COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT FITNESS CHECK on market access in Inland Waterway Transport
Date: 2026-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: access to a profession, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, free price, inland waterway transport, market access, market stabilisation, restriction on competition, transport regulations

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.1.2026  SWD(2026) 27 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  FITNESS CHECK  on market access in Inland Waterway Transport {SEC(2026) 50 final} - {SWD(2026) 28 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.  Context ............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.2.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check ......................................................... 5 

1.3.  Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 7 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 8 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................... 8 

2.2.  Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................................. 17 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 20 

3.1.  Current state of play ...................................................................................................... 20 

3.2.  State of play of key geopolitical and policy developments .......................................... 22 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 25 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ........................................... 25 

4.1.1. Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 26 

4.1.2. Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 41 

4.1.3. Coherence ........................................................................................................... 51 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ................................... 57 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................... 61 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 67 

5.1.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 67 

5.2.  Lessons learned ............................................................................................................. 69 

ANNEX I.  PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 73 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .................................... 77 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .................................... 82 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION 
AND BURDEN REDUCTION .................................................................................................... 222 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................. 243 

ANNEX  VI.  SUMMARY  OF  LEGISLATION  IN  SCOPE  ‘INLAND  NAVIGATION: 
ACCESS TO THE MARKET’ .................................................................................................... 262 

ANNEX  VII.  SCOPE  OF  THE  FITNESS  CHECK  -  LEGISLATION  ON  POSTING  OF 
WORKERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY ..................................................................................... 272 

ANNEX VIII. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES CONTEXT ...................................................... 276 

ANNEX  IX.  INVENTORY  OF  NATIONAL  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  COUNCIL 
DIRECTIVE 87/540/EEC (GROUP 3) ........................................................................................ 291 

ANNEX  X.  ON  COMPETITIVENESS  AND  THE  PREDOMINANCE  OF  DUTCH 
OPERATORS............................................................................................................................... 293 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX XI. ON OVERCAPACITY AND GROUP 4 LEGISLATION ..................................... 305 

ANNEX XII. ON DATA NEEDS ................................................................................................ 315 

II 

 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

ADN 

CCNR 

CESNI 

CESNI QP 

CEF 

CJEU 

CMNI 

CMR 

CT 

CTP 

DC 

DTLF 

EBU 

EC 

ECJ 

ECSC 

ECU 

EEA 

EEC 

eFTI 

EIBIP 

EQ 

ESO 

ETF 

European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of 
Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways 

Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine 

European Committee for Drawing up Standards in the field of 
inland navigation 

CESNI Committee dealing with standards related to professional 
qualifications in inland navigation 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods 
by Inland Waterway 

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of 
Goods by Road 

Combined Transport 

Common Transport Policy 

Danube Commission 

Digital Transport and Logistics Forum 

European Barge Union 

European Commission  

European Court of Justice  

European Coal and Steel Community 

European Currency Unit 

European Economic Area  

European Economic Community 

EU Regulation on Electronic Freight Transport Information 

European Inland Barging Innovation Platform 

Evaluation Question  

European Skippers’ Organisation 

European Transport Workers’ Federation 

I 

 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

EU 

EUSDR  

FTA 

INE 

European Union 

EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

Free Trade Agreement 

Inland Navigation Europe 

ISO country codes 

ISO two-letter country codes are used  

IRU 

ISG 

IWT 

IW or IWW 

MS 

NAIADES 

PC 

PLATINA 

RIS 

SC 

SME 

SSMS 

TEC 

TEN-T 

TFEU 

TKM 

UNECE 

International Transport Union 

Inter-Service Group 

Inland Waterway Transport 

Inland Waterways 

Member State 

Action programme, derived from Navigation And Inland 
Waterway Action and Development in Europe 

Public Consultation 

Platform for the implementation of NAIADES 

River Information Services 

Sava Commission 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 

Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 

Treaty establishing the European Community 

Trans-European Transport Network 

Treaty on the Functioning of the Union 

Tonne kilometres 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

II 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  report  presents  the  findings  of  the  fitness  check  of  the  internal  market  legislative 
framework for inland waterway transport (IWT). The fitness check aims to assess the seven 
pieces of legislation governing the access to the IWT market, namely:  

•  Regulation N° 11/1960 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and 

conditions, as amended1  

•  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  of  9  November  1987  on  access  to  the  occupation  of 
carrier of goods by waterway in national and international transport and on the mutual 
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications for this 
occupation  

•  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 of 17 October 1985 laying down the conditions 
for access to the arrangements under the Revised Convention for the navigation of the 
Rhine relating to vessels belonging to the Rhine Navigation  

•  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying down the conditions 
under which non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway 
within a Member State   

•  Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable to the 
transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway between Member States with a view 
to establishing freedom to provide such transport services   

•  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  of  19  November  1996  on  the  systems  of  chartering  and 

pricing in national and international inland waterway transport, as amended2  

•  Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March on a Community –fleet capacity to 

promote inland waterway transport, as amended3.  

1.1. Context 

The  EU’s  inland  waterways  stretch  over  45,419  km  and  are  a  key  means  of  connecting 
seaports, cities and industrial centres4. The interconnected waterway network of 13,000 km 
covers 13 Member States5 serving over 250 TEN-T inland ports in the TEN-T6 network. A 
map of the main waterways in the EU is provided below. 

Inland waterway transport (IWT) plays an important role in the European transport system 
despite  its  relatively  small  size.  In  2022,  122.1  billion  tonne-kilometres  (tkm)  were 
transported  through  inland  waters,  making  up  3.5%  of  the  total  freight  transport  activity 
within  the  EU  (with  road  accounting  for  53.8%,  sea  for  28%  and  rail  for  11.9%)7.  IWT 
handles 0.8% of the total EU external trade (imports and exports) in terms of weight. Despite 
its geographically limited and focused network, it offers an important alternative to transport 

1 Regulation (EEC) No. 11/1960 has been amended by Council Regulation (EEC) 3626/84 and by Council 
Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
2 Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 has been amended by Regulation (EU) 546/2014 
3 Council Directive 96/75/EC has been amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 
4 Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu) 
5 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, France, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania and Slovakia. 
6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 
7 Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu) 

1 

 
 
via road or rail for the European hinterland regions closest to inland waterways. Therefore, 
IWT  is  mainly  in  competition  and  often  classified  along  with  land  transport  modes8, 
covering 4.9% of inland freight traffic9 and 0.01% of inland passenger traffic. 

Figure 1: Main waterways in the EU 

Source: European Commission, TEN-tec 

Looking  at  the  geographical  distribution  of  inland  waterways,  IWT  traffic  volumes 
concentrate in a few Member States, with Germany and the Netherlands accounting for 63% 
of  overall  EU  IWT  transport  in  202310.  More  generally,  the  European  Union  countries 
riparian  to  the  Rhine  and  Switzerland  represented  80.1%  of  the  total  freight  transport 
volume via inland navigation, while the European Union countries riparian to the Danube 
accounted for 19.6%. All other EU countries with inland waterways had a share of 0.3% of 
volume of goods transported via inland navigation. In terms of transport volumes on the 
Rhine, mineral oil products, chemicals and ‘sand, stones, gravel’, were the top three cargo 
products both in 2022 and 202311. On the Danube, the top three cargo products in 2023 were 
iron  ores,  mineral  oil  products  and  metals.  In  2023,  and  for  the  second  year  in  a  row, 
volumes of transport decreased for almost all cargo segments on the Danube. For agribulk, 
the  most  important  cargo  segment  transported  on  the  Danube  in  2020,  an  increase  was 

8 European Commission (2016), Staff Working Document Refit Ex-Post Evaluation of Combined Transport 
Directive 92/106/EEC Final Report, SWD(2016) 140 final 
9 Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu) 
10 Source: Eurostat  
11 CCNR (2024), Market Observation Report 2024 

2 

 
 
 
observed in 2023 compared to 2022 (+32.8%), however, still remaining 70% below the pre-
war levels12. In the first half of 2024, transport demand in the two largest Rhine countries 
(NL and DE) fell below the results observed in 2023. On the Danube, the first half of 2024 
saw  a  double-digit  growth  in  transport  demand,  mainly  thanks  to  higher  harvest  results 
compared  to  2023.  Transport  demand  in  the  two  largest  Danube  countries,  RO  and  BG, 
grew by 21.5% and 33.9% respectively. 

Regarding  passenger  transport,  the  following  types  of  services  can  be  distinguished:  the 
river cruise segment which represents 80% of cross-border activity, and the daily excursions 
and local commuting, where vessels rarely cross borders13. Inland transport of passengers 
has  boomed  since  the  late  1990s,  it  grew  exponentially  until  the  2010s  and  has  then 
stabilised. In 2019 it substantially grew again, before dropping dramatically, up to an almost 
complete  stop  in  2020  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  data  for  2023  confirms  the 
recovery of the river cruise sector, with vessels’ movements similar to pre-pandemic levels. 
1.22 million passengers travelled on European rivers in 202314. In 2024, a small increase 
was observed for cruise on the Rhine, while it decreased on the Danube. Despite the lower 
number of cruise vessels passing locks on the Danube, the capacity utilization of river cruise 
vessels was higher than in 202315.   

The  number  of  active  river  cruise  vessels  in  Europe  reached  408  in  2023,  representing 
60,702 beds. The active river cruise fleet in Europe is mainly concentrated on the Rhine, 
Main, Main-Danube Canal, Danube and Elbe-Oder, accounting for nearly 75% of the total 
river cruise fleet in Europe16. France (on the rivers Seine and Rhone) and Portugal (on the 
river Douro) also have considerable river cruise markets, representing 13% and 7% of river 
cruise  vessels  operating  in  Europe,  respectively17,  while  Italy18  and  Sweden  have  a 
considerable level of turnover in passenger transport (non-cruise)19. 

According to Eurostat, 9,792 IWT freight and passenger transport companies are active in 
the  EU,  employing  more  than  41,400  persons.  Thus,  it  is  a  relatively  small  sector  when 
considering the overall number of transport companies (i.e. 1.4 million private and public 
companies). The sector is also relatively modest in terms of turnover, reporting a turnover 
of  EUR  8.4  billion  in  2021  which  corresponds  to  0.6%  of  the  turnover  of  the  transport 
sector20. 

As illustrated in the next figure, about 45% of the total 9,792 IWT freight and passenger 
enterprises in the EU are registered in the Netherlands (i.e. 4,364 enterprises). An important 
characteristic of the IWT sector is the high number of Small and Medium sized Enterprises 
(SMEs);  the  majority  of  IWT  companies  in  Western  Europe  are  small  family-owned 
companies operating one or two vessels, while companies in the Danube region are bigger 

12 CCNR (2024), Market Observation Report 2024 
13 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check - Support study on the access to and 
the functioning of the inland waterway transport market, Annexes, p.37. 
14 CCNR (2024), Market Observatory Report 2024 
15 CCNR (2025), Market Insight, April 2025 
16 CCNR (2024), Market Observatory Report 2024 
17 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p.37. 
18 For Italy the turnover is almost entirely generated from day trips activity. 
19 CCNR (2024), Market Observatory Report 2024 
20 Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu)  

3 

 
 
as they derive from previously state-owned enterprises21.  

Figure 2: Number of IWT enterprises per EU country 

Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu) 

As  indicated  above,  European  inland  waterway  transport  is  mainly  clustered  along  two 
waterways, the Rhine and the Danube. Before the creation of the European Communities, 
international  treaties  -  the  Act  of  Mannheim  for  the  Rhine  (1868),  and  the  Belgrade 
Convention  for  the  Danube  (1948)  -  established  international  organisations  in  inland 
navigation, namely the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR)22 and 
the Danube Commission23. These organisations adopt regulations and recommendations on 
issues including safety of navigation. Their mission is to ensure the freedom of navigation 
and to address matters of common interest on the Rhine and Danube rivers, respectively. 
The timeline of related international agreements is provided in the figure below.  

Figure 3: Timeline of other international agreements  

Source: European Commission, based on desk research  

The inland waterway transport governance framework is described in more detail in Annex 

21  CCNR  (2020),  Marker  Report  2014-2019,  Main  features  and  trends  of  the  European  Inland  Waterway 
Transport Sector, Market-report-2014-2019_Web_BD.pdf (inland-navigation-market.org)  
22 CCNR is an international intergovernmental organisation established by the Mannheim Convention, signed 
on 17 October 1868. 
23 The Danube Commission is an international intergovernmental organisation established by the Convention 
regarding the regime of navigation on the Danube, signed in Belgrade on 18 August 1948. 

4 

05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISE 
 
  
 
VIII. 

1.2. Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

The EU legislation on accessing and organising the inland waterways market dates back 
from the 1960s to the 1990s. The legislation was originally designed for a smaller number 
of Member States. Besides the fact that the original scope was geographically more limited, 
the legislation primarily addressed the challenges present in the inland navigation transport 
sector at that time.  

In the Paris Treaty (1952) and the Rome Treaty (1957), establishing Community transport 
policies,  it  was  considered  necessary  to  promote  market  interpenetration  -  an  essential 
element  of  the  common  market  for  goods  and  services.  Since  then,  four  waves  of  EU 
enlargement  have  taken  place.  With  Danube  riparian  countries  joining  the  EU  in  large 
numbers, competition among operators increased. Some of the legislation on market access 
to inland waterways, however, has not been revised since its adoption.   

Consequently,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  fitness  check  of  the  EU  internal  market 
legislative framework for inland waterway transport24. This fitness check aims to assess the 
seven pieces of legislation governing the access to the IWT market, to determine whether 
they are fit for purpose. It aims at identifying any shortcomings in pursuit of a smooth and 
fair  internal  market  in  the  inland  waterway  sector  and  at  harnessing  synergies  and 
simplification potential. In addition, this fitness check provides a contribution to the stress 
testing of the EU acquis in line with the political guidelines of the European Commission 
for 2024-202925, the ‘Competitiveness Compass’26 and the Communication on ‘A simpler 
and faster Europe’27.  Notably, the fitness check looks into opportunities for simplification 
and administrative burden reduction. The fitness check is also included in the NAIADES 
III Communication28  as action 7. The findings of the fitness check will provide evidence 
and  feed  into  any  possible  revision  of  the  legal  framework  regulating  the  IWT  market, 
subject to an impact assessment.   

More  specifically  and  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  this  fitness  check 
analyses:  

-  effectiveness,  to  assess  the  actual  changes  these  legislative  acts  have  triggered, 

particularly in view of their original objectives;  

-  efficiency, to assess the actual costs relative to the actual benefits of the implementation, 

and whether there is potential for simplification and increased cost-efficiency;  

-  relevance, to assess whether the overall problem analysis and related objectives are still 

adequate and how the policy context has evolved;  

-  added value to the EU, its impact beyond what reasonably could have been achieved by 

national and regional policies; and 

24 A fitness check roadmap was published on 11 July 2019. See: Fitness check on market access in inland 
waterway transport (europa.eu) 
25 Political Guidelines 2024-2029 | European Commission 
26 COM(2025) 30 final, Competitiveness - European Commission 
27 COM(2025) 47 final, EUR-Lex - 52025DC0047 - EN - EUR-Lex 
28 COM(2021) 324 final, eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0324 

5 

 
 
-  coherence of the regulatory framework, regarding both the internal coherence and the 
coherence with other key legislation and policy initiatives at EU level and at international 
level.  

The  geographic  scope  of  the  fitness  check  covers  all  EU  Member  States,  considering 
successive  waves  of  EU  enlargement.  The  assessment  focuses  on  the  impact  of  EU 
legislation on the Rhine and Danube Rivers (including non-EU parts).  

The  fitness  check  covers  the  seven  pieces  of  legislation  listed  at  the  beginning  of  this 
section,  which  constitute  the  basis  for  the  access  to  and  organisation  of  the  EU  inland 
waterway transport. This legislation is referred to as the EU IWT internal market legislative 
framework (or simply the ‘Framework’) throughout this document. A summary of each act 
is presented in Annex VI.  

In addition to the legislation listed above, the fitness check roadmap29 envisioned to cover 
the related social legislation applicable to IWT, namely the posting of workers Directive 
(Directive  96/71/EC)  and  the  Derogation  agreement  applicable  to  Rhine  boatmen30, 
concluded  on  the  basis  of  Art  16(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)883/2004  on  the  coordination  of 
social security systems. The Commission assessed the inclusion of the above legislation in 
this fitness check, taking into account stakeholder feedback. The Commission decided that 
a fully-fledged analysis of EU’s social legislation should not be part of this fitness check. 
The main reasons are twofold. Firstly, the Posting of Workers Directives have already been 
comprehensively evaluated and two implementation reports were also published in 201931 
and 202432. Regarding the EU legislation on the coordination of Social Security systems, 
the Commission has already evaluated and proposed a revision in 2016, which did not affect 
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. Secondly, both pieces of social legislation 
are of horizontal natures, beyond the IWT sector, unlike the other seven legislations which 
focus only on the IWT sector.  

The decision to focus solely on the seven legislations specific to the IWT sector allowed for 
a more targeted and focused analysis without undermining the comprehensiveness of the 
Fitness Check on the market access in the inland waterways transport. 

More information on the background of this decision is provided in Annex VII.  

The methodology used to carry out the fitness check was developed with the support of an 
external study and in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox33. The support 
study34 covers the seven legal acts adopted between 1960 and 1999, assessing their impacts 
from midyear 1961 until the end of 2020. The methodology is detailed in Annex II of this 
report. An evaluation matrix (provided in Annex III of this report) was elaborated to answer 
the  evaluation  questions.  It  identified  relevant  operational  questions,  indicators,  research 
tools and data sources.  

29 A fitness check roadmap on the initiative was published on 11 July 2019. See: Fitness check on market 
access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 
30  Derogation  agreement  applicable  to  Rhine  boatmen  concluded  on  the  basis  of  Art  16(1)  of  Regulation 
(EC)883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems 
See: Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine - Central administration of social security for Rhine 
boatmen 
31 EUR-Lex - 52019DC0426 - EN - EUR-Lex 
32 eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52024DC0320  
33 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox 
34 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study  

6 

 
 
The consultation strategy set out several stakeholder consultation activities ensuring a good 
overall geographical balance. A public consultation35 was held between 18/12/2021 and 
11/03/2022  which  gathered  views  from  trade  unions,  business  associations  and  public 
authorities, as well as citizens and companies. The number of responses (20) was in line 
with  (and  even  exceeded)  those  of  other  consultations  on  IWT-related  subjects.  Replies  
were provided by trade unions, business associations, public authorities, as well as citizens 
and companies. Given the predominant share of SMEs in the IWT sector, a dedicated SME 
survey36 was conducted with the support of the European Enterprise Network. Most of the 
41 SME survey respondents are from the 13 interconnected Member States riparian to the 
Rhine or the Danube37. Dedicated workshops were held for the Danube, Rhine and Mosel 
countries  at  separate  occasions,  with  the  support  and  participation  of  the  relevant  river 
commissions. A gap filling survey was conducted by the European Commission during the 
last quarter of 2024, with the participation of Member States administrations and operators’ 
organisations. A detailed analysis of the results of stakeholder consultation activities (i.e. 
synopsis report) is provided in Annex V.  

Further  sources  of  information  used  for  this  evaluation  were:  the  review  of  existing 
literature, including relevant market observation reports and datasets, and complaints and 
infringement cases related to the legislation in scope.  

1.3. Limitations 

The limitations inherent to the methodology are:  

-  The fitness check covers a long timeframe (from 1960 to today), during which several 
EU  enlargements  took  place,  and  its  geographical  scope  has  changed.  This made  it 
challenging  to  obtain  comparable  data  and  the  points  of  comparison  could  only  be 
defined  in  qualitative  terms. Moreover,  since  the  legislation  dates  from  the  1960s  to 
1990s there is limited historical memory at the level of stakeholders and the legal acts 
are not well-known.  

-  At  the  time  of the  adoption  of  the  legal  acts,  there  were  no  reporting  and  monitoring 
requirements  foreseen, except for Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999. As a result, 
data  is  not  systemically  and  consistently  collected  and  reported  for  the  pieces  of 
legislation in scope. 

-  Moreover, the EU market observatory38 exists only since 2005. The market observatory 
regularly publishes reports that offer previously unavailable insights into current market 
conditions, developments, and potential challenges in inland navigation.  

-  Stakeholders provided very limited monetised and quantified data, despite repeated 

consultation efforts. 

-  Very scarce data is available on the actual costs of implementation of the legislation in 
the  scope,  both  for  administrations  and  businesses.  While  the  type  of  benefits  were 
identified,  they  could  not  be  properly  quantified  due  to  the  lack  of  data.  This  also 
hampered the assessment of cumulative impacts. To fill data gaps, an additional targeted 

35 Source: Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport  
36 SME survey was open for feedback during 4/2/2022-11/3/2022. 
37 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, France, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania and Slovakia.  
38 Other reports - CCNR - Observation Du Marché 

7 

 
 
consultation  with  national  authorities  and  business  associations  was  launched  in  the 
fourth quarter of 202439. This consultation has led to the collection of limited additional 
data,  which  did  not  prove  to  be  sufficient  to  address  the  overall  lack  of  quantified 
evidence. Therefore, the assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness criteria is mainly 
qualitative. 

-  Despite  numerous  stakeholder  consultation  activities  ensuring  a  broad  geographical 
coverage, participation was limited. This is a recurrent issue in IWT and it is partly due 
to the modest size of the sector, but also due to its limited visibility and political weight. 
Another reason for the limited participation is that several pieces of EU legislation in the 
scope relate to interconnected waterways only. Therefore, only 13 Member States closely 
follow  this  legislation,  while  the  remaining  Member  States  have  no  or  very  limited 
experience in implementation. This was also apparent during the gap filling final targeted 
stakeholder  consultation,  where  several  Member  States  indicated  no  experience  in 
implementation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  dedicated  SME  survey,  conducted  with  the 
support of Enterprise Network, received 41 contributions40 - a level of response that is 
relatively high considering the IWT context.  

-  The results of the stakeholder consultation activities are not statistically representative 
of operators’ views. Nonetheless, thanks to the various consultation activities including 
interviews, specific workshops held for the Danube, the Rhine and the Mosel (with the 
support  and  participation  of  the  relevant  river  commissions)  as  well  as  the  public 
consultation,  the  dedicated  SME  survey  and  the  additional  gap  filling  exercise, 
representation  of  all  relevant  stakeholder  groups  for  IWT  was  assured.  Consultation 
activities covered all countries where IWT is relevant. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1. Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  purpose  and  general  objectives  of  the  seven  legal  acts  were  to  lay  down  rules  on 
accessing  the  IWT  market  and  on  the  occupation  of  carriers,  liberalise  price  setting, 
eliminate discriminatory conditions and structurally improve the IWT market. These acts 
were introduced over a period of almost 40 years, with the first act adopted in 1960 and the 
last in 1999. During this period, the main priority was to lay down the necessary elements 
to create a true internal IWT market.  

Based on their objectives, the seven legal acts were allocated to four thematic groups in two 
pillars, as shown in below Figure 4. A summary of each act is presented in Annex VI. 

39 The deadline for providing replies to the gap filling exercise was extended twice to allow collecting as much 
evidence as possible.  
40 Comparing with the total number of  9,792 freight and passenger IWT enterprises (see Figure  2), the 41 
responses represent 4.2 responses for every 1.000 businesses.  

8 

 
 
Figure 4: Structure of the internal market legislative framework for IWT 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study  

The key problems that the legislative framework was intended to solve were: 

•  the  lack  of  equal  access  conditions  for  EU  operators  hindered  their  ability  to  provide 
transport  services  on  all  EU  waterways,  both  nationally  and  internationally  in  a  non-
discriminatory way,  

•  the absence of common, EU-wide standards to access the occupation of a carrier,  
•  the absence of a free pricing regime ruled by market conditions, 
•  structural overcapacity in the IWT market.  

The intervention logic for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 is presented in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. 
The implementation of the legislative acts should lead to specific outputs as well as impacts, 
reflecting  the  objectives  mentioned  above.  The  identified  outputs  represent  the  expected 
direct  outcomes  of  the  measures  and  obligations  of  Member  States  as  defined  in  the 
legislative acts. The results and their impacts should be in line with the specific and general 
objectives  of  the  legislative  acts.  Each  group  of  legal  acts  responded  to  the  needs  and 
tackled the barriers hampering the creation of a single market in IWT. 

Pillar 1 legislation 

The  purpose  and  general  objective  of  Pillar  1  legislation  was  to  liberalise  price  setting, 
remove practices that lead to discriminatory or other commercially restrictive behaviour, as 
well as structurally improve the capacity of the sector. There was a need to address market 
failures that were preventing the smooth functioning of the IWT internal market, and lay 
down rules to abolish discrimination in inland waterway transport41. The key problems 
that the legislation in Pillar 1 was intended to solve were price discrimination, price fixing, 
the existence of commercially restrictive practices, and overcapacity42.  

To address the needs and solve the problem, the following specific objectives were pursued:  

•  put in place a verification system to ensure that transport rates and conditions do not lead 

to discrimination (associated to Group 1 legislation under Pillar 1, see Figure 4),  

41 Article 95 of the TFEU required the Council to lay down rules to abolish discrimination in IWT. 
42  Overcapacity  was  the  result  of  the  fixed  pricing  system  because  vessels  lacked  incentives  to  operate 
efficiently and exit the market if they were not profitable. 

9 

 
 
 
•  provide  a  mechanism  to  reduce  overcapacity  in  the  sector  (associated  to  Group  4 

legislation under Pillar 1), 

•  allow action to be taken in the IWT market in the event of serious market disturbances 

(associated to Group 4 legislation under Pillar 1).  

To  achieve  the  objectives,  extensive  regulatory  intervention  was  needed.  Definitions  of 
commercially restrictive, discriminatory and price-setting practices had to be put in place. 
Tools  to  verify  the  elimination  of  such  practices  (transport  document  or  equivalent),  to 
empower enforcement bodies (Member States and the European Commission) and to set 
penalties  for  non-compliance  had  to  be  established.  A  legal  basis  for  Commission 
inspections  and  obligations  for  relevant  Member  States  administrations  to  establish  and 
administer the Inland Waterways Funds also had to be introduced.  

The expected achievements of Pillar 1 legislation were to:  

•  eliminate discriminatory and fixed rates and certain commercially restrictive practices 

(associated to Group 1 legislation under Pillar 1), 

•  achieve  an  open,  competitive  single  market  (associated  to  Group  1  legislation  under 

Pillar 1),  

•  restrict the unnecessary increase of capacity while renewing the fleet and remove older 

vessels from operating43 (associated to Group 4 legislation under Pillar 1). 

The success of the Pillar 1 legislation was seen as establishing freedom of chartering and 
pricing, prohibiting price discrimination and reducing the risk of non-compliance, through 
compliance checks and penalties. The intention was also to ensure that funds are established 
in relevant Member States and that an IWT Platform supports the IWT sector across the EU. 

The  expected  outputs  were  that  freight  tariffs  would  be  set  at  market  price,  and  that  the 
sector  modernised  its  fleet  without  increasing  the  overcapacity  in  the  market.  This  was 
particularly relevant during 1990-2003, when the mechanism was used. The intention was 
also to maintain a legal basis for the period after 2003, to enable measures to be taken in 
case of market disturbances in the IWT sector. 

Pillar 2 legislation 

The  purpose  and  general  objectives  of  Pillar  2  legislation  were  to  lay  down  rules  on 
accessing the inland waterway transport market and the occupation of carriers of cargo.  

There was a need to  ensure equal access to transport on EU waterways for EU IWT 
operators. The key problems that the legislation in Pillar 2 was intended to solve were that: 

43  Specifically,  the  ‘old-for-new’  rule  of  Group  4  legislation.  According  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
718/1999,  the  ‘old-for-new’  rule  stipulates  that  vessels,  whether  newly  constructed,  imported  from  a  third 
country or due to leave the waterways may be brought into service subject to the condition that the owner of 
the vessel to be brought into service: (i) either scraps, without receiving a scrapping premium, tonnage in line 
with the ratio between old and new tonnage set by the Commission, (ii) or pays into the Fund covering the 
new vessel, or into the Fund chosen by the vessel-owner, a special contribution based on the abovementioned 
ratio or, if the owner scraps a tonnage smaller than required by the abovementioned ratio, pays the difference 
between the tonnage of the new vessel and the tonnage scrapped. 

10 

 
 
•  transport on the Rhine was restricted to operators exclusively from Rhine countries. EU 
operators from Member States that were not members of the CCNR were not allowed 
access to the Rhine44,  

•  outside of the Rhine, cabotage45 operations were subject to bilateral agreements on EU 
waterways, resulting in a patchwork of agreements and non-level playing field for EU 
operators,  

•  EU operators lacked a harmonised system for accessing cross-border transport across the 

EU, 

•  there were no common rules to obtain a certificate for carriers of goods, resulting in an 

uneven playing field. 

To address the needs and solve the problem, the following specific objectives were pursued: 

•  provide  common  rules  for  EU  operators  for  accessing  the  European  inland  waterway 

transport market (associated to Group 2 legislation under Pillar 2, see Figure 4),  

•  harmonise the rules for access to the occupation of IWT carrier of goods (associated to 

Group 3 legislation under Pillar 2). 

To  achieve  the  objectives,  the  application  of  the  legislation  in  Pillar  2  required  various 
activities on the side of the carriers and public administrations alike. Carriers had to obtain 
and  keep  documents  proving  their  right  to  access  the  specific  market  and  participate  in 
compliance checks. Member States administrations were required to designate competent 
authorities to issue documents and carry out compliance checks.  

The expected achievements of Pillar 2 legislation were to: 

•  ensure non-discrimination and a level playing field for all operators in Member States by 

laying down common rules46 (associated to Group 2 legislation under Pillar 2), 

•  establish  harmonised  rules  for  access  to  the  occupation  of  IWT  goods  carriers  and 
common rules on mutual recognition of diplomas across the EU, ensuring freedom to 
provide  services  and  a  level  playing  field  for  cargo  operators  in  Member  States 
(associated to Group 3 legislation under Pillar 2).  

•  improve  the  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  the  sector  (associated  to  Group  2 

legislation under Pillar 2),  

•  create  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  operators  while  benefiting  the  broader  market, 
including consigners and consignees47 (associated to Group 2 legislation under Pillar 2). 

The success of Pillar 2 legislation was seen as all EU operators being able to sail the Rhine, 
a higher number of non-resident EU operators conducting cabotage, and legal harmonisation 
for  cross-border  transport,  resulting  in  an  open  market  and  increased  competition  in  the 
inland waterway transport of goods and passengers. The intention was also to harmonise 
and improve the level of qualification for carriers of goods across Member States, and to 
reduce the costs for establishing non-resident EU carriers of goods in other Member States. 

44  In 1979, a protocol of the Mannheim Convention accorded equal status to EU operators with those of CCNR 
states.  However,  as  this  was  not  encoded  in  EU  legislation,  operators  not  linked  to  the  Rhine  navigation 
continued to face legal uncertainty.  
45 Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two places in the same country, by a carrier of 
goods or passengers by inland waterway that is not established in that country. 
46  Article  91  of  the  TFEU  required  the  Council  to  lay  down  common  rules  for  international  and  cabotage 
transport within the Community. 
47 The consignor is the sender of goods, and the consignee is the receiver of the goods. 

11 

 
 
The expected outputs were that carriers would hold documents proving their right to access 
the specific market, that carriers of goods would hold certificates of occupation of carrier of 
goods, and Member States would carry out compliance checks. 

Given that the legislative acts in scope date back to the 1960s to 1990s, no intervention logic 
was drawn up at that time and therefore the intervention logic was reconstructed in Figures 
5 and 6. Subsequent Tables 1 and 2 contain an overview of legal acts of the Framework by 
scope of application and river basin.

12 

 
Figure 5: Intervention logic – Pillar 1 

13 

 
 
  
Figure 6: Intervention logic – Pillar 2 

14 

 
 
Table 1: Overview of legal acts of the Framework by scope of application 

Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
11/1960 

Council 
Directive 
96/75/EC 

Council 
Regulation 
(EC) No 
718/1999 

Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
2919/85 

Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
3921/91 

Council 
Regulation 
(EC) No 
1356/96 

Council 
Directive 
87/540/EEC 

Directive 
2005/44/EC 

Directive 
(EU) 
2016/ 
1629 

Directive 
(EU) 
2017/2397 

Geographical scope – waterways 

Only connected waterways 

Both connected and non-
connected waterways 
Type of transport - Goods / passengers 

√ 

Only goods 

Both goods and passengers 

Vessels included 

Only cargo vessels 

Both cargo and passenger 
vessels 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study  

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Overview of legal acts according to applicable river basin  
Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
2919/85 

Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
11/1960 

Council 
Regulation 
(EC) No 
718/1999 

Council 
Directive 
96/75/EC 

Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
3921/91 

Council 
Regulation 
(EC)  No 
1356/96 

Council 
Directive 
87/540/EEC 

Directive 
2005/44/EC 

Directive 
(EU) 
2016/ 
1629 

Directive 
(EU) 
2017/2397 

Geographical scope – river basins 

All 
waterways 
All connected 
waterways 
Connected 
waterways 
except the 
Danube 
Only the 
Rhine 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√48 

√ 

√49 

√ 

√ 

Source: European Commission 

48 Derogations (art 39.1) and exemptions (art 40) apply. Basically, all connected waterways, plus Italy, Sweden and Lithuania 
49 Connected waterways: see Directive (EU) 2017/2397 Art. 2.3  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. Point(s) of comparison  

The  counter-factual  scenario  estimates  the  likely  developments  in  absence  of  the  legal 
Framework over the evaluation period (1960 to 2023). It aims to isolate the effects of the 
Framework on the inland navigation sector and to establish benchmarks against which to 
measure its success. Considering the heterogeneous nature of the sector, that is river-basin 
based, for Group 1, 2 and 4 legislation (as defined in Figure 4) the counter-factual scenario 
is broken down into: (1) the Rhine, (2) the Danube, and (3) other European waterways. For 
Group 3 legislation, no distinction is made by river basin in the counter-factual scenario.  

When proposed, the legal acts were not accompanied by impact assessments. Therefore, 
the definition of the counter-factual scenario cannot be based on the impact assessments’ 
baseline. The definition is consequently based on multiple sources (described in Annex II) 
that  provide  an  assessment  of  the  situation  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  legal 
Framework.  Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  Framework,  the  situation  could  be 
described as follows.  

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation  - removal of restrictions and discrimination 

Free pricing: For transportation on the Rhine, the conditions for free pricing mechanisms 
were already established under the Act of Mannheim (1868). While the chartering system 
(described  below  for  other  waterways)  was  generally  not  applied  to  domestic  or 
international Rhine traffic, the system’s official rates were often mandatory for domestic 
transport on the river. On the other hand, the international Rhine transport rates were freely 
determined  by  market  conditions.  In  the  absence  of  Group  1  legislation,  the  CCNR 
Member  States  would  have  generally  continued  to  adopt  the  free  pricing  regime  for 
international transport on the Rhine.  

Price agreements: In Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands transportation took 
place under the restrictive practices of ‘Tour de Role’ or ‘Festfrachten’ systems50. These 
systems  set  minimum  prices  at  an  exchange,  dictating  the  terms  under  which  IWT 
operators could provide their services. Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands all 
regulated domestic water transport through a chartering system51 for allocating shipping 
contracts. The system was accompanied by officially prescribed transport rates. In absence 
of Group 1 legislative acts, these market distorting practices would likely have remained 
in place between France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany (except on the Rhine).  

On  the  Danube,  the  Belgrade  Convention  (1948)  allowed  international  transport  for 
operators  of  all  countries,  including  those  not  party  to  that  convention.  However,  in 
practice,  free  access  was  largely  limited  to  Member  States  of  the  Danube  Commission 
through  the  pricing  regime  set  in  the  Bratislava  Agreements.  These  agreements  were 
established among the state-owned IWT companies and covered several themes, including 

50 ‘Festfrachten’, namely minimum prices, were applied in Germany. The system of ‘chartering by rotation’ 
or the so-called ‘Tour de Role’ was applied in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. 
51 A system of ‘chartering by rotation’ (‘Tour de Role’) consists in allocating transport operations on the 
basis  of  the  order  in  which  vessels  become  available  after  unloading,  at  previously  fixed  prices,  usually 
established by the public administration. 

17 

 
 
 
uniform international tariffs (1979) and freight calculation (1955).  

The  Bratislava  Agreements  established  a  rigid  frame  for  the  international  tariff  system 
along the Danube and a cargo-sharing mechanism among Danube riparian countries. This 
mechanism, together with fixed tariffs for cross border transport52 effectively closed the 
Danube shipping market to outsiders53. With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the 
subsequent  transition  to  the  market  economy,  some  state-owned  companies  were 
privatised, and others were dissolved. Without the Group 1 legislative acts the practice of 
price  agreements  -  similar  to  those  of  the  Bratislava  Agreements  -  would  have  likely 
persisted on the Danube in a formal or non-formal way. 

To  summarise,  in  the  absence  of  Group  1  legislation  that  removed  restrictions  and 
discrimination,  there  would  be  no  level  playing field  within  the  EU  IWT  sector,  as  the 
pricing  systems  and practices would have generally  continued and vary by river. There 
would be freedom of pricing on the Rhine, while market distorting practices would persist 
on the Danube and other waterways. 

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation – structural improvement of the IWT market 

Overcapacity: The issue of overcapacity on the Rhine has been a long-standing concern. 
On the Danube and other waterways, overcapacity has not been an issue. Prior to Group 4 
legislation,  national  governments  (BE,  DE,  NL,  FR)  implemented  national  scrapping 
schemes to reduce overcapacity, however these schemes were not effective enough54. As 
IWT  takes  place  primarily  cross-border55,  a  more  coordinated  approach  of  the  capacity 
management  mechanism  was  needed  at  the  European  level.  Without  the  Group  4 
legislation,  the  efforts  to  manage  or  reduce  overcapacity  would  have  been  restricted  to 
national  or  regional  schemes.  These  efforts  proved  to  be  ineffective  prior  to  Group  4 
legislation56,  due  to  the  temporarily  nature  of  the  national  measures,  the  lack  of 
coordination between countries, and because of no halt to new builds on the market. The 
fitness check support study57 found that the number of active vessels in the Netherlands, 
Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg decreased by 1.2% during 1993-
1996. Without the Group 4 legislation the decrease pace observed during 1993-1996 would 
have  likely  continued,  and  the  number  of  vessels  on  the  North-South  and  East-West 
corridor would have been 13,339 instead of 9,758. The overcapacity on the Rhine would 
have likely been absorbed at much slower pace without Group 4 legislation.   

Serious market disturbance and inland waterway funds: Without the Group 4 legislation, 
there would be no mechanism for EU Member States to request recognition of a serious 
market disturbance related to overcapacity, nor to take suitable measures in such case. The 

52  The  Bratislava  Convention  applied  only  for  international  transport;  not  for  the  transport  in  cabotage. 
Source: Targeted interview with RO association of inland ship owners and port operators – 12 July 2021 
53 ‘The importance of the Rhine-Main-Danube transport corridor: its impact on the Central and East European 
countries, with an emphasis on Romania’ by Constantin Sava, World Maritime University – 1997. 
54 Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector - To 
intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge, available at: Managing capacity in 
the inland waterway sector   
55  According  to  the  CCNR  Market  Observation  Report  2024,  of  the  total  inland  waterway  transport 
performance in the EU in 2023 (around 116 billion tkm), 75.1% represented transport that crossed a border 
in one way or another - whether in the form of export, import or transit traffic. 
56 Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector - To 
intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge, available at: Managing capacity in 
the inland waterway sector  
57 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study  

18 

 
 
national funds established and funded for the benefit of the inland waterway carriers would 
not have been in place. 

Annex XI contains more information related to point(s) of comparison, tackling structural 
overcapacity and Group 4 legislation.  

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

Rhine  cabotage  privilege:  Prior  to  Group  2  legislation,  the  Mannheim  Convention 
regulated  ‘Rhine  cabotage’  (cabotage  and  international  transport  on  the  Rhine)  and 
reserved this privilege to Rhine contracting states only. The Additional Protocol 2 to the 
Mannheim Convention (1979) extended this privilege to the other Member States of the 
Community,  allowing  all  vessels  of  EU  countries  to  access  the  Rhine,  under  certain 
conditions.  However,  in  practice,  exclusively  Rhine  countries  continued  to  provide 
national and international transport on the Rhine – also because no common EU law laid 
down the right to access the Rhine for EU operators. To remedy the lack of clarity about 
the  rights  on  the  Rhine,  the  Additional  Protocol  2  to  the  Mannheim  Convention  was 
transposed into EU law by Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85. In the absence of Group 2 
legislation, transport on the Rhine would have continued to  be exclusively  provided by 
Rhine countries operators.  

Uneven playing field for cabotage: Common rules on cabotage did not exist prior to Group 
2 legislation, except on the intermediate waterways between the Netherlands and Belgium 
(i.e. for those two countries) and on the Rhine for the Rhine countries. On the Danube, the 
Belgrade  Convention  stipulated  that  transport  within  a  Danube  State,  was  allowed  ‘in 
accordance with the national regulations of that State’, thus it conferred the decision on the 
right to cabotage to Danube States. In the absence of Group 2 legislation,  this situation 
would  have  likely  persisted,  i.e.,  there  would  be  no  level  playing  field  for  cabotage 
operations, either along the Danube or on EU waterways other than the Rhine. Cabotage 
would be subject to diverse national implementation and/or bilateral (national) agreements, 
and uneven playing field. 

Lack  of  harmonised  rules  for  international  transport:  On  the  Danube,  international 
transport was regulated by the Belgrade Convention (1948), which officially opened access 
to all vessels of the world, while in practice, this access was limited to Danube states only. 
On waterways other than the Danube, international transport was restricted; among the NL, 
BE and FR the ‘Tour de Role’ system ensured a common system for their operators. In the 
absence  of  Group  2  legislation,  there  would  be  no  level  playing  field  for  cross-border 
transport of EU operators on waterways other than the Danube. 

To  summarise,  in  the  absence  of  Group  2  legislation  on  access  to  the  EU  waterway 
network, the access regime would be highly fragmented and under diverging rules. The 
absence of uniform rules applicable to all EU operators would result in an uneven playing 
field. The extent of access and services allowed would vary based on the state affiliation 
of the operator (or vessel). Generally, there would be freedom of access on the Rhine for 
international transport and cabotage (however, exclusively by Rhine operators), free access 
for  international  transport  on  the  Danube  with  bilateral  agreements  on  cabotage,  and  a 
combination of bilateral agreements and/or national restrictions on other waterways. 

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

Lack  of  harmonized  qualifications  for  carriers:  Prior  to  the  Group  3  legislation  (i.e. 

19 

 
Council  Directive  87/540/EEC),  there  were  no  harmonised  provisions  on  mutual 
recognition  of diplomas, certificates  and other evidence of formal  qualifications by EU 
Member States for the carriers of goods. There were also no common requirements across 
the  EU  for  enabling  operators  to  prove  sufficient  commercial  and  technical  knowledge 
before  being  authorised  to  exercise  as  an  IWT  carrier.  In  the  absence  of  the  Group  3 
legislative act, there would be no EU wide, harmonised common standards for accessing 
the profession of IWT carrier resulting in an uneven EU playing field.   

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1. Current state of play 

Already in the 50s, both the Paris Treaty (1952) and the Rome Treaty (1957) recognised 
transport  as  an  essential  facilitator  of  the  common  market  for  goods  and  services.  A 
comprehensive framework aiming to establish the single market in inland waterways was 
progressively built between the 60s and 90s, through the adoption of community legislation 
on market access and its organisation58. Figure 7 provides an overview of the timeline of 
adoption of the IWT legislative framework. 

Figure 7: Timeline of adoption  

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study  

Since the 90s, the overall legal framework has evolved and has been further fine-tuned to 
reflect new developments, as described below. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 was amended twice: Council Regulation (EEC) 
3626/84 aligned it with the conditions59 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the 
carriage  of  goods  by  road,  while  Council  Regulation  (EC)  569/2008  removed  outdated 
requirements and simplified administrative procedures, in particular by streamlining the 
information requested in transport documents for all modes of transport in scope, including 
inland navigation. A further simplification is underway to encourage the digitalisation of 
freight transport and logistics and to further reduce administrative burden. As of July 2027, 

58 The first legal act addressed price discrimination (1960), followed by rules to open the market for services 
and for employment (access to waterways and to the occupation (1985-1996)), the prohibition of fixed prices 
(1996) and the reduction of structural overcapacity (1999). 
59 Article 2 of Directive 84/647/EEC 

20 

 
 
 
 
the  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  (eFTI)  Regulation  (EU)  2020/105660  will 
enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents61 for 
freight transport, including inland navigation. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 has 
also  been  used  beyond  the  inland  navigation  sector:  the  Combined  Transport  Directive 
(EEC)  92/106  (CT  Directive)  builds  on  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  and 
requires the abolition of any system of authorisation or quotas in combined transport62 - 
similarly to road, rail and inland navigation - to liberalize operations63. The CT Directive 
fully  recognises  the  transport  document64  in  all  land  modes  including  in  combined 
transport and inland navigation.  

Council Directive 96/75/EC was amended via Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 enabling 
the  Commission  to  be  assisted  by  an  advisory  Committee65,  composed  of  the 
representatives  of  the  Member  States,  during  the  decision  making  related  to  serious 
disturbance of the market and the related measures66.  

Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  was  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  546/2014  to 
broaden the list of Member States’ measures included in its Article 8. This Article of the 
Regulation contained several measures, including re-training or early retirement for inland 
waterway  carriers  leaving  the  sector.  The  amendment  added  measures  to  encourage 
innovation  and  environmental  adaptation  of  vessels,  as  well  as  measures  to  improve 
logistics  skills  and  other  skills  of  IWT  operators.  It  also  enabled  the  use  of  the  inland 
waterway  funds  in  conjunction  with  other  financial  instruments,  including  CEF  and 
Horizon Europe Programme67. 

Implementation issues  

For legislation in Group 1 notable infringement procedures targeted the Netherlands68 in 
1996 for discriminatory practices in freight transport services, while Belgium69 faced and 
resolved an issue concerning obstacles to freedom of price formation. Additionally, France 
and  Slovakia  were  subject  to  procedures  due  to  non-transposition70.  For  Group  4 
legislation, the Netherlands71  faced  an infringement  procedure in  1990 due to  improper 
implementation  of  the  scrapping  scheme  as  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  1101/89  on 
structural improvement in inland navigation (predecessor of Council Regulation (EC) No 
718/1999).  

60 Article 2.1., Art 5.1 of Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
61 Article 6 of Regulation 11/1960 
62 Combined transport  refers to the transport of goods between  Member States where road is used on the 
initial or final leg of the journey and, on the other leg, rail or inland waterway or maritime services are used 
for more than 100 km (see detailed provisions in Article 1 of Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC). 
63 Article 2 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
64 Article 3 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
65 Committee established by Directive 91/672/EEC on the  reciprocal recognition of national boatmasters' 
certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway. 
66 Article 7.1 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
67  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  supports  the  construction  and  upgrade  of  sustainable  transport 
infrastructure  projects  and  Horizon  Europe  Programme  develops  solutions  and  services  for  clean, 
competitive, safe, smart and resilient transport and mobility. 
68 INFR(1996)4448-NL 
69 INFR(2017)4115-BE 
70 INFR(2019)2049-FR, INFR(2004)1427-SK          
71 INFR(1990)4127-NL  

21 

 
 
For  legislation  in  Group  2,  infringement  procedures  against  Germany72,  Austria73  and 
France74 concerned restrictions on the freedom to provide services, contravening both EU 
Treaty principles and Regulations (EC) No 1356/96 and No 3921/91, as well as Directive 
96/71/EC  on  the  posting  of  workers.  For  Group  3  legislation,  in  1993  Germany75  was 
required  to  amend  a  provision  under  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  because  of  non-
conformity.  Additionally,  several  infringement  procedures  had  been  launched  against 
Member States76 related to non-communication and non-transposition. 

The legal Framework within the context of TFEU 

The legal Framework plays a role in implementing the common transport policy (Art 90 
TFEU), notably the prohibition of discrimination (TFEU Art 95) in the inland waterways 
transport.  It  also  lays  down  common  rules  applicable  to  international  transport  and 
cabotage (Art 91 TFEU). In this context, generic principles founding the EU, including the 
freedom to provide services (Art 56 TFEU), the establishment of the internal market (Art 
24 TFEU), including the free movement of goods and persons should also be mentioned 
(Art  28  and  Art  21  TFEU).  Thus,  the  legislation  in  the  Framework  is  relevant  for  the 
implementation of the single market and the common transport policy.  

3.2. State of play of key geopolitical and policy developments  

Since the establishment of the first Community rules for the inland navigation sector in 
1960,  several  developments,  including  geopolitical  changes,  have  impacted  the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  inland  waterways  transport.  These  are  described 
below. 

EU enlargement  

Considering the geographical coverage of the Communities, in the 1960s mainly the Rhine 
was relevant for inland navigation. Successively, Danube riparian countries joined the EU, 
expanding the internal inland navigation market and offering an opportunity to intensify 
competition  in  the  sector:  Austria  joined  the  EU  in  1995,  followed  by  Hungary  and 
Slovakia  in  2004,  Romania  and  Bulgaria  in  2007,  and  Croatia  in  2013.  With  their 
accession, these countries have progressively adopted the EU acquis. Serbia, Ukraine and 
Moldova are also  Danube  riparian states and have been candidates  for EU membership 
since 2012 and 2022, respectively, and as such are also in the process of aligning their legal 
regime to the EU acquis. 

In the EU-enlargement context, the transported cargo volume on the European waterways 
has been fluctuating between 400 million and 550 million tonnes, going from 15 member 
countries to 28 in 2013, and to 27 in 2020 (see Figure 8). In 2023, 469 million tonnes of 
cargo were transported by IWT. 

72 INFR(2015)2100-DE 
73 INFR(2017)2052-AT 
74 INFR(2017)4094-FR 
75 INFR(1993)2202-DE 
76 Finland, Germany, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France. INFR(2001)2023-FI; 
INFR(1989)0456-DE ; INFR(1989)0456-DE ; INFR(1991)2364-PT; INFR(1990)0055IT;  
INFR(1991)0825 -NL; INFR(1989)0366-LU ; INFR(1989)0365-FR 

22 

 
 
Figure 8: IWT volumes in relation to EU-enlargement  

Source: Eurostat  

Selected events affecting the IWT sector 

After the Second World War, old steamships were replaced by motor ships and the last 
wooden sailing ships disappeared. All this led to a strong increase in scale, especially after 
the introduction of push barges. The introduction of radar technology made it possible to 
sail all night and the introduction of the container transport opened up new opportunities 
in the organisation of supply chains, including in inland shipping. Some selected events 
affecting the European IWT sector are presented in Figure 9. 

Figure 9: Selected events affecting the European IWT market 

Source: EC based on Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study 

Policy developments  

The  European  Green  Deal77  and  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy78 
highlight the relevance of  increasing  the  role of  inland waterway transport  to  make the 
transport system more sustainable, in line with the 2050 EU’s climate neutrality target and 
the zero-pollution goal. To this end, two milestones covering the inland waterway transport 

77 The European Green Deal: COM(2019) 640 final  
78 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 

23 

010020030040050060019951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023MILLION TONNESEU-15EU-25EU-27EU-28EU-27 
 
 
 
have been set by the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy79: (i) by 2030, waterborne-
based and rail intermodal transport should be able to compete on equal footing with road-
only  transport,  in  terms  of  share  of  external  costs  internalized;  (ii)  transport  by  inland 
waterways and short sea shipping should increase by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050, 
compared  to  2015.  The  strategy  also  highlights  that  the  digitalisation  of  information 
exchange is needed to increase efficiency and multimodality for transport. For the logistics 
aspect of the inland navigation sector, an important milestone will be reached in July 2027 
with  the  full  implementation  of  electronic  freight  transport  documents  as  explained  in 
section  3.1.  Availability  of  electronic  certificates  and  freight  transport  information 
facilitates not only operations, but also digital enforcement and monitoring, while real time 
tracking and tracing of goods also provides a significant step towards the completion of 
the Digital Single Market, the real time economy and green transition.  

Since 2006 the Commission has adopted three successive strategic policy papers on IWT 
called  NAIADES80.  The  current  ‘Inland  Waterway  Transport  Action  Plan  2021-2027’ 
(NAIADES III)81 calls for transformation of the sector in order to substantially increase 
capacity of inland waterways and its modal share in inland freight transport. NAIADES III 
emphasised the need for substantial investments in inland waterways and its multimodal 
infrastructure, fleet modernisation and digitalisation. Furthermore, one of the NAIADES 
III actions82 sets out to analyse and make recommendations on the existing framework for 
inland  navigation,  including  an  evaluation  of  the  current  set  of  legislation  for  market 
access. Following up on the findings of the 2024 Letta and Draghi reports83, in 2025 the 
EC  presented  the  Competitiveness  Compass84,  a  new  roadmap  to  restore  Europe’s 
dynamism and boost its economic growth. The new political guidelines85 of the second von 
der Leyen Commission also committed to focus on competitiveness with an accent on the 
completion of the single market and on resilience. Concretely for the waterborne sector, 
the EC committed86 to developing a comprehensive EU Port Strategy focusing on security, 
competitiveness and economic independence, and to proposing a new industrial maritime 
strategy to enhance the competitiveness, sustainability and resilience of Europe’s maritime 
manufacturing sector. 

Pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine  

Both  freight  and  passenger  transport  on  European  inland  waterways  suffered  from  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. For freight transport, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was 
dependent on the type of goods and on geographical region. On the Rhine for instance, the 
decrease in turnover was estimated at 65% in 2020, compared to the previous year87. In 
most of Europe, passenger transport and in particular river cruises came to a standstill in 

79 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 
80 The European Commission adopted on 17 January 2006 a Communication on the promotion of inland 
waterway transport. The 'NAIADES' Action Programme was intended for the period 2006-2013 and focused 
on five strategic areas for a comprehensive Inland Waterway Transport (IWT) policy: market, fleet, jobs and 
skills, image and infrastructure. The NAIADES II policy package is the continuation of the first programme 
and aims at moving more freight transport onto Europe’s waterways while reducing emissions. 
81 NAIADES III: Boosting future-proof European inland waterway transport, COM(2021) 324 final 
82 Action 7: Review the inland waterway transport market access legislation 
83 Enrico Letta's Report on the Future of the  Single Market (April 2024);  Mario Draghi’s Report  on  The 
future of European competitiveness (September 2024) 
84 Competitiveness compass 
85 Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2024−2029, von der Leyen, Strasbourg, 18/7/2024 
86 Mission Letter Apostolos Tzitzikostas, Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, 17/9/2024 
87 Interview with EBU-ESO (2022), carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 

24 

 
 
the  first  half  of  202088.  A  major  challenge  during  the  pandemic  was  maintaining  the 
functioning of the single market89 during the time of increased border controls and entry 
bans90.  

Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  that  started  in  February  2022  substantially 
impacted  the  Danube  traffic.  As  part  of  the  Solidarity  Lanes  Action  Plan91,  alternative 
logistics  routes  were  established  with  transport  on  the  Danube  playing  an  increasingly 
important  role.  Capacity  at  Ukraine’s  Danube  River  ports,  which  border  Romania,  has 
increased throughout the war via investment and development projects to guarantee free 
movement of cargo into and out of Ukraine, while the availability of its seaports is limited. 
Ukraine’s government continues to invest in the expansion and restoration of the Danube 
ports given their reliability as an export route during this period of uncertainty. A total of 
30 million tonnes of cargo was moved through the Danube ports in 2023 (i.e. six times the 
volume  of  the  pre-war  period),  according  to  data  published  by  Ukraine  Ministry  of 
Infrastructure. The Danube River ports remain a long-term priority and play a fundamental 
role  in  ensuring  alternative  trade  routes  for  Ukraine  during  Russia’s  war  of  aggression 
against Ukraine92. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

In this section, the success of the legislative Framework is assessed over the evaluation 
period in terms of the extent to which it achieved its objectives effectively, efficiently, and 
in a coherent way. The evidence provided is based on the detailed analysis by criterion in 
the evaluation matrix and the answers to the evaluation questions (see Annex III).  

The analysis depends on availability of sufficient data, spanning over several decades and 
covering  the  effects  of  enlargement  in  parallel  with  the  evolution  of  the  legislative 
framework over the past 65 years. The legislation was originally designed for a smaller 
number of Member States, addressing the challenges perceived for the inland navigation 
transport  sector  at  that  time.  In  the  Paris  Treaty  (1952)  and  the  Rome  Treaty  (1957), 
establishing Community transport policies, it was considered necessary to promote market 
interpenetration - an essential element of the common market for goods and services. Since 
then,  four  waves  of  EU  enlargement  have  taken  place.  With  Danube  riparian  countries 
joining the EU in large numbers, competition among operators increased.  

