  the  improvement  of  competitiveness,  efficiency,  infrastructure 
management and technological development. This is a costly measure in terms 
of resources, but the cost is shared between all ports/terminals, making it very 
likely to happen, even if not homogeneously across Europe. 
III.4 – Multimodal traffic management systems. The implementation of unified 
management  and  information  systems  for  multimodal  transport  will  greatly 
improve the current inefficiencies of the mode transhipments. The fact that these 
systems  will  be  compatible  throughout  Europe  will  allow  having  a  seamless 
transport network. This measure will have a significant impact on the objectives 
of  the  Transport  white  book,  mainly  on  efficiency  and  competitiveness  of  the 
seaborne modes. 
III.5  –  Synchromodality.  Improvements  in  the  coordination  of  the  container 
chain can effectively boost the use of container, especially for cargo that needs 
a  very  timely  transport  mode  and  that  currently  finds  the  container  to  be 
unreliable. This measure will then be able move cargo away from the road and 
onto  the  waterborne  modes.  This  goes  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  of 
competitiveness and efficiency of the Transport white book. 

  VII.1  –  Consistency  in  admission  policy  for  vessels.  This  regulation  measure 
unifies criteria for maximum ship dimension that effectively make the waterborne 
transport more efficient, in line with the objectives of improved competitiveness, 
infrastructure management and creation of a European single transport space, 
that are the backbone of the European transport White Paper and the regulation 
for a single maritime transport market. 

The next best measures that partially address the policy packages are: 

 

 

 

I.5  –  Infrastructure  for  environmental-friendly  vessels.  This  measure  affects 
taxing  schemes  and  provides  financial  support  for  the  development  of 
infrastructure in ports that encourages the use of efficient and environmental-
friendly  vessels.  It  has  a  clear  impact  on  the  efficiency  and  technological 
development objectives of the three policy packages being analysed.  However 
its impact on the other objectives are quite limited. 
I.7 – Adopt new approach for infrastructure maintenance. This measure has a 
direct positive impact on the objectives of better infrastructure management and 
more efficient investments. Indirectly it also has an impact on the improvement 
of safety and increases marginally the competitiveness of transport. 
II.1  –  Training  programs.  This  measure  seeks  to  improve  the  qualifications  of 
the  professionals  working  on  the  waterborne  transport  sector.  This  is  a  direct 
objective  of  the  EU  maritime  strategy,  and  the  measure  has  also  a  positive 
impact  on  the  objectives  of  building  a  single  European  transport  area  and 
improving the efficiency of the waterborne modes. However, the effectiveness of 
the measure on the rest of the objectives is quite limited.  

  VI.2 – Development of pallet-wide containers. The availability of containers that 
can transport pallets has a very positive impact in the objectives of improving 
the competitiveness and efficiency of the waterborne modes, so it has an overall 
positive effect on the priorities of the Transport White Book. On the other hand, 
it  only  has  a  very  marginal  impact  on  the  objectives  of  the  other  two  policy 
papers under analysis.  

In contrast, measures dealing with waste flows and circular economy are not directly 
addressing any of the objectives of the analysed policy packages, and thus they have 
the least impact in the policy packages. 

May 2019  I  104/196 

 
 
 
7. Assessment of policy scenarios 

In §4, a total of 4 scenarios with 4 variants has defined. This means a total of 8 different 
combination of parameters of the modelling tool  which have been presented in §5&6. 
This produces a set of quantitative outputs that feeds the analysis. 
The aim of this task is the assessment at network level of the quantitative simulation of 
the scenarios in relation to their contribution to fulfil the uptake potential for waterborne 
transport,  while  contributing  to  achieve  the  goals  of  the  European  Union’s  transport 
policy,  and  its  feasibility  in  relation  to  the  political,  financial,  legal  and  technologic 
implications involved. 

7.1.  Assessment framework 

The assessment of the scenarios uses the quantitative outputs of the simulation model 
presented above. 

This set of outputs consists of detailed figures for: 

  Tons.km 
  Time 
  Cost 

All these values are differentiated by type of cargo 

  Cereals 
  Containers 
  Coal 
  RoRo maritime links 
  Other cargo 

The figures are available at link and node level (transport network) for the whole EU, 
and  thus  they  can  be  aggregated  at  any  territorial  level  (NUTS3  up  to  NUTS0)  or 
transport corridor (Core Network corridors). 
The model produces results for year 2010 so as to have a reference value and calibration 
point, and then generates results for year 2030 for each of the scenarios and variants. 
The  outputs  of  the  simulation  model  are  then  transformed  into  emissions  and 
externalities of transport in order to measure the impact of the transport. 
For  emissions,  the  analysis  uses  figures  from  the  EMEP  2016  methodology  of  the 
European  Environment  Agency,  which  allows  calculating  the  emissions  of  CO2  and 
pollutants for all activities including transportation. The assessment includes the main 
pollutants, that is Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Particulate Matte (PM) and Sulphurs (SOx) as 
well as CO2, for the four transport modes included in the simulation exercise. 

The following general assumptions are made for the different transport modes: 

  Truck: articulated truck EUROV with 34-40 tons of cargo 
  Rail: electric rail 
 
  Motorways of the sea: ship with 5.000 tons of cargo 

Inland navigation: diesel barge with 1.700 tons of cargo 

It is important to mention that rail is considered to be electric for this exercise, as more 
than 87% of rail traffic in the EU uses electric train instead of diesel. For this reason the 
CO2 emissions of train are in fact indirect ones derived from the primary production of 
the electricity consumed by trains. The rest of pollutants are negligible for electric train 
and thus assumed 0. 

May 2019  I  105/196 

 
 
 
 
 
No  improvement  in  emission  factors  is  being  considered  on  the  scenarios,  so  the 
assessment shows actual changes of emissions due to variations in the modal share and 
the transport routes. 

Next table presents a summary of the values applied in the assessment, all measured 
as grams of emission per tons.km: 

Table 38: 

Emission factors based on EMEP 2016 

gPM/tkm 

gNOx/tkm 
gCO2/tkm 
0,10942575  2,9704E-05  9,5819E-07 
0 

0 
0 
0,050868  0,00115303  0,00115303  0,01858414 

gSOx/tkm 

0,0101 

0 

0,0166044  0,00037637  2,3352E-05  8,5165E-05 

Truck 
Rail 
Inland 
navigation 
Motorways 
of the sea 

The  assessment  uses  reference  values  for  externalities  of  transport  from  the  latest 
update of the Handbook on external costs (2019) in order to compute the impact of the 
freight  movement  for  each  scenario.  These  values  give  the  marginal  cost  of  different 
externalities of transport for each mode measured in € per tons.km. 
The following assumptions are made: 

  Truck: average 17,6 tons of cargo 
  Rail: 13% of tons.km by diesel train, 87% by electric train  
  Motorways of the sea: due to lack of data, accidents are measured in € per ton 

at ports and not €/tons.km 

Table 39:  Marginal cost of externalities per mode in €/tons.km based on 
Handbook on external costs of transport - Version 2019 

€/tons.km 

Truck 
Rail 
Inland 
navigation 
Motorways 
of the sea 

Congestion  Accidents  Climate 
change 
0,00525  0,00011  0,09378 
0,00032  0,00014  0,00092 

Pollution  Up-down 
processes 
0,02496 
0,00154 

0,00066 
0,00065 

0,00131 

Noise 

Infrastructure  TOTAL 

0,00741 
0,00549 

0,13347 
0,00906 

0,00060 

0,00265 

0,01294 

0,00133 

0,00135 

0,01887 

0,03652 

0,00161 

0,00443 

0,00059 

0,04315 

DG  MOVE  defines  three  overall  objectives  that  configure  the  main  elements  to  be 
checked during the assessment: 

  Digitalization  –  cannot  be  evaluated  based  on  the  quantitative  outputs  of  the 

modelling exercise 

  Multimodality – is a consequence of the direct outputs of the model 
  Environment  –  can  be  assessed  by  applying  the  external  costs  figures  to  the 

model outputs 

May 2019  I  106/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.  Scenarios to be assessed 

Next  table  presents  the  8  scenarios  and  variants  proposed  for  assessment  of  their 
strategic  interest.  The  variants  evaluate  the  impact  of  certain  conditions  for  the 
transport of containers only, whereas the scenarios include other types of cargo (coal, 
cereals, PW45, petroleum, raw materials, waste and others) 
Scenarios  are  identified  with  codes.  The  parameters  of  the  model  that  vary  in  each 
scenario  are  also  identified  with  codes  explained  on  the  table  underneath.  Full 
documentation of measures and scenarios can be found in A6 report deliverable. 

Table 40: 

Summary of scenarios and variants 

Scenario 

Scenario name 

S0 

S1 

Business as Usual 

Baseline 

S1_v1 

Hub & Spokes 

S1_v2 

Redistribution 

S1_v3 

Uptake of new technologies for road 

S2 

Maximum potential 

Parameters 
changed 
regarding  to  the 
Baseline 

B & C & E 

Baseline 

G 

G 

C 

B & C & D & E & F & 
G 

S2_v4 

Uptake  of  new  technologies  for  road  and  waterborne 
transport 

C 

S3 

Target oriented scenario – Sustainable competitiveness 

C & emission factors 
(not in the modelling 
tool) 

Parameter code 

Parameters 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

Economic growth 

Transport 
(TEN-T) 

infrastructure  projects 

Transportation costs 

Circular economy 

New energies 

Seaport costs 

New 
containers 

services 

& 

continental 

May 2019  I  107/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3.  Results 

a. 

Assessment of scenarios 

Next graphics show the comparative results of the four main scenarios modelled in terms 
of  tons.km,  costs,  modal  share,  emissions  and  externalities.  Apart  from  the  absolute 
values, a comparison between scenarios and the Baseline is also displayed in order to 
show the relative impact of the other scenarios. 
As a common feature in all graphics, the values shown for the scenarios always are for 
year  2030,  except  for  some  specific  cases  for  which  values  for  year  2010  are  also 
displayed as a reference. Also the cargo included in this analysis is Container, Cereals, 
Coal and RoRo on selected relationships for this study. 

Figure 37:  Traffic in M tons.km in 2030 by scenario 

MTons.km 2030 by scenario for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo

62.000.000

61.500.000

61.000.000

60.500.000

60.000.000

59.500.000

59.000.000

58.500.000

S0 - Business as usual

S1 - Baseline

S2 - Max potential

S3 - Target oriented

The four scenarios show a similar amount of traffic measured intons.km, ranging from 
61,6 billion tons.km for ‘S1 – Baseline’ down to 59,7 billion tons.km for ‘S2 – maximum 
potential’. On this graphic the amount of cargo is the same in all the scenarios, what 
changes from one scenario to another is the mode performance and thus the number of 
tons.km. 

Figure 38:  Traffic in M tons.km in 2030 by scenario compared to the 
baseline scenario 

MTons.km by scenario 2030 for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo - Variation respect to 
S1 - Baseline

S0 - Business as usual

S2 - Max potential

S3 - Target oriented

0,0%

-0,5%

-1,0%

-1,5%

-2,0%

-2,5%

-3,0%

-3,5%

May 2019  I  108/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In relative terms all scenarios present a reduction of the total tons.km with respect to 
‘S1  –  Baseline’,  with  the  scenario  ‘S2  –  Maximum  potential’  showing  a  decrease  of  -
3,1%.  These  variations  have  to  do  mainly  with  optimal  transport  routes  being  of 
different length and not because the volume of freight changes across scenarios. 

Figure 39:  Variation of generalised cost in 2030 by scenario compared to 
the baseline scenario 

Generalised cost 2030 by scenario for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo - Variation respect to S1 -
Baseline

S0 - Business as usual

S2 - Max potential

S3 - Target oriented

0,0%

-2,0%

-4,0%

-6,0%

-8,0%

-10,0%

While ‘S0 – BAU’ has barely the same global generalized cost for all modes combined (-
0,1%) as the ‘S1 – Baseline’, the ‘S2 – Maximum potential’ and ‘S3 – target oriented’ 
scenarios show a strong decrease in generalized cost of -8%, indicating an improvement 
of the EU freight transport system as a whole. 

Figure 40:  Modal share in 2010 and 2030 by scenario 

Modal share 2010 and 2030 by scenario for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo

37,0%

37,8%

33,4%

31,3%

30,1%

46,6%

44,6%

49,4%

48,3%

46,3%

16,5%

Year 2010

17,6%

17,3%

20,4%

23,6%

S0 - Business as
usual

S1 - Baseline

S2 - Max potential S3 - Target oriented

RoRo

IWW Rail

Truck

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

May 2019  I  109/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The modal share of each scenario measured in tons.km shows that the ‘S1 – Baseline’ 
has a slightly lower share for IWW but a higher share for rail, reducing the road use by 
4,4%. The ‘S2 Maximum potential’ and ‘S3 – Target oriented’ scenarios achieve an even 
higher reduction of the use of truck with bigger modal share for IWW of up to 23,6%. 
The  modal  share  of  RoRo  traffic  is  negligible  in  all  scenarios,  as  the  number  of  links 
available is limited and the capacity of each link is very small by comparison to the other 
modes. 

Figure 41:  Emissions by scenario in 2030 compared to baseline 

Emissions by scenario for Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo 
variation with respect to S1 - Baseline

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

-120%

S0 - Business as usual

S2 - Max potential

S3 - Target oriented

CO2

NOx

PM

SOx

The  emissions  of CO2 tend to decrease with the use of less  energy-intensive modes. 
This is the reason for S2 and S3 having a reduction of -4,6% and -1,6% (more share of 
IWW and rail) whereas S0 shows an increase of +6,3% (more truck). 
The increase in use of IWW coupled with the environmental improvements of the mode, 
causes  a  reduction  in  the  emission  of  pollutants.  These  reductions  are  different 
depending on the pollutant as the improvements that can be achieved through changes 
in technology and fuel are not homogeneous (up to 100% reduction of SOx37, up to 80% 
reduction of NOx and up to 75% reduction of PM38) 

37 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/iww_danube_ship_design___final.pdf  
38 
inland-navigation/ 

https://www.inland-navigation-market.org/en/rapports/2017/q2/9-emissions-in-

May 2019  I  110/196 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 42:  Transport externalities by scenario in 2030 compared to baseline 

Transport externalities by scenario 2030 for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo - Variation respect to S1 -
Baseline

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

S0 - Business as usual

S2 - Max potential

S3 - Target oriented

However,  emissions  are  not  the  only  externality  of  transport.  When  including  in  the 
balance all other items from the methodology of the Handbook on external costs, the 
use of IWW outweighs the impact of pollution on all other aspects. Thus the scenarios 
with higher modal share of IWW, S2 and S3, show a reduction of externalities of -7% 
compared  to  the  ‘S1  –  Baseline’,  meaning  savings  on  externalities  in  the  order  of 
234.000M€. On the opposite side, the ‘S0 – Business as usual’ scenario has a +7,8% 
on externalities due to a much higher use of the truck. 

Figure 43:  Usage of Core network corridors in tons.km in 2030 

Usage of Core network corridors in Tons.km 2030 for 
Container+Cereal+Coal+MoS by scenario

65,0%

64,0%

63,0%

62,0%

61,0%

60,0%

59,0%

58,0%

57,0%

Year 2010

S0 - Business as
usual

S1 - Baseline

S2 - Max potential S3 - Target oriented

In  terms  of  geographical  distribution  of  the  flows,  the  different  scenarios  show  a 
progressive increase in the use of the Core corridors, although it is not a very noticeable 
one. The ‘S1 – Baseline’ scenario uses the Core network for about a 62% of the total 
tons.km, whereas this value drops a bit to 60,5% on ‘S0 – Business as usual’ given that 
for this scenario the usage of road is a bit higher and the possibility of using links outside 
the  core  network  increases.  On  the  other  hand,  both  S2  and  S3  scenarios  show  an 
increase in tons.km on the Core corridors with 62,7% and 63,9% respectively. This is 
due to the higher share of rail and IWW on these two scenarios, two modes that have a 
higher proportion of links on the Core corridors. 

May 2019  I  111/196 

 
 
 
 
 
b. 

Assessment of V1 – Baseline variants for container traffic 

The  scenario  S1  –  Baseline  has  three  different  variants  that  have  been  modelled  for 
container traffic, one with more redistribution of traffics among ports, another with more 
concentration of traffics on main ports and one with improvements on road mode. 

Figure 44:  Container traffic in 2030 in tons.km – baseline and variants 

Tons.km 2030 for Container S1 - Baseline and variants 

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

S1 - Baseline

V1 - more redistribution

V2 - more
concentration

V3 - road improvements

Figure 45:  Container traffic in 2030 in tons.km –variants compared to the 
baseline 

Tons.km 2030 for container for variants - Variation 
respect to S1 - Baseline

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

V1 - more redistribution

V2 - more concentration

V3 - road improvements

In the variations of the S1 – Baseline we see that V1 – better redistribution results in a 
significant reduction of the traffic by -14%, meaning that by redirecting some traffic to 
ports other than the main hubs has the impact of optimizing the transportation routes 
improving  the  performance.  On  the  other  side,  the  V2  –  More  concentration  variant 
produces the opposite effect with an increase of 14% of tons.km. The variant V3 – road 
improvements  also  has  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  tons.km  of  -4%,  albeit  less 
dramatic than V1 it is still a positive result. It is worth mentioning that all variant have 
the  same  volume  of  freight  as  the  Baseline,  so  the  difference  in  total  performance 
measured as tons.km comes only from changes in the routing. 

May 2019  I  112/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 46:  Generalised cost by variant for container in 2030 – variants 
compared to the baseline 

Generalised cost by variant for Container - Variation 
respect to S1 - Baseline

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

V1 - more redistribution

V2 - more concentration

V3 - road improvements

In  terms  of  generalised  costs,  the  variants  reflect  also  the  changes  in  the  number  of 
tons.km. Thus, V1 – more redistribution manages to reduce the costs globally by -12% 
in  line  with  the  reduction  of  -14%  of  tons.km.  The  same  can  be  said  for  V3  –  road 
improvements,  in  which  the  reduction  of  transportation  costs  by  road  results  in  a 
decrease  of  generalised  cost  of  -3,9%.  On  the  opposite  side  we  have  V2  –  more 
concentration  that  shows  an  increase  in  costs  of  almost  +15%  due  to  much  longer 
transportation routes. 

Figure 47:  Modal share 2030 by variant 

Modal share 2030 by variant

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

48,6%

51,9%

47,4%

43,6%

7,8%

39,6%

8,5%

45,5%

7,1%

54,1%

38,9%

7,1%

S1 - Baseline

V1 - more redistribution V2 - more concentration V3 - road improvements

IWW Rail

Truck

Looking at the modal shares for the Baseline variants it becomes evident that the V1 – 
More redistribution scenario relies more on the truck than the baseline, as the massified 
inland  connections  of  rail  and  IWW  are  not  always  available  on  secondary  ports. 
Nevertheless this scenario manages to have the lowest volume in tons.km. The variant 
with more concentration of traffics presents a slight increase in the share of rail+IWW 
(+1,2%) and a small adjustment from IWW to rail, compared to the Baseline. This is to 
be expected as the concentration happens on already big hubs that have good rail and 
IWW connections. Finally the variant V3 – road improvements shows a global increase 

May 2019  I  113/196 

 
 
 
 
 
in  the  use  of  truck  for  transportation,  something  logical  following  the  hypothesis  of 
improvements of the road mode. 

Figure 48:  Emissions by variant for containers in 2030 – variants compared 
to the baseline 

Emissions by variant for Container variation with respect 
to S1 - Baseline

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

V1 - more redistribution

V2 - more concentration

V3 - road improvements

CO2

NOx

PM

SOx

In terms of emissions, the variant V1 – more redistribution achieves a reduction of all 
emissions compared to the baseline, with a decrease of -8,8% of the CO2 and -6% for 
pollutants. This is the result of having shorter  transportation chains. On the opposite 
side,  with  much  longer  transportation  chains,  there  is  the  variant  V2  –  more 
concentration  in  which  CO2  emissions  increase  by  +12%  and  pollutants  increase  by 
+5% to +6%. The variant with road improvements in which the use of truck increases 
significantly compared to the baseline, has an increase in CO2 emissions due to the fact 
that truck generates more CO2 per transported ton than other modes but at the same 
time shows a sharp decrease of pollutants due to the reduction of the use of IWW, which 
generates more volume of pollutants per ton transported. 

Figure 49:  Transport externalities by variant for containers in 2030 – 
variants compared to the baseline 

Transport externalities by variant 2030 for Container -
Variation respect to S1 - Baseline

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

V1 - more redistribution

V2 - more concentration

V3 - road improvements

However,  when  looking  at  all  the  externalities  of  transport,  the  variant  V1  –  more 
redistribution that has a higher share of IWW and shorter transport routes, clearly shows 
an improvement with a reduction of -8,7% of externalities compared to the baseline. In 

May 2019  I  114/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
this case both V2 and V3 result in higher cost of externalities (+12% and +5%) due to 
longer transport routes and increase modal share for the road. 

Figure 50:  Usage of core network corridors in tons.km in 2030 – baseline 
and variants 

Usage of Core network corridors in Tons.km 2030 for 
Container S1 - Baseline and variants 

70,0%

69,5%

69,0%

68,5%

68,0%

67,5%

S1 - Baseline

V1 - more redistribution V2 - more concentration V3 - road improvements

The variants show minimal variation in terms of geographical distribution of the flows. 
The V1 variant displays the highest value with 69,7% of tons.km on the Core corridors 
and V2 the minimum with 68,4%. This indicates that the modal shift on the different 
variants simply moves traffic from one mode to another on the same corridors, without 
changing too much the routes. 

c. 

Assessment  of  V2  –  Maximum  potential  variant  for  container 
traffic 

Scenario S2 – Maximum Potential has one variant with improvements on road and IWW 
that considers a faster uptake of technologies regarding these two modes. 