Furthermore, there is a high dependency of IWT volumes and its market on access to ports, 
availability  of  hinterland  connections  and  the  level  of  integration  into  door-to-door 
multimodal logistics chains. Unlike road transport, which can directly connect any origin 
and destination of a freight movement, inland navigation connects logistics hubs (ports) 
and  depends  on  land-based  infrastructure  and  services  between  ports  and  last-mile 
destinations. Annex X contains more information on IWT’s competitiveness linking the 

88 Source: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2020/sc3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-2020-inf_07e.pdf. 
89 European Commission Communication on the implementation of the Green Lanes of the Guidelines for 
border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of goods and essential services 
90 Source: https://www.abnamro.nl/nl/media/Ondernemen-in-tijden-van-corona-Transport-en-Logistiek-
2_tcm16-68906.pdf. 
91 An action plan for EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes to facilitate Ukraine's agricultural export and bilateral 
trade with the EU; COM(2022) 217 final 
92 ‘War halves Ukraine’s maritime trade’, 26 February 2024, Bridget Diakun, Analysis (via Lloyd's List 27 
February 2024) 

25 

 
 
 
legislative framework to the outcomes for the IWT sector, presenting also other aspects 
such as transported volumes or reasons for the predominance of Dutch operators. 

4.1.1. Effectiveness 

This section assesses the effectiveness of the legislative Framework. It compares the actual 
changes  these  legislative  acts  have  triggered,  in  view  of  their  original  objectives.  For 
further details on the legislation and its objectives, see Annex VI.  

Given that the legislative acts in scope date back to the 1960s to 1990s no intervention 
logic was drawn up at that time and therefore, as mentioned earlier, the intervention logic 
was reconstructed. The fact that legislation in scope lacks monitoring requirements93 results 
in limited data available to assess effectiveness. This had an effect - among others - on the 
ability to perform a more detailed analysis on how the expected results and impacts have 
been met over the evaluation period which spans over 60 years. Due to lack of quantitative 
data,  the  analysis  on  effectiveness  was  primarily  based  on  stakeholder  consultation 
contributions as underlying evidence.   

Data was collected through the fitness check support study94, the public consultation and 
the SME survey. An additional outreach by the Commission in 2024, addressed operators’ 
associations and administrations, to  fill data gaps, collect  further evidence and quantify 
costs, efforts and benefits of implementing the legislation. However, this has resulted in 
little additional evidence. 

Annex XII On data needs contains Table 19 where data needs are listed as well as possible 
avenues towards filling data gaps specific to the groups of legislation in scope. 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation – removal of restrictions and discrimination 

Before  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  of  Group  1  came  into  force, 
discriminatory  water  transport  rates  existed  in  several  countries  of  the  European 
Communities, except on the Rhine, where a free pricing system for cross-border transport 
prevailed. In the Danube region, transport prices were set by the shipping companies based 
on the criteria established by the Bratislava Agreements95 as of 1955.  

Thanks  to  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/196096,  price  discrimination  based  on 
country of origin or destination has been eliminated. This was confirmed by several 
stakeholders,  including  ProDanube97  (‘there  is  no  price  discrimination  anymore’),  the 
Danube Commission98 (‘with regard to market entrance and pricing policy there is a full 
liberalisation  within  the  Danube  region  with  some  restrictions,  especially  for  non-EU 
Member States’). Other stakeholders, like the IWT Platform99, EBU/ESO100 and a sectoral 

93 Only Council Regulation 718/1999 includes reporting requirements in its Art. 9.2 
94 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check - Support study on the access to and 
the functioning of the inland waterway transport market 
95 1955 Bratislava Agreements, Bratislava Agreements (donau.bg) 
96 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 aimed to abolish discriminatory transport rates and conditions and 
establish fairer price competition. 
97 Interview with ProDanube (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
98 Interview with the Secretariat of the Danube Commission (2021) in the context of the fitness check support 
study. 
99 Interview with IWT Platform (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
100 Interview with EBU/ESO (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  

26 

 
 
expert101 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative 
rates. In a survey102, the Croat administration also stated that the Regulation significantly 
diminished discriminatory and price-setting behaviour. On the other hand, EBU103 and a 
French sectoral association104 concluded that this makes the legislation obsolete (‘after the 
liberalisation of transport this regulation is obsolete and no longer required as legal basis 
for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions’). 

The  effect  of  this  Council  Regulation  extends  beyond  IWT.  The  Combined  Transport 
Directive 92/106/EEC (CT Directive) built on this Council Regulation and reiterated that, 
similarly to unimodal transport, combined transport is also free105 of authorisations and 
quotas. It also refers106 to the transport document as contained in the Council Regulation, 
thereby broadening the effect of the initial Council Regulation.  

According to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, Member States shall carry out 
controls  or  inspections.  Evidence  shows  that  controls  are  carried  out,  though  not  in  all 
countries. Croatia  reported107 carrying out 318 checks in 2010 and 261 checks per year 
during 2020-2024, while Hungary reported108 9,108 and 8,054 checks in 2010 and 2020, 
respectively109. In a survey110, on the question whether inspections are carried out to verify 
compliance  of  undertakings  with  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960111,  the  Finish  and 
Hungarian  authorities  replied  affirmatively,  while  Luxembourg  police  responded 
negatively, and Romanian respondents gave contradictory answers. The control of a vessel 
by enforcement authorities might serve different aims and may be based on diverse legal 
bases, not only checking compliance with rates and conditions but also compliance with 
e.g.  safety  rules.  In  a  2022  online  survey  of  Members  States  authorities  related  to 
enforcement procedures, conducted in the context of eFTI initiative112, 5 of 9 respondents 
said that rates and conditions are checked in IWT. A collection of use cases on enforcement 
procedures in the context of eFTI initiative also confirmed that rates and conditions are 
checked systematically  (i.e. all 10  IWT inspection cases mentioned it)113. According to 
Member  States,  inspections  are  selected  on  a  random  basis  and  are  carried  out  by 
police/water police/border police (FR, BE, HU, RO), waterway administration (BE, PL) 
and port authorities/harbour master (HU, RO)114. In Luxembourg, controls are carried out 

101 Interview with former CCNR secretary (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
102 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  
103 Paper submitted by EBU (Roadmap and public consultation) 
104 Paper submitted by Entreprises Fluviales de France (public consultation) 
105 Article 2 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
106 Article 3 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
107 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  
108 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
109  Hungary  however  referred  to  the  checks  in  a  more  global  way,  namely  that  they  control  and  enforce 
compliance with the waterway transport regulation.  
110 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
111 Namely, whether the presence and validity of transport documents are checked. 
112 Survey on enforcement procedures (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex III: Online survey on enforcement procedures).  
113 Overview of the processes and procedures performed by different national competent authorities when 
checking regulatory information under the scope of the eFTI Regulation (EFTI-D1.2.5). It contains 10 use 
cases for IWT from AT, FR, HU, LT, LU, RO, SI and NL. 
114 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 

27 

 
 
in  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries  (especially  DE  and  FR)  through  an 
international convention115.  

The  SME  survey116  also  delivered  feedback  on  enforcement,  namely  on  whether 
administrations check transport documents kept onboard of the vessel for transport rates 
and  conditions,  to  see  whether  prices  are  based  on  fair  price  competition  and  non-
discrimination,  as  stipulated  in  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960.  Out  of  41  SMEs  that 
responded to the survey, 21 (51%) said authorities do not check transport documents117, 
while 3 (7%) responded that authorities do check transport documents118. The remaining 
17 (41%) SMEs indicated ‘do not know’.  

EBU and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management explained119 that 
the Dutch water police uses transport documents also to verify freight of a ship (especially 
for  substances  used  for  production  of  drugs).  While  EBU/ESO  complain  about  related 
administrative  burden,  the  Dutch  water  police120  defended  its  practice  regarding  crime 
detection and preventing terrorism. Hungarian police121 also combines checks (including 
crew member qualification and technical vessel requirements). 

Other  restrictive  practices  were  addressed  by  Council  Directive  96/75/EC,  which 
eliminated national rules or practices impeding the freedom of chartering and pricing (the 
‘Tour de Role’122 and Festfrachten123 systems). In January 1994, the German abolishment 
of the Festfrachten system of minimum prices, resulted in reduced shipping prices by 60% 
for  coal  products  and  by  40%  for  bulk  cargo124.  The  ‘Tour  de  Role’  systems  in  the 
Netherlands, France and Belgium were abolished in January 2000. In the Netherlands alone 
the annual benefits due to the abolishment of the ‘Tour de Role’ system are estimated at 
EUR  190  million  annually,  expressed  in  2022  prices125.  Stakeholders  confirmed  the 
effectiveness of Council Directive 96/75/EC126.  

115 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 
116 Dedicated SME survey, conducted with the support of the European Enterprise Network in 2022.  
117 In the Netherlands, Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Slovak Republic, Belgium, 
France, Luxembourg, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine and Switzerland.  
118 In Romania, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria. 
119  Gap  filling  survey  for  operators’  associations  and  Member  States  authorities,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
120 Based on an interview with the Dutch police in the context of the fitness check support study, checking 
the  transport  documents  is  usually  only  one  of  the  activities  during  an  inspection  onboard,  which  might 
include  also  checking  the  manning  requirements  and  sailing/resting  times.  The  police  do  not  check  the 
documents for price discrimination; they check the transport document to see what freight is on board of a 
vessel.  
121 Interview with the Hungarian police in the context of the fitness check support study.  
122  In  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  France  shippers  were  legally  obliged  to  conclude  their  contracts  for 
national transport through the intermediary of a state-run system of chartering by rotation (“Tour de Role” 
in French), which assigned cargo to bargemen on a “first come, first served” basis. For this, shippers had to 
pay minimum freight rates fixed by law. 
123 Festfrachten is a system of fixed minimum freight rates in Germany. 
124 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
125 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 
126  The  associations  representing  IWT  operators  (EBU/ESO)  stated  in  an  interview  (2021)  that  Council 
Directive 96/75/EC established the free market and was in their view very effective in meeting the objectives. 
EBU further underlined the effectiveness of the Directive in the gap filling survey for operators’ association, 
organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. In other interviews (2021) carried out in the 
context of the fitness check support study, the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the 

28 

 
 
 
The existence of the regulatory framework  allows maintaining these achievements over 
time,  as  demonstrated  by  infringement  procedures  in  1996  and  in  2017  against  two 
Member  States,  based  on  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  (see  sections  3.1  and  4.3  on 
relevance). 

Conclusion  on  effectiveness  of  Group  1  legislation:  Group  1  legislation  has  proven 
effective  in  reaching  its  objectives  as  discriminatory  and/or  price-setting  behaviour  has 
been eliminated. The legislation and related infringement procedures remain important to 
avoid discrimination, also in view of future enlargements. A uniform requirement to carry 
a transport document across the EU enables enforcement authorities to check compliance 
with transport rates and conditions, no matter the state affiliation of the operator.   

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation – structural improvement of the IWT market 
For  Group  4,  the  effectiveness  of  provisions  on  handling  of  structural  overcapacity  is 
assessed, together with the provisions on serious market disturbance, and the use of the 
inland waterways Fund, including the establishment of the IWT Platform.  

Together  with  monitoring  fleet  capacity,  an  ‘old-for-new’  scrapping  scheme  was 
introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 to allow new vessels only in case of scrapping 
old  capacity  or  paying  into  a  Reserve  Fund.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999 
extended  the  scrapping  scheme  until  April  2003. The  Fund  has  subsequently  become  a 
standby mechanism127 not yet used, but available in case of serious market disturbance128 
and welcome by stakeholders. EBU/ESO and the IWT Platform stated in an interview in 
the context of the fitness check support study that the advantage of this Council Directive 
is  that  it  offers  a  unique  crisis  mechanism  which  can  be  used  in  case  of  structural 
overcapacity in the IWT sector, which not many sectors have. 

During 1990-1999, 600,509 tonnes of dry cargo capacity were demolished and 650,906 
tonnes of new builds added and EUR 9 million of penalties collected for non-compensated 
demolitions. During the same period, 240,364 tonnes of tank barge capacity were added, 
while 131,018 tonnes were demolished129. 

The  fitness  check  support  study130  found  that  the  number  of  active  vessels  in  the 
Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg decreased by 1.2% 
during 1993-1996 and by 24% during 1996-2000, demonstrating the success in addressing 
overcapacity. The study also estimated that without the legal acts in Group 4, the number 
of vessels on the North-South and East-West corridor would have been 13,339, instead of 
9,758. This overcapacity would have resulted in annual losses of 20.8% per operator.  

CCNR representing the profession expressed the view that the Directive brought very good results including 
decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity while the Romanian association of inland ship owners 
and port operators mentioned that the market is functioning well, while highlighting that some cost elements, 
like e.g. fuel or port fees, the Black Sea Canal fee, also influence the freight tariffs. In the gap filling survey 
for  Member  States  authorities,  organised  by  the  Commission  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2024,  the  Austrian 
administration  mentioned  as  benefits  the  market  liberalisation  while  the  Luxembourg  administration 
highlighted the elimination of discrimination aspect. 
127 Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 718/1999 
128 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
129 Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector  - 
To intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge, available at: Managing capacity 
in the inland waterway sector  
130 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study  

29 

 
 
Regarding the impact of the Community-fleet capacity policy on volumes, as can be seen 
in  the  following  graph,  the  Community-fleet  capacity  policy  (active  April  1999-April 
2003)  had  no  negative  impact  IWT  volumes,  as  volumes  in  2000-2002  have  increased 
compared to volumes in 1999 and even considering the decline in 2003 volumes were still 
slightly higher than in 1999.  

Figure 10: IWT volumes over the period 1995-2023 (in million tonnes) 

Source: Eurostat  

The annual volume of goods transported by inland navigation declined since 2017 due to 
several economic and geopolitical factors. 

The volume transported by IWT is affected by the level of water on the Rhine and on the 
Danube. In 2018 and 2022, the Rhine had unusually low water periods which reduced the 
transported  volume.  The  war  in  Ukraine  lead  to  an  energy  crisis  which  impacted  the 
general  industrial  production and affected the  IWT traditional market  segments such as 
steel and chemical. Maritime transport was also impacted and lead de facto to a reduction 
of goods transported by IWT from the main maritime ports in the EU. Another factor is 
the increasing congestion for IWT vessels in maritime ports131 which impacts the transport 
of containers by IWT. 

In 2024 and early 2025, Rhine and Danube navigation showed signs of recovery after the 
sharp  declines  of  the  previous  two  years.  Despite  ongoing  geopolitical  tensions  and 
structural  shifts  in  global  trade,  transport  volumes  picked  up  slightly,  supported  by 
declining inflation. The inland waterway sector also faced persistent challenges related to 
high  operating  costs,  a  weak  construction  sector,  and  declining  coal  transport  due  to 
Germany’s  coal  phase-out.  Commodity  markets  showed  greater  stability  overall,  with 
falling crude oil prices offering some relief to fuel-intensive transport modes like inland 
shipping.  However,  persistent  volatility  in  gas  and  agricultural  prices,  together  with  a 
recent drop in metal prices triggered by new trade tensions, continue to pose risks for cargo 
demand. Over the last decade, modal shares132 have slightly decreased for IWT and rail at 
EU level, while those of road transport have slightly increased. IWT lost 0.6 percentage 
points in the last 10 years, to reach 1.6% in 2023133. 

As mentioned before, after April 2003 the inland waterways Fund has become a standby 

131 https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/omanalysesthematiques/Report_Congestion_Final_en.pdf 
132 Note, many EU countries do not have inland waterways, therefore the overall modal split of IWT at the 
EU level is less appropriate as a performance indicator for the success of inland waterway transport in the 
EU - modal split per country is considered as a more meaningful indicator. 
133 Eurostat Freight transport statistics - modal split - Statistics Explained - Eurostat 

30 

010020030040050060019951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023MILLION TONNESEU-15EU-25EU-27EU-28EU-27 
 
 
mechanism which can be used in two cases: either in connection with measures134 referred 
to in Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 if unanimously requested by the organisations 
representing inland waterway transport, or in connection with suitable capacity measures 
in case of serious market disturbance135 in the IWT market.  

Attempts  have  been  made  by  Member  States  to  trigger  the  latter  mechanism  related  to 
serious market disturbance, however, until today, the system has not been activated. The 
main reason is that none of the disturbances were considered by the European Commission 
as serious market disturbance resulting in a structural decrease in the demand on the IWT 
market. According to Council Directive 96/75/EC, some conditions are defined, however, 
there are no explicit criteria. At the same time, the link of Council Regulation (EC) No 
718/1999 with Council Directive 96/75/EC is restrictive and allows the use of the fund in 
restricted  cases  only.  This  is  intentional  as  only  specific  cases  of  overcapacity  are 
considered as serious disturbance of the market.   

From  a  methodological  point  of  view,  it  is  very  difficult  to  assess  whether  initial 
expectations  have  been  met  by  a  measure,  which  has  never  been  applied  in  practice. 
Despite the attempt to trigger this serious market disturbance mechanism, Member States 
did  not  succeed  in  doing  so  and  this  provision  has  not  been  used  in  practice  so  far. 
Community fleet capacity measures affect the transport capacity for many years after the 
measures have been taken. According to the Group 4 legislation such measures are only 
possible in case of a structural or permanent shock and are not possible in a situation where 
the shock is considered to be temporary and where the market can recover within several 
years. This was also the most important reason for the European Commission not to declare 
a serious market disturbance in the two events in which the Member States filled a request 
to do so.  In the case of the BE request, there was no overall agreement by MSs on the 
measures (i.e. legislation requires agreement by MS). At the same time such measures are 
only justified under permanent or structural shocks, and this was not the case. In the case 
of the Netherlands attempt in 2009, in the context of the 2008 financial crisis, the EC found 
the market situation to be conjunctural and not of structural nature.  

The COVID-19 crisis could not be regarded as an issue specific to IWT, consequently the 
mechanism was not activated by Member States during the crisis.  

However, the business associations of the sector (EBU/ESO) expressed their support to 
keep the mechanism, as a tool for improving resilience of the sector. EBU/ESO and the 
IWT Platform stated in an interview that this mechanism offers a unique crisis mechanism 
which can be activated in case of EU-wide structural overcapacity in the IWT sector, which 
not many sectors have. 

The amounts  available in  the Reserve Fund in  2022, by Member State, are provided in 
Table 3. Danube countries (with the exception of Austria136) currently have no reserve fund 
as  relevant  legislation  provides  for  exemptions  for  vessels  operating  exclusively  on  the 
Danube as well as exemption to countries below a certain fleet size.  

Table 3: Amounts available in the Reserve Fund in 2022, in EUR (excluding interest) 
Total 
141,863 
4,374,656 
4,730,639 

Member State 
Austria  
Belgium  
Germany  

Push boats 
1,867 
163,885 
24,451 

Dry cargo 
72,756 
831,525 
1,767,195 

67,241 
3,379,246 
2,938,994 

Tanker shipping 

134 Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 718/1999 
135 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
136 Austria’s fund is a result of the Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89. 

31 

 
 
Member State 
France  
The Netherlands  
Total  

Dry cargo 
129,204 
7,808,045 
10,610,273 

Push boats 
32,301 
316,905 
540,315 

Tanker shipping 
155,495 
9,176,514 
15,715,034 

Total 
317,000 
17,301,464 
26,865,622 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study 

On  the  interest  from  the  amounts  available  in  the  Reserve  Fund,  firstly,  the  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 contains no provisions concerning the interests of the Funds. 
So, interests and other “fruits” which accrue due to the usage of the means through the 
establishment of the Funds are not directly regulated in the Regulation; they do not form 
part of the actual amounts of the Reserve Funds. The Funds are sourced from contributions 
by the inland navigation sector and are to be used to the benefit of the sector137. The Funds 
are, therefore, comparable to an escrow account138 and cannot be freely used for unrelated 
purposes. Article 3(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 requires the Member State 
concerned  to  administer  the  Reserve  Fund,  while  also  involving  their  national 
organisations representing IW carriers in this administration. In Germany, for instance, the 
law implementing the Regulation provides that the Fund’s main amount is blocked for the 
purposes of the Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999, but the interest accrued can be used 
in the interest of the sector139, after hearing the sector’s opinion140. 

In line with Article 3.5 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 the Reserve Fund was used 
in 2017 to create the IWT Platform141 whose continuation was supported together with the 
continuation of the Fund in its current form142. Several stakeholders indicated143 that the 
Reserve  Fund  could  be  used  to  stimulate  innovation  and  support  programmes  for 
simulators for schools or catalysts144 or for the uptake of clean technologies.  

137 See Article 3(4),(5) and Article 8 Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999. 
138 an account managed by a neutral third party, holding funds until specific conditions are met 
139 As an example, the interest accrued in the German Reserve Fund in 2024 has been used to support the 
image  campaign  ‘PRO  Inland  Navigation’.  This  image  campaign  is  a  joint  action  by  the  German  IWT 
industry,  highlighting  the  economic  and  environmental  importance  of  IWT  and  promoting  workers  in  a 
future-proof working environment. 
140 § 5 Gesetz über die Errichtung des Deutschen Binnenschifffahrtsfonds. 
141 EUR 7 million was transferred to establish the IWT Platform and to fund its activities for ten years (2017 
to 2027), providing EUR 700,000 annually. 
142 During the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth 
quarter of 2024, AT, HR DE and NL administrations were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are 
still needed in their current form. 4 Member States indicated ‘cannot say’ or left the reply to the question 
blank.  During  the  gap  filling  survey  for  operators’  associations,  organised  during  the  same  period,  all 
respondents, including the IWT Platform, were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are still needed 
in their current form. 
143 During the public consultation, the French administration commented that the focus now should lay on 
reducing the lifetime of the vessels in order to reduce the IWT’s impact on the climate, rather than reducing 
the capacity of the fleet. The association of barge operators (EBU/ESO), mentioned in an interview that the 
Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and used for example for programmes for simulators for schools 
or catalysts. The scrapping goals of the Regulation are less relevant as e.g. tankers are currently less than 30 
years  old.  The  IWT  Platform  mentioned  in  an  interview  that  some  stakeholders  want  to  maintain  the 
scrapping (programme) but not the old-for-new rule. This was especially the case of the tanker sector, when 
the change from the single to double hull took place. 
144  According  to  Article  8,  without  prejudice  to  Article  3(5),  any  Member  State  may  take  measures  in 
particular to: make it easier for inland waterway carriers leaving the industry to obtain an early retirement 
pension or to transfer to another economic activity; organise vocational training or re-training schemes for 

32 

 
 
 
Group 4 legislation did not aim to restrict or regulate supply. It aimed to avoid aggravation 
of existing overcapacity or the emergence of further overcapacity in a limited period of 
four years ending in April 2003. Under Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 there is no 
scrapping premium but rather an ‘old-for-new’ rule, requiring vessel owners to scrap old 
tonnage when bringing in new capacity, else paying a special contribution to the Fund. 
Another important  aspect  of this mechanism is  the fact  that this contribution  was not  a 
fixed  amount,  but  it  was  ‘moving  with  the  market’.  Namely,  the  ratio  could  be  set  at 
different levels for different sectors of the market, i.e. dry cargo carriers, tanker vessels 
and pusher craft, depending on the overcapacity in that specific segment145. Moreover, the 
legislation set out to reduce the ratio constantly over the four years to bring it down as 
quickly as possible and in regular stages to zero no later than by the end of the four-year 
period, 29 April 2003146. 

Annex XI contains more information related to tackling structural overcapacity and Group 
4 legislation.  

Conclusion  on  effectiveness  of  Group  4  legislation:  Group  4  legislation  successfully 
addressed structural overcapacity. Old vessels were scrapped and instead modern vessels 
introduced  in  cargo segments  with more demand.  Legal  provisions  have adapted to  the 
changing IWT market, broadening the type of measures that can be supported by the Fund.  

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

The access to the market rules in Group 2, enacted in the 80’s-90’s by the EU, are taking 
into account the existence of the Rhine rules147 and of the Danube rules148, the two major 
EU markets for IWT.  

The  legislative  acts  have  allowed  EU  operators  to  provide  national  and  international 
transport services, enabling transit. Consequently, cross-border transport represents 75%149 
of the freight IWT activity of 116 billion tonnes-kilometres150, while for river cruise up to 
80% of its activity151. In Bulgaria 74% of traffic is transit152. According to a 2024 survey153, 
carriers affiliated to responding operators’ associations do carry out international transport 
operations in other EU Member States154, including on rivers they are not initially affiliated 

workers  leaving  the  industry;  encourage  private  owner-operators  to  join  trade  associations;  encourage 
adaptation of vessels to technical progress in order to improve working conditions and promote technical 
safety requirements; improve operators' skills in order to safeguard the development and future of the trade. 
145 Art. 4.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 
146 Art. 4.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 
147 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 on Rhine access and Art. 6 of cabotage rules in Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 3921/91. 
148 Art. 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 regulating cross-border transport. 
149 CCNR (2024), Market Observation report 2024 
150 Source: Eurostat 
151 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study. 
152 In Bulgaria 74% of traffic is transit (on average between 2014-2023) which is explained by the trading 
routes for agricultural products and iron ore on the Danube. Source: CCNR Market Insight 2025. 
153 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
154 Austria, Croatia, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Czechia, Hungary and the Netherlands were mentioned. 

33 

 
 
with. Stakeholders agreed155 that cross-border operations increased due to Regulation (EC) 
No 1356/96. 

Surveys156 showed that cabotage transport is not recorded separately (AT), is considered 
as ‘part of normal business operations’ (LU) and has increased in FR, NL and HU. Any 
EU operator can now sail the Rhine and some operators established in the Rhine area have 
also deployed business activities on the Danube. About 7,000 yearly passings between DE 
and AT are recorded157, amounting to 2,745 thousand tonnes of cargo158.  

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 opened cabotage on German waterways beyond 
the existing  openness of  Mosel and Rhine159. For  example,  Polish  operators160  are now 
providing cargo services on the connection Berlin-Szczecin (Spree-Oder Canal). Cabotage 
between  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  was  extended  to  all  EU  Member  States161.  This 
benefited volumes transported by foreign flagged vessels in the Netherlands.  

Figure 11: IWT cabotage in the Netherlands 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on CBS, the Netherlands 

On a qualitative basis, the analysis revealed that Danube navigation access had in practice 
long been limited to Member Countries of the Danube Commission as prices were set in 
agreements between state-owned companies (Bratislava Agreements). In absence of the 
EU legislative framework, entry and access to (international) transportation on the Danube 
was reserved to State-owned companies of Danube Commission Member Countries. The 

155 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study  
156 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study; gap filling survey for 
Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
157 According to ProDanube (2022), 3,504 upstream and 3,634 downstream passings are recorded.  These 
figures include vessels going upstream and not entering the Rhine area, and vessels going downstream which 
only run on the Danube and not coming from the Rhine. However, they give an idea on the number of vessels 
concerned. 
158 Danube Commission (2023), Danube Commission Market Observation report 2023, p. 42. 
159  Interviews  with  the  German  Commissar  at  the  CCNR,  representing  the  sector,  and  with  the  former 
Secretary General of the CCNR in the context of the fitness check support study. 
160 Interview with the Polish Ministry of Infrastructure in the context of the fitness check support study. 
161 Interview with a Belgian legal expert (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study. 

34 

 
 
 
legislative framework opened the Danube navigation services and set the preconditions for 
future growth.  

Prior to EU accession, operators of Central and Eastern European countries had limited 
access (return trip) to EU waterways, based on international treaties. For these countries 
cabotage in (Western Europe) became a reality once they joined the EU, according to an 
interview  with  the  Representative  of  Rhine  operators  and  German  Commissar  to  the 
CCNR162. On the Danube, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 fully opened cabotage 
to non-resident EU operators. 

For Group 2 legislation, the expected result to liberalise access has been achieved. Looking 
at the explanatory memorandum of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3291/91 on cabotage163, 
the  Court  of  Justice  established  the  obligation  of  the  Council  to  enact  the  regulation  in 
application of the then Article 75(1)(b) TEC to regulate services in transport  in 1985164. 
The  initial  Commission’s  intention  has  been  to  liberalise  the  inland  navigation  market 
within five years. Following the enactment of the regulation on cabotage, the Commission 
proposed only in 1995 to adopt a regulation on international transport. According to the 
explanatory memorandum of Regulation (EC) 1356/96165, the Commission established that 
there  has  been  no  issue  with  international  transport  and  transit  as  the  then  Community 
Member States allowed for it in inland navigation. However, with the accession of Austria 
having two bilateral agreements which were seen non-compliant with the Treaty, made it 
necessary to also regulate international transport. 

Turning to Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 on the free access to the Rhine, the intention 
was to guarantee equal access to vessels of Member States’ which did not already belong 
to  a  CCNR  Member  State  (DE,  NL,  BE,  FR  and  CH).  The  explanatory  memorandum 
explains that the CCNR Member States started regulatory measures in 1979 to limit access 
to  the  Rhine  for  CCNR  Member  States  and  coordinated  with  the  then  EEC166.  This 
limitation was intended in view of the finalisation of the Main-Danube-Canal which would 
have  given  physical  access  to  third  countries  to  the  Rhine.  Due  to  the  looming  over-
capacity  in  the  Rhine  area,  the  access,  therefore,  should  have  been  limited  to  certain 
countries.  In  order  not  to  discriminate  against  other  Community  Member  States, 
Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 sets out identical conditions which establish a genuine link with 
the countries whose vessels can access the Rhine. With EU enlargement, vessels of all EU 
Member States have legally access to the Rhine and to each other’s waterways. The very 
intention and purpose of Group 2 legislation was to create the framework under Article 
91(1)(a), (b) in connection with Article 58(1) TFEU. 

During  the  consultations167,  no  issues  related  to  market  access  for  services  in  inland 
navigation was reported. The lack of clarity of the legislation in Group 2 was raised by 
some  Member  States  and some  owners/operators168,  for  example  whether  Rhine  states 

162 Interview with the Representative of Rhine operators and German Commissar to the CCNR representing 
the profession, working for the Port of Rotterdam, in the context of the fitness check support study. 
163 see COM(85) 610 
164  The  Court of  Justice  established  the obligation  of  the  Council  to  act  (Case  13/83)  after  the  European 
Parliament  brought  a  case  against  the  Council  in  which  it  claimed  that  the  Council  failed  to  act  on  the 
proposal of the Commission submitted 23 November 1967. 
165 see COM(95) 176 
166 see COM (85)10 
167 At the  stage of the  Roadmap,  public  consultation, the SME Panel and the 2024 gap filling survey for 
Member States authorities. 
168 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, final report (p. 47 and 
50) including the stakeholders consultation annex (p. 21 and 24). 

35 

 
 
need to accept Rhine navigation documents issued by non-Rhine states or to what extend 
Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 requires compliance checks regarding the establishment of 
companies, citizenship of operators, managers/directors or owners of vessels.  

The  EU  legislation  allows  cabotage  on  a  temporary  basis,  a  term  not  defined  for  IWT 
leading to implementation differences (see Table 4) and uncertainty for IWT operators. 
Based on the responses to the public consultation only for France and Belgium there are 
reports169 on regular control whether cabotage transport is carried out on a temporary basis 
and 16 out of 40 operators that participated to the SME panel survey are unaware whether 
access to cabotage is limited in duration170. SME replies widely varied on whether Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 brought about any changes regarding cabotage171. 

Table 4: Overview of cabotage rules in the different Member States  

Cabotage in the EU Member States 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i

m

i
l

n
o
i
t
a
t
i

m

i
l

e
m

i
t

o
N

e
m

i
t

o
N

RHINE 
(desk research) 

MOSEL 
(consultation with 
Mosel Commission 
Secretariat and Mosel 
questionnaire to the 
Member States, June 
2021) 
LU 
(interview of national 
expert from LU) 
BE 
(desk research) 

e
c
n
a
r
F
n
i

t
p
e
c
x
e

n
o
i
t
a
t
i

m

i
l

e
m

i
t

o
N

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

e
n
i
h
R

t
c
a
r
p

l
a
c
i

o
N

NL 
(desk research) 

FR 
(Desk research) 

DE 
(interview with 
CCNR commissar 
representing the 
profession, May 
2021) 
PL 
i
o
l
(Interview 16/11/21) 
p
i
t
p
a
a
c

n

No time limitation (cabotage defined at river level under the Rhine regime) 
Originally reserved for riparian countries and Belgium 
Officially extended to all EU Member States after the adoption of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85; became a reality beyond Rhine and Mosel 
countries after recognition of EU inland vessel certificates in 2009. 

No time limitation in practice, although not covered by the Treaty 
(cabotage is economically insignificant on the Mosel) 

Not applicable (only one inland port in LU) 

No time limitation since the 19th century 
Initially reserved to riparian and Rhine countries, then extended to all EU 
Member  States  following  adoption  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
3921/91. 
No time limitation  
Initially reserved to riparian and Rhine countries, then extended to all EU 
Member  States  following  adoption  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
3921/91. 
Limited to 90 consecutive days or 135 non-consecutive days within a period 
of 12 months (Article L4413-1 code of transport) 
This has little impact in practice, according to ESO172 
Rhine regime (i.e. unlimited cabotage) extends to the direct tributaries of 
the  Rhine  (Neckar,  Main),  the  Ruhr  canals  up  to  Dortmund  and  Hamm. 
However, 
the  German 
administration (CCNR questionnaire (DF(21)10). 
On  the  other  German  waterways,  the  term  “temporary”  is  not  legally 
defined.  
‘Temporary’  is  not  defined  but  there  is  no  practical  application  of  this 
regulation  in  Poland  (no  foreign  company  operates  on  the  Polish 
waterways). 

response  was  provided  by 

the  opposite 

169 Based on the responses to the public consultation.  
170 On the question of whether they experience time limitation in accessing cabotage, 20 operators responded 
‘No’, 16 responded that they did not know and 4 (all located in Belgium or France) responded ‘Yes’. 
171 18 respondents responded that they did not notice any change since the 90’s; 12 responded that they did 
not  know;  7  responded  that  they  noticed  a  change.  This  change  is  positively  described  by  some  (i.e. 
discrimination in access granted has ceased), while others see it negatively (i.e. some East European vessels 
are claimed to operate exclusively on Western waterways without ever returning to their home country).  
172 Naiades Meeting, September 2021. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cabotage in the EU Member States 

CZ 

Not known. Cabotage operations in CZ are likely limited. 

AT 
(written 
questionnaire) 
SI (response to 
survey) 

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

n
o
m
m
o
c

o
N

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

e
b
u
n
a
D

HU 
(survey) 

HR 
RO 
(interview with 
Romanian 
Association of Inland 
Ship Owners, July 
2021) 
BG 

Access to cabotage is temporary but the term temporary is not defined. The 
Austrian administration calls for a specification at the EU level, applying 
the road transport model. 
Prior authorisation by Ministry of transport required. 
A  permit  may  be  granted  to  a  foreign  carrier  for  a  single  transport  or 
repeated transport operations, specifying the number of transport operations 
or the time during which an unlimited number of transport operations may 
be carried out. 
Temporary is defined (according to the public authorities in the context of 
the survey)/ is not defined (according to Federation of Hungarian Danube 
ports in the context of the survey). 
Not known 
Open without any time limitation  

Not known 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, Annex IV 

While  some  authorities  appreciate  the  current  flexibility  on  the  interpretation  of 
“temporary cabotage”173, other administrations plead for a respective definition similar to 
road  transport174,175.  Some  stakeholders176  ask  for  any  temporary  restrictions  to  be 
abandoned and to facilitate market entries. Other stakeholders asked for reinforced checks 
on whether cabotage was of a temporary nature, to avoid social dumping177,178.  

The  complexities  of  legislation  in  Group  2,  related  to  the  geographical  scope  (Rhine, 
Danube, other), extent of access (cross-border, transit, cabotage), and the differences in 
asserting the link between the vessel and the operator vis-à-vis the country, was raised by 
several respondents during the public consultation179 and the survey of administrations180. 
They  plead  for  simplification,  overhaul  or  simply  revoking  of  the  legislation.  The 
distinction  between  access  to  Rhine  (Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85)  and  the 
cabotage  legislation  (Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  3921/91)  was  also  unclear  to  some 
stakeholders181.  

173  In  their  reply  to  the  public  consultation,  the  French  authorities  stated  that  ‘the  margin  of  manoeuvre 
available to the Member States regarding the temporary nature of cabotage is an essential element in adapting 
the rules to the reality of the characteristics of the network and the market of the Member State’. 
174 See chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. 
175 The Austrian administration, pleaded for a specification of the term, along the lines of the road transport.  
176 EBU would like to see the temporary restrictions on cabotage abolished (feedback to the Roadmap and 
public consultation); Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie pleaded to keep entry barriers low and allowing 
new entrants to the market, thereby broadening the number of transport providers for a free and fair market 
(feedback tot he Roadmap). 
177 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, stakeholder 
consultation annex, p. 23, 55 and SME Panel. 
178 The trade unions asserted that the relatively open market would foster social dumping. 
179 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, stakeholder 
consultation annex, p. 49 and 54  
180 By AT, HR, DE and LU in the context of the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised 
by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024.  
181 Interview with Secretary General of Romanian Association of Inland Ship Owners and Port Operators 
(July 2021), in the context of the fitness check support study. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group  2  legislation  acknowledges  some  rights  of  non-EU  players  encoded  in  the 
Mannheim and the Danube Acts. Stakeholders that responded to the public consultation 
were divided in their views (see Figure 12)182 on whether non-EU operators from the Rhine 
(i.e.  Switzerland)  are  favoured  in  comparison  with  non-EU  operators  from  the  Danube 
region  (i.e.  Ukraine,  Serbia).  Several  respondents183  asked  for  more  clarity  and 
transparency on allowed activities by third country carriers.  

Figure 12: Replies to the public consultation on the question related to the treatment of non-
EU operators 

Do you think that the legislative framework in scope enables a fair, transparent 
treatment of non-EU operators – independently of their origin?

Non-EU operators are treated in a fair, transparent way
no matter their origin/geographical location (n=14)

4

5

5

Non-EU operators from the Danube (i.e Ukraine, Serbia,
Russia) are favoured in comparison with non-EU
operators from the Rhine (i.e. Switzerland) (n=14)

Non-EU operators from the Rhine (i.e. Switzerland) are
favoured in comparison with non-EU operators from the
Danube region (i.e Ukraine, Serbia, Russia) (n=14)

1

4

9

5

5

4

Agree

0
I don't know

2

4
Disagree

6

8

10

12

14

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on the public consultation 
Conclusion  on  Effectiveness  for  Group  2  legislation:  Legislation  in  Group  2  is 
successfully regulating access for all EU vessels to all EU inland waterways resulting in a 
large majority of transport of goods and people crossing Member States’ territories (75% 
for freight transport and 80% for passenger transport). However, there is unawareness and 
uncertainty  of  the  exact  conditions  to  be  applied  by  vessel  owners/operators  as  well  as 
authorities, which could in theory hamper market access, even though no concrete issues 
have become apparent so far. In particular a definition of temporary cabotage is requested 
by several stakeholders.  

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  provides  common  rules  on  access  to  the occupation  of 
carrier of goods and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other evidence 
of formal qualifications. It lists requirements for professional competences for national and 
international  cargo  operations.  While  all  other  modes  of  transport  regulate  respective 
provisions via a Regulation, the rules for IWT are established by a Directive, resulting in 
national differences (see Annex IX).  

In reply to the targeted survey184, 3 out of 15 respondents were of the view that the scheme 
for professional competence of an IWT freight carrier has improved the situation compared 

182 During the public consultation 5 out of 14 respondents find that non-EU operators from the Rhine (i.e. 
Switzerland)  are  favoured  in  comparison  with  non-EU  operators  from  the  Danube  region  (i.e.  Ukraine, 
Serbia), while 4 out of 14 disagree with this statement. 4 out of 14 respondents are of the view that non-EU 
operators are treated in a fair, transparent way, independent of their origin. 
183 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, stakeholder 
consultation annex, p. 49. 
184  Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  

38 

 
 
 
with the period prior to Directive 87/540/EEC (before 1990). One respondent believed it 
did not improve it, while the remaining 11 respondents replied that they do not know. 

During  the  public  consultation,  it  was  noted185  that  ‘there  is  no  harmonised 
certificate/document transparently confirming the proof of professional competence. As a 
consequence,  it  is  not  easy  for  enforcement  authorities  in  the  field  to  ascertain  that  a 
transport  operation  is  carried  out  in  compliance  with  the  EU  requirements.  The  same 
comment was also made in the SME survey. 

Annually, about  8-10 certificates are issued per  Member State186, and in  some Member 
States  also  12  replacements,  reclassifications  and  extensions.  Two  Member  States187 
reported high share of electronically issued certificates.  Many exemptions and derogations 
are included in the Directive. Due to these, in the Netherlands about 25% of certificates of 
carrier of goods are obtained through practice only188. 

The list of required knowledge included in the Annex of the Directive is still reflecting the 
situation of the 1980s and missing skills related to digitalisation and clean technologies. 
While Directive (EU) 2017/2397 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland 
navigation for crew addressed required competences, Directive 87/540/EEC only includes 
knowledge.  

The  Directive  furthermore  does  not  cover  the  growing  passenger  transport  market189 
raising  some  stakeholder  concerns  on  a  level  playing  field.  Some  Member  States 
administrations190 furthermore voiced that lack of harmonised requirements for the carriers 
of passengers impacts resilience of those carriers and quality of services. 

Conclusion  on  effectiveness  for  Group  3  legislation:  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC 
introduced  EU-wide  common  rules  for  the  cargo  segment,  but  lead  also  to  national 
differences  in  implementation  in  particular  on  exemptions,  procedures  and  the  lack  of 
coverage  of  passenger  transport.  The  legislation  allows  for  EU-wide  recognition  of  
qualifications and the right of establishment for IWT carriers of cargo. However, the scope 
of, and the general approach based on knowledge are seen as outdated; more recent IWT 
legislation191 uses competence-based systems for professionals. Furthermore, there is no 
EU-wide  harmonised  certificate  confirming  the  proof  of  professional  competence.  In 

185  By an Austrian citizen. 
186 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024. Replies by AT, DE and BE (Flanders and Wallonia responded separately). 
187 According to AT and BE administrations, the share of paper certificates is 2% and 10%, respectively. 
Other  Member  States  did  not  respond  to  this  question.  Source:  gap  filling  survey  for  Member  States 
authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
188 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
Response by Koninlijke Binnenvaart Nederland. Others did not reply or had no opinion. 
189 According to the Danube Commission, the number of vessels increased by 68% over 10 years, with more 
than  a doubling of  the  number  of passengers.  25%  of IWT  traffic  on  the  Danube  is  related  to  passenger 
transport. 
190 During the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth 
quarter  of  2024,  Member  States  administrations  expressed  the  view  that  lack  of  a  harmonised  set  of 
requirements  for  the  carriers  of  passengers  across  the  EU  results  in  less  resilience  of  those  carriers  (2 
responses), in diverging requirements by Member State (3 responses) and in low quality service (1 response). 
One Member State also mentioned loss of time (possibly related to the application for and granting of the 
certificate). One Member State mentioned however that in view of the very few certificates issued, the effects 
of the rules are negligible.   
191 Directive (EU) 2017/2397 on the professional qualification for crew. 

39 

 
 
summary, the Directive is considered to be partially effective regarding cargo transport, 
while not addressing passenger transport at all.  

Effectiveness of the Framework as a whole 

The legal framework has been effective to a large extent, abolishing fixed pricing and other 
restrictive  practices,  reducing  structural  overcapacity  and  allowing  for  an  open  and 
harmonised market. This was confirmed by 38 of 41 responding SMEs during the SMEs 
survey192. 

In response to the public consultation, 10 respondents (67%) out of 15 were of the view 
that  the  legal  framework  contributed  to  a  great  or  moderate  extent  towards  the  goal  of 
ensuring non-discriminatory access within the single market, while 2 respondents (13%) 
were of the view that it did not contribute to this goal. 12 (80%) out of 15 respondents 
indicated a positive contribution regarding the freedom to provide services and 11 (73%) 
out of 15 a positive contribution regarding the opening and liberalization of the market. 7 
(50%) of 15 respondents answered positively that the framework contributed to improving 
the  competitiveness  and  structural  improvement/modernisation  of  the  sector,  while  5 
(33%)  out  of  15  respondents  found  that  the  legal  framework  did  not  contribute  to 
improving  the  competitiveness  of  IWT  compared  to  other  transport  modes  and  did  not 
result in a structural improvement or modernization of the sector. 

As described above, a few issues have been pointed out, but the related risks do not seem 
to have materialised so far to a larger extent.    

192 During the SMEs survey, 38 of 41 SMEs that responded (93%) agreed or even strongly agreed with the 
statement that the internal market legislation for IWT has led to a single market in Europe in which free 
movement of goods across EU countries is ensured. 

40 

 
 
Figure 13: Replies to the public consultation on the question related to the  contribution of 
the legislative Framework to different goals 

From your point of view, overall, to what extent have the acts listed in the 
introduction contributed towards the following goals? (n=15)

Improving competitiveness of the inland waterways
sector in comparison with other transport modes

3

4

Structural improvement / modernisation of the sector

Positive impact on the freedom to provide services

Positive impact on free movement of goods

Ensure non-discriminatory access (within the single
market)

5

5

5

5

Opening and liberalisation

6

2

3

3

7

7

5

5

5

5

2

2

1

1

3

2

3

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Overall, they have contributed to a moderate extent towards this goal

Overall, they have contributed to a great extent towards this goal

I don't know

Overall, they have not contributed towards this goal but also has not been an obstacle

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on the public consultation 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  IWT  market  access  legislative  framework  did  not  intend  to 
influence  the  willingness  or  propensity  to  enter  the  market.  Its  main  objective  was  to 
eliminate discrimination, not only in terms of prices (Group 1 legislation) but also in terms 
of access (Groups 2 and 3 legislation). Concerning access, barriers were not reduced per 
se, but conditions were made equal for all EU operators. Moreover, the rules concerning 
mutual  recognition  of  formal  qualifications  for  operators  (Group  3  legislation)  further 
improved the level of integration of the internal market by making easier for EU operators 
to establish themselves in another Member State.  

Since  the  IWT  market  access  legislative  framework  did  not  have  as  an  objective  to 
influence  the  willingness  or  propensity  to  enter  the  market,  the  overall  effect  of  the 
measures on the willingness and propensity to enter the market has not been analysed in 
great detail in the fitness check, moreover unintended effects on willingness to enter the 
market could not be evaluated mainly due to lack of data. However further information is 
provided in Annex X. 

This Annex also contains more explanation related to the reasons for Dutch predominance 
among  operators.  As  explained there, Dutch predominance has geographical,  historical, 
economic and cultural reasons and is not a consequence of barriers to other operators to 
enter the common market. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Dutch predominance in 
Western Europe does not put the effectiveness of the intervention in question. 

4.1.2. Efficiency 

Little data is available to assess the efficiency of the framework as several of the legal acts 
do not include monitoring requirements and only one includes reporting requirements. The 

41 

 
 
analysis of costs and benefits is based on data collected through the fitness check support 
study193,  the  public  consultation  and  the  SME  survey.  An  additional  outreach  by  the 
Commission in  2024, addressed operators’  associations  and administrations, to  fill  data 
gaps, collect further evidence and quantify costs, efforts and benefits of implementing the 
legislation. However, this has resulted in little additional evidence. 

Annex XII On data needs contains Table 19 where data needs are listed as well as possible 
avenues towards filling data gaps specific to the groups of legislation in scope. 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation – removal of restrictions and discrimination 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 of Group 1 brings about costs for IWT operators 
and administrations, as well as benefits for IWT sector and all waterway users. These are 
discussed below, together with the simplification efforts. 

The Regulation (Article 6) requires a transport document for each consignment of goods, 
detailing the consignor's name and address, nature and weight of the goods, place and date 
of  acceptance,  place  of  delivery.  The  2008  amendment  of  the  Regulation194  reduced 
administrative burden by eliminating the obligation to create an additional document and 
allowing  enterprises  instead  to  use  a  national  transport  document,  a  company-related 
consignment note, a bill of lading or a multimodal document - if it contains the required 
information. According to the impact assessment accompanying the proposal of the eFTI 
Regulation it takes 15 minutes to fill paper documents for each shipment and the uptake of 
e-documents/information exchange in IWT is very low. The impact assessment estimated 
that 24 million hours were spent for processing freight transport information needed for 
national and international trips in 2018, leading to recurrent administrative costs for IWT 
operators of EUR 582 million. By 2030, these costs would amount to EUR 674 million195. 
Not  all  these  costs  are  attributed  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960,  but  stakeholders’ 
consultation activities did not provide evidence that could allow estimating its contribution 
to the costs.  

According  to  the  SME  survey,  out  of  41  SME  respondents196,  19  (46%)  experience  no 
costs related to keeping transport documents on board, while 11 (27%) do experience costs 
and 11 (27%) do not know. On the other hand, operators’ associations (EBU, ESO) noted 
significant  to  medium  efforts  (not  further  quantified)  due  to  the  creation,  holding  and 
archiving  of  paper  documents.  Keeping  transport  documents  for  each  consignment  of 
goods in IWT results in vast amounts of paperwork, especially for container transport (i.e. 
a  single  container  ship  typically  carries  up  to  200  containers).  7  (41%)  of  the  17 
respondents to the targeted survey197 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, 
RIS Directive and Port information systems198) as a means of simplification. The CCNR 
Secretariat  also  noted  during  the  public  consultation  that  ‘paper  documents  could  be 
replaced  by  digital  versions’.  The  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI 
Regulation199,  estimated  that  the  15  minutes  to  fill  paper  documents  for  each  shipment 

193 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check - Support study on the access to and 
the functioning of the inland waterway transport market 
194 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
195 SWD(2018) 183 final, p. 19, 28, 87. 
196  SME survey carried out in 2022. 
197 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
198  eFTI  stands  for  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  Regulation  and  RIS  for  River  Information 
Services Directive. 
199 SWD(2018) 183 final 

42 

 
 
could be reduced to 5 minutes by using electronic documents under eFTI from July 2027. 
Thus,  when  considering  the  implementation  of  the  eFTI  Regulation  from  2027,  the 
recurrent administrative costs for IWT operators is projected at EUR 357 to 452 million in 
2030200. As explained above, not all these costs are attributed to the Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960, and they should thus be seen as the upper bound estimate.    

For public administrations, the costs relate to the control of transport documents. During 
the  gap  filling  survey,  organised  by  the  Commission  in  2024,  Member  States’ 
administrations mentioned that staff involved in checks on the spot (e.g. police) spend 60-
90 minutes per check, while staff involved in the following up of infractions and penalties 
spend  90-480  minutes  per  infraction.  The  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public 
administrations could not be estimated because the stakeholders’ consultation activities 
provided little evidence on the number of inspections or controls, and no evidence on the 
number of infractions. In addition, as explained in section 4.1.1, the control of a vessel by 
enforcement authorities might also serve different aims and may be based on diverse legal 
bases.  During  the  public  consultation,  2  public  authorities  (PT,  IT)  have  noted  low  to 
medium effort (time and/or money) to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, while 
BG did not know. During the targeted survey201, one respondent from Luxemburg said the 
associated costs were ‘low’ (overall policing costs), while the Hungarian Police did not 
have specific data on costs of inspections, referring to them as being part of the state budget 
for law enforcement activities.  

IWT  operators  are  also  expected  to  experience  recurrent  enforcement  costs  due  to 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960,  for  cooperation  to  inspections  or  controls.  It  was  not 
possible to estimate such costs due to the lack of evidence. According to the SME survey, 
21 out of 41 (51%) respondents experience no such costs, 10 (24%) do experience costs 
related to inspections to check transport rates and conditions, while 10 (24%) respondents 
did not know.    

Benefits  for  IWT  operators202  relate  to  the  easiness  in  obtaining  insurance,  the  easier 
identification/designation of the liable party thanks to the obligatory transport document 
on  board  of  the  vessel,  and  increased  safety  on  the  waterways  (i.e.  transport  document 
indicating dangerous cargo). The increased safety on the waterways benefits all waterway 
users including cargo and passenger vessels.  

During  the  public  consultation  (see  Figure  14),  7  out  of  13  respondents  indicated  that 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 requires low or medium effort (time and/or money)203 to 
comply. In addition, 3 out of 13 respondents expressed the view that the perceived benefits 
are higher or of similar size with the efforts/costs and 3 that the benefits do not compensate 

200  According  to  the  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal of  the  eFTI  Regulation,  the  administrative  costs 
savings for IWT operators are estimated at EUR 222 to 317 million in 2030 (33% to 47% reduction relative 
to the baseline costs). 
201 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
202  During  the  targeted  survey  (2021)  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  fitness  check  support  study,  4 
respondents  out  of  15  Member  States  that  responded  to  the  survey  were  of  the  view  that  it  brings  about 
increased safety on the waterways and 4 were of the view that it results in fairer competition, 6  were of the 
view that it results in easier identification/designation of liable party and 2 were of the view that it results in 
less  discrimination  in  transport  rates  and  conditions.  As  beneficiaries  of  these  benefits,  carriers,  clients 
(passengers or shipper) and Member States administrations were mentioned.  
203 3 out of 13 respondents indicated significant effort (time and/or money) to comply with the Regulation, 
2 out of 13 respondents indicated medium effort,  while 5 respondents indicated low effort for  complying 
with the Regulation. 3 others indicated ‘do not know’ or ‘not applicable’.  

43 

 
 
the efforts/costs (see Figure 15)204.  

Figure 14: Replies to the public consultation on the question related to the effort (time and/or 
money) to comply with the legislative Framework 

How much effort (time and/or money) do you spend to comply with the 
following acts?

Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC) and its…

Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 (n=13)

Council Directive 96/75/EC (n=12)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 (n=12)

1

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 (n=12)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 (n=13)

Council Directive 87/540/EEC (n=13)

4

5

2

4

2

2

2

3

Regulation N° 11/1960 (n=13)

5

0

2

4

2

2

6

2

5

5

4

4

2

4

1

1

1

4

8

2

2

4

2

2

3

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

2

2

1

1

10

12

14

Low effort

Medium effort

Significant effort

Not applicable

I don't know

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on the public consultation 

Figure 15: Replies to the public consultation on the question related to the  extent benefits 
compare to the effort/cost of compliance 

Based on your perception of the benefits to the sector and EU society, to what 
extent do you think benefits compare to the effort/cost of compliance?

Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC) and…

1

Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 (n=13)

Council Directive 96/75/EC (n=12)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 (n=12)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 (n=13)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 (n=13)

Council Directive 87/540/EEC (n=13)

2

2

2

1

1

1

3

3

1

3

2

3

5

3

0

Regulation N° 11/1960 (n=13)

3

1

0

4

2

6

3

3

2

5

3

3

3

3

1

2

2

1

4

4

4

6

2

10

3

3

2

15

Benefits do not compensate for the effort/costs
Benefits and effort/costs are of a similar size
Benefits are significantly larger than the required effort/costs
Not applicable
I don't know

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on the public consultation 

Council Directive 96/75/EC, which eliminated national rules or practices impeding the 
freedom of chartering and pricing, does not entail recurrent costs for IWT operators or 

204 3 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 1 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 2 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded 
‘not applicable’. Among the public authorities that responded to the question on how benefits relate to effort 
and costs during the public consultation (4 public authorities), one  said benefits and effort/costs are of a 
similar size and one that benefits are significantly larger than the required effort/costs, while 2 did not know 
or indicated ‘not applicable’. 

44 

 
  
 
 
 
public  administrations. In  terms  of  benefits,  as  explained  in  section  4.1.1,  the  German 
abolishment of the Festfrachten system of minimum prices in 1994, resulted in reduced 
shipping prices by 60% for coal products and by 40% for bulk cargo, based on the interview 
with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR 205. In addition, 
the abolishment of the ‘Tour de Role’ system led to annual benefits estimated at EUR 190 
million in the Netherlands alone206. The public consultation did not provide a clear view 
on whether overall benefits outweigh costs (including the one-off adjustment costs to phase 
out minimum compulsory tariffs by the end of 1998)207. Further efforts to gather data (as 
detailed in Annex V) did not provide better insights. 

Conclusion  on  efficiency  for  Group  1:  Council  Regulation  No  11/1960  brings  about 
recurrent  administrative  costs  for  IWT  operators  due  to  the  requirement  of  transport 
documents for consignments of goods. These costs will be significantly reduced from 2027 
onwards thanks to digitalisation in the context of the implementation of eFTI Regulation. 
The Regulation also leads to some recurrent administrative costs for public administrations 
for inspections or controls, and enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating to 
inspections or controls.  Benefits for IWT operators arise from the easiness in obtaining 
insurance and the easier identification/designation of the liable party. The increased safety 
on the waterways will benefit both the IWT operators and passengers. Council Directive 
96/75/EC does not entail recurrent costs for IWT operators or public administrations and 
results  in  benefits  due  to  reduced  shipping  prices.  Overall,  the  scarce  evidence  for 
monetising the costs and benefits does not allow to conclude on the efficiency of the Group 
1 legislation, although few stakeholders have indicated during the public consultation that 
the overall benefits outweigh costs.  

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation – structural improvement of the IWT market 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  led  to  one-off  adjustment  costs  for  vessel  owners 
during  1999-2003  as  well  as  benefits  for  IWT  operators.  No  costs  for  businesses  were 
registered  after  2003  due  to  Group  4  legislation.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999 
generates some very limited recurrent administrative costs for public administrations.  

One-off adjustment costs for vessel owners, in the form of contributions for new vessels 
put into service under the ‘old-for-new’ rule, are estimated at EUR 26 million for 1999-
2003208. Post-2003 there are no one-off or recurrent costs for businesses due to Council 
Regulation  (EC) 718/1999 or due  to the stand-by mechanism  in  case of  serious market 
disturbance  (Article  6  of  Regulation  718/1999  together  with  article  7  of  Directive 
96/75/EC), which was not triggered so far.  

Reporting obligations for public administrations due to Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are very 
limited and estimated to take on average 10 hours per year per Member State209, for the 
Member States that have setup and funded inland waterway Funds (AT, BE, DE, FR and 

205 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
206 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 
207 2 out of 12 respondents indicated ‘benefits do not compensate for the effort/cost’, while 3 respondents 
indicated ‘benefits and effort/costs are of similar size’, and 2 indicated ‘benefits are significantly larger than 
the required efforts/costs. The rest did not know or responded not applicable.  
208 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 33. 
209 Replies by AT, DE and NL during the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

45 

 
 
NL). Total recurrent administrative costs for public administrations related to reporting 
obligations are thus estimated at EUR 3,628 per year (for all 5 relevant Member States)210. 

Benefits for IWT operators come from reducing overcapacity in the IWT market before 
2003 thus avoiding decreases in turnover for IWT operators (often SMEs) and potential 
losses. The legislation continues to serve as basis for the potential restructuring of the IWT 
market in case of market disturbance and the use of the Reserve Fund. 

EBU211 saw no substantial costs related to the legislation, but benefits for the restructuring 
of the market in case of market disturbance and the use of the Reserve Fund.  

The Fund established under Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999  was initially funded 
with EUR 7 million from surpluses for restructuring actions before 1999. The total amount 
was raised to over EUR 33 million by 2003 under the ‘old-for-new’ rules. The funds have 
not been used until the Commission212, upon request by the industry, created the ‘European 
IWT platform’ to promote safety, clean technologies and innovation of the fleet as well as 
education and training. EUR 7 million from the Fund support the Platform’s operations for 
the  2017-2027  period.  Industry  is  planning  to  request  a  renewal  for  the  subsequent  ten 
years (2028-2037). All respondents of operators and several Member State administrations 
(AT,  DE,  HR)213  consider  that  the  Platform  adds  benefits214  for  national  and  regional 
administrations,  operators,  skippers,  vessel  owners,  logistics  companies,  as  well  as 
UNECE, river Commissions and river protection Commissions. 

During the public consultation, 8 out of the 13 respondents215 perceived Council Regulation 
(EC) 718/1999 as providing overall benefits or benefits of similar size with the effort/costs 
(see Figure 15).  

Conclusion on efficiency for Group 4: No quantitative information is available on the 
benefits  of  the  Group  4  legislation.  The  benefits  seem  to  overweigh  the  overall  costs, 
although  they  could  not  be  quantified  and  thus  the  uncertainty  associated  to  them  is 
acknowledged. Since 2003 there are no costs associated to the Group 4 legislation, except 
for the very limited administrative costs for public administrations, while benefits are due 
to the ‘European IWT platform’ that promotes safety, clean technologies and innovation 
of the fleet as well as education and training.   

210 The tariff rates by Member State for the ISCO 1 category (legislators, senior officials and managers) in 
2022 prices were used to monetise the costs. 
211 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
212  Commission  Decision  of  5.10.2017  authorising  the  use  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Fund established  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 [C(2017) 6663 final] 
213  Gap  filling  survey  for  operators’  associations  and  Member  States  authorities,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
214 3 (AT, DE, HR) out of the 9 MS authorities that responded are of the view that the activities of the IWT 
Platform  bring  significant  benefits  to  the  sector.  One  (NL)  is  of  the  view  that  the  activities  of  the  IWT 
Platform bring some benefits to the sector. The remaining cannot say or did not respond. All 5 respondents 
from  operators’  associations  (including  the  IWT  platform) are  of  the  view  that  the  activities  of  the  IWT 
Platform bring significant benefits to the sector. 
215 2 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 5 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 3 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded 
‘not applicable’. 

46 

 
 
Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 entails recurrent administrative costs for IWT sector 
for  applying  for  certificates  certifying  vessels  affiliation  with  Rhine  navigation  and 
recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public  administrations  for  issuing  such  certificates.  It 
also entails recurrent administrative costs for public administrations to carry out checks of 
certificates  and  recurrent  enforcement  costs  for  IWT  operators  for  cooperating  to  such 
checks, as well as benefits for vessel owners and/or operators. Council Regulation (EEC) 
3921/91  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1356/96  do  not  foresee  a  specific  form  for  the 
document which certifies the fulfilment of their conditions.   

Regarding  the  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  the  IWT  sector  for  applying  for 
certificates certifying vessels affiliation with Rhine navigation (Certificate of belonging to 
the Rhine navigation), the Koninlijke Binnenvaart Nederland216 reported that applying for 
a Rhine certificate takes 30 minutes on average and costs 75 EUR (i.e. fee) in addition to 
vessel documents required by European legislation217. The total cost per certificate in the 
Netherlands is estimated at EUR 94 (i.e. EUR 19 for the time spent applying and EUR 75 
the fee)218. Assuming that the cost per certificate in the Netherlands is representative at EU 
level, in the absence of information on the costs per certificate provided by other Member 
States, the recurrent administrative costs for IWT operators could be estimated at around 
EUR 987,000219. This should be regarded as an order of magnitude rather than precise costs 
estimates.  

Regarding  the  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public  administrations,  Germany 
reported the issuance of about 440 Rhine certificates per year on average during 2022-2023 
costing the administration about 185 EUR per certificate (EUR 81,500 in total)220 while 
Luxembourg issued about 5 Rhine certificates per year on average during the same period; 
only paper documents are issued in both countries. The number of checks for certificates 
(if any) is not known and Member States did not provide evidence to allow quantifying 
the recurrent administrative costs associated to such checks221. This is also the case of 
recurrent enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating to such checks.   

Administrations222  and  SMEs223  highlighted  the  simplification  potential  of  Group  2 
legislation. Two separate legal acts, covering cross-border transport and cabotage on the 
Rhine,  co-exist  with  legislation  for  cross-border  transport  and  cabotage  applying  on  all 
European  waterways  including  the  Rhine.  This  approach  was  perceived  to  be  due  to 
historic reasons (see Annex VIII International treaties and a priority at the time to grant 
access to the Rhine to Member States operators residing outside of the Rhine). Afterwards, 
general rules for cross-border transport were created. 

216 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
217 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
218 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 
2022 prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 
219 EU fleet consists of around 15,000 vessels, and according to CCNR (30/6/2025) around 70% of the fleet 
(10,500 vessels) possess the certificate of belonging to the Rhine fleet. Precise figures are not available, as 
the  certificates of belonging to the Rhine fleet  are  issued by competent authorities of various states  and 
currently there is no obligation (neither at the level of the Rhine nor at EU level) to report on the number of 
certificates. 
220 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
221 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
222 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
223 SME panel (2022)  

47 

 
 
Notably,  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  2919/85  requiring  a  separate  document  for  Rhine 
cabotage  (Certificate  of  belonging  to  the  Rhine  navigation)  is  seen  as  creating  burden, 
when  it  could  be  included  in  the  obligatory  Union  inland  navigation  certificate224.  The 
fulfilment  of  requirements  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  2919/85  could  also  be 
contained in the Union inland navigation certificate. But this is complicated by the current 
requirement for the vessel certificate and the registration certificate to be issued in the same 
state. A CESNI Working Group is examining simplification in the context of the revision 
of the data model for the Union inland navigation certificate.  

The  regulations  in  Group  2  already  provide  flexibility  to  accommodate  simplification: 
Article 2.3 of the Annex of Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 allows for the Certificate 
of belonging to the Rhine navigation to be contained in any other document already issued 
for  the  vessel.  Finally,  there  is  simplification  potential  in  issuing  documents  digitally, 
including for the vessel and the carrier.  

The benefits of Group 2 legislation relate to the creation of a true internal market.  The 
legislation  ensured  providing  access  for  vessel  owners  and/or  operators  of  every  EU 
Member State to the Rhine. The associated benefits however could not be quantified.   

According  to  the  responses  received  during  the  public  consultation  (see  Figure  14) 
legislation  in  Group  2  requires  medium  to  low  efforts/costs  to  comply  (8  out  of  13 
respondents  for  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85,  7  out  of  12  respondents  for  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3921/91 and 5 out of 12 respondents for Regulation (EC) No 1356/96), which 
are perceived to be outweighed by benefits for Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 (see Figure 
15).  

Conclusion on efficiency for Group 2: No quantitative information is available on the 
benefits of the Group 4 legislation and very scarce evidence on the costs, which does not 
allow  to  conclude  on  the  efficiency  of  the  Group  2  legislation.  For  administrative 
simplification,  the  separate  document  on  Rhine  cabotage  could  be  included  in  the 
obligatory  Union  inland  navigation  certificate  and  the  digitisation  of  documents  to 
establish the right to access to the market could further improve efficiency and drive the 
sector towards paperless solutions. 

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

As  regards  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  Member  States  report  an  average  of  10 
certificates 
issued  annually  per  Member  State.  The  work  required  by  public 
administrations for issuing a certificate is estimated at 60-120 minutes225. Assuming 10 
certificates are issued per year in each of the 13 relevant Member States, the total recurrent 
administrative costs for public administrations for issuing the certificates are estimated at 
EUR 6,097 to 12,194 per year. Austria also reported the issuance of about 12 replacements, 
reclassifications and extensions of certificates on average per year226. Assuming the same 
work as that for issuing a certificate (60-120 minutes), the total recurrent administrative 
costs for issuing replacements, reclassifications and extensions are estimated at EUR 7,316 

224 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
225 AT, DE and BE replies (Flanders, Wallonia responded separately) during the gap filling survey for MS 
authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
226 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

48 

 
 
to 14,633. Thus, the total recurrent administrative costs for public administrations related 
to certificates are estimated at EUR 13,413 to 26,827 per year.   

Applying  for  a  certificate  takes  on  average  30  minutes  and  fees  associated  to  the 
application amount to  EUR 70 per certificate in  the Netherlands227. Considering that 10 
certificates  are  issued  per  year  in  each  of  the  13  relevant  Member  States,  the  recurrent 
administrative costs for IWT operators for applying for certificates are estimated at EUR 
9,062 per year228,229,230. For the replacements, reclassifications and extensions of certificates 
the recurrent administrative costs are estimated at EUR 10,874. Thus, the total recurrent 
administrative costs for IWT operators related to certificates are estimated to EUR 19,936 
per year. 

Several exemptions and derogations lead to about 25% of persons obtaining by practice 
the certificate of carrier of goods in the Netherlands alone. Dedicated courses otherwise 
last  10  days  and  cost  2,500  EUR  as  reported  by  EBU  and  ESO231.  Assuming  that  10 
certificates232  are  obtained  per  year  on  average  per  Member  State  and  that  for  7.5  of 
certificates on average dedicated courses are followed in view of obtaining the certificate, 
the adjustment costs for IWT operators in the NL are estimated at EUR 18,750 per year. 
Using  extrapolation233  for  the  13  Member  States  with  connected  waterways  the  total 
recurrent adjustment costs for the operators of 13 Member States are estimated at EUR 
198,173 per year234.  

Thanks to the Directive, the aspiring carrier needs to apply only once to become a carrier 
of goods in the EU instead of repeatedly for different national or river-based markets. The 
common rules and mutual recognition ensure benefits due to less administrative burden 
and lower costs for operators and national administrations. 6 of the 13 respondents to the 
public consultation perceived the efforts/costs for complying with the Directive as medium 
or low (see Figure 14) and 8 out of 13 respondents indicated that the benefits are higher or 
similar to the efforts/costs (see Figure 15). Out of 30 SMEs who expressed a view235 on 
the  process  of  obtaining  the  certificate  of  professional  competence,  15  stated  that  it  is 
sufficiently transparent and 8 that it is not transparent.   

227 To derive the fee for other Member States the purchasing power parities published by Eurostat have been 
used. 
228 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 
2022 prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 

230 These costs are paid either by the applicant or by the employer. However, as no information is available 
on the actual split between the applicant and the employer all the recurrent administrative costs are assumed 
for the employer. 
231 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
232 On average 10 certificates are issued by each of the 13 Member States per year but whether those are 
thanks to dedicated courses or not it is not clear, except for the Netherlands. Note, aspiring operators have 
the  option  to  provide  proof  of  their  knowledge  of  certain  subjects  referred  to  in  Annex  of  the  Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC (e.g. law, finance, access to the market, technical standards and safety), however part 
of  that knowledge  (e.g.  law, finance)  can  be  obtained  in  a  general  course, not necessarily  in  a dedicated 
course.  Moreover,  the  Directive  provides  for  exemptions  and  derogations  that  lead  to  the  possibility  of 
obtaining by practice the certificate of carrier of goods, without following a course. 
233 Assuming the purchasing power parities published by Eurostat to estimate the cost of a course in other 
Member States 
234 This can however only be regarded as an upper bound estimate due to the reasons explained above 
235 SME panel (2022) 

49 

 
 
 
Conclusion on efficiency for Group 3: Thanks to Group 3 legislation, common rules and 
mutual recognition led to benefits due to reduced administrative burden and lower costs 
for operators and national administrations. It was however not possible to monetise these 
benefits  due  to  the  lack  of  evidence.  Further  simplification  could  be  achieved  with 
standardisation and digitisation of the certificate of carrier of goods.  

Efficiency of the Framework as a whole 

lead 

All  Groups  assessed  above 
to  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public 
administrations. Although not all of them could be quantified (or quantified in full) their 
magnitude appears to be limited. Group 1, 2 and 3 also result in recurrent administrative 
costs for businesses operating in the IWT sector. Of these, Group 1 appears to lead to the 
largest  administrative  costs  for  businesses  due  to  the  transport  documents  required  by 
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  for  allowing  checking  the  transport  rates  (see 
overview table of costs and benefits for the overall framework in Annex IV). It should be 
noted however that these transport documents are also used for other purposes and not all 
costs can be directly attributed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960236. In addition, 
the  implementation  of  eFTI  Regulation  from  2027  is  expected  to  lead  to  significant 
reductions in costs of Group 1 due to digitalisation.  

Reporting requirements  are only  associated to  Group 4  (i.e. Council Regulation  (EC) 
718/1999) and are very limited (estimated at EUR 3,628 per year for all 5 relevant Member 
States).  Potential  for  administrative  simplification  has  been  identified  for  Group  2, 
where the separate document on Rhine cabotage could be included in the obligatory Union 
inland  navigation  certificate  and  the  digitisation  of  documents  to  establish  the  right  to 
access  to  the  market  could  further  improve  efficiency  and  drive  the  sector  towards 
paperless  solutions.  For  Group  3  further  simplification  could  be  achieved  with 
standardisation and digitisation of the certificate of carrier of goods. 

236 The share attributed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 could not be estimated. 

50 

 
 
Group 1, 3 and 4 also led to adjustment costs for businesses operating in the IWT sector 
and Group 4 to one-off adjustment costs for public administrations. Finally, Group 1 and 
2 entail some enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating with the enforcement 
authorities in checking certificates.  

All Groups result in benefits for the businesses operating in the IWT sector and Group 3 
and 4 also in benefits for public administrations. Despite several rounds of consultation 
activities, including a gap filling survey organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter 
of  2024,  not  sufficient  evidence  was  received  to  allow  quantifying  the  benefits.  The 
evidence available on costs and benefits does not allow to draw robust conclusions on 
the overall efficiency of the framework.  

Nevertheless, the 2024 survey showed that some Member States administrations value the 
contribution of the IWT market access framework to the sector’s competitiveness. LU is 
of the view that the ‘framework is largely appropriate for ensuring competitiveness within 
the internal market, as it promotes fair competition, non-discrimination, and cross-border 
services.  However,  to  remain  competitive  with  third  countries,  it  may  need  further 
simplification and modernisation, particularly to address external challenges like evolving 
trade dynamics and environmental standards.’ HR is generally of the same opinion and 
highlighted  that  the  framework  creates  ‘fair  conditions  of  market  competition  through 
common rules, including access to the occupation of inland waterway carriers, while also 
pleaded  for  simplification  of  legislation’.  AT  appreciates  that  the  equal  market  access 
resulted in easy market access. BE appreciated in particular the Directive 87/540/EEC that 
enables entrepreneurs to start transport activity in any country of the EU. The respondent 
from DE administration, however, is of the opinion that ‘the 7 pieces of legislation are no 
longer necessary to ensure competitiveness’. Finally, Annex X contains more information 
on IWT’s competitiveness linking the legislative framework to the outcomes for the IWT 
sector,  presenting  also  other  aspects  such  as  reasons  for  the  predominance  of  Dutch 
operators. 

4.1.3. Coherence 

Coherence has been assessed at several levels: the internal coherence of the legislation as 
such, and within the Group or Pillar, within the overall legal Framework, and its coherence 
with other relevant EU legislation or policies. 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation – removal of restrictions and discrimination 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  prohibits  rate  fixing  while  Council  Directive 
96/75/EC  foresees  free  negotiation  of  prices.  Thus,  the  two  pieces  of  legislation  are 
complementary.  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  however,  contains  an  outdated 
reference  on  exemptions  of  certain  goods  by  referring  to  Annexes237  of  the  Treaty 
establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC is no longer in 
force,  and  those  Annexes  have  not  been  replaced  under  the  Treaty  of  Rome  nor  its 
successor  regulations  including  the  TFEU.  Therefore,  none  of  the  goods  are  exempted 
anymore,  as  initially  foreseen.  Otherwise  the  legal  acts  under  Group  1  are  internally 
coherent. 

237 Annex I (coal and steel) and Annex III (special steel) 

51 

 
 
Analysis238  regarding  external  coherence  did  not  detect  any  incoherences  with  other 
relevant EU legislation. 

Consistency with EU policies on free movement of goods and services within the European 
single  market  has  been  confirmed  by  stakeholders  during  the  consultation  activities239. 
They  stated  that  the  Group  1  legislation  removed  restrictions  and  discriminations  to 
entering and operating in the IWT sector. The implementation of the eFTI Regulation is 
expected to remedy as of July 2027 concerns raised by EBU and ESO240 on the acceptance 
of  electronic  documents  in  IWT,  which  is  perceived  as  currently  unclear  in  relation  to 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. In EBU’s and ESO’s view, currently electronic 
documents  are  accepted  depending  on  whether  national  laws  allow  it  and  there  is  no 
coherent application of electronic documents across the EU in IWT.  

In addition, the implementation of the eFTI system will also bring remedy to the current 
lack  of  information  concerning  the  transport  document  and  its  compliance  checks241. 
Starting from July 2027 the eFTI Regulation242 will gather data for monitoring purposes: 
Member States are required to record statistics and report to the Commission on the number 
of checks they perform electronically of information required in accordance with the EU 
and  national  law  provisions  that  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  eFTI  Regulation243.  These 
provisions  include,  among  others,  information  requirements  as  in  the  transport 
document244.  Information  on  infringements  count  as  information  that  can  optionally  be 
added by MS also as from July 2027245. The collection of the statistical information by the 
Member States will be done automatically, by means of mandatory logs246. Member States 
shall report to the Commission every five years, with information provided on yearly basis. 

However,  statistics  generated  by  eFTI  will  initially  provide  a  partial  view  because 
operators are currently not obliged to submit the information (contained in the transport 
document) electronically; they still retain the option to provide the information by means 
of paper documents. While the uptake will start gradually in the first years, the aim is to 
eventually evolve to a high share of digital submission of transport documents. Regarding 
the monitoring aspect, it is only when operators provide the information electronically that 

238 See studies related to the CT Directive 92/106/EEC the Regulation (EU) No 2020/1056 on eFTI, as well 
as the fitness check support study. 
239 Public consultation: out of 13 respondents 11 respondents were of the view that  the Framework had a 
positive impact on the freedom to provide services to a great/moderate extent, 12 respondents were of the 
view that the Framework had a positive impact on the free movement of goods to a great/moderate extent. 
Remaining respondents indicated ‘don’t know’. Moreover, 10 respondents out of 13 were of the view that 
the Framework ensures to a great/moderate extent non-discriminatory access within the Single Market, while 
1 respondent answered that the framework did not contribute to that. 2 respondents indicated ‘don’t know’. 
240 Based on targeted interview with EBU, ESO in the context of the fitness check support study.   
241 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
242 Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information 
243 As referred to in Article 3 
244 Referred to in Article 6(1) of EEC Council Regulation No 11 
245  In  case  of  infringements,  competent  authorities  may  also  lodge  electronically  so-called  “follow-up 
communications”, by means of which the competent authority may notify the operator that an infringement 
had  been  recorded  (pursuant  Article  8  of  the  eFTI  Regulation,  and  corresponding  specifications  in 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  2024/1942).  However,  lodging  follow-up  communications  is  not 
mandatory for the authorities, since national legislation covering how Member States deal with infringements 
does not fall under the scope of the eFTI regulation. 
246 These logs will keep record of the date and time of the checks performed electronically by the competent 
authorities officers in each Member State, and of the date and time of the follow-up communications, when 
made. The collection of this information will start as of 9 July 2027, the date of full application of the eFTI 
Regulation 

52 

 
 
the  authorities  have  the  obligation  to  perform  the  checks  on  that  basis  and, 
correspondingly,  record  (and  report  on)  the  number  of  checks.  According  to  the  eFTI 
Regulation, however, EC shall undertake a review247 of the eFTI Regulation including the 
aspect  of  mandatory  submission  of  transport  documents  by  electronic  way.  Annex  X 
contains  some  information  related  to  Combined  Transport  Directive  (EEC)  92/106  and 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960.  

Conclusion on coherence for Group 1: The legal acts in Group 1 are coherent, except for 
one outdated reference to exemptions in Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. However, 
there is no evidence, including from interviews and other consultation activities, that this 
outdated provision has led to practical issues.  

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation – structural improvement of the IWT market 

No  inconsistencies  have  been  identified  within  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999. 
Complementarity  has  been  confirmed  between  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  and 
Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC regarding the potential use of the Reserve Fund 
and measures (Council Reg (EC) 718/1999) in connection with the serious disturbance of 
the IWT market.  

External coherence has been maintained by broadening in 2008 the list of Member State 
measures  according  to  Article  8  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999.  This  enables 
synergies  with  other  instruments,  such  as  CEF  and  Horizon  Europe.  Furthermore,  a 
possibility  has  been  included  to  encourage  the  adoption  of  clean  technologies  and 
digitalisation efforts. 

Regarding Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999, stakeholders248 confirmed that the EU IWT 
Reserve  Fund  is  in  line  with  wider  EU  policies  aimed  at  greening  the  transport  sector. 
Finally,  a  difference  in  geographical  scope  within  Group  4  has  been  identified,  as  the 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  includes  an  exemption  for  vessels  navigating 
exclusively on the Danube, unlike the Council Directive 96/75/EC that applies for IWT in 
the EU. 

Conclusion for coherence of Group 4: The legal acts included under Group 4 are overall 
coherent.  

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

Several internal coherence issues have been identified in Group 2: 

-  There are different provisions for international transport and cabotage on the Rhine vis-
à-vis international transport and cabotage on other waterways (see Table 5). Cabotage 
on the Rhine is not limited in time while on other waterways cabotage is allowed only 
on a temporary basis249.  

247 See the revision clause in Article 16(1)(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
248 4 out of the 10 scoping interviews confirmed this point (3 with international organisations and one with 
an IWT expert). However, 2 out the 4 national organisations interviewed, highlighted the lack of clarity on 
how to use the Reserve Fund to reach sectoral objectives of sustainability and innovation. AT pointed to the 
limitations it perceives in providing State aid to IW to green their vessels due to competition law.    
249 see Table 4 in section 4.1.1 on effectiveness 

53 

 
 
-  Furthermore, there is no uniform application250 of temporary cabotage due to the lack 

of EU-wide definition of what is meant by “temporary”251.  

-  International  transport  on  the  Rhine  is  limited  to  Rhine  riparian  operators  and  EU 
operators,  while  on  the  Danube  international  transport  is  open  to  all  operators,  even 
from outside of the continent. 

-  The genuine link252 is defined in a different manner across the three acts in Group 2 as 

well as in a different level of detail. 

-  There are different requirements on access to the market, notably Council Regulation 
(EEC) 2919/85 requires  operators to fulfil the same conditions as the vessel owners, 
which is not the case in Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 1356/96. Moreover, 
Regulation 2919/85 requires for persons managing/directing to be in majority nationals 
of a Member State. Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 1356/96 do not mention 
any conditions for the persons managing/directing. Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 
and 1356/96 require carriers to be entitled to carry out international transport services 
while such condition is not included in Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85. 

-  Inconsistent  use  of  terminology  in  the  legislation  (including  the  terms  of  carrier, 
undertaking, operator253). Stakeholders254 also noted a missing definition of  “operator” 
for which two out of the three pieces of legislation in Group 2 set conditions of access. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  would  have  led  to  non-uniform 
application of the legislations in question. 

In  addition,  in  Group  2  access  to  waterways  provisions  address  transport  of  goods  and 
passengers, while the scope of access to the profession (Group 3) only relates to cargo.  

Legislation in Group 2 is found to be coherent with the Act of Mannheim (1868) and the 
Belgrade  Convention  (1948).  However,  as  these  international  regimes  partly  differ,  the 
need to be coherent with both regimes resulted in overly complex EU legislation on access 
rules on European inland waterways. Furthermore, lack of coherence has been identified 
with  other  modes  of  transport  regarding  cabotage.  As  shown  in  Table  5,  air  and  rail 
transport  do  not  distinguish  between  international  transport  and  cabotage,  while  the 
maritime sector allows unlimited cabotage. Road transport provides a common definition 
of ‘temporary’ cabotage since 2009.   

250 see Table 4 in section 4.1.1 on effectiveness. As mentioned above, it is irrelevant for the Rhine as cabotage 
on the Rhine is not limited in time. 
251 Only France has foreseen a legal definition of temporary cabotage. AT calls for a  specification at EU 
level, applying the road transport model.  
252 Genuine link between a vessel, a carrier and a Member State. The link of an operator, carrier and/or a 
vessel to a Member State in terms of nationality. Group 2 privileges nationals of EU Member States to carry 
out  cabotage  and/or  international  transport  in  another  Member  State;  therefore,  it  is  established  in  the 
regulations under which conditions an operator, carrier and/or a vessel is to be considered as a national of a 
Member State (‘genuine link’) 
253 For example: the definition of the link between a Member State and the craft and/or the undertaking using 
the craft; the Rhine access rules and the international transport refer to ‘operators’ while and cabotage rules 
refer to ‘carriers’; the Rhine access rules refer to transport of ‘persons’ while the international transport and 
cabotage rules refer to passengers. 
254 The  European Transport  Workers Federation  (ETF) in its written  contribution highlighted the need to 
better define the term operator. This was also the case of a third country’s Seafarers Union during the public 
consultation. 

54 

 
 
Table 5: Overview of access granted per mode of transport  

Mode 
ROAD  Full access 

AIR 

SEA 

RAIL 

IWT 

Cross-border 

Cabotage 
Temporary access 
“temporary” is clarified at EU level 
No distinction between cross-border and cabotage within the EU since 1 January 
1993 
Full access, including for non-EU flagged 
vessels 
No distinction between cross-border and cabotage within the EU since 1 January 
2007 for freight transport (2nd package), and since 1 January 2019 for passenger 
transport (third package) 
Outside the Rhine: full access to EU 
vessels 

Unlimited access for all EU flagged 
vessels 

Outside the Rhine: temporary access  
“temporary” is defined at the national 
level, if at all 

On the Danube: full access to vessels of all 
nations 

On the Danube: temporary access  
“temporary” is defined at the national 
level, if at all 

On the Rhine: full access to EU vessels + 
CH vessels 

On the Rhine: unlimited access to 
cabotage 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, complemented by EC 

As regards the genuine link, during the public consultation ETWF255 pointed to the Rhine 
certificate  as  an  example  where  requirements  applicable  to  the  operator  are  clearly 
described  by  the  CCNR,  including  on  the  application  form:  operator's  registered  office 
must be established where its commercial activity is concentrated and the existence of the 
clear link with the commercial activity must be proven256. Some stakeholders257 mentioned 
the permanent operation of vessels on the Rhine, with operators established in EU Member 
States with little to no IWT activity and applying lower social and fiscal standards. 

Conclusion  on  coherence  for  Group  2:  Several  incoherences  have  been  identified  for 
Group 2 legislation.  

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

No inconsistencies of the legal provisions within Group 3 legislation have been identified 
while at the same time implementation across Member States differs (see Annex IX on the 
inventory of national implementation of Directive 87/540/EEC). 

Several issues related to external coherence have been identified: 

-  Council Directive 87/540/EEC applies to cargo operators, but not to passenger transport 
(unlike  Group  2  legislation  which  includes  provisions  on  transport  of  cargo  and 

255 European Transport Workers’ Federation, public consultation 
256 Exploratory interview with the former Secretary General of the CCNR, 9 March 2021; interview with the 
Polish Ministry of Transport, 16 November 2021. 2021 
257 This was expressed by 2 German SMEs in the SME survey (41 responses in total), in the scoping interview 
by one national administration and 1 business association, and as an outcome of the CCNR workshop. An 
expert stated that even if undertakings active on the Rhine have a stronger incentive to relocate to lower cost 
countries, effective access to the Rhine by the Danube fleet and vice versa remains limited. In the Danube 
workshop the DC secretariat expressed the risk that some companies might relocate to less demanding third 
countries riparian to the Danube to get their vessel certificate gaining a competitive advantage, however, this 
risk so far has not materialised in weakened competition.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
passengers). As a consequence, entrepreneurs only need to demonstrate competences 
for markets on cargo transport, while they employ crew who are trained to work on both 
passenger and cargo transport according to Directive (EU) 2017/2397. ETF258 pointed 
to  the  growing  importance  of  passenger  transport,  especially  the  river  cruise  market 
segment and the (locally important) tourism sector. While carriers of passengers are not 
in scope of the Council Directive 87/540/EEC, some Member States do apply the same 
principles for both cargo and passenger carriers (see Annex IX). 

-  Inconsistency between Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and Council Directive 87/540/EEC, 
which share common objectives on regulating qualifications. The recently implemented 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  pursues  a  competence  based-system  set  up  for  crew 
members,  based  on  CESNI  standards.  This  competence  based-system  is  different259 
from the knowledge-based approach applied in Council Directive 87/540/EEC for IWT 
carriers, which is currently not based on CESNI standards and does neither cover digital 
or environmental knowledge260, nor passenger transport.  

-  Furthermore, EU rules for accessing the profession of an IWT carrier are encoded in a 
directive, whilst it is a regulation in all other modes of transport, resulting in diverse 
implementation 
the  public 
consultation261, the SME survey and the scoping interviews262. 

in  Member  States.  This  was  also  noted  during 

Conclusion  on  coherence  for  Group  3:  Several  incoherences  have  been  identified  for 
Group 3 legislation.   

Coherence of the Framework as a whole 

There were no inconsistencies found with the related social legislation applicable in IWT, 
namely the Posting of Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC), concerning the posting of 
workers  in  the  framework  of  the  provision  of  services,  and  its  Enforcement  Directive 
(Directive 2014/67/EU) and  the Derogation Agreement for Rhine boatmen concluded on 
the basis of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 on the coordination of the Social 
Security Systems (specifically the agreement on the determination of legislation applicable 
to Rhine boatmen, concluded on this basis). Further information on these related social 
legislations can be found in Annex VII.   

Overall, it can be concluded that Group 1 and 4 legislation is coherent, while for Groups 2 
and  3  several  incoherences  have  been  identified  (some  of  them  interlinked).  Further 
information  can  be  found  in  Annex  III  in  the  responses  to  the  evaluation  questions  on 
coherence.  

258 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) written contribution during the public consultation. 
259 The difference between knowledge-based and competence-based certification is that while knowledge is 
measured against a standard knowledge base, competence-based certification evaluates how competent the 
individual is in applying that knowledge, and skills, in the actual workplace 
260 This was also remarked by the CCNR secretariat in the public consultation.  
261 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) written contribution during the public consultation. 
262 7 out of 41 SMEs perceived differences in the national practices of obtaining a certificate of professional 
competence of a freight carrier. In the scoping interview EBU and ESO stated that little can be said about 
the  level  of  competence  of  an  undertaking  in  IWT  due  to  the  varying  conditions  for  recognition  of 
professional competence across MS. 

56 

 
 
 
4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation – removal of restrictions and discrimination 

The  legislation  in  Group  1  achieved  abolishment  of  fixed  and  discriminative  pricing 
regimes and restrictive commercial practices across the EU’s IWT sector. At national level 
it would not have been possible to tackle those challenges due to the international character 
of the sector.  

The requirement to carry transport documents based on the same requirements according 
to Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 enables enforcement authorities 
across the EU to check compliance with transport rates and conditions. Council Directive 
96/75/EC established freedom of chartering and pricing in all EU Member States and thus 
greater commercial flexibility and increased competitiveness of the sector in the EU Single 
Market; overcoming national protectionism and restrictive practices. If needed, action can 
be taken to protect the current regime (e.g. infringement procedure initiated in 2017 against 
Belgium or against the Netherlands in 1996 related to discriminatory practices263).  

Eliminating discriminatory pricing and restrictive commercial practices potentially lowers 
transport  costs  for  consignors  and  consignees264  thanks  to  fairer  and  more  transparent 
competition among carriers. The abolition of the Festfrachten system of minimum prices, 
was estimated to have resulted265 in a 60% reduction of shipping prices for coal products 
and 40% for bulk cargo in Germany, according to an interview with the representative of 
Rhine operators and  DE Commissar to  the CCNR. In the Netherlands  alone the annual 
benefits due to the abolishment of the ‘Tour de Role’ system are estimated at EUR 190 
million annually, expressed in 2022 prices266. During the stakeholders’ consultation, AT 
specifically highlighted regarding Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 the advantage 
and benefit of uniform rules for the entire EU about prohibition of discriminatory rates and 
conditions, prohibition of fixing of tariffs and rates and common requirements on creating, 
keeping and archiving transport documents.  

Conclusion for EU value added Group 1: EU added value is demonstrated since, due to 
the  international  and  cross  border  nature  of  IWT  transport,  freedom  in  chartering  and 
pricing and the elimination of discriminatory practises could not have been achieved at 
local, regional or national level, alone.   

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation – structural improvement of the IWT market 

Scrapping schemes carried out at national level prior to Group 4 legislation, in 1960’ and 
1970’  in  Germany,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  and  France  had  limited  effect,  therefore 
Member States concerned requested to introduce a scheme at the European level267. In the 
1990’s, action was taken at European level with Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 and 

263 The Belgian case resulted in change in Belgian law to comply with EU law on provisions on freedom of 
price  formation  (Council  Directive  96/75).  The  Dutch  case  related  to  discrimination  between  users  of 
transport services resulting from the Dutch law on the division of freight in North-South IWT.  
264 The consignor is the sender of goods and the consignee is the receiver of the goods 
265 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession in the context of the fitness check support study.  
266 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 
267 EC’s report from 1996  

57 

 
 
 
its  predecessor  Regulation  (EEC)  1101/89  which  resulted  in  structural  improvement  of 
IWT through the introduction of a scrapping scheme and the ‘old-for new’ rule (active up 
to April 2003) in relevant regions of the EU, while keeping geographical areas with no 
overcapacity out of scope (e.g. the Danube).  

The provision in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 of scrapping old vessels 
serves today, in combination with Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC, as a potential 
safety mechanism to prevent any new increase in the transport capacity in case of serious 
market disturbance of the market. If and when triggered, it provides important added value 
in  ensuring  the  resilience  of  the  EU  IWT  market,  except  for  the  vessels  operating 
exclusively  on  the  Danube  (exempted  under  its  Article  2.2.c).  The  respondents  to  the 
stakeholder  consultation  activities  rather  supported  having  crisis  management  tools  in 
place at EU level as shown in the following stakeholder consultations contributions. In a 
targeted interview a Rhine IWT expert stated that measures taken at national level aiming 
to tackle the supply side of IWT, specifically overcapacity, would not lead to significant 
results given the number of Member States in which vessel operators are established. An 
academic/research organisation agreed with this view. In the targeted survey, when asked 
if the EU or the Member States should put in place public intervention measures to respond 
to external economic shocks, 5 out of 13 national authorities preferred EU level action, 2 
preferred  national  action,  5  did  not  know  and  1  was  not  in  favour.  Both  associations 
EBU/ESO  and  the  German  delegation  at  the  CCNR  underlined  the  importance  of  an 
existing clear crisis mechanism to be deployed at the EU level during times of crises. Due 
to  lack  of  quantitative  data,  analysis  on  the  EU  added  value  was  mainly  based  on 
stakeholder consultation contributions, as underlying evidence.  

The EU added value of the operations of the IWT Platform268, financed from IW Reserve 
Funds  according  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999,  has  been  confirmed  by  several 
Member State administrations (AT, HR, DE, LU and NL) and all responding operators’ 
associations in the gap filling survey organised by the Commission in 2024.   

Annex XI contains more information related to tackling structural overcapacity and Group 
4 legislation.  

Conclusion for EU value added Group 4:  EU action has reduced structural overcapacity 
and supported modernisation of the fleet. The safety mechanism supports overall resilience 
of the EU inland navigation market.   

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network  

Due to the international and cross border nature of IWT, local, regional and national rules 
alone could not have prevented discrimination on the grounds of nationality or place of 
establishment within the EU, and allow to establish equal conditions for market access for 
EU operators. Without Group 2 legislation, market access other than to the Rhine would 
rely on bilateral agreements or on the River Commission’s provisions and a higher degree 
of fragmentation of access rules to the EU IWT market would be likely. The legislation in 
Group 2 prevents any discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment; 
this set of regulations introduced the same rules for market access for all EU operators, 
without  undermining  the  privileges  granted  by  the  River  Commissions,  notably  by  the 

268  Since  its  establishment  in  2017,  the  IWT  Platform  has  contributed  to  numerous  initiatives  in 
standardisation  and  regulatory  bodies  as  well  as  to  European  projects,  providing  expert  knowledge  and 
expertise for the benefit of the entire IWT sector at European level. 

58 

 
 
CCNR and the Danube Commission. This means that unlimited Rhine cabotage remains 
in place, harmonised rules for cross border and cabotage transport on the Danube and other 
waterways  are  introduced  while  privileges  of  Switzerland  and  other  third  countries  to 
access the Rhine and Danube, respectively, are preserved.  

It is also questionable whether without EU level legislation national markets would have 
opened up to cabotage for EU operators, as illustrated by the 2 years grace period obtained 
by  FR  and  DE  in  implementing  the  cabotage  regulation.  Some  experts  confirmed  this 
view269. 

Conclusion for EU value added Group 2:   

Due  to  the  international  and  cross  border  nature  of  IWT,  the  objectives  of  Group  2 
legislation  could  not  have  been  achieved  with  local,  regional  or  national  action  alone. 
Group  2  legislation  provides  for  harmonised  access  to  waterways,  cabotage  and 
international  transport.  EU  action  helped  to  overcome  fragmentation  of  the  inland 
navigation market.   

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

As  cross-border  transport  represents  75%  of  the  freight  IWT  activity270,  the  objectives 
could hardly have been achieved without EU level action to establish common rules for all 
Member  States.  With  the  help  of  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  the  harmonisation  of 
access to the profession rules was achieved across the EU, ensuring the effective exercise 
of the  right of  establishment for  carriers of goods and a clear  added value at  European 
level. Due to the fact that the EU rule takes the form of a Directive, national approaches 
can be  applied for its implementation  and there is  room  for improvement in  relation  to 
ensuring a more harmonised approach. Moreover, the scope of the Directive does not cover 
passenger  transport  so  the  IWT  market  is  only  covered  partially.  The  rules  for  mutual 
recognition271  enable  EU-wide  use  of  diplomas  and  certificates  and  reduced  related 
administrative burden for aspiring operators. It made thus employment in inland navigation 
more attractive and contributed to the freedom of movement for professionals and to an 
increase in operational safety. Several stakeholders who have participated in stakeholder 
consultation activities have explicitly highlighted EU added value272.  

Conclusion for EU value added Group 3:  

As 75% of the freight IWT activity takes place  cross-border, the objectives of Group 3 
legislation on access to the occupation and on professional competences could not have 
been achieved without EU level action. 

269 In an interview in the context of the fitness check support study, the IWT platform confirmed that before 
the adoption of the legislation at the EU level Member States had little appetite to open up markets. Also, an 
expert  highlighted  the  importance  of  Council  Regulation  3921/91  and  1356/96  in  opening  up  national 
markets to non-resident EU operators to cabotage and added that the legislation had led to lower prices for 
domestic  IWT  through  increased  competition,  thus  forcing  operators  to  restructure  and  become  more 
efficient.  
270 CCNR (2024), Market Observation report 2024 
271 Articles 7, 8, and 9 of Council Directive 87/540/EEC 
272 In a targeted interview, Slovakia stated that the lack of an EU scheme  for professional competence of 
IWT  freight  carriers  would  be  detrimental  to  the  IWT  sector.  EBU  also  called  for  a  more  harmonised 
implementation  of  the  Directive.  In  the  public  consultation  a  research/academic  institution,  praised  the 
introduction of a common standard of qualification of freight transport operators on the European waterways. 

59 

 
 
EU value added of the Framework as a whole 

Due to the cross-border nature of inland navigation in the EU, the objectives of the legal 
framework subject to this fitness check (i.e. to establish common rules, create a common 
competitive  market,  enable  free  movement  of  goods  and  freedom  to  provide  services) 
could  not  have  been  achieved  by  local,  regional  or  national  action  alone.  Main 
achievements were the prohibition of fixed pricing regimes, tackling overcapacity in the 
fleet,  removing  obstacles  to  access  cabotage  and  creating  harmonised  qualifications  to 
access the profession. The framework established a common EU internal market, resulting 
in improved competitiveness, more harmonisation and the creation of a level playing field.  

According  to  the  public  consultation  (see  Figure  16),  the  main  areas  where  responding 
stakeholders see EU added value relate to  opening and  liberalisation  of the market, the 
freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods. The possibility to operate in 
a Single Market where the same rules apply to all operators and several requirements are 
harmonised  is  seen  as  a  main  EU  added  value  of  the  Framework,  together  with  non-
discriminatory access, which assures a level playing field throughout Europe.  

Figure 16: Replies to the public consultation on the question related to  achievements that 
could  not  have  been  reached  at  other  level  of  governance  (e.g.  international,  regional, 
Member State level) 

To what extent has the legislative framework in scope for this survey 
permitted achievements that could not have been reached at other levels of 
governance, for instance at international, regional (river basin) or Member 
State level (including through bil

Improving competitiveness of the inland waterways
sector in comparison with other transport modes…

Structural improvement / modernisation of the sector
(n=13)

2

2

4

5

6

4

Positive impact on the freedom to provide services
(n=13)

Positive impact on free movement of goods (n=13)

Ensure non-discriminatory access (within the single
market) (n=13)

Opening and liberalisation of the market (n=13)

0

0

0

0

4

7

1

3

4

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Did not contribute

Moderate extent

To a great extent

I don't know

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on public consultation  

8 out of 9 respondents in the Danube workshop273 also agreed or strongly agreed that the 
Framework led to results that could not have been achieved without it (see Figure 17). 

273 Danube workshop, 20 January 2022 

60 

1

1

2

2

2

2

5

7

7

7

 
 
 
Figure 17: Replies to the statement ‘It was the European internal market legislation which 
led to a single market in Europe in which free movement of  goods across EU countries is 
assured.’ (N = 9) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on Danube Workshop 

Due  to  lack  of  quantitative  data,  analysis  on  the  EU  added  value  was  mainly  based  on 
stakeholder consultation contributions, as underlying evidence. Annex XII On data needs 
contains Table 19 where data needs are listed as well as possible avenues towards filling 
data gaps specific to the groups of legislation in scope. In Annex III further information 
can be found in the responses to the evaluations questions on EU added value.  

4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation – removal of restrictions and discrimination 

Prior to Group 1 legislation the IWT market was ruled by fixed pricing regimes and other 
commercial restrictive practices hampering the smooth functioning of the Single Market. 
The  legal  acts  in  Group  1  responded  to  the  need  to  address  market  failures  that  were 
preventing  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  IWT  internal  market  and  lay  down  rules  to 
abolish  discrimination  in  inland  waterway  transport  and  can  therefore  be  considered 
relevant for that period.  

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  has  further  evolved  to  reduce  administrative 
burden  on  businesses  by  simplification  and  by  removal  of  outdated  and  unnecessary 
requirements274.  Technical  advancements  were  also  addressed,  namely  that  certain 
information (available in carriers’ accounting systems) would no longer have to be retained 
on  paper275.  The  eFTI  Regulation276  builds  on  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960 
highlighting its continued relevance.  

The  Council  Regulation’s  continued  relevance  is  also  highlighted  by  the  fact  that  it 
provides  a  basis  for  transport  beyond  inland  navigation.  The  Combined  Transport 

274 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
275 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
276 Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 

61 

 
 
 
 
Directive277 has liberalised combined transport, made it free from all quota systems and 
systems of authorization, and used as a tool for eligibility checks the transport document 
of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960.  

Thanks  to  Council  Directive  96/75/EC,  commercially  restrictive  practices  resulting  in 
protectionist  behaviour  have  been  abolished.  The  Directive  remains  a  safeguard  to  act 
against  prohibited  practices  in  case  of  re-emergence  of  such  practices.  This  was  also 
demonstrated  by  infringement  procedures  against  the  Netherlands  in  1996  and  against 
Belgium in 2017278. Without EU legislation the national legislation limiting freedom of 
price-setting  would  have  prevailed  and  would  likely  continue  restraining  the  free  IWT 
market. Therefore, the existence of past infringements is an additional piece of evidence 
demonstrating  the  relevance  of  the  framework.  Moreover,  since  its  enaction,  Council 
Directive 96/75/EC has evolved to provide a legal basis for comitology procedure and the 
IWT Committee.  

Prices are still regulated by the State in some non-EU countries like Ukraine or Serbia279. 
In the context of further enlargements of the EU, considering the need to align with EU 
legislation, this reinforces the continued relevance of the legislative basis in the EU acquis 
related to free pricing and the prohibition of discrimination. 

Looking beyond land transport (note that Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 covers 
rail, road and IWT), aviation also has in place legislation ensuring the freedom of price 
formation and negotiation. 

Responding stakeholders were divided on whether Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
is  still  relevant.  All  stakeholders’  groups  found  the  regulation  still  relevant  except  for 
operators  and  their  associations280.  Responding  stakeholders  were  less  divided  on  the 
relevance of Council Directive 96/75/EC281.  

277  The  Combined  Transport  Directive  92/106/EEC  builds  on  the  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  and 
reiterates that, similarly to unimodal transport, combined transport is also free of authorisations and quotas 
(Article 2 Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC). 
278 Infringements demonstrate that despite achievements non-discrimination or freedom of price-setting and 
despite existing rules, Member States continue to breach these rules. While the two pieces of legislation in 
Group 1 date of 1960 and 1996, Belgium has as recently as in 2014 established a law that was considered an 
obstacle to the freedom of price formation and breaching rules set by Council Directive 96/75/EC. After an 
infringement procedure Belgium has amended the law.  
279 Interview with the DC 
280  Operators’  associations  including  EBU  and  ESO  expressed  the  view  that  the  Regulation  is  no  longer 
relevant as it has become obsolete and no longer required as legal basis for the abolition of discrimination in 
transport  rates  and  conditions.  However,  respondents  not  linked  to  operators  were  of  the  view  that  the 
Regulation is very relevant. 
281 During the public consultation, 6 of 12 respondents (including EBU and ESO,  the Romanian training 
institute, the Polish maritime  Foundation,  and the AT Chamber of Commerce) were of the  view that the 
Directive is very relevant, 2 respondents replied that it is somewhat relevant, while 4 respondents (CCNR, a 
river commission, a barge operator and a DE operator association) were of the view that the Directive is no 
longer relevant. In another stakeholder consultation AT expressed the view that the Directive is relevant to 
avoid any market interference by national legal acts in the free setting of prices in the IWT market. In 7 out 
of the 10 scoping interviews in the context of the fitness check support study (including in those with CCNR, 
Danube Commission and ProDanube) respondents took the view that although the Directive established a 
relevant legal basis for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions at the time, the high 
level of liberalisation currently observed in IWT in the EU has made it less relevant. Interviews with 4 MS 
(2 for the CCVR and 2 for the Mosel Commission) confirmed the relevance of the Directive for establishing 
an internal market for IWT. In its feedback on the Roadmap EBU underlined the relevance of the aim  and 
scope of the Directive. 

62 

 
 
Those who felt Council Directive 96/75/EC not to be relevant share the understanding that 
the legislation has lost relevance because it has achieved its objective, and no actions are 
needed anymore. However, the analysis on infringements above shows that there are also 
relatively recent cases where Member States legislation attempts to limit the freedom of 
price  formation,  e.g.  in  Belgium282,  and  therefore  this  legislation  remains  relevant. 
Moreover, for any enlargement without the legislation in Group 1 only TFEU would apply, 
leaving the acceding countries without more detailed provisions on how to interpret the 
general provision related to prohibition of discrimination.  

Therefore, legislation in Group 1 remains relevant to implement and maintain the goals of 
common transport policy, notably the prohibition of discrimination as in TFEU Art 95, due 
to its role of providing a more detailed legal basis than the overall TFEU. In addition, the 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 serves as basis for other transport legislation on 
digitalisation and combined transport. 

Conclusion on relevance for Group 1: The legislation in Group 1 remains relevant to 
implement and maintain the goals of common transport policy, notably the prohibition of 
discrimination as in TFEU Art 95, but providing a more detailed legal basis than the overall 
TFEU.  Moreover,  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  serves  as  basis  for  other 
transport legislation on digitalisation and combined transport.  

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation - structural improvement of the IWT market 

Group 4 legislation was  highly  relevant  between 1990 and 2003 to  reduce  the sector’s 
structural overcapacity on the Rhine and on other waterways, and to a limited extent on 
the Danube (in Austria). The market is better positioned to face challenges, such as the 
financial crisis of 2008, or the replacement of single-hull tankers with double-hull tankers.  

Group  4283  still  provides  a  legal  basis  for  structural  improvement  measures  in  case  of 
serious market disturbances of the sector beyond the period mentioned above for capacity 
measures. While this safety mechanism has not been triggered so far, it remains a useful 
mechanism that can be activated to strengthen the resilience of the sector, as overcapacity 
remains a risk that the IWT sector could face in the future. As mentioned in the Sustainable 
and Smart Mobility Strategy284, the resilience against future crises is a key objective of the 
EU’s transport policy going forward.  

In the 21st century, the sector is transitioning from a capacity-driven to an efficiency-driven 
structure,  facing  new  needs  and  skills  such  as  knowledge  of  logistics,  encouraging 
adaptation to technical progress including clean technologies. In response to these changes, 
the Regulation evolved: in 2013 its Article 8 was amended to extend the list of measures 
to  allow  Reserve  Funds  to  be  used  for  new  trends  and  needs  in  the  IWT  sector.  The 
available amounts in the IW Funds of Member States (see Table 3 in section 4.1.1) are 
relatively small compared to the sector’s size and the funding required to tackle challenges 
like greening or a scrapping round of outdated vessels. However, according to AT, HR, 
DE, LU and NL, the IWT Platform currently financed by the IW Funds remains a useful 
tool for the sector. 

282 INFR(2017)4115-BE 
283 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
284 COM(2020) 789 final 

63 

 
 
Since the legislation in scope of the fitness check date from the 1960s to 1990s there is 
limited  historical  memory  at  the  level  of  stakeholders  and  the  legal  acts  are  not  well-
known. For example, there is a case where a Member State representative suggests that the 
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 could be repealed but at the same time expresses 
the  view  that  some  elements  like  the  Fund  and  the  IWT  Platform  are  useful.  If  the 
legislation would be repealed the Fund would also cease to exist. So, this view contains a 
contradiction  in  itself.  Furthermore,  while  clearly  the  views  are  not  representative,  the 
numbers of responses to the different stakeholder consultation activities are not particularly 
small  for  this  specific  and  relatively  small  sector.  Additional  stakeholder  consultation 
activities had been conducted in order to overcome the lack of evidence, but with limited 
success. 

The existence of legislation related to serious market disturbances beyond the IWT sector, 
in  other  land  transport  modes  like  road  transport,  highlights  the  relevance  of  such 
mechanisms.  Stakeholders  who  expressed  their  views  found  Group  4  legislation  rather 
relevant285.   

Conclusion  on  relevance  for  Group  4:  The  original  objectives  were  structural 
improvements in IWT and the promotion of IWT. The market has undergone significant 
changes since then, both in terms of transport segments and geography (enlargement of the 
EU), but the Group 4 legislation remains relevant. 

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

Group 2 legislation created the same access rights for EU operators to provide national 
and international transport services, and enabled the establishment and functioning of the 
internal  market  for  inland  navigation.  It  implements  the  common  transport  policy  as 
stipulated  in  Articles  90  and  91  of  the  TFEU.  While  Article  56  of  the  TFEU  on  free 
movement  of  services  would  have  provided  general  principles,  these  would  have  been 
implemented  differently  across  Member  States286.  Therefore,  the  legislation  in  Group  2 
remains relevant for the implementation of the TFEU. If rules stipulated in these acts were 
not in place, ‘freedom to provide services in the field of transport’ would be unregulated. 

285 In the public consultation FR commented that the focus nowadays should lay on reducing the lifetime of 
the vessel in order to reduce IWT’s impact on the climate, rather than reducing the capacity of the fleet, while 
a  French  sectoral  association  (Enterprises  Fluviales  de  France)  underlined  the  relevance  of  legislation  in 
Group 4 and pleaded to maintain the provisions on serious market disturbance. In a 2024 gap filling survey 
operator associations (EBU and ESO) stated that the legislation provides the means to take measures in case 
of a  serious market disturbance and such a safety net might still be necessary in the future where inland 
navigation would experience the consequences of climate change. On the IWT platform, in the 2024 survey 
5 of the 5 MS who expressed a view, found the IWT platform relevant. HR highlighted that serious market 
disturbance in the transport market in inland navigation is still a serious threat to the financial stability and 
survival of a large number of carriers in inland navigation and this highlights the need for the legislation in 
question. In various consultations EBU underlined the relevance of the aim and scope of the Directive and 
remarked  the  continued  importance  of  the  crisis  mechanism.  2  out  of  the  4  respondents  to  the  Roadmap 
confirmed the relevance of the legislation stating that it aims at reducing sectoral overcapacity through vessel 
scrapping schemes whilst avoiding excessive social costs.  During scoping interview  in the context of the 
fitness check support study EBU and ESO highlighted that the relevance of Council Regulation 718/1999 
lies in its links to the Reserve Funds created in 1989 and found the IWT platform relevant as it addresses 
current needs of the sector.  
286 Also see ECJ Case 13/83 

64 

 
 
Responding  stakeholder  expressed  a  wider  range  of  views  on  Group  2  legislation’s 
relevance287. 

Conclusion on relevance for Group 2: Legislation in Group 2 created the same access 
rights for any EU operator to provide national and international transport services on EU 
waterways. These legal acts are overall relevant for the establishment and functioning of 
internal  market  for  inland  navigation,  even  though  (due  to  the  fragmentation  of  the 
framework)  the  regulations  are  not  well  understood  by  administrations  and  operators. 
While stakeholders’ views differ on the relevance of acts in Group 2, it is clear that the 
legislation is needed to ensure all EU operators have equal access to all EU waterways.  

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

Council Directive 87/540/EEC plays a key role in the implementation of the principle of 
‘freedom to provide services’ under Art 56 of TFEU, as well as Art 95 of TFEU, which 
prohibits discrimination in transport, therefore it is still relevant. 

Thanks to the Council Directive it is possible to require a minimum level of knowledge of 
the  market  and  of  the  functioning  of  the  sector,  as  well  as  horizontal  knowledge  on 
legislation  or  finances,  allowing  the  introduction  of  prospective  entrepreneurs  with  a 
certain level of service and knowledge, resulting in the reduction of risk of business failure. 
These are regarded as essential elements for this small sector and also contribute to the 
resilience  of  the  sector,  by  making  sure  that  entrepreneurs  have  a  solid  background 
knowledge and a higher chance to succeed at their business.  

The Directive is considered relevant by operators’ representatives and by some Member 
States. However, the knowledge requirements do not include emerging knowledge fields 
such as digitalisation or clean technologies.  

This Directive is considered relevant by EBU representing IWT operators, as expressed 

287  Regarding  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85,  EBU,  in  its  feedback  to  the  Roadmap  stated  that 
although it is considered relevant, it should be replaced by an European system fitting the existing Regulation 
on the Rhine. LU remarked that it was needed to open the Rhine market, so it was indeed to the benefit of 
the sector, but now it seems obsolete thanks to the EU and serves only the interest of third countries in terms 
of access. Concerning Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91, 4 of 17 targeted interviewees and 1 scoping 
interviewee stated that the main impact was the opening of temporary cabotage to undertakings from all EU 
Member  States.  This  differs  from  the  past  where  third  countries  were  granted  occasional  access  through 
bilateral treaties. Also, LU explained that the possibility to carry out cabotage operations is important for 
national passenger transport in small countries where fleets are operating in a condominium, and it is equally 
important  to  keep  IW  transport  of  cargo  economically  competitive  for  transport  over  longer  distances. 
Concerning Council Regulation (EU) No 1356/96, stakeholders stated that its relevance lies in the definition 
it  provides  on  the  link  between  a  vessel  and  a  Member  State.  In  a  scoping  interview,  an  international 
organisation stated that when it comes to opening access to all EU undertakings, the Regulation did not bring 
significant change due to cross-border traffic being already open to most EEC Member States.  
A French sectoral association found Group 2 legislation relevant, however remarked ‘the need to strengthen 
the means of monitoring transport operations carried out on national territory by foreign operators in order 
to combat illegal cabotage’, while the RO association of ship owners and port operators remarked that the 
use  of  Group  2  legislation  vis-à-vis  the  Belgrade  convention  is  not  clear  (i.e.  whether  the  Belgrade 
Convention, EU legislation or Romanian national legislation applies). Finally, EBU remarked that it is not 
sufficiently clear to what extent the two certificates (Union inland navigation certificate vs the Certificate 
establishing that the vessel belongs to the Rhine navigation) provide equivalent rights, neither to which extent 
they guarantee access to a geographical market. However, EBU and LU acknowledged the value of the Rhine 
certificate regarding the application of the Rhine social security system, while ESO remarked that it remains 
the highest standard in the EU IWT sector. 