Figure 51:  Traffic of containers in tons.km in 2030 – maximum potential 
and variant 

Tons.km 2030 for Container S2 - Maximum potential and 
variant 

232.000

231.000

230.000

229.000

228.000

227.000

226.000

225.000

224.000

S2 - Max potential

V4 - road and IWW improvements

May 2019  I  115/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  variant  to  the  S2  scenario  shows  an  improvement  in  mode  performance  by 
decreasing the number of tons.km by -2%. This is due to shorter transportation routes, 
as the volumes of freight in both scenario and variant are the same. 

Figure 52:  Key figures for the variant of the maximum potential scenario 

Generalised cost by variant for 
Container - Variation respect to 
S2 - Maximum potential

V4 - road and IWW improvements

0%

-1%

-2%

-3%

-4%

-5%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Modal share 2030 by variant

43,8%

46,2%

47,1%

9,2%

43,7%

10,1%

S2 - Max potential

V4 - road and IWW
improvements

IWW Rail

Truck

In  terms  of  generalized  costs,  the  V4 
variant  achieves  a  reduction  of  -4,1% 
due to shorter routes compared to the 
S2 – Maximum potential scenario. 

The  improvements  in  costs  for  IWW  and 
their  modal  share 
trucks  mean 
increases  compared  to  the  baseline  at  the 
expense of the share of the rail. 

that 

Emissions by variant for 
Container variation respect S2 -
Maximum potential

Transport externalities by 
variant 2030 for Container -
Variation respect to S2 -
Maximum potential

CO2

NOx

PM

SOx

3%

2%

1%

0%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

V1 - more redistribution

V4 - road and IWW improvements

The  higher  share  of  road  and  IWW 
modes 
for  the  variant  causes  an 
important increase in emissions of CO2 
and pollutants. 

Externalities  for  the  V4  variant  also 
increase  (+2,8%)  compared  to  the  S2 
scenario, as the use of road increases and 
rail share goes down. 

May 2019  I  116/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d. 

Scenario summary and conclusions 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  main  variables  of  the  assessment,  with  values 
relative to the S1 – Baseline except for IWW modal share, which presents the absolute 
value for each scenario (considering traffics of Container+Cereal+Coal+RoRo). 

  S0 –Business as usual is the scenario yielding the worst results on most of the 
indicators,  implying  that  no  action  will  result  in  the  worst  possible  scenario  in 
terms of cost and environmental aspects 

  S2 – Maximum potential is the scenario with lowest externalities, lowest CO2 
emissions, lowest generalised cost and second best in terms of IWW modal share 
and pollutant emissions 

  S3 – Target oriented is able to achieve an even higher share of IWW but has 
longer  transportation  routes  that  result  in  more  tons.km  than  the  other  two 
scenarios and less improvement in externalities, emissions and costs compared 
to S2-Maximum Potential. However, the higher share of IWW coupled with the 
environmental  improvement  of  the  mode  implicit  in  the  hypothesis  of  the 
scenario results in a noticeable decrease of pollutant emissions. 

Table 41:  Main impacts of the scenarios 

S0 - Business as 
usual 

S1 - Baseline 

-  Max 

S2 
potential 

- 

S3 
oriented 

Target 

Externalities 

CO2 

Pollutants 

Cost 

Tons.km 

IWW modal share 

7,8% 
6,3% 

19,6% 
0,1% 
-2,5% 
17,6% 

-7,3% 
-4,6% 

-20,9% 
-8,2% 
-3,1% 
20,4% 

-6,9% 
-1,6% 

-74,8% 
-8,0% 
-0,2% 
23,6% 

17,3% 

For  the  Baseline  variants,  in  which  only  container  traffic  is  included,  the  table  below 
summarizes the main indicators. 

  Variant ‘V1 – More redistribution’ is the clear winner of the comparison being the 
best  option  for  all  indicators  except  in  pollutants  emission.  This  highlights  the 
concept that there is a need for a better use of the European transport system 
as  a  whole  in  order  to  optimize  the  routes  according  to  environmental 
parameters. 

  Variant ‘V2 – More concentration’ shows how by concentrating even more traffic 
to the main port hubs would have very bad results in all indicators, increasing 
costs, emissions, externalities and generating more problems such as congestion 
due to longer routes being used. 

  Variant ‘V3 – Road improvements’ gives a glimpse of a very likely future in which 
road manages to improve in terms of costs, winning modal share at the expense 
of  the  rail  and  IWW.  This  situation  has  a  clear  negative  effect  on  terms  of 
externalities and CO2 emissions, although it is not as bad as the V2 variant. 

May 2019  I  117/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 42:  Main impacts of the baseline variants 

S1 - Baseline 

-  more 

V1 
redistribution 

-  more 

V2 
concentration 

V3 
- 
improvements 

road 

Externalities 

CO2 

Pollutants 

Cost 

Tons.km 

IWW modal 
share 

-8,7% 

-8,8% 

-5,9% 

-12,1% 

-13,8% 

8,5% 

12,1% 

12,0% 

5,4% 

14,5% 

14,8% 

7,1% 

5,2% 

4,0% 

-12,1% 

-3,9% 

-3,9% 

7,1% 

7,8% 

May 2019  I  118/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Conclusions and recommendations 

This  conclusion  starts  with  a  short  reminder  of  the  policy  scenarios  developed  in  this 
study, and then is focusing on the key findings of the analysis, which includes: 

  Traffic  projection  in  2030  for  different  scenarios  focusing  on  waterborne 

transport  

  Analysis of the policy scenarios 
 

Identification of the most promising policy measures 

8.1.  The policy scenarios 

The policy measures have been combined into four policy scenarios:  

  S0: Business As Usual. The objective of this scenario is to assess what would be 
the  modal  share  of  waterborne  transport  if  no  further  action  is  taken  by  local 
authorities, Member States and European Union. The infrastructure and transport 
costs are also supposed to remain as they were in 2010. The idea is just to test 
the demand in 2030 on the network as it was in 2010 and with the costs of 2010 
(year of calibration of the modelling tool). 

  S1: Baseline. The objective of the baseline scenario is to provide a reference to 
compare the other scenarios. It is the more realistic scenario if no policy measure 
is adopted beyond the ones already in place. Thus, this scenario differs from the 
previous  one  as  major  investments  projects  identified  in  the  present  Core 
Network Planning process for 2030 are assumed to be finalised. 

  S2:  Maximum  Potential.  This  scenario  assumes  that  all  measures  promoting 
waterborne transport are implemented. It takes into account the modal shift from 
other modes of transport, the improvement of the environmental performance 
of  waterborne  transport,  the  redistribution  of  current  transport  flows  and  the 
strengthening of industrial ports clusters and induced traffic due to the decrease 
of transportation costs. 

  S3:  Target  oriented  scenario  –  sustainable  competitiveness.  This  scenario 
translates  the  three  priority  areas  for  action  identified  in  the  “A  European 
Strategy  for  Low-Emission  Mobility”,  that  was  adopted  by  the  European 
Commission  in  July  2016.  It  aims  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  transport 
system,  speed  up  the  deployment  of  low-emission  alternative  energy  for 
transport and move towards zero-emission vehicles. 

In addition, due to high uncertainty on several parameters, four variants have also been 
tested: a baseline with higher concentration of container flows on core ports (“Hub and 
spoke”); a baseline with an increase of container flows on non core ports and a decrease 
of container flows on core ports (“Redistribution”); and various speed of uptake of new 
technologies (faster uptake of new technologies for road in the baseline, faster uptake 
of  new  technologies  for  road  and  waterborne  transport  in  the  maximum  potential 
scenario). 

May 2019  I  119/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.2.  Freight demand is expected to grow by +16% between 2010 

and 2030 

At seaport level, intra EU and extra EU traffic in Europe are expected to increase 
from 2.3 billion tons in 2010 to 2.7 billion tons in 2030 (+16%)39, with significant 
difference in growth rate between ports. The highest increase is coming from container 
traffic  (+75%),  followed  by  agricultural  bulk  products  and  the  traffic  on  RoRo  links 
selected for this study  (20%  each); however,  the traffic of products linked to  energy 
decreases (-12% for petroleum products and -43% for coal). 

Figure 53:  Evolution of simulated port traffic by products:  Base Year in 
2010, BAU in 2030 and Baseline in 2030 

8.3.  The  relative  market  shares  of  seaports  are  not  expected  to 

change significantly 

In the baseline scenario in 2030, new infrastructures will improve the connections on 
TEN-T corridors, oil price is expected to reach $ 110 / barrel40 and major trends like 
innovations in engine sector or the development of synchromodality will affect the 
relative competitiveness of the different modes of transport. But those factors are not 
expected to change significantly the market shares of ports at European level or at 
corridor level41.  
This is due to two opposite factors which counterbalance each other. On the one hand, 
the realization of TEN-T projects strengthens the main ports by improving their 
accessibility. But on the other hand, due to the increase of energy cost, transportation 

39 Traffic in 2030 is calculated by the modelling tool, using the “EU Reference Scenario 
2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions, Trends to 2050” as an input 
40 EU Reference Scenario 2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050 
41 The market share of a port is defined as the total traffic going through the port on 
the total intra-EU and extra-EU traffic going through EU seaports 

May 2019  I  120/196 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
costs are also expected to increase, which fosters short distance trips. As small local 
ports are closer to the local industry, they will get a competitive advantage against 
bigger seaports.  

Moreover, all seaports are also implementing their own development strategy in terms 
of infrastructure improvement: all seaports improve the accessibility of their hinterland 
in a similar way, which in the end limits important change in their total market share 
and hinterland area. 

However, some significant impacts can happen locally, like for instance: 

  on  the  North  Sea  –  Mediterranean  corridor  with  the  implementation  of  Seine-
Scheldt  project,  which  will  open  new  hinterlands  in  the  North  of  France  for  Le 
Havre and Rouen, and will give a better access to Ile-de-France region to North 
Range ports. Market share of those ports will remain approximately the same, 
but their hinterland will change significantly 

  on seaports specialized in products such as coal and oil: as the total traffic for 
those categories of goods is expected to decrease, the market share of seaports 
highly relying on coal and / or oil is also expected to decrease 

The following maps represents seaport traffic at European scale for the Baseline in 2030 
and the differences between Baseline in 2030 and Base Year in 2010. 

Figure 54:  Seaports traffic for the Baseline in 2030 and difference between 
Baseline in 2030 and Base Year in 2010 

May 2019  I  121/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.4.  Policy  scenarios  supporting  waterborne  transport  can have  a 
dramatic  impact  on  the  market  share  of  inland  waterway 
transport 

Total inland waterway traffic is also expected to increase significantly over the period, 
and  could  reach  159  billion  of  tons.km  in  the  baseline  scenario  in  2030  (575  million 
tons, average distance of 275 km) compared to 142 billions in 2010 (470 million tons, 
average distance of 300 km).  

This growth is mainly due to: 

  The increase of the demand, especially for the Extra-EU container market 

  The completion of infrastructure projects on the Core network like Seine Schelde, 
which will have a strong impact on North-Sea – Mediterranean corridor but also 
on North Sea Baltic and North Atlantic corridors. 

  The  development  of  intermodal  services  in  connection  with  the  realization  of 

TEN-T projects. 

But  inland  waterway  could  do  even  better  with  a  pro-active  policy  supporting  the 
development of this sustainable mode of transport. In the Maximum Potential scenario 
and  the  Target  Oriented  scenario,  inland  waterway  competitiveness  is  expected  to 
improve  significantly  compared  to  road  transport,  thanks  to  the  relative  decrease  of 
inland  waterway  transport  and  transshipment costs.  Thanks  to  that,  inland  waterway 
traffic could further increase by 11 and 21% respectively against the baseline (2030), 
and reach respectively 191 and 208 billion of tons.km (714 million tons and 785 million 
tons respectively). 

Figure 55: 

Inland waterway volume by scenario 

The  main  markets  for  inland  waterway  would  remain  the  same:  dry  bulk,  liquid  bulk 
with oil products, containers and chemical products.  

May 2019  I  122/196 

 
 
 
 
Figure 56:  Evolution of IWW traffic: baseline/base year (left) – Maximum 
Potential / Baseline (right) 

8.5.  Focus on the selected RoRo links 

The effects on selected RoRo links are more complex, as their performance also depend 
on road and the development of other infrastructures.  

Table 43: 

Traffic projection on selected RoRo links 

Modelled results for RoRo chain 

Simulated traffic at seaport  
Tons in million 

Simulated RoRo Chain (Road haulage 
+ maritime link) 
Tons.km in billion 

BASE 
2010 

SCN Bau 
- 2030 

SCN 
Baseline 
2030 

SCN Max 
Pot 2030 

  SCN - 
Target 
oriented 
2030 

310 

375 

374 

390 

404 

132 

160 

164 

172 

178 

Maritime Link 
Tons.km in billion 

63 

74 

79 

86 

89 

Pre and Post road haulage 
Tons.km in billion 

69 

86 

85 

86 

89 

May 2019  I  123/196 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
The traffic is lower in tons but higher in tons.km in the baseline scenario compared to 
the business as usual in 2030. This can be explained by two main factors:  

  The completion of Fehmarn Belt project leads to a shift from RoRo to road and 
rail transport. The impact is significant in tons but limited in tons.km because of 
the short distance of maritime trips. 

  On the other hand, tons.km increase at EU level thanks to the development of 
long distance RoRo services, especially in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean (no 
modal shift, just longer routes) 

The decrease of the cost of energy for RoRo services in the Maximum Potential scenario 
compared to the baseline scenario has two main consequences:  

  Higher performance of RoRo services compared to road which leads to an incrase 

of 4.2% of seaport traffic, 

  Long  maritime  links  become  more  competitive  than  short  maritime  links, 
therefore there are changes of routes within the RoRo services. This leads to an 
increase of maritime traffic in tons.km by 9% and of road haulage by 1%. 

8.6.  Impacts of a variation of the concentration of container flows 

on the largest seaports 

Two  variants  on  the  distribution  of  container  flows  between  European  seaports  have 
also  been  tested  with  the  modelling  tool.  In  the  Hub  &  Spoke  variant,  the  container 
traffic is concentrated on core ports, which has direct effects on inland transport, since 
the total tons.km increase by approximately 14% in the Hub & Spoke variant compared 
to the Baseline. Moreover, this increase is very beneficial for railway traffic, given that 
most of the biggest seaports are well connected to the railway network and services. 

In the Redistribution variant, the container flows are increased on non-core ports and 
decreased  on  core  ports,  which  leads  to  a  decrease  of  13%  in  the  total  tons.km 
compared  to  the  Baseline.  Even  though  market  share  of  rail  and  inland  waterway  is 
decresing, total traffic flows are also decreasing – as will transport externalities. 

8.7.  A faster uptake of new technologies could strongly harm inland 

waterway transport 

The variant is considering a faster uptake of new technologies for road, which leads to 
a sharp decrease of 25% of road costs for container traffic. This variant slightly improves 
the competitiveness of non core seaports, and therefore their market share, as they rely 
more  on  road  than  core  ports  for  their  connections  with  their  hinterland.  As  a 
consequence, total container traffic in tons.km decreases by 5% approximately (for all 
modes of transport). 

But the strongest impact can be seen on rail traffic and inland waterway traffic, which 
decrease  by  14%  (relative  change  in  tons.km  for  containers),  whereas  road  traffic 
increases by 7%.  

Finally, this scenario has minor effects on the traffic on selected RoRo links of the MoS. 
Indeed, a large part of these services are dedicated to connect ODs with no alternative 
inland routes. 

May 2019  I  124/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.8.  Assessment  of  environmental  and  multimodality  aspects  of 

policy scenarios 

Analysed  policy  scenarios  show  a  great  diversity  of  impacts  in  terms  of  the  different 
indicators  being  measured.  The  analysis  concentrates  on  effects  for  horizon  2030  on 
multimodality  and  mode  performance  on  one  side,  and  environmental  aspects  and 
externalities on the other. 

The environmental aspects cover the emissions of CO2, NOx, PM and SOx, whereas the 
calculation of externalities is done using the methodology of the Handbook on External 
Costs of Transport42 which has been recently updated (2019). This methodology allows 
covering  a  wide  range  of  impacts  of  transportation  (Congestion,  Accidents,  Climate 
change, Noise , Pollution, Up-downstream processes and Infrastructure). 

  S0 –Business as usual is the scenario yielding the worst results on most of the 
indicators,  implying  that  no  action  will  result  in  the  worst  possible  scenario  in 
terms of cost and environmental aspects 

  S2 – Maximum potential is the scenario with lowest externalities, lowest CO2 
emissions, lowest generalised cost and second best in terms of IWW modal share 
and pollutant emissions 

  S3 – Target oriented is able to achieve an even higher share of IWW but has 
longer  transportation  routes  that  result  in  more  tons.km  than  the  other  two 
scenarios and less improvement in externalities, emissions and costs compared 
to S2-Maximum Potential. However, the higher share of IWW coupled with the 
environmental  improvement  of  the  mode  implicit  in  the  hypothesis  of  the 
scenario results in a noticeable decrease of pollutant emissions. 

Table 44:  Quantitative assessment of policy scenarios 

S0 - Business as 
usual 

S1 - Baseline 

-  Max 

S2 
potential 

- 

S3 
oriented 

Target 

Externalities 

CO2 

Pollutants 

Cost 

Tons.km 

IWW modal share 

7,8% 

6,3% 
19,6% 
0,1% 
-2,5% 
17,6% 

-7,3% 

-4,6% 
-20,9% 
-8,2% 
-3,1% 
20,4% 

-6,9% 

-1,6% 
-74,8% 
-8,0% 
-0,2% 
23,6% 

17,3% 

Concerning  the  variants  of  the  Baseline  scenario,  which  have  been  analysed  for 
container traffic only, they also show great variability in all indicators being considered. 

  Variant “Hub and spoke” shows how concentrating more traffic on the main port 
hubs would have very bad results in all indicators, increasing costs, emissions, 
externalities  and  generating  more  problems  such  as  congestion  due  to  longer 
routes being used. 

  Variant “Redistribution” is the best option for all indicators except in pollutants 
emission, which in any case are lower than in the Baseline. This highlights the 
concept that there is a need for a better use of the European transport system 
as  a  whole  in  order  to  optimize  the  routes  according  to  environmental 
parameters. 

  Variant “Faster uptake of new technologies for road” gives a glimpse of a very 
likely future in which road manages to improve in terms of costs, winning modal 

42 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/handbook_on_external_costs_of_transport_2014_0.pdf  

May 2019  I  125/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
share at the expense of rail and IWW. This situation has a clear negative effect 
on  terms  of  externalities  and  CO2  emissions,  although  it  is  not  as  bad  as  the 
variant “Hub and spoke”. 

Table 45:  Quantitative assessment of the variants 

S1 - 
Baseline 

Hub and spoke 

Redistribution 

Externalities 

CO2 

Pollutants 

Cost 

Tons.km 

IWW modal 
share 

7,8% 

12,1% 

12,0% 

5,4% 

14,5% 

14,8% 

7,1% 

-8,7% 

-8,8% 

-5,9% 

-12,1% 

-13,8% 

8,5% 

Faster uptake of new 
technologies for road 
5,2% 

4,0% 

-12,1% 

-3,9% 

-3,9% 

7,1% 

8.9.  Most promising policy measures 

The measures have been deemed effective when they address in a significant way many 
of the objectives of the policy packages considered in the assessment framework. The 
following list contains the six best policies: 

  0.1 – Cross-financial support for the uptake of innovation. This measure 
effectively addresses several objectives related to the efficiency, environmental 
friendliness and competitiveness of waterborne transport. 

 

 

 

 

I.3  –  Development  of  maritime  and  river  information  systems.  This 
measure  improves  greatly  the  availability  of  information  for  waterborne 
transport,  making  it  much  more  competitive  and  efficient.  It  is  a  very  cost-
effective  measure,  as  it  has  a  relatively  low  implementation  cost  but  could 
potentially yield a big increase in waterborne traffic. 

I.4 – Improvements in ports & terminals. The automation of terminals and 
better use of ICT coupled with the application of the smart port concept, has a 
direct positive impact on almost all the objectives of the Transport White paper, 
especially  on  the  improvement  of  competitiveness,  efficiency,  infrastructure 
management and technological development. This is a costly measure in terms 
of resources, but the cost is shared between all ports/terminals, making it very 
likely to happen, even if not homogeneously across Europe. 

III.4  –  Multimodal  traffic  management  systems.  The  implementation  of 
unified  management  and  information  systems  for  multimodal  transport  will 
greatly improve the current inefficiencies of the transhipments between modes. 
The fact that these systems will be compatible throughout Europe will foster the 
development  of  a  seamless  transport  network.  This  measure  will  have  a 
significant  impact  on  the  objectives  of  the  Transport  white  book,  mainly  on 
efficiency and competitiveness of waterborne transport. 

III.5  –  Synchromodality.  Improvements  in  the  coordination  of  the  container 
chain can effectively boost the use of inland waterway transport for this category 
of goods; especially for cargo that needs a very timely transport mode and that 
currently believe that inland waterway transport is not reliable. This measure will 
then facilitate the shift of cargo away from road onto waterborne transport. This 
goes in accordance with the objectives of competitiveness and efficiency of the 
Transport white book. 

May 2019  I  126/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  VII.1 – Consistency in admission policy for vessels. This regulation measure 
unifies criteria for maximum ship dimension that effectively make the waterborne 
transport more efficient, in line with the objectives of improved competitiveness, 
infrastructure management and creation of a European single transport space, 
that are the backbone of the European transport White Paper and the regulation 
for a single maritime transport market. 

May 2019  I  127/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Appendix A – Detailed description of the modelling 

tool 

The main requirements for the modelling tool, in order to comply with the objectives of 
the study, are recalled as follows: the model must be able to “bridge transport analysis 
at  different  spatial  levels,  from  local  port  or  network  section  level  to  national  and 
international levels, and to integrate impact of transport projects  for  improvement of 
infrastructure and transport operations.” 