65 

 
 
during the gap filling survey organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024, 
as well as by the French sectoral association (written contribution of Entreprises Fluviales 
de France). HU has stated that the scheme for professional competence of an IWT freight 
carrier has somewhat improved in comparison with the situation prior to Council Directive 
87/540/EEC, while AT has indicated that in case the scheme for professional competence 
of an IWT freight carrier was not in place today, it would result in higher risk for distortion 
of  competition.  EBU  stated  in  their  feedback  that  the  Directive’s  relevance  lies  in  its 
introduction of a quality standard for access to the occupation. Despite its relevance, when 
asked if the list of topics for which proof of professional competence must be provided is 
accurate, 5 respondents stated ‘to a large’ or ‘to some extent’, 3 responded ‘to no extent’, 
while 6 of 14 national authorities having responded to the targeted survey stated that they 
did not know. The stakeholders specified that the list in the Annex of the Council Directive 
87/540/EEC does not cover needs that have arisen since its adoption, namely knowledge 
on sustainability, digitalisation, and automation. 

Common rules on the mutual recognition of diplomas and other qualifications also remain 
relevant. Around 10 certificates are issued per year per Member State on average, and there 
are also cases of replacements/reclassifications and extensions. 

The  Directive  is  currently  not  regulating  the  access  to  the  profession  for  carriers  of 
passenger transport, although this segment of the market constitutes an important share of 
the market – and a growing one. 

Conclusion  on  relevance  for  Group  3:  The  Directive  remains  relevant,  but  does  not 
reflect more recent developments in terms of knowledge and expertise required from IWT 
entrepreneurs. 

Relevance of the Framework as a whole 

The framework was clearly relevant at the time of its adoption and is overall still relevant 
today while in some respect the legislation does not fully correspond to today’s and future 
needs (for instance, the requirements on knowledge and expertise of IWT entrepreneurs 
and the IWT Fund, which is too small to be able to respond to future challenges such as 
climate change mitigation and adaptation of the IWT sector). While scrapping schemes 
have not been used since 2003, and the mechanism on serious market disturbance has not 
been  triggered  so  far,  stakeholders  who  have  responded  to  stakeholder  consultation 
activities  rather  considered  these  as  tools  for  building  resilience  of  the  IWT  sector  and 
therefore as still relevant. Looking to the future, it will still be relevant as a reference for 
continued enforcement efforts and considering future enlargements.  

The respondents to the public consultation consider the Framework still relevant. For each 
piece of legislation (see Figure 18) more respondents are of the view that the legislation is 
very  relevant  or  somewhat  relevant  than  the  number  of  respondents  responding  not 
relevant.  

Further information can be found in Annex III on the answers to the evaluation questions 
on relevance. 

66 

 
Figure 18: Relevance of the individual pieces of legislation today (n = 14)288 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on the public consultation 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1. Conclusions 

Effectiveness.  The  IWT  internal  market  legislative  Framework  has  been  effective  to  a 
large extent: fixed pricing regimes have been abolished, the structural overcapacity in the 
market has been reduced, common rules for access to the occupation have been set and the 
market has been opened up for all EU operators who can operate on equal footing. The 
original intentions of the legal acts have been fulfilled, the group-specific objectives have 
been met.  

Efficiency.  The  Framework  entails  some  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public 
administrations  and  for  businesses  operating  in  the  IWT  sector.  Of  this,  reporting 
requirements for public administrations are only associated to Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999 and are not significant (estimated at EUR 3,628 per year at EU level). There are 
no reporting requirements for businesses. Potential for administrative simplification has 
been identified in relation to the Certificate of belonging to the Rhine navigation and for 
digitisation  of  documents  to  establish  the  right  to  access.  Potential  for  simplification, 
including digitalisation, has also been identified for the certificate of carrier of goods. The 
Framework also entails some adjustment costs for businesses operating in the IWT sector 
and  some  enforcement  costs  for  IWT  operators  for  cooperating  with  the  enforcement 
authorities in checking certificates. On the other hand, the Framework results in benefits 
for the businesses operating in the IWT sector and for public administrations.  

Despite  several  rounds  of  consultation  activities,  including  a  survey  organised  by  the 
Commission in 2024, no sufficient evidence is available to allow quantifying the benefits 
and all costs. The evidence available on costs and benefits does not allow to draw robust 
conclusions  on the overall efficiency of the  Framework, including on the cumulative 
costs  and  benefits.  Nevertheless,  during  the  2024  survey  some  Member  States 
administrations  stated  that  they  value  the  contribution  of  the  IWT  market  access 

288 For all pieces of legislation, with the exception of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, the number of 
respondents was 14. For Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 16 responses were received. 

67 

 
 
 
framework to the sector’s competitiveness.  

Coherence was assessed on several levels and conclusions can be drawn as follows:  

-  Firstly, there seem to be no conflicting provisions between the Framework and the pre-
existing  international  agreements.  However,  this  co-existence  results  in  a  certain 
complexity  and  fragmentation  of  the  Framework,  requiring  formal  coordination 
procedure289 in cases when legal acts of river commissions touch upon EU competence. 
As further explained in Annex VIII, the complex governance landscape for IWT is the 
source of some incoherence identified in Group 2.  

-  Secondly,  no  contradictions  have  been  identified  between  the  Framework  and  other 
legislation  of  relevance,  notably  the  Combined  Transport  Directive  and  the  eFTI 
Regulation. 

-  However, external coherence could be improved vis-à-vis the TFEU (Group 1) as well 
as  between  different  legal  instruments  in  IWT.  Notably,  there  is  a  perceived  lack  of 
coherence  of  some  terminology  used  by  Group  3  legislation  for  the  carrier  and  the 
Professional  Qualifications  Directive  for  crew.  Group  3  legislation  is  based  on 
knowledge for carriers while the Professional Qualifications Directive for crew uses a 
competence-based approach.  

-  Moreover, an issue on the coherence of the scope of Group 2 and Group 3 has been 
identified, resulting in lack of internal coherence of Pillar 2. Namely, Group 2 contains 
provisions on access to the waterway network for cargo and passenger transport, while 
Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  in  Group  3  contains  provisions  to  access  of  the 
profession only for cargo operators (see Table 1 in section 2.1) - it does not apply to 
passenger transport. Consequently, the EU legal basis assures access for both cargo and 
passenger  transport  (cabotage  and  international),  but  there  is  no  EU  legal  basis  for 
operators of passenger vessels to prove professional competences. At the same time, it 
has to be noted that this inconsistency has not been pointed out as a problem during the 
stakeholder consultations.  

-  Finally, a difference in geographical scope within Group 4 has been identified, as the 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  includes  an  exemption  for  vessels  navigating 
exclusively on the Danube, unlike the Council Directive 96/75/EC that applies to IWT 
in the EU. 

EU added value. Stakeholders that responded to the consultation activities acknowledge 
the EU added value of the Framework, confirming that EU action had been justified and 
similar results could not have been achieved with other levels of governance (international, 
regional like river basin or national levels). Application of the Framework at EU level has 
largely resulted in a level playing field for enterprises, many of them SMEs, as well as 
non-discrimination of operators and consignees/consignors across the EU. High degree of 
harmonisation  has  been  reached  overall,  while  in  areas  where  the  legal  form  of  the 
legislation  left  room  for  diverging  implementation,  inconsistencies  in  implementation 
appeared (Group 3). 

Relevance. As can be concluded from the analysis (see section 4), the IWT internal market 
legislative Framework was and still is  relevant  for delivering the EU Single Market,  in 

289 Art 218.9 TFEU 

68 

 
 
particular to achieve the common transport policy, as set out in the TFEU. The need to 
maintain those achievements imply the continued relevance of the Framework. 

5.2. Lessons learned 

A  number  of  lessons  learned  can  be  drawn,  these  are  discussed  below  by  group  of 
legislation. 

Pillar  1  -  Group  1  and  Group  4  legislation  –  removal  of  restrictions  and 
discrimination, structural improvement of the IWT market 

An outdated, and now obsolete, reference in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 to 
exempted  goods290  could  impair  legal  clarity.  Other  than  this,  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
11/1960, Council Directive 96/75/EC and Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are assessed 
to be fit for purpose. A further reduction of administrative burden is underway with the 
implementation  of  eFTI  Regulation.  This  will  allow  operators  to  electronically  share 
information on transport of goods in the EU from July 2027. 

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation – access to the inland waterway network 

There is no uniform definition applied for ‘temporary’ in the cabotage legislation and the 
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 could further be improved. While 
no widespread concerns have been raised during the consultations regarding the current 
practice of national interpretations of temporary cabotage, some stakeholders plead for the 
removal of possible market entry barriers by deleting the term ‘temporary’, whilst others 
plead for adding a definition of the term. A common interpretation of the term ‘temporary’ 
cabotage  could  provide  EU-wide  legal  certainty  to  service  providers  and  enforcement 
authorities. This might further improve the level playing field for operators and address 
the risk of social dumping.  

Further  administrative  simplification  could  be  achieved  by  discontinuing  the  specific 
Certificate  of  belonging  to  the  Rhine  navigation291  and  instead  including  the  relevant 
information  on  vessel  ownership  in  the  Union  inland  navigation  certificate292.  Existing 
Regulations already allow for such simplification, if the Union inland navigation certificate 
and the registration certificate for a particular vessel are issued by the same state. A CESNI 
Working Group293 is currently examining the practicalities of such approach. Moreover, 
future digital (vessel) documents could  remove the need to provide the relevant data in 
paper format and could further improve efficiency and drive the sector towards paperless 
solutions.  

Pillar 2 - Group 3 – access to the profession of IWT carrier 

The assessment revealed some local differences, for certain aspects, in the implementation 
of  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC294.  These  relate  to  differences  in  the  templates  of  the 
certificate and the transport activity for which a certificate of professional competence is 

290 The reference to exempted goods in Annexes I and III of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and 
Steel Community is obsolete. As a consequence, there are no more exempted goods. 
291 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2919/85 
292 Art 6 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
293 European committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation (CESNI) - CESNI - Comité 
Européen pour l’Élaboration de Standards dans le domaine de la Navigation Intérieure 
294 See Annex IX on the inventory of national implementation of Directive 87/540 

69 

 
 
needed.  Moreover,  the  assessment  revealed  some  potential  for  simplification,  some   
inconsistencies and other issues: 

-  Potential  for  simplification  of  the  certificate  of  carriers.  This  could  be  achieved  by 
introducing an EU-wide digital template for the certificate of carriers295. In view of the 
low annual numbers of certificates of carriers issued, it is doubtful however whether the 
operational savings would justify necessary investments. Synergies could be explored 
with  the  database  for  Union  certificates  of  qualifications  in  the  context  of  the 
Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive (EU) 2697/2017).  

-  Inconsistencies in  scope  of different legal  acts  in  particular  for  carriers of passenger 

transport.  

-  The  Annex  of  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  containing  a  list  of  knowledge 

requirements: 

o  Is not aligned with the provisions used in the Professional Qualifications Directive 
for  crew,  which  is  competence-based  (including  skills  and  competences  for  the 
carriers) instead of knowledge-based;  

o  Does not include additional competences that emerged since the 1980s, related to 
e.g.  clean  fuels  and  technologies  (e.g.  alternative  fuels  handling),  digitalisation, 
logistics.  

The legal  form  of  a Directive, especially  in  the  case of Council Directive 87/540/EEC, 
allows for less harmonised implementation.  

Monitoring system 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  legal  acts,  there  were  no  reporting  and  monitoring 
requirements foreseen, except for Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999. As a result, data 
is not systemically and consistently collected and reported for the pieces of legislation in 
scope.  In  line  with  the  current  policy  context  of  simplification  (Communication  on  ‘A 
simpler and faster Europe’296), it is recommended  to draw on synergies on monitoring and 
reporting requirements with other related legislation and data collection methods instead 
of developing additional monitoring requirements and thereby causing additional burden 
on administrations or businesses. Further analysis of data needs can be found in Annex 
XII.  
For Group 1 legislation, concerning the transport document and its compliance checks297 
as well as infringements, starting from July 2027 the eFTI Regulation298 will gather data 
for monitoring purposes. However, statistics generated by eFTI will provide only a partial 
view  because  operators  are  not  obliged  to  submit  the  information  (contained  in  the 
transport document) electronically; they still retain the option to provide the information 
by means of paper documents.  

For Group 4 legislation, as mentioned above, yearly reporting requirements are currently 
already included in Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999299. 

295 Note, for the certificates of crew there are already European standards, Regulation (EU) 2020/182 of 14 
January  2020  on  models  in  the  field  of  professional  qualifications  in  inland  navigation  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R0182&qid=1752662962169 
296 COM(2025) 47 final, EUR-Lex - 52025DC0047 - EN - EUR-Lex 
297 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
298 Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information 
299 Article 9.2 

70 

 
 
For Group 2 legislation, particularly for figures on passenger transport, Eurostat and MS 
agreed in September 2025 to start data collection on a voluntary basis for IWT passenger 
transport in 2026 for reference year 2025300. 

For  Group  2  and  3  legislation  there  are  upcoming  potential  synergies  on  monitoring. 
Firstly, the revised River Information Service Directive301 will set up an EU RIS Platform 
which  will  be  the  entry  point  for  users  to  feedback  any  problems  of  traffic  on  EU 
waterways. Here operators will be able to report issues, including those regarding access 
to waterways (Group 2 legislation). 

For Group 3 legislation,  as mentioned above, there is  a possibility to  explore synergies 
between  the  certificate  of  carrier  of  cargo  and  the  database  for  Union  certificates  of 
qualifications (ECDB)302.  

It  is  furthermore  recommended  to  look  into  opportunities  for  synergies  between  future 
monitoring and reporting systems, in particular for the certificates required by Groups 2 
and  3  legislation  and  the  existing  IWT  databases  kept  by  the  Commission,  namely  the 
ECDB303, EHDB304 and ERDMS305 as well as the future EU RIS Platform and the IWT 
eTools306,  while  aiming  to  limit  the  administrative  burden  on  public  authorities  and 
operators.  In addition, the IWT Market observation reports307 can also possibly take up 
some  additional  statistics,  notably  regarding  the  certificates  of  belonging  to  the  Rhine 
navigation 308.  

Overall, for streamlining regulatory reporting309 horizontal digital approaches and tools can 
also be considered like ‘one-stop shops’, the ‘once only’ principle / ‘report once’ principle, 

300 Meeting of the WG on IWW Transport Statistics, 30 September 2025 
301  Co-legislators  agree  on  upgrading  river  information  services  -  Consilium,  trilogue  concluded  26  June 
2025 
302 ECDB – European Crew database – a database established based on Dir (EU) 2017/2397 on professional 
qualification in IWT – DB collects main data of crew members working on inland waterways vessels. The 
statistics  provide  information on  the  number  of  crew  members,  their  nationality,  number  of  qualification 
documents issued by Member States (divided into the categories). 
303 ECDB – European Crew database – a database established based on Dir (EU) 2017/2397 on professional 
qualification in IWT – Database collects main data of crew members working on inland waterways vessels. 
The statistics provide information on the number of crew members, their nationality, number of qualification 
documents issued by Member States (divided into the categories). 
304  EHDB  –  European  Hull  DataBase  –  established  based  on  Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  on  technical 
requirements for inland waterway vessels. This is a database where basic data for vessels is entered (ca. 20 
data – dimensions/ owner/operator/certificates). It is also foreseen to collect data related to the propulsion of 
vessels which may help in assessing of the environmental performance of the EU fleet 
305  ERDMS  –  the  European  Reference  Data  Management  System;  database  (library)  supporting 
implementation of RIS Directive. Important elements of this database is collection of infrastructure data - 
localization of infrastructure (ports, bridges, etc.). 
306 NAIADES III - Flagship 7: Smart and flexible EU crewing rules - The Commission will assess the need 
for legislative initiatives for on-board digital tools for recording and exchanging information on crews and 
vessels, as well as on crewing requirements for better harmonisation at EU level. 
307 Other reports - CCNR - Observation Du Marché 
308 Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 
309 Streamlining regulatory reporting | Interoperable Europe Portal 

71 

 
 
‘digital  by  default’310  while  for  holding  of  certificates  the  use311  of  EU  digital  identity 
wallet312 and the forthcoming business wallet313. 

As  an  overall  conclusion,  with  the  caveat  of  limited  quantified  evidence  for  assessing 
efficiency, the fitness check found the examined IWT legislation in general fit for purpose, 
and drew lessons learned as above. 

310 To lighten reporting burdens and compliance costs, we will further embed the ‘digital by default’ and 
‘once-only’ principles in partnership with national, regional and local authorities and the relevant EU 
agencies.  (A  simpler  and  faster  Europe:  Communication  on  implementation  and  simplification, 
COM(2025) 47 final) 

311 For smaller firms, it would be particularly welcome if there were a single digital platform, a ‘one-stop 
shop’, where they could … manage reporting ... With regard to reporting, it must be sufficient for a firm 
to submit information only once. Similarly, both the e-wallet for businesses and e-ID for citizens should 
now be implemented quickly in all Member States. (EP Own-initiative procedure: 2025/2009(INI)) 

312 European Digital Identity - European Commission 
313 Carriages preview | Legislative Train Schedule 

72 

 
 
ANNEX I.  PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

A)  Lead DG and internal references  

The ‘Fitness Check on market access in Inland waterway transport’ has been undertaken by 
DG  MOVE  Unit  D.3  Ports  and  Inland  navigation.  The  Decide  planning  entry  for  this 
evaluation is PLAN/2019/5558. 

The  Roadmap314  on  ‘Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  Inland  waterway  transport’  was 
published for feedback from July to August 2019. An inter-service steering group (ISG) was 
set  up  consisting  of  representatives  from  the  Directorate  Generals  for  Mobility  and 
Transport;  Competition;  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion;  Internal  Market, 
Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs;  Trade;  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement 
Negotiations;  European  External  Action  Service;  the  Legal  Service  and  the  Secretariat 
General.  The  ISG  met  regularly  and  has  been  involved  in  all  key  steps  of  the  process: 
providing comments on the terms of reference and on the interim and draft final reports of 
the  support  study  and  giving  feedback  and  making  suggestions  on  the  public  online 
consultation  questionnaire.  The  last  meeting  of  the  ISG  before  the  submission  to  the  
Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) took place on 23 May 2025. 

B)  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

The draft Fitness Check was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 4 June 
2025. It was discussed by the RSB on 2 July 2025. The outcome was Positive opinion with 
reservations, issued on 4 July 2025. The following table provides information on how the 
recommendations made by the RSB were addressed in the Staff Working Document. 

RSB opinion 
(1) The impact of the intervention on the competitiveness 

of the sector is not analysed. 

Action taken 

The  analysis  on  competitiveness  has  been 
strengthened  by  adding  Annex  X  on 
competitiveness outlining the impact of the 
intervention  on  the  competitiveness  of  the 
sector. 

(2) The  report  should  explain  the  data  needed  for 
conducting the economic analysis, the robustness of the 
conclusions and the steps taken towards addressing data 
gaps. 

(3) The causal link between the intervention and observed 

impacts should be better substantiated. 

Data  needs  and  gaps  have  been  further 
highlighted  by  adding  Annex  XII  on  data 
needs,  including  a  mapping  of  possibilities 
of  addressing  data  gaps  and  explanations 
concerning 
the 
conclusions. 

robustness 

the 

of 

The  analysis  on  causal 
links  between 
intervention and observed impacts has been 
strengthened.  Initial  situation,  impact  and 
causal  link  are  now  included  in  the  new 
Annex X on competitiveness. 

314 Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 

73 

 
 
 
(4) The  reasons for the predominance of Dutch operators 
in  the  sector  are not  explained  as  well  as  the  economic 
consequences. 

The reasons for the predominance of Dutch 
operators  in  the  sector  has  been  further 
analysed.  The  new  Annex  X  contains  a 
section that provides the underlying reasons 
behind 
the  predominance  of  Dutch 
operators. 

The  analysis  on  competitiveness  has  been 
further  strengthened.  Annex  X  has  been 
added that contains an overview table of the 
impacts 
the 
competitiveness and on the barriers to entry 
of the inland waterway transport market. 

intervention  had  on 

the 

The  analysis  on  effectiveness  has  been 
enhanced with an assessment of whether the 
prominence  of  Dutch  operators  puts 
effectiveness  of  liberalisation  of  market 
access  into  question.  The  new  Annex  X 
contains  further  explanation on  the  reasons 
behind 
the  predominance  of  Dutch 
operators,  long  term  time-series  have  been 
added. 

Further analysis has been developed related 
to  structural  overcapacity  and  the  related 
legislation.  The  new  Annex  XI  on 
overcapacity  and  Group  4 
legislation 
provides  an  encompassing  overview  of  the 
legislation’s 
impact  on  competitiveness, 
prices, cargo volumes carried, as well as its 
continued relevance. 

Annex XII has been added that provides an 
overview of data needs, and explanations as 
to  which  data  gathering  activities  were 
carried out to fill the data gaps. Annex XII 
also explains specific data availability issues 
and also contains references to  the existing 
and 
market 
upcoming collections of additional statistics.  

observation  mechanisms 

Related  lessons  are  included  in  section  5.2 
Lessons learned. 

Further  assessment  is  developed  on  the 
causal links between the intervention, which 
are  now  included  in  the  new  Annex  X  on 
competitiveness . 

(1) The report should provide an analysis of the impacts the 
intervention  had  on  the  competitiveness  and  on  the 
barriers  to  entry  of  the  inland  waterway  transport 
market. This analysis should be made with reference to 
the  effects  of  pre-existing  distortive  pricing  practices, 
market access restrictions and the lessons learned from 
implementing the regulatory framework. 

(2) The  reasons  behind  the  predominance  of  Dutch 
operators  within  the  industry should  be  analysed  as  the 
report  concludes  that  the  market  is  now  harmonised, 
liberalised  and  thus  facilitating  the  access  to  new 
operators. The report should discuss to what extent this 
can be explained by advantages to access the market or 
the consequence of barriers for other operators. It should 
assess whether this allows for drawing any lessons on the 
effectiveness of the interventions with regard to ensuring 
equal access to transport on EU waterways. 

(3) Potential risks of negative impacts on competitiveness 
and consequences on prices or quantities resulting from 
the  intervention  when  addressing  overcapacity,  should 
also be better analysed in the report. The report needs to 
better  explain  why  these  measures  were  introduced  and 
what  are  the  conditions  which  would  justify  their  re-
enactment  in  the  future,  including  if  overcapacity  is  an 
issue  in  a  situation  with  free  and  fluid  market  prices. 
Given that the market conditions were not found to justify 
the re-activation of the market disturbances mechanism in 
the  last  decades,  the  report  should  assess  its  continued 
relevance. 

(4) Data  needs  for  a  robust  economic  analysis  should  be 
established. Using the data needs as a starting point, the 
report  should  provide  more  information  on  what  data 
gathering and modelling activities were attempted to fill 
the  data  gaps.  For  example,  the  report  should  explain 
whether information from the existing market observation 
registrations 
mechanisms 
databases)  was  used  and  if  not,  what  were  the  specific 
data availability or suitability issues encountered. Related 
lessons should be included in the lessons learned. 

from  national 

(such  as 

(5) When  analysing  the  achievement  of  the  specific 
objectives, the report should establish the specific role of 
the  interventions  in  explaining  the  resulting  impacts 
observed and better explain the causal link between the 
introduction  of  the  framework  and  the  evolution  of  the 
sector.  It  should  therefore  go  beyond  noting  that  some 
market  outcomes  have  temporally  occurred  after  the 
interventions  in  areas  such  as  pricing,  capacity  or 
geographical spread of market participants. For pricing, 

74 

 
the drivers behind the observed downward trend since the 
legislative  framework  was  introduced  need  further 
analysis to demonstrate it is the result of the intervention. 

(6)  The  conclusions  should  be  better  underpinned  by 
evidence  based  on  quantitative  data  analysis.  As  the 
analysis suffers from a lack of data as a consequence of 
the absence of an adequate monitoring system the report 
should highlight this issue in the conclusions and make a 
recommendation to develop such a system which would 
include  key  data  and  methods  for  its  collection  without 
increasing the administrative burden. 

(7) Stakeholder feedback should be better integrated in the 
main  body  of  the  report.  The  analysis  should  provide 
more information on the evolution of stakeholder views 
(where  relevant),  in  particular  given  the  long  period  of 
preparation for the fitness check. 

Lessons  on  monitoring  have  now  been 
darwn  and  included  in  section  5.2  Lessons 
learned. 

In  addition,  Annex  XII  on  data  needs  has 
been  added, 
including  a  mapping  of 
possibilities of addressing data gaps. 

of 

various 

Annex  V  synopsis  report  contains  an 
overview 
stakeholder 
consultation  activities  carried  out  for  this 
Fitness  Check.  Consultation  activities 
spanned over 2019 and 2024 as described in 
Section  II  of  Annex  V,  however,  no 
the  views  of 
substantial  changes 
stakeholders  were  identified  over  these  5 
years. 

in 

C)  Evidence provision 

The Fitness Check is based on several sources, using both quantitative and qualitative data,  
including:  

•  Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex V synopsis report),  
•  An external support study,   
•  The EC’s experience in implementing the legislation in scope, including complaints and 

infringement cases,  

•  Reports and information sourced from market observation reports by CCNR. 

A support study ‘Fitness Check – Support study on the access to and the functioning of the 
inland  waterway 
tendered  under  Framework  Contract 
MOVE.A.3/FRA/2019/0001.  The  European  Commission  entrusted  the  Consortium 
consisting  of  Ecorys,  STC-NESTRA  and  Tournaye  Consulting  to  carry  out  the  support 
study. The objective was to support the Commission’s Fitness Check in two ways: 

transport  market’  was 

-  by assessing to what extent the EU legislation on access to the internal IWT market is fit 

for purpose; 

-  by examining whether the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework helps ensure a 

smooth and fair functioning of the internal market. 

In  the  course  of  the  support  study,  several  stakeholder  consultation  activities  were 
conducted, along interviews, surveys and literature review. In terms of a broader stakeholder 
consultation, an open public consultation315 was held between 17 December 2021 and 11 
March  2022.  Given  that  transport  operators  on  inland  waterways  are  typically  SMEs,  a 
survey targeted specifically at SMEs, in cooperation with DG GROW’s Enterprise Europe 
Network, was also undertaken between 4 February and 11 March 2022.  

315 Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 

75 

 
 
 
However,  the  study  did  not  obtain  sufficient  data  on  the  costs  related  to  the  legislative 
framework. Some assumptions have been made by the study team upfront, however, these 
could not be sufficiently tested. The information on the benefit side was very limited: the 
study was able to identify the benefits categories (the benefits that, in theory, would result 
from the legislation), however, was not able to quantify them.   

Therefore,  during  the  period  from  15/10  to  end  of  2024  the  Commission  carried  out  an 
additional  targeted  consultation  based  on  an  online  questionnaire  addressed  to  Member 
States and associations of operators. The aim was to fill the gaps in data and to gather, as 
far as possible, quantitative evidence to contribute especially to the efficiency assessment 
of the Fitness Check.  

76 

 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  Introduction 

This  annex  presents  the  methodological  approach  to  the  Fitness  Check.  It  describes  the 
design of the methodology, the tools used for data and information gathering and the results 
obtained.  It  also  provides  insights  on  the  limitations  encountered  and  the  mitigation 
strategies adopted.  

Evaluation design  

The  methodology  of  the  evaluation  study  was  designed  to  respond  to  (i)  the  evaluation 
questions detailed in the Terms of Reference for the IWT Market Access Fitness Check, and 
(ii) the Better Regulation Guidelines evaluation criteria.  

The methodological approach for this Fitness Check, covers: 

•  The definition of the scope: the geographic, temporal dimension and the policies being 

evaluated, 

•  The intervention logic, 

•  The  approach  to  evidence  gathering  including  desk  research,  the  stakeholder 

consultation activities and data limitations, 

•  The identification of the evaluation matrix.  

2.  Definition of scope 

A)  See more information on the 7 pieces of legislations on inland waterway market access 
in Annex VI. Originally the Roadmap316 referred to the evaluation of 9 legislative acts.  
Annex  VII  explains  the  reasons  for  revisiting  and  limiting  the  scope  to  7  pieces  of 
legislation.  

Geographical scope: EU and its Member States. Due to the long evaluation period, the 
number of Member States evolved over time in the subsequent phases of enlargement 
of the EU. In the 1960s, the Union consists of six countries only. Since then, the Union 
has been gradually expanding. Since 2020, after Brexit, the current 27 Member States 
are considered. In addition to the EU Member States, some third countries are included 
in the evaluation where relevant, such as Moldova, Serbia, Switzerland and Ukraine. 

B)  Time period in scope: 1960 to 2024. In 1961, the first legal act was adopted. Therefore, 

the entire evaluation period consists of more than 60 years. 

C)  Clustering of the 7 pieces of legislation in scope. The purpose and general objectives 
of  the  seven  acts  was  to  lay  down  rules  on  accessing  the  IWT  market  and  on  the 
occupation of carriers, liberalise price setting, eliminate discriminatory conditions and 

316 Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 

77 

 
 
 
structurally improve the IWT market. Based on their objectives, the seven legal acts 
were allocated to four thematic groups in two pillars, as shown in Figure 4 in the main 
text of this Staff Working Document. A summary of each act is presented in Annex VI. 
The key problems that the legislative framework was intended to solve were: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the  lack  of  equal  access  conditions  for  EU  operators  hindered  their  ability  to 
provide transport services on all EU waterways, both nationally and internationally 
in a non-discriminatory way,  

the absence of common, EU-wide standards to access the occupation of a carrier,  

the absence of a free pricing regime ruled by market conditions, 

structural overcapacity in the IWT market.  

3.  Intervention logic 

The intervention logic diagram (see Figure 5 and 6 in the main text) presents the logic of 
the  Framework  and  the  causal  chain  linking  objectives,  activities,  inputs  and  expected 
outcomes. It provides the basis for the development of the evaluation matrix and the specific 
criteria, indicators and data identified as relevant for each evaluation question. 

An evaluation matrix (see Annex III) was developed that sets out the following aspects for 
each evaluation question:  

-  Operational  sub-questions:  These  break  down  the  evaluation  questions  into  smaller, 

measurable aspects.  

- 

Indicators:  Identify  the  measures/metrics  that  correspond  to  each  operational  sub-
question. These may be qualitative or quantitative.  

-  Evaluation approach and success/judgement criteria: Outlines the methodology used to 
answer the evaluation questions and form the conclusions. The success criteria indicate 
how the indicators were used to assess the performance of the Framework positively or 
negatively.  These  were  used  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions  and  form  the 
conclusions.  

- 

Potential data sources: Sources of data and information used to inform the indicators. 
As far as data was available, information was triangulated from several sources for each 
indicator aiming to have at least input from two different sources for cross-checking.  

4.  Desk research 

Desk research was carried out in the course of the support study but also by the European 
Commission. The contractor who carried out the support study for this Fitness Check has 
used  a  combination  of  methodologies:  legal  and  historic  analysis  as  well  as  stakeholder 
consultation.  Desk  research  has  comprised  three  strands:  legal  review  of  the  policy 
provisions,  qualitative  literature/evidence  assessment  and  quantitative  assessment  for 
selected indicators relating to costs. Legal texts were extracted from the Official Journal of 
the European Union (EUR-Lex). The study conducted a historic analysis on the evolution 
of the context and legislation in scope.  

Evidence  and  literature  was  sourced  in  the  first  instance  by  references  in  the  Terms  of 
Reference  for  the  support  study,  as  well  as  specific  sectoral  reports  like  the  market 
monitoring  reports  published  by  CCNR  and  other  evidence  signposted  by  the  European 

78 

 
Commission.  Quantitative  data  sources  were  sourced  from  Eurostat,  and  from  national 
administrations, CCNR and the Danube Commission. 

Lastly, evidence and literature was sourced from signposting by stakeholders in response to 
the call for evidence, public consultation, interviews, and workshops. 

5.  Stakeholder consultation 

The  contractor  who  carried  out  the  support  study  for  this  Fitness  Check  has  carried  out 
stakeholder  consultation,  including  replies  to  questionnaires,  interviews  and  workshops 
with the actors from the sector. Stakeholder meetings were held for the Rhine countries on 
17 March 2021, the Danube workshop was held on 20 January 2022. In addition, the matter 
was  also  discussed  in  the  NAIADES  Commission  Expert  Group  meeting  held  on  13 
September  2021.  These  three  meetings  ensured  a  good  geographical  representation  and 
coverage in terms of the most important waterways.  

A public consultation317 by the Commission was held between 17 December 2021 and 11 
March 2022 and a survey targeted specifically at SMEs, in cooperation with DG GROW’s 
Enterprise Europe Network, was also conducted between 4 February and 11 March 2022. 

Table 6: Stakeholder consultation matrix 

Stakeholder group 

National administrations 
International organisations  
Private sector 
Associations 
Research & innovation 
General public  
Experts 
Total number of respondents 

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
i
g
n
i
p
o
c
S

Ѵ 
Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 
8 

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
i
d
e
t
e
g
r
a
T

Ѵ 
Ѵ 

Ѵ 
Ѵ 

Ѵ 
15 

y
e
v
r
u
S
d
e
t
e
g
r
a
T

Ѵ 

y
e
v
r
u
s
E
M
S

Ѵ 

r
e
d
l
o
h
e
k
a
t
S

s
g
n
i
t
e
e
m
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 

48 

41 

- 

n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c

c
i
l
b
u
P

Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
Ѵ 
20 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study  

The table below presents an overview of the consultation tools applied, indicating the target 
group,  objective  and  timing.  By  using  different  consultation  activities,  all  stakeholder 
groups were represented in the process. 

The  consultation  tools  were  conducted  in  a  sequence  to  maximise  effective  interaction 
between the tools. The scoping interviews provided insight in main issues, together with the 
desk  research  establishing  the  basis  for  drafting  the  questionnaire  survey  and  the  public 
consultation. The results of the survey provided a sound basis for better understanding the 
position of stakeholders and stakeholder groups, which was used as input for interviews. In 
the latter results were discussed, and missing data or evidence was attempted to be obtained. 

317 Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Consultation tools 

Tool 
Scoping 
interviews 

Targeted 
survey 

Target group 
National 
administrations, 
international 
organisations, 
associations 
experts 
National 
administrations 

and 

SME Survey  Private sector 

Targeted 
interviews 

Other 
stakeholders’ 
meetings318 

Public 
consultation 

stakeholder 
All 
groups,  except  for 
private  sector  and 
general public 
stakeholder 
All 
groups  except  for 
general  public  and 
experts 
All 
groups 

stakeholder 

Targeted 
consultation 
(gap filling) 

states 
Member 
administrations  and 
associations 
of 
operators 

Objective 
Obtain  insight  in  main  issues  at 
stake. 

Timing 
January  2021  until 
March 2021 

qualitative 
different 

and 
Quantitative 
from 
response 
stakeholder groups 
Obtain responses from the private 
sector 
Discuss  issues  and  topics,  also 
more  qualitatively  focused  and 
elaborated compared to survey(s) 

18-06-2021 until 25-
08-2021 

04-02-2022 until 11-
03-2022 
March  2021  until 
March 2022 

Getting  views  on  the  topics  from 
the study from specific stakeholder 
groups  

March 
Between 
2021 and Feb. 2022 

Obtain  responses  from  a  large 
number  of  stakeholders 
from 
almost  all  stakeholder  groups, 
including citizens. 
and 
Quantitative 
response 
from 
stakeholder groups 

qualitative 
different 

18-12-2021 until 11-
03-2022 

Mid  October 
31/12/2024 

to 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study  

6.  Approach to evidence gathering and data limitations 

The Fitness Check is based, as far as possible, on triangulation of data sources, validated by 
various  stakeholder  consultations.  In  many  cases,  the  data  gaps  and  limitations  were 
resolved  through  a  targeted  consultation  activity  or  deeper  dives  into  the  literature  and 
available studies. Where this was not possible, the Staff Working Document acknowledges 
the limitations and applies a focussed and qualitative approach to the evaluation analysis 
based on available data. Data limitations are described in section 1.3 of the main document. 

Evidence analysis 

The data collected was analysed with the aim to respond to the evaluation questions, using 
the following approach. 

Description  of  historical  and  economic  background  and  the  implementation  of  the 
Framework 

The  support  study319  provides  a  comprehensive  description  of  the  evolution  and  current 
status of the implementation of the Framework that allows to assess whether the Framework 

318  This  includes  the  CCNR  meeting  17  March  2021,  the  meeting  of  the  NAIADES  expert  group  and  the 
Danube workshop, 20 January 2022. 
319 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study  

80 

 
 
 
has been successfully implemented as intended or whether there are obstacles or limitations 
in  its  implementation  that  can  also  limit  its  efficiency  or  effectiveness.  It  provides  a 
reference point for answering the evaluation questions. 

Development of the points of comparison  

In  the  absence  of  an  impact  assessment  on  the  initial  proposal  of  the  Framework,  that 
typically provides the starting point for the development of such points of comparison, this 
Fitness Check relies on other sources and inputs from stakeholders, including the recitals of 
the legislation and interviews with national authorities and regional bodies to describe what 
the situation was at the time of the adoption of the different pieces of legislation as from 
1960 and how it was expected to evolve in the absence of the legislative Framework. 

Datasets rarely extent to the period before the adoption of the Framework, making it difficult 
to clearly identify pre-existing trends. Therefore, in concluding on what would have been 
the expected development for this, it was taken into account not only the quantitative data 
available, but also the qualitative inputs from the stakeholders. 

The  evaluation  also  takes  into  consideration  the  developments  in  the  relevant  EU  legal 
framework since the adoption of the Framework as well as in terms of the evolution of level 
and type of business to develop a combination of qualitative and quantitative elements that 
provides the relevant points of comparison.  

Analysis of evidence – evaluation questions 

The evaluation brought together the evidence collected in the desk and field research, the 
description of the implementation of the Framework and the development of the points of 
comparison to develop the answers to the evaluation questions included in the evaluation 
matrix.  It checked that the answers refer back to the intervention logic and the points of 
comparison,  and  then  summarised  the  level  of  confidence  of  the  findings,  based  on  the 
robustness  of  available  evidence  and  providing  clear  identification  of  where  they  have 
stemmed  from  (e.g.  combination  of  desk  research,  field  research  and  other  evidence 
analysis) and what assumptions have been made. 

81 

 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION)  

In  this  Annex  the  numbering  of  Evaluation  Questions  follows  the  numbering  of  the 
questions used in the fitness check support study. 

Answers to Evaluation Questions by individual legislation 

Effectiveness 

13.  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  (transport  document)  -  a)  What  benefits 
have  resulted  from  the  requirements  that  made  it  compulsory  to  have  transport 
document  on  board  and  for  them  to  be  kept  by  the  carrier?  b)  Which  stakeholder 
groups have benefitted? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 

a) What benefits have resulted from the requirements of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960? 

Before  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  of  Group  1  came  into  force, 
discriminatory  water  transport  rates  existed  in  several  countries  of  the  European 
Communities, except on the Rhine, where a free pricing system for cross-border transport 
prevailed. In the Danube region, transport prices were set by the shipping companies based 
on the criteria established by the Bratislava Agreements320 as of 1955.  

Thanks  to  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960321,  and  also  thanks  to  the  transport 
document  that  served  as  a  tool  to  achieve  the  free  pricing  system,  price  discrimination 
based on country of origin or destination has been eliminated. This was confirmed by 
several stakeholders, including ProDanube322 (‘there is no price discrimination anymore’), 
the Danube Commission323 (‘with regard to market entrance and pricing policy there is a 
full liberalisation within the Danube region with some restrictions, especially for non-EU 
Member States’). Other stakeholders, like the IWT Platform324, EBU/ESO325 and a sectoral 
expert326 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative 
rates. In a survey327, the Croat administration also stated that the Regulation significantly 
diminished  discriminatory  and  price-setting  behaviour.  On  the  other  hand,  EBU328  and  a 
French sectoral association329 concluded that this makes the legislation obsolete (‘after the 

320 1955 Bratislava Agreements, Bratislava Agreements (donau.bg) 
321 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 aimed to abolish discriminatory transport rates and conditions and 
establish fairer price competition. 
322 Interview with ProDanube (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
323 Interview with the Secretariat of the Danube Commission (2021) in the context of the fitness check support 
study. 
324 Interview with IWT Platform (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
325 Interview with EBU/ESO (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
326 Interview with former CCNR secretary (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
327 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  
328 Paper submitted by EBU (Roadmap and OPC) 
329 Paper submitted by Entreprises Fluviales de France (OPC) 

82 

 
 
 
liberalisation of transport this regulation is obsolete and no longer required as legal basis 
for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions’). 

Moreover, results from the survey confirm that the IWT market has become more open and 
competitive  and  developed  in  other  aspects  such  as  professionalisation,  scaling-up  and 
renewal of the fleet (see Figure 19).  

Figure 19: Survey question ‘Overall, how would you say the IWT market has developed over 
time (since the 1960s) in the following areas’  

Source: Targeted survey for national authorities 
As  illustrated  in  Figure  20,  the  survey  shows  that  fairer  price  competition  is  one  of  the 
benefits  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960.  Moreover,  the  ease  in  obtaining 
insurance,  easier  identification/designation  of  liable  party  and  increased  safety  on  the 
waterways  are  being  mentioned  as  benefits  of  this  Regulation  by  the  respondents.  This 
might have to do with the fact that, with the checking of the documents by the authorities, 
the transport document has become a document that provides value or a quality.  

Figure 20: Survey question ‘Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 made it compulsory to keep 
transport  document  on  board  the  vessel  to  be  kept  by  the  carrier.  In  your  view,  did  the 
following benefits occur due to this part of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960’  

Source: Targeted survey for national authorities 
The effect and therefore the benefits of this Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 extends 
beyond IWT. The Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC (CT Directive) built on this 
Council Regulation and reiterated that, similarly to unimodal transport, combined transport 
is  also  free330 of  authorisations  and quotas.  It  also  refers331 to  the transport document as 
contained in the Council Regulation, thereby broadening the effect of the initial Council 
Regulation.  

330 Article 2 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
331 Article 3 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 

83 

 
 
 
 
b) Which stakeholder groups have benefitted? 

According to survey results, several stakeholder groups benefitted from the requirements 
that made it compulsory to keep transport document on board. The increased safety of the 
waterways  benefits  all  waterway  users  including  cargo  and  passenger  vessels.  Clients 
mostly benefitted from the fairer competition and less discrimination in transport rates and 
conditions. Carriers also benefitted332.  

14.  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  (inspections)  -  a)  To  what  extent  have 
inspections  been  carried  out  over  the  evaluation  period  to  verify  compliance  of 
undertakings  with  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960?  b)  To  what  extent  have 
inspections  led  to  benefits  for  any  stakeholder  group?  c)  Have  inspections  had  any 
unintended negative or positive consequences?  

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 

a)  To what extent have inspections been carried out to verify compliance with Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960?  

Member States are responsible for checking the compliance with the obligations imposed 
by Articles 5 (2), 6 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 and with the obligation 
to supply information as laid down in Article 13. However, no historical  data have been 
found on whether or not the Member States did actively check the transport documents for 
compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960.  

Evidence shows that controls are carried out, though not in all countries. Croatia reported333 
carrying out 318 checks in 2010 and 261 checks per year during 2020-2024, while Hungary 
reported334 9,108 and 8,054 checks in 2010 and 2020, respectively335. In a survey336, on the 
question  whether  inspections  are  carried  out  to  verify  compliance  of  undertakings  with 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960337, 
the  Finish  and  Hungarian  authorities  replied 
affirmatively, while Luxembourg police responded negatively, and Romanian respondents 
gave contradictory answers. The control of a vessel by enforcement authorities might serve 
different aims and may be based on diverse legal bases, not only checking compliance with 
rates and conditions but also compliance with e.g. safety rules. In a 2022 online survey of 
Members States authorities related to enforcement procedures, conducted in the context of 
eFTI initiative338, 5 of 9 respondents said that rates and conditions are checked in IWT. A 
collection  of  use  cases  on  enforcement  procedures  in  the  context  of  eFTI  initiative  also 
confirmed that rates and conditions are checked systematically (i.e. all 10 IWT inspection 
cases mentioned it)339. According to Member States, inspections are selected on a random 
basis and are carried out by police/water police/border police (FR, BE, HU, RO), waterway 

332 It should be noted that most of the respondents to the survey stated that they are not familiar with possible 
benefits for the different stakeholders and therefore the conclusions should be considered with care. 
333 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  
334 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
335  Hungary  however  referred  to  the  checks  in  a  more  global  way,  namely  that  they  control  and  enforce 
compliance with the waterway transport regulation.  
336 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
337 Namely, whether the presence and validity of transport documents are checked. 
338 Survey on enforcement procedures (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex III: Online survey on enforcement procedures).  
339  Overview  of  the processes  and  procedures  performed  by different national  competent authorities  when 
checking regulatory information under the scope of the eFTI Regulation  (EFTI-D1.2.5). It contains 10 use 
cases for IWT from AT, FR, HU, LT, LU, RO, SI and NL. 

84 

 
 
administration (BE, PL) and port authorities/harbour master (HU, RO)340. In Luxembourg, 
controls are carried out in cooperation with neighbouring countries (especially DE and FR) 
through an international convention341.  

The  SME  survey342  also  delivered  feedback  on  enforcement,  namely  on  whether 
administrations check transport documents kept onboard of the vessel for transport rates and 
conditions, to see whether prices are based on fair price competition and non-discrimination, 
as stipulated in Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. Out of 41 SMEs that responded to the survey, 
21 (51%) said authorities do not check transport documents343, while 3 (7%) responded that 
authorities do check transport documents344. The remaining 17 (41%) SMEs indicated ‘do 
not know’.  

b)  To what extent have inspections led to benefits for any stakeholder groups? 

Inspections and controls set in the Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 have contributed 
to  fair  price  competition  and  non-discrimination.  As  shown  in  Annex  IV,  other  benefits 
include: 

-  For  IWT  operators,  benefits  due  to  easiness  in  obtaining  insurance,  easier 
identification/designation of the liable party thanks to the obligatory transport document 
on board of the vessel, and increased safety on the waterways (i.e. transport document 
indicating dangerous cargo), due to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. 

-  For  consigners  and  consignees  in  Germany,  benefits  due  to  the  abolition  of  the 
Festfrachten system of minimum prices in 1994 (Council Directive 96/75/EC). Reduced 
shipping prices by 60% for coal products and by 40% for bulk cargo. 

-  For  consigners  and  consignees  in  Belgium,  France  and  the  Netherlands  due  to  the 
abolition of the ‘Tour de Role’ system (Council Directive 96/75/EC). The benefits refer 
to the Netherlands alone and are estimated at EUR 190 million annually. 

-  Finally, for passengers, increased safety on the waterways for passenger vessels due to 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 

c)  Have inspections had any unintended negative or positive consequences?  

EBU and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management explained345 that the 
Dutch water police uses transport documents also to verify freight of a ship (especially for 
substances  used  for  production  of  drugs).  While  EBU/ESO  complain  about  related 
administrative  burden,  the  Dutch  water  police346  defended  its  practice  regarding  crime 
detection and preventing terrorism. Hungarian police347  also  combines checks  (including 

340 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 
341 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 
342 Dedicated SME survey, conducted with the support of the European Enterprise Network in 2022.  
343 In the Netherlands, Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Slovak Republic, Belgium, 
France, Luxembourg, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine and Switzerland.  
344 In Romania, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria. 
345 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations and Member States authorities, organised by the Commission 
in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
346 Based on an interview with the Dutch police in the context of the fitness check support study, checking the 
transport documents is usually only one of the activities during an inspection onboard, which might include 
also checking the manning requirements and sailing/resting times. The police do not check the documents for 
price discrimination; they check the transport document to see what freight is on board of a vessel.  
347 Interview with the Hungarian police in the context of the fitness check support study.  

85 

 
 
crew member qualification and technical vessel requirements) pointing possibly to positive 
consequences (synergies) of the inspections. 

Overall, even if there are mixed experiences on the level of scrutiny through inspections and 
some  controls  are  combined  with  police  operations,  inspections  and  controls  set  in  the 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 have contributed to fair price competition and non-
discrimination, also extending beyond the IWT cargo sector.  

15. How successful has been Council Directive 96/75 in eliminating national rules and 
practices impeding the freedom of chartering and pricing?   

Group 1 – Council Directive 96/75  

In  Belgium,  France,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  transportation  took  place  under  the 
restrictive  practices  of  ‘Tour  de  Role’  or  ‘Festfrachten’  systems348.  These  systems  set 
minimum  prices  at  an  exchange,  dictating  the  terms  under  which  IWT  operators  could 
provide  their  services.  Belgium,  France,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  all  regulated 
domestic water transport through a chartering system349 for allocating shipping contracts. 
The system was accompanied by officially prescribed transport rates. In absence of Group 
1  legislative  acts,  these  market  distorting  practices  would  likely  have  remained  in  place 
between France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany (except on the Rhine).  

On  the  Danube,  the  Belgrade  Convention  (1948)  allowed  international  transport  for 
operators of all countries, including those not party to that convention. However, in practice, 
free access was largely limited to Member States of the Danube Commission through the 
pricing regime set in the Bratislava Agreements. These agreements were established among 
the  state-owned  IWT  companies  and  covered  several  themes,  including  uniform 
international tariffs (1979) and freight calculation (1955).  

The Bratislava Agreements established a rigid frame for the international tariff system along 
the  Danube  and  a  cargo-sharing  mechanism  among  Danube  riparian  countries.  This 
mechanism, together with fixed tariffs for cross border transport350 effectively closed the 
Danube shipping market to outsiders351. With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the 
subsequent transition to the market economy, some state-owned companies were privatised, 
and  others  were  dissolved.  Without  the  Group  1  legislative  acts  the  practice  of  price 
agreements, similar to those of the Bratislava Agreements, would have likely persisted on 
the Danube in a formal or non-formal way. 

Restrictive  practices  were  addressed  by  Council  Directive  96/75/EC,  which  eliminated 
national  rules or practices impeding  the freedom  of chartering and pricing  (the ‘Tour de 

348 ‘Festfrachten’, namely minimum prices, were applied in Germany. The system of ‘chartering by rotation’ 
or the so-called ‘Tour de Role’ was applied in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. 
349 A system of ‘chartering by rotation’ (‘Tour de Role’) consists in allocating transport operations on the basis 
of the order in which vessels become available after unloading, at previously fixed prices, usually established 
by the public administration. 
350  The  Bratislava  Convention  applied  only  for  international  transport;  not  for  the  transport  in  cabotage. 
Source: Targeted interview with RO association of inland ship owners and port operators (12 July 2021). 
351 ‘The importance of the Rhine-Main-Danube transport corridor: its impact on the Central and East European 
countries, with an emphasis on Romania’ by Constantin Sava, World Maritime University – 1997. 

86 

 
 
Role’352  and  Festfrachten353  systems).  In  January  1994,  the  German  abolishment  of  the 
Festfrachten system of minimum prices, resulted in reduced shipping prices by 60% for coal 
products  and  by  40%  for  bulk  cargo354.  The  ‘Tour  de  Role’  systems  in  the Netherlands, 
France and Belgium were abolished in January 2000. In the Netherlands alone the annual 
benefits  due  to  the  abolishment  of  the  ‘Tour  de Role’  system  are  estimated  at  EUR  190 
million annually, expressed in 2022 prices355. Stakeholders confirmed the effectiveness of 
Council Directive 96/75/EC356.  

The  existence  of  the  regulatory  framework  allows  maintaining  these  achievements  over 
time, as demonstrated by infringement procedures in 1996 and in 2017 against two Member 
States, based on Council Directive 96/75/EC (see sections 3.1 and 4.3 on relevance). 

From the survey it can be derived how respondents see the IWT market developments from 
the 1960s until today. 10 out of the 30 respondents see that there is less non-discrimination 
in rates and more market openness and competitiveness, as shown in Figure 21.  

Figure 21: Survey question ‘Overall, how would you say the IWT market has developed over 
time (since 1960’s) in the following areas:’ (n = 30) 

Source: Targeted survey for national authorities 
Associations representing IWT operators (EBU/ESO) stated in an interview that Council 
Directive  96/75/EC  established  the  free  market  and  was  in  their  view  very  effective  in 
meeting the objectives. The EICB357 does not see any hindrances in the market anymore. A 
sectoral expert358 expressed the view that the Directive brought very good results including 

352  In  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  France  shippers  were  legally  obliged  to  conclude  their  contracts  for 
national transport through the intermediary of a state-run system of chartering by rotation (“Tour de Role” in 
French), which assigned cargo to bargemen on a “first come, first served” basis. For this, shippers had to pay 
minimum freight rates fixed by law. 
353 Festfrachten is a system of fixed minimum freight rates in Germany. 
354 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
355 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 
356  The  associations  representing  IWT  operators  (EBU/ESO)  stated  in  an  interview  (2021)  that  Council 
Directive 96/75/EC established the free market and was in their view very effective in meeting the objectives. 
EBU further underlined the effectiveness of the Directive in the gap filling survey for operators’ association, 
organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. In other interviews (2021) carried out in the context 
of the fitness check support study, the representative of Rhine operators  and DE Commissar to the CCNR 
representing  the  profession  expressed  the  view  that  the  Directive  brought  very  good  results  including 
decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity while the Romanian association of inland ship owners 
and port operators mentioned that the market is functioning well, while highlighting that some cost elements, 
like e.g. fuel or port fees, the Black Sea Canal fee, also influence the freight tariffs. In the gap filling survey 
for  Member  States  authorities,  organised  by  the  Commission  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2024,  the  Austrian 
administration  mentioned  as  benefits  the  market  liberalisation  while  the  Luxembourg  administration 
highlighted the elimination of discrimination aspect. 
357 Interview with Expertise and Innovation Centre Barging (EICB) 
358 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.   

87 

 
 
 
decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity, while a Romanian stakeholder359 also 
mentioned that the market is functioning well, while highlighting that some cost elements, 
like  e.g.  fuel  or  port  fees,  the  Black  Sea  Canal  fee,  also  influence  the  freight  tariffs.  As 
benefits the Austrian administration mentioned the market liberalisation while Luxembourg 
administration  highlighted  the  elimination  of  discrimination  aspect360.  In  various 
consultations361, EBU/ESO also underlined the effectiveness of the aim and scope of the 
Directive  and  stated  that  ‘this  Directive  introduced  the  free  market  and  can  be  seen  as 
effective, it met its objectives and is relevant’. 

Infringement procedures ensure that the system is maintained and also provide a benchmark 
to follow for enlargements countries with regard to non-discrimination in transport rates. 
The  existence  of  the  regulatory  framework  allows  maintaining  these  achievements  over 
time,  as  demonstrated  by  an  infringement  procedure  in  2017  against  Belgium,  based  on 
Council Directive 96/75/EC.  

To conclude, Council Directive 96/75/EC established the freedom of chartering and pricing 
in all EU Member States, eliminating national protectionism, enabling greater commercial 
flexibility and increased competitiveness of the sector. Encouraging and enabling efficient 
transport services, by eliminating discriminatory pricing and conditions as well as restrictive 
commercial practices, lowered costs for consignors and consignees362 thanks to fairer and 
more transparent competition among carriers.  

Council  Directive  96/75  therefore  has  been  successful  in  eliminating  national  rules  and 
practices impeding the freedom of chartering and pricing. 

26.  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  resulted  in  an  improved,  more  uniform  and 
transparent scheme for freight carriers’ professional qualifications at European and 
Member States’ level? 

Group 3 – Council Directive 87/540/EEC   

Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  provides  common  rules  on  access  to  the  occupation  of 
carrier of goods and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other evidence 
of formal qualifications. It lists requirements for professional competences for national and 
international  cargo  operations.  While  all  other  modes  of  transport  regulate  respective 
provisions via a Regulation, the rules for IWT are established by a Directive, resulting in 
national differences (see Annex IX).  

In reply to the targeted survey363, 3 out of 15 respondents were of the view that the scheme 
for professional competence of an IWT freight carrier has improved the situation compared 
with the period prior to Directive 87/540/EEC (before 1990). One respondent believed it 
did not improve it, while the remaining 11 respondents replied that they do not know. 