In order to fulfil these requirements, the use of a European Network Transport Model is 
needed. The freight model has been adapted43 using the network models PORT-PRINT 
and  LOGIS  of  BG,  which  have  an  EU-wide  geographical  coverage  and  apply  to 
continental and port traffics, including extra-EU exchanges. These models have already 
been applied in different EU and national researches and studies in the past 10 years, 
and  could  benefit  from  regular  updates  of  input  data  and  improvements.  In  these 
models, all data are geocoded, so that results can be analysed at different scales. Maps 
can  also  be  produced  easily  which  greatly  contributes  to  a  better  illustration  and 
understanding of the results. 

The modelling process is following three main steps: 

  Generation and distribution for Origin-Destination relations estimated  at nuts2 
to nuts 2 level for intra EU trade and nuts 2 to extra EU zone levels for extra EU 
trade: for this purpose, econometric relations are estimated connecting economic 
indicators (populations, sectorial indicators at regional, or national level for extra 
EU trade) and traffic volumes in tons, per type of products (16 types of products 
for intra EU trade, and  a distinction between containerized cargo and  types  of 
bulks products for extra EU trade). 

  Port  choice  module  for  distribution  of  container  traffic  to  and  from  hinterland 

regions, to and from extra EU zones.44, using a “gravity model” 

  Modal split and assignment steps which are done simultaneously in the choice of 
a  "best  performing  logistic  solution"  including  choice  of  mode  (or  intermodal 
solution)  and  the  choice  of  route  by  mode:  this  part  is  probably  the  most 
innovative  one  of  the  models  used,  taking  into  account,  both  performance  of 
infrastructures, and performances of transport operations and services. 

The paragraphs below detail successively: 

  The sources of data used for the modelling 
  The overall architecture of the modelling tool 
  The modules of the modelling tool 

43 The interrelations with passenger transport are taken into account through the speed 
parameter on the links of the network. 
44 For extra EU bulk traffic there are projections of volumes but not a module of choice 
of port : choice of ports is most of the time stable and changes are based on specific 
logistic  considerations,  for  which  transport  is  only  one  component :  qualitative 
considerations appears more appropriate. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Traffic Database 
The traffic database brings together several sources of information as presented in the 
following tables. 

  For continental INTRA-EU flows 

Type 

National  
Traffic 

International  
Traffic 

Country / Mode 

Road 

Rail 

IWW 

France 
Other EU28+CH 
Trans Pyrenean 
Transalpine 
France except Trans Pyrenean and 
Transalpine 

Intra-Iberia (Spain/Portugal) 

Other EU28+CH 

Sitram 2010 

ETISplus 2010  VNF 2010 

ETISplus 2010 

CAFT 2010 

ETISplus 2010 

VNF 2010 

Spain-Portugal cross border 
transport survey 

ETISplus 2010 

Table 46:  Database for Intra-EU flows 

  For Sea market (essentially Extra-Eu) 

Sea Container market 

Sea Bulk market 

Year 
Unit 
Reporter 

Partner 

Direction 

Type of 
Cargo 

Source 

2010 
Tons/year 
EU28+CH countries 
Intra and Extra EU per continent 
see table below 
Import (in) and Export (out) 

Container 

- Comext (containerisable traffic, 
estimated by BG) 
- Eurostat (containerisation rate by 
direction and by continent, estimated 
by BG) 

2010 
Tons/year 
EU28+CH countries 
Intra and Extra EU per continent 
see table below 
Import (in) and Export (out) 
- Coal 
- Cereals 
- Crude oil and refined oil products 

Comext 

Table 47:  Database for Sea market 

Overall architecture of the modelling tool 
The modelling tool is split in two components: Logis model and PortPrint model, with 
the following geographical perimeter: 

  Logis model is dedicated to the modelling of continental flows; with distinction 
between land modes, road, rail, IWW, and intermodal services. Only in the case 
of  services  for  maritime  links  of  the  MoS,  there  is  a  simulation  of 
complementarity and substitution between land and maritime routes.  
  Port Print model is an adaption of the Logis model with two specifications: 

o  The  generation  model  is  different.  Logis  uses  a  gravity  model  for  the 
generation. For PortPrint, the generation module is based on time series 
projections for Extra-Eu container flows. 

May 2019  I  129/196 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
o  PortPrint integrates a port choice distribution module based on a gravity 
model. This module aims to determine the market share of each port on 
land hinterland. 

There are five major modules in the Port Print model as shown in the figure below: 

  Module of generation where the volume between each origin – destination 

is estimated. This module provides results: 

o  At nuts2 – Extra-EU zone for extra EU traffic. The module is considering 
six extra-EU zones: Asia, Mediterranean, North America, South America, 
Africa, CIS 

o  Between nuts2 for intra-EU traffic 

Volume is then disaggregated at node level of the network, using socio-economic 
data such as population. 

  Transport  operation  module  where  the  transport  cost  of  each  transport  chain, 
point to point, is calculated using unit costs by mode and characteristics of the 
infrastructure.  Generalized  cost  is  then  calculated  by  adding  transport  cost, 
value of time and a mode-specific constant by port. 

  Module  of  distribution  between  ports:  the  relative  attractiveness  of  each  port 
(relative  market  share),  for  a  given  relationship  (Asia,  Med,  America…)  is 
evaluated with a gravity model integrating weight of port (assessed in tons) for 
this relationship and best generalized cost (all mode) to reach the port. 

  Transport  modal  split module,  which identifies  the  best  solutions  between  two 
points (choice of mode and route) and the distribution of volume between each 
solution ((probabilistic distribution). 

  Assignment  module,  which  assigns  the  flows  on  the  best  transport  chain 
identified in the transport modal split module. The module is using sections of 
IWW,  Road,  and  Rail  networks,  and  also  intermodal  platforms,  including 
maritime and inland ports. 

May 2019  I  130/196 

 
 
 
Figure 57:  Structure of the PortPrint model 

Main  socio-economic  assumptions  for  projection  of  transport  demand  in  2030  are 
presented in Appendix F. Projection of demand is done using generation module of both 
PORTPRINT  and  LOGIS  models  with  socioeconomic  hypothesis  coming  from  EU 
Reference Scenario. 

Module of generation for Extra-EU traffic in 2030 

For Extra-EU maritime containers 
For the generation step it is important to remind that there are no statistics available at 
EU level45 for traffic generated to (and from) ports from (and to) nuts2 regions. 

Therefore, generating container flows is a complex task. This is done by using available 
commercial data per type of product46, in order to define first a volume of "non bulk" 
products which could be transported in containers, for each category of goods. 

The  generation  of  traffic  modelling  for  container,  per  country  and  extra  EU  zones,  is 
made in two steps. 

45 There are  only limited information related to traffic between a specific port and its 
hinterland  resulting  from  specific  investigations.  But  there  is  no  comprehensive 
database on this topic like ETIS for example. 
46 COMEXT in this case. 

May 2019  I  131/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The first step is a time series calibration adjusted to evolution of GDP of the EU partner 
country as illustrated below for relations between NL and Asian countries for "non-bulk" 
products, i.e products which can be shipped in containers.  

Figure 58:  Sea container traffic from the Netherlands to Asian countries 

Sea container from Netherlands to Asian countries

y = 2266,6e0,0707x
R² = 0,9386

22.000

20.000

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

3
2
0
2

4
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

6
2
0
2

7
2
0
2

8
2
0
2

9
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

In a second step a containerization rate is applied, after using a containerization rete 
estimated as shown in the figure below. 

May 2019  I  132/196 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 59:  Sea container traffic projection by region (reporter) and by 
continent (partner) 

For Extra-EU bulk 
Firstly, the bulk traffic by reporter (EU countries), by partner (Extra EU by continent), 
by  flow  (import  and  export)  and  by  mode  (sea)  for  the  year  2010  is  extracted  from 
Comext database – "Extra EU trade since 2000 by mode of transport (HS-HS4)". 

May 2019  I  133/196 

 
 
 
The time series forecasting method, used for extra-EU containers, is not applied for bulk 
because there is no clear trend in the past for bulk goods (agricultural products, coal, 
oil etc.). 

Then, BG gravity model is used to project the extra-EU agricultural goods traffic by sea, 
by EU country and by continent for the year 2030. The BG gravity model is similar to 
the one used for intra-EU container traffic (see below). 

For  coal  and  petroleum  products,  demand  projections  are  based  on  EU  Reference 
Scenario47 (consumption and production evolution by country). 

Module of generation for intra-EU traffic in 2030 

Several differences exist between Logis and Port Print Model. The main difference lies 
in the generation module, and the fact that a "port choice module" is not required since 
there are database, and in particular ETIS, which provide nuts2 to nuts2 transport flows 
per type of product. 

Therefore,  generation  of  traffic  is  estimated  directly  between  nuts  2  for  16  types  of 
products by going through the following steps. 

  Disaggregation of transport demand per type of product grouped in 16 logistic 

families (based on NSTR 2) 

  Use  of  a  "gravity  model"  which  correlates  flows  per  type  of  products  with 

economic KPIs from relevant sectors 

  Distribution  of  traffic  on  nodes  within  the  nuts2  according  to  distribution  of 

economic activity and population 

  Calibration  with  classical  statistical  tests  (T  Student  and  R2…),  for  base  year 

2010 

The formula used48 is the following one: 

Tij 

g 

C 

Flows (in tons) from zone i to zone j (Nuts2 to Nuts2) 

Model is calibrated for each type of product g 

Constant 

,,θ,φ,γ,λ,µ,ĸ 

Parameters to be estimated 

Pi and Pj 

Population or employment by activity sector of zone i and j 

PIBi and PIBj 

GVAi and GVAj 

Dij 

GDP of zone i and j 
GVA (gross value added) by activity sector per unit of GDP of 
zone i and j 
Distance between zone i and j 

Dummy_country 

1 for trans-border traffic, otherwise =0 

47 EU Reference Scenario 2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713%20draft_publicati
on_REF2016_v13.pdf 
48 The gravity function per type of product, region to region for intra EU (econometric 
model with tests). 

May 2019  I  134/196 

countryDummyµijjijijiCijgedGVAGVAPIBPIBPPeT_* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The calibration of the model uses key variables such as: 

  Distance  region  to  region  (source:  average  distance  Nuts2  to  Nuts2  of  road 

networks of BG) 

  Nuts2 population at origin and destination (source: Eurostat) 
  Nuts2 GDP (gross domestic product) of origin and destination (source: Eurostat) 
  Nuts2  GVA  (gross  value  added)  of  origin  and  destination  by  activity  sector 

(source: Eurostat, NACE Rev.2 classification of economic activities) 

  Nuts2  number  of  people  employed  of  origin  and  destination  by  activity  sector 

(source: Eurostat, NACE Rev.2 classification of economic activities) 

The calibration of model applies the least square method to estimate the coefficients of 
the  key  variables.  Then  choice  of  the  key  variables  has  been  validated  by  verifying 
specific indicators, such as: 

  Student test 
  Fisher test 
  Correlation coefficients between the explanatory variables 
  Partial elasticity of traffic with respect to GDP and to Population 
  Ratio of modelled value to observed value 
  Adjusted R²… 

  For Intra-EU maritime containers 
Firstly, the OD matrix (EU country to EU country) of sea containerisable traffic for 
the year 2010 is constructed based on Comext database – "Intra EU trade since 2010 
by mode of transport (NSTR)" using the definition below: 

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐

= 𝑃1 × 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑃1 + 𝑃2 + 𝑃3 + 𝑃4 + 𝑃7 + 𝑃8
+ 𝑃11(𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑠) + 𝑃12 + 𝑃13 + 𝑃14 + 𝑃15 + 𝑃16 

For  the  missing  OD  (data  gap)  in  the  above-mentioned  database,  another  Comext 
database – "EU trade since 1988 by HS2-HS4" is used to extract the matrix OD of all 
modes containerisable traffic which is then multiplied by the modal share of the 
maritime transport per OD (EU country to EU country, calculated based on Comext 
2001 data by mode of transport, which currently doesn't exist on Eurostat website). 

Secondly,  the  OD  matrix  of  sea  container  traffic  for  the  year  2010  is  obtained  by 
multiplying the containerisation rate (estimated based on Eurostat maritime transport 
data). 

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =

𝑇𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠𝐸𝑈28
𝑇𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 + 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙. 𝐶 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑜) 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠𝐸𝑈28

At last, the previous gravity model of intra EU traffic (Nuts2 to Nuts2, by 16 groups of 
goods) is applied to project the sea container traffic by OD for the year 2030 with 
EU Reference Scenario49. 

49 EU Reference Scenario 2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713%20draft_publicati
on_REF2016_v13.pdf 

May 2019  I  135/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Disaggregation at local level 
Matrices  of  traffic  at  nuts  2  level  are  converted  to  matrices  point  to  point  via  the 
determination of the weight of each node of the network (node of the transport graph). 
The weight of a node in a nuts2 is obtained from georeferenced data, within the zones 
defined for the traffic generation. These georeferenced databases are:  

  Geostat for population, 
  Corine Land Cover for land use information such as implementation of industrial 

& commercial units, arable lands for cereals…. 

Figure 60:  Example of georeferenced data 

The zone of influence of each graph node is defined by the minimization of the euclidian 
distance  between  the  centroid  of  georeferenced  data  and  node  of  graph.  The  only 
condition is that the graph' nodes and rasters of population are in the same Nuts.  

The relative weight of a node is assessed considering: 
Popi : population of node i in the nuts x 
Popx: total population of nuts x 
Weight_%i: relative weight of node i in the nuts x 

Weight_%i = Popi / Popx 

The advantage of this solution is to integrate  

 
 

the territory and spatial configuration in each nuts2, 
the issues of the last kilometer considering spatial distribution of activities and 
morphology of intermodal transport. To be efficient, the density of points must 
be relatively high (here 10 000 nodes for Europe overall). 

May 2019  I  136/196 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
A detailed description of networks 
The  network  description  is  the  result  of  long-term  involvement  with  EU  and  national 
research projects for almost 20 years with regular updates. For the 2030 scenarios50, 
TEN-T  projects  are  directly  integrated  in  the  modeling  tool,  like  for  instance  Seine- 
Scheldt project for IWT, the new line Lyon-Turin for rail, the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link… 
The  geocoded  network  includes  physical  (length,  speed)  and  operation  (costs  /  km, 
costs / hour) attributes and constitutes what is called the "graph" of the model.  

In  the  network  description  there  are  284  maritime  ports,  673  inland  ports,  almost 
10.000 road nodes and 300 rail/road terminals, more than 4.200 IWT links and around 
9.500 rail links, articulated to a detailed road network. 

Figure 61:  Structure of the graph model 

50 Excepted for business as usual scenario. 

May 2019  I  137/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The rail and IWT services are also included as part of network attributes, which enables 
tests combining rail/IWT services. The database of services is built using transport plans 
of intermodal operators (rail & IWT).  

Figure 62: 

IWT intermodal services included in the modelling tool in 2012 

Estimation of transport cost 
The transport cost is estimated based on the following parameters: 

  The structure of the network with technical parameters: length, average speed, 
gauge (IWT and rail), width, draught and air draught, gradient for rail, etc. 

  Specific unitary costs given by mode, 
  Capacity  constraints,  for  rail  and  road,  are  not  explicitly  integrated.  They  are 

considered indirectly with average speeds. 

The structure of unitary costs of each mode is similar, so that they can be added along 
intermodal transport chain segments, with: 

  Kilometric costs: 

-  Energy, maintenance… 
- 

Infrastructure charge variable by mode, section and country 

  Time costs: 

-  Driving cost 
-  Depreciation of the fleet (lorry, locomotive, wagon, barge…) 

  Constant cost independent of the path 

-  Overhead costs 
- 

Loading and unloading 

May 2019  I  138/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moreover,  the  modelling  tool  also  considers  the  following  items  when  calculating 
transport costs: 

  Mode-specific  characteristics,  such  as  the  types  of  lorries,  trains  and  barges; 
driving cycle, mass of trains, number of layers of container permitted by IWW 
section, etc. 

  Transit  costs  through  nodes  (ports,  intermodal  terminals…)  with  transhipment 

operations and waiting times. 

  Value  of  time,  which  is  integrated  in  the  generalized  cost  by  mode,  choice  of 
route  and  comparison  between  transport  chain  solutions.  The  value  of  time 
depends on the type of shipment. 

These technical parameters are directly incorporated in the graph model as can be seen 
in the figure below with the CEMT classification for IWW network. 

Figure 63: 

IWW gauge in the modelling tool 

May 2019  I  139/196 

 
 
 
 
For  each  point  to  point  link,  the  total  transport  cost  can  be  computed  for  the  best 
solution  of  each  mode  and  for  intermodal  options  (Road-IWW,  Road-Rail,  Road-Rail-
IWW).  The  best  solution  is  estimated  through  the  use  of  a  minimum  path  algorithm 
(Dijkstra-like algorithm) on the transport graph. 

Application of the port choice model for maritime market 

For containers, agricultural products and coal market, a port choice model is used. This 
module is based on a gravity model. The relative attractiveness of each port for a given 
relationship (Asia, Med, America…) is evaluated using a gravity model integrating weight 
of port for this relationship and best generalized cost to reach the port. 

  Mnode  (i,m)  :  tons  of  containers  import  and  export  by  node  i  (factor  for  the 
destination zone) to the partner maritime zone m51 (without the transhipments),  
  Mport (j,m) : the weight of port j is assessed in tons of containers import and export 
52  (factor  for  the  origin  zone)  to  the  partner  maritime  zone  m.  the  volume  of 
traffic is the translation of a level of service (number of calls for example). 
  Min.Cost (i,j) : The minimal cost of all the transport chains available between a 

port I and an hinterland node j.  

  ∆𝒊𝒋 : parameter. 
  With Market Share (i,j,m) : The market share of the port j on the node i for the 

partner maritime zone m. This market share is expressed in %. 

The market share function is: 

𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊,𝒋,𝒎 =   

𝑴𝒏𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒊,𝒎 ∗ 𝑴𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒋,𝒎
𝑴𝒊𝒏. 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒊,𝒋

∆𝒊𝒋

𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊,𝒋,𝒎 =   

𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊,𝒋,𝒎

∑

𝒏
𝒌=𝟏

𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊,𝒌,𝒎

The flow of containers between the port j and the node i for the partner maritime zone 
m is determined with: 

𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒊,𝒋,𝒎 =    𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊,𝒋,𝒎 ∗   𝑴𝒏𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒊,𝒎 

The application of the port choice model also gives an estimate of the market share of 
each port on its hinterland. This value is also a parameter to test the robustness and 
credibility  of  modelling  results  despite  the  lack  of  data.  For  maritime  flows,  the  port 
choice model is applied to containers, coal and agricultural products for dry bulk.  

For petroleum products, this module is not used considering the pipeline network is not 
introduced in the modelling tool. The traffic projection for petroleum products is based 
on a statistical approach considering seaport traffic data and growth rate53 per country. 

51 From COMEXT database. 
52 From Eurostat Port database without transshipment. The share of the transshipment 
by port is estimated from activity reports of ports or specific studies.  
53 See Intra-EU growth rate by type of product. 

May 2019  I  140/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 64:  Example of ports hinterland for container market 

Transport solution modal share module 

The split of traffic between the different transport chains between a node i and a port j, 
is determined considering the best solution (minimal cost) of each transport chain. The 
mathematical formula is thus expressed as follow: 

With α (i,j,1), α (i,j,2), α (i,j,n) : The repartition of traffic on the different transport solutions 
from 1 to n : road, iww+road, rail+road or combination iww-rail+road. 
Cost.Gen.Solution(i,j,n) : generalized cost of the transport chain between the location i 
and the port j by the transport chain n. 
β is the parameter to adjust during the calibration. 

The modal share is applied on intermodal products (containers, continental units), flows 
to  and  from  seaports  (agricultural  products,  coal,  MoS  maritime  links)  and  raw 
materials.  

The assignment module 

This module assigns the traffic flows on each segment and node of the network. This 
assignment  is  realized  thanks  to  an  all-or-nothing  algorithm  for  each  transport  chain 
from node to node. The assignment of traffic is thus totally deterministic and is based 
on the output of the two previous modules (port choice and Transport solution modal 
share module), which are used as input data for this one. 

May 2019  I  141/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Appendix B – Transportation costs 

Table of content 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Methodology and sources ................................................................. 143 
Methodology ............................................................................................... 143 
Sources ...................................................................................................... 144 
Road ............................................................................................. 148 
Impact of the price of barrel .......................................................................... 148 
Impact of the technological trends ................................................................. 148 
Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 .......................................... 150 
Baseline scenario ...................................................................................... 150 
Maximum potential scenario ....................................................................... 151 
Variant #3: Faster uptake of new technologies for road ................................. 152 
Train ............................................................................................. 153 
Impact of the price of electricity .................................................................... 153 
Impact of the technological trends ................................................................. 153 
Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 .......................................... 154 
Baseline scenario ...................................................................................... 154 
Maximum potential scenario ....................................................................... 154 
Inland waterway ............................................................................. 155 
Impact of the price of barrel .......................................................................... 155 
Impact of the technological trends ................................................................. 155 
Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 .......................................... 158 
Baseline scenario ...................................................................................... 158 
Maximum potential scenario ....................................................................... 159 

May 2019  I  142/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Methodology and sources 

Methodology 

This  report  details  the  assumptions  for  the  cost  functions,  which  will  be  used  in  the 
different scenarios. 

One  of  the  requests  of  the  European  Commission  during  the  coordination  meeting  in 
May 2017 was to use assumptions from the EU Reference Scenario 2016. This scenario 
provides assumptions on the evolution of transportation costs per t-km, which is almost 
the  same  for  all  modes  of  transport.  But  using  these  assumptions  for  our  work  has 
several limits as the model used for the EU Reference Scenario is not a network model. 

Therefore, we propose  to use 3 different sets of assumptions for the  evolution of the 
costs for each land transport mode: 

  An “EU Reference Scenario”, which will act as  a “Business as Usual Scenario”, 

and will be compliant with EU Reference Scenario 201654.  

  A  “Baseline  scenario”,  which  presents  some  more  specific  assumptions  on 
transportation costs to take into account all trends identified in A1 report in order 
to provide an alternative set  of assumptions for the evolution of the transport 
sector in the next 15 years (taking into account the impact of digitalization for 
instance). 

  A maximum potential scenario, which will include all the improvements identified 

for waterborne transport. 