359 Interview with the Romanian association of inland ship owners and port operators (2021) in the context of 
the fitness check support study. 
360 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024. 
361  Feedback  on  the  Roadmap  and  in  the  Gap  filling  survey  operators’  association,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
362 The consignor is the sender of goods and the consignee is the receiver of the goods. 
363  Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  

88 

 
 
the  public  consultation, 

it  was  noted364 
During 
is  no  harmonised 
certificate/document transparently confirming the proof of professional competence’. As a 
consequence,  it  is  not  easy  for  enforcement  authorities  in  the  field  to  ascertain  that  a 
transport  operation  is  carried  out  in  compliance  with  the  EU  requirements.  The  same 
comment was also made in the SME survey. 

that  ‘there 

3  out  of  15  respondents  to  the  targeted  survey365  are  of  the  view  that  the  scheme  for 
professional competence of an IWT freight carrier has improved the situation in comparison 
with the period prior to Directive 87/540/EEC (before 1990). One respondent believes it did 
not improve, while the remaining 11 respondents replied that they do not know. 

Out  of  30  SMEs  who  expressed  a  view366  on  the  process  of  obtaining  the  certificate  of 
professional  competence,  15  stated  that  it  is  sufficiently  transparent  and  8  that  it  is  not 
transparent.   

In relation to the list of knowledge included in the Annex of the Directive, for which proof 
of satisfactory knowledge is required, important subjects that arose since 1987, like skills 
related to digitalisation and clean technologies are missing. Therefore, the list included in 
the Annex is no longer effective in covering relevant subjects for IWT entrepreneurs. Also, 
in  comparison  with  the  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  on  the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications in inland navigation for crew, where competences are included rather than 
knowledge, the Council Directive 87/540/EEC fails to list competences. During the targeted 
survey367, to the question whether the list included in the Annex of the legislation has met 
its  purpose  in  providing  an  accurate  listing  of  topics  of  professional  competence,  as 
originally  foreseen,  4  respondents  from  Member  States  authorities  answered  ‘to  some 
extent’ or to ‘a large extent’, while one answered ‘No’. The other authorities did not know 
or did not respond. 

The Directive does not cover passenger transport, despite the growing passenger transport 
market368. In written contributions submitted during the public consultation, one EU citizen 
and one company369 highlighted that contrary to the transport of goods, proof of professional 
competence  is  not  needed  for  passenger  transport,  thus  raising  questions  about  the  level 
playing field within the IWT market. The EU citizen also expressed that since there is no 
harmonised  certificate  confirming  proof  of  professional  competence  or  harmonised 
legislation on the registration of inland waterway navigation vessels, it is complicated for 
enforcement authorities to ascertain the compliance of transport operations. The company 
added  that  the  issue  should  be  addressed  by  regulating  access  to  the  occupation  of  river 
passenger  transport.  During  the  SME  survey,  an  Austrian  citizen  also  remarked  this  gap 
(‘proof of professional competence is required for the transport of goods, but not for the 
transport of passengers’). 

In addition, during the gap filling survey organised by the Commission in 2024370, Member 

364  By an Austrian citizen. 
365 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
366 SME panel (2022) 
367 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
368 According to the Danube Commission, the number of vessels increased by 68% over 10 years, with more 
than  a  doubling  of  the  number  of  passenger.  25%  of  IWT  traffic  on  the  Danube  is  related  to  passenger 
transport. 
369 Out of 20 respondents 
370 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  

89 

 
 
States administrations expressed the view that lack of a harmonised set of requirements for 
the  carriers  of  passengers  across  the  EU  results  in  less  resilience  of  those  carriers  (2 
responses), in diverging requirements by Member State (3 responses) and in low quality 
service (1 response). One Member State also mentioned loss of time (possibly related to the 
application for and granting of the certificate). One Member State mentioned however that 
in view of the very few certificates issued, the effects of the rules are negligible. 

Respondents to the survey indicate that the Directive has contributed to a higher quality of 
transporters and a lower risk for distortion of competition. At the same time, respondents to 
the survey find it difficult to conclude that the Directive has improved the scheme for freight 
carriers’  professional  qualifications.  On  the  question  “to  what  extent  has  the  scheme  for 
professional competence of an IWT freight carrier been improved in comparison with the 
situation prior to the Directive (before 1990)?”, 67% (10 out of 15) indicated “I don’t know”, 
while 20% (3 out of 15) indicated an improvement and 13% (2 out of 15) indicated “not 
improved”.  

To  conclude,  the  Directive  resulted  in  an  improved  and  transparent  scheme  for  freight 
carriers’ professional qualifications at European and Member States’ level. While it is more 
harmonised than before, it is indeed not uniform. 

29. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - What is the state of play of the establishment, 
management and use of the Fund by Member States, and in particular of the Reserve 
Fund?  

Group 4 – Regulation (EC) No 718/1999  

Prior to the existence of the legislation under the scope of the fitness check, IWT operators 
on waterways other than the Rhine and the Danube could make use of minimum prices371. 
Furthermore, in those days national governments could subsidise the IWT sector, via state 
aid.  With  Community  -  and  later  EU  legislation  -  in  place,  these  types  of  market 
interventions were prohibited.  

The ‘old-for-new’ scrapping scheme was first introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 
as  a  mechanism  to  control  the  fleet  capacity,  to  prevent  its  increase.  Under  this  scheme 
introduction  of  new  capacity  (new  vessels)  was  only  possible  in  case  of  scrapping  old 
capacity or paying a special contribution in a Reserve Fund. The scheme was accompanied 
by close monitoring of fleet capacity, to support the modernisation of the fleet and enable 
new construction of vessels. This mechanism expired on 28 April 1999. Council Regulation 
(EC) No 718/1999 succeeded the Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 and extended the old-for-
new  scrapping  scheme  for  another  four  years,  phasing  out  the  mechanism  in  a  gradual 
manner by 28/4/2003.   

Together with monitoring fleet capacity, an ‘old-for-new’ scrapping scheme was introduced 
by Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 to allow new vessels only in case of scrapping old capacity 
or  paying  into  a  Reserve  Fund.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999  extended  the 
scrapping  scheme  until  April  2003.  The  Fund  has  subsequently  become  a  standby 

371 Festfrachten or ‘Tour de Role’ systems, see description in section 2.2 

90 

 
 
mechanism372  not  yet  used,  but  available  in  case  of  serious  market  disturbance373  and 
generally welcomed by stakeholders374.  

During  1990-1999,  600,509  tonnes  of  dry  cargo  capacity  were  demolished  and  650,906 
tonnes of new builds added and EUR 9 million of penalties collected for non-compensated 
demolitions. During the same period, 240,364 tonnes of tank barge capacity were added, 
while 131,018 tonnes were demolished375. 

The  fitness  check  support  study376  found  that  the  number  of  active  vessels  in  the 
Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg decreased by 1.2% 
during 1993-1996 and by 24% during 1996-2000, demonstrating the success in addressing 
overcapacity. The study also estimated that without the legal acts in Group 4, the number of 
vessels  on  the  North-South  and  East-West  corridor  would  have  been  13,339,  instead  of 
9,758. According to this estimation this overcapacity would have resulted in annual losses 
of 20.8% per operator.  

The Fund established under Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 was initially funded with 
EUR 7 million from surpluses for restructuring actions before 1999. The total amount was 
raised to over EUR 33 million by 2003 under the ‘old-for-new’ rules377. The funds have not 
been used until the Commission378, upon request by the operators, created the ‘European 
IWT platform’ to promote safety, clean technologies and innovation of the fleet as well as 
education and training. EUR 7 million from the Fund support the Platform’s operations for 
the 2017-2027 period. The operators are planning to request a renewal for the subsequent 
ten  years  (2028-2037).  Based  on  the  responses  received  in  the  gap  filling  survey  main 
operators’ associations and responding Member State administrations379 consider that the 
Platform  adds  benefits380  for  national  and  regional  administrations,  operators,  skippers, 
vessel  owners,  logistics  companies,  as  well  as  UNECE,  river  Commissions  and  river 
protection Commissions. 

The amounts available in the Reserve Fund in 2022, by Member State, are provided in Table 
3 in section 4.1.1. Danube countries (with the exception of Austria381) currently have no 

372 Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 718/1999 
373 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
374 EBU/ESO and the IWT Platform stated in an interview in the context of the fitness check support study 
that the advantage of this Council Directive is that it offers a unique crisis mechanism which can be used in 
case of structural overcapacity in the IWT sector, which not many sectors have. 
375 Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector - To 
intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge, available at: Managing capacity in the 
inland waterway sector  
376 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study  
377 The fund is owned by the operators and is used by the operators. The Commission’s role is only to release 
the funds which are kept by MS.  
378  Commission  Decision  of  5.10.2017  authorising  the  use  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Fund  established  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 [C(2017) 6663 final] 
379 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations and Member States authorities, organised by the Commission 
in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
380 3 (AT, DE, HR) out of the 9 MS authorities that responded are of the view that the activities of the IWT 
Platform bring significant benefits to the sector. One (NL) is of the view that the activities of the IWT Platform 
bring  some  benefits  to  the  sector.  The  remaining  cannot  say  or  did  not  respond.  All  5  respondents  from 
operators’ associations (including the IWT platform) are of the view that the activities of the IWT Platform 
bring significant benefits to the sector. 
381 Austria’s fund is a result of the Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89. 

91 

 
 
reserve  fund  as  relevant  legislation  provides  for  exemptions  for  vessels  operating 
exclusively on the Danube as well as exemption to countries below a certain fleet size.  

In the stakeholder consultation, the following information has been collected concerning the 
authority managing the funds for each of these Member States: 

-  Austria: The Federal Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, 

Innovation and Technology; 

-  Belgium: Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport; 
-  Germany: Federal Waterways and Shipping Agency; 
-  France: Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition; 
-  The Netherlands: The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate. 

Reporting obligations for public administrations due to Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are very 
limited and estimated to  take on average 10 hours per year per Member  State382, for the 
Member States that have setup and funded inland waterway Funds (AT, BE, DE, FR and 
NL).  Total  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public  administrations  related  to  reporting 
obligations are thus estimated at EUR 3,628 per year (for all 5 relevant Member States)383. 

In line with Article 3.5 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999384 the Reserve Fund was used 
in 2017 to create the IWT Platform385 whose continuation was supported together with the 
continuation of the Fund in its current  form386. Several stakeholders indicated387 that the 
Reserve Fund could be used in the future to stimulate innovation and support programmes 
for simulators for schools or catalysts388 or for the uptake of clean technologies.  

The available amounts in the IW Funds of Member States (see Table 3 in section 4.1.1) are 
relatively small compared to the sector’s size and the funding required to tackle challenges 
like  greening  or  a  scrapping  round  of  outdated  vessels.  However,  according  to  Member 

382 Replies by AT, DE and NL during the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
383 The tariff rates by Member State for the ISCO  1 category (legislators, senior officials and managers) in 
2022 prices were used to monetise the costs. 
384 And via Commission Decision C2017/6663 
385 EUR 7 million was transferred to establish the IWT Platform and to fund its activities for ten years (2017 
to 2027), providing EUR 700,000 annually. 
386 During the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth 
quarter of 2024, AT, HR DE and NL administrations were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are still 
needed in their current form. 4 Member States indicated ‘cannot say’ or left the reply to the question blank. 
During the gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised during the same period, all respondents, 
including the IWT Platform, were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are still needed in their current 
form. 
387 During the public consultation, the French administration commented that the focus now should lay on 
reducing the lifetime of the vessels in order to reduce the IWT’s impact on the climate, rather than reducing 
the capacity of the fleet. The association of barge operators (EBU/ESO), mentioned in an interview that the 
Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and used for example for programmes for simulators for schools 
or catalysts. The scrapping goals of the Regulation are less relevant as e.g. tankers are currently less than 30 
years old. The IWT Platform mentioned in an interview that some stakeholders want to maintain the scrapping 
(programme) but not the old-for-new rule. This was especially the case of the tanker sector, when the change 
from the single to double hull took place. 
388 According to Article 8, without prejudice to Article 3(5), any Member State may take measures in particular 
to: make it easier for inland waterway carriers leaving the industry to obtain an early retirement pension or to 
transfer to another economic activity; organise vocational training or re-training schemes for workers leaving 
the industry; encourage private owner-operators to join trade associations; encourage adaptation of vessels to 
technical progress in order to improve working conditions and promote technical safety requirements; improve 
operators' skills in order to safeguard the development and future of the trade. 

92 

 
 
States389, the IWT Platform currently financed by the IW Funds remains a useful tool for 
the sector. 

30.  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  -  Has  the  mechanism  in  case  of  “serious  market 
disturbances” (Article 7) been effective to achieve its objective?   

Group 4 – Council Directive 96/75/EC  

After April 2003 the inland waterways Fund has become a standby mechanism which can 
be used in two cases: either in connection with measures390 referred to in Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  718/1999  if  unanimously  requested  by  the  organisations  representing  inland 
waterway  transport,  or  in  connection  with  suitable  capacity  measures  in  case  of  serious 
market disturbance391 in the IWT market.  

Attempts have been made by Member States to trigger the standby mechanism, however, 
until  today,  the  system  has  not  been  activated.  The  main  reason  is  that  none  of  the 
disturbances were considered by the European Commission as serious market disturbance 
resulting in a structural decrease in the demand on the IWT market. According to Council 
Directive 96/75/EC, some conditions are defined, however, there are no explicit criteria. At 
the same time, the link of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 with  Council  Directive 
96/75/EC  is  restrictive  and  allows  the  use  of  the  fund  in  restricted  cases  only.  This  is 
intentional as only specific cases of overcapacity are considered as serious disturbance of 
the market.   

Considering  the  provisions  for  the  case  of  serious  market  disturbance392,  outlined  in  the 
Council Directive 96/75/EC on the systems of chartering and pricing, EBU/ESO and the 
IWT Platform stated in an interview393 that the advantage of this Council Directive is that it 
offers a unique crisis mechanism which can be used in case of structural overcapacity in the 
IWT sector, which not many sectors have.  

Efficiency 

16.  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  (transport  document)  -  a)  What  types  of 
costs  have  been  associated  with  the  introduction  of  transport  document  and  the 
requirement, to have them on board and for them to be kept by the carrier? Which 
stakeholder groups have incurred these costs and how high have they been over the 
evaluation period? b) How do these costs compare to the corresponding actual benefits 
(see EQ No. 13 and 14 on effectiveness above) for stakeholders and society at large?  

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960   

a)  What  types  of  costs  have  been  associated  with  the  introduction  of  transport 
documents and the requirement, to have them on board and for them to be kept by the 
carrier? Which stakeholder groups have incurred these costs and how high have they 
been over the evaluation period? 

389 AT, HR, DE, LU and NL (gap filling survey 2024) 
390 Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 718/1999 
391 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
392 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC, serious disturbance in the IWT market 
393 Interview in the context of the fitness check support study. 

93 

 
 
Not much data is available to assess the efficiency of the framework as several of the legal 
acts do not include monitoring requirements and only one includes reporting requirements 
for  public  administrations.  The  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  is  based  on  data  collected 
through the fitness check support study394, the public consultation and the SME survey. An 
additional  outreach  by  the  Commission  in  2024,  addressed  operators’  associations  and 
administrations, to  fill  data gaps, collect further  evidence and  quantify  costs, efforts  and 
benefits  of  implementing  the  legislation.  However,  this  has  resulted  in  little  additional 
evidence. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 of Group 1 brings about costs for IWT operators 
and administrations, as well as benefits for IWT sector and all waterway users. These costs 
are presented below. 

The Regulation (Article 6) requires a transport document for each consignment of goods, 
detailing the consignor's name and address, nature and weight of the goods, place and date 
of  acceptance,  place  of  delivery.  The  2008  amendment  of  the  Regulation395  reduced 
administrative burden by eliminating the obligation to create an additional document and 
allowing  enterprises  instead  to  use  a  national  transport  document,  a  company-related 
consignment note, a bill of lading or a multimodal document - if it contains the required 
information. According to the impact assessment accompanying the proposal of the eFTI 
Regulation it takes 15 minutes to fill paper documents for each shipment and the uptake of 
e-documents/information exchange in IWT is very low. The impact assessment estimated 
that  24  million  hours  were  spent  for  processing  freight  transport  information  needed  for 
national and international trips in 2018, leading to recurrent administrative costs for IWT 
operators of EUR 582 million. By 2030, these costs would amount to EUR 674 million396. 
Not  all  these  costs  are  attributed  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960,  but  stakeholders’ 
consultation activities did not provide evidence that could allow estimating its contribution 
to the costs.  

According to the SME survey, out of 41 SME respondents397, 19 (46%) experience no costs 
related to keeping transport documents on board, while 11 (27%) do experience costs and 
11  (27%)  do  not  know.  On  the  other  hand,  operators’  associations  (EBU,  ESO)  noted 
significant  to  medium  efforts  (not  further  quantified)  due  to  the  creation,  holding  and 
archiving of paper documents. Keeping transport documents for each consignment of goods 
in IWT results in vast amounts of paperwork, especially for container transport (i.e. a single 
container ship typically carries up to 200 containers). 7 (41%) of the 17 respondents to the 
targeted survey398 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and 
Port information systems399) as a means of simplification. The CCNR Secretariat also noted 
during the public consultation that ‘paper documents could be replaced by digital versions’. 
The  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI  Regulation400,  estimated  that  the  15 
minutes to fill paper documents for each shipment could be reduced to 5 minutes by using 
electronic  documents  under  eFTI  from  July  2027.  Thus,  when  considering  the 
implementation  of the eFTI Regulation  from  2027, the recurrent  administrative costs for 

394 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check - Support study on the access to and 
the functioning of the inland waterway transport market 
395 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
396 SWD(2018) 183 final, p. 19, 28, 87. 
397  SME survey carried out in 2022. 
398 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
399  eFTI  stands  for  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  Regulation  and  RIS  for  River  Information 
Services Directive. 
400 SWD(2018) 183 final 

94 

 
 
IWT operators is projected at EUR 357 to 452 million in 2030401. As explained above, not 
all these costs are attributed to the Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, and they should thus be 
seen as the upper bound estimate.    

For public administrations, the costs relate to the control of transport documents. During the 
gap filling survey, organised by the Commission in 2024, Member States’ administrations 
mentioned that staff involved in checks on the spot (e.g. police) spend 60-90 minutes per 
check, while staff involved in the following up of infractions and penalties spend 90-480 
minutes per infraction. The recurrent administrative costs for public administrations could 
not be estimated because the stakeholders’ consultation activities provided little evidence 
on the number of inspections or controls, and no evidence on the number of infractions. In 
addition, as explained in section 4.1.1, the control of a vessel by enforcement authorities 
might also serve different aims and may be based on diverse legal bases. During the public 
consultation, 2 public authorities (PT, IT) have noted low to medium effort (time and/or 
money) to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, while BG did not know. During the 
targeted survey402, one respondent from Luxemburg said the associated costs were ‘low’ 
(overall policing costs), while the Hungarian Police did not have specific data on costs of 
inspections, referring to them as being part of the state budget for law enforcement activities.  

IWT  operators  are  also  expected  to  experience  recurrent  enforcement  costs  due  to 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, for cooperation to inspections or controls. It was not possible 
to estimate such costs due to the lack of evidence. According to the SME survey, 21 out of 
41 (51%) respondents experience no such costs, 10 (24%) do experience costs related to 
inspections  to  check  transport  rates  and  conditions,  while  10  (24%)  respondents  did  not 
know.    

During  the  public  consultation  (see  Figure  14  in  section  4.1.2  Efficiency),  7  out  of  13 
respondents  indicated  that  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  requires  low  or  medium  effort 
(time and/or money)403 to comply.  

b)  How do these costs compare to the corresponding actual benefits for stakeholders 
and society at large?  

Benefits  for  IWT  operators404  relate  to  the  easiness  in  obtaining  insurance,  the  easier 
identification/designation of the liable party thanks to the obligatory transport document on 
board  of  the  vessel,  and  increased  safety  on  the  waterways  (i.e.  transport  document 
indicating dangerous cargo). The increased safety on the waterways benefits all waterway 
users including cargo and passenger vessels.  

401  According  to  the  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI  Regulation,  the  administrative  costs 
savings for IWT operators are estimated at EUR 222 to 317 million in 2030 (33% to 47% reduction relative 
to the baseline costs). 
402 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
403 3 out of 13 respondents indicated significant effort (time and/or money) to comply with the Regulation, 2 
out of 13 respondents indicated medium effort, while 5 respondents indicated low effort for complying with 
the Regulation. 3 others indicated ‘do not know’ or ‘not applicable’.  
404 During the targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study, 4 respondents 
out of 15 Member States that responded to the survey were of the view that it brings about increased safety on 
the waterways and 4 were of the view that it results in fairer competition, 6  were of the view that it results in 
easier identification/designation of liable party and 2 were of the view that it results in less discrimination in 
transport rates and conditions. As beneficiaries of these benefits, carriers, clients (passengers or shipper) and 
Member States administrations were mentioned.  

95 

 
 
In the public consultation, 3 out of 13 respondents expressed the view that the perceived 
benefits are higher or of similar size with the  efforts/costs and 3 that the benefits do not 
compensate the efforts/costs (see Figure 15 in section 4.1.2 on Efficiency)405. 

17. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (transport document) - To what extent have 
the  requirements  regarding  transport  document,  led  to  unnecessary  administrative 
burden  and  what  are  areas  with  potential  for  simplification  and  digitalisation  of 
transport documents?  

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960   

To  what  extent  have  the  requirements  regarding  transport  documents,  led  to 
unnecessary administrative burden? 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  was amended twice: Council Regulation (EEC) 
3626/84 aligned it with the conditions406 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the 
carriage  of  goods  by  road,  while  Council  Regulation  (EC)  569/2008  removed  outdated 
requirements  and  simplified  administrative  procedures,  in  particular  by  streamlining  the 
information requested in transport documents for all modes of transport in scope, including 
inland navigation. A further simplification is underway to encourage the digitalisation of 
freight transport and logistics and to further reduce administrative burden. As of July 2027, 
the  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  (eFTI)  Regulation  (EU)  2020/1056407  will 
enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents408 for 
freight transport, including inland navigation.  

What  are  areas  with  potential  for  simplification  and  digitalisation  of  transport 
documents?  

As  described  above,  a  further  reduction  of  administrative  burden  is  underway  with  the 
implementation  of  eFTI  Regulation.  This  will  allow  operators  to  electronically  share 
information  on  transport  of  goods  in  the  EU  from  July  2027.  According  to  the  impact 
assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI  Regulation,  the  administrative  costs  savings  for 
IWT operators are estimated at EUR 222 to 317 million in 2030 (33% to 47% reduction 
relative to the baseline costs). 

405 3 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 1 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 2 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded ‘not 
applicable’. Among the public authorities that responded to the question on how benefits relate to effort and 
costs during the public consultation (4 public authorities), one said benefits and effort/costs are of a similar 
size  and  one  that  benefits  are  significantly  larger  than  the  required  effort/costs,  while  2  did  not  know  or 
indicated ‘not applicable’. 
406 Article 2 of Directive 84/647/EEC 
407 Article 2.1., Art 5.1 of Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
408 Article 6 of Regulation 11/1960 

96 

 
 
18. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (inspections) - a) What have been the costs 
associated with the inspections (see EQ No.14 on effectiveness) and what stakeholder 
groups did they fall on? b) How do these costs compare to the benefits from inspections 
that could be established?  

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960   

According to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 Member States shall be responsible 
for checking compliance with the obligations imposed on carriers and checking compliance 
imposes  costs  for  both  the  inspection  authorities  and  for  other  stakeholders  of  the  IWT 
supply chain.  

Public  authorities  face  administrative  costs  related  to  inspections,  while  barge  operators 
(fleet operators, skippers) and crew members face enforcement costs to cooperate with the 
public authorities during the inspections. 

Transport documents need to be available on board for inspection. Inspections do take 
place,  though  they  could  take  place  for  other  reasons  than  inspecting  the  transport 
documents  (i.e.  checking  dangerous  cargo,  checking  compliance  with  cabotage  rules, 
transport of waste).   

For public administrations, the costs relate to the control of transport documents. During the 
gap filling survey, organised by the Commission in 2024, Member States’ administrations 
mentioned that staff involved in checks on the spot (e.g. police) spend 60-90 minutes per 
check, while staff involved in the following up of infractions and penalties spend 90-480 
minutes per infraction. The recurrent administrative costs for public administrations could 
not be estimated because the stakeholders’ consultation activities provided little evidence 
on the number of inspections or controls, and no evidence on the number of infractions. In 
addition, as explained in section 4.1.1, the control of a vessel by enforcement authorities 
might also serve different aims and may be based on diverse legal bases. During the public 
consultation, 2 public authorities (PT, IT) have noted low to medium effort (time and/or 
money) to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, while BG did not know. During the 
targeted survey409, one respondent from Luxemburg said the associated costs were ‘low’ 
(overall policing costs), while the Hungarian Police did not have specific data on costs of 
inspections, referring to them as being part of the state budget for law enforcement activities.  

IWT  operators  are  also  expected  to  experience  recurrent  enforcement  costs  due  to 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, for cooperation to inspections or controls. It was not possible 
to estimate such costs due to the lack of evidence. According to the SME survey, 21 out of 
41 (51%) respondents experience no such costs, 10 (24%) do experience costs related to 
inspections  to  check  transport  rates  and  conditions,  while  10  (24%)  respondents  did  not 
know.    

How do these costs compare to the benefits from inspections that could be established? 

In the public consultation, 3 out of 13 respondents expressed the view that the perceived 
benefits are higher or of similar size with the efforts/costs and 3 that the benefits do not 

409 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 

97 

 
 
compensate the efforts/costs410.  

31.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  -  Over the  evaluation  period  a)  what  type  of 
costs have arisen related to the establishment, management and use of the IW Funds, 
how high were they and who did they fall on and b) have these costs been proportionate 
to the benefits they have generated? 

Group 4 – Regulation (EC) 718/1999  
a)  What type of costs have arisen related to the establishment, management and use 
of the IW Funds, how high were they and who did they fall on  

Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  led  to  one-off  adjustment  costs  for  vessel  owners 
during  1999-2003  as  well  as  benefits  for  IWT  operators.  No  costs  for  businesses  were 
registered  after  2003  due  to  Group  4  legislation.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999 
generates some very limited recurrent administrative costs for public administrations.  

One-off adjustment costs for vessel owners, in the form of contributions for new vessels put 
into service under the ‘old-for-new’ rule, are estimated at EUR 26 million for 1999-2003411. 
Post-2003 there are no one-off or recurrent costs for businesses due to Council Regulation 
(EC)  718/1999  or  due  to  the  stand-by  mechanism  in  case  of  serious  market  disturbance 
(Article 6 of Regulation 718/1999 together with article 7 of Directive 96/75/EC), which 
was not triggered so far.  

Reporting obligations for public administrations due to Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are very 
limited  and  estimated  to  take  on  average  10  hours  per  year  per  Member  State412,  for  the 
Member States that have setup and funded inland waterway Funds (AT, BE, DE, FR and 
NL). Total recurrent administrative costs for public administrations related to reporting 
obligations are thus estimated at EUR 3,628 per year (in total for all 5 relevant Member 
States)413.  

The Fund has subsequently become a standby mechanism414 not yet used, but available in 
case of serious market disturbance415 and generally welcomed by stakeholders416.  

410 3 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 1 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 2 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded ‘not 
applicable’. Among the public authorities that responded to the question on how benefits relate to effort and 
costs during the public consultation (4 public authorities), one said benefits and effort/costs are of a similar 
size  and  one  that  benefits  are  significantly  larger  than  the  required  effort/costs,  while  2  did  not  know  or 
indicated ‘not applicable’. 
411 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 33. 
412 Replies by AT, DE and NL during the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
413 The tariff rates by Member State for the ISCO  1 category (legislators, senior officials and managers) in 
2022 prices were used to monetise the costs. 
414 Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 718/1999 
415 Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
416 EBU/ESO and the IWT Platform stated in an interview in the context of the fitness check support study 
that the advantage of this Council Directive is that it offers a unique crisis mechanism which can be used in 
case of structural overcapacity in the IWT sector, which not many sectors have. 

98 

 
 
b)  Have these costs been proportionate to the benefits they have generated?  

The benefits result from the use of the IWT Platform, on which both operators’ associations 
and  Member  States  expressed  a  positive  view  in  stakeholder  consultation  activities,  in 
particular  the  gap  filling  survey417.  During  the  public  consultation,  8  out  of  the  13 
respondents418 perceived Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 as providing overall benefits 
or benefits of similar size with the effort/costs (see Figure 15 in section 4.1.2). While the 
benefits could not have been quantified in monetary terms due to the lack of data, the costs 
as,  explained  above  under  point  a),  are  very  limited  and  therefore  are  regarded  as 
proportionate. 

Coherence 

19. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960: Have any inconsistencies developed, when 
comparing how requirements on carriage of goods by inland waterway transport have 
developed, compared to those by other transport modes covered by the Regulation?  

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960   

Besides  IWT,  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  covers  road  and  rail  transport.  All 
requirements laid down in the Regulation equally apply to all modes of transport. In addition 
to EU legislation, each of the modes of transport is also covered by other international laws: 
IWT is subject to the Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by 
Inland Waterway (CMNI). Road transport is covered by the Convention on the Contract for 
the  International  Carriage  of  Goods  by  Road  (CMR)  and  rail  transport  is  subject  to  the 
Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF).  

Each  of  these  conventions  has  been  amended  and  updated  over  time.  One  of  the  most 
important amendments is the possibility to use electronic transport documents instead of 
paper ones. In IWT the CMNI Convention was amended. In road transport, an additional 
protocol  (the  so-called  e-CMR  Protocol)  was  adopted.  In  rail  transport,  an  annex  was 
attached  to  the  COTIF  Convention,  more  specifically  Annex  B,  CIM,  Uniform  Rules 
concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail. Although in each mode 
the  use  of  electronic  documents  is  possible,  the  conditions  under  which  the  electronic 
document can be used differ.  

Concerning  relevant  initiatives  at  European  level,  further  simplification  is  underway  to 
encourage  the  digitalisation  of  freight  transport  and  logistics  and  to  further  reduce 
administrative burden. As of July 2027, the Electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) 
Regulation  (EU)  2020/1056419  will  enable  the  electronic  submission  of  information 
contained in the transport documents420 for freight transport, including inland navigation. 

417  AT,  HR,  DE,  LU,  NL  expressed  this  view  together  with  EBU,  ESO  during  the  gap  filling  survey  for 
operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024.  
418 2 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 5 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 3 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded ‘not 
applicable’. 
419 Article 2.1., Art 5.1 of Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
420 Article 6 of Regulation 11/1960 

99 

 
 
20. Is the approach to legislating on conditions for carrying goods or passengers on EU 
inland waterways (cabotage, transport between Member States or in transit through 
them) consistent with the approach used in other transport modes?  

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96  

Access to cabotage in the other transport modes421 

• 

• 

• 

In road transport, cross-border transport is fully open since 1 May 2004 whilst access to 
cabotage  is  limited  to  operations  that  are  consecutive  to  an  international  transport 
operation.  Whilst  cabotage  has  always  been  open  on  a  “temporary”  basis,  what  is 
authorised  as  “temporary”  cabotage  was  only  described  in  2009:  Article  8(2)  of 
Regulation  1072/2009  authorises  up  to  three  cabotage  operations  following  the 
international carriage from another Member State or from  a third country to the host 
Member State. The last unloading in the course of a cabotage operation before leaving 
the host Member State shall take place within 7 days from the last unloading in the host 
Member State in the course of the incoming international carriage422. 

In  the  Commission  Interpretative  Communication  on  “the  temporary  nature  of  road 
cabotage in the movement of freight” (2005/C 21/02), the Commission states that  “a 
clear distinction needs to be drawn between an activity associated with the freedom to 
provide  a  service,  because  it  is  exercised  on  a  temporary  basis,  and  an  activity 
associated with the right of establishment when it is exercised on a permanent basis. 
Under the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services and on the right of 
establishment, economic operators must respect one of these two basic freedoms under 
Community  law;  one  begins  where  the  other  leaves  off.  Consequently,  national 
regulations  which limit,  in  one way or  another, the provision of  a service oblige the 
operator to take up residence at the end of the limited period, thereby interfering with 
the basic right of freedom to provide services” (§2.2.1, p. 2). 

In  maritime  transport,  cabotage  and  intra-EU  transport  are  regulated  separately,  but 
cabotage is open without any time limitation to vessels flagged in an EU/EEA Member 
State  ((EEC)  Regulation  3577/92)  and  intra-EU  transnational  transport  is  regulated 
together with international transport with third countries (Regulation 4055/86/EEC). For 
cross-border transport operations, including the EU, “Community shipowners” may use 
vessels  registered  in  third  countries.  For  cabotage  operations,  only  vessels  flagged 
within the EU may be used.  

• 

In  air  transport,  no  distinction  is  made  between  cabotage  and  cross-border  transport 
operations within the EU, the EEA423 and Switzerland424 since 1 January 1993425. This 
occurred progressively through three regulatory “packages”426. These packages are now 

421 More analysis can be found in Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support 
study, Section 6.2 Coherence and Annex IV – Annex to Group 2 
422 Regulation (EU) 2020/1055. 
423 Since July 1, 1994: decision No. 7/94 of the mixed committee of the EEA, ECOJ No. L160 of 28/6/94. 
424 Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport, 21 June 1999, 
decision of the Council n° 2002/309 of 4 April 2002, concerning the  conclusion of 7 agreements with the 
Swiss Confederation, ECOJ, No. L 114, 30 April 2002. 
425 Regulation 2408/92, entered in force on 1 January 1993. 
426 1st package on 14 December 1987, second package in 1990; third package liberalizing intra EU transport 
in 1992 (Reg 2407/92, 2408/92 and 2409/92).  

100 

 
 
included into Regulation 1008/2008 of 24 September 2008 “on common rules for the 
operation of air services in the Community (Recast)”). Regulation 1008/2008 refers to 
the  “operation  of  air  services  in  the  Community”  and  establishes  the  same  rules  on 
access  to  the  air  transport  market  for  national  and  international  transport  within  the 
EU/EEA/Switzerland. 

• 

In  rail  transport,  access  is  defined  as  access  to  the  infrastructure  (Directive  2012/34, 
Article 10 and Regulation (EU) 913/2010, Articles 13 and 14), which is granted upon 
request  of  the  applicant  (most  often  a  railway  undertaking)  by  the  infrastructure 
manager. The allocation of railway infrastructure capacity leads to the conclusion of an 
agreement between the railway undertaking and the infrastructure manager (Directive 
2012/34,  Chapter  IV).  Access  to  the  infrastructure  thus  necessarily  requires  prior 
authorisation  from  the  local  infrastructure  manager  and  is  mostly  granted  within  the 
framework  of  the  annual  timetable.  Access  is  open  without  any  distinction  between 
cabotage  and  cross-border  transport,  since  1  January  2007  for  freight  transport  (2nd 
package), and since 1 January 2019 for passenger transport (third package). It is however 
supplemented with a series of caveats to ensure public service duties in the sector.  

Different  modes of transport follow different  models  for  allowing cabotage transport:  as 
shown in Table 5 in section 4.1.3 on Coherence, air and rail transport do not distinguish 
between  international  transport  and  cabotage,  while  the  maritime  sector  allows  cabotage 
transport in an unlimited fashion. Road transport, on the other hand does provide a common 
definition of ‘temporary’ cabotage since 2009427.   

Access granted in other modes of transport 

The distinction made through Council Regulation (EC) No. 1356/96 and Council Regulation 
(EEC)  No  3921/91  between  cabotage  and  cross-border  transport  and  transit,  can  also  be 
found in road transport. This distinction should not necessarily be seen as a restriction to 
access the market. In a communication devoted to road transport, the European Commission 
presented  the  distinction  between  cabotage  and  cross-border  transport  operations  as  an 
application of the fundamental distinction, under EU law, between freedom of establishment 
and freedom to provide services. The first entitles an undertaking legally registered in the 
EU  to  establish  on  the  territory  of  any  Member  State  where  it  wants  to  do  business 
continuously. The second entitles any undertaking legally registered in an EU Member State 
to temporarily do business on the territory of a Member State where it is not established428. 

From this, it can be concluded that the distinction made through Council Regulation (EC) 
No  1356/96  and  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3921/91  between  cross-border  transport 
(including transit) and cabotage is consistent with the approach taken in road transport. This 
is also in line with the initial rules adopted in air429 and rail transport430, where the legal 
framework has progressively evolved towards an absence of distinction. As explained in 

427  Interpretative  Communication  on  “the  temporary  nature  of  road  cabotage  in  the  movement  of  freight” 
(2005/C 21/02); Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, art. 8(2) 
428  Interpretative  Communication  on  “the  temporary  nature  of  road  cabotage  in  the  movement  of  freight” 
(2005/C 21/02), §2.2.1. 
429 1st package on 14 December 1987, second package in 1990; third package liberalizing intra EU transport 
in 1992 (Reg 2407/92, 2408/92 and 2409/92); see Annex IV for further details. 
430 Initially, access to the infrastructure was solely granted for the operation of international transport services 
(Directive  91/440,  art.  10).  Rights  of  access  were  thereafter  progressively  extended  through  Directives 
2001/12 and 2004/5, the latter granting access to freight cabotage from 1 January 2007. Through Directive 
2016/2370, access to national services was granted to passenger transport as well. 

101 

 
 
Annex  IV  of  the  fitness  check  support  study,  the  situation  of  rail  transport  is  less  easily 
comparable to IWT. 

Coherence  on  defining  the  link  between  a  Member  State  and  the  craft  and/or  the 
undertaking using the craft- also referred to as genuine link in IWT 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 establish 
three cumulative requirements to assert the link between the craft and a Member State: 

-  The vessel used must be registered in, or, if not registered, must have a “certificate of 

membership of a fleet” of, a Member State;  

-  The transport undertaking using the vessel must be established in a Member State; and 

-  The transport undertaking using the vessel must be entitled, in that Member State, “to 
carry  out  the  international  transport  of  goods  or  passengers  by  inland”  (Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  3921/91,  Article.  1,  2nd  hyphen;  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1356/96, Article 2, 2nd hyphen).  

Overall, these three  requirements are  consistent  with  those laid down for other transport 
modes under EU law. Differences can nevertheless be found when taking a closer look at 
each requirement. 

First, the number of certificates required differs. In IWT, the first requirement, referring to 
the vessel, is the only one that clearly leads to the issuance of a certificate. This certificate 
is furthermore not harmonised (no EU common model) and may be of two different kinds: 
either  a  certificate  of  registration  or  a  certificate  of  belonging  to  the  national  fleet.  The 
second  and  third  requirements,  referring  to  the  transport  undertaking,  do  not  seem  to 
systematically lead to  the issuance of any certificate, unlike most other transport modes, 
where they lead to the issuance of either one (rail transport) or two (air and road transport) 
certificates. On this point, IWT rather follows the pattern of maritime transport, where the 
vessel  registration  certificate  is  the  only  document  required  to  access  the  market431  (See 
comparative table in Annex IV). 

Second,  EU  rules  on  access  to  a  transport  market  usually  require  that  the  transport 
undertaking has an establishment in the country where it manages and maintains the crafts 
it uses. In road transport, for instance, Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (equivalent to Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC in IWT), states that the transport undertaking must: 

•  have an establishment in the Member State issuing the license of professional occupation; 

•  have  at  its  disposal  one  or  more  lorries  which  are  registered  or  otherwise  put  into 

circulation in conformity with the legislation of that same Member State; 

•  have the appropriate technical equipment and facilities at one or several operating centres 

situated in that same Member State432. 

431 In accordance with international rules. 
432  Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2009,  Art  3 (1).  These  requirements  were  further  strengthened  through 
Regulation 2020/1055. As this regulation does not fall within the timeframe covered by this study, they are 
not described in detail here. See Annex IV for further explanation. 

102 

 
 
Such  requirements  are  presently  absent  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3921/91  and 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96.  

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 conversely establishes more stringent requirements. 
Pursuant  to  this  Regulation,  the  link  is  proven  through  a  ‘certificate  of  belonging  to  the 
navigation of the Rhine’ which is issued to the vessel after verifying that its owner433 and 
operator have their nationality/statutory seat (“registered office”) (Article 3 1) c) aa)), place 
of operation (“place from which the vessel is operated”, Article 3 1) c) bb)), and principal 
place of business (Article 3 1) c) bb)) in one and the same State. Furthermore, when they 
are legal persons, they must be directed and controlled by a majority of persons who are 
both nationals of, and residents in, Contracting States (Article 3 1) c) cc)). Despite these 
stringent conditions, it is unclear whether this Regulation effectively ensures that transport 
undertakings are established where the appropriate technical equipment and facilities  are 
located.  Requirements  included  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85  have  been 
revisited  by  the  CCNR  in  2015434,  but  the  interpretation  proposed  therewith  is  not 
incorporated into Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85. 

During consultations stakeholders shared their opinions as follows: 

•  Some Member States have expressed difficulties in understanding the Regulation435 and 
therefore its implementation in the various EU Member States may not be fully effective.  

•  The IWT Platform has called for clarification on the difference between cabotage and 
the right of establishment. It pointed out that freedom of cabotage is misused by some 
enterprises who transport goods in only one EU Member State, in which they are active 
as non-resident carriers436. Similar statements were made by two German companies in 
the SME survey. Likewise, ETF pointed out that “If all time limitation to cabotage is 
removed,  as  suggested  by  EBU  in  its  initial  feedback  of  2019,  then  the  conditions  of 
establishment should be strengthened to ensure that the company is established where it 
has  a  substantial  navigational  activity.  If  not  […]  it  will  be  an  open  door  to  social 
dumping.  All  companies  will  be  able  to  establish  in  Cyprus  or  Bulgaria  whilst  doing 
business solely in Northern Europe”437. The former Secretary-General of the CCNR also 
emphasised the need to clarify the “genuine link” between the crafts circulating and the 
Member States, to ensure a level playing field438.  

•  The Polish administration also indicated that it would welcome specifications on what 
should be understood by a “stable and effective establishment” in IWT. It noted that it is 
defined in road transport but not in IWT439. 

However,  stakeholder  consultation  and  other  evidence  gathered  (i.e.  market  observatory 
reports and infringement cases) have not revealed that differences between modes would 
have led/would lead to issues in transport operations or in the functioning of the transport 
single market, but highlighted inconsistencies in Group 2 legislation within IWT. 

433 Article 5. 
434 CCNR Resolution 1984-I-3. 
435 Interview of a Romanian delegate, 21 July 2021; interview of Polish delegate 16 November 2021. 
436 IWT Platform, interview of 23 March 2021. The IWT Platform even questioned whether Member States 
without waterways should be allowed to deliver group 2 documents. 
437 ETF feedback to the Roadmap. 
438 Exploratory interview a former Secretary General of the CCNR, 9 March 2021. 
439 Interview, 16 November 2021. 

103 

 
 
 
To conclude, several internal incoherences are present in IWT in Group 2 legislation:  

•  There are different provisions for international transport and cabotage on the Rhine vis-
à-vis international transport and cabotage on other waterways (see Table 5). Cabotage on 
the Rhine is not limited in time while on other waterways cabotage is allowed only on a 
temporary basis. 

•  Furthermore, there is no uniform application of temporary cabotage due to the lack of 

EU-wide definition of what is meant by “temporary”.   

•  International  transport  on  the  Rhine  is  limited  to  Rhine  riparian  operators  and  EU 
operators, while on the Danube international transport is open to all operators, even from 
outside of the continent.  

•  The genuine link is defined in a different manner across the three acts in Group 2 as well 

as in a different level of detail.  

•  There are different  requirements on access  to  the market,  notably Council Regulation 
(EEC)  2919/85  requires  operators  to  fulfil  the  same  conditions  as  the  vessel  owners, 
which is  not the case in Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91  and 1356/96. Moreover, 
Regulation 2919/85 requires for persons managing/directing to be in majority nationals 
of a Member State. Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 1356/96 do not mention any 
conditions for the persons managing/directing. Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 
1356/96 require carriers to be entitled to carry out international transport services while 
such condition is not included in Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85.  

21. a) During the evaluation period, has the coexistence of different legal regimes (EU 
Treaty,  Act  of  Mannheim,  Belgrade  Convention)  led  to  any  inconsistencies  in 
regulating market access on EU inland waterways? b) Is the co-existence of different 
legal regimes a helping, hindering or neutral factor in pursuit of implementing an IWT 
Single Market?  

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96  

a)  During  the  evaluation  period,  has  the  coexistence  of  different  legal  regimes  (EU 
Treaty,  Act  of  Mannheim,  Belgrade  Convention)  led  to  any  inconsistencies  in 
regulating market access on EU inland waterways? 

Looking at the consistency with international treaties, the most important legislation are in 
this context the Act of Mannheim and the Belgrade Convention, which introduced an access 
regime for the Rhine (1868) and Danube (1948) respectively. These regimes do partly differ, 
and  the  European  legislator  choose  to  follow  one  or  both  in  the  legislation  in  Group  2 
regulating access, thereby creating a complex and fragmented access regime on European 
waterways.  

While as a result, the legislation in Group 2 is overall considered to be in line with the Act 
of Mannheim and the Belgrade Convention, stakeholders highlighted in their contributions 
inconsistencies resulting from this complex access regime on EU waterways. 

Stakeholders who have responded to stakeholder activities highlighted the following points 
about legislation in Group 2: 

104 

 
•  2  German  SMEs  expressed  that  since  EU  enlargement,  there  are  vessels  permanently 
operating  on  the  Rhine,  with  operators  established  in  EU  MS  with  little  to  no  IWT 
activity and that apply lower social and fiscal standards. This point was also brought up 
at the CCNR workshop and in a scoping interview by 1 national administration and 1 
business association. An expert stated that even if undertakings active on the Rhine have 
a stronger incentive to relocate to lower-cost countries, effective access to the Rhine by 
the Danube fleet and vice versa remains limited. 

•  Contrary  to  the  Rhine  regime  and  the  EU  market,  access  to  the  Danube  is  not  solely 
reserved  to  vessels  connected  to  a  MS  of  the  Danube  Commission  or  the  EU.  In  the 
Danube  workshop,  the  Danube  Commission  Secretariat  expressed  the  fear  that  some 
companies be tempted to relocate to less-demanding Danube third countries to get their 
vessel  certificate  (among  others),  thus  gaining  a  competitive  advantage.  The  same 
stakeholder  however  expressed  that  for  the  moment,  although  flags  from  non-EU 
countries  have  been  spotted  operating  in  the  Danube,  the  impact  on  weakening  fair 
competition remains limited. 

With regards to the coherence of EU legislation with the other legislative frameworks in the 
IWT sector, some stakeholders underline the need for more clarity and simplification. An 
EU citizen indicated in  the public consultation that the number of legislation  relevant  to 
IWT makes it complicated for vessel owners to follow. A similar point was brought up by 
EBU and ESO in their scoping interview, stating that the difference in concept between the 
Rhine regime and the EU system is not  clearly considered by the 3 legal acts regulating 
conditions of access to the IW network. This also echoes a comment from the  Secretary 
General of Romanian Association of Inland Ship Owners and Port Operators in the targeted 
interview, expressing the lack of clarity in the distinction between Council Regulation N° 
2919/85 and the cabotage legislation stipulated in Council Regulation N° 3921/91, as well 
as between the Danube regime and the EU legal acts. In contrast to the Rhine, during their 
targeted  interviews  both  the  French  and  Luxembourgish  delegations  to  the  Mosel 
Commission stated that there is no incoherence between the provisions of the 1956 Mosel 
Convention and EU legislation. 

b)  Is the co-existence of different legal regimes a helping, hindering or neutral factor 
in pursuit of implementing an IWT Single Market? 

In the area of market access, the co-existence of the different legal regimes is a neutral factor 
in pursuit of implementing an IWT Single Market, as with the legislation in Group 2 the EU 
has internalised the Rhine regime and the Danube regime.  

However,  in  other  areas440  the  different  legal  regimes  might  be  perceived  as  a  hindering 
factor, as described in Annex VIII International Treaties Context. 

440 Recognition of professional qualifications for crew in inland navigation: Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and the 
Technical requirements for inland waterways vessels: Directive (EU) 2016/1629 

105 

 
 
22.  a)  To  what  extent  are  the  legal  acts  in  Group  2  consistent  in  their  approach  to 
regulate access  to the  EU IWT market by third countries (e.g. Switzerland, Serbia, 
Ukraine)? b) To what extent are any of the differences in approach justified by and 
proportionate  to  the  countries’  different  statuses  (e.g.  Association  Agreements  with 
Neighbourhood  Countries  and  the  Transport  Community  Treaty  with  Accession 
Countries, etc.)?  

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96   

The three legal acts do not cover access by third countries441. However, in accordance with 
Article 351 (1) TFEU, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) 
No  1356/96  acknowledge  the  validity  of  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube  regimes,  as  regimes 
predating the EU442. As a result, IWT within the EU is not only accessible to the EU Member 
States.  Third  countries  also  have  access,  at  least  partially.  The  analysis  focuses  on  third 
countries that have full or partial access by virtue of predating regimes recognised by the 
EU443.  The  treatment  of  third  countries  within  the  EU  IWT  market  largely  depends  on 
whether they are members of the Rhine or the Danube Commission. For this reason, we will 
consider separately Switzerland, as the third country which is a CCNR Member State, and 
Serbia, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH”), as third countries 
which are members of the Danube Commission or the Sava Commission (SC).  

a) Access granted, according to the river regimes 

Access  by  third  countries  under  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube  regimes  can  be  described  as 
follows: 

Under the Rhine regime  

-  Switzerland  has  access  to  the  Rhine,  as  a  Member  State  of  the  CCNR  and  a  Rhine 

riparian State; 

-  Third countries that are non CCNR Member States may submit a request to the CCNR 
to gain access to the Rhine (Act of Mannheim, Article 4, 2nd sentence). No access has 
been granted so far on this basis; 

-  Consequently Switzerland is the only third country covered by the Rhine regime. 

Under the Danube regime  

-  by virtue of the Belgrade Convention444 any third country has access to international 

441 EUCJ, C-266/03, 2 June 2005, Commission v. Luxembourg, § 48: “Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
does not govern the conditions for access by non-Community carriers to the national transport of goods or 
passengers by inland waterway in a Member State”. 
442 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 provides that “This regulation shall not affect the rights existing 
under the Revised Convention for the navigation of the Rhine (Act of Mannheim)” (Article 6). The Danube 
regime is not mentioned because no Danube State was Member State at the time of adoption of the Regulation. 
Furthermore, cabotage does not fall in the scope of the Danube regime. 
443 Access by other third countries to the EU waterways not already covered by the Rhine or the Danube regime 
can be regulated by agreement concluded between the EU and these third countries. The EU has concluded 
over 40 trade agreements with about 80 countries. They will not be considered in this study. 
444 Danube Convention Art.1 ‘Navigation on the Danube shall be free and open for the nationals, vessels of 
commerce and goods of all States, on a footing of equality‘ Convention regarding the regime of navigation on 
the Danube – Danube Commission – Donaukommission – Commission du Danube – Дунайская Комиссия 

106 

 
 
transport on the Danube 

- 

therefore,  non-EU  countries  situated  on  the  Danube  like  Serbia,  Ukraine,  Moldova  - 
even  though  Member  States  of  the  Danube  Commission  -  have  full  access  to 
international transport on the Danube: not solely thanks to their membership, but thanks 
to the access right of any third country described in the Belgrade Convention; 

-  Likewise, third countries that are non-Member States of the Danube Commission have 
full  and  automatic  access  to  international  transport  on  the  Danube  (including 
Switzerland and BiH). 

Under the Sava regime  

-  BiH and Serbia have full and automatic access to international transport on the Sava; 

-  Likewise, third countries that are non-Member States of the Sava Commission have full 

and automatic access to international transport on the Sava. 

►All third countries of the world are covered by the Danube regime and the Sava regime. 

Concluding 

-  By recognising the Rhine regime, the EU recognises that Switzerland has access to the 

Rhine; 

-  By  recognising  the  Danube  regime,  the  EU  recognises  that  all  third  countries  of  the 
world have access to international transport on the Danube section situated within the 
EU; 

-  By recognising the Sava regime, the EU recognises that all third countries of the world 

have access to international transport on the Sava section situated within the EU. 

b) Access granted beyond the river regime 

Under the EU legal acts under consideration, access granted to third countries is limited to 
the recognition of the river regime for DC or SC Member States, whereas it goes beyond 
the mere recognition of the river regime for third countries that are CCNR Member States 
(i.e. Switzerland): 

-  Third countries that are Member States of the DC continue to have access to the Danube 
in accordance with the Belgrade Convention. Conversely, EU rules do not grant them 
access to the EU waterways beyond the Danube. Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, are the countries concerned; 

-  Third countries that are CCNR Member States (Switzerland) not only continue to have 
access to the Rhine in accordance with the Rhine regime, Council Regulation (EEC) No 
3921/91  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1356/96  also  grant  them  access  to  all  EU 
waterways,  by  recognising  the  validity,  on  all  EU  waterways,  of  the  certificate  of 
belonging to the navigation of the Rhine. Switzerland is the only country concerned. 

►Switzerland, as a CCNR Member State, is treated differently than third countries that are 
the Member States of the Danube or the Sava Commission.  

107 

 
Regarding Switzerland, a Rhine riparian state 

At least in the original CCNR setting445, the certificate of belonging to the navigation of the 
Rhine  entails  the  guarantee  that  the  vessel  complies  with  all  CCNR  regulations  and  has 
Rhine certificates on board. Today, it entails the guarantee that the vessel complies at least 
with the EU safety regulations. In parallel, institutional arrangements are in place to ensure 
the enduring equivalence over time of CCNR and EU safety requirements446.  

The recognition of the certificate of belonging to the navigation of the Rhine in  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 warrants a level 
of safety that is at least equivalent to that required within the EU. 

-  The socio-economic context in Switzerland is close to that of the North-Western EU 
countries. Therefore, the risk of unfair competition in the EU IWT market, induced by 
either  Swiss  newcomers,  or  former  EU  companies  relocated  to  Switzerland,  can  be 
considered  as  rather  low.  Switzerland  actually  has  access  to  all  other  EU  transport 
markets, through special agreement signed in 1999;447  

-  Through the CCNR, Switzerland already has access to the most significant IWT market 
in Europe. Compared therewith, access granted by the EU to Swiss carriers has limited 
impact in practice. 

For these reasons, access by Swiss carriers to EU waterways is unlikely to disrupt the level 
playing field within the EU. 

Regarding third countries from the Danube Commission 

In contrast with the Rhine regime, vessel technical certificates delivered in Serbia, Ukraine, 
Moldova or Russia are not “Danube” but national certificates. Recommendations adopted 
by the Danube Commission are not binding upon the Member States and are viewed are less 
stringent than EU standards. 

Before granting access to all EU waterways, the EU would have to either recognise each 
individual third country’s vessel technical certificates or grant access on the condition that 
these countries abide by EU safety regulations when circulating on EU waterways.  

Technically, the recognition could not be achieved through the same methodology as with 
the CCNR Member States, because considerations of safety cannot be approached the same 
way: 

-  The socio-economic context in Ukraine, Moldova and Serbia differs from that of most 
EU  countries448.  Accepting  operation,  within  the  EU,  of  carriers  established  in  these 

445 This setting is somewhat less clear since the certificate of belonging to the navigation of the Rhine may be 
issued by any EU Member State and since the EU safety certificates are recognised as valid on the Rhine. 
Despite these changes, the certificate of belonging to the navigation of the Rhine still guarantees that the vessel 
complies with all safety regulations applicable within the EU. 
446 CESNI committee. 
447 A package of seven sectoral Agreements (known as the “Bilaterals I”) were signed on 21 June 1999 between 
the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on various topics, including one on air transport, and 
one on land transport (excluding IWT). 
448 Interview with the Danube Commission Secretariat, June 2021. 

108 

 
 
countries, are more likely to disrupt the EU level playing field than carriers established 
in Switzerland; 

-  Access  granted  to  these  countries  to  EU  IW  market  (beyond  the  Danube)  could  be 
economically more significant than for Switzerland. Even though the Rhine would have 
to  remain excluded from such an opening, market  players from  third countries  would 
gain  access  to  the  North-South  corridor,  which  is  the  second  most  significant  IWT 
corridor after the Rhine. 

For  these  reasons,  the  difference  in  treatment  can  be  considered  justified  and 
proportionate449.  

27. To what extent are the requirements on professional competence for carriers in the 
Directive consistent with the competence based-system set up for crew members under 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  in  inland 
navigation? Are there any contradictions or overlaps?  

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC   

Directive (EU) 2017/2397 lays down the conditions and procedures for the certification of 
the qualifications of persons involved in the operation of a craft navigating on Union inland 
waterways, as well as for the recognition of such qualifications in the Member States.450 
Annex  I  of  this  Directive  describes  the  minimum  requirements  for  age,  administrative 
compliance, competence and navigation time and Annex II of this Directive describes the 
essential  competence  requirements,  i.e.  essential  competence  requirements  at  the 
operational level; essential competence requirements for competences at the management 
level;  essential  competence  requirements  for  specific  authorisations;  and  essential 
competence  requirements  for  specific  operations.  All  these  requirements  are  aimed  at 
establishing the professional qualifications of persons working in the operations of craft in 
the IWT sector, e.g. the deckhand, the boatman, the helmsman and the boat master.  

Both Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and Council Directive 87/540/EEC aim at establishing a 
basis for professional qualifications, with Council Directive 87/540/EEC concentrating on 
natural persons or undertakings and the conditions of professional competence to operate as 
a  carrier  (i.e.  a  company  involved  in  IWT  transport)  and  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397 
concentrating on persons involved in the operation of an IWT vessel and the conditions of 
professional competence to work onboard a vessel. Both directives share common ambitions 
in  aiming  to  contribute  to  the  free  movement  of  people  and  goods  and  improved  the 
functioning of the internal market and improve the situation of the IWT sector. To this end, 
the IWT sector needs professionally operating carriers (Council Directive 87/540/EEC), as 
well as professionally operating staff (Directive (EU) 2017/2397).  

Directive (EU) 2017/2397 is actively pursuing a competence based-system set up for crew 
members; Member States should ensure that persons receiving certificates of qualification 
have the corresponding minimum levels of competence, verified following an appropriate 
assessment  (exam  or  approved  training  programmes).  This  competence  based-system  is 
different from the knowledge-based approach applied in Council Directive 87/540/EEC for 
IWT carriers.  

449 Support Study’s Annex IV summarises these considerations. 
450 According to Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2017/2397. 

109 

 
 
Moreover, it needs to be noted that the standardisation approach followed by Directive (EU) 
2017/2397 makes use of delegated acts. Delegated acts adopted under the Directive make 
reference  to  standards  established  by  CESNI451;  this  is  a  different  approach  than  the 
‘standalone’ approach in Council Directive 87/540/EEC. 

Stakeholders noted the inconsistency between Council Directive 87/540/EEC and Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397 related to the competence-based vs knowledge-based approach in IWT.  

Member States of CESNI and CESNI‘s experts found that a competence-based approach 
could be well placed to address the significant variety in Member States implementation of 
the Council Directive 87/540/EEC consequently CESNI does foresee the development of 
standards for competence of IWT entrepreneurs carrying goods or passengers452. Moreover, 
the CCNR Secretariat also noted453 the mentioned inconsistencies between Directive (EU) 
2017/2397 and Council Directive 87/540/EEC and noted that currently competencies related 
to digitalisation and clean technologies are missing. 

CCNR stated in the public consultation “the Directive on access to the market only lists 
items  of  knowledge,  not  associated  with  any  practical  skills.  So,  the  idea  is  to  combine 
knowledge  and  ability  to  have  a  more  integrated  transposition  of  the  Directive  by  a 
competence table that should also introduce new elements of green and digital competence”. 
Based  on  the  above,  lessons  could  be  learned  from  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  and  the 
competence based-system could be introduced to IWT carriers as well.  

Also, the difference in scope needs to be noted: while Directive (EU) 2017/2397 applies to 
crew engaged in both cargo and passenger transport, Council Directive 87/540/EEC applies 
only to cargo operators not to passenger transport. 

28. To what extent are the requirements on professional competence for carriers in the 
Directive consistent with the requirements pursuing similar objectives in other modes 
of transport, in particular road transport and aviation?  

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC   

Looking at other modes of transport, the level of detail between the qualifications of carriers 
set for rail and IWT is similar, while legislation regarding access to the occupation is more 
detailed in road transport and aviation. More requirements need to be fulfilled to become a 
road  transport  operator,  than  an  operator  in  IWT,  and  requirements  for  road  transport 
operators are more recent and thereby reflect the current professional standards. Moreover, 
the EU rules for accessing the profession of an IWT carrier are encoded in a directive, whilst 
it  is  a  regulation  in  all  other  modes  of  transport,  resulting  in  diverse  implementation  in 
various  Member  States  –  this  was  also  remarked  by  a  stakeholder454  during  the  public 
consultation. 

451 See also Annex VIII International treaties context 
452 See: Draft standards for competence of entrepreneurs in inland navigation including green and digital skills 
as  input  for  update  of  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  after  fitness  check  and  evaluation,  based  on  the 
competence-based approach developed by CESNI/QP (January 2022). 
453 Public consultation 
454  European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF,  submitted  document  at  the  occasion  of  the  public 
consultation) 

110 

 
 
General benchmark on professional competence required with other modes 

In  the  general  benchmark,  the  situation  in  IWT  is  compared  with  the  situation  in  road 
transport,  rail  transport,  aviation  and  maritime  transport.  Relevant  legislation  and  the 
requirements related to obtaining a certificate of professional competence embedded in this 
legislation are presented in Table 8 below.  

•  Requirements  for  professional  competence  are  usually  an  integral  part  of  the 
requirements to gain access to the occupation as a transport carrier. They can be found 
in air transport, rail transport, road transport and IWT. Yet they are only specified in 
detail in road transport and aviation; 

•  A mechanism of mutual recognition of certificates can only be found in road transport 
and  IWT.  Therefore,  only  IWT  and  road  will  be  considered  in  the  remainder  of  the 
analysis; 

• 

In  both  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  (for  IWT)  and  Regulation  1071/2009  (for 
road)455,  the  Member  State  of  establishment,  the  carrier’s  country  of  origin  or  the 
carrier’s country whence he comes is entitled to deliver the certificates of professional 
competence.  In Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (for road),  conversely,  the certificate 
may only be issued by the Member State where the transport manager has his normal 
residence or by the Member State in which he works.  

455 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2020/1055  

111 

 
 
Table 8: Comparison between modes: relevant legislation and professional competence required 

Aspects 
Relevant legislation  

IWT 
Council Directive 
87/540/EEC  

Road transport 
Regulation No 1071/2009, 
amended by Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/1055. 

Rail transport 
Directive 2012/34/EU, 
Regulation (EU) 913/2010 

Professional 
competence required  

Yes: Article 3 + Annex ‘List 
of the subjects referred to in 
Article 3 (2) for which proof 
of professional competence 
must be proved’ 

Yes, in 
Regulation1071/2009, 
Article8 + Annex I Part I 
‘List of the subjects referred 
to in Article 8’ 

Yes, but not detailed: 
Article21  

Maritime transport 

Not required for a carrier 

Aviation 
Regulation 965/2012456, 
Regulation 452/2014457, 
Regulation 859/2008, 
repealed by Regulation 
2018/1139 and 
Regulation1321/2014458 

Yes, detailed requirements 
for aircraft operators are 
included in Regulation 
965/2012, especially Annex 
III (Part-ORO)  
In addition, professional 
competence must be proven 
to obtain an Air Operator 
Certificate (AOC)459:  

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), relevant legislation460

456 On common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) 
No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 
216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91. 
457 On third countries. 
458 Covering maintenance requirements for aircraft, which the operators need to comply with. 
459 As described in Regulation 859/2008 (Subpart C, OPS 1.175). Prerequisites to get a valid AOC are detailed in Regulation 965/2012 and 452/2014. 
460 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html  

112 

 
 
  
 
 
Initially, requirements for professional  competence in both  IWT and road transport were 
similarly regulated. Since Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 came into force, the road transport 
legislation has evolved whilst the IWT legislation has not. Therefore, it is considered that 
road  transport  legislation  is  the  most  relevant  to  compare  requirement  for  professional 
competence.  Thus,  emphasis  is  placed  on  a  comparison  with  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1071/2009461, as presented in the next section.  

Specific benchmark on professional competence required with road transport 

The relevant legislation for the IWT and road transport sector462, both describe a similar list 
of subjects for which proof of professional competence must be provided, including (i) law, 
(ii) commercial and financial management of an undertaking, (iii) access to the market, (iv) 
technical  standards  and  technical  aspects  of  operations,  (v)  safety  and  (vi)  knowledge 
required in case of international transport operations. A key difference lies in the fact that 
the  road  transport  legislation  covers  both  road  haulage  operators  and  road  passenger 
transport  operators,  whilst  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  for  IWT  only  covers  freight 
transport operators. 

Requirements are more detailed in Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, as compared to Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC. For example, whilst Council Directive 87/540/EEC refers to ‘the tax 
system’, Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 specifies the topics in fiscal law which should be 
known:  VAT  on  transport  services,  motor-vehicle  tax,  taxes  on  certain  road  haulage 
vehicles,  income  tax.  Stakeholders  have  expressed  concerns  that  the  requirements  of 
professional  competence  for  IWT  are  less  detailed  than  in  other  transport  modes.  For 
example, ETF has stated that “this Directive on the licence of professional occupation sets 
out requirements of professional competence, which are less detailed than those laid down 
in its counterparts for all other modes of transport. It is a Directive whilst it is a regulation 
in  all  other  modes  of  transport.  As  a  result,  it  is  diversely  implemented  in  the  various 
Member States. Furthermore, it does not apply to passenger vessels; operators thereof do 
not need to prove any professional competence in the EU”463. However, despite the lack of 
detail  in  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  the  main  topics  are  similar  to  those  listed  in 
Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, therewith assuring that “transport carriers of all modes are 
required to have the same type of competences, to facilitate the integration of IWT into the 
logistics chain”464.  

In Council Directive 87/540/EEC, pursuant to Article 3(2), professional competence shall 
be  acquired  by  either  attending  courses,  practical  experience  in  a  waterway  transport 
undertaking or, a combination of both. Under Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, the applicants 
must systematically take an exam in the Member State in which they have their ‘normal 
residence’ or in the ‘Member State in which they work’. The notion of ‘normal residence’, 

461 Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 has recently been amended through Regulation (EU) No 2020/1055. This 
most recent regulation, however, will not be considered in the Study, as it will be applied after the evaluation 
period covered by the present Study (from 21 February 2022). Furthermore, the modifications entailed therein 
do not touch upon the requirements on professional competence per se. 
462 Council Directive 87/540/EEC (IWT) and Regulation (EC) 1071/2009 (road transport).  
463 ETF Feedback to the Roadmap on fitness check, 20 May 2020. 
464 As expressed by former Secretary General of the CCNR. 

113 

 
 
 
is  defined  very  precisely  in  Article  8.2  to  avoid  forum  shopping.  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1071/2009 has also the advantage of being strict and clear on the programme of exams.  

Another  difference  between  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  and  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1071/2009 lies in the number of exemptions. In IWT, there are three exemptions: freight 
carriers with at least three years of practical experience (Article 4.2), freight carriers active 
in  the  field  before  1  July  1990  (Article  5)  and  freight  carriers  operating  exclusively  on 
national waterways (Article 3). In Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 there is only one: “when 
the holders of certain higher education qualification or technical education qualifications 
obtained in that Member State, specifically designated to this end, and whose programme 
covers  all  subjects  listed  in  Annex  I  from  the  exams  in  the  subjects  covered  by  those 
qualifications”  (Article  8.7).  The  room  for  different  implementation  among  the  Member 
States is therewith much more limited in road transport.  

Preparatory work for Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and in particular the “Proposal for a 
Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  common  rules 
concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport 
operator, presented by the Commission on 6 July 2007”465 presents relevant information on 
the reasons why the road legislation has evolved on professional competence. “Some of the 
measures of this legislative framework [Directive 96/26/EC] are not applied and enforced 
uniformly as a result of legal provisions that are unclear, incomplete or not in keeping with 
the development of the sector”466. According to the proposal, this situation creates unfair 
competition due to a certain extent to different levels of professional competence required 
by the Member States. For all these reasons, the road transport legislation has evolved, by 
developing a regulation and setting new requirements regarding the establishment, listing 
the required competences with more details and further harmonising the procedure to prove 
the requisite professional competence.  

33. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - a) To what extent do the mechanisms set under 
the  Regulation  complement  or  interact  with  other  EU  sectoral  instruments,  in 
particular  funding  instruments?  -  b)  Do  any  inconsistencies  exist  (between  these 
instruments)?  

Group 4 – Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC  

Relating to the measures that can be taken in case of a serious market disturbance is declared 
(Council  Regulation  N°  718/1999  and  Article  7  of  Council  Directive  96/75),  2  of  4 
international  organisations  consulted  through  scoping  interviews  highlighted  the  lack  of 
clarity on how to use the Reserve Fund to reach greening and innovation sectoral objectives.  

Mechanisms set under the Regulation 

The  Reserve  Fund  is  the  direct  (and  main)  mechanism  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
718/1999. Before its amendment, Council Regulation (EC) No. 718/1999 left little to no 
room for the Reserve Fund to interact with other EU sectoral instruments. The amended 
Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 through Regulation (EU) No 546/2014 

465 European Commission (2007). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road 
transport operator; 
466 This is confirmed by the impact assessment, which was made for the revision of Directive 96/26/EC, which 
showed that Member States had difficulty in transposing Directive 96/26/EC and were applying it in a very 
disparate manner. 

114 

 
 
has widened the potential use of the Reserve Fund and left room for the Reserve Fund to 
interact with other funding instruments.  

Other EU sectoral (funding) instruments 

The European Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (i.e. 
for the period 2014 – 2020: Horizon 2020, now Horizon Europe) and the Connecting Europe 
Facility (CEF), in particular CEF-Transport are by far the two most relevant EU funding 
instruments to consider for the IWT sector. Horizon 2020 has had an important position in 
terms of filling gaps for Europe-wide Research and Innovation (R&I) in the IWT sector, 
especially in the context of cross-border R&I collaboration, which is important to a sector 
with  a  lot  of  cross  border  operations  such  as  the  IWT  sector.  CEF-Transport  provides 
funding  for  infrastructure  projects,  thereby  helping  to  realise  full-scale  operational 
deployment of innovations in the IWT sector.  

Both instruments are generic instruments with some specific calls specifically designed for 
the IWT sector. These two instruments need to be analysed in their combined capacity for 
the  analysis  of  their  potential  complementarities  with  the  mechanisms  under  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 718/1999, especially in the context of new trends such as greening and 
digitalisation.  

Conclusion on complementarities and inconsistencies 

Until 2014, there has been no interaction of the Reserve Fund with other EU instruments. 
This finding is reinforced by the evidence from the legislation itself, such as the following 
statement  of  Regulation  546/2014:  “the  Reserve  Funds,  consisting  solely  of  financial 
contributions from the industry have never been used”. Therefore, from this perspective, it 
could be concluded that until 2014 the mechanisms set under Council Regulation (EC) No 
718/1999 do not complement or interact with other EU sector (funding) instruments. 

The amended Article 8 opened the opportunity to establish the IWT platform in 2017. Since 
then, the EU IWT Platform has participated in European projects related to the new needs 
of  the  sector,  such  as  greening  and  innovation.  Examples  are  the  following  projects: 
ENTRANCE project,  the PLATINA3 project,  and the  IW-NET project,  all of which are 
funded under the H2020 scheme467. The involvement of the IWT Platform in these projects 
is however limited, playing a representative role of the sector at the European level mainly. 
Therefore, from this perspective, it could be concluded that since 2014 the mechanisms that 
stemmed from Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 slightly complement and interact with 
other EU sector (funding) instruments. 

From the database of  IWT projects  of the European  Inland Barging  Innovation Platform 
(EIBIP)468, no reference was found to the Reserve Fund.  

467 See projects in which the IWT platform is currently involved. 
468 See EIBIP funding database. 

115 

 
 
34. Are there any inconsistencies a) within each of the two pieces of legislation of group 
4 and b) between them?   

Group 4 – Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC  

As regards Group 4, no inconsistencies have been identified within Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999. Similarly, no overlaps or contradictions have been identified within and between 
Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 and Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC, besides 
the fact that the geographical scope of Council Directive 96/75/EC is EU-wide while that 
of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 contains several limitations, including an exemption 
for  vessels  operating  exclusively  on  the  Danube.  In  its  design  there  is  a  strong  link,  a 
complementarity between the two acts, notably the potential use of the reserve fund and 
measures (Council Regulation 718/1999) in connection with the serious disturbance of the 
IWT market (as in Art 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC).  

EU added value 

24. a) What is the rationale of public intervention at EU-level for group 2? b) To what 
extent has there been evidence of actual EU-added value (in support of this rationale)?  

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96  

The rationale of public intervention 

The aim of the legislation in Group 2 is to open the entire European IWT market for all 
European operators and ensure that all operators within the EU can provide IWT services 
on  EU  waterways  under  the  same  conditions.  The  legislation  aimed  to  open  the  Rhine 
market  (Council  Regulation  (EEC)  2918/85)  specifically,  open  all  other  connected 
waterways (Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96) and open the national markets (cabotage) 
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91).  

The reason for specifically adopting legislation on the opening of the market was that the 
market  was not  open to  all under the same conditions. As presented  for  EQ8, the Rhine 
River was mainly accessible for operators belonging to the Rhine fleet and national markets 
were only open for foreign operators in case a bilateral agreement was concluded. At the 
time,  the  Commission  considered  adopting  the  three  Regulations  part  of  Group  2,  no 
intentions  existed  to  open  the  markets  on  other  (inter)governmental  levels.  Without  EU 
intervention, the existing access to the market rules would probably not have changed.  

EU added value in practice 

The  legal  framework  is  only  one  element  which  contributes  to  opening  the  market.  The 
geographical and economic features of IWT also play a major role.  

Evidence could be collected from different stakeholders. In the SME survey, respondents 
were asked whether they think that the market access legislation has contributed to the free 
movement of goods. Over 90% of the respondents agree that the legislation at least to some 
extent contributed to this (see Figure 22).  

116 

 
Figure 22: The European internal market legislation has led to a single market in Europe in 
which free movement of goods across EU countries is assured (n = 41) 

Source: SME survey 

The other evidence found on EU-added value mainly concerns access to cabotage, which 
cannot be reserved to national companies or be subject to quantitative restrictions or prior 
authorisations  any  longer.  The  EU  added  value  could  be  increased  if  it  laid  down  clear 
requirements regarding the link between the vessel and a Member State as this would be an 
important element to ensure conditions of fair competition among operators469.  

Group 2470 legislation adds value: it provided a legal basis based on which EU operators 
face equal conditions to access waterways and carry out cabotage and international transport 
in the EU. Equal access for EU operators would not have been introduced without these set 
of legislation: without EU action, it would not be clear under which conditions operators 
from  EU  Member  States  would  have  access  to  the  Rhine,  except  for  the  operators  from 
CCNR Member States. Without these EU legislations, market access on waterways other 
than the Rhine would rely on bilateral agreements or on the River Commission’s provisions. 
It  would  have  been  questionable  whether  national  markets  would  have  opened  up  for 
cabotage for EU operators, as illustrated by the two-year grace period obtained by France 
and  Germany  in  implementing  the  cabotage  regulation.  Even  if  some  would  have,  those 
would be on terms specific to the Member States, and as a result the same rules would not 
apply. This would lead to a much higher degree of fragmentation of the IWT market access 
rules, as with EU legislation.  

The IWT Platform also confirmed471 that before the adoption of legislation at the EU level,  
Member States had little appetite to open up the markets. Also, an expert highlighted472 the 
importance of Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and (EC) 1356/96 in opening national 
markets to non-resident EU operators to cabotage and added that the legislation had led to 

469 Responding to the SME survey question: “Have you noticed any change in this respect (time limitations or 
discrimination  in  accessing  the  IWT  national  market  of  an  EU  Member  country)  since  the  1990s?”,  7 
respondents declared that the regulations brought about change, 18 responded that it did not bring any change, 
and 12 responded that they did not know. At least the  answers provided show that the answer is not self-
evident. 
470 Due to the high level of complementarity of Group 2 legislation, their value added is evaluated together  
471 In the scoping interview 
472 In the scoping interview 

117 

 
 
 
lower  prices  for  domestic  IWT  through  increased  competition,  thus  forcing  operators  to 
restructure and become more efficient. 

The objective of legislation in Group 2 was to regulate access for all EU vessels to all inland 
waterways in EU Member States. The objective has been achieved. Namely, vessel owners 
and operators of every EU Member State can sail the Rhine, a higher number of operators 
can conduct cabotage operations and the share of cross-border transport of goods and people 
by vessels  is  over 75%  (i.e. 75%  for freight transport and 80% for passenger transport). 
Group 2 legislation has thus been effective in reaching its objective. Operators are active 
throughout  the  European  IWT  market  instead  of  on  their  national  waterways.  Some 
operators established in the Rhine area have also deployed business activities on the Danube 
and vice versa.  

35. a) What is the rationale of public intervention at EU level for group 4?  b) To what 
extent does evidence suggest group 4 has generated added value over and beyond what 
could have been achieved by Member States at national level?  

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC  

The IWT market is characterised by low entry barriers and significant exit barriers. As such, 
situations have occurred where there have been a lot of new entrants during years in which 
the economy was booming. Sometimes, these years of economic growth have been followed 
by years of economic and financial crisis, resulting in overcapacity and financial instability, 
given  the  fact  that  it  was  no  possibility  for  many  IWT  operators  to  leave  the  market. 
Government intervention can be justified in those circumstances, especially when the crisis 
is structurally affecting demand (i.e. the crisis is not temporary) and especially given the 
fact  that  the  IWT  sector  is  playing  an  increasingly  important  role  in  the  EU’s  transport 
policy. 

Historic evidence from the uncoordinated attempts during the 1980s has shown that national 
measures to influence the supply side of the IWT sector have been inefficient. Therefore, it 
could be concluded that the legislation of Group 4 has added value over and beyond what 
has been achieved at the national level. 

Scrapping schemes carried out prior to the legislation at national level, in 1960’ and 70’ in 
Germany,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  and  France  had  limited  effect,  therefore  Member 
States  concerned  requested  to  introduce  a  scheme  at  the  European  level.  In  the  1990’s, 
action  was  taken  at  European  level  with  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  and  its 
predecessor Regulation 1101/89 which resulted in structural improvement of IWT through 
the introduction of a scrapping scheme and the old-for new rule – active up to April 2003 - 
in relevant regions of the EU, while keeping geographical areas with no overcapacity out of 
scope (e.g. the Danube). EU level action put in place a system of mutual financial support 
among the national IW Funds in order to guarantee equal treatment for all carriers, thereby 
creating value added in the EU. 

The provision in Art 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 of scrapping old vessels serves 
today,  in  combination  with  Art  7  of  Council  Directive  96/75/EC,  as  a  potential  safety 
mechanism to prevent any new increase in the transport capacity in case of serious market 
disturbance of the market  –  if and when triggered, an important  added value to  improve 
resilience  of  the  EU  IWT  market,  except  for  the  vessels  operating  exclusively  on  the 
Danube, as exempted under its Art 2.2.c.  

118 

 
In a targeted interview, a Rhine IWT expert stated that measures taken at the national level 
aiming  to  tackle  the  supply  side  of  IWT,  specifically  overcapacity,  would  not  lead  to 
significant  results  given  the  number  of  Member  States  in  which  vessel  operators  are 
established. An academic/research institution agreed with this view. 

In the targeted survey, when asked if the EU or the Member States should put in place public 
intervention measures to respond to external economic shocks, 5 of 13 national authorities 
answered  “Yes,  by  the  EU”,  2  responded  “Yes,  Member  States”,  5  did  not  know  and  1 
answered “No”. This position was seconded by EBU, ESO and the German delegation at 
the  CCNR  during  their  scoping  interviews,  with  the  3  stakeholders  underlining  the 
importance  of  an  existing  clear  crisis  mechanism  to  be  deployed  at  the  EU-level  during 
times of crises. 

The EU value added of the operations of the IWT Platform473 covering the sector in the EU, 
financed from IW Funds as in Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999, has been confirmed by 
Member  State  administrations474  and  all  responding  operators’  associations  alike  in  the 
targeted survey during the gap filling phase.  

Relevance 

12. To what extent have the original objectives of the legal acts in Group 1 met the 
challenges  and  needs  of  the  IWT  sector  over  the  evaluation  period  until  today? 
Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  objectives  of  opening  and  improving  the 
competitiveness  of  the  IWT  market  and  ensuring  non-discrimination  in  transport 
rates and conditions.  

Group 1 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 and Council Directive 96/75  

Before  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  of  Group  1  came  into  force, 
discriminatory  water  transport  rates  existed  in  several  countries  of  the  European 
Communities, except on the Rhine, where a free pricing system for cross-border transport 
prevailed. In the Danube region, transport prices were set by the shipping companies based 
on the criteria established by the Bratislava Agreements475 as of 1955.  

Thanks to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960476, price discrimination based on country 
of origin or destination has been eliminated. This was confirmed by several stakeholders, 
including  ProDanube477  (‘there  is  no  price  discrimination  anymore’),  the  Danube 
Commission478  (‘with  regard  to  market  entrance  and  pricing  policy  there  is  a  full 
liberalisation  within  the  Danube  region  with  some  restrictions,  especially  for  non-EU 
Member States’). Other Stakeholders, like the IWT Platform479, EBU/ESO480 and a sectoral 

473 Since its establishment in 2017, the IWT Platform has contributed to numerous initiatives in standardisation 
and regulatory bodies as well as to European projects, providing expert knowledge and expertise for the benefit 
of the entire IWT sector at European level. 
474 AT, HR, DE, Lux and NL 
475 1955 Bratislava Agreements, Bratislava Agreements (donau.bg) 
476 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 aimed to abolish discriminatory transport rates and conditions and 
establish fairer price competition. 
477 Interview with ProDanube (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
478 Interview with the Secretariat of the Danube Commission (2021) in the context of the fitness check support 
study. 
479 Interview with IWT Platform (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
480 Interview with EBU/ESO (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  

119 

 
 
expert481 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative 
rates. In a survey482, the Croat administration, too, stated that the Regulation significantly 
diminished discriminatory and price-setting  behaviour. On the other hand, EBU483 and a 
French sectoral association484 concluded that this makes the legislation obsolete (‘after the 
liberalisation of transport this regulation is obsolete and no longer required as legal basis 
for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions’). 

Since its enaction, Council Regulation  No 11/1960  has evolved to  reduce administrative 
burden  on  businesses  by  simplification  and  by  removal  of  outdated  and  unnecessary 
requirements.  Technical  advancements  were  also  responded  to,  namely  that  certain 
information  (available  in  carriers’  accounting  systems)  would  no  longer  obliged  to  be 
retained  on  paper.  Building  on  the  latter  aspect,  the  eFTI  Regulation  builds  on  Council 
Regulation No 11/1960 highlighting the latter’s continued relevance.  

The Council Regulation’s continued relevance is also highlighted by the fact that it provided 
a basis for transport modalities beyond the modes directly mentioned in it; the Combined 
Transport Directive has liberalised combined transport, made it free from all quota systems 
and  systems  of  authorization,  and  used  -  as  a  tool  for  eligibility  checks  -  the  transport 
document as in Art 6 of Council Regulation No 11/1960.  

While  the  discrimination  in  rates  and  other  conditions  based  on  the  country  of  origin  or 
destination of cargo was tackled by Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, other restrictive 
practices were in use until the end of the 1990s and were subsequently addressed by the 
Council  Directive  96/75/EC.  Market  regulation  systems  (i.e.  the  ‘Tour  de  Role’485  and 
Festfrachten486  systems  that  were  in  place  in  Belgium,  Germany,  France  and  the 
Netherlands) ceased to exist thanks to the Council Directive 96/75/EC, thus contributing to 
the gradual liberalisation of the inland waterways market.  

Specifically, in January 1994, the German government abolished the Festfrachten system of 
minimum prices, resulting487 in a 60% drop in the shipping prices for coal products and 40% 
in the shipping prices for bulk cargo. The ‘Tour de Role’ systems in the Netherlands, France 
and  Belgium  were  abolished  in  January  2000,  after  a  transitional  period  set  by  Council 
Directive 96/75/EC. The Council Directive 96/75/EC can therefore be considered successful 
in eliminating national rules or practices impeding the freedom of chartering and pricing. 
An indicative estimate488 shows that the welfare loss associated to the practices that were 
eliminated  amounts  to  EUR  190  million  annually,  expressed  in  2022  prices,  in  the 
Netherlands - these would have likely persisted without the adoption of Group 1 legislative 
acts. 

481 Interview with former CCNR secretary (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study.  
482 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024.  
483 Submitted paper by EBU (Roadmap and public consultation) 
484 Submitted paper by Entreprises Fluviales de France (public consultation) 
485  In  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  France  shippers  were  legally  obliged  to  conclude  their  contracts  for 
national transport through the intermediary of a state-run system of chartering by rotation (“Tour de Role” in 
French), which assigned cargo to bargemen on a “first come, first served” basis. For this, shippers had to pay 
minimum freight rates fixed by law. 
486 Festfrachten is a system of fixed minimum freight rates in Germany. 
487 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
488 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 

120 

 
 
The associations representing IWT operators (EBU/ESO) stated in an interview that Council 
Directive  96/75/EC  established  the  free  market  and  was  in  their  view  very  effective  in 
meeting the objectives. A sectoral expert489 expressed the view that the Directive brought 
very good results including decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity, while a 
Romanian  stakeholder490  also  mentioned  that  the  market  is  functioning  well,  while 
highlighting that some cost elements, like e.g. fuel or port fees, the Black Sea Canal fee, 
also  influence  the  freight  tariffs.  As  benefits  the  Austrian  administration  mentioned  the 
market  liberalisation  while  Luxembourg  administration  highlighted  the  elimination  of 
discrimination aspect491. In various consultations492, EBU also underlined the effectiveness 
of the aim and scope of the Directive. 

The  existence  of  the  regulatory  framework  allows  maintaining  these  achievements  over 
time,  as  demonstrated  by  an  infringement  procedure  in  2017  against  Belgium,  based  on 
Council Directive 96/75/EC. 

Council  Directive  96/75/EC  established  the  freedom  of  chartering  and  pricing  in  all  EU 
Member States, eliminating national protectionism, enabling greater commercial flexibility 
and increased competitiveness of the sector. Encouraging and enabling efficient transport 
services,  by  eliminating  discriminatory  pricing  and  conditions  as  well  as  restrictive 
commercial practices, lowered costs for consignors and consignees493 thanks to fairer and 
more transparent competition among carriers.  

The  continued  relevance  of  the  Directive  is  that  it  remains  a  safeguard  to  act  against 
prohibited practices in case of re-emergence of such practices. This was also demonstrated 
by infringement procedures as recently as in 2017 against Belgium494, as mentioned above, 
and earlier, in 1996495 against NL.  

In the context of further enlargements of the EU, prices are still being  state-regulated in 
some non-EU countries like Ukraine or Serbia496. Considering their ongoing efforts to align 
with EU legislation, this reinforces the continued relevance of the legislative basis in the 
EU acquis related to free pricing and the prohibition of discrimination. 

Stakeholder  views  are  divided  on  whether  Council  Regulation  No  11/1960  is  relevant. 
Operators and operators’ associations (incl. EBU, ESO) are of the view that the Regulation 
is  not  relevant.  EBU  is  of  the  view,  that  now  that  the  liberalisation  of  transport  is 
accomplished,  the  regulation  is  obsolete  and  no  longer  required  as  legal  basis  for  the 
abolition  of  discrimination  in  transport  rates  and  conditions.  However,  respondents  not 
linked to operators were of the view that the Regulation is very relevant. 

489 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.   
490 Interview with the Romanian association of inland ship owners and port operators (2021) in the context of 
the fitness check support study. 
491 Gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024. 
492  Feedback  on  the  roadmap  and  in  the  Gap  filling  survey  operators’  association,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
493 The consignor is the sender of goods and the consignee is the receiver of the goods. 
494 INFR(2017)4115-BE 
495 INFR(1996)4448-NL 
496 Interview with the DC 

121 

 
 
Concerning Council Directive 96/75/EC, the public consultation revealed that 6 respondents 
(incl. EBU and ESO, the RO training institute, the Polish Maritime Foundation and the AT 
chamber of commerce) were of the view that the Directive is very relevant, 2 responded 
somewhat relevant, while 4 respondents (CCNR, a river commission, a barge operator and 
a  DE  operator  association)  were  of  the  view  that  the  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  is  not 
relevant. In another consultation, AT public admin was also of the view that the  Council 
Directive 96/75/EC is relevant to avoid any market interference by national legal acts in the 
free setting of prices in the IWT market497. 

7 of 10 respondents of scoping interviews – including the CCNR, the Danube Commission 
and Pro Danube – stated that although Council Directive 96/75/EC established a relevant 
legal basis for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions at the time, 
the high level of liberalisation currently observed in IWT in the EU has made it less relevant. 
The  Danube  workshop498  also  points  to  this,  with  all  participants  agreeing  on  a  full 
liberalisation for market entry and pricing policy within the Danube region, except for rare 
smaller restrictions for vessels operating with a flag from a non-EU MS.  

4 country delegations consulted in targeted interviews – 2 for the CCNR and 2 for the Mosel 
Commission – confirmed the relevance of the Directive for establishing an internal market 
in IWT. In its feedback on the roadmap, EBU also underlined the relevance of the aim and 
scope of the Directive. 

As  demonstrated  in  another  EQ,  the  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative  Framework  has 
contributed  to  the  objectives  of  the  EU  IWT  policy,  as  laid  down  in  the  subsequent 
NAIADES action programmes.  

23.  Over  the  evaluation  period,  how  well  have  the  objectives  of  the  legal  acts 
corresponded to the sector’s needs arising from developments of the EU IWT market 
(including from the successive enlargements of the EU and the implementation of free 
trade agreements including commitments in IWT)? 

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96  

Group 2 legislation created equal access rights for EU operators to provide national and 
international  transport  services,  and  therefore  the  three  pieces  of  legislation  together  are 
relevant  for  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  internal  market  for  inland  navigation. 
According to Chapter on Transport in the TFEU (see Article 58 (1) of the TFEU), freedom 
of services in the field of transport needs to be addressed 499. The legislation, hence, plays a 
role in implementing the common transport policy as foreseen in Art. 90 of TFEU. While 
Article 56 of the TFEU  on free movement  of services provides general  principles, these 
would have been implemented differently across Member States. To this end, the common 
transport  policy  required  the  EU  to  lay  down  common  rules  applicable  to  international 
transport and cabotage (Art. 91 TFEU) while paying particular attention to Art. 95 related 
to the prohibition of discrimination in transport. 

497 2024 gap filling survey (Member States administrations) 
498 Danube workshop, 20 January 2022 
499 Also see ECJ Case 13/83 

122 

 
 
Legislation  in  Group  2  are  together  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  TFEU:  if  rules 
stipulated  in  these  acts  were  not  in  place,  'freedom  to  provide  services  in  the  field  of 
transport’ would be unregulated. 

As described in section 3.1, over the years the legislative framework has evolved to follow 
the evolution of the sector’s needs. While the Group 2 legislation has not been amended, 
implementation issues by Member States have been tackled by infringements. Moreover, 
(as  demonstrated  in  more  detail  in  another  answer)  the  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative 
Framework has  contributed to  the objectives  of the EU  IWT policy,  as laid  down in  the 
subsequent NAIADES action programs.  

Considering the geographical coverage of the Communities, in the 1960s mainly the Rhine 
was relevant for inland navigation. Successively, Danube riparian countries joined the EU, 
expanding  the internal  inland navigation  market and offering  an opportunity to intensify 
competition in the sector: Austria joined the EU in 1995, followed by Hungary and Slovakia 
in 2004, Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, and Croatia in 2013. With their accession, these 
countries have progressively adopted the EU acquis.  

EBU and ESO indicated500 that they were afraid that the enlargement of the internal market 
to the Danube would result in an influx of old ships on the Rhine. This could have been 
considered  an  unintended  and  negative  effect  since  this  would  deteriorate  the  European 
policy of modernisation of the IWT fleet.  However, the opposite has occurred, since the 
enlargement of the EU towards the Danube caused an acceleration of replacing older vessels 
with newer vessels on the Danube. As such, the concern of this negative impact due to the 
enlargement of the EU does not seem to have materialised. 

As a result of Group 2 legislation, operators are active throughout the European IWT market 
instead of on their national waterways. Some operators established in the Rhine area have 
also deployed business activities on the Danube and vice versa. Today, many operators are 
established in non-Rhine or Mosel countries and operate primarily on the Rhine with for 
example Polish, Maltese and Cyprus flags.  

As shown in Figure 8 in section 3.2, in the EU-enlargement context, the transported cargo 
volume  on  the  European  waterways  has  been  fluctuating  between  400  million  and  550 
million tonnes, going from 15 members countries to 28 in 2013 and 27 in 2020. In 2023, 
469 million tonnes of cargo were transported by IWT. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 opened cabotage on German waterways beyond the 
already existing openness of Mosel and Rhine501. For example, Polish operators502 are now 
providing cargo services on the connection Berlin-Szczecin (Spree-Oder Canal). Cabotage 
between  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  was  extended  to  all  EU  Member  States503.  This 
benefitted  freight  volumes  transported  by  foreign  flagged  vessels  in  the  Netherlands,  as 
shown in Figure 11 in section 4.1.1.  

The main relevance of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 is to grant equal access to 
cabotage in Danube countries which are now EU Member States (prior Council Regulation 

500 Exploratory interview with EBU/ESO – 18 February 2021 
501 Interviews with the German Commissar at the CCNR, representing the sector, and with the former Secretary 
General of the CCNR in the context of the fitness check support study. 
502 Interview with the Polish Ministry of Infrastructure in the context of the fitness check support study. 
503 Interview with a Belgian legal expert (2021) in the context of the fitness check support study. 

123 

 
 
(EEC) No 3921/91 cabotage was possible under bilateral agreements only504). However, the 
sector’s need to access cabotage in Danube countries is probably less than the need to access 
cabotage in North-Western countries, especially Germany505.  

Council Regulation  (EC) No 1356/96 opened access  to  all EU undertakings. In practice, 
however, it did not bring any significant change, since cross-border traffic including transit 
was  already  open  to  most  EEC  Member  States  interested  in  IWT.  Today,  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 does not bring any change to the extent of access granted on 
the Danube since access to cross-border transport is already open to all under the Belgrade 
Convention. It is however relevant for its definition of the link between the vessel and a 
Member State. 

Serbia, Ukraine and Moldova are also Danube riparian states and have been candidates for 
EU membership since 2012 and 2022, respectively, and as such are also in the process of 
aligning their legal regime to the EU acquis. The alignment of the IWT legal regime to the 
EU  acquis  by  Serbia,  Ukraine  and  Moldova  is  ongoing  in  the  context  of  the  Treaty 
establishing the Transport Community506 (TC Treaty), rather than in the context of a Free 
Trade Agreement. The aim of the TC Treaty is the creation of a Transport Community in 
the field of transport507; the Transport Community is based on the progressive integration of 
transport markets of the Western Balkan Parties into the EU transport market on the basis 
of relevant acquis, including the Group 2 legislation508. 

Looking to the future, legislation in Group 2 will continue to be relevant, assuring equal 
access rights to operators of future new Member States in the context of future enlargements. 

To conclude, the objectives of the Group 2 legal acts corresponded well to the sector’s needs 
arising  from  developments  of  the  EU  IWT  market,  including  from  the  successive 
enlargements,  as  they  ensured  equal,  non-discriminative  access  to  the  market  and 
contributed to implementing the common transport policy as in Art 90 of TFEU. This is also 
shown in the Figure 22 below. 

Figure 22: Relevance of legislation in Group 2 today (n = 14)509 

504 regulation of cabotage is a national competence according to the Belgrade Convention 
505 Interview with the Danube Commission Secretariat, June 2021. 
506  Treaty  establishing  the  Transport  Community  signed  on  9th  of  October  2017  (Council  Decision  (EU) 

2019/392). 

507 road, rail, inland waterway and maritime transport 
508 See Annex I.5 Rules applicable to IWT, of the Treaty establishing the Transport Community 
509  For  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1356/96  and  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3921/91  the  number  of 
responses received is 14. For Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 the number of responses received is 16.  

124 

 
 
 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), based on public consultation. 

25. To what extent are the scope and the requirements for the access to the occupation 
of carrier, laid down in the Directive, still relevant to address the current and future 
expected needs of the sector, particularly in view of a modern, digitalised,  safe and 
environmental-friendly inland waterborne transport?  

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC   

The  Group  3  legislation,  the  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  plays  a  key  role  in  the 
implementation of the principle ‘freedom to provide services’ under Art 56 of TFEU, as 
well  as  Art  95  of  TFEU,  which  prohibits  discrimination  in  transport,  therefore  it  is  still 
relevant. 

Prior to Council Directive 87/540/EEC on access to the occupation, Member States used to 
have their own requirements, differing among countries. Thanks to the Council Directive 
87/540/EEC it is possible to require a minimum level of knowledge of the market and of the 
functioning  of  the  sector,  as  well  as  horizontal  knowledge  on  legislation  or  finances, 
allowing the introduction of prospective entrepreneurs with a certain level of service and 
knowledge, resulting in the reduction of risk of business failure. These are regarded essential 
elements  for  this  small  sector  and  also  contribute  its  resilience  by  making  sure  that 
entrepreneurs have a solid background knowledge and a higher chance to succeed at their 
business.  

This Directive is considered relevant by operators’ representatives and by some Member 
States510. However, the list of subjects where knowledge should be proven for entrepreneurs 
does not contain newly emerged knowledge fields such as digitalisation or skills related to 
clean technologies, therefore it needs  to  be updated to  improve its relevance for the 21st 
century.  

Common  rules  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  diplomas  and  other  qualifications  are  also 
relevant. About 6-14 certificates are issued per year per Member State on average, and there 
are also cases of replacements/reclassifications and extensions511. 

The  Directive  currently  is  not  regulating  the  access  to  the  profession  for  carriers  of 
passenger transport, although this segment of the market constitutes an important share of 
the market – and a growing one. 

According to a respondent in the public consultation512, the Council Directive ‘is generally 
well accepted by inland waterway operators, […]. It makes it possible to require a minimum 
level  of  knowledge  of  the  market  and  of  the  functioning  of  the  sector,  allowing  the 
introduction  of  new  players  with  a  high  level  of  service  and  avoiding  the  creation  of 
ephemeral undertakings which are likely to artificially disrupt the supply […], the market 
and the prices charged. (These are) essential elements for a limited sector in size and (in 
terms of number of) actors. The stability of inland waterway transport is an essential element 
in the functioning of the economy’. 

This Directive is considered relevant by EBU representing IWT operators513 as well as the 

510 2024 gap filling survey 
511 AT reported approximately 12 cases of replacements/reclassifications and extensions annually 
512 Stakeholder Consultation Report p58 
513 2024 gap filling survey 

125 

 
 
French sectoral association514. HU MoT515 has expressed that the scheme for professional 
competence  of  an  IWT  freight  carrier  has  somewhat  improved  in  comparison  with  the 
situation prior to Council Directive 87/540/EEC, while AT MoT has expressed that in case 
the scheme for professional competence of an IWT freight carrier were not in place today, 
it would result in higher risk for distortion of competition.  

EBU  stated  in  their  feedback  that  the  Directive’s  relevance  lies  in  its  introduction  of  a 
quality standard for access to the occupation. Despite its relevance, when asked if the list of 
topics  for  which  proof  of  professional  competence  must  be  provided  is  accurate,  5 
respondents stated to a large or to some extent, 3 responded “to no extent”, while 6 of 14 
national authorities having responded to the targeted survey stated that they did not know. 
The  stakeholders  specified  that  the  list  as  stated  in  the  Annex  of  the  Council  Directive 
87/540/EEC does not cover needs that have arisen since its adoption, namely knowledge on 
sustainability, digitalisation, and automation.  

Concerning the evolution of conditions for accessing the occupation of IWT freight carriers, 
the  survey  responses  were  divided.  33%  of  the  stakeholders  responding  to  the  targeted 
survey agreed with the statement that conditions for accessing the occupation of IWT freight 
carriers have changed over time, whereas 20% consider that no changes have taken place, 
as reflected in Figure 23 below.  

Figure 23: Changes in conditions for accessing the occupation of IWT freight carrier over time 
(N=15) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), based on Survey. 

32. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - How well do the original objectives of setting-
up a Community-fleet  capacity policy through the  establishment of  national  Inland 
Waterways Funds, including Reserve Funds, correspond to the current situation and 
needs of the IWT sector and of the wider society?  

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999  

Original objectives of setting up a Community-fleet capacity policy 

Group 4 legislation was relevant at the time of its adoption: during the period when the fleet 
capacity policy contained in Council Regulation  (EC) 718/1999 was active (29/4/1999  – 
28/4/2003) and during its predecessor Regulation 1101/89, the IWT market has lost some 
of its structural overcapacity on the Rhine and on other waterways, and to a limited extent 

514 Submitted document by the Entreprises Fluviales de France (public consultation) 
515 MoT: Ministry of Transport 

126 

 
 
 
on  the  Danube,  in  Austria.  Old  and  outdated  vessels  were  taken  out  of  the  market  and 
replaced  by  modern  vessels.  While  in  the  20th  century  support  measures  regarding 
overcapacity were seen as a rather common measure, such measures are far less needed in 
the 21st century. The market is better positioned to face challenges, such as the financial 
crisis  of  2008,  or  the  replacement  of  single-hull  tankers  with  double-hull  tankers,  etc. 
Therefore, since 29/4/2003 the capacity policy measures mentioned in Article 1 of Council 
Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are no longer active as an ongoing mechanism. 

Group  4  legislation516  also  provides  a  legal  basis  for  structural  improvement  measures  - 
including scrapping old vessels - in case of serious market disturbances of the sector beyond 
the period mentioned above for capacity measures. While this safety mechanism has not 
been triggered so far, it remains a useful mechanism that can be activated to strengthen the 
resilience of the sector,  as overcapacity remains  a real  and significant  challenge that the 
IWT sector could face in the future. As mentioned in the Sustainable and Smart Mobility 
Strategy517 , the resilience against future crises is a key objective of the EU’s transport policy 
going forward.  

Current situation and needs of the IWT sector and the wider society 

In the 21st century, the sector is transitioning from a capacity-driven to an efficiency-driven 
structure;  facing  new  needs  and  skills  such  as  knowledge  of  logistics,  encouraging 
adaptation to technical progress including environmentally-friendly vessels. In response to 
these changes, the Regulation evolved: in 2013 its Article 8 was amended to include these 
points and list of measures extended to allow reserve funds to be used for new trends and 
needs in the IWT sector.  

The available amounts in the IW Funds518 of Member States are relatively small compared 
to the sector’s size and the funding required to tackle challenges like greening or a scrapping 
round  of  outdated  vessels.  However,  according  to  Member  States519,  the  IWT  Platform 
currently financed by the IW Funds - remains a relevant structure. 

In its contribution to the public consultation, the French administration commented that the 
focus nowadays should lay on reducing the lifetime of the vessels in order to reduce IWT’s 
impact on the climate, rather than reducing the capacity of the fleet, while a French sectoral 
association520 underlined the relevance of the legislation in Group 4 and pleaded to maintain 
the provision on serious market disturbances. 

The existence of legislation related to serious market disturbances beyond the IWT sector, 
in  other  land  transport  modes  like  road  transport,  highlights  the  relevance  of  such 
mechanisms. 

In the most recent targeted survey, operator associations (EBU and ESO) expressed that this 
legislation  provides  the  means  to  take  measures  in  case  of  a  serious  disturbance  of  the 
market.  Such  safety  net  might  still  be  necessary  especially  in  the  future  where  inland 
shipping will experience the consequences of climate change.  

516 Art 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC and Art 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
517 SWD(2020) 331 final 
518 Table 3 in chapter 4.1.1 
519 AT, HR, DE, Lux and NL 
520 Submitted document by the Entreprises Fluviales de France (public consultation) 

127 

 
 
In the same survey, 5521 of the 5 Member States that responded to the question expressed 
that the IWT Platform is still relevant. HR highlighted that serious market disturbance in 
the  transport  market  in  inland  navigation  is  a  phenomenon  that  can  cause  a  serious  and 
possibly permanent excess of supply over demand. This represents a serious threat to the 
financial  stability  and  survival  of  a  large  number  of  carriers  in  inland  navigation  and 
highlights the need for the legislation in question.  

In  various  consultations,  EBU  underlined522  the  relevance  of  the  aim  and  scope  of  the 
Directive  and  remarked  the  continued  importance  of  the  crisis  mechanism,  as  it  can  be 
invoked in case of a serious market disturbance. While for the Regulation, EBU remarked523 
its  positive  contribution  to  the  competitiveness  of  IWT  sector  by  enabling  a  stronger 
positioning  of  the  sector  following  its  restructuring  that  was  needed  after  the  price 
liberalisation.  2  of  4  stakeholders  having  sent  feedback  to  the  roadmap  confirmed  the 
relevance  of  the  legislation,  stating  that  it  aims  to  reduce  sectoral  overcapacity  through 
vessel-scrapping  schemes  whilst  avoiding  excessive  social  costs.  During  their  scoping 
interview,  EBU  and  ESO  highlighted  that  the  relevance  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
718/1999 lies in its link to the reserve funds created in 1989. The Regulation was used to 
create the EU IWT Platform and the funds remain available to address sectoral needs.  

Answers to Evaluation Questions for the overall framework 

Effectiveness  

2. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework been effective 
and led to the establishment of a true internal market in IWT?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

The legal framework has been effective to a large extent, abolishing fixed pricing and other 
restrictive  practices,  reducing  structural  overcapacity  and  allowing  for  an  open  and 
harmonised market. All EU operators can provide IWT services under the same conditions 
across  the  EU  and  carriers  have  to  comply  with  harmonised  rules,  and  conditions  under 
which  carriers’  certificates  are  mutually  recognised  are  the  seme.  As  such,  the  original 
intentions of the legal acts have been fulfilled: EU has now an open, single market for IWT.  

This was confirmed by 38 of 41 responding SMEs during the SMEs survey524. 

In response to the public consultation (see Figure 13 in section 4.1.1), 10 respondents (67%) 
out of 15 were of the view that the legal framework contributed to a great or moderate extent 
towards the goal of ensuring non-discriminatory access within the single market, while 2 
respondents (13%) were of the view that it did not contribute to this goal. 12 (80%) out of 
15 respondents indicated a positive contribution regarding the freedom to provide services 
and 11 (73%) out of 15 a positive contribution regarding the opening and liberalization of 
the market. 7 (50%) of 15 respondents answered positively that the framework contributed 
to improving the competitiveness and structural improvement/modernisation of the sector, 

521 AT, HR, DE, Lux and NL 
522  Feedback  on  the  roadmap  and  in  the  gap  filling  survey  operators’  associations,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
523 gap filling survey operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
524 During the SMEs survey, 38 of 41 SMEs that responded (93%) agreed or even strongly agreed with the 
statement  that  the  internal  market  legislation  for  IWT  has  led  to  a  single  market  in  Europe  in  which  free 
movement of goods across EU countries is ensured. 

128 

 
 
while 5 (33%) out of 15 respondents found that the legal framework did not contribute to 
improving the competitiveness of IWT compared to other transport modes and did not result 
in a structural improvement or modernization of the sector. 

3. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework contributed to 
the  objectives  of  the  EU  IWT  policy,  as  laid  down  in  the  NAIADES  action 
programmes?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

NAIADES  is  EC’s  strategic  action  programme  for  IWT,  derived  from  Navigation  And 
Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe. Three subsequent programmes and 
actions  plans  have  been  published  so  far.  Actions  can  be  classified  in  legislative, 
coordination,  and  support  measures525,  recommendations  for  action  to  be  taken  by  the 
European  Union,  Member  States  and  other  parties  concerned.  The  Internal  Market 
Legislative Framework contributed to the NAIADES action programmes, and vice-versa. 

The NAIADES526 programme spanned from 2006 to 2013, focusing on five strategic areas: 
Market, Fleet, Jobs and Skills, Image, and Infrastructure. For market access, the primary 
goals were to attract new markets, foster entrepreneurship, and enhance the administrative 
and regulatory frameworks. A significant milestone occurred in 2008 with the amendment 
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 with the Council Regulation (EC) No 569/2008, 
which  simplified  administrative  procedures  by  reducing  the  information  required  in 
transport  documents.  In  2013,  the  European  Commission  conducted  a  consultation527  to 
explore  why  the  Reserve  Funds  as  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999  remained 
underutilized. 

 NAIADES II528, 'Towards Equality in Inland Waterway Transport,' ran from 2014 to 2020. 
This program expanded its focus to six key areas: Quality Infrastructure, Quality through 
Innovation, Smooth Functioning of the Market, Environmental Quality via Low Emissions, 
Skilled Workforce and Quality Jobs, and Integration of Inland Waterway Transport into the 
Multimodal Logistics Chain529. The 'Smooth Functioning of the Market' initiative built upon 
the Market area objectives from NAIADES I. In this context in 2014, Council Regulation 
(EC) No 718/1999 was amended530, broadening the list of potential Member State measures 
–  from  the  Reserve  Fund  –  to  include  greening,  innovation,  and  skills  development  in 
logistics, while also allowing interaction with other funding instruments531. The Combined 
Transport  Directive  also  underwent  evaluation  in  2016532.  Moreover,  in  2017,  the 
establishment of the 'European Inland Waterways Transport Platform' (IWT Platform) was 
established  from  the  Inland  Waterways  Reserve    Funds.  The  IWT  Platform  aligns  with 
Article  8  of  the  amended  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999.  Finally,  in  2019,  the 

525 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0006:FIN:EN:PDF. 
526 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0006 
527 The Commission launched a consultation on 11 April 2013 on the reasons why the Reserve Funds had 
never been used.   
528https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/inland-waterways/promotion-inland-waterway-
transport/naiades-ii_en  
529 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0623:FIN:EN:PDF.  
530 via Regulation (EU) No 546/2014  
531 See also EQ33 
532 Staff Working Document Refit Ex-Post Evaluation of Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC Final 
Report, SWD(2016) 140 final 

129 

 
 
Roadmap (Call for evidence)533 for the market access fitness check was published, followed 
by the publication of the eFTI Regulation534 in 2020. 

The  current  NAIADES  III535,  'Boosting  Future-Proof  European  Inland  Waterway 
Transport,' covers the period from 2021 to 2027. Its core objectives are to increase freight 
transport via inland waterways and set the sector on an irreversible path to zero emissions, 
supported by a paradigm shift  towards digitalization. The  related Action Plan includes a 
review to ensure market access legislation for inland waterway transport remains fit-for-
purpose,  (indeed  as  a  follow  up  of  the  Roadmap  (Call  for  evidence)  published  under 
NAIADES II), ensuring a smooth and fair internal market. Since 2020, the eFTI framework 
has  seen  ongoing  legislative  development,  with  a  2027  deadline  for  eFTI  Regulation 
implementation.536  Additionally,  a  revision  of  the  Combined  Transport  Directive  was 
proposed in 2023. In 2024, EBU and ESO indicated their wish to prolong the financing of 
the IWT Platform. 

As demonstrated above, the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework has contributed to 
the  objectives  of  the  EU  IWT  policy,  as  laid  down  in  the  subsequent  NAIADES  action 
programmes.  

4. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework improved the 
level  playing  field  and competitiveness  of  the  inland  navigation  sector  compared  to 
other transport modes, contributing notably to the modal shift objectives of the EU 
transport policy?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

IWT  handles  0.8%  of  the  EU  external  trade  (imports  and  exports)  in  terms  of  weight. 
Despite its geographically limited and focused network, it offers an important alternative to 
transport via road or rail for the European hinterland regions closest to inland waterways. 
Therefore,  IWT  is  mainly  in  competition  and  often  classified  along  with  land  transport 
modes537, covering 4.9% of inland freight traffic538 and 0.01% of inland waterway passenger 
traffic. Given the negligible size of inland waterway passenger traffic the analysis focuses 
on freight transport.  

Thanks  to  Group  1  legislation  discriminatory  and  fixed  rates  and  certain  commercially 
restrictive practices were eliminated, resulting in an open, competitive single market, and 
based on an interview, it is estimated to have resulted in a sharp price decrease539 after the 
implementation of the legislation.  

Group 4 legislation restricted the unnecessary increase of capacity while renewing the fleet 

533https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11874-Fitness-check-on-market-
access-in-Inland-waterway-transport 
534 Electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) Regulation (EU) 2020/1056  
535 NAIADES III: Boosting future-proof European inland waterway transport; EUR-Lex  - 52021DC0324  - 
EN - EUR-Lex  
536 Electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
537 European Commission (2016), Staff Working Document Refit Ex-Post Evaluation of Combined 
Transport Directive 92/106/EEC Final Report, SWD(2016) 140 final 
538 Source: EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu) 
539 This led to a drop in prices by 60% for coal products, 40% for bulk cargo. based on interview 12 conducted 
in the course of the support study with the representative of Rhine operators and German Commissar to the 
CCNR representing the profession, working for the Port of Rotterdam, on 3 May 2021. 

130 

 
 
and removed older vessels from operating. The legislation540 continues to provide a legal 
basis  for  structural  improvement  measures  in  case  of  serious  market  disturbances  of  the 
sector beyond the period of capacity measures. Even though the safety mechanism has not 
been triggered so far, it remains a useful mechanism that can be activated to strengthen the 
resilience of the sector, as overcapacity remains a risk that the IWT sector could face in the 
future.  

As  a  result  of  Group  1  and  4,  freight  tariffs  are  now  set  at  market  price,  and  the  sector 
modernised its fleet without increasing the overcapacity in the market, contributing to the 
overall  competitiveness  of  the  IWT  sector.  The  safety  mechanism  of  Group  4  supports 
overall resilience of the EU inland navigation market. 

Group 3 harmonised the rules for access to the occupation of IWT carrier of goods and the 
related knowledge requirements positively impact resilience of those carriers and the quality 
of services. Thanks to this legislation, it is possible to require a minimum level of knowledge 
of the market and of the functioning of the sector, as well as  a horizontal knowledge on 
legislation  or  finances.  This  allows  the  introduction  of  prospective  entrepreneurs  with  a 
certain  level  of  service  and  knowledge  and  reduces  the  risk  of  business  failure.  These 
elements are essential for this small sector as  they contribute to resilience by ensuring that 
entrepreneurs have a solid background knowledge and a higher chance to succeed at their 
business.  