All  the  assumptions  presented  below  are  compared  to  the  costs  in  2010  in  constant 
euro. 

54  Same  assumptions  have  been  used  in  the  impact  assessment  for  the  “mobility 
package” Europe on the Move: “The Baseline scenario used in this impact assessment 
builds on the EU Reference scenario 2016 but additionally includes some updates in the 
technology costs assumptions for light duty vehicles and few policy measures adopted 
after its cut-off” date (end of 2014) 

May 2019  I  143/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Sources 

Macro-economic assumptions 

Macro-economic assumptions are based on EU Reference Scenario 201655: 

  Annual GDP growth 
  Energy price in 2030 & 2050 
  Exchange rate between the dollar and the Euro 

Table 48:  Macro-economic assumptions for all scenarios 

Macro-economic assumptions 

Baseline Scenario 

GDP growth 

 
 

2010-2020: 1.2% p.a. 
2020-2050: 1.5% p.a. 

Energy 

International cost of oil: 

Exchange rate 

$ 80 / barrel in 2010 
 
$ 110 / barrel in 2030 
 
International price of electricity 
€ 133 / MWh in 2010 
 
€ 158 / MWh in 2030 
 
1.12 $/€ in 2015 
 
1.20 $/€ in 2025 and beyond 
 

55 EU Reference Scenario 2016, Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050 

May 2019  I  144/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Trends 

A  summary  of  trends  and  their  maximum  impact  on  each  land  transport  mode  are 
presented below: 

Table 49: 

List of all trends from A1 report and maximum impact 

# 

Trend 

Road Transport 

1
7 

1
8 

1
9 

2
0 

Automation and 
smart vehicles 

Alternative fuels 
for trucks 

Intelligent 
transportation 
system (ITS) 

Increasing 
efficiency in 
operations 

Impact in terms of 
what? 

Expected maximum impact 
compared to costs in 2010 

  Reduction of fuel 
consumption

  Increase of efficiency
  Reduction of accident 

costs

  -12% road cost 

  -1% road cost 

  Reduction of fuel costs   -33% road cost 
  Reduction of emissions   Not measurable 
  Reduction of 

  -25% road cost (only for 
short trips to/from ports) 

congestion and queues 

  Improvement of road 

traffic safety 

  Reduction of truck 
operating costs 

  Increase of efficiency 
  Decrease of empty 

running and increase 
of efficiency 

  Decrease of truck 
operating costs 

  Reduction of fuel costs 

   -20% road cost  
  +33% road load factor 

May 2019  I  145/196 

 
 
 
 
# 

Trend 

2
1 

Smart port / 
smart terminal 
scheduling, and 
appointment 
systems 
Railway Transport 

2
2 

2
3 

2
4 

2
5 

2
6 

Increased train 
length 

Alternative fuels 
such as hydrogen 
or LNG 

Noise reduction  

European Rail 
Traffic 
Management 
System (ERTMS) 

European rail 
freight corridors 
(RFCs) 

2
7 

Intermodal rail 
concepts 

Impact in terms of 
what? 

  Reduction of port 

congestion 

  Reduction of costs for 
road transportation 

  Increase of efficiency 
  Reduction of operating 
costs per transported 
ton 

Expected maximum impact 
compared to costs in 2010 
  -25% road cost (short trips) 
  -15% port time 

  -17% rail cost in selected 

areas 

  Reduction of energy 

  Not quantified 

costs (for links where 
electrification is too 
expensive) 

  Secure 

competitiveness in 
rural areas 
  Overcome 

technological and 
operational hurdles in 
cross border railway 
transport 

  Increase of safety and 

reduction of costs 
  Reduction of delays 
  Increased priority of 

freight trains 
  Reduction of tie 
dependent costs 

  Reduction of transport 

duration 

  Reduction of transport 

costs 

  Increase of 

competitiveness to 
other transport modes 

  Not quantified 

  -2% rail cost for international 

paths 

  -15% rail cost for 

international paths 

  -x% rail cost 
  -50% port time" 

  Reduction of number 

  Not measurable 

2
8 

Logistics 
integration and 
disintegration 

of competitors 

  Low economic success 
of some freight railway 
services 

Inland Waterway Transportation 

2
9 

Green barge and 
eco competitive 
fleet 

  Decrease of fuel costs 
due to new fuels (e.g. 
LNG) and innovative 
propulsion 
technologies in the 
medium- and long-
term 

  Reduction of ship 
operating costs 

  Cost effects are not 

measurable because it 
depends on barge type, field 
of work 

May 2019  I  146/196 

 
 
 
 
# 

Trend 

Impact in terms of 
what? 

Expected maximum impact 
compared to costs in 2010 

Innovations in 
transport 
techniques 
Good Navigation 
in Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 
through AIS and 
RIS 
Innovations in 
engine sector 

Synchromodality 

  Increase of energy 

efficiency and safety of 
barges 

  Transport of bigger 

  -40% IWW costs (up to, 

amounts 

depending on the route and 
the commodity) 

  Support traffic and 

transport Management 

  -5% IWW cost 
  -5% IWW loading/ unloading 

  Modernization of 

cost 

information exchange 

  Reduction of CO2 
  Reduction of pollution 
  Efficient multimodal 

transport 

  Increasing flexibility 

and resilience 

  -10% IWW cost 

  -10% IWW cost 
  +10% load factor IWW 

  Support traffic and 

  0% of IWW cost  

Digital services 
for collaborative 
logistics 

transport Management 

  Modal Shift 
  Modernization of 

information exchange 

3
0 

3
1 

3
2 

3
3 

3
4 

Intermodal Transport 

3
5 

3
6 

3
7 

Cyber Security - 
Secure logistics 
transport chains 
against ICT crime 

Multimodal 
Logistics 
Platforms 

Full integration of 
transport modes 
for a seamless 
supply chain 

  Reduces the barriers to 
implement innovative 
ICT solutions and 
innovations related to 
ports 

  Increase of regional 
trade and industry 

  Reduction of hinterland 

transport costs 
  Reduction of dwell-
times in seaports 
  Support traffic and 

transport Management 

  Efficient multimodal 

transport 

  Not measurable 

  Not measurable 

  0% of IWW cost 

Additional  information  has  been  provided  by  stakeholders  or  collected  through  desk 
research: 
 

“La  voie  d’eau  :  polyvalence,  avantages  économiques,  perspectives  et 
innovations”, Pierre-Jean Pompée, VNF, 19/05/2014 

  « Autonomous  Cars:  Self-Driving  the  New  Auto  Industry  Paradigm »,  Morgan 

Stanly, November 6, 2013 

  https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/transportation/automated/pdf/automated

_vehicles.pdf 

  https://www.trucks.com/2016/04/07/autonomous-trucks-improve-safety-fuel-

economy/  

May 2019  I  147/196 

 
 
 
 
 
2. Road 

Impact of the price of barrel 

For road transport, the first thing to assess is the impact of the increase of the barrel 
price for oil on transportation costs. 

According to the EU reference scenario in 2030, the price would reach 110 $/barrel with 
an exchange rate of 1.2 $/€. In order to assess the impact of an increase in the price of 
barrel on automotive gas oil, weekly data on fuel price56 and barrel price for the period 
2005 – June 2017 has been analysed: 

Figure 65:  Link between barrel & automotive gas oil without taxes 

Average price of barrel was 60 € in 2010, compared to almost 92 € in 2030 (+53%). 
This would lead to an increase in automotive gas oil of +40%.  

Impact of the technological trends 

Table 50: 

List of trends for road transport and expected impact  

#  Trend 
Road Transport 

Potential impact 

17 

Automation and 
smart vehicles 

  Potential impact of automation will surely be huge in 
the long term. In the US study “Autonomous Cars: 
Self-Driving the New Auto Industry Paradigm”, the 
following impacts have been identified: 50% savings 
on driver labor costs, 25% savings on fuel 
consumption and additional savings on congestion 
and accidents. The impact on productivity (trucks 
operating 24/7) has not been assessed, as it will be 
counterbalance by the increase in the cost of the 

56 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/data-analysis/weekly-oil-bulletin 

May 2019  I  148/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
#  Trend 

Potential impact 

truck itself – which might have strong side-effects, 
such as concentration of the truck industry in the 
hand of larger players. 

  Several recent studies have also been published on 
the impact of automation and platooning on fuel 
consumption57. Savings are expected to reach 4.5% 
to 7.5% per truck by 2030. 

  For the purpose of this study, we will only consider a 

5% savings in fuel consumption per truck in the 
baseline and maximum potential scenario, which can 
be achieved through platooning for instance. The 
savings on driving costs will only be considered in 
the variant #3 Faster uptake of new technologies for 
road.  

  The maximum impact for trucks using alternative 

fuels is estimated at 33%. We will consider that this 
improvement is already integrated in the 5% quoted 
above. 

  ITS are expected to improve efficiency of road 

transport and reduce congestion. If we consider an 
average trip for truck around 350 km, split in two 
with 300 km at 80 km/h on interurban roads and 50 
km at 30 km/h in congested areas, and an increase 
of average speed in congested areas of 20% thanks 
to ITS, the average speed for the full trip would 
increase from 64,6 km/h to 68,1 km/h. It represents 
an increase of 5% of average speed (covering also 
trends # 20 & 21) which will be used for the study 
for general cargo and containers. 

  For the impact on average speed, see trend #19  
  For the impact on the load factor, recent studies 
have shown that there could still be margin for 
improving the load factor of trucks by significant % 
(up to 33%). For the present study, a reasonable 
assumptions of 10% has been used only for long 
distance trucks for general cargo (not for containers 
or bulk cargo). 

  This increase in the load factor will also impact 

operating costs58: +7% on fuel consumption, +5% 
on maintenance costs for tires and +1% for other 
maintenance costs 

18 

Alternative fuels for 
trucks 

19 

Intelligent 
transportation 
system (ITS) 

20 

Increasing efficiency 
in operations 

57 
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/transportation/automated/pdf/automated_vehicl
es.pdf,  https://www.trucks.com/2016/04/07/autonomous-trucks-improve-safety-fuel-
economy/  
58 Les Cahiers de l'Observatoire n°211, Décembre 2004 

May 2019  I  149/196 

 
 
                                           
#  Trend 

21 

Smart port / smart 
terminal scheduling, 
and appointment 
systems 

Potential impact 
  See trend #19 

Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 

Baseline scenario 

The impact of the trends for road for all scenarios on the costs in 2030 is summarized 
below: 

  +40% on fuel price 
 
  +5%  on  average  speed  for  general  cargo  and  containers  (which  will  have  an 

-5% on fuel consumption 

impact on all costs / hour) 

  +10% on load factor for long distance trucks for general cargo with the following 

impacts on operating costs: 

o  +7% of fuel consumption, 
o  +5% on tires 
o  +1% for other maintenance costs 

The  impact  on  road  costs  /  HGV  x  km  and  /  ton  x  km  for  the  different  categories  of 
trucks is presented below: 

Figure 66:  Long distance truck for general cargo in HGV x km and ton x km 

May 2019  I  150/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 67:  Truck for containers in HGV x km and TEU x km 

Figure 68:  Trucks for bulk in HGV x km and ton x km 

Maximum potential scenario 

The same assumptions will be used for road for the maximum potential scenario. 

May 2019  I  151/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Variant #3: Faster uptake of new technologies for road 

Figure 69:  Variant 3 – faster uptake of new technologies for road – impact 
on long distance trucks for general cargo in HGV x km and ton x km 

Figure 70:  Variant 3 – faster uptake of new technologies for road – impact 
on trucks for containers in HGV x km and TEU x km 

May 2019  I  152/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Train 

Impact of the price of electricity 

The model is looking at regional and long distance competition between road, rail and 
inland waterways, above 300 km. For those distances, only electric trains are considered 
in the modelling tool59. Therefore, what will impact the cost of rail transport is the price 
of electricity, which is supposed to increase by 19% in 2030 compared to 2010 according 
to the EU reference scenario 2016. 

Given that 8% of rail transportation cost is related to energy60. 

Impact of the technological trends 

Table 51: 

List of trends for rail transport and expected impact 

#  Trend 
Railway Transport 

22 

23 

Increased train 
length 
Alternative fuels 
such as 
hydrogen or 
LNG 

24  Noise reduction  

European Rail 
Traffic 
Management 
System 
(ERTMS) 
European rail 
freight corridors 
(RFCs) 

25 

26 

Potential impact 

  This trend will be included through the potential changes of 

the characteristics of the CNC 

  Since electrification of the railway network is one of the 

compliance criteria of the CNC, and as this study is 
focusing on those corridors, the impact of this trend will not 
be included in the modelling tool. 

  The impact on the costs is expected to be marginal, as can 

be deduced from the Study “Reducing railway noise 
pollution” published in 2012 by European Parliament61. 
Therefore, in the context of this study, it will be considered 
that this trend has no impact on rail costs 

  The assumption used in the conservative scenario of the 

ERTMS business case (-5% of operating costs) will be used 
for this study62 

  Optimised and coordinated international transport plans for 
rail freight can have an important impact in terms of cost 
reduction, thanks to minimisation of delays and optimising 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/474533/IPOL-

59 It is an assumption of the modelling tool which is looking at European scale. At micro 
level, specificities of each connection have to be explored, but it is not feasible when 
looking at European scale. Moreover, the assumption of considering only electrical train 
on the TEN-T corridors has been validated by Railway Undertakings on the ERTMS study. 
60 Source : ERTMS business case (based on survey from RUs) 
61 
TRAN_ET(2012)474533_EN.pdf 
For a fleet of 370 000 wagons in Europe, cost of retrofitting is estimated at 3 bn€, which 
means 8.1 k€ / wagon. If we consider 15 years as an average lifetime for wagons, the 
annual cost / wagon is 540 € / year, with 20 wagons it is 11 k€ / year. For approximately 
120 000 km / year, the cost / train x km is 0,1 € 
62 
http://www.erfarail.eu/UPLOADS/pageimages/RU%20dialogue/T7_DEL_7%201%203_
Report%20ERTMS%20Business%20Case%20CNC.pdf 

May 2019  I  153/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
#  Trend 

Potential impact 

driver relays. The maximum expected impact of the 
development of RFCs is a decrease of 15% of rail cost for 
international paths 

  In the context of this study, as an average, we will consider 
that the speed of 20% of the paths are increased by 5%. 
We will also consider that a similar assumption can be used 
on CNCs are RFCs and CNCs are largely overlapping. 

  Linking the ports to the hinterland through inland platforms 

allows very performant rail connections. However, the 
actual impact would depend on each specific case in terms 
of distance to cover, performance of existing rail services, 
volumes to transport, etc.  

  In the context of this study, this trend will not be 

considered, as it would require a detailed analysis of all rail 
connections to port and inland platforms. But the concept 
of synchromodality detailed in the chapter on inland 
waterway will be tested. 

  In the maximum potential scenario, for containers and 
continental containers, the following parameters will be 
adjusted in the modelling tool: waiting time for 
transhipments (decrease), frequency of the services 
(increased), load factor of the train (+5%) 
The impact of this trend is not quantifiable.  

27 

Intermodal rail 
concepts 

28 

Logistics 
integration and 
disintegration 

Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 

Baseline scenario 

The  impact  of  the  trends  listed  above  for  rail  for  all  scenarios  (but  the  maximum 
potential scenario) on the costs is summarized below: 

  +19% on the price of energy 
  +1%  on  average  speed  on  the  CNC  (which  will  impact  the  costs  /  hour  and 

therefore the overall cost / km) 
-5% of overall costs thanks to ERTMS 

 

Which leads to a decrease of rail transport costs by 4.2% in 2030 

Maximum potential scenario 

In the maximum potential scenario, the additional assumptions will be considered for 
containers and continental containers: 

  waiting time for transhipments (decrease, iterative process in the modelling tool)  
frequency of the services (increased, iterative process in the modelling tool) 
 
  +5% of load factor 

May 2019  I  154/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Inland waterway 

Impact of the price of barrel 

For inland waterway transport, the first thing to assess is the impact of the increase of 
the price of the barrel price for oil on transportation costs.  
According to EU reference scenario in 2030, the price would reach 110 $/barrel with an 
exchange rate of 1,2 $/€. In order to assess the impact of an increase in the price of 
the barrel on fuel oil, weekly data on fuel price and barrel price for the period  2005 – 
June 2017 has been analysed: 

Figure 71:  Link between barrel & fuel oil 

Average price of barrel was 60 € in 2010, compared to almost 92 € in 2030 (+53%). 
This would lead to an increase in automotive gas oil of +53%. 

Impact of the technological trends 

Table 52: 

List of trends for inland waterway and expected impact 

#  Trend 
Inland Waterway Transportation 

Potential impact 

29 

Green barge 
and eco 
competitive fleet 

  According to VNF63, shifting from oil to LNG for inland 

barges could help save up to 30% of the price of fuel. If 
this could be achieved in the long term, its uptake by 2030 
should be very limited, as the life expectancy of inland 
vessels is very long and the cost of retrofitting a barge 
very high (approximately 1 M€). This value will be adjusted 
with the speed of uptake of the trend (see below). 

63 « La voie d’eau : polyvalence, avantages économiques, perspectives et innovations, 
Pierre-Jean Pompée », 19th of May 2014 

May 2019  I  155/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Therefore, 30% improvement would represent the best 
case scenario. 

  2 kind of innovations are explored here. 
  The first kind is related to transport techniques which allow 
inland waterway to have access to new kind of products 
(pallet, PW45…) These innovations are not addressed 
through the costs 

  The second kind are related to automation in the transport 

sector. Inland waterway could surely benefit from 
automation, as it is a slow and safe mode with less 
constraints than trucks while operating outside dense area. 
But the size of the market for inland waterway vessels is 
also much smaller than the one for trucks, and the life 
expectancy of the vessels is much longer. Therefore, the 
probability of having automated inland waterway transport 
in 2030 is very low and such impact is not considered.  
  Congestion at the locks on inland waterway could 
increase by 2040 in North Western Europe, as 
foreseen in the report “Capaciteits-analyse 
binnenvaart Scheldegebied”. But the development of 
digital solutions, like RIS-COMEX64, could limit this 
congestion. RIS-COMEX is a logistical tool to support 
the planning of transport. It will give information on: 

o  The fairway 
o  The traffic (both static & dynamic) 

It will also allow the booking of quay. It will increase 
the reliability and reduce travelling time for inland 
waterway (through a decrease of waiting time at the 
locks). 

  For the purpose of this study, the impact of AIS has 

been translated into an impact on the average speed 
of inland waterway (including lock crossing): +5% 

  Many innovations in the engine sector for inland waterway 
have been identified (at least 8 according to VNF). Each 
trend could have an impact of 5 to 50% in fuel 
consumption. The main issue for inland operators is to find 
the money to develop those new technologies and 
implement them on their barges. 

  For this study, a maximum assumption of 20% of decrease 

consumption will be used. The actual decrease will be 
adjusted with the speed of the uptake of the new trends. 

  Synchromodality could have a dramatic effect on inland 
waterway, as it will allow the use of shift the decision on 
the use of the mode from the shippers to the service 
providers. The latter will be free to choose the best mode 
of transport in the network and bundle / unbundle the 

30 

Innovations in 
transport 
techniques 

31 

Good Navigation 
in Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 
through AIS and 
RIS 

32 

Innovations in 
engine sector 

33  Synchromodality 

64 
http://www.ris.eu/news/corisma_____international_project_for_the_future_of_ris_in_
europe_crosses_finish_line 
http://www.riscomex.eu 

May 2019  I  156/196 

 
 
                                           
 
goods from all its customers. Several studies65 have been 
conducted on the topic, showing that synchromodality 
could (i) decrease in waiting time in origin terminals / 
reduce waiting penalties and (ii) increase the load factor. 
This could lead to a decrease of costs of up to 20%. 

  Impact of synchromodality will be applied for containers 

and also land containers 

  Applying the impact of synchromodality will face 2 

challenges. First, the academic studies are based on the 
case of Rotterdam, and clearly state that the concept of 
synchromodality can only be applied on ports where 
multimodal infrastructure and services are available. 
Secondly, in theory, the mathematical tools used on the 
case of Rotterdam should be used on every port in order to 
assess the potential impact of synchromodality. But this is 
not feasible in the context of this study. 

  Therefore, the following parameters will be adjusted in the 

modelling tool: 

o  waiting time for transhipments (decreased 

through an iterative process in the modelling 
tool in order to have consistent results 
between the modal share and the actual 
capacity of the services), 
frequency of the services (increased through 
an iterative process in the modelling tool in 
order to have consistent results between the 
modal share and the actual capacity of the 
services) 
load factor (+5%) 

o 

o 

  These assumptions will only be used in the maximum 

potential scenario for containers and continental containers 

  No impact expected on transportation costs  

34 

Digital services 
for collaborative 
logistics 

For  the  scenario  assessment  a  “greening”  of  the  IWT  is  considered.  This implies  that 
there  will  be  a  reduction  in  the  pollutant  emissions  of  IWT  thanks  to  technological 
improvements  of  the  vessels  and  the  use  of  fuels  other  than  conventional  oil.  The 
amount  of  reduction  obtained  depends  on  the  achieved  level  of  “greening”  in  the 
scenario or uptake. The product  of the uptake  by the maximum amount of reduction 
gives the reduction obtained for each pollutant, always in relation to S0 – Business as 
Usual: 

65  Synchromodal  versus  Intermodal  Freight  Transport:  The  case  of  the  Rotterdam 
Hinterland Container Transport, M. Zhang, A. J. Pel, 2015 
Multimodal schedule design for synchromodal freight transport systems, B. Behdani, Y. 
Fan, B. Wiegmans, R. Zuidwijk, 2016 

May 2019  I  157/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 53: 

Greening of IWT mode on the different scenarios 

Scenario 

S1 – Baseline 
S2  –  Maximum 
Potential 
S3  –  Target 
Oriented 

Scenario 
uptake 
20% 
50% 

100% 

Max Reduction of 
NOx – 80%66 

Max Reduction of 
PM – 75%67 

Max  Reduction  of 
SOx – 100%68 

16% 
40% 

80% 

15% 
38% 

75% 

20% 
50% 

100% 

Summary of all impacts compared to costs in 2010 

Baseline scenario 

The impact of the trends listed above is presented in the  figure below, with different 
assumptions on the speed of uptake of the trends #29 (Green barge and eco competitive 
fleet) and #32 (Innovations in engine sector): 2030 being in just 13 years, all the new 
technologies identified above might not be all fully deployed.69: 

Figure 72:  Variation of IWT transport costs according to the penetration of 
the market for the trends identified 

The proposed assumption for this study is an uptake of 20% in the baseline scenario for 
trends  #29  (Green  barge  and  eco  competitive  fleet)  and  #32  (Innovations  in  engine 
sector). 

https://www.inland-navigation-market.org/en/rapports/2017/q2/9-emissions-in-

66 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/iww_danube_ship_design___final.pdf  
67 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/iww_danube_ship_design___final.pdf  
68 
inland-navigation/ 
69 The baseline for the calculation of the variation of transport costs above include the 
increase in fuel price and the increase on average speed. 