Looking  at  other  modes  of  transport,  all  land  modes,  including  rail  and  road,  have 
qualifications  requirements in place for carriers. However, more requirements need to be 
fulfilled  to  become  a  road  transport  operator  than  an  operator  in  IWT.  Moreover,  the 
requirements  for road transport operators are more recent  and thereby  reflect  the current 
professional standards. In addition, the EU rules governing access to the profession of IWT 
carriers  are  set  out  in  a  directive,  resulting  in  diverse  implementation541  across  Member 
States  – a point also highlighted by a stakeholder542 during the public consultation. 

Based on the above we can conclude that the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework 
improved  the  level  playing  field  and  competitiveness  of  the  inland  navigation  sector 
compared to other transport modes, notably land modes. As mentioned in the Sustainable 
and Smart Mobility Strategy543, the resilience against future crises is a key objective of the 
EU’s  transport  policy  going  forward,  and  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative  Framework 
contributes to IWT’s resilience, too.  

However, this improvement is not reflected in the modal share of IWT, as the modal share 
in freight transport is influenced by factors beyond the existence of IWT Internal Market 
Legislative  Framework,  such  as  economic  factors,  developments  in  the  other  modes, 
environmental factors, infrastructure bottlenecks, or legislative aspects beyond legislation 
related to market access.  

540 Art 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC and Art 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
541 See Annex IX 
542 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF, submitted document at public consultation) 
543 SWD(2020) 331 final 

131 

 
 
Figure 24: Modal share of inland transport modes in the EU-27 (in %) 2009-2022544 

Source: CCNR Annual Market Observation Report – 2024, based on Eurostat [tran_hv_frmod] 

Over the last decade, modal shares have remained rather stable. As many EU countries do 
not have inland waterways, the overall modal share of IWT at the EU level should not 
be used as a performance indicator for the success of inland waterway transport in the 
EU. In order to measure the success of IWT in the transport market, it is better to look at 
the  modal  split  evolution  of  IWT  in  countries  where  there  is  a  sufficiently  dense  inland 
waterway  network,  such  as  in  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  or  Germany,  or  where  inland 
navigation  has 
in  many 
Danube countries545. 

important  for  goods 

traditionally  been 

transport,  as 

Modal  split  shares  of  inland  waterway  transport  (IWT)  in  main  IWT  countries  have 
decreased in  the last  decade.  In the Netherlands,  the modal split  share of  IWT increased 
until 2012, to reach a peak at 47.2%. It decreased in the following years, reaching 41.0% in 
2022. This decline also took place in Germany, as the IWT modal share fell below the 7.0% 
mark for the first time since 2005. Within Danube countries, Romania and Bulgaria record 
high  IWT  modal  shares.  However,  after  a  first  decrease  in  2021,  both  sustained  another 
strong  decrease  in  their  IWT  modal  shares  in  2022  reaching  respectively  20.5%  (-4.6 
percentage points lost to road) and 16.6% (-7.8 percentage points lost to both road and rail). 
Looking at  data on Member State level  (see  Figures  below), the modal share of  IWT in 
terms of freight volumes has been decreasing in all Rhine countries over the past decades. 
In Danube countries, however the modal share fluctuated over the years, mostly because the 
volumes of transported goods over inland waterways are highly dependent on navigational 
conditions throughout the year. 

544 CCNR Annual Market Observation Report - 2024 
545 CCNR Annual Market Observation Report - 2024 

132 

 
 
 
 
Figure 25: Modal share of IWT in Rhine countries 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on Eurostat TRAN_HV_FRMOD. 

Figure 26: Modal share of IWT in Danube countries (EU-27 and in which the modal share is 
above >1%) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on Eurostat TRAN_HV_FRMOD. 

Pro Danube confirms the decreasing IWT share over the years compared to other transport 
modes, despite the successes of waterway managers in terms of good fairway conditions. It 
is estimated that only 10% of the current capacity is used, so there would be potential for 
moving goods from other modes. One of the reasons for the decreasing  numbers is that, 
mostly “in the past 15-20 years, the unpredictability of the waterways was very high. The 

133 

 
 
 
logistics decision makers do not trust IWT as a reliable mode and most of them even do not 
have IWT on their menu of choice anymore”546. 

Another reason for the decreasing modal share of IWT mentioned by Pro Danube is that the 
ports  are  not  well  designed  –  both  infrastructurally  and  operationally  –  to  optimally  use 
inland waterways. Examples are shallow waters (lower than fare depth on the river itself) 
and limited opening hours.  

A third reason hampering IWT highlighted by Pro Danube is the limited availability of crew. 
“Good  people  are  recruited  for  other  flags  such  as  Dutch  and  German  flags.  It  is  very 
difficult for the Danube flags to recruit the good people.” 

Legislative aspects beyond legislation related to market access 

The different transport modes have different legal regimes in Europe. Some legislation is 
applicable horizontally, such as Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 which is applicable 
to  freight  transport  by  land  modes,  but  for  most  other  matters  in  the  different  modes  of 
transport  different  rules  apply.  An  example  mentioned  by  EBU-ESO547  is  that  in  the 
Combined  Transport  Directive548,  it  is  stated  that  Member  States  must  subsidise 
combinations of rail and road, whilst for other modal combinations, this is an option. This 
is a disadvantage to the IWT sector compared to the rail and road sector.  

Besides  the  differences  on  European  level,  there  are  national  differences  as  well.  As  an 
example, EBU-ESO mentions that “the market for inland navigation has been liberalised 
but  that  this  has  not  been  done  for  rail,  as  a  lot  of  rail  companies  are  still  state-owned. 
However,  the  competitive  advantage  of  these  state-owned  companies  vis-à-vis  other 
transport modes which are liberalised is difficult to prove”549.  

Environmental factors 

Generally, inland navigation can be seen as a very reliable mode, however, the infrastructure 
is more vulnerable to climate change than other modes, because of the sector’s reliance on 
water levels. Extreme weather conditions influence the water levels both ways: exceeding 
the maximum permitted levels and droughts. Both extremes make inland waterway transport 
difficult.550 

Europe was strongly impacted from long periods of drought and low water levels in 2018. 
The  impact  of  the  extreme  drought  on  transport  activity  varied  among  river  basins.  The 
impact  was  particularly  pronounced  on  the  Rhine,  on  its  tributaries,  on  the  Upper  and 
Middle Danube, and on the Upper and Middle Elbe.551 

546 Interview with Pro Danube on 22 February 2022. 
547 Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, p 85 
548 Art 6 Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain 
types of combined transport of goods between Member States 
549 Interview with EBU-ESO on 10 March 2022. 
550 Jonkeren, O., Rietveld, P., & van Ommeren, J. (2007), Christodoulou, A., Christidis, P., & Bisselink, B. 
(2020). 
551 CCNR (2019). 

134 

 
 
Infrastructural factors 

Also, the Danube region is subject to different infrastructural preconditions. Navigation on 
this network is somewhat more limited than the Rhine due to its sharp river bends and broad 
sections that tend to create fords and sand bars in the riverbed.552 Besides, because of the 
limited  tributary  network,  several  Danube  countries  face  difficulties  to  integrate  IWT  in 
multimodal supply chains due to relatively longer pre- and end- haulage by road or even rail 
in  comparison  to  Rhine  countries.  These  infrastructural  preconditions  cause  the  inland 
navigation in the Danube region to have a lower share of national modal split figures in 
terms  of  transported  volumes.  When  looking  into  modal  split  in  terms  of  freight  ton-
kilometres, Romania (28%) and Bulgaria (32%) are exceptions due to the transport of bulk 
goods over a relatively long distance. 

Modernisation: digitalisation and greening 

The  EICB  explains  that  the  “other  modalities  move  faster  compared  to  digitalisation 
compared to IWT. The sector will not / does not agree with an increase in costs resulting 
from greening and digitalising of the IWT sector, because this would be unfair compared to 
other transport modes. However, IWT is still very cheap compared to other modes and the 
price elasticity is often underestimated. However, it is difficult to identify the link between 
all of the above and the legislative framework.”553  

In 2022, inland waterway is  one of  the most CO2-efficient  transport modes per tonne of 
goods  carried.  To  reduce  CO2  emissions  from  transport,  the  European  Commission  is 
seeking a modal shift of freight transport to rail and inland shipping.554 However, the inland 
waterway sector is characterised by SME’s using vessels and engines with a long lifespan 
with  large  investments,  which  makes  greening  by  modernisation  of  the  fleet  difficult.555 
Road  transport  typically  has  shorter  lifespans  of  equipment  and  requires  smaller 
investments.556 Therefore, road transport can respond to the greening challenge in a faster 
and cheaper way. 

To conclude, while the IWT Framework on market access has made freight transport more 
competitive by creating a level playing field and increasing competition in the market, and 
therefore  contributed  to  the  transport  policy  objectives  of  making  transport  more 
sustainable, its primary objective is not related to modal shift. Modal shift is significantly 
affected by further factors which  go beyond the  remit  of the  IWT framework on market 
access.  

552 www.danubecommission.org/dc/de/die-donauschifffahrt/540-2/. 
553 Interview with EICB on 3 March 2022. 
554 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698918/EPRS_BRI(2022)698918_EN.pdf. 
555 https://www.ebu-uenf.org/wp-content/uploads/IWT-sectors-input-priorities-and-ambition-20201123.pdf. 
556 https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/transportation-modes-modal-competition-modal-shift/. 

135 

 
 
5.  a)  To  what  extent  has  the  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative  Framework  been 
effective in countering adverse effects on the sector due to the COVID-19 pandemic? 
b)  Have  there  been  unintended  effects,  such  as  unfair  competition  practices  or 
discrimination?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

The impact of COVID-19 

UNECE concluded in 2020 that the IWT sector has been impacted in the following ways:557  

-  Reduction  in  freight  volumes  at  all  levels,  as  a  result  of  reduced/stopped  industrial 
production; substantial decline in freight volumes due to a major drop in demand; 

-  Serious disruption of logistics flows, in particular border controls, entry bans, lack of 

crew and available infrastructure; 

-  Dramatic decrease in passenger numbers due to the standstill in tourism. 

Reduction in freight volumes  

With regards to freight transport, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was dependent on 
type of goods and on location. On the traditional Rhine, mostly coal, iron ore and metals 
decreased from 2019 to 2020. Because of the decrease in the demand for cargo transport 
due to COVID-19, transport prices also decreased significantly. This double effect led to a 
decrease in turnover of 65%.558  

However, it is  important to  note that the COVID-19 crisis  is  not  the only reason  for the 
declines observed in the IWT sector, which are also explained by seasonal effects and the 
structural change in the energy sector.559 After the macroeconomic and world trade decline 
that started in 2017 and the low water year in 2018, steel related transport decreased. The 
COVID  crisis  then  provoked  a  sharp  decrease  in  automobile  and  steel  production  and 
therefore a drop in related transport demand. Combined with energy transition, this explains 
why the sharpest decreases within Rhine transport in 2020 were seen for coal (-23.8%), iron 
ore  (-14.2%)  and  metals  (-14.6%).560  Agribulk  and  food  products  increased  by  10.7%, 
which is closely correlated with harvest results. The explanation for this growth is indeed 
found in the higher grain volumes harvested in Europe.561  

It  can  be  concluded  that  there  has  been  an  impact  of  COVID-19  on  transport  volumes, 
dependent on the type of goods and on location. However, parallel developments also play 
a role in changes in transport volumes. 

Serious disruption in logistical flows 

ABN AMRO published a paper on the impact of COVID-19 on the transport and logistics 
sector (2020) and concluded that one of the major impacts of COVID-19 sector is the serious 

557 https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2020/sc3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-2020-inf_07e.pdf. 
558 Interview EBU-ESO on 10 March 2022. 
559 Informal document SC.3 No. 7 (2020) Working Party on Inland Water Transport Sixty-fourth session 
Item 4 (a) of the provisional agenda Transmitted by ERSTU. Consulted via: 
https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2020/sc3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-2020-inf_07e.pdf. 
560 CCNR (2021b). 
561 Interview EBU-ESO on 10 March 2022. 

136 

 
 
disruption  of  flows  due  to,  among  other  things,  border  controls  and  entry  bans.562  The 
Commission also stated that “The COVID-19 outbreak is having a major disruptive impact 
on European transport and mobility. The European supply chain is maintained through an 
extensive network of freight transport services, including all modes of transport. Continued 
and uninterrupted land, maritime and air cargo services are of key strategic importance for 
the whole EU. Land-based supply chains, particularly road, which today accounts for 75 % 
of freight transport, have been particularly severely affected by the introduction of entry 
bans at internal land borders, and/or restrictions on professional drivers accessing certain 
Member States. Waiting times on some recent days, at certain internal EU borders, went 
beyond 24 hours, even for medical supplies.”563  

According to the European Commission, “In order to avoid shortages and avoid that the 
social  and  economic  difficulties  that  all  European  countries  are  already  experiencing 
worsen,  maintaining  the  functioning  of  the  Single  Market  is  key.  Member  States  should 
therefore  not  undertake  measures  that  jeopardise  the  integrity  of  the  Single  Market  for 
goods, in particular of supply chains, or engage in any unfair practices.”564 This shows that 
, even in  times of crisis, the single market  must be guaranteed. To mitigate the negative 
impact  and  to  make  sure  that  all  freight  vehicles  and  drivers  are  treated  in  a  non-
discriminatory manner, the Commission introduced ‘green lane’ border crossings. “Passing 
through these ‘green lane’ border crossings, including any checks and screenings, should 
not exceed 15 minutes. Additional border crossings should be opened, focused exclusively 
on goods passage, if those on the TEN-T Network are saturated.” In practice, at these green 
lane border crossings, procedures should be minimised and streamlined to what is strictly 
necessary. Drivers of freight vehicles do not have to produce any document other than their 
identification  and  driving  licence  (and  if  necessary  a  standard  template  letter  from  the 
employer), where the electronic submission/display of documents are sufficient. While the 
green lane border crossings were also applicable to vessels, the importance was less, as IWT 
had not experienced exaggerated checks at borders. 

According to the Robert Schuman Foundation, the green lanes helped trade to continue to 
flow  smoothly,  in  particular  by  limiting  checks  and  health  examinations  for  transport 
workers  to  15  minutes.565  This  indicates  that  this  measure  taken  by  the  Commission  to 
minimise  the  COVID-19  impact  on  trade  flows,  was  effective.  Also,  the  IWT  platform 
welcomed the initiative of the Commission which calls upon Member States to “guarantee 
an unhampered safe movement of crew members to ensure adequate movement of goods 
and essential staff”.566 

In addition, in March 2020, the CCNR announced to have taken exceptional measures in 
relation to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure a good performance of Rhine navigation and 
that the supply chain continues to operate. The resolution567 came into force immediately. 

562 https://www.abnamro.nl/nl/media/Ondernemen-in-tijden-van-corona-Transport-en-Logistiek-2_tcm16-
68906.pdf. 
563 European Commission (2020). Communication from the Commission on the implementation of the Green 
Lanes under the Guidelines for border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of 
goods and essential services 2020/C 96 I/01; 
564 European Commission (2020). COVID-19 - Guidelines for border management measures to protect health 
and ensure the availability of goods and essential services 2020/C 86 I/01; 
565 Robert Schuman Foundation (2021). COVID-19 crisis and European mobility: What lessons? What future? 
European  Issue  n°604,  retrieved  from:  https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/0604-covid-19-
crisis-and-european-mobility-what-lessons-what-future 
566 https://www.inlandwaterwaytransport.eu/wp-content/uploads/IWT-Platform-2020-Annual-Report.pdf. 
567 https://www.inlandwaterwaytransport.eu/wp-content/uploads/IWT-Platform-2020-Annual-Report.pdf. 

137 

 
 
In addition to infrastructure management and the validity of certificates and attestations, this 
resolution  provides  for  measures  ensuring  free  movement  of  crew.  A  crew  member 
certificate of attestation will be provided in the annex to the resolution.568 The IWT platform 
stated  that  they  welcome  this  resolution,  indicating  that  the  measures  are  considered  are 
helpful in tackling the crisis.569  

To  conclude,  the  impact  in  terms  of  serious  disruptions  in  logistics  flows  has  been 
minimised  by  the  effective  intervention  of  both  the  Commission  (by  introducing  green 
lanes) and the CCNR (measures ensuring free movement of crew).  

Decrease in passenger numbers 

Passenger transport was  affected hugely  by the COVID-19 pandemic, since no traveling 
was allowed. Everywhere in Europe, passenger transport almost came to a standstill in the 
first half of 2020.570 River cruises were heavily affected by this: “As a direct consequence 
of the pandemic, the number of cruise vessel voyages decreased by 91% on the Danube, 
82% on the Rhine and 70% on the Mosel in 2020.”571  

In  2022  the  river  cruise  sector  was  on  the  path  to  recovery,  with  values  similar  to,  and 
sometimes higher than, pre-pandemic levels concerning vessels’ movements. Figures are 
also  on  the  rise  regarding  the  number  of  passengers  embarking  on  river  cruises  and  the 
passenger capacity utilisation rates of vessels.572  

It can be concluded that the passenger transport sector took a big hit because of COVID-19. 
However, as measures were lifted, the volumes also recovered. 

IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework  

Council Directive 96/75/EC Article 7 contains a legal basis for suitable measures to be taken 
- at the request of a Member State - in the event of a serious market disturbance. However, 
the  legislation  further  specifies  that  ‘serious  market  disturbance’  shall  mean573  the 
emergence, in the inland waterway transport market, of problems specific to that market. 
The COVID-19 crisis could not be regarded as an issue specific to IWT, consequently the 
mechanism was not requested by Member States during the COVID-19 crisis.  

Responses  from  the  sector  are  divided:  in  the  public  consultation  36%  argue  that  the 
framework provides a basis to face this challenge and 57% does not think so. In the Danube 
workshop574, 43% thinks that the European internal market legislation was/is well equipped 
to  adapt  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In  the  survey,  53%  thinks  that  public  intervention 
measures should be put in place to respond to an external economic shock such as COVID-
19, either by Member State or EU.  

To conclude, for freight transport, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was dependent 
on type of goods and on location. However, passenger transport was affected hugely by the 

568  https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/covid19/pre20_18nl_final.pdf  (available  in  Dutch,  French  and 
German, link refers to the Dutch version). 
569 https://www.inlandwaterwaytransport.eu/wp-content/uploads/IWT-Platform-2020-Annual-Report.pdf. 
570 https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2020/sc3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-2020-inf_07e.pdf. 
571 https://inland-navigation-market.org/chapitre/7-passenger-transport/?lang=en. 
572 CCNR (2023). Market Observation - Annual Report 2023. Inland navigation in Europe; 
573 Article 1 of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
574 Danube workshop, 20 January 2022 

138 

 
 
COVID-19 pandemic and came to a standstill in the first half of 2020. River cruises were 
heavily  affected  by  the  restrictions  of  travel.  In  this  context,  the  IWT  Internal  Market 
Legislative Framework did not have a direct specific effect, however earlier positive impact 
of the Framework - improved resilience and competitiveness of the sector - were useful in 
this  difficult  period.  There  had  not  been  reports  of  unintended  effects,  such  as  unfair 
competition practices or discrimination. Finally, the sector could not draw on the Article 7 
Council Directive 96/75/EC for a serious market disturbance, as the legislation restricts the 
use  of  that  mechanism  in  situations  of  serious  disturbance  specifically  in  the  inland 
waterway transport market. The COVID-19 crisis could not be regarded as an issue specific 
to  IWT,  consequently  the  mechanism  was  not  activated  by  Member  States  during  the 
COVID-19 crisis. 

36.  Has  the  implementation  of  the  legal  acts  (in  scope)  revealed  any  other  negative 
impacts or issues not covered under any of the other evaluation questions?  

Horizontal evaluation question – all seven legal acts  

Stakeholders  were  consulted  at  multiple  occasions  whether  they  see  any  other  negative 
impacts  other  than  the  impacts  that  were  discussed.  Consultations  did  not  reveal  any 
negative impacts beyond those already covered under other evaluation questions. EBU and 
ESO indicated that they were initially afraid that the enlargement of the internal market to 
the  Danube  would  result  in  an  influx  of  old  ships  on  the  Rhine.  This  could  have  been 
considered  an  unintended  and  negative  effect  since  this  would  deteriorate  the  European 
policy of modernisation of the IWT fleet.  However, the opposite has occurred, since the 
enlargement of the EU towards the Danube caused an acceleration of replacing older vessels 
with newer vessels on the Danube. As such, the concern of this negative impact due to the 
enlargement of the EU does not seem to have materialised. 

One  specific  negative  impact  has  been  covered  by  another  evaluation  question,  which  
revealed that the fact that Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 is used to check which 
cargo is transported to which location, rather than used to check for transport tariffs and 
conditions.  

However, data obtained from different sources did not confirm this. In a 2022 online survey 
of Members States authorities related to enforcement procedures, conducted in the context 
of eFTI initiative575, 5 of 9 respondents said that rates and conditions are checked in IWT. 
A collection of use cases on enforcement procedures in the context of eFTI initiative also 
confirmed that rates and conditions are checked systematically (i.e. all 10 IWT inspection 
cases mentioned it)576. 

The  SME  survey577  also  delivered  feedback  on  enforcement,  namely  on  whether 
administrations check transport documents kept onboard of the vessel for transport rates and 
conditions, to see whether prices are based on fair price competition and non-discrimination, 
as stipulated in Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. Out of 41 SMEs that responded to the survey, 
21 (51%) said authorities do not check transport documents578, while 3 (7%) responded that 

575 Survey on enforcement procedures (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex III: Online survey on enforcement procedures).  
576  Overview  of  the processes  and  procedures  performed  by different national  competent authorities  when 
checking regulatory information under the scope of the eFTI Regulation (EFTI-D1.2.5). It contains 10 use 
cases for IWT from AT, FR, HU, LT, LU, RO, SI and NL. 
577 Dedicated SME survey, conducted with the support of the European Enterprise Network in 2022.  
578 In the Netherlands, Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Slovak Republic, Belgium, 
France, Luxembourg, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine and Switzerland.  

139 

 
 
authorities do check transport documents579. The remaining 17 (41%) SMEs indicated ‘do 
not know’.  

EBU and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management explained580 that the 
Dutch water police uses transport documents also to verify freight of a ship (especially for 
substances  used  for  production  of  drugs).  While  EBU/ESO  complain  about  related 
administrative  burden,  the  Dutch  water  police581  defended  its  practice  regarding  crime 
detection and preventing terrorism.  Hungarian police582  also combines checks (including 
crew member qualification and technical vessel requirements). 

Efficiency 

6. To what extent has administrative costs and enforcement costs for authorities (e.g. 
issuing  of  documents  and  certificates,  enforcement,  administering  funds)  as  well  as 
compliance  and  administrative  costs  of  other  stakeholders  affected  by  the  IWT 
Internal Market Legislative Framework proportionate and necessary in relation to the 
outputs and results achieved?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

Not much data is available to assess the efficiency of the framework as several of the legal 
acts do not include monitoring requirements and only one includes reporting requirements. 
The  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  is  based  on  data  collected  through  the  fitness  check 
support study583, the public consultation and the SME survey. An additional outreach by the 
Commission  in  2024,  addressed  operators’  associations  and  administrations,  to  fill  data 
gaps, collect further evidence and quantify costs, efforts and benefits of implementing the 
legislation. However, this has resulted in little additional evidence. 

Pillar 1- Group 1 legislation 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 of Group 1 brings about costs for IWT operators 
and administrations, as well as benefits for IWT sector and all waterway users. These are 
discussed below, together with the simplification efforts. 

The Regulation (Article 6) requires a transport document for each consignment of goods, 
detailing the consignor's name and address, nature and weight of the goods, place and date 
of  acceptance,  place  of  delivery.  The  2008  amendment  of  the  Regulation584  reduced 
administrative burden by eliminating the obligation to create an additional document and 
allowing  enterprises  instead  to  use  a  national  transport  document,  a  company-related 
consignment note, a bill of lading or a multimodal document - if it contains the required 
information. According to the impact assessment accompanying the proposal of the eFTI 
Regulation it takes 15 minutes to fill paper documents for each shipment and the uptake of 

579 In Romania, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria. 
580 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations and Member States authorities, organised by the Commission 
in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
581 Based on an interview with the Dutch police in the context of the fitness check support study, checking the 
transport documents is usually only one of the activities during an inspection onboard, which might include 
also checking the manning requirements and sailing/resting times. The police do not check the documents for 
price discrimination; they check the transport document to see what freight is on board of a vessel.  
582 Interview with the Hungarian police in the context of the fitness check support study.  
583 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check - Support study on the access to and 
the functioning of the inland waterway transport market 
584 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 

140 

 
 
e-documents/information exchange in IWT is very low. The impact assessment estimated 
that  24  million  hours  were  spent  for  processing  freight  transport  information  needed  for 
national and international trips in 2018, leading to recurrent administrative costs for IWT 
operators of EUR 582 million. By 2030, these costs would amount to EUR 674 million585. 
Not  all  these  costs  are  attributed  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960,  but  stakeholders’ 
consultation activities did not provide evidence that could allow estimating its contribution 
to the costs.  

According to the SME survey, out of 41 SME respondents586, 19 (46%) experience no costs 
related to keeping transport documents on board, while 11 (27%) do experience costs and 
11  (27%)  do  not  know.  On  the  other  hand,  operators’  associations  (EBU,  ESO)  noted 
significant  to  medium  efforts  (not  further  quantified)  due  to  the  creation,  holding  and 
archiving of paper documents. Keeping transport documents for each consignment of goods 
in IWT results in vast amounts of paperwork, especially for container transport (i.e. a single 
container ship typically carries up to 200 containers). 7 (41%) of the 17 respondents to the 
targeted survey587 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and 
Port information systems588) as a means of simplification. The CCNR Secretariat also noted 
during the public consultation that ‘paper documents could be replaced by digital versions’. 
The  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI  Regulation589,  estimated  that  the  15 
minutes to fill paper documents for each shipment could be reduced to 5 minutes by using 
electronic  documents  under  eFTI  from  July  2027.  Thus,  when  considering  the 
implementation  of the eFTI Regulation  from  2027, the recurrent  administrative costs for 
IWT operators is projected at EUR 357 to 452 million in 2030590. As explained above, not 
all these costs are attributed to the Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, and they should thus be 
seen as the upper bound estimate.    

For public administrations, the costs relate to the control of transport documents. During the 
gap filling survey, organised by the Commission in 2024, Member States’ administrations 
mentioned that staff involved in checks on the spot (e.g. police) spend 60-90 minutes per 
check, while staff involved in the following up of infractions and penalties spend 90-480 
minutes per infraction. The recurrent administrative costs for public administrations could 
not be estimated because the stakeholders’ consultation activities provided little evidence 
on the number of inspections or controls, and no evidence on the number of infractions. In 
addition, as explained in section 4.1.1, the control of a vessel by enforcement authorities 
might also serve different aims and may be based on diverse legal bases. During the public 
consultation, 2 public authorities (PT, IT) have noted low to medium effort (time and/or 
money) to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, while BG did not know. During the 
targeted survey591, one respondent from Luxemburg said the associated costs were ‘low’ 
(overall policing costs), while the Hungarian Police did not have specific data on costs of 
inspections, referring to them as being part of the state budget for law enforcement activities. 
The support study found no historical data available on whether Member States did actively 
check the transport documents for compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. 

585 SWD(2018) 183 final, p. 19, 28, 87. 
586 SME survey carried out in 2022. 
587 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
588  eFTI  stands  for  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  Regulation  and  RIS  for  River  Information 
Services Directive. 
589 SWD(2018) 183 final 
590  According  to  the  impact  assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  eFTI  Regulation,  the  administrative  costs 
savings for IWT operators are estimated at EUR 222 to 317 million in 2030 (33% to 47% reduction relative 
to the baseline costs). 
591 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 

141 

 
 
However,  the  evidence  collected  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  suggests  that  nowadays 
there are few inspections for compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960.592 

IWT  operators  are  also  expected  to  experience  recurrent  enforcement  costs  due  to 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960, for cooperation to inspections or controls. It was not possible 
to estimate such costs due to the lack of evidence. According to the SME survey, 21 out of 
41 (51%) respondents experience no such costs, 10 (24%) do experience costs related to 
inspections  to  check  transport  rates  and  conditions,  while  10  (24%)  respondents  did  not 
know.  Based on the findings of the support study few inspections are carried out to verify 
compliance  with  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  was  further  confirmed  with  the 
findings from the stakeholder consultation. Out of 41 responses to the SME panel, only 3 
respondents  indicated  that  authorities  check  transport  documents  for  transport  rates  and 
conditions to see whether prices are based on fair price competition and non-discrimination. 
Furthermore,  during  a  NAIADES  expert  group  meeting  organised  on  the  13  September 
2021,  8  respondents  out  of  19  respondents  indicated  that  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
11/1960 results in administrative burden for the sector. 

Benefits  for  IWT  operators593  relate  to  the  easiness  in  obtaining  insurance,  the  easier 
identification/designation of the liable party thanks to the obligatory transport document on 
board  of  the  vessel,  and  increased  safety  on  the  waterways  (i.e.  transport  document 
indicating dangerous cargo). The increased safety on the waterways benefits all waterway 
users including cargo and passenger vessels.  

During the public consultation, 8 out of 13 respondents indicated that Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 requires low or medium effort (time and/or money)594 to comply. In addition, 3 out 
of 13 respondents expressed the view that the perceived benefits are higher or of similar 
size with the efforts/costs and 3 that the benefits do not compensate the efforts/costs 595.  

Council  Directive  96/75/EC,  which  eliminated  national  rules  or  practices  impeding  the 
freedom of chartering and pricing, does not entail recurrent costs for IWT operators or 
public  administrations.  In  terms  of  benefits,  as  explained  in  section  4.1.1,  the  German 
abolishment  of  the  Festfrachten  system  of  minimum  prices  in  1994,  resulted  in  reduced 

592 There are inspections for other purposes but this question has been scoped to the inspections that are carried 
out to verify compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. 

593 During the targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study, 4 respondents 
out of 15 Member States that responded to the survey were of the view that it brings about increased safety on 
the waterways and 4 were of the view that it results in fairer competition, 6  were of the view that it results in 
easier identification/designation of liable party and 2 were of the view that it results in less discrimination in 
transport rates and conditions. As beneficiaries of these benefits, carriers, clients (passengers or shipper) and 
Member States administrations were mentioned.  
594 3 out of 13 respondents indicated significant effort (time and/or money) to comply with the Regulation, 2 
out of 13 respondents indicated medium effort, while 5 respondents indicated low effort for complying with 
the Regulation. 3 others indicated ‘do not know’ or ‘not applicable’.  
595 3 out of 13 respondents indicated that perceived benefits do not compensate efforts/costs, 1 indicated that 
perceived benefits and efforts/costs are of similar size and 2 indicated that perceived benefits are significantly 
larger than required efforts/costs for compliance with the Regulation. The rest did not know or responded ‘not 
applicable’. Among the public authorities that responded to the question on how benefits relate to effort and 
costs during the public consultation (4 public authorities), one said benefits and effort/costs are of a similar 
size  and  one  that  benefits  are  significantly  larger  than  the  required  effort/costs,  while  2  did  not  know  or 
indicated ‘not applicable’. 

142 

 
 
 
shipping prices by 60% for coal products and by 40% for bulk  cargo596. In addition, the 
abolishment  of  the  ‘Tour  de  Role’  system  led  to  annual  benefits  estimated  at  EUR  190 
million in the Netherlands alone597. The public consultation did not provide a clear view on 
whether overall benefits outweigh costs (including the one-off adjustment costs to phase out 
minimum  compulsory  tariffs  by  the  end  of  1998)598.  Further  efforts  to  gather  data  (as 
detailed in Annex V) did not provide better insights. 

Conclusion  on  efficiency  for  Group  1:  Council  Regulation  No  11/1960  brings  about 
recurrent  administrative  costs  for  IWT  operators  due  to  the  requirement  of  transport 
documents for consignments of goods. These costs will be significantly reduced from 2027 
onwards thanks to digitalisation in the context of the implementation of eFTI Regulation. 
The Regulation also leads to some recurrent administrative costs for public administrations 
for  inspections  or  controls,  and  enforcement  costs  for  IWT  operators  for  cooperating  to 
inspections  or  controls.  Benefits  for  IWT  operators  arise  from  the  easiness  in  obtaining 
insurance and the easier identification/designation of the liable party. The increased safety 
on the waterways will benefit both the IWT operators and passengers. Council Directive 
96/75/EC does not entail recurrent costs for IWT operators or public administrations and 
results  in  benefits  due  to  reduced  shipping  prices.  Overall,  the  scarce  evidence  for 
monetising the costs and benefits does not allow to conclude on the efficiency of the Group 
1 legislation, although few stakeholders have indicated during the public consultation that 
the overall benefits outweigh costs.  

Pillar 1- Group 4 legislation 

Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 led to one-off adjustment costs for vessel owners during 
1999-2003 as well as benefits for IWT operators. No costs for businesses were registered 
after 2003 due to Group 4 legislation. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 generates some 
very limited recurrent administrative costs for public administrations.  

One-off adjustment costs for vessel owners, in the form of contributions for new vessels put 
into service under the ‘old-for-new’ rule, are estimated at EUR 26 million for 1999-2003599. 
Post-2003 there are no one-off or recurrent costs for businesses due to Council Regulation 
(EC)  718/1999  or  due  to  the  stand-by  mechanism  in  case  of  serious  market  disturbance 
(Article 6 of Regulation 718/1999 together with article 7 of Directive 96/75/EC), which was 
not triggered so far.  

Reporting obligations due to Regulation (EC) 718/1999 are very limited and estimated to 
take on average 10 hours per year per Member State600, for the Member States that have 
setup  and  funded  inland  waterway  Funds  (AT,  BE,  DE,  FR  and  NL).  Total  recurrent 

596 Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study.  
597 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 9. 
598 2 out of 12 respondents indicated ‘benefits do not compensate  for the effort/cost’, while 3 respondents 
indicated ‘benefits and effort/costs are of similar size’, and 2 indicated ‘benefits are significantly larger than 
the required efforts/costs. The rest did not know or responded not applicable.  
599 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, p. 33.   
600 Replies by AT, DE and NL during the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

143 

 
 
administrative  costs  for  public  administrations  related  to  reporting  obligations  are  thus 
estimated at EUR 3,628 per year (for all 5 relevant Member States)601. 

Benefits  for  IWT  operators  come  from  reducing  overcapacity  in  the  IWT  market  before 
2003  thus  avoiding  decreases  in  turnover  for  IWT  operators  (often  SMEs)  and  potential 
losses. The legislation continues to serve as basis for the potential restructuring of the IWT 
market in case of market disturbance and the use of the Reserve Fund. 

EBU602 saw no substantial costs related to the legislation but benefits for the restructuring 
of the market in case of market disturbance and the use of the Reserve Fund.  

The Fund established under Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 was initially funded with 
EUR 7 million from surpluses for restructuring actions before 1999. The total amount was 
raised to over EUR 33 million by 2003 under the ‘old-for-new’ rules. The funds have not 
been  used  until  the  Commission603,  upon  request  by  the  industry,  created  the  ‘European 
IWT platform’ to promote safety, clean technologies and innovation of the fleet as well as 
education and training. EUR 7 million from the Fund support the Platform’s operations for 
the 2017-2027 period. Industry is planning to request a renewal for the subsequent ten years 
(2028-2037).  Operators  and  Member  State  administrations604  consider  that  the  Platform 
adds  benefits605  for  national  and  regional  administrations,  operators,  skippers,  vessel 
owners, logistics companies, as well as UNECE, river Commissions and river protection 
Commissions. 

During the public consultation, 7 out of the 13 respondents perceived Council Regulation 
(EC) 718/1999 as providing overall benefits or benefits of similar size with the effort/costs 
(see Figure 15).  

Conclusion  on  efficiency  for  Group  4:  No  quantitative  information  is  available  on  the 
benefits  of  the  Group  4  legislation.  The  benefits  seem  to  overweigh  the  overall  costs, 
although  they  could  not  be  quantified  and  thus  the  uncertainty  associated  to  them  is 
acknowledged. Since 2003 there are no costs associated to the Group 4 legislation, except 
for the very limited administrative costs for public administrations, while benefits are due 
to the ‘European IWT platform’ that promotes safety, clean technologies and innovation of 
the fleet as well as education and training.   

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation 

Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 entails recurrent administrative costs for IWT sector 
for  applying  for  certificates  certifying  vessels  affiliation  with  Rhine  navigation  and 
recurrent administrative costs for public administrations for issuing such certificates. It also 
entails  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  public  administrations  to  carry  out  checks  of 

601 The tariff rates by Member State for the ISCO 1 category (legislators, senior officials and managers) in 
2022 prices were used to monetise the costs.   
602 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
603  Commission  Decision  of  5.10.2017  authorising  the  use  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Fund established  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 [C(2017) 6663 final]   
604  Gap  filling  survey  for  operators’  associations  and  Member  States  authorities,  organised  by  the 
Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024.   
605 3 (AT, DE, HR) out of the 9 MS authorities that responded are of the view that the activities of the IWT 
Platform bring significant benefits to the sector. One (NL) is of the view that the activities of the IWT Platform 
bring  some  benefits  to  the  sector.  The  remaining  cannot  say  or  did  not  respond.  All  5  respondents  from 
operators’ associations (including the IWT platform) are of the view that the activities of the IWT Platform 
bring significant benefits to the sector.    

144 

 
 
certificates  and  recurrent  enforcement  costs  for  IWT  operators  for  cooperating  to  such 
checks, as well as benefits for vessel owners and/or operators. Council Regulation (EEC) 
3921/91  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1356/96  do  not  foresee  a  specific  form  for  the 
document which certifies the fulfilment of their conditions.   

Regarding  the  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  the  IWT  sector  for  applying  for 
certificates certifying vessels affiliation with Rhine navigation (Certificate of belonging to 
the Rhine navigation), the Koninlijke Binnenvaart Nederland606 reported that applying for 
a Rhine certificate takes 30 minutes on average and costs 75 EUR (i.e. fee) in addition to 
vessel documents required by European legislation607. The total cost per certificate in the 
Netherlands is estimated at EUR 94 (i.e. EUR 19 for the time spent applying and EUR 75 
the fee)608. Total recurrent administrative costs for the IWT sector cannot be estimated as 
the  total  number  of  Rhine  certificates  issued  is  not  known.  Regarding  the  recurrent 
administrative costs for public administrations, Germany reported the issuance of about 
440  Rhine  certificates  per  year  on  average  during  2022-2023  costing  the  administration 
about 185 EUR per certificate (EUR 81,500 in total)609 while Luxembourg issued about 5 
Rhine certificates per year on average during the same period; only paper documents are 
issued in both countries. The number of checks for certificates (if any) is not known and 
Member States did not provide evidence to allow quantifying the recurrent administrative 
costs associated to such checks610. This is also the case of recurrent enforcement costs for 
IWT operators for cooperating to such checks.   

Administrations611  and  SMEs612  highlighted  the  simplification  potential  of  Group  2 
legislation. Two separate legal  acts,  covering cross-border transport  and cabotage on the 
Rhine,  co-exist  with  legislation  for  cross-border  transport  and  cabotage  applying  on  all 
European waterways including the Rhine. This approach was perceived to be due to historic 
reasons (see Annex VIII International treaties and a priority at the time to grant access to 
the Rhine to Member States operators residing outside of the Rhine). Afterwards, general 
rules for cross-border transport were created. 

Notably,  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  2919/85  requiring  a  separate  document  for  Rhine 
cabotage (Certificate of belonging to the Rhine navigation) is seen as creating burden, when 
it could be included in the obligatory Union inland navigation certificate613. The fulfilment 
of requirements of the Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 could also be contained in the 
Union inland navigation certificate. But this is complicated by the current requirement for 
the vessel certificate and the registration certificate to be issued in the same state. A CESNI 
Working Group is examining simplification in the context of the revision of the data model 
for the Union inland navigation certificate.  

The  regulations  in  Group  2  already  provide  flexibility  to  accommodate  simplification: 
Article 2.3 of the Annex of Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 allows for the Certificate of 
belonging to the Rhine navigation to be contained in any other document already issued for 

606 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
607 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
608 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 2022 
prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 
609 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
610 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
611 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
612 SME panel (2022)  
613 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 

145 

 
 
the vessel. Finally, there is simplification potential in issuing documents digitally, including 
for the vessel and the carrier.  

The  benefits  of  Group  2  legislation  relate  to  the  creation  of  a  true  internal  market.  The 
legislation  ensured  providing  access  for  vessel  owners  and/or  operators  of  every  EU 
Member State to the Rhine. The associated benefits however could not be quantified.   

According  to  the  responses  received  during  the  public  consultation  (see  Figure  14) 
legislation  in  Group  2  requires  medium  to  low  efforts/costs  to  comply  (8  out  of  13 
respondents  for  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85,  7  out  of  12  respondents  for  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3921/91 and 5 out of 12 respondents for Regulation (EC) No 1356/96), which are 
perceived to be outweighed by benefits for Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 (see Figure 15).  

Conclusion  on  efficiency  for  Group  2:  No  quantitative  information  is  available  on  the 
benefits of the Group 4 legislation and very scarce evidence on the costs, which does not 
allow  to  conclude  on  the  efficiency  of  the  Group  2  legislation.  For  administrative 
simplification, the separate document on Rhine cabotage could be included in the obligatory 
Union inland navigation certificate and the digitisation of documents to establish the right 
to  access  to  the  market  could  further  improve  efficiency  and  drive  the  sector  towards 
paperless solutions. 

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation 

As  regards  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  Member  States  report  an  average  of  10 
certificates issued annually per Member State. The work required by public administrations 
for  issuing  a  certificate  is  estimated  at  60-120  minutes614.  Assuming  10  certificates  are 
issued per year in each of the 13 relevant Member States, the total recurrent administrative 
costs for public administrations for issuing the certificates are estimated at EUR 6,097 to 
12,194  per  year.  Austria  also  reported  the  issuance  of  about  12  replacements, 
reclassifications and extensions of certificates on average per year615. Assuming the same 
work  as  that  for  issuing  a  certificate  (60-120  minutes),  the  total  recurrent  administrative 
costs for issuing replacements, reclassifications and extensions are estimated at EUR 7,316 
to 14,633. Thus, the total recurrent administrative costs for public administrations related 
to certificates are estimated at EUR 13,413 to 26,827 per year.   

Applying for a certificate takes on average 30 minutes and fees associated to the application 
amount to EUR 70 per certificate in the Netherlands616. Considering that 10 certificates are 
issued per year in each of the 13 relevant Member States, the recurrent administrative costs 
for IWT operators for applying for certificates for their employees are estimated at EUR 
9,062 per year617,618. For the replacements, reclassifications and extensions of certificates the 
recurrent  administrative  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR  10,874.  Thus,  the  total  recurrent 

614 AT, DE and BE replies (Flanders, Wallonia responded separately) during the gap filling survey for MS 
authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
615 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
616 To derive the fee for other Member States the purchasing power parities published by Eurostat have been 
used. 
617 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 2022 
prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 
618 These costs are paid either by the applicant or by the employer. However, as no information is available on 
the actual split between the applicant and the employer all the recurrent administrative costs are assumed for 
the employer. 

146 

 
 
administrative costs for IWT operators related to certificates are estimated to EUR 19,936 
per year. 

Several exemptions and derogations lead to about 25% of persons obtaining by practice the 
certificate of carrier of goods in the Netherlands alone. Dedicated courses otherwise last 10 
days and cost 2,500 EUR as reported by EBU and ESO619. The total recurrent adjustment 
costs for IWT operators for these courses could however not be estimated due to the lack 
of evidence on the number of courses per year.  

Thanks to the Directive, the aspiring carrier needs to apply only once to become a carrier of 
goods  in  the  EU  instead  of  repeatedly  for  different  national  or  river-based  markets.  The 
common rules and mutual recognition ensure benefits due to less administrative burden and 
lower  costs  for  operators  and  national  administrations.  6  of  the  13  respondents  to  the 
public consultation perceived the efforts/costs for complying with the Directive as medium 
or low (see Figure 14) and 8 out of 13 respondents indicated that the benefits are higher or 
similar to the efforts/costs (see Figure 15). Out of 30 SMEs who expressed a view620 on the 
process  of  obtaining  the  certificate  of  professional  competence,  15  stated  that  it  is 
sufficiently transparent and 8 that it is not transparent.   

Conclusion on efficiency for Group 3: Thanks to Group 3 legislation, common rules and 
mutual recognition led to benefits due to reduced administrative burden and lower costs for 
operators  and  national  administrations.  It  was  however  not  possible  to  monetise  these 
benefits  due  to  the  lack  of  evidence.  Further  simplification  could  be  achieved  with 
standardisation and digitisation of the certificate of carrier of goods.  

Efficiency of the Framework as a whole 

All Groups assessed above lead to recurrent administrative costs for public administrations. 
Although not all of them could be quantified (or quantified in full) their magnitude appears 
to be limited. Group 1, 2 and 3 also result in recurrent administrative costs for businesses 
operating in the IWT sector. Of these, Group 1 appears to lead to the largest administrative 
costs for businesses due to the transport documents required by Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960  for allowing checking  the transport rates  (see overview table for the overall 
framework in Annex IV). It should be noted however that these transport documents are 
also used for other purposes and not all costs can be directly attributed to Council Regulation 
(EEC)  No  11/1960621.  In  addition,  the  implementation  of  eFTI  Regulation  from  2027  is 
expected to lead to significant reductions in costs of Group 1 due to digitalisation.  

Reporting  requirements  are  only  associated  to  Group  4  (i.e.  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
718/1999) and are very limited (estimated at EUR 3,628 per year for all 5 relevant Member 
States).  

Group 1, 3 and 4 also led to adjustment costs for businesses operating in the IWT sector and 
Group 4 to one-off adjustment costs for public administrations. Finally, Group 1 and 2 entail 
some enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating with the enforcement authorities 
in checking certificates.  

All Groups result in benefits for the businesses operating in the IWT sector and Group 3 

619 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
620 SME panel (2022) 
621 The share attributed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 could not be estimated. 

147 

 
 
and  4  also  in  benefits  for  public  administrations.  Despite  several  rounds  of  consultation 
activities, including a gap filling survey organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter 
of  2024,  not  sufficient  evidence  was  received  to  allow  quantifying  the  benefits.  The 
evidence available on costs and benefits does not allow to draw robust conclusions on 
the overall efficiency of the framework.  

7.  Is  there  a  potential  for  simplification  of  the  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative 
Framework  in  particular  in  view  of  enabling  the  sector  to  adapt  to  significant 
disruption of the IWT market due to major macro-economic events or catastrophes 
(drought, flooding, epidemics)?   

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

The analysis for this EQ is looking into the parts of the IWT Internal Market Legislative 
Framework  that  enable  the  sector  to  adapt  to  significant  disruptions  and  answers  the 
question to what extent that particular legislation can be simplified.  

Legislation in Group 4 is the only legislation within the IWT Internal Market Legislation 
Framework  that  does  include  provisions  enabling  the  sector  to  adapt  to  significant 
disruptions. Both legal acts analysed in Group 4 are designed with the objective to reduce 
structural overcapacity in the sector and to improve the competitiveness of the IWT sector. 
Entry barriers for the IWT market are relatively low whilst exit barriers are relatively high, 
which can result in a situation where the supply side of the IWT market is unable to respond 
to  a  sudden  drop  in  demand,  thereby  threatening  the  long-term  financial  stability  of  the 
sector. Therefore, the policies developed under Group 4 help the sector adapting to these 
significant  and  structural  disruptions,  thereby  avoiding  the  aggravation  of  existing 
overcapacity or the emergence of further overcapacity. As such, it can be concluded that the 
IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework does include legal acts enabling the sector to 
adapt to external macro(-economic) events disrupting the demand but does not include legal 
acts  enabling  the  sector  to  adapt  to  external  shocks  impacting  the  navigability  such  as 
climate change for example. As such, the activation of mechanisms triggering community-
fleet capacity measures  might only be efficient in a situation where the external macro(-
economic) event has a long-lasting structural negative impact on the demand in the IWT 
market. In other words, these measures are only efficient when the expectation is that the 
demand will not recover within a few years’ time. Such a situation has not occurred since 
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 was adopted.  

Both  the  analysis  conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  underlying  support  study  and 
stakeholder views received did not point to simplification potential specifically on group 4 
legislation to more efficiently adapt to significant disruption of the IWT market. 

Potential  for  administrative  simplification  has  been  identified  for  Group  2,  where  the 
separate  document  on  Rhine  cabotage  could  be  included  in  the  obligatory  Union  inland 
navigation certificate and the digitisation of documents to establish the right to access to the 
market could further improve efficiency and drive the sector towards paperless solutions. 
For Group 3 further simplification could be achieved with standardisation and digitisation 
of the certificate of carrier of goods. 

148 

 
Coherence 

8.  To  what  extent  are  the  legal  acts  forming  the  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative 
Framework consistent with one another?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

Coherence has been assessed at several levels: the internal coherence of the legislation as 
such, and within the Group or Pillar, within the overall Legal Framework, and its coherence 
with other relevant EU legislation or policies. See also Tables 1 and 2 in section 2.1. 

Pillar 1 - Group 1 legislation 

Council  Regulation  No  11/1960  prohibits  rate  fixing  while  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  
foresees free negotiation of prices. Thus, the two legislations are complementary. Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 however, contains an outdated reference on exemptions of 
certain goods by referring to Annexes622 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and 
Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC is no longer in force, and those Annexes have not 
been replaced under the Treaty of Rome nor its successor regulations including the TFEU. 
Therefore, none of the goods are exempted anymore as initially foreseen. Otherwise, the 
legal acts under Group 1 are internally coherent. 

Analysis623 regarding external coherence with other legislation within the Framework did 
not detect any incoherences between the different pieces of legislation. 

Pillar 1 - Group 4 legislation 

No  inconsistencies  have  been  identified  within  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999. 
Complementarity  has  been  confirmed  between  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999  and 
Article 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC regarding the potential use of the reserve fund and 
measures (Council Reg (EC) 718/1999) in connection with the serious disturbance of the 
IWT market.  

Pillar 2 - Group 2 legislation 

Several internal coherence issues have been identified in Group 2: 

-  There are different provisions for international transport and cabotage on the Rhine vis-
à-vis international transport and cabotage on other waterways (see Table 5). Cabotage on 
the Rhine is not limited in time while on other waterways cabotage is allowed only on a 
temporary basis624.  

- 

 Furthermore, there is lack uniform application625 of temporary cabotage due to the lack 
of EU-wide definition of what is meant by “temporary”626.  

622 Annex I (coal and steel) and Annex III (special steel) 
623  See  studies  related  to  the  CT  Directive  92/106/EEC  the  Regulation  2020/1056  on  eFTI,as  well  as  the 
support study for the Fitness check 
624 see Table 4 in section 4.1.1 on effectiveness 
625 see Table 4 in section 4.1.1 on effectiveness. Note: as mentioned above, it is irrelevant for the Rhine as 
cabotage on the Rhine is not limited in time. 
626 Only France has foreseen a legal definition of temporary cabotage. AT calls for a specification at EU level, 
applying the road transport model.  

149 

 
 
-  International  transport  on  the  Rhine  is  limited  to  Rhine  riparian  operators  and  EU 
operators, while on the Danube international transport is open to all operators, even from 
outside of the continent. 

-  The genuine link627 is defined in a different manner across the three acts in Group 2 as 

well as in a different level of detail 

-  Different  requirements  on  access  to  the  market,  notably  Council  Regulation  (EEC) 
2919/85 requires operators to fulfil the same conditions as the vessel owners, which is 
not the case in Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 1356/96. Moreover, Regulation 
2919/85  requires  for  persons  managing/directing  to  be  to  a  majority  nationals  of  a 
Member  State.  Council  Regulations  (EEC)  3921/91  and  1356/96  do  not  mention  any 
conditions for the persons managing/directing. Council Regulations (EEC) 3921/91 and 
1356/96 require carriers to be entitled to carry out international transport services while 
such condition is not included in Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85. 

-  Inconsistent  use  of  terminology  in  the  legislation  (including  the  terms  of  carrier, 
undertaking, operator628). Stakeholders629 also noted a missing definition of “operator” 
for which two out of the three legislations in Group 2 set conditions of access. At the 
same time there is no evidence that this would have led to non-uniform application of the 
legislations in question. 

-  In Group 2 access to waterways provisions address transport of goods and passengers, 

while the scope of access to the profession (Group 3) only relates to cargo.  

Two  national  administrations630  noted  the  absence  of  requirements  on  establishment  of 
undertakings  in  Council  Regulations  (EEC)  3921/91  and  1356/96.  This  is  seen  to  be 
incoherent with EU rules on access to a transport market requiring transport undertakings 
to be established in the country from which it manages and maintains its fleet. As regards 
the  genuine  link,  ETWF631  pointed  to  the  Rhine  certificate  as  an  example  where 
requirements applicable to the operator are clearly described by the CCNR, including on the 
application  form:  operator's  registered  office  must  be  established  where  its  commercial 
activity is concentrated and the existence of the clear link with the commercial activity must 
be proven.632 . Some stakeholders633 stated the permanent operation of vessels on the Rhine, 
with operators established in EU Member States with little to no IWT activity and applying 

627 Genuine link between a vessel, a carrier and a Member State 
628 for example: - the definition of the link between a Member State and the craft and/or the undertaking using 
the craft - The Rhine access rules and the international transport refer to ‘operators’ while and cabotage rules 
refer to ‘carriers’. - The Rhine access rules refer to transport of ‘persons’ while the international transport and 
cabotage rules refer to passengers. 
629 The European Transport Workers Federation (ETF in its written contribution highlighted the need to better 
define the term operator) and a third country’s Seafarers Union (public consultation) 
630 At targeted interviews  
631 European Transport Workers’ Federation, public consultation 
632 Other stakeholders pleaded to improve the genuine link based on the country where substantial navigation 
activity takes place.  
633 This was expressed by 2 German SMEs in the SME survey (41 responses in total), in the scoping interview 
by one national administration and 1 business association, and as an outcome of the CCNR workshop. An 
expert stated that even if undertakings active on the Rhine have a stronger incentive to relocate to lower cost 
countries, effective access to the Rhine by the Danube fleet and vice versa remains limited. In the Danube 
workshop the DC secretariat expressed the risk that some companies might relocate to less demanding third 
countries riparian to the Danube to get their vessel certificate gaining a competitive advantage, however, this 
risk so far has not materialised in weakened competition.  

150 

 
 
lower social and fiscal standards. 

Pillar 2 - Group 3 legislation 

Inconsistencies have been identified between group 2 and 3 legislations. Council Directive 
87/540/EEC  applies  to  cargo  operators,  but  not  to  passenger  transport  (unlike  Group  2 
legislation  which  includes  provisions  on  transport  of  cargo  and  passengers).  As  a 
consequence,  entrepreneurs only  need to  demonstrate competences for markets  on  cargo 
transport, while they employ crew who are trained to work on both passenger and cargo 
transport according to Directive (EU) 2017/2397. ETF634 pointed to the growing importance 
of  passenger  transport,  especially  the  river  cruise  market  segment  and  the  (locally 
important)  tourism  sector.  While  carriers  of  passengers  are  not  in  scope  of  the  Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC, some Member States do apply the same principles for both cargo 
and passenger carriers (see Annex IX). 

Inconsistency  between  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  and  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC, 
which  share  common  objectives  on  regulating  qualifications.  The  recently  implemented 
Directive (EU) 2017/2397 pursues a competence based-system set up for crew members, 
based  on  CESNI  standards.  This  competence  based-system  is  different635  from  the 
knowledge-based  approach  applied  in  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  for  IWT  carriers, 
which  is  currently  not  based  on  CESNI  standards  and  does  neither  cover  digital  or 
environmental knowledge636, nor passenger transport.  

Furthermore,  EU  rules  for  accessing  the  profession  of  an  IWT  carrier  are  encoded  in  a 
directive,  whilst  it  is  a  regulation  in  all  other  modes  of  transport,  resulting  in  diverse 
implementation in Member States. This was also noted during the public consultation637, 
the SME survey and the scoping interviews638. 

Coherence of the Framework as a whole 

Overall, it can be concluded that Group 1 and 4 legislation is coherent within and with each 
other, while  several  incoherences  have  been  identified  within  group  2  legislation  and  between 
group 2 and 3.  

9. To what extent does the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework align with 
wider  EU  policies  (e.g.  jobs,  growth,  trade,  mobility,  competition  policy,  Climate 
Change Policy)?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

The  IWT  Internal  Market  Legislative  Framework  is  compared  with  wider  EU  policies, 
which are briefly presented in Table 9. 

634 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) written contribution during the public consultation. 
635 The difference between knowledge-based and competence-based certification is that while knowledge is 
measured against a standard knowledge base, competence-based certification evaluates how competent the 
individual is in applying that knowledge, and skills, in the actual workplace 
636 This was also remarked by the CCNR secretariat in the public consultation.  
637 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) written contribution during the public consultation. 
638 7 out of 41 SMEs perceived differences in the national practices of obtaining a certificate of professional 
competence of a freight carrier. In the scoping interview EBU and ESO stated that little can be said about the 
level of competence of an undertaking in IWT due to the varying conditions for recognition of professional 
competence across MS. 