May 2019  I  158/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
IWT costs would increase by 7% for bulk and 4% for containers in the baseline scenario, 
as shown in the figure below: 

Figure 73:  Evolution of IWT costs for solid bulk per t x km and containers 
per TEU x km for baseline scenario 

Maximum potential scenario 

The  assumption  of  an  ambitious  uptake  of  50%  has  been  selected  for  the  maximum 
potential scenario, which would lead to a slight increase of IWT transportation costs for 
solid bulk (+1%) and a slight decrease (-3%) for containers: 

Figure 74:  Evolution of IWT costs for solid bulk per t x km and containers 
per TEU x km for maximum potential scenario 

In addition, in the maximum potential scenario, waiting time for transshipments will be 
decreased  and  frequency  of  the  services  will  be  increased,  but  it  is  not  possible  to 
provide an assessment of the impact at this stage as it will be an output of an iterative 
process in the modelling tool. 

May 2019  I  159/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. Appendix C – List of references 

9.1.  Appendix C – Analyses of major geopolitical and technological 

developments 

Adi Analytics (no date): World ECA Map. Available online at http://adi-
analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/World-ECA-Map.png, checked on 
4/04/2016. 

Alphaliner (2016): Carrier alliances come full circle, Alphaliner Weekly Review, Volume 
2016 Issue 20, 11.05.2016 to 17.05.2016. 

Alvarado, Fernando L. (1998), Market Power, ad Dynamic Definition, Conference on 
Bulk Power Systems Dynamics and Control, August 24-28, 1998, Available online at 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.3803&rep=rep1&type=
pdf, checked on 03/06/2016. 

Andersson, Peter; Ivehammar, Pernilla (2016): MONA LISA 2.0 Activity 2 - Defining 
Sea Traffic Management. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Effects of Implementing Sea 
Traffic Management in the Northern Parts of the EU, updated on 15/02/2016, checked 
on 5/04/2016. 

APM Terminals (2016): Company information. Available online at 
http://www.apmterminals.com/en/about-us/company-information, checked on 
10/06/2016. 

Associated British Ports (no date): About ABP. Available online at 
http://www.abports.co.uk/About_ABP, checked on 10/06/2016. 

Bergman (2017): Shipping got off lightly in first cyber security attacks, say legal 
experts. Available at http://www.marinemec.com/news/view,shipping-got-off-lightly-
in-first-cyber-security-attacks-say-legal-experts_49273.htm, updated on 25/09/2017, 
checked on 19/04/2018. 

Böse, Jürgen W. (2011): Handbook of terminal planning. New York: Springer (49), 
checked on 12/04/2016. 

Brinkmann, Birgitt (2005): Seehäfen. Planung und Entwurf. Berlin: Springer, checked 
on 12/04/2016. 

Brümmerstedt, Katrin; Fiedler, Ralf; Flitsch, Verena; Jahn, Carlos; Roreger, Hendrik; 
Sarpong, Benjamin; Saxe, Sebastian; Scharfenberg, Benjamin (2017): Digitalization 
of Seaports – Visions of the Future. Fraunhofer-Verlag, 2017. 

Brümmerstedt, Katrin; Meyer-Van Beek, Hendrik; Münsterberg, Torsten (2017): 
Comparative analysis of synchromodality in major European seaports. Available online 
at https://tubdok.tub.tuhh.de/bitstream/11420/1480/1/br%c3%bcmmerstedt_meyer-
van_beek_m%c3%bcnsterberg_comparative_analysis_hicl_2017.pdf, checked on 
19/04/2018. 

Burmeister, Hans-Christoph; Bruhn, Wilko; Rødseth, Ørnulf; Porathe, Thomas (2014): 
Can unmanned ships improve navigational safety?, Transport Research Arena 2014, 
Paris, 14/04/2014, checked on 31/03/2016. 

Cavotec SA (2011a): Brochure - Automated Mooring Systems, checked on 
15/04/2016. 

Cavotec SA (2011b): Brochure - MoorMaster Automated Mooring, updated on 
5/05/2011, checked on 15/04/2016. 

May 2019  I  160/196 

 
 
 
CE Delft and TNO (2015): Study on the Completion of an EU Framework on LNG-
fuelled Ships and its Relevant Fuel Provision Infrastructure, Lot 3, Analysis of the LNG 
market development in the EU. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-12-lng-lot3.pdf, 
updated in December 2015, checked on 05/08/2016. 

Centre for Economic Policy Research (2013): Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade 
and Investment. An Economic Assessment, London. 

CEPII (2013): Transatlantic Trade: Whither Partnership, Which Economic 
Consequences?, Available online at  http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/pb/2013/pb2013-
01.pdf, checked on 27/06/2016. 

Cerrini, Caterina (2015): MONA LISA 2.0 Activity 2 - Defining Sea Traffic Management. 
The Current Situation. Document No: MONALISA 2 0_D2.1.1, updated on 21/12/2015, 
checked on 5/04/2016. 

Cullinane, Kevin; Bergqvist, Rickard (2014): Emission control areas and their impact 
on maritime transport. In Transportation Research Part D. Available online at 
http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/193086/193086.pdf, updated on 28/01/2014, 
checked on 03/06/2016. 

Daily News (2015): Izmir’s main port to be privatized in 2016 in line with revised 
development plan. Available online at http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/izmirs-main-
port-to-be-privatized-in-2016-in-line-with-revised-development-plan-
.aspx?pageID=238&nID=91279&NewsCatID=344, updated on 17/11/2015, checked 
on 10/06/2016. 

Damen Shipyards Group (2015): Damen coordinating European (Horizon 2020) 
Innovation Project LeanShips. Available online at 
http://www.damen.com/en/news/2015/06/damen_coordinating_european_innovation
_project_leanships, updated on 15/06/2015, checked on 4/04/2016. 

DG Move (2012): Framework on the future EU ports' policy including legislative 
proposals. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_move_016_future_eu_ports_policy_en.pdf, 
updated on 10/2012, checked on 22/06/2016. 

DG MOVE (2015): Statistical pocketbook. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2015_en.htm, 
checked on 30/08/2016. 

Die Welt (2016): Projekt "Ecoliner" Riesen-Segelschiff soll deutsche Autos übers Meer 
tragen. Available online at http://hd.welt.de/Wirtschaft-
edition/article157282768/Riesen-Segelschiff-soll-deutsche-Autos-uebers-Meer-
tragen.html, checked on 5/08/2016. 

DNV GL (no date): The ReVolt. A new inspirational ship concept. Available online at 
https://www.dnvgl.com/technology-innovation/revolt/index.html. 

DNV GL (2015): Update on “Shipping 2020”: DNV GL sees hybrid propulsion and 
connectivity as emerging trends. Available online at 
https://www.dnvgl.com/news/update-on-shipping-2020-dnv-gl-sees-hybrid-
propulsion-and-connectivity-as-emerging-trends-25931, updated on 1/06/2015, 
checked on 4/04/2016. 

Duisport: Integrated Truck Guidance: Optimization and harmonization of the 
multimodal transport hubs of the future. Available at 
http://www.duisport.de/media/files/5666b41481c7b-
broschuere_integrated_truck_guidance_en.pdf, checked on 25/01/2017 

May 2019  I  161/196 

 
 
Ecorys (2016): Trade SIA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 
(TTIP) between the EU and the USA. Draft Interim Technical Report, Available online 
at http://www.trade-sia.com/ttip/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/02/TSIA-TTIP-
draft-Interim-Technical-Report.pdf, checked on 27/06/2016.  

ECT (no date): Europas synchromodaler Dienstleister. Available online at 
http://www.europeangatewayservices.com/de/#view=map&type=, checked on 
8/02/2016. 

Elbert, Ralf; Krieger, Detlev; Meyer, Henner; Rotter, Harald (2010): Zukunft 
vernetzter Hinterlandverkehre - Flaschenhals oder Rückgrat internationaler 
Wertschöpfung? Podiumsdiskussion. 7. HanseLog 23 June 2010. BVL 
Bundesvereinigung Logistik. 

EMEA News (2015): "No Medium-Term Prospect" for Mediterranean ECA. Available 
online at http://shipandbunker.com/news/emea/599458-no-medium-term-prospect-
for-mediterranean-eca, updated on 30/09/2015, checked on 7/04/2016. 

ESPO (2016): Trends in EU Ports Governance 2016. Available online at 
http://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/Trends_in_EU_ports_gouvernance_2016
_FINAL_VERSION.pdf, updated on 02/06/2016, checked on 08/06/2016. 

ESPO (2013): ESPO Port Performance Review 2013. Available online at 
https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/espo_dashboard_2013%20final.pdf 

European Commission (2013a): Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015. 11. 
Smart, green and integrated transport Revised. Available online at 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h202
0-wp1415-transport_en.pdf, updated on 17/04/2015, checked on 26/04/2016. 

European Commission (2013b): MG-6.2-2014. De-stressing the supply chain. 
Available online at 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/top
ics/605-mg-6.2-2014.html, updated on 11/12/2013, checked on 25/04/2016. 

European Commission (2013c): Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the 
development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 
661/2010/EU. Available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1315&from=DE, updated on 11/12/2013, 
checked on 06/06/2016. 

European Commission (2013d): EU energy, transport and GHG emissions, Trends to 
2050, Reference scenario 2013. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/publications/doc/trends-to-2050-update-
2013.pdf, checked on 3/04/2016. 

European Commission (2014a): Ports 2030. Gateways for the Trans European 
Transport Network. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/ports/doc/2014_brochure_ports.pdf, 
updated on 28/04/2014, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2014b): Ports: an engine for growth. Where we're headed one 
year on. Communication from the Commission - Ports: an engine for growth - 
COM(2013)295 final, 2014, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2014c): The 2015 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and 
Projection Methodologies. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee8_
en.pdf, checked on 7/04/2016. 

May 2019  I  162/196 

 
 
European Commission (2014d): Corridor studies. Detailed Annexes. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-
guidelines/corridors/corridor-studies_en.htm, checked on 2/08/2016. 

European Commission (2015a): MG-2.1-2017. Innovations for energy efficiency and 
emission control in waterborne transport. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2113-mg-2.1-2017.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 15/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015b): MG-2.3-2016. New and improved transport concepts 
in waterborne transport. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/mg-2.3-2016.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 1/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015c): MG-3.3-2016. Safer waterborne transport and 
maritime operations. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2089-mg-3.3-2016.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015d): MG-3.4-2016. Transport infrastructure innovation to 
increase the transport system safety at modal and intermodal level (including nodes 
and interchanges). Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2088-mg-3.4-2016.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 15/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015e): MG-7.2-2017. Optimisation of transport infrastructure 
including terminals. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2115-mg-7.2-2017.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015f): MG-7.3-2017. The Port of the future. Available online 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2105-mg-7.3-2017.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015g): MG-8.2-2017. Big data in Transport: Research 
opportunities, challenges and limitations. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topi
cs/2106-mg-8.2-2017.html, updated on 14/10/2015, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015h): National Single Window Guidelines. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/doc/2015-06-11-nswguidelines-
final.pdf, updated on 17/04/2015, checked on 08/06/2016. 

European  Commission  (2015i):  The  2015  Ageing  Report:  Economic  and  budgetary 
projections  for  the  28  EU  Member  States  (2013-2060).  Available  online  at 
http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/ageing_report_2015_en.pdf, checked on 7/04/2016. 

European Commission (2015j): Call for tenders N° MOVE/B3/2015-224. Study on 
support measures for the implementation of the TEN-T core network related to sea 
ports, inland ports and inland waterway transport. Tender Specifications. 

European Commission (2016a): FP7 Work Programme. SEC-2013.2.2-1 - A research 
agenda for security issues on land transport. checked on 17/01/2017. 

European Commission (2016b): Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017. 11. 
Smart, green and integrated transport. (European Commission Decision C(2016)1349 
of 9 March 2016), updated on 10/03/2016, checked on 14/04/2016. 

May 2019  I  163/196 

 
 
European Commission (2017a): Maritime – National Single Windows and e-Maritime. 
Available online at https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/digital-services/e-
maritime_en, updated on 28/12/2017, checked on 28/12/2017. 

European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1992): Resolution No 92/2 On new 
Classification of Inland Waterways, Athens, 1992, Available online at 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310741194/Resolution-No-92-2-on-New-Classification-
of-Inland-Waterways, checked on 23/06/2016.  

European Environment Agency (2018): Average age of the vehicle fleet. Available 
online at https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/average-age-of-the-
vehicle-fleet/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8, checked on 19/04/2018. 

European Maritime Safety Agency (2010): The 0.1% sulphur in fuel requirement as 
from 1 January 2015 in SECAs. An assessment of available impact studies and 
alternative means of compliance, updated on 13/12/2010, checked on 4/04/2016. 

European Parliament; Directorate General for Internal Policies (2015): Modal Share of 
Freight Transport to and from EU Ports. Available online at 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540350/IPOL_STU(2015)
540350_EN.pdf, checked on 30/06/2016. 

European Vessels for the Future Initiative (2014): Executive Summary. Available 
online at 
http://www.vsm.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/882a774dbbdb325d37daf6279710a
5dc/the_european_vessels_for_the_future_initiative_executive_summary.pdf, checked 
on 19/04/2018. 

EUROPORTS (no date): Facts & figures. Available online at 
http://www.euroports.com/site/overview/facts/, checked on 10/06/2016. 

Eurostat (2016a): Maritime transport - Gross weight of goods transported to/from 
main ports by direction and type of traffic (national and international) - quarterly data 
(mar_go_qm), Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, 
checked on 2/08/2016.  

Eurostat (2016b): Maritime transport, Passengers embarked and disembarked in all 
ports by direction - annual data (mar_pa_aa), Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked on 2/08/2016. 

Eurostat (2016c): Data on Inland Waterways Transport Measurement - Transport by 
type of good (country/regional flows), Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked on 3/08/2016.  

Eurostat (2016d): GDP and main components (output, expenditure and income) 
(nama_10_gdp), Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, 
checked on 30/08/2016. 

Eurostat (2016e): Trade volume indices, by reporting country (tet00001), Available 
online at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked on 30/08/2016. 

Eurostat (2016f): EU trade since 1988 by HS2-HS4 (DS-016894), Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked on 30/08/2016. 

Eurostat (2016g): Detailed tables per each reporting country (main ports) by 
direction, partner entity, type of cargo and nationality of registration of vessels - 
quarterly data (mar_go_qm_detl), Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked on 30/08/2016. 

May 2019  I  164/196 

 
 
Eurostat (2016h): Inland waterways transport measurement - goods - annual data 
(iww_go_a), Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, checked 
on 30/08/2016. 

Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (2016): What is TTIP?, Available 
online at http://www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Foreign-trade/TTIP/what-is-ttip.html, 
checked on 23/06/2016. 

Flynn, Matthew; T-W Lee, Paul; Notteboom, Theo E. (2011): The Next Step on the 
Port Generations Ladder: Customer-Centric and Community Port. In: Current issues in 
shipping, ports and logistics. Edited by Theo E. Notteboom. Brussels, pp. 497–510. 

Fraunhofer CML (2015): Bedarfsanalyse LNG in Brunsbüttel, Available online at: 
https://www.schleswig-
holstein.de/DE/Fachinhalte/I/industriepolitik/Downloads/bedarfsanalyse_LNG.pdf?__bl
ob=publicationFile&v=1, updated on 16/11/2015, checked on 03/05/2016. 

Gardiner, N. (2015): Ship Operating Costs 2014-2015. Annual Review and Forecast. 
Published 7 January 2015. Edited by Drewry Maritime Research. London. 

Green Logistics (2010): Green Logistics - Research into the sustainability of logistics 
systems and supply chains. What is Green Logistics? Available online at 
http://www.greenlogistics.org/, checked on 13/04/2016. 

Government of the Netherlands (2016): Truck Platooning. Available online at: 
https://www.government.nl/topics/mobility-public-transport-and-road-
safety/contents/truck-platooning, checked on 03/05/2016. 

Hamburg Port Authority (2014): Port of Hamburg - digital Gateway to the World, 
updated on 1/04/2014, checked on 14/04/2016. 

Hans Böckler Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2014): Das transatlantische Handels- und 
Investitionsabkommen (TTIP) zwischen der EU und den USA.  

HHLA (2011): Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG Nachhaltigkeit, 5/05/2011, checked 
on 13/04/2016. 

HHLA (2016): HHLA stakes in other companies as of 30.09.2016. Available online at 
https://hhla.de/en/structure/stakes-in-companies.html, checked on 22/12/2016. 

Hiranandani, Vijay (2014): Sustainable development in seaports: a multi-case study. 
In WMU J Marit Affairs 13 (1), pp. 127–172, checked on 13/04/2016. 

IMF (2016): World Economic Outlook Reports, Available online at 
http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=29, checked on 30/08/2016. 

International Maritime Organization (2016a): Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. 
Available online at 
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/
Air-Pollution.aspx, checked on 4/04/2016. 

INE – A Changing World. Available online at 
http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/media/18186/INE_a_changing_world.pdf, checked on 
25/01/2017 

INE, EBU and ESO (2011): Setting the course – A new transport policy for 2020 

INE (2016): Good navigation status – Second discussion paper. Available at 
http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/media/70898/2nd-Discussion-Paper-Good-
Navigation-Status-2-September-2016.pdf, checked on 26/01/2017 

May 2019  I  165/196 

 
 
 
International Maritime Organization (2016b): Sulphur oxides (SOx) - Regulation 14. 
Available online at 
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/
Sulphur-oxides-%28SOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx, checked on 
4/04/2016. 

International Transport Forum (2015): The Impact of Mega-Ships, checked on 
1/04/2016. 

John, O.; Rizvanolli, A. (2016): The Sea Traffic Management Validation Project. A 
concept for future shipping. In Baltic Transport Journal 1, 2016 (69). 

Jokioinen, E. (2014): Towards Remote Controlled Ships. MUNIN Workshop at SMM. 
Rolls-Royce, 10/09/2014, checked on 31/03/2016. 

KnowledgeBrief (no date): Green Logistics. Available online at 
https://www.kbmanage.com/concept/green-logistics, checked on 13/04/2016. 

KombiConsult GmbH et al. (2015): Analysis of the EU Combined Transport. Available 
online at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/studies/doc/2015-01-
freight-logistics-lot2-combined-transport.pdf, updated on 15/01/2015, checked on 
7/04/2016. 

LadeAs (2014): Vindskip Concept. Available online at 
http://www.ladeas.no/concept.html, updated on 04/02/2014, checked on 26/04/2016. 

Lee, Paul Tae-Woo, Lee Lam, Jasmine Siu (2015): Container Port Competition and 
Competitiveness Analysis: Asian Major Ports. In Lee, Chung-Yee, Meng, Qiang (2015): 
Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics. Making Global Supply Chains 
Effective. Springer Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, pp. 97-136. 

Lloyd’s Register et al. (2013):_ Global Marine Trends 2030. Available online at 
http://www.futurenautics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/GlobalMarineTrends2030Report.pdf, updated on 
28/10/2013, checked on 5/08/2016. 

Lloyd’s Register Marine (2015): Wind-powered shipping. A review of the commercial, 
regulatory and technical factors affecting uptake of wind-assisted propulsion. Available 
online at http://www.nsrsail.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Wind_powered_shipping-Lloyds-Register.pdf, updated in 
December 2015, checked on 22/12/2016. 

Martín-Soberón, Ana María; Monfort, Arturo; Sapiña, Rafael; Monterde, Noemí; 
Calduch, David (2014): Automation in Port Container Terminals. In Procedia - Social 
and Behavioral Sciences 160, pp. 195–204, checked on 7/04/2016. 

McKinnon, Alan (2012): Environmental sustainability. A new priority for logistics 
managers. In Alan McKinnon: Green Logistics // Green logistics. Improving the 
environmental sustainability of logistics. 2nd ed. Edited by Alan McKinnon, Michael 
Browne, Anthony Whiteing. London: Kogan Page, pp. 3–26. 

Milan, Janic. (2014): Advanced Transport Systems. Analysis, Modeling, and Evaluation 
of Performances. Springer, 2014. 

MITIGATE (2015): Current Port Security Situation. Available online at 
http://www.mitigateproject.eu/index.php/about-2/current-port-security-situation/, 
checked on 26/04/2016. 

MITIGATE (2016): MITIGATE – Multidimensional, integrated, risk assessment 
framework and dynamic, collaborative Risk Management tools for critical information 
infrastructures. Available online at http://www.mitigateproject.eu/, checked on 
7/04/2016. 

May 2019  I  166/196 

 
 
MUNIN (2016): Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks. 
Welcome to the MUNUN Project web page. Available online at http://www.unmanned-
ship.org/munin/. 

Notteboom, T. E., (2010), Concentration of the formation of Multi-port gateway 
regions in the European container port system: an update, Journal of Transport 
Geography, 18-(4), 567-583 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.003. 

OECD/ITF (2015): ITF Transport Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing/ITF. Available online 
at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789282107782-en, updated on 27/01/2015, checked 
on 7/04/2016. 

OECD/ITF (2016): Capacity to grow: transport infrastructure needs for future trade 
growth, OECD Publishing/ITF. Available online at http://www.itf-
oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/future-growth-transport-infrastructure.pdf, checked 
on 12/05/2016. 

Pallis, Athanasios A.; Vitsounis, Thomas K.; Langen, Peter W. de; Notteboom, Theo E. 
(2011): Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content Classification and Survey. 
In Transport Reviews 31 (4), pp. 445–471, checked on 07/04/2016. 

Panama Canal Authority (2015), Transit Statistics, Available online at 
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/transit-stats/index.html, updated on 13/10/2015, 
checked on 02/05/2016. 

Panama Canal Authority (2015a), This is the Canal, Available online at 
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/acp/asi-es-el-canal.html, updated on 22/02/2013, 
checked on 02/05/2016. 

Panteia et al. (2015): Study on the Analysis and Evolution of International and EU 
Shipping. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-sept-study-internat-
eu-shipping-final.pdf, checked on 6/04/2016. 

Pine project (2004): PINE Projects of Inland navigation within the enlarged Europe. 
Full Final Report. Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/inland/studies/doc/2004_pine_report_report_full
.pdf, updated in March 2004, checked on 30/06/2016. 

Polzug (2016): Polzug Intermodal. Available online at http://polzug.de/, updated on 
no date, checked on 20/02/2017. 

Portbase (no date): The Port Community System. Available online at 
https://www.portbase.com/en/port-community-system/, updated on no date, checked 
on 25/04/2016. 

Port of Rotterdam (no date): The Port Authority in brief. Available online at 
https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/port-authority/about-the-port-authority, 
updated on no date, checked on 10/06/2016. 

Portopia (2014), Deliverable 1.1: State of the European Port System – market trends 
and structure update Partim transshipment volumes. 

PPRISM (2012): Executive Summary. Available online at 
http://pprism.espo.be/ProjectResults.aspx 

PPRISM (2010): Work Package 1 Pre-selection of indicators (and Interim Results). 
Available online at http://pprism.espo.be/ProjectResults.aspx 

PPRISM (2011): Work Package 2 Stakeholders assessment. Available online at 
http://pprism.espo.be/ProjectResults.aspx 

May 2019  I  167/196 

 
 
PPRISM (2012): Work Package 3 Pilot project. Available online at 
http://pprism.espo.be/ProjectResults.aspx 

PPRISM (2012): Work Package 4 Port Observatory and Port Performance Dashboard. 
Available online at http://pprism.espo.be/ProjectResults.aspx 

PwC (2013): The economic impact of small scale LNG. Available online at 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2013/09/0
2/the-economic-impact-of-small-scale-lng/310507-economic-impact-of-small-scale-
lng-stc.pdf, May 2013, checked on 19/04/2018. 

RCMS (2016): About RCMS. Available online at http://www.rcms-project.net/the-
project/, checked on 02/06/2016. 

Rodrigue, Dr. J.-P. (2010): Maritime transportation: drivers for the shipping and port 
industries. Available online at http://www.itf-
oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/10fp02.pdf, updated on 08/01/2016, checked on 
7/04/2016. 

Rodrigue, Dr. J.-P. (2016): Public and Private Roles in Port Management. Available 
online at 
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/tbl_public_privte_roles_ports
.html, updated on 01/01/2016, checked on 08/06/2016. 

Rødseth, Ø.; Burmeister, H. (2012): Developments toward the unmanned ship, 
updated on 19/07/2012, checked on 31/03/2016. 

Rolls-Royce (2015): Rolls-Royce to Lead Autonomous Ship Research Project. Available 
online at http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2015/pr-02-07-15-
rolls-royce-to-lead-autonomous-ship-research-project.aspx, updated on 2/07/2015, 
checked on 10/06/2016. 

Rolls-Royce (2016): Autonomous ships – The next step. Available online at 
http://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-
Royce/documents/customers/marine/ship-intel/rr-ship-intel-aawa-8pg.pdf, updated on 
19/04/2016, checked on 05/08/2016. 

Sail (2015): Factsheets hybrid shipping. Available online at http://www.nsrsail.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Factsheet-Brochure_SAIL_2015.pdf, updated in April 2015, 
checked on 22/12/2016. 

Sail (2015a): Roadmap for Sail Transport. Available online at 
http://www.nsrsail.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Roadmap-SAIL-Transport-WEB-
Bonduelle-WP4.pdf, updated in October 2015, checked on 22/12/2016. 

Sailing Cargo (2016): Redefining the understanding of maritime shipping. Available 
online at http://www.sailing-cargo.de/innovation/, checked on 5/08/2016. 

SARTRE (2013): Safe Road Trains for the Environment. Report on Fuel Consumption. 
Available online at http://www.sartre-
project.eu/en/publications/Documents/SARTRE_4_003_PU.pdf, updated on 
15/01/2013, checked on 24/06/2016. 

Seaport Group (2013): Financial Implications of Container Terminal Automation. 
Available online at http://www.seaport.com/files/8413/7643/5363/News_Q32013.pdf, 
checked on 23/06/2016. 

SmartPort (no date): Programmatische aanpak met concreet resultaat. Available 
online at http://smart-port.nl/programmatische-aanpak-met-concreet-resultaat/, 
checked on 14/04/2016. 

May 2019  I  168/196 

 
 
Spiegel (2016): VW will Umweltprobleme mit dem ersten modernen Segelfrachter der 
Welt umschiffen. Available online at http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/volkswagen-
will-umweltprobleme-mit-erstem-segelfrachter-der-welt-umschiffen-a-1088281.html, 
updated on 25/04/2016, checked on 22/12/2016. 

Sundström, Magnus (2015): STM Validation Project. Project Description. Available 
online at http://stmvalidation.eu/#about, updated on 7/04/2015, checked on 
5/04/2016. 

Tavasszy, Lóri; Behdani, Behzad; Konings, Rob (2015): Intermodality and 
Synchromodality. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2592888, updated on 
10/04/2015, checked on 3/02/2016. 

TECSON GmbH & Co KG (2016): Rohölpreise in jährlicher Entwicklung. Available 
online at http://www.tecson.de/oelweltmarkt.html, updated on 5/04/2016, checked on 
5/04/2016. 

TENtec (2015): TENtec Interactive Map Viewer, Available online at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-
portal/map/maps.html#&ui-state=dialog, updated in 2015, checked 21/12/2016. 

The World Bank Group (2001): What is Sustainable Development. Available online at 
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html, checked on 13/04/2016. 

Think Green (2016): Strategy for intermodal logistics. Available online at 
http://www.green-ten-t.eu/act-smart/strategy-for-intermodal-logistics/, checked on 
22/12/2016. 

Transport Research & Innovation Portal (no date a): EFFORTS - Effective Operation in 
Ports. Available online at http://www.transport-research.info/project/effective-
operation-ports, checked on 13/04/2016. 

Transport Research & Innovation Portal (no date b): FMCONTAINERS - Fast Moving 
Containers Caming Solutions. Available online at http://www.transport-
research.info/project/fast-moving-containers-caming-solutions, checked on 
12/04/2016. 

Transport Research & Innovation Portal (no date c): GREEN EFFORTS - Green and 
Effective Operations at Terminals and in Ports. Available online at 
http://www.transport-research.info/project/green-and-effective-operations-terminals-
and-ports, checked on 13/04/2016. 

Transport Research & Innovation Portal (no date d): RCMS - Rethinking Container 
Management Systems. Available online at http://www.transport-
research.info/project/rethinking-container-management-systems, checked on 
12/04/2016. 

Transport Research & Innovation Portal (no date e): SeagateSail - 20% fuel saving for 
commercial vessels through a hybrid wind plus motor cruise mode. Available online at 
http://www.transport-research.info/project/20-fuel-saving-commercial-vessels-
through-hybrid-wind-plus-motor-cruise-mode, checked on 26/04/2016. 

UK government (2016): Transport Act 1981. Available online at 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/56/contents, updated on 02/06/2016, 
checked on 10/06/2016. 

UNECE (no date): Blue Book database - Database of main standards and parameters 
of the E waterway network. Available online at 
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/sc3/bluebook_database.html, checked on 
27/05/2016.  

May 2019  I  169/196 

 
 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (1990): Port marketing and the 
challenge of the third generation port, checked on 7/04/2016. 

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE EUROPE: Map of the 
European Inland Waterway Network Geneva 2012 

Vessels for the Future (2014): The European Vessels for the Future Initiative. 
Executive Summary. Available online at 
http://www.vsm.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/882a774dbbdb325d37daf6279710a
5dc/the_european_vessels_for_the_future_initiative_executive_summary.pdf, updated 
on 19/08/2014, checked on 26/04/2016. 

Waterborne Technology Platform (2011): Strategic Research Agenda: Waterborne 
Transport & Operations Key for Europe's Development and Future. Implementation. 
Route Map Issue 2 - May 2011. Available online at http://www.waterborne-
tp.org/index.php/documents, updated on 31/05/2011, checked on 31/03/2016. 

Waterborne Technology Platform (2012): Vision 2025. Waterborne Transport & 
Operations Meeting the Challenges through Ambitious Innovation, updated on 
30/11/2012, checked on 31/03/2016. 

World Bank (2016): Global Economic Prospects: Divergences and Risks, Available 
online on http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects, 
checked on 30/08/2016. 

World Maritime News (2015): Helsinki and Tallinn Land EU Funds for TWIN-PORT II 
Project. Available online at http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/166405/helsinki-
and-tallinn-land-eu-funds-for-twin-port-ii-project/, updated on 13/07/2015, checked 
on 4/04/2016. 

World Maritime News (2018): Four Car Carriers Hit with USD 486 Mn Cartel Fine. 
Available online at https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/245170/four-car-carriers-
hit-with-usd-486-mn-cartel-fine/, updated on 21/02/2018, checked on 18/04/2018. 

Xinhua  (2016):  Cyprus  completes  Limassol  port  privatization  process  despite  strong 
opposition. 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-
03/25/c_135220872.htm, updated on 25/03/2016, checked on 10/06/2016. 

Available 

online 

at 

9.2.  Appendix C –Analysis of transport and logistics needs 

Market segments in IWT (Chapter 2) 

  Standard goods classification for transport statistics (Commission regulation (EC) 

No 1304/2007) by the European Commission, November 2007: 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Glossary:Standard_goods_classification_for_transport_sta
tistics_(NST) 

  Dutch study on market structures in IWT (Versterking van de markstructuur in 
de  binnenvaart,  een  inventarisatie  van  mogelijkheden  voor  commerciële 
samenwerkingsverbanden) by STC-Nestra and Maverick, March 2015: 

http://www.nestra.net/download/Rapport%20versterking%20marktstructuur%
20binnenvaart%20-%20commerciele%20samenwerkingsverbanden%20-
%20versie%205Maart15.pdf 

  Study  on  TEN-T  Core  Network  Corridor  Rhine-Alpine”  Final  Report,  December 

2014: 

May 2019  I  170/196 

 
 
 
 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-
guidelines/corridors/corridor-studies_en.htm 

  Market studies by VNF, e.g. Étude de trafic et évaluation socio-économique du 
projet de liaison fluviale Saône-Moselle. Saône-Rhin, analyse des filières céréales 
,by VNF, January 2012 : 

  Platina  2  (Naiades  II),  e.g.  WP1  D1.7:  report  on  market  transfer  conditions 

Market Analysis Danube Corridor, by Via Donau, November 2014 : 

http://www.naiades.info/repository/public/documents/Downloads/19_D1.7_Da
nube_Corridor_Market_analysis_2014.pdf 

  Dutch IDVV studies, e.g. Syntheserapport Systeemvernieuwing binnenvaart, by 

Panteia/NEA, DRIFT and the Erasmus University, October 2012: 

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0a
hUKEwic08iu8PjMAhXLORQKHdHZDKsQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.b
eterbenuttenvaarwegen.nl%2FRapporten%2Ben%2Bpublicaties%2FRP%2BEind
rapporten%2Fdownloads_getfilem.aspx%3Fid%3D438530&usg=AFQjCNFACqPc
o9LzF6LHGNKOfhaJmXVwSQ&sig2=ca0X9JjWSzTmsY0kMSd-yw 

  CCNR  market  observations,  e.g.  Inland  Navigation  in  Europe,  Market 

Observation, Quarterly report 2016 Q1, March 2016: 

http://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/om/om16_I_en.pdf 

  quandl.com, coal prices and charts, May 2016 

https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal 

Metallurgical industry (Chapter 3) 

  Metallurgy made in and for Europe, the perspective of producers and end-users, 

roadmap; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2014: 

https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/metallurgy-made-in-
and-for-europe_en.pdf 

  Environmental  risks  and  challenges  of  anthropogenic  metals  flows  and  cycles; 

United Nations Environment Programme, 2013: 

http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Environmental_Challe
nges_Metals-Full%20Report.pdf 

  United Nations Environment Programme , Metal recycling, opportunities, limits, 

infrastructure, 2013 

Metal recycling, opportunities, limits, infrastructure, United Nations Environment 
Programme 

  United  Nations  Environment  Programme,  Recycling  rates  of  metals,  a  status 

report, 2011: 

http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Metals_Recycling_Rat
es_110412-1.pdf 

  United  Nations  Environment  Programme,  Metal  stocks  in  society,  scientific 

synthesis, 2011;  

http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Metalstocksinsociety.
pdf 

May 2019  I  171/196 

 
 
 
  CCNR Inland Navigation in Europe, Market Observation, Quarterly report 2016 

Q1, March 2016: 

http://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/om/om16_I_en.pdf 

  CCNR Inland navigation in Europe, Market Observation 2014, September 2014: 

http://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/om/om14_en.pdf 

  World Steel Association, steel demand forecasts and top 10 steel using countries 

2015, April 2016: 

https://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/press-release-
downloads/2016/Short-Range-Outlook-Table-by-Region-2016-
2017/document/Short%20Range%20Outlook%20Table%20by%20Region%202
016-2017.pdf 

  OECD, Naoki Sekiguchi, Steel market developments, 2nd quarter 2015:  

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/1-Steel-market-developments-2015Q2.pdf 

  European  Parliament,  briefing:  understanding  waste  streams  –  treatment  of 

specific waste , July 2015 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-564398-Understanding-
waste-streams-FINAL.pdf 

  Naiades  II,  Platina  II  “how  to  attract  new  markets  in  the  Danube  region”, 

February 2015 

http://naiades.info/repository/public/documents/Meetings/2016-02-
05%20Final%20event/3_P2_final%20event_Danube%20Promising%20Markets
_Gvozdic.pdf 

 

JRC, Muchová L. and Eder P., End-of-waste criteria for iron and steel scrap. 2010 

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC58526.pdf 

  Eurofer, annual report 2016 

http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/PublicationsLinksList/201605-
AnnualReport.pdf 

  Eurostat data on materials flow accounts 

  BP, Statistical review of World Energy, 2009 

  Graedel, T.E. et al, What do we know about recycling rates, Journal of industrial 

Ecology, 2011 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00342.x/epdf  

 

infomine.com, steel raw materials investing – prices, mining, stocks and news, 
May 2016 

http://www.infomine.com/investment/steel/ 

Automotive industry (Chapter 4) 

  ACEA  (2016)  European  Automobile  Manufacturers'  Association:  Automobile 
Europe 

Assembly 
http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/european-production-plants-map  

Production 

Engine 

Plants 

and 

in 

May 2019  I  172/196 

 
 
 
  Bundesvereinigung  Logistik:  Automobillogistik.  Online  verfügbar  unter 
http://www.bvl.de/wissen/logistik-bereiche/automobillogistik,  zuletzt  geprüft 
am 09.06.2016. 

  CAR Uni Duisburg-Essen. „LOG.Kompass“ Duisburg Essen 

  European Automobile Manufacturers Association (2014): the automobile industry 
pocket  guide  2014–2015.  European  Automobile  Manifacturers  Association. 
Online 
http://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/new-
automobile-industry-pocket-guide-launched. 

verfügbar 

unter 

  Eurostat (2016d): EU Handel nach SITC seit 1988, 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do, checked 20.12.2016. 

  Göpfert, Ingrid; Braun, David; Schulz, Matthias (2013): Automobillogistik. Stand 

und Zukunftstrends. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. 

  Günthner, Willibald A. (2007): Neue Wege in der Automobillogistik. Die Vision 

der Supra-Adaptivität : mit 14 Tabellen. Berlin [u.a.]: Springer (VDI). 

  Christian Kille, Martin Schwemmer : Die TOP 100 der Logistik 2012 

  Marc 

Ryckaert:  MV 

Tønsberg, 

the 

largest 

car/truck 

carrier. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll-on/roll-
off#/media/File:MV_T%C3%B8nsberg_R01.jpg  

  Ultima Media / Anthony Coia: European ports:  Surviving SECAs and instability 
http://automotivelogistics.media/finished-vehicle-

16 
logistics/european-ports-surviving-secas-and-instability checked 20.12.2016. 

March 

2015 

Energy production (Coal, oil, gas) (Chapter 5) 

  BP (2016): BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2016, 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-
2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf, checked 
19.12.2016. 

  Coalmap (2016): Europe’s controversial coal fleet, 

http://www.coalmap.eu/downloads/European-coal-map-complete.pdf, checked 
16.12.2016. 

  Deloitte (2013), Winning in a downward market. Global coal study, 

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/mn/Documents/energy-
resources/Coal_WinDownMarketPrint2.pdf, checked 19.12.2016. 

  European Commission (2015): EU Energy in Figures, statistical pocketbook 

2015, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/PocketBook_ENERGY_
2015%20PDF%20final.pdf, checked 16.12.2016. 

  European Commission (2012): Energy roadmap 2050, 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2012_energy_roadma
p_2050_en_0.pdf, checked 16.12.2016. 

  European Commission (2013): EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions – 

Trends to 2050, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/media/publications/doc/tren
ds-to-2050-update-2013.pdf, checked 16.12.2016. 

May 2019  I  173/196 

 
 
 
  European Environment Agency (2016), Overview of the European energy 

system, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-
european-energy-system-3/assessment, checked 16.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016): Supply, transformation and consumption of solid fuels - 

annual data [nrg_101a], 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_101a&lang=en, 
checked 16.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016a): Supply, transformation and consumption of gas - annual 

data [nrg_103a], 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_103a&lang=en, 
checked 16.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016b): Oil pipeline transport within the national territory by type of 

transport operations and products (1 000 t) [pipe_go_ton], 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=pipe_go_ton&lang=
En-US, checked 16.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016c): Supply, transformation and consumption of oil - annual data 

[nrg_102a], 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_102a&lang=en, 
checked 16.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016d): EU Handel nach SITC seit 1988, 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do, checked 20.12.2016. 

  Eurostat (2016e): Importe - Gas - monatliche Daten, 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do, checked 
20.12.2016. 

  Gas in focus (2016): Existing and planned LNG terminals, 

http://www.gasinfocus.com/en/indicator/existing-and-planned-lng-terminals/, 
21.12.2016. 

  GIE (2015): LNG Map 2015, 

http://www.gie.eu/download/maps/2015/GIE_LNG_2015_A0_1189x841_FULL_
wINFOGRAPHICS_FINAL.pdf, checked 16.12.2015. 

  Global Energy Observatory (2016), Current list of oil ports transmission, 

http://globalenergyobservatory.org/list.php?db=Transmission&type=Oil_Ports, 
checked 16.12.2016. 

  Global Energy Observatory (2016a): Menu Driven Tool To Map Different Energy 

Systems And their Relationships, 
http://globalenergyobservatory.org/constructNetworkIndex.php?tgl=Lat, 
checked 16.12.2016. 

  Greenpeace (2016): Factsheet Sektorkopplung und Windgas, 

https://www.greenpeace-
energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/160620_Factsheet_Sektorkopplung_fi
nal.pdf, 21.12.2016. 

 

IEA (2015): World Energy Outlook Special Report – Energy and Climate 
Change, 
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015Special
ReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf, checked 16.12.2016. 

  Polito (2013): MILESECURE 2050, Del1.3 – Report on main trends in European 

energy policies, p. 62. 

May 2019  I  174/196 

 
 
  TENtec (2015): TENtec Interactive Map Viewer, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-
portal/map/maps.html#&ui-state=dialog, checked 21.12.2016. 

  World 

Coal 

Association 

(2016): 

Coal  market 

& 

pricing, 

https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-market-pricing, checked 16.12.2016. 

Petro-chemical and fertilizer industry (Chapter 6) 

  AFPM:  Petrochemicals  http://education.afpm.org/petrochemicals/  ,  checked 

22.06.2016 

  Appe - Association of Petrochemicals Producers in Europe: Refineries, Pipelines 

and Crackers: zoom on Benelux Region. 2004 

  CEFIC:  Chemical  Connections  -  How  Liberalized  Chemicals  Trade  Underpins 
Global 
http://www.chemanager-
online.com/en/topics/management/chemical-connections, checked 22.06.2016 

Chains. 

Value 

2015 

  Eurostat (2016d): EU Handel nach SITC seit 1988, 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do, checked 20.12.2016. 

 

ICIS: Worldwide Trade Flow Olefins 2014 

  HIS  2014:  Mark  A.  Eramo:  Global  Petrochemical  Market  Outlook  9th  Annual 

GPCA Forum 2014 

  Hussain  Assavapokee  Khumawala  2006:  Supply  Chain  Management  in  the 
Petroleum Industry. In International Journal of Global Logistics & Supply Chain 
Management. Vol. 1, No. 2, 1 November 2006, Page 90 – 97. 

  Roland Berger Strategy Consultants: Chemicals 2035 – Gearing up for growth. 

2015 

  Michael  Cordes:  Neue  Formeln  in  der  Chemielogistik.  Verkehrsrundschau 

50/2016 

  Petrochemicals Europe: Refineries am Steam cracker in EU-28. 2016  

  WPC  Guide  -  World  Petroleum  Council:Guide  Petrochemicals  and  Refining 

www.world-petroleum.org  

Agro (liquid and dry bulk) (Chapter 7) 

  Eurostat, population on 1st of January, 2016 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do;jsessionid=9ea7d07d3
0d8459e465a4b594905adbec311cdb166ce.e34MbxeSaxaSc40LbNiMbxeNaNaO
e0?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tps00001&language=en 

  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  (2015),  OECD-
Paris. 

Agricultural 

Publishing, 

FAO 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en  

Outlook 

2015, 

OECD 

  OECD/FAO (2015), “OECD-FAOAgricultural Outlook”, OECD Agriculture Statistics 

(database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr-outl-data-en  

  Girma Gebresenbet and Techane Bosona (2012). Logistics and Supply Chains in 
Agriculture  and  Food,  Pathways  to  Supply  Chain  Excellence,  Dr.  Ales  Groznik 
from: 
(Ed.), 

978-953-51-0367-7, 

Available 

InTech, 

ISBN: 

May 2019  I  175/196 

 
 
 
 
http://www.intechopen.com/books/pathways-to-supply-chain-
excellence/logistics-chains-in-food-andagriculture-sector  

  World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2014  – Trade and development 
from: 

trends 
of 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report14_e.pdf  

retrieved 

WTO, 

role 

and 

the 

the 

  Port of Rotterdam, https://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/lading-industrie/natte-

bulk/plantaardige-oli%C3%ABn-en-vetten  

  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  :  World  Agriculture: 
from: 
FAO 

towards 
perspective. 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.htm  

2015/2030, 

Retrieved 

An 

  Panteia/NEA,  Macro  analysis  of  the  market  potential  in  the  continental  cargo 

market, 2015 

  TNO, De kansen van continentaal synchromodaal vervoer, 2014 

  Reuters,  Food  importers  shift  from  dry  bulk  cargo  ships  to  containers 

http://www.reuters.com/article/agri-container-idUSL5N0LF3MZ20140214 

  Rodrigue, J.P. and Notteboom, T.E. The Containzerization of Commodities, The 
2013, 

Geopgraphy 
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/appl3en/ch3a2en.html  

Transport 

Systems, 

of 

  TNO, Kansen voor versterking Foodcluster MRA, 2013.  
  Voies Navigables de France, Schéma de Référence Portuaire du bassin du Rhin: 

Phase I - Draft Analyse filières agro-alimentaire 

  Eurostat 

  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

  ETISplus 

Construction materials (Chapter 8) 

  European  Aggregates  Association  (UEPG  2015):  Annual  Review  2014-2015. 
Available  online  at  http://www.uepg.eu/uploads/Modules/Publications/uepg-
ar2014-2015_210x297mm_v18_pbp_small.pdf, checked on 25/06/2016. 

  European  Aggregates  Association  (UEPG  2015):  2020  Vision  for  a  sustainable 
at 

aggregates 
http://www.uepg.eu/uploads/Modules/Publications/15-03-10-uepg_vision-
brochure.pdf, checked on 25/06/2016. 

Available 

industry. 

online 

  French Aggregates Association (UNPG 2006): Aggregates: Geology, Industry and 
at 

Environment. 
http://www.unpg.fr/downloadfile.php?file=/UNPG/BIBLIOTHEQUE/Les%20gran
ulats%20_%20geologie%20industrie%20environnement/UNPG_Granulats%20
g%C3%A9ologie_industrie_environnement-Nov%202014_BD.pdf,  checked  on 
25/06/2016. 

Available 

online 

Consumer electronics (Chapter 9) 

  Comext 

dataset, 

2015, 

retrieved 

from: 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb/submitdimselect.do  

  Ecommerce Europe,  

May 2019  I  176/196 

 
 
 
 
  Eurostat, 2015, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database  

  TNO, Internaliseren van externe kosten in het goederenvervoer, 2012 

  TNO, De kansen van continentaal synchromodaal vervoer, 2014 

  United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Organization,  World  Manufacturing 

Report. Statistics for quarter 4, 2012, 2012. 

Perishable products (Chapter 10) 

  Comext 

dataset, 

2015, 

retrieved 

from: 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb/submitdimselect.do  

  Eurostat, 2015, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database  

  TNO, De kansen van continentaal synchromodaal vervoer, 2014 

  OECD/FAO (2015), “OECD-FAOAgricultural Outlook”, OECD Agriculture Statistics 

(database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr-outl-data-en 

  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  (2015),  OECD-
Paris. 

Agricultural 

Publishing, 

OECD 

FAO 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en 

Outlook 

2015, 

  Bureau voorlichting binnenvaart, Intermodal Transport from a Dutch Perspective, 
from: 

retrieved 

2008, 
http://www.bureauvoorlichtingbinnenvaart.nl/assets/files/def-
boekje%20intermodal.pdf  

  Wageningen  University,  Containerization  and  Conditioning  in  Flower  and  Plant 
from: 

Chains, 
http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/d/6/4/23b60957-dbe3-4fe4-9d87-
8200d486b093_CoCoS_final_UK.pdf  

retrieved 

2010, 

  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  (2015),  OECD-
Paris. 

Agricultural 

Publishing, 

FAO 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en  

Outlook 

2015, 

OECD 

May 2019  I  177/196 

 
 
 
 
 
9.3.  Appendix  C  –  Assessment  of  existing  waterborne  industrial 

development and clustering strategies 

  European Commission, North Sea-Mediterranean Core Network Corridor Study, 

2014 

  Overeenkomst Luchtkwaliteit Maasvlakte II 

https://www.maasvlakte2.com/kennisbank/2008-
05%20Overeenkomst%20Lucht.pdf 2008 

  LNG Masterplan for Rhine-Main-Danube, sub-activity 1.1, D 1.1.1 Status quo 

Analysis & Trends – LNG Framework and Market Analysis for the Rhine-Corridor, 
European Commission, 2014 

  Directive 2006/87/EC, retrieved from: http://ccr-

zkr.org/files/introductionRVBR/2006-87CE_en.pdf 2006 

  http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/

Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx 

  Directive 2012/33/EU, retrieved from : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0033&from=EN  
  National Strategy for Sea and Inland Ports, Germany, ???, 2015 
  Revised MARPOL Annex VI 
  All Corridor studies 
  Notteboom, T., Delhaye, E. & Vanherle, K., Analysis of the consequences of Low 
Sulphur Fuel Requirements, European Community Shipowners’ Association 
(ECSA), 2010 

  NAIADES II database 
  Romania General Transport Master Plan, preliminary report, 2013 
  Warwick, K. and Nolan, A. (2014), Evaluation of Industrial Policy: Methodological 
Issues and Policy Lessons,  OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy 
Papers No. 16, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz181jh0j5k-en  

  Corbett, J. et al (2016), Environmental Policy and Technological Innovation in 
Shipbuilding, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 28, 
Publishing Paris http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm25wg57svj-en  

  Kennis- & Innovatieagenda Agri & Food, http://topsectoren.nl/documenten/agri-

food/Kernpunten-KIA-Agri-Food-2016-2019_2015-10-05_249.pdf  

  Kennis- & Innovatieagenda Energie 

http://topsectoren.nl/documenten/energie/Kernpunten-KIA-Energie-2016-
2019_2015-10-05_246.pdf 

  Kennis & Innovatieagenda Logistiek 

http://topsectoren.nl/documenten/logistiek/Kernpunten-KIA-Logistiek-2016-
2019_2015-10-05_243.pdf 

  Kennis & Innovatieagenda Tuinbouw 

http://topsectoren.nl/documenten/tuinbouw/Kernpunten-KIA-T-U-2016-
2019_2015-10-05_242.pdf 
  Kennis & Innovatieagenda Water 

http://topsectoren.nl/documenten/water/Kernpunten-KIA-Water-2016-
2019_2015-10-05_241.pdf  

May 2019  I  178/196 

 
 
 
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/579083/EPRS_BRI

(2016)579083_EN.pdf 

  European Commission (2008): Towards an integrated European railway area. 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. 

  European Commission (2011c): Summary of the Impact Assessment - 

Accompanying document to the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European 
Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system 
(SEC(2011) 358 final, SEC(2011) 391 final, COM (2011) 144 final 

  Roland Berger (2011): Executive Radar 2011. European Rail Industry, Survey 
  ASSIST Deliverable 2.1: Assessment of the Social and Economic Impacts of 
Transport Policy Measures, Fact Sheet 13, 24, 26, 58 (Kritzinger et al., 2013) 

  European Commission (2005): Communication from the Commission to the 

European parliament and the council on the deployment of the European rail 
signalling system ERTMS/ETCS. COM(2005)298 final 

  European Commission (2010): Accompanying document to the Proposal - 

Establishing a single European railway area, SEC(2010) 1042 final, Brussels 

  PwC (2013): Impact assessment on: "Measures to enhance the efficiency and 

quality of port services in the EU", Final Report 

  European Commission (2008): Final Report for the "Study on Administrative and 

Regulatory Barriers in the field of Inland Waterway Transport" - Part A 

  http://www.tmleuven.be/project/corridor2/home.htm  
  REORTIENT project D5.1: Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Interoperability 
and Seamless Service Provision in the REORIENT Corridor - 2007 (not a public 
report) 

  http://www.tmleuven.be/project/efreight/index.htm  
  Masterplan 2020, 30 maart 2010,  

https://assetsbeta.antwerpen.be/srv/assets/api/download/710fdc20-264c-
44c9-9434-136ec43dfd71/Masterplan_2020.pdf  
  Betere samenwerking tussen Belgische zeehavens, 

 

http://www.flanderslogistics.be/fpa/2013-04-18-samenwerkingstekst.pdf  
Invoering kilometerheffing voor vrachtwagens in België, per 1 April 2016 
http://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/mobiliteit-en-openbare-
werken/voertuigen/kilometerheffing-voor-vrachtwagens  

  Strategisch HavenInfrastructuurPlan (SHIP) voor de haven van Zeebrugge, 

http://www.portofzeebrugge.be/nl/node/37  

  Portail du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, Grand-Duche de 

Luxembourg, http://www.developpement-durable-
infrastructures.public.lu/fr/transports/index.html  

  http://www.oecd.org/futures/infrastructureto2030/48368193.pdf  
  http://www.collectivites-locales.gouv.fr/transfert-des-ports-maritimes  
  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-955_en.htm?locale=en  
  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/01/paris-french-retailer-franpix-
delivers-goods-by-boat-river-seine-transport-water-future-urban-logistics  
"Page 41 of OCDE report ""Compétitivité des villes portuaires"": 

 
  http://www.ccimp.com/sites/default/files/competitivite_villes_portuaires_0.pdf  
  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxe_professionnelle#R.C3.A9forme_de_2007  

May 2019  I  179/196 

 
 
  http://www.lantenne.com/Autoliquidation-de-la-TVA-a-l-importation-copie-a-revoir-

_a29412.html  

  https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/transpordi_arengukava.pdf  
  Corridor study North Sea - Baltic TEN-T network 
  http://www.vta.ee/uhtekuuluvusfond/  
  https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/vaikesadamate_kontseptsioon_2014-

2020_29_1_2014.pdf  

  https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/merenduspoliitika.pdf  
  http://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/public/juurkataloog/KALAMAJANDUS/EKS/20

14-2020/strateegia-eks-2014.pdf  
  http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=57435  
  http://www.ventspils.lv/files/dokumenti/attistibasprogramma/ventspils_attistibas_pr

ogramma_2020_27_12_2013.pdf  

  http://www.rop.lv/en/multimedia/downloads/doc_download/59-freeport-of-riga-

development-program-2009-2018.html  

  http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/Rigas_ilgtermina_attistibas_strategija_2025.g.pdf  

  http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/api/file/file50126.pdf  
  http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ENG_STRATEGIJA.pdf  
  http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/api/file/file16857.pdf  
  http://www.varam.gov.lv/in_site/tools/download.php?file=files/text/att_planosanas_

dok/RPD_2013_2019_Informativa_dala.pdf  

  http://varam.gov.lv/in_site/tools/download.php?file=files/text/Finansu_instrumenti/E

TS//ETS_programma_CB.pdf  

  http://www.liepaja.lv/upload/Bizness/Attistiba/pilsetas/lsez_attist_plans_2008-

2017.pdf  

  https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.F4AB9539E95E/NiSrcFpOeW  
  http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=467460&p_tr2=2  
  https://sumin.lrv.lt/lt/administracine-informacija/nacionaline-susisiekimo-pletros-

2014-2022-metu-programa  

  http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=467460&p_tr2=2  
  https://sumin.lrv.lt/uploads/sumin/documents/files/Teisine_informacija/Tyrimai_ir_a

nalizes/20110215%20ITS%20Studija%20final%20v6.pdf  

  https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.6E04849BD4B2/AYhtjEzauT  
  https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/599431b086be11e481c9c95e73113964  
  http://www.sam.gov.lv/images/modules/items/PDF/item_5347_Latvijas_ostu_attisti

bas_programma_final_25052015.pdf  

  http://www.sam.gov.lv/images/modules/items/PDF/item_4174_SAMpamn_030713

_transp.1pdf.pdf  

  https://eesti2030.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/estonia-2030.pdf  
  http://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/meetmekava-konsolideeritud-vers-

20160506.pdf  

  http://www.envir.ee/et/eesmargid-

tegevused/vesi/veemajanduskavad/veemajanduskavad-2015-2021  

May 2019  I  180/196 

 
 
  http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-

content/uploads/2014/11/RTP_Paskaidrojuma_raksts_ar_grozijumiem.pdf  
  http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ENG_STRATEGIJA.pdf  
  https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/lv/lv-nbsap-v3-lv.pdf  
  http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=467460&p_tr2=2  
  PITVI (2012-2024) 
  http://www.cimalsa.cat/index_en.htm  
 

"ESTRATÉGIA DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PARA O CRESCIMENTO E O 
EMPREGO 2014-2020" 

  PETI3+ 
 

"PROGRAMMA OPERATIVO NAZIONALE INFRASTRUTTURE E RETI 2014-
2020" 

  Strategie per le infrastrutture di trasporto e logistica, 2016\ 
  http://www.mdcr.cz/NR/rdonlyres/6771FC27-DCCC-4B72-BD0E-
3EF7E6118704/0/Dopravnipolitika20142020schvalena.pdf  

  http://www.dopravnistrategie.cz/images/projekt/ke-

stazeni/DSS2_SouhrnnyDokument.pdf  

  http://www.rvccr.cz/strategicke-zamery-a-stavby/zlepseni-splavnosti-dolni-

labe/plavebni-stupen-decin  

  http://www.rvccr.cz/strategicke-zamery-a-stavby/splavneni-labe-do-pardubic  
  http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1995-222  
  http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1995-114  
  http://www.mzp.cz/www/platnalegislativa.nsf/20F9C15060CAD3AEC1256AE3003

8D05C/%24file/z%C3%A1kon%20%C4%8D.%20254-2001%20Sb.pdf  

  https://eibip.eu/funding/mode-shift-revenue-support-msrs-bulk-and-waterways/  
  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393

1/national-policy-statement-ports.pdf  page 13 

  http://www.zerovisiontool.com/sites/www.zerovisiontool.com/files/attachments/swe

dishshippingactionplan.pdf  

  http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2014/20140146  
  http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2003/20030038  
  https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2014/20141248  
  https://www.vero.fi/fi-

FI/Syventavat_veroohjeet/Elinkeinoverotus/Uudistettu_tonnistoverolaki  

  http://tem.fi/lng-terminaalien-investointituki  
  http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2007/20071277  
  www.lvm.fi/lvm-mahti-portlet/download?did=153570  
  http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2012/20120502  
  http://tem.fi/documents/1410877/2768022/Yritystukiselvitys/ef9c63be-cf6a-44ed-

88d4-cb7641365f55  

  http://www.tulli.fi/fi/suomen_tulli/julkaisut_ja_esitteet/asiakasohjeet/valmisteverotus

/tiedostot/021.pdf  

  http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1994/19941472  

May 2019  I  181/196 

 
 
9.4.  Appendix C – Circular economy in sea ports, inland ports and 

inland waterway transport 

City. 

from: 

Smart 

(2017). 

retrieved 

Agency for innovation and entrepreneurship. (2017). Subsidiegids voor de ondernemer.  
Amsterdam Economic Board. (2017). Circular Economy. Amsterdam. 
Amsterdam 
https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/network/amsterdam-smart-city  
Arcadis.  (2014).  Inventarisatie  van  rest-  en  nevenstromen  in  de  Gentse  Kanaalzone, 
evaluatie valorisatiepotentieel en visualisatie potentiële verbindingen. Ghent. 
Aurez V., Tan A., Deboutière A., Carré L., Schnebelen N., (2015), L’économie circulaire, 
une trajectoire clé pour la lutte contre le dérèglement climatique.  
Aurez,  Vincent,  Georgeault,  Laurent.,  Economie  circulaire,  Système  économique  et 
finitude des ressources, DeBoeck Supérieur, 2016 
Bernard S., Claire A., Vergne G., Warin T., (2014), Un état des lieux sur le commerce 
international des déchets. Cirano.  
Bernard  S.,  Dussaux  D.,  Fodha  M.,  Glachant.  (2012)  Le  commerce  international  des 
déchets. Paris : Repères.  
Carré  L.,  Enckell  C.,  (2015),  Faire  évoluer  le  statut  de  déchet  pour  promouvoir 
l’économie circulaire. L’Iinstitut de l’économie circulaire.  
Cerceau,  Juliette,  Nicolas  Mat,  et  Yann  Alix,  (2015).  Economie  circulaire  et  systèmes 
industrialo-portuaires.  EMS  Management  &  Société.  Les  Océanides  and  Fondation 
Sefacil. 
Cerceau,  Juliette,  Nicolas  Mat,  Guillaume  Junqua,  Liming  Lin,  Valérie  Laforest,  et 
Catherine  Gonzalez,  (2014).  « Implementing  Industrial  Ecology  in  Port  Cities: 
International Overview of Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis ». Journal of Cleaner 
Production 74 : 1-16.  
Cerceau,  Juliette  (2013).  « L’écologie  industrielle  comme  processus  de  construction 
territoriale: application aux espaces portuaires ». Saint-Etienne, EMSE.  
Clean  Capital. 
http://www.cleancapital.nl/event/amsterdam-circular-challenge/  
Cleantech Cluster Regio Gent. (2016). Van lineair naar circulair. Ghent'. 
Club  Territoires  Maritimes  de  la  Fédération  Nationale  Territoires  Maritimes  de  la 
Fédération  Nationale  des  Agences  d’Urbanisme  (2015)  Meeting  minutes  from  the 
workshop :  “Industrial  port  territories  at  the  heart  of  the  transition  to  a  circular 
economy «  / « Les territoires industrialo-portuaires au cœur de la transition vers une 
économie circulaire ».  
European Commission (2006), Directive 2006/12/EC of the European parliament and of 
the council on waste, 
European  Commission  (2008),  Directive  2008/98/CE  du  parlement  européen  et  du 
conseil relative aux déchets et abrogeant certaines directives.  
European  Commission  (2012).  Use  of  economic  instruments  and  waste  management 
Performances.  
European Commission (2018), Communication from the  Commission to the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  economic  and  social  committee  and  the 
committee  of  the  regions  on  a  monitoring  framework  for  the  circular  economy,  16th 
January 2018 
European 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/about/overview/what-we-do  
European Commission. (2016). Study on support measures for the implementation of 
the TEN-T core network related to sea ports, inland ports and inland waterway transport.  
European Environment Agency (2008), Transboundary Shipments of Waste in the EU: 
Developments 1995-2005 and Possible Drivers 
European  Environment  Agency  (2012),  Movements  of  waste  across  the  EU’s  internal 
and external borders. Retrieved from 

(2017).  Amsterdam  Circular  Challenge.  Retrieved 

Commission 

Retrieved 

Eurostat. 

from:  

About 

(n.d), 

from: 

May 2019  I  182/196 

 
 
 
. 

is 

is 

is 

of 

en 

Port 

cool. 

from:  

from:  

from: 

cijfers. 

Heating 

biobased 

Retrieved 

Retrieved 

economy? 

Amsterdam. 

(2017).  What 

(2017).  Transition 

to  a  circular  economy.  Retrieved 

Ezzat, Ahmed Mohamed (2016), « Sustainable Development of Seaport Cities through 
Circular  Economy:  A  Comparative  Study  with  Implications  to  Suez  Canal  Corridor 
Project ». European Journal of Sustainable Development 5, no 4 : 509–522. 
Ezzat, Ahmed Mohamed. “Sustainable Development of Seaport Cities through Circular 
Economy:  A  Comparative  Study  with  Implications  to  Suez  Canal  Corridor  Project.” 
European Journal of Sustainable Development 5, no. 4 (2016): 509–22. 
FBBV. 
a 
http://www.fbbv.be/en/what-is-a-biobased-economy  
(2016). 
Feiten 
https://www.portofamsterdam.com/sites/poa/files/media/pdf-
nl/cijferboekje_2016_nl_digitaal.pdf  
Ghent Port Company. (2013). PERS: Environmental report 2013. Ghent. 
Government.  (2017).  National  Agreement  of  the  Circular  Economy.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/documents/discussion-
documents/2017/01/24/national-agreement-on-the-circular-economy  
Government.  (2017).  Retrieved  from:  https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-
economy/from-a-linear-to-a-circular-economy  
Government. 
https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/transition-to-a-circular-economy  
Government.  (2017,  01  25).  National  Raw  Materials  Agreement.  Retrieved  from:  
https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/news/2017/01/25/more-than-
180-signatories-for-the-national-raw-materials-agreement  
Heating 
cool 
(2017). 
http://warmteiscool.nl/warmtenetten-en/  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/fi nal_report_10042012.pdf  
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0009:0021:en:PDF   
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:FR:PDF  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/movements-of-waste-EU-2012  
MacArthur,  E. 
volume  3 
economy: 
accelaratingaccelerating  the  scale-up  across  global  supply  chains.  Ellen  MacArthur 
Foundation. 
Mat,  Nicolas,  Juliette  Cerceau,  Lei  Shi,  Hung-Suck  Park,  Guillaume  Junqua,  et  Miguel 
Lopez-Ferber  (2015),  « Socio-Ecological  Transitions  toward  Low-Carbon  Port  Cities: 
Trends,  Changes  and  Adaptation  Processes  in  Asia  and  Europe ».  Journal  of  Cleaner 
Production 
Merk, O., & Notteboom, T. (2013). The Competitiveness of Global-Port Cities: the Case 
of  Rotterdam,  Amsterdam-  The  Netherlands  .  OECD  Regional  Development  Working 
Papers. 
Municipality Amsterdam. (2015). Amsterdam Circulair, een visie en routekaart voor de 
stad  en  regio.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-
beleid/agenda-duurzaamheid/circulaire-economie/  
Municipality Amsterdam. (2015). Amsterdam Circulair, een visie en routekaart voor de 
stad  en  regio.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-
beleid/agenda-duurzaamheid/circulaire-economie/  
Municipality  Amsterdam.  (2017).  Circulair  innovatie  programma  2016-2018  met  een 
doorkijk 
https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-
from: 
organisatie/volg-beleid/agenda-duurzaamheid/circulaire-economie/  
Municipality of Ghent. (2014). Gents Klimaatplan 2014-2019. Ghent. 
Notteboom,  Theo  E.,  et  Peter  W.  de  Langen  (2015).  « Container  Port  Competition  in 
Europe ». In Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics, 75–95. Springer.  
NZKG. 
https://www.noordzeekanaalgebied.nl/wp-

Noordzeekanaalgebied 

2025.  Retrieved 

cirularcircular 

Retrieved 

Retrieved 

Towards 

(2014). 

(2013). 

2040. 

from: 

from: 

Visie 

naar 

a 

May 2019  I  183/196 

 
 
and 

of  Ghent. 

commodities.  Retrieved 

ccontent/uploads/2014/11/Downloads_downloadFile_66dc4f1d6e57f7ca47561a0517bd
4913.pdf  
Okadene  Hollins,  PwC,  ICEDD.  (2016).  Circulaire  economie:  economisch  potentieel in 
België. Gent. 
Wang,  L.  (2014)  The  Exploration  of  Port  Industry  Ecological  Development  under  the 
Background of Low Carbon. International Journal of Academic Research in Management 
(IJARM) Vol. 3, No. 1, 2014, Page: 38-50. 
Port of Amsterdam. (2014). Visie 2030 - Port of Partnerships. Amsterdam. 
Port  of  Amsterdam.  (2017).  Amsterdam  ready  for  the  Bio  based  economy.  Retrieved 
from: 
https://www.portofamsterdam.com/sites/poa/files/media/pdf-
en/booklet_biobased.pdf  
Port of Ghent. (2010). Strategisch plan 2010-2020 Port of Ghent. Ghent. 
Port of Ghent. (2016). Annual report 2016. Ghent. 
Port  of  Ghent.  (2016).  Het  Kluizendok  zit  volop  in  ontwikkeling.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.havengent.be/nieuwsdetail/5880/het-kluizendok-zit-volop-in-
ontwikkeling  
Port 
(2017).  Activities 
https://www.portofghent.be/Activities%20and%20commodities  
Port  of  Ghent.  (2017).  Companies  on  a  world  and  European  level.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.portofghent.be/World%20and%20European%20level  
Port  of  Ghent.  (2017).  Economic 
https://www.portofghent.be/Economic%20importance  
Port of Ghent. (2017, April 28). Seminarie afvalmobiliteit - logistieke opportuniteiten in 
de 
from: 
https://go4circle.be/sites/default/files/u12727/20170428_afvalmobiliteit.pdf  
Port of the month. (2014, April). Retrieved from Espo: https://www.espo.be/news/port-
of-the-month-port-of-amsterdam-port-of-partne  
Project Gentse Kanaalzone. (2016). Jaarverslag 2015 en Jaarprogramma 2016. Gent. 
Province Noord Holland. (2017). Actieagenda circulaire economie 2017-2020. Retrieved 
https://www.noord-
from 
holland.nl/Onderwerpen/Economie_Werk/Duurzame_economie  
Province  Noord  Holland. 
(2017).  Duurzame 
https://www.noord-holland.nl/Onderwerpen/Economie_Werk/Duurzame_economie  
Provincie  Noordholland.  (2017).  Ruimtelijk-Economische  Verkenning  -  De  Circularie 
Westas. Amsterdam. 
Rijkswaterstaat (2016), Basisbestand binnenvaart. (n.d.). 
RVO. 
regelingen/mia-en-vamil  
Van Waveren, A. (2017). De duurzame haven. Amsterdam: Port of Amsterdam. 
Vlaams  Parlement.  (2015).  Bevordering  van  een  duurzame  circulaire  economie  in 
Vlaanderen. Brussels. 
Vlaanderen. (2016). Regels voor sortering en ophaling van afval bij bedrijven. Retrieved 
from:  https://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/natuur-en-milieu/afval/regels-voor-sortering-en-
ophaling-van-afval-bij-bedrijven  

(2017).  MIA  en  Vamil.  Retrieved 

importance  of  the  port.  Retrieved 

from  https://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-

economie.  Retrieved 

Retrieved 

recycling 

sector. 

from: 

from: 

from 

May 2019  I  184/196 

 
 
 
10. 

Appendix D – List of interviews with ports and 

inland waterway infrastructure managers 

List of ports 

Rotterdam 
Antwerp 
Koper 
Hamburg 
Riga 
Le Havre 
Barcelona 
Gdansk 
Marseille 

Constantza 

Calais 
Malta 
Goterborg 
Bremerhaven 
Ports of Szczecin & Świnoujście Authority 

inland 

inland  ports  or 

List  of 
waterway infrastructure managers 
Zeeland Seaports 
WenZ 
Voies Navigables de France 
Port of Enns 
Port of Giurgiu 
Port of Paris 
Port of Rousse 
Reditelstvi vodnich cest CZ, Povodi Labe 
Slovenský vodohospodársky podnik 
Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland 
Waterways of Poland 

May 2019  I  185/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. 

Appendix E – Summary of the final proposition 

of screened policy measures 

Screening of the policy measures and drawing up a shortlist of potentially valid 
options for further analysis 
Based  on  a  complete  list  of  options  for  intervention,  the  screening  process  aimed  at 
defining a shortlist of valid policy measures. 
The criteria according to which policy measures have been screened are: 

  Effectiveness  (the  extent  to  which  options  can  be  expected  to  achieve  the 

objectives); 

  Efficiency  (the  extent  to  which  objectives  can  be  achieved  for  a  given  level  of 

resources); 

  Consistency (the extent to which options do not generate trade-offs across the 

economic and social domain);  

  Coherence  (the  extent  to  which  the  options  are  coherent  with  EU  transport 

policy). 

This analysis has been carried out for each of the overall objective defined by DG MOVE 
which will be used for the scenarios:  

  Digitalization. 
  Multimodality.  
  Environment. 

Moreover,  the  measures  have  been  classified  into  3  categories  as  requested  by  DG 
Move: 
- 

“Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport”: measures that promote or improve 
both modes of transport 
“Maritime transport”: measures that promote maritime transport 
“Inland Waterway Transport”: measures that promote inland waterway transport 

- 
- 

The summary of the final proposition of policy measures is presented here below. The 
columns “Digitalization”, “Multimodality” and “Environment” refers to the evaluation the 
respective  scenario  in  respect  to  each  one  of  the  4  criteria  mentioned  above.  The 
evaluation code presented are: 

  Code 1 refers to “it is not”. 
  Code 2 refers to “it is”. 
  Code 3 refers to “certainly, it is”. 

The following measures have been added to the list as it is tackling several obstacles:  

 

 

“Support the uptake of innovation for vessels in waterborne transport, especially 
inland waterway” and 
“Share of best practices for all kind of obstacles identified”. 

May 2019  I  186/196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 54: 

Summary of the final proposition of screened policy measures 

(in grey: measures not selected) 

Measure 
code 

Description 

Category  Digitalization  Multimodality  Environment 

Obstacle:  All 

0.1 

of 

to 

the 
Financial  support 
uptake 
innovation: 
blending  calls  or  blending 
facilities at EU level, grants or 
similar  mechanisms 
at 
national or local level.   

0.2 

Share of best practices for all 
kind of obstacles identified. 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

Obstacle:  Lack of infrastructure developments & maintenance 

I.1 

Development  of  massified 
including 
infrastructures 
multimodal 
platforms 
(improve  the  inland  ports' 
the 
accessibility, 
massification, 
and 
multimodal 
platforms, 
improve  the  draught  of  IWW 
to  enable  a  continuous  and 
reliable IWT). 

foster 
OFP 

I.2 

Acceleration  of  TEN  -  T 
implementation. 

clearance 

information 

Development of maritime and 
river 
system 
(better information about the 
depth/ 
of 
waterways,  better  use  of  the 
length  of  waterways  and 
locks,  better  information  of 
real 
cargos' 
routes, etc). 

traffic 

time 

Improvements 
in  ports  & 
terminals (automation, better 
use of ICT, smart port...). 

I.3 

I.4 

I.5 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 3 

May 2019  I  187/196 

 
 
 
  
  
  
C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

I.6 

I.7 

the 

Encourage  ports  to  innovate 
in 
infrastructure 
supporting  new  vessels  that 
are  more 
and 
efficient 
environmental friendly. 

Adapt  CEF  calls  according  to 
port needs, which means that 
there  should  be  multiple 
multi-annual calls. 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
Transport 

for 

life-cycle 
Adopt  a  whole 
infrastructure 
approach 
maintenance  at  national  and 
local  level  in  order  to  have 
good  maintenance  at 
the 
good cost. 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Obstacle:  Lack of qualified IWT staff 

II.1 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

programs 

Training 
on 
multimodality,  maritime  and 
waterway 
inland 
transportation 
complement 
based  on  a  recognition  of 
professional qualifications and 
competence 
minimum 
including 
requirements 
examination  standards 
for 
educational 
training 
and 
following 
institutes 
recommendations 
of 
European Parliament directive 
on 
of 
professional  qualifications  in 
and 
inland 
repealing  (Council  Directive 
91/672/EEC 
and  Council 
Directive 96/50/EC). 

recognition 

navigation 

the 

C 

Obstacle:  Lack of collaboration / coordination of the different stakeholders 

III.1 

Action  plan 
for  container 
network:  maintaining  and 
terminals 
inland 
updating 
database,  gauging  capacity 
monitoring 
needs 
network 
proposals 
changes, 
issues 
regarding  sea  port  terminals 
such  as  waiting  times  and 
performance indicators. 

for 
address 

and 

III.2 

A broader and more accurate 
data base concerning waste. 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 1 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 1 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 1 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 2 

May 2019  I  188/196 

 
 
III.3 

Support  to  the  short  sea 
inland  waterway 
shipping 
promotion  center 
(to  be 
coordinated with MoS DIP). 

Maritime 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

III.4 

Development  of  multimodal 
traffic  management 
and 
information systems. 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

III.5 

Improvement  of  coordination 
in the container chain in order 
to  promote  the  development 
of 
synchromodality: 
-  Development  of  bundling  & 
unbundling 
to 
in 
prepare  shipments  for  IWT. 
-  Coordination  between  all 
stakeholders  to  propose  a 
seamless 
optimized 
and 
logistic chain. 

order 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 3 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

Obstacle:  Progressive loss of its environment-friendly image & compliance with more stringent 

standards on environment 

IV.1 

Internalization  of  external 
costs for all transport modes.. 

IV.2 

Setting  up  ambitious  targets 
for recycling. 

IV.3 

IV.4 

Encourage port authorities to 
include targets for rail & IWT 
modal share in their contacts 
with terminal operators. 

the 

(ban 
Greening 
polluting vessels and greening 
fund and financing). 

fleet 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

IV.5 

vessel 

New 
design: 
completely electric vessels or 
using clean alternative fuels. 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 1 

May 2019  I  189/196 

 
 
IV.6 

port 
Implementing 
in 
environmental 
order 
cleaner 
to  attract 
vessels and reduce emissions 
in the port-city area. 

charges 

Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
transport 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

Obstacle:  Market accessibility for waterborne transport 

V.1 

V.2 

Promotion 
industrial 
of 
clustering  strategies  next  to 
waterborne transport. 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

New  vessel  design  (such  as 
specific  ships  able  to  handle 
palletized goods). 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

Obstacle:  Competitiveness  and  environmental  performance  of  inland  waterborne  transport 

against other modes 

VI.1 

VI.2 

VI.3 

a 

Promotion of the development 
of 
sustainable  urban 
logistics  through  the  use  of 
IWT:    preservation  of  the 
infrastructure 
the  city, 
development  of  new  vessels, 
development  of  multimodal 
logistic  hubs  next  to  inland 
waterway in the suburb… 

in 

pallet  wide 

Support  the  development  of 
the 
(45ft) 
containers for a cost effective 
modal  shift.  Adapt  the  rules 
on 
& 
operation. 

vessels 

design 

of 

vessel 

design: 
New 
deployment 
energy 
efficient  vehicles  (decrease 
energy  demand  through  new 
engines, material and design, 
automated vessels). 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

Obstacle:  Administrative burden for waterborne transport 

VII.1 

More consistency in admission 
policy 
the 
for  exemption 
applications 

(definition  of 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C1 : 2 

C2 : 2 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

May 2019  I  190/196 

 
 
C3 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C3 : 1 

VII.2 

VII.3 

respect  of  allowing 
than 

with 
vessels  of  a 
larger 
permitted dimensions). 

Waterway 
Transport 

Maritime 
Transport 

shops 

coordination 
Facilitate 
between  authorities  boarding 
the  ship  leading  to  one-stop 
administrative 
(or 
'single  windows')  for  traders, 
who would then have to deal 
with  just  one  administrative 
body instead of three or four 
at  present,  according  to  the 
the 
communication 
commission  to  the  European 
parliament  on  Short  Sea 
Shipping. 

from 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

the 
of 
Facilitation 
transportation 
of  wastes 
within  EU  and  outside  to 
promote  the  development  of 
circular  economy  (status  of 
flows  and 
waste,  e-waste 
trade, …). 

Maritime 
and 
Inland 
Waterway 
Transport 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

C4 : 2 

C1 : 1 

C2 : 1 

C3 : 1 

C4 : 3 

C1 : 3 

C2 : 3 

C3 : 2 

C4 : 3 

May 2019  I  191/196 

 
 
 
 
12. 

Appendix F – Socioeconomic data for 2030 

Table 55: 

Evolution of GDP 2010 – 2030 

Code 

Country 

AT 
BE 
DE 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
NL 
PT 
SE 

UK 

BG 
CY 

CZ 

EE 
HR 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 

Austria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Denmark 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

EU15 

Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Estonia 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Malta 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 

EU13 
EU28 

Source: Eurostat 
GDP at current 
prices 

Source: EU References Scenario 
2016, Trends to 2050 
GDP at constant 2013 euro 

Year 2010 

294.6 
365.1 
2 580.1 
241.5 
226.0 
1 080.9 
187.1 
1 998.5 
166.2 
1 604.5 
39.5 
631.5 
179.9 
369.1 

Year 
2010 

Year 
2030 

298.1 

371.9 

400.1 

479.3 

2 607.8 

3 251.2 

247.0 

232.2 

350.2 

224.5 

1 092.9 

1 446.9 

186.8 

225.6 

2 024.3 

2 594.3 

165.2 

244.5 

1 622.0 

1 884.5 

41.1 

613.3 

180.7 

365.8 

68.3 

738.3 

217.4 

551.5 

1 813.3 

1 810.1 

2 423.0 

11 778 
37.7 
19.1 

156.4 

14.7 
45.0 
98.2 
28.0 
17.8 
6.6 
361.7 
126.7 
36.3 
67.4 
1 016 
12 794 

11 859 
37.7 

15 100 
53.5 

18.2 

22.4 

156.7 

215.6 

15.2 

46.4 

24.0 

55.4 

100.6 

145.0 

29.0 

18.9 

6.8 

370.6 

129.9 

37.1 

42.8 

31.4 

10.1 

622.7 

195.4 

48 

68.9 
1 036 
12 895 

116.7 
1 583 
16 683 

Annual growth 
rate 
 2010-2030% 

1.48% 

1.28% 

1.11% 

1.76% 

-0.17% 

1.41% 

0.95% 

1.25% 

1.98% 

0.75% 

2.57% 

0.93% 

0.93% 

2.07% 

1.47% 

1.22% 
1.77% 

1.04% 

1.61% 

2.31% 

0.89% 

1.84% 

1.97% 

2.57% 

2.00% 

2.63% 

2.06% 

1.30% 

2.67% 
2.14% 
1.30% 

May 2019  I  192/196 

 
 
  
Table 56: 

Evolution of population 2010 – 2030 

Code 

Country 

Source: EU References Scenario 2016, Trends to 
2050 

Year 2010 

Year 2030 

Annual growth rate 
 2010-2030% 

AT 
BE 
DE 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
NL 
PT 
SE 
UK 

BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HR 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 

Austria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Denmark 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

EU15 

Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Estonia 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Malta 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 

EU13 
EU28 

8.4 

10.8 

81.8 

5.5 

11.2 

46.5 

5.4 

61.5 

4.5 

59.2 

0.5 

16.6 

10.6 

9.3 

62.5 
394 
7.4 

0.8 

10.5 

1.3 

4.3 

10.0 

3.1 

2.1 

0.4 

38.2 

20.3 

2 

5.4 
106 
500 

9.3 

12.9 

79.7 

6.1 

10.1 

44.5 

5.9 

67.0 

4.9 

64.2 

0.8 

17.6 

9.8 

11.0 

70.6 
414 
6.5 

0.9 

10.8 

1.2 

4.1 

9.7 

2.4 

1.7 

0.5 

37.5 

19.0 

2.1 

5.3 
102 
516 

0.51% 

0.89% 

-0.13% 

0.52% 

-0.52% 

-0.22% 

0.44% 

0.43% 

0.43% 

0.41% 

2.38% 

0.29% 

-0.39% 

0.84% 

0.61% 
0.25% 
-0.65% 

0.59% 

0.14% 

-0.40% 

-0.24% 

-0.15% 

-1.27% 

-1.05% 

1.12% 

-0.09% 

-0.33% 

0.24% 

-0.09% 
-0.20% 
0.16% 

May 2019  I  193/196 

 
 
  
 
 
Table 57: 

Evolution of population 2010 - 2030 

Gross value added 2010-2030% 

Source : EU References Scenario 2016, Trends to 2050 for EU28 countries 
Note : Hypothesis of EU15 is taken into account for 
Switzerland 

Country\Sector 

AT 
BE 
DE 
DK 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
NL 
PT 
SE 
UK 
EU15 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HR 
HU 
LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
EU13 
EU28 

Agriculture, 
foresty 
 and fishing 
0.65% 
0.15% 
0.45% 
0.40% 
-0.55% 
0.15% 
-0.10% 
0.25% 
1.74% 
0.00% 
0.50% 
0.20% 
0.00% 
0.55% 
0.10% 
0.20% 
0.50% 
-0.80% 
0.25% 
0.50% 
0.25% 
1.10% 
0.74% 
1.80% 
0.20% 
1.15% 
0.90% 
0.25% 
1.50% 
0.93% 
0.34% 

Mining 
and  
quarrying 
1.15% 
1.30% 
0.50% 
1.15% 
-0.92% 
0.95% 
0.65% 
1.15% 
1.35% 
0.70% 
1.20% 
0.70% 
0.60% 
1.30% 
0.50% 
0.72% 
1.30% 
-0.21% 
0.75% 
2.05% 
0.45% 
1.65% 
2.24% 
2.94% 
1.25% 
2.55% 
1.50% 
0.65% 
2.25% 
1.87% 
0.97% 

Manufacturing  Energy  Construction 

1.15% 
1.05% 
0.85% 
1.50% 
-0.05% 
1.15% 
0.60% 
1.05% 
1.80% 
0.35% 
1.80% 
1.10% 
0.55% 
1.65% 
0.90% 
0.90% 
1.60% 
0.34% 
1.40% 
2.05% 
1.40% 
1.85% 
1.40% 
2.50% 
1.65% 
3.05% 
2.35% 
1.30% 
2.20% 
2.28% 
1.06% 

0.70% 
0.70% 
0.80% 
0.65% 
-0.90% 
0.65% 
0.45% 
0.35% 
2.00% 
0.30% 
0.55% 
0.20% 
0.85% 
1.05% 
-0.10% 
0.44% 
0.90% 
-0.31% 
0.70% 
1.40% 
0.05% 
0.70% 
1.19% 
1.40% 
0.60% 
1.90% 
1.30% 
0.25% 
1.75% 
1.24% 
0.56% 

1.20% 
1.30% 
0.65% 
1.45% 
-1.47% 
0.40% 
0.75% 
0.60% 
1.75% 
-0.16% 
1.20% 
0.55% 
0.30% 
1.60% 
0.80% 
0.58% 
1.05% 
-0.31% 
1.00% 
1.80% 
0.55% 
1.75% 
2.24% 
3.34% 
1.00% 
2.30% 
1.25% 
0.25% 
2.50% 
1.74% 
0.71% 

Trading, 
transport, 
 etc. 
1.55% 
1.30% 
1.20% 
1.85% 
-0.11% 
1.65% 
1.05% 
1.35% 
2.05% 
0.90% 
2.75% 
0.95% 
1.05% 
2.25% 
1.65% 
1.34% 
1.90% 
1.25% 
1.80% 
2.50% 
1.00% 
1.90% 
2.14% 
2.60% 
2.20% 
2.65% 
2.15% 
1.45% 
2.90% 
2.28% 
1.43% 

May 2019  I  194/196 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  

    All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information 

centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

 On the phone or by email  

    Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European 

Union. You can contact this service:  

    – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these 

calls),   

    – at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or   

    – by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

 Online 

    Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is 

available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/index_en  

EU publications  

    You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ).  

EU law and related documents  

    For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in 
all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU  

    The EU Open Data Portal ( http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en ) provides access 

to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both 
commercial and non-commercial purposes.  

3 

 
 
  
 
 
M

I
-
0
2
-
2
0
-
3
6
3
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN :   978-92-76-18919-0    

doi: 10.2832/03796