151 

 
 
Table  9:  Wider  EU  policy  considered  for  the  comparison  with  the  IWT  Internal  Market 
Legislative Framework 

EU policy area 
Jobs639 and social 
dimension 

Competition640, 
trade641 and growth 

Climate change policy 
and sustainable 
growth642 

Explanation of the policy area 
The  European  employment  strategy  (EES)  dates  back  to  1997,  when  the  EU 
Member States undertook to establish a set of common objectives and targets for 
employment  policy.  Its  main  aim  is  the  creation  of  more  and  better  jobs 
throughout the EU. In IWT social legislation is applicable, the most relevant legal 
acts are the Posting of Workers Directive and the Derogation Agreement to Rhine 
boatman. 
The  European  competition  policy  encourages  companies  to  offer  consumers 
goods  and  services  on  the  most  favourable  terms.  It  encourages  efficiency  and 
innovation  and  reduces  prices.  To  be  effective,  competition  requires  free  trade 
within  and  outside  of  the  European  Single  Market.  The  Single  Market  Act, 
therefore, aims to establish free movement of goods, services and capitals across 
the European Union. In 2024 the Letta report on the Future of the Single Market 
and  the  Draghi  report  on  the  future  of  the  European  Competitiveness  were 
published.  Based  on  these  reports  the  EC  developed  its  Competitiveness 
Compass,  which  is  a  roadmap  to  restore  Europe’s  dynamism  and  boost  its 
economic growth. 
The most EU policies on climate change are defined in European Green Deal. The 
European  Green  Deal  aims  to  accelerate  the  transition  to  a  climate-neutral 
economy  in  the  EU  in  2050.  In  transport  policy  the  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility  Strategy  is  setting  out  the  key  steps  towards  making  transport  policy 
more sustainable. 

Competition, trade and growth 

Following  up  on  the  findings  of  the  2024  Letta  and  Draghi  reports643,  in  2025  the  EC 
presented the Competitiveness Compass644, a new roadmap to restore Europe’s dynamism 
and boost its economic growth. The new political guidelines645 of the second von der Leyen 
Commission also committed to focus on competitiveness with an accent on the completion 
of  the  single  market  and  on  resilience.  Concretely  for  the  waterborne  sector,  the  EC 
committed646  to  developing  a  comprehensive  EU  Port  Strategy  focusing  on  security, 
competitiveness and economic independence, and to proposing a new industrial maritime 
strategy to enhance the competitiveness, sustainability and resilience of Europe’s maritime 
manufacturing sector. 

For  the  wider  EU  policies  on  competition,  trade  and  growth,  the  legislative  acts  within 
Group 1, 2 and 3 need to be considered. 

The objectives of the legislation in Group 1 are to establish a common transport policy and 
build up a smoothly functioning internal market. The legislation in Group 1 is aligned with 
the wider EU policies in the areas of competition and (free) trade, as the objectives of the 
wider EU policies are also to ensure free movement of goods, services and capitals within 
the European Single Market. The legislation in this group provides a mechanism to ensure 
that the IWT market remains open and free.. The requirement to carry a transport documents 

639 Please see the European employment strategy, here.  
640 Please see the European competition policy, here. 
641 Please see the European policy on the single market for goods and service, here. 
642 Please see the European policy on delivering the European Green Deal, here.  
643 Enrico Letta's Report on the Future of the Single Market (April 2024); Mario Draghi’s Report on The future 
of European competitiveness (September 2024) 
644 Competitiveness compass 
645 Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2024−2029, von der Leyen, Strasbourg, 18/7/2024 
646 Mission Letter Apostolos Tzitzikostas, Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, 17/9/2024 

152 

 
 
 
based on the same requirements according to Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 enables enforcement authorities across the EU to check compliance with transport 
rates  and  conditions.  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  established  freedom  of  chartering  and 
pricing  in  all  EU  Member  States  and  thus  greater  commercial  flexibility  and  increased 
competitiveness of the sector in the EU Single Market; overcoming national protectionism 
and restrictive practices. If needed, action can be taken to protect the current regime (e.g. 
infringement procedure initiated in 2017 against Belgium or against the Netherlands in 1996 
related to  discriminatory practices647). As such, the legislation in  Group 1 as well as the 
wider  EU  legislation  on  competition  and  (free)  trade  are  working  towards  the  same 
objectives. 

The objectives of the legislation in Group 2 are to regulate access for all EU vessels to all 
inland waterways in EU Member States. Similar to Group 2, the objectives in Group 3 are 
to coordinate the conditions for access to the occupation of carriers. The legislation in both 
groups – as presented under the conclusions of Group 2 and 3 – created a more harmonised 
access regime for EU operators to operate IWT services within the European Single Market. 
As such, the legislation in Group 2 and Group 3 are working towards the same objectives 
as the wider EU legislation on competition and (free) trade.  

Consistency with EU policies on free movement of goods and services within the European 
single market has been confirmed by stakeholders during the consultation activities648. They 
stated that the Group 1 legislation removed restrictions and discriminations to entering and 
operating  in  the  IWT  sector.  The  implementation  of  the  eFTI  Regulation  is  expected  to 
remedy as of July 2027 concerns raised by EBU and ESO649 on the acceptance of electronic 
documents in IWT, which is perceived as currently unclear in relation to Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 11/1960. In EBU’s and ESO’s view, currently electronic documents are accepted 
depending  on  whether  national  laws  allow  it  and  there  is  no  coherent  application  of 
electronic documents across the EU in IWT. For Group 1 legislation, the entry into force of 
the eFTI Regulation as of July 2027 will  further improve efficiency and drive the sector 
towards paperless solutions. 

During  the  2024  survey  some  Member  States  administrations  stated  that  they  value  the 
contribution of the IWT market access framework to the sector’s competitiveness. 

Climate change policy and sustainable growth 

The  European  Green  Deal650  and  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy651 
highlight  the  relevance  of  increasing  the  role  of  inland  waterway  transport  to  make  the 
transport system more sustainable, in line with the 2050 EU’s climate neutrality target and 
the zero-pollution goal. To this end, two milestones covering the inland waterway transport 

647 The Belgian case resulted in change in Belgian law to comply with EU law on provisions on freedom of 
price formation (Council Directive 96/75). The Dutch case related to discrimination between users of transport 
services resulting from the Dutch law on the division of freight in North-South IWT.  
648  Public  consultation:  out  of 13  respondents  11  respondents  were  of  the  view  that  the  Framework  had  a 
positive impact on the freedom to provide services to a great/moderate extent, 12 respondents were of the view 
that  the  Framework  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  free  movement  of  goods  to  a  great/moderate  extent. 
Remaining respondents indicated ‘don’t know’. Moreover, 10 respondents out of 13 were of the view that the 
Framework ensures to a great/moderate extent non-discriminatory access within the Single Market, while 1 
respondent answered that the framework did not contribute to that. 2 respondents indicated ‘don’t know’. 
649 Based on targeted interview with EBU, ESO in the context of the fitness check support study.   
650 The European Green Deal: COM(2019) 640 final  
651 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 

153 

 
 
have been set by the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy652: (i) by 2030, waterborne-
based and rail intermodal transport should be able to compete on equal footing with road-
only  transport,  in  terms  of  share  of  external  costs  internalized;  (ii)  transport  by  inland 
waterways and short sea shipping should increase by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050, 
compared to 2015. 

The objectives of the legislation in Group 4 are to reduce overcapacity in the sector and to 
improve  the  competitiveness  of  the  IWT  sector.  As  such,  given  the  fact  that  IWT  is 
considered  as  an  environmentally  friendly  mode,  and  given  the  fact  that  –  against  this 
background  –  policies  are  developed  to  promote  the  share  of  IWT  in  the  modal  split,  a 
comparison can be drawn with the wider EU policy area of climate change policy.653  

Since Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 was amended in 2014654, the legislation in 
Group 4 is aligned with the wider EU policies in the areas of climate change and sustainable 
growth.  New  measures  were  included  to  encourage  innovation  and  IWT’s  adaptation  to 
technical progress as regards environment. The legislation in this group aims to support the 
modernisation,  thereby  improving  the  competitiveness  of  the  IWT  sector.  As  such,  the 
legislation  in  Group  4  as  well  as  the  wider  EU  legislation  on  climate  change  policy  are 
aiming  towards  the  same  objectives.  Regarding  Council  Regulation  (EC)  718/1999, 
stakeholders655 confirmed that the EU IWT Reserve Fund is in line with wider EU policies 
aimed at making the transport sector more sustainable.  

In line with Article 3.5 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 the Reserve Fund was used in 
2017  to  create  the  IWT  Platform656  whose  continuation  was  supported  together  with  the 
continuation of the Fund in its current  form657. Several stakeholders indicated658 that the 
Reserve Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and support programmes for simulators 
for schools or catalysts659 or for the uptake of clean technologies.  

652 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 
653 See for instance NAIADES III, here.  
654 Regulation (EU) 546/2014 
655 4 out of the 10 scoping interviews confirmed this point (3 with international organisations and one with an 
IWT expert). However, 2 out the 4 national organisations interviewed, highlighted the lack of clarity on how 
to  use  the  Reserve  Fund  to  reach  sectoral  objectives  of  sustainability  and  innovation.  AT  pointed  to  the 
limitations in providing State aid to IW to green their vessels due to competition law.    
656 EUR 7 million was transferred to establish the IWT Platform and to fund its activities for ten years (2017 
to 2027), providing EUR 700,000 annually. 
657 During the gap filling survey for Member States authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth 
quarter of 2024, AT, HR DE and NL administrations were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are still 
needed in their current form. 4 Member States indicated ‘cannot say’ or left the reply to the question blank. 
During the gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised during the same period, all respondents, 
including the IWT Platform, were of the view that the inland waterway Funds are still needed in their current 
form. 
658 During the public consultation, the French administration commented that the focus now should lay on 
reducing the lifetime of the vessels in order to reduce the IWT’s impact on the climate, rather than reducing 
the capacity of the fleet. The association of barge operators (EBU/ESO), mentioned in an interview that the 
Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and used for example for programmes for simulators for schools 
or catalysts. The scrapping goals of the Regulation are less relevant as e.g. tankers are currently less than 30 
years old. The IWT Platform mentioned in an interview that some stakeholders want to maintain the scrapping 
(programme) but not the old-for-new rule. This was especially the case of the tanker sector, when the change 
from the single to double hull took place. 
659 According to Article 8, without prejudice to Article 3(5), any Member State may take measures in particular 
to: make it easier for inland waterway carriers leaving the industry to obtain an early retirement pension or to 
transfer to another economic activity; organise vocational training or re-training schemes for workers leaving 

154 

 
 
 
As for Group 3, the list of required knowledge included in the Annex of the Directive is still 
reflecting the situation of the 1980s and missing skills  related to  digitalisation and clean 
technologies.  The  CCNR  Secretariat  also  remarked660  that  competencies  related  to 
digitalisation and clean technologies are currently missing.  

Jobs and social dimension 

The  main  aim  of  European  employment  policy  is  the  creation  of  more  and  better  jobs 
throughout the EU. Topics such as creating minimum requirements on working conditions, 
preventing social dumping, as well as the modernisation of jobs all have an important role 
to play in this respect.  

Looking at legislation in Group 4, the legislation661 has been amended to allow for measures 
to improve skills in inland navigation and knowledge of logistics in order to safeguard the 
development and future of the profession. 

The list of required knowledge included in the Annex of the Directive is still reflecting the 
situation of the 1980s  and missing skills  related to  digitalisation and clean technologies. 
While Directive (EU) 2017/2397 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland 
navigation for crew addressed required competences, Directive 87/540/EEC only includes 
knowledge.  The  CCNR  Secretariat  also  noted662  the  mentioned  inconsistencies  between 
Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and Council Directive 87/540/EEC and remarked that currently 
competencies related to digitalisation and clean technologies are missing.  

Finally, concerning equality mainstreaming - gender (non-)neutrality in Pillar 2 legislation, 
several text fragments were remarked in Council Regulation 3921/91, Council Regulation 
1356/96  and  Council Directive 87/540/EEC  referring  only  to  one gender (he/his). While 
these points do not influence interpretation or enforcement of the legislation; they are listed 
for  good  order  and  in  the  broader  context  of  EC’s  efforts  to  maintain/improve  gender 
neutrality. 

The IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework are in principle aligned with the wider EU 
framework aiming for better and safer jobs. 

There were no inconsistencies found with the related social legislations applicable in IWT, 
namely the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC, concerning the posting of workers in 
the framework of the provision of services, and its Enforcement Directive 2014/67/EU and  
the Derogation Agreement for Rhine boatmen concluded on the basis of Article 16(1) of 
Regulation (EC) 883/2004 on the coordination of the Social Security Systems (specifically 
the agreement on the determination of legislation applicable to Rhine boatmen, concluded 
on this basis). Further information on these related social legislations can be found in Annex 
VII.   

To conclude, external consistency could be improved vis-à-vis the TFEU as well as between 
different legal instruments in IWT. Notably, there is a perceived lack of coherence of some 
terminology used by legislation for the carrier and the Professional Qualifications Directive 

the industry; encourage private owner-operators to join trade associations; encourage adaptation of vessels to 
technical progress in order to improve working conditions and promote technical safety requirements; improve 
operators' skills in order to safeguard the development and future of the trade. 
660 Public consultation 
661 Article 8 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 
662 Public consultation 

155 

 
 
for crew. The relevant legislation in the framework is based on knowledge for carriers while 
the Professional Qualifications Directive for crew uses a competence-based approach.  

10. To what extent is the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework consistent with 
market access rules set up under the legal systems regarding navigation on the Rhine 
and the Danube?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

Legislation in Group 2 is found to be coherent with the Act of Mannheim (1868) and the 
Belgrade Convention (1948). However, as these international regimes partly differ, the need 
to be coherent with both regimes resulted in overly complex EU legislation on access rules 
on European inland waterways.  

The need of proof 

Both the Act of Mannheim and the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework do require 
proof that the vessel is registered in an EU or a CCNR Member State. Further, both systems 
require the existence of a genuine link between the operator and a Member State. However, 
they both define the genuine link differently. On the contrary, the Belgrade Convention does 
not posit any genuine link requirement to grant access to international transport operations 
on the Danube and consequently does not require any certificate proving the genuine link. 
Therefore, operators can operate without proof on the Danube. On the Danube, the only 
requirement  (though  laid  down  by  a  recommendation)  is  to  hold  a  vessel  certificate 
(DFND663, art. 1.10). Figure 27 below summarises the above analysis. 

Figure 27: The different access regimes visually presented 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023) 

Stakeholder views on the different access regimes 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  were  asked  whether  the  existence  of 
multiple access regimes leads to problems. In general, the regimes themselves do not lead 
to major disruptions, however, as some regimes grant non-EU registered vessels access to 

663 Basic Provisions for Navigation on the Danube Basic Provisions for Navigation on the Danube (DFND) – 
Danube Commission – Donaukommission – Commission du Danube – Дунайская Комиссия 

156 

 
 
 
the market, this is could be regarded as a possible disruption of the competitive position of 
the EU operators vis-à-vis non-EU operators664. Third country vessels do not have to comply 
with the EU technical requirements, the social legislation and transition to a zero-emission 
fleet665. This means that their cost profile is lower than that of their EU counterparts and 
especially on the Danube this is perceived as a risk.666  

As regards the genuine link, ETWF667 pointed to the Rhine certificate as an example where 
requirements applicable to the operator are clearly described by the CCNR, including on the 
application  form:  operator's  registered  office  must  be  established  where  its  commercial 
activity is concentrated and the existence of the clear link with the commercial activity must 
be proven.668 . Some stakeholders669 stated the permanent operation of vessels on the Rhine, 
with operators established in EU Member States with little to no IWT activity and applying 
lower social and fiscal standards. 

37.  Taking  into  account  existing  legislation,  as  well  as  any  available  ongoing  policy 
developments,  evaluations,  impact  assessments,  and  studies,  are  there  any  notable 
inconsistencies,  overlaps,  synergies  or  complementarities  between  the  legal  acts  (in 
scope) and other relevant pieces of legislation, in particular:  

a. other EU legislation in the area of inland waterway transport policy (for example, 
the Professional Qualifications Directive, the Directive on Technical Requirements for 
Inland  Waterway  Vessels  and  the  River  Information  Services  Directive)  and  in 
particular with regards to their scope of application?  

b.  other  EU  legislation/initiatives  concerning  the  transport  of  goods/passengers  and 
logistics, including digitalisation of transport and logistics (e.g. relevant work within 
the Digital Logistics & Transport Forum (DTLF) and its sub-groups, Regulation on 
electronic freight transport information, (eFTI))?  

c.  other  EU  legislation  in  areas  outside  transport  policy,  such  as  the  Digital  Single 
Market, e-Government initiatives in relation to digitalisation, exchange of information 
and interoperability, and initiatives in the area of private data protection?   

Horizontal evaluation questions – all seven legal acts  

a. other EU legislation in the area of inland waterway transport policy (for example, 
the Professional Qualifications Directive, the Directive on Technical Requirements for 
Inland  Waterway  Vessels  and  the  River  Information  Services  Directive)  and  in 
particular with regards to their scope of application?  

664 Exploratory interview with the Danube Commission Secretariat, February 2021 
665 Exploratory interview with the Danube Commission Secretariat, February 2021 
666 These views were expressed during the Danube workshop, 20 January 2022.  
667 European Transport Workers’ Federation, public consultation 
668 Other stakeholders pleaded to improve the genuine link based on the country where substantial navigation 
activity takes place.  
669 This was expressed by 2 German SMEs in the SME survey (41 responses in total), in the scoping interview 
by one national administration and 1 business association, and as an outcome of the CCNR workshop. An 
expert stated that even if undertakings active on the Rhine have a stronger incentive to relocate to lower cost 
countries, effective access to the Rhine by the Danube fleet and vice versa remains limited. In the Danube 
workshop the DC secretariat expressed the risk that some companies might relocate to less demanding third 
countries riparian to the Danube to get their vessel certificate gaining a competitive advantage, however, this 
risk so far has not materialised in weakened competition.  

157 

 
 
As already pointed out several incoherencies have been identified between the Professional 
Qualifications  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  and  the  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  (Group 
3)670.   

On one hand, Council Directive 87/540/EEC applies to cargo operators, but not to passenger 
transport,  unlike  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive  which  includes  provisions  on 
professional  qualifications  for  crew  working  on  cargo  and  passenger  vessel).  As  a 
consequence, entrepreneurs only need to demonstrate competences for  the cargo market, 
while  they  employ  crew  who  are  trained  to  work  on  both  passenger  and  cargo  transport 
according  to  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397.  ETF671  pointed  to  the  growing  importance  of 
passenger transport, especially the river cruise market segment and the (locally important) 
tourism sector. It needs to be noted, though, that while carriers of passengers are not in scope 
of the Council Directive 87/540/EEC, some Member States do apply the same principles 
for both cargo and passenger carriers (see Table 15 in Annex IX). 

On  the  other  hand,  an  inconsistency  between  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  and  Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC which share common objectives on regulating qualifications has been 
identified.  The  recently  implemented  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  pursues  a  competence 
based-system set up for crew members, based on CESNI standards. This competence based-
system  is  different672  from  the  knowledge-based  approach  applied  in  Council  Directive 
87/540/EEC for IWT carriers, which is currently not based on CESNI standards and does 
neither cover digital or environmental knowledge673, nor passenger transport.  

Synergies  between  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397,  Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  and  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  had  been  identified:  according  to  the  Council  Regulation 
(EEC) No 11/1960, Member States shall carry out controls or inspections. Evidence shows 
that  controls  are  carried  out,  according  to  Member  States,  inspections  are  selected  on  a 
random basis and are carried out by police/water police/border police (FR, BE, HU, RO), 
waterway administration (BE, PL) and port authorities/harbour master (HU, RO)674.  

In  Luxembourg,  controls  are  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries 
(especially DE and FR) through an international convention675 this could be regarded as a 
synergy.  Moreover,  Hungarian  police676  combines  checks  related  to  Council  Regulation 
(EEC) No 11/1960 with checking other matters including crew member qualification and 
technical vessel requirements, resulting in synergies of control activities. 

An  opportunity  for  administrative  simplification  has  been  identified  leading  to  possible 
further  synergies  between  Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  and  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
11/1960. The possibility to discontinue the specific Certificate for belonging to the Rhine 
navigation677  and  instead  including  the  relevant  information  on  vessel  ownership  in  the 
Union  inland  navigation  certificate678.  Existing  Regulations  already  allow  for  such 

670 See support study for further detail on inconsistencies.  
671 European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF, submitted document at public consultation) 
672 The difference between knowledge-based and competence-based certification is that while knowledge is 
measured against a standard knowledge base, competence-based certification evaluates how competent the 
individual is in applying that knowledge, and skills, in the actual workplace 
673 This was also remarked by the CCNR secretariat in the public consultation.  
674 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 
675 Member States Workshops Breakout sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 
676 Interview with the Hungarian police in the context of the fitness check support study.  
677 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2919/85 
678 Art 6 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 

158 

 
 
simplification, if the Union inland navigation certificate and the registration certificate for 
a particular vessel are issued by the same state. A CESNI Working Group679 is currently 
examining the practicalities of such approach. Moreover, future digital (vessel) documents 
could  remove  the  need  to  provide  the  relevant  data  in  paper  format  and  could  further 
improve efficiency and drive the sector towards paperless solutions.  

Related  to  RIS  and  the  Framework,  no  inconsistencies  or  overlaps  have  been  identified, 
though  RIS  was  mentioned  in  relation  to  digital  solutions  including  regarding  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 pointing to possible synergies or complementarities, see also 
the answers to the next sub-question. 

There  is  strong  synergy  and  complementarity  between  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
11/1960 and the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC (CT Directive): the effect of 
this Council Regulation extends beyond modes directly mentioned in it. The CT Directive 
built on Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 and reiterated that, similarly to unimodal 
transport, combined transport is also free680 of authorisations and quotas. It also refers681 to 
the  transport  document  as  contained  in  the  Council  Regulation,  thereby  broadening  the 
effect of the initial Council Regulation.  

Moreover,  there  is  a  strong  synergy  and  complementarity  between  Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  11/1960  and  the  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  (eFTI)  Regulation 
(EU)  2020/1056682.  The  latter  will  simplify  and  encourage  the  digitalisation  of  freight 
transport and logistics  and to  further reduce administrative burden.  As  of July  2027, the 
Electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) Regulation (EU) 2020/1056683 will enable 
the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents684 for freight 
transport, including inland navigation.  

The  synergy  between  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  11/1960  and  the  Electronic  Freight 
Transport Information (eFTI) is quantified as follows. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 of Group 1 brings about costs for IWT operators and 
administrations as well as benefits for the IWT sector.  

The Regulation (Article 6) requires a transport document for each consignment of goods, 
detailing the consignor's name and address, nature and weight of the goods, place and date 
of acceptance, place of delivery. The 2008 amendment of the Regulation685 already reduced 
administrative burden by eliminating the obligation to create an additional document and 
allowing  enterprises  instead  to  use  a  national  transport  document,  a  company-related 
consignment note, a bill of lading or a multimodal document - if it contains the required 
information. Furthermore, the eFTI Regulation which enters into force in July 2027 provides 
for a reduction in recurrent administrative costs for IWT operators and simplification.  

Keeping transport documents for each consignment of goods in IWT results in vast amounts 
of paperwork, especially for container transport (i.e. a single container ship typically carries 

679 European committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation (CESNI) - CESNI - Comité 
Européen pour l’Élaboration de Standards dans le domaine de la Navigation Intérieure 
680 Article 2 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
681 Article 3 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
682 Article 2.1., Art 5.1 of Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
683 Article 2.1., Art 5.1 of Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 
684 Article 6 of Regulation 11/1960 
685 Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 

159 

 
 
up to 200 containers). 7 (41%) of the 17 respondents to the targeted survey686 mentioned 
digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and Port information systems687) 
as  a  means  of  simplification.  The  CCNR  Secretariat  also  noted  during  the  public 
consultation that ‘paper documents could be replaced by digital versions’. See savings by 
eFTI under the section on efficiency in Annex III and Annex IV.  

EU added value 

11. To what  extent has the IWT Internal  Market Legislative Framework permitted 
achievements  that  could  not  have  been  reached  at  other  levels  of  governance,  for 
instance  at  international,  regional  (river  basin)  or  Member  State  level  (including 
through bilateral agreements)?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

Due to the cross-border nature of Inland navigation in the EU objectives of the legislations 
in question could not have been achieved without EU level action and by local regional or 
national  action  alone,  to  establish  common  rules,  create  a  common  competitive  market 
enable  free  movement  of  goods  and  freedom  to  provide  services.  Main  results  were  the 
prohibition of fixed pricing regimes, tackling overcapacity in the fleet, removing obstacles 
to  access  cabotage  and  creating  harmonised  qualifications  to  access  the  profession.  The 
framework  established  a  common  EU 
improved 
internal  market,  resulting 
competitiveness, more harmonisation and creation of a level playing field.  

in 

According to the public consultation (see Figure 16 in section 4.2), the main areas where 
responding stakeholders see EU added value is related to opening and liberalization of the 
market, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods. The possibility to 
operate  in  a  single  market  where  the  same  rules  apply  to  all  operators  and  several 
requirements are harmonised is seen as a main EU added value of the Framework, together 
with non-discriminatory access, which assures a level playing field throughout Europe.  

8 out of 9 respondents in the Danube workshop688 also agreed or strongly agreed that the 
Framework lead to results that could not have been achieved without it (see Figure 17 in 
section 4.2). 

Relevance  

1. Are the objectives of the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework still relevant 
considering the evolution of the market, the present transport policy priorities and the 
successive enlargements of the EU?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts  

The framework was clearly relevant at the time of its adoption and is overall still relevant 
today while in some respect the legislations do not fully correspond to today’s and future 
needs, see for instance the requirements on knowledge and expertise of IWT entrepreneurs 
and the IWT Fund, which is too small to be able to respond to future challenges such as 
climate change  mitigation and adaptation of the IWT sector. While scrapping schemes have 

686 Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
687  eFTI  stands  for  Electronic  Freight  Transport  Information  Regulation  and  RIS  for  River  Information 
Services Directive. 
688 Danube workshop, 20 January 2022 

160 

 
 
not been used since 2003, and the mechanism on serious market disturbance has not been 
triggered  so  far,  stakeholders  who  have  responded  to  stakeholder  consultation  activities 
rather considered these as tools for building resilience of the IWT sector and therefore as 
still relevant.  

The public consultation results689 confirmed the relevance of the Framework. For each of 
the  legislation  (see  Figure  18  in  section  4.3)  more  respondents  are  of  the  view  that  the 
legislation  is  ‘very  relevant’  or  ‘somewhat  relevant’  than  the  number  of  respondents 
responding ‘not relevant’.  

The overall conclusion is that the legislative Framework was highly relevant at its enaction 
and still is relevant for the establishment and the smooth functioning of the single market in 
IWT. Looking to the future, it will still be relevant as a reference for continued enforcement 
efforts and considering future enlargements.  

689 Public consultation (see Figure 16 in section 4.3) 

161 

 
 
 
Matrices by legislation 

Effectiveness questions 

13. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (transport document) - a) What benefits have resulted from the requirements that made it compulsory 
to keep transport document on board and for them to be kept by the carrier? b) Which stakeholder groups have benefitted? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ-13b: Who has 
benefited from the 
provisions of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 regarding the 
holding of documents? 

EQ-13a: What benefits 
have resulted from the 
above provisions for each 
stakeholder? 

The questions have been reversed as it is 
important to first identify the 
beneficiaries and then (in the following 
question) to identify the benefits per 
stakeholder. This is an exploratory 
question to identify the stakeholder 
groups that have benefitted, and the 
benefits materialized for both intended 
stakeholders as well as other 
stakeholders. 

This question looks at the benefits per 
stakeholder to assess whether the 
existence of benefits reach the main 
objective of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960 to assess whether the IWT 
market has become more open and 
competitive and developed in other 
aspects such as professionalisation, 
scaling-up and renewal of the fleet.  The 
main objective of Council Regulation 

Type of 
information 
•  Benefits 

materialised 
for intended 
stakeholders. 

•  Benefits 

materialised 
for other 
stakeholders 

•  Existence and 
estimated 
value of 
benefits 

162 

Indicators 

Sources 

Qualitative indicators: 

• 

Interviews (2021) with stakeholders, i.e. 
ProDanube the Secretariat of the Danube 
Commission, IWT Platform, EBU/ESO, 
with former CCNR secretary  

•  Targeted consultation for Member States 
authorities, organised by the Commission 
in the fourth quarter of 2024.  

•  Paper submitted by EBU (Roadmap and 

• 

OPC) 
 Paper submitted by Entreprises Fluviales 
de France (OPC) 

•  Targeted survey for national authorities 
•  Literature research, in particular market 

studies and association reports, as well as 
studies, legislation and policy documents 
related to the Combined Transport 
Directive 92/106/EEC and eFTI,  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 

- Identification and 
verification of 
beneficiaries 

Qualitative indicators: 

-Non-quantifiable 
benefits, such as fair 
competition, safety, 
liability, insurance 
components, etc. 

Quantitative 
indicators: 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

Type of 
information 

Indicators 

Sources 

(EEC) No 11/1960 was to abolish 
discrimination in transport rates and 
establishing conditions leading to the 
main benefit of liberalisation and 
opening up of the IWT market through 
fairer price competition. 

• 

- estimated value of 
benefits (no estimate 
received) 

•  1955 Bratislava Agreements, Bratislava 

Agreements (donau.bg) 

163 

 
 
 
14. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (inspections) - a) To what extent have inspections been carried out over the 
evaluation period to verify compliance of undertakings with Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960? b) To what extent 
have inspections led to benefits for any stakeholder group? c) Have inspections had any unintended negative or positive 
consequences? 

Assessment criteria 
The question looks at whether 
inspections has been taking place and 
the extent of undertaken inspections. 
Have the member states actively 
checked the transport documents for 
compliance with prices and transport 
conditions. 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Sub-question 
EQ-14a: To what 
extent have 
inspections been 
carried out over 
the evaluation 
period to verify 
compliance of 
undertakings with 
Council 
Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960? 
EQ-14b: To what 
extent have 
inspections led to 
benefits for any 
stakeholder 
group? 

This question looks at the potential 
benefits that inspections have 
brought for each stakeholder group 
compared to a situation where this 
legislation would not have been in 
place, to look at whether inspections 
have brought a benefit for at least 
one stakeholder group. The purpose 
of the question is also to identify 
potential negative impacts in case of 
absence of inspections and the extent 
of benefits for stakeholders. 
This is an exploratory question, 
which looks into possible unintended 
positive and negative consequences 
of the inspections (e.g. in terms of 

EQ-14c: Have 
inspections had 
any unintended 
negative or 

Type of information 
Inspections have 
taken place 

• 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

•  Extent of 

undertaken 
inspections 

• 

- No. of inspections per MS 
per year  

Qualitative indicators: 

• 

- Estimation by stakeholders 
on frequency of inspections  

Sources 
•  Targeted survey (2021) carried out in the 

context of the fitness check support study.  

•  Dedicated SME survey, conducted with 
the support of the European Enterprise 
Network in 2022.  

•  Targeted consultation of operators’ 
associations and Member States 
authorities, organised by the Commission 
in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

•  Exploratory interviews EBU and the Dutch 

• 

• 

• 

Inspections have 
brought a benefit 
for at least one 
stakeholder 
group. 
Identification of 
potential negative 
impacts in case of 
absence of 
inspections 
•  Extent of benefit 
for stakeholders 
Identification of 
unintended effects 
and affected 
stakeholders 

• 

Qualitative indicators: 

MoT 

- Non-quantifiable benefits, 
such as fair competition, 
safety, liability, insurance 
components, etc.  

Quantitative indicators: 
-  Monetary impacts (positive 
or negative) (no estimate 
received) 

•  Literature research, in particular:  

•  Survey on enforcement procedures (EFTI-

D1.2.5 Annex III: Online survey on 
enforcement procedures).  

•  Overview of the processes and procedures 
performed by different national competent 
authorities when checking regulatory 
information under the scope of the eFTI 
Regulation (EFTI-D1.2.5). 

•  Member States Workshops Breakout 
sessions (EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex II) 

164 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
positive 
consequences? 

Assessment criteria 
additional costs). The question 
intends to identify unintended effects 
and affected stakeholders and the 
estimation of the extent of impact. 

Type of information 
•  Estimation of the 
extent of impact 

Sources 

Indicators 
- Other quantitative indicators 
(time, personnel numbers, etc) 
(no estimate received) 
Qualitative indicators: 
- Qualitative assessment by 
stakeholders  

165 

 
 
 
15. How successful has been Council Directive 96/75 in eliminating national rules and practices impeding the freedom of 
chartering and pricing?  

Group 1 – Council Directive 96/75 

Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ 15a: What 
national rules were 
in place that 
hampered the 
freedom of 
chartering and 
pricing? 

This is a baseline 
question, which aims to 
sketch the picture of the 
market situation at the 
time of adoption of 
Council Directive 96/75. 

Type of 
information 
n/a 

Indicators 

Sources 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of national 
rules on chartering and 
pricing  

Targeted survey for national authorities 
Public consultation, SME panel. 
Feedback on the roadmap, in particular EBU 
Targeted consultation of Member States authorities and operators’ 
associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 
2024 
Feedback on the roadmap  

Targeted interviews with MS authorities (Ministry of Transport), 
associations (e.g. EBU/ESO, Pro Danube and INE), businesses 
(individual carriers) and the individual IWT experts, in particular: 
Interview with the representative of Rhine operators and DE 
Commissar to the CCNR representing the profession (2021) 
carried out in the context of the fitness check support study. 
Targeted interview with RO association of inland ship owners 
and port operators 
Interview with the Hungarian police in the context of the 
fitness check support study  
Interview with Expertise and Innovation Centre Barging 
(EICB) 

Literature research on national rules that used to exist and are now 
eliminated. (p. 59-61, annexes to support study), diverse reports, in 
particular: 

Belgrade Convention (1948) 
The Bratislava Convention  

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

Type of 
information 

Indicators 

Sources 

‘The importance of the Rhine-Main-Danube transport corridor: 
its impact on the Central and East European countries, with an 
emphasis on Romania’ by Constantin Sava, World Maritime 
University – 1997. 

Legal analysis, in particular: Council Directive 96/75/EC and EU 
acquis to be complied with by accession countries, Complaints and 
infringements against Member States 

EQ-15b:  To  what 
extent  has  Council 
Directive 
96/75 
achieved its aim to 
eliminate rules and 
practices impeding 
of 
freedom 
chartering 
and 
pricing? 

This question looks to 
what extent the main 
aim of Council 
Directive 96/75 has 
been achieved, whether 
no practices remain that 
impede the freedom of 
chartering and pricing. 
The question looks at 
whether the gradual 
timeline of the Directive 
was respected and if 
complaints were being 
reported. 

No practices 
remain that 
impede the 
freedom of 
chartering and 
pricing 
The gradual 
timeline of the 
Directive was 
respected 
No complaints 
are reported 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Presence or absence of 
impeding national or 
regional rules  

- Entry conditions at 
accession 

- Number of infringements  

- Analysis of infringements  

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26. To what extent has the Directive resulted in an improved, more uniform and transparent scheme for freight carriers’ 
access to the profession at European and Member States’ level? 

Group 3 – Council Directive 87/540/EEC  
Sub-question 
EQ-26a: How was the 
occupation of the carrier 
regulated before the adoption 
of Council Directive 
87/540/EEC, and did it change 
thanks to it? 
EQ-26b: To what extent has 
Council Directive 87/540/EEC 
created uniform rules to access 
the occupation of carrier of 
goods by IWT? 

Assessment criteria 
This is a baseline question 
which aims to sketch the 
picture of how the occupation 
of carrier was regulated at the 
time of adoption of Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC. 
This question looks at the 
extent to which the rules to 
access the occupation of 
carrier of goods has become 
more uniform as a result of 
Council Directive 
87/540/EEC.   

EQ-26c: To what extent has 
the Directive led to a 
transparent rules for the access 
to the occupation? 

This question focuses on an 
increase in the level of 
transparency currently 
provided through the 
application of Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC and 
whether the existing scheme 
applied by MS is transparent. 

Type of information 
•  Rules to access the 

occupation of carrier 
of goods have 
improved 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 
- Overview o rules applicable to 
the occupation of carrier and the 
related qualifications  

•  Rules to access the 

Qualitative indicators: 

occupation of carrier 
of goods have 
become uniform 

• 

- Analysis of similarity/ 
uniformity / divergence of MS 
requirements (analysis of 
legislation)  

- Overview of differences and 
presenting them in tables 
(‘Inventory of national 
implementation’) 

•  Scheme applied by 
MS is transparent  

Qualitative indicators: 

- Assessment of transparency by 
SMEs, ease of obtaining 
necessary information  

Sources 
Literature research on rules 
governing the profession of carrier  

- Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, operators’ 
associations (e.g. EBU/ESO, ETF) 
and businesses (individual 
carriers) 

- Targeted survey (2021) carried 
out in the context of the fitness 
check support study. 

- SME panel, public consultation 

- Targeted consultation during the 
gap filling phase, Feedback on the 
roadmap 

Literature review including 
verification of MS certification 
authorities web-sites, etc, targeted 
interviews and survey with the 
same organisations as mentioned 
before 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Sub-question 
EQ-26d: To what extent can 
the current scheme be 
considered as improved? 

Assessment criteria 
This question requires the 
comparison of the current 
scheme with the previous 
situation and looks at whether 
the existing scheme has 
brought quantifiable benefits 
for stakeholders and non-
quantifiable benefits. 

Type of information 
•  Existing scheme has 
brought quantifiable 
benefits for 
stakeholders 

•  Existing scheme has 

brought non 
quantifiable benefits 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

Sources 

- Monetary and time costs 
related to scheme  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Assessment by Stakeholders 
(no estimate received) 

- Other possible non quantifiable 
benefits 

Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
associations during the gap filling 
phase  

Market observation by CCNR and 
Danube Commission 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - What is the state of play of the establishment, management and use of the Fund 
by Member States, and in particular of the Reserve Fund? 

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 
Sub-question 
EQ-29a: What is the 
status of establishment, 
management and use of 
Fund?  

Assessment criteria 
The aim of this question is to 
explore the way the Member States 
are implementing the Fund. To 
explore fund provision 
implementation and identify 
discrepancies. 

Type of information 
•  Explore fund provision 

implementation 
Identify discrepancies 

• 

EQ-29b: What is the 
status of establishment, 
management and use of 
the Reserve Fund? 

This question focuses in particular 
on the Reserve Fund, to explore 
fund provision implementation and 
identify discrepancies. 

•  Explore fund provision 

implementation 
Identify discrepancies 

• 

EQ-29c: What are the 
benefits of the 
establishment, 
management and use of 
the Reserve Fund? 

This question will look at the 
potential benefits that the funds 
have brought compared to a 
situation where this legislation 
would not have been in place. The 
question looks at the extent of 
benefit for stakeholders and the 
identification of potential negative 
impacts in case of absence of IW 
funds. 

•  Extent of benefit for 

• 

stakeholders 
Identification of potential 
negative impacts in case of 
absence of IW funds 

170 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

- Per MS:, current reserves, 
managing authority  
- administrative burden 
(reporting burden) per MS 
- Number of occurrences that 
funds were used; timing 
(year/month) and occasion/ 
reason (note: Funds were used 
only once since 2003) 
- Level of fund use for the 
establishment of the IWT 
Platform  

Qualitative indicators: 
- beneficiaries of Fund (of the 
activities of the IWT Platform) 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Non quantifiable costs and 
benefits (e.g. better 
functioning of the market, 
level playing field).  

Sources 
Targeted survey to MS 
authorities, associations, and 
businesses, SME panel, public 
consultation  

Literature review including 
market studies and association 
reports, in particular: 

Annual reports of the IWT 
Platform 
Amended Regulation 
718/1999 by Regulation 
546/2014  
Council Directive 96/75/EC 
Commission Decision 
C(2017) 6663 final of 
5.10.2017 authorizing the 
use of the Inland 
Waterways Fund  
Van Hassel E., 
Vanelslander T. and Sys C. 
(2016), ‘Managing capacity 
in the inland waterway 
sector - To intervene or not 
to intervene?’, Inland 
Waterway Transport, 
Routledge, available at: 
Managing capacity in the 
inland waterway sector 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-29d: How has the 
extension of objectives 
affected the management 
and use of the funds? 

Assessment criteria 
Regulation 718/1999 was amended 
by Regulation 546/2014; it 
extended the scope of the measures 
for the use of the funds. This 
question looks how this has 
impacted the management and use 
of the fund and explore whether the 
funds are used for new objectives 
and to what extent. 

Type of information 
•  Explore whether Funds are 
used for new objectives and 
to what extent.  

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 
- Extent for fund use 
(measures)  

Sources 

Study on Financing the 
energy transition towards a 
zero-emission European 
IWT sector. 
ISCO 1 category  

Targeted consultation of 
MS administrations and 
operators’ associations 
during the gap filling phase 

Targeted interviews with 
MS authorities, associations 
(e.g. EBU/ESO, IWT 
Platform, Pro Danube) and 
with individual IWT 
experts, in particular 
interview EBU/ESO and 
the IWT Platform 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
30. Council Directive 96/75/EC - Has the mechanism in case of “serious market disturbances” (Article 7) been effective 
to achieve its objective?  

Type of information 
•  n/a 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

Sources 

Group 4 – Council Directive 96/75/EC 
Sub-question  Assessment criteria 
EQ-30a: How 
often has the 
mechanism 
been requested 
by MS and 
granted by the 
Commission? 

This is a baseline question which 
is to collect information on the 
occasions MS requested to trigger 
the mechanism and how the 
Commission dealt with such 
requests. 

Legal analysis and literature review: 

Literature research on the 
mechanism and its functioning 
and targeted surveys to MS 
authorities (Ministry of 
Transport) 
Amended Regulation 718/1999 
by Regulation 546/2014  
Council Directive 96/75/EC 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of Transport, 
especially Belgium), international 
organisations and associations (e.g. 
EBU/ESO, IWT platform). 

- Number of times MS requested to 
trigger the mechanism and the 
number of times the Commission 
granted the Request 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Reasons for requesting the 
mechanism and reasons for 
granting / refusing to trigger the 
mechanism 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Extent of use of mechanism and 
number of instances, time for 
activation of mechanism and period 
of application in each instance  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Assessment of stakeholders on 
positive use of mechanism 

EQ-30b: To 
what extent 
has the 
‘serious 
market 
disturbances’ 
mechanism of 
Council 
Directive 
96/75 attained 
its goal and/or 
is still useful? 

The aim of this question is to 
examine the extent to which the 
mechanism has supported the 
sector in overcoming any serious 
disturbances and/or is still useful. 
To examine whether the 
mechanism has been activated 
when necessary and to whether its 
activation was timely. The 
question also looks at whether the 
mechanism has contributed to 
ensuring stability during the 
disturbance period or at least 
mitigated negative impacts. 

•  Mechanism has been 

activated when necessary 
•  Mechanism activation was 

timely 

•  Mechanism contributed to 

ensuring stability during the 
disturbance period or at least 
mitigated negative impacts 

172 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency questions 

16. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (transport document) - a) What types of costs have been associated with the 
introduction of transport document and the requirement, to have them on board and for them to be kept by the carrier? 
Which stakeholder groups have incurred these costs and how high have they been over the evaluation period? b) How do these costs compare to 
the corresponding actual benefits (see EQ No. 13 and 14 on effectiveness above) for stakeholders and society at large? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Sub-question 
EQ-16a.1: What types 
of costs have been 
associated with the 
introduction of transport 
document and the 
requirement, to have 
them on board and for 
them to be kept by the 
carrier? 

Assessment criteria 
This question establishes the formal cost 
typology of the ex-post assessment 
relating to the application of the 
provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960. The question looks at the 
cost typology as per Better Regulation 
guidance (focus on implementation costs, 
enforcement costs), which costs are actors 
facing when complying with IWT 
legislation. 

EQ-16a.2: Which 
stakeholder groups have 
incurred these costs and 
how high have they been 
over the evaluation 
period? 

This question focuses on the 
identification of impacted stakeholders 
and the allocation of costs to stakeholders 
and identify the level of costs.   

EQ-16b:  How  do  these 
to 
costs  compare 
the 
corresponding 
actual 
benefits  (see  EQ  No.  13 
and  14  on  effectiveness 

This question looks at the actual costs 
compared to the actual benefits for key 
stakeholder groups.  This question also 
seeks to examine whether the benefits for 
stakeholders have compensated for the 
efforts/costs  

Sources 
Literature research, in particular 
studies, legislation and policy 
documents related to the Combined 
Transport Directive and eFTI 
[SWD(2018) 183 final], study by 
SIRA Consulting. 

Legal analysis, in particular:  

Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 
Council Regulation (EC) 
569/2008 

Targeted survey to MS authorities, 
associations, EBU/ESO and 
businesses  

Public consultation, SME survey 

Targeted consultation during the 
gap filling phase 

Type of information 
•  Cost typology as per 
Better Regulation 
guidance (focus on 
implementation 
costs, enforcement 
costs)  

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 
- administrative costs, 
adjustment costs 
- one-off, recurrent costs 
- cost for businesses and 
costs of administrations 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Qualitative assessment by 
stakeholders level of costs  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Estimation of benefits by 
stakeholders 

- Assessment of costs and 
benefits by stakeholders, 

• 

• 

Identification of 
impacted 
stakeholders 
Identification of 
costs incurred by 
stakeholders, or 
identification of 
level of costs 
•  Level of benefits, 
level of costs 

•  Costs are compared 
to benefits for all 
stakeholders 

173 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Sub-question 
above)  for  stakeholders 
and society at large? 

Assessment criteria 

Type of information 

Indicators 
and how these relate to 
each other  

Sources 

174 

 
 
 
 
17. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (transport document) - To what extent have the requirements regarding 
transport document, led to unnecessary administrative burden and what are areas with potential for simplification and 
digitalisation of transport document? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ-17a: To what extent 
have the requirements of 
Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960 regarding the 
transport document led to 
unnecessary administrative 
burden? 

EQ-17b: What are areas 
with potential for 
simplification and 
digitalisation of transport 
documents? In particular 
considering recent 
developments, like the eFTI 
and the e-governance 
principles (notably the 
‘digital only’ and once-

The aim of the question is to 
consider the extent to which 
the administrative burden 
brought by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
can be considered 
unnecessary. The question 
looks at administrative costs 
that cannot be avoided 
without diminishing benefits.  

The question looks at where 
the costs originate from. 
This is an exploratory 
question aiming to identify 
areas of potential 
simplification and 
digitalisation. 

Do public authorities accept 
electronics documents? 

Type of 
information 
•  Administrative 
costs cannot be 
avoided (without 
diminishing 
benefits) 

Indicators 

Sources 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Stakeholders views on whether 
administrative burden could be 
reduced and processes simplified or 
not. 

• 

• 

Identify areas of 
legal 
simplification 
Identify areas of 
digitalisation 
potential 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Analysis of compliance with 
paperless  principles.  

Qualitative indicators: 

- Processes /activities/requirements 
that could be simplified, particularly 
those where digitalisation could lead 
to simplification.  

175 

Answers to EQ 16, literature research 
and targeted interviews with 
businesses (individual carriers) 

Legal analysis, in particular:  

Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 
Council Regulation (EEC) 
3626/84 
Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 
Electronic Freight Transport 
Information (eFTI) Regulation 
(EU) 2020/1056 

Targeted survey  

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, associations and 
businesses (individual carriers) 

SME panel 

Literature research, in particular 
studies, policy documents and 
legislation related to the Combined 
Transport Directive and eFTI. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

Type of 
information 

Indicators 

Sources 

only’690)? 

Impact Assessment on Electronic 
freight transport information and 
Refit evaluation of the CTD, a study 
by SIRA Consulting. 

690 COM(2016) 179 page 4, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-179-EN-F1-1.PDF. 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
18. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 (inspections) - a) What have been the costs associated with the inspections (see 
EQ No.14 on effectiveness) and what stakeholder groups bear these? b) How do these costs compare to the benefits from 
inspections that could be established? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Assessment criteria 
Sub-question 

EQ-18a: What have been the 
inspection costs relating to 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 and what stakeholder 
groups did they fall on? 

The aim of this question is to 
identify the costs linked with 
the inspection and to attribute 
them to the stakeholders  

Type of 
information 

Indicators 

Sources 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Inspection frequency as 
confirmed by administrations and 
business 
- No of inspections (as per  
EQ 14 

- Inspection costs  

Qualitative indicators: 

- Qualitative indicators on 

inspection costs, including 
stakeholders assessment on 
inspection costs 

Targeted survey to MS authorities, 
associations, and businesses and SME 
panel. 

Targeted interviews with MS authorities 
(including inspection authorities like 
police), associations and businesses 
(individual carriers). 

Legal analysis, in particular:  

Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
Council Regulation (EEC) 3626/84 
Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008 

Literature research, in particular studies 
related to eFTI. 

SME survey, public consultation 
Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
organisations during the gap filling phase 
public consultation 

EQ-18b: How do the costs 
compare to the benefits from 
inspections that could be 
established? 

This question builds on the 
previous one and EQ14, 
looking at the cost benefit 
results of the inspections 

Comparison of 
costs and 
benefits 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Assessment of benefit-cost 
relationship stakeholders  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - Over the period of evaluation period a) what type of costs have arisen related to the 
establishment, management and use of the IW Funds, how high were they and who bears these costs and b) have these 
costs been proportionate to the benefits they have generated? 

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ-31a.1: Over the period of 
evaluation period what type of 
costs have arisen related to the 
establishment, management 
and use of the IW Funds, and 
how high were they? 

This question investigates the 
costs for establishing, 
managing, and using the IW 
funds. It investigates the type 
of costs as well as the level per 
cost of establishment.  

EQ31a.2: Who bears the 
costs? 

This question investigates the 
distribution of these costs 
among the stakeholders and 
the allocation of costs to 
authorities. 

Type of information 

Indicators 

•  Establishment of type 

Quantitative indicators: 

of costs 

•  Establishment of type 
of activities leading to 
costs (ie reporting 
burden) 

•  Understanding which 
authorities bear those 
costs  

- amount of funds collected 
- associated costs (ie reporting 
burden) 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Qualitative assessment of 
costs  
- Stakeholders’ qualitative 
assessment of IW funds 
costs  

EQ-31b: Have the costs 
regarding IW funds been 
proportionate to the benefits 
they generated? 

This question builds on the 
previous one looking at the 
cost benefit relationship of the 
IW funds. 

•  Comparison of costs 

Qualitative indicators: 

and benefits 

- Assessment of costs and 
benefits by stakeholders  

Sources/Focus of Evaluation 
analysis  
Targeted survey to MS authorities, 
associations, and businesses  

SME panel, Public consultation 

Literature review, legal analysis, 
in particular  

related legislation  
Commission Decision 
[C(2017) 6663 final]  
tariff rates by Member State for 
the ISCO 1 category  
market studies. 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, and associations. 

Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
organisations during the gap filling 
phase 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Coherence questions 

19. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960: Have any inconsistencies developed, when comparing how requirements on 
carriage of goods by inland waterway transport have developed, compared to those by other transport modes covered 
by the Regulation? 

Group 1 – Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960  
Assessment criteria 
Sub-question 
The aim is to establish an 
EQ-19a: What are the 
overview of the original 
requirements on carriage of 
requirements on the carriage 
goods by IWT and how have 
of goods by IWT in 1960 and 
they developed since 1960? 
analyse whether (and how) 
these requirements have 
changed since then, in order to 
have an overview of the 
current requirements.  

EQ-19b: What are the 
requirements on carriage of 
goods by road transport and 
how have they developed 
since 1960? 

The aim is to establish an 
overview of the original 
requirements on the carriage 
of goods by road transport in 
1960 and analyse whether (and 
how) these requirements have 
changed since then in order to 
have an overview of the 
current requirements. 

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of requirements in 
1960 

- Overview of requirements in 
2022 

- Main developments to 
describe the changes between 
1960 and 2022, if any 

n/a 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of requirements in 
1960 

- Overview of requirements in 
2022 

- Main developments to 
describe the changes between 
1960 and 2022, if any 

Sources 
Analysis of legislation, such as 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960, TFEU, Coal and 
Steel Community, CMNI 
Convention, eFTI Regulation 

Literature research, especially 
legal paper on carriage of 
goods in general and carriage 
of goods in IWT in particular 

Stakeholder consultation 
Analysis of legislation, such as 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960, TFEU, Coal and 
Steel Community, CMNI 
Convention, CMR Convention 

Literature research, especially 
legal paper on carriage of 
goods in the road sector in 
particular.  

Stakeholder consultation 

179 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-19c: What are the 
requirements on carriage of 
goods by rail transport and 
how have they developed 
since 1960? 

EQ-19d: To what extent are 
the requirements on carriage 
of goods for the different 
modes of transport similar? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to establish an 
overview of the original 
requirements on the carriage 
of goods by rail transport in 
1960 and analyse whether (and 
how) these requirements have 
changed since then in order to 
have an overview of the 
current requirements. 

The aim is to establish how the 
requirements on carriage of 
goods have developed over 
time and whether the 
requirements for the different 
modes have developed in a 
similar way or deviations have 
taken place 

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 

•  Qualitative indicators: 
- Overview of the 
requirements in 1960 
- Overview of the current 
Requirements 
- Main developments to 
describe the changes between 
1960 and 2022, if any 

•  The developments 

•  Qualitative indicators: 

influencing the requirement 
on the carriage of goods 
have been similar 

•  The requirements today are 
still similar between all 
modes 

- Number of current 
requirements that are similar 

- Number of current 
requirements that do deviate 

Sources 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960, COTIF Convention, 
literature research, especially 
legal paper on carriage of 
goods in the rail sector in 
particular and targeted 
interviews with sector 
associations.  

Stakeholder consultation 

Answers to EQ 19a, 19b and 
19c, literature research, 
especially comparative studies 
on the requirements for the 
carriage of goods, targeted 
interview with all-round legal 
expert on the carriage of goods 
and with MS authorities 

180 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
20. Is the approach to legislating on conditions for carrying goods or passengers on EU inland waterways (cabotage, 
transport between Member States or in transit through them) consistent with the approach used in other transport 
modes? 

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 
Sub-question 
EQ-20a: Which legal 
approach is taken for carrying 
goods and/or passengers in rail 
and road transport, aviation 
and maritime transport? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to identify the 
conditions under which goods 
and/or passenger can be 
carried in rail and road 
maritime and aviation 
transport. 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Type of information 
legal analysis 

Overview of cross border and 
the cabotage conditions in 
road, air, sea, rail and IWT 
transport 

Sources 
Legal analysis: 
•  Treaty for European Union, 
Common Transport Policy 

•  Regulation (EC) No 

1072/2009 as amended in 
2020, notably by 
Regulation (EU) No 
2020/1055 (for road 
transport) 

•  Regulation (EC) No 

1073/2009 (for bus and 
coaches),  

•  Directive 2012/34/EU, 
•  Regulation 3577/92, 
•  Regulation 4055/86/EC 
•  Regulation 1008/2008  
•  Regulation (EU) 913/2010 
•  Council Regulation (EC) 

No. 1356/96 

•  Council Regulation (EEC) 

No 3921/91 

•  Regulations 2407/92, 
2408/92, 2409/92 
•  Regulation (EC) No 

1071/2009  

•  Council Directive 
87/540/EEC 
•  Directive 91/440 
•  Directive 2001/12 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

Type of information 

Indicators 

182 

Sources 
•  Directive 2004/5 
•  Directive 2016/2370 
•  Council Regulation (EEC) 

No 2919/85 

Interpretative Communication 
on “the temporary nature of 
road cabotage in the 
movement of freight” (2005/C 
21/02)  

Decision No. 7/94 of the 
mixed committee of the EEA, 
ECOJ No. L160 of 28/6/94 

Agreement between the 
European Community and the 
Swiss Confederation on air 
transport, 21 June 1999, 
decision of the Council n° 
2002/309 of 4 April 2002 

CCNR Resolution 1984-I-3 

Review of relevant market 
studies  

Feedback from ETF 

Interviews with stakeholders 
such as Romanian and Polish 
delegates, the IWT Platform, a 
former Secretary General of 
the CCNR 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-20b: To what extent are 
the conditions for carrying 
goods and/or passenger similar 
between IWT on the one hand 
and rail, road, aviation and 
maritime transport on the other 
hand? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to assess to what 
extent the approach considered 
for IWT is similar to that of 
rail and road, aviation and 
maritime transport. 

Type of information 
•  The approach taken is 

highly similar between the 
different transport modes, 
both goods and passengers 
•  The conditions for carrying 
goods and/or passengers by 
IWT are similar to those of 
rail and road transport. 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Sources 

- Extent of similar/diverging 
provisions on cabotage 

- Extent of similar/diverging 
provisions regulating transport 
of goods/passengers between 
Member States 

- Extent of similar/diverging 
provisions regulating transport 
of goods/passenger while 
transit through Member States 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21. a) During the evaluation period, has the coexistence of different legal regimes (EU Treaty, Act of Mannheim, 
Belgrade Convention) led to any inconsistencies in regulating market access on EU inland waterways? b) Is the co-
existence of different legal regimes a helping, hindering or neutral factor in pursuit of implementing an IWT Single 
Market? 

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 
Sub-question 
EQ-21a: Has the coexistence 
of different legal regimes (EU 
Treaty, Act of Mannheim, 
Belgrade Convention) led to 
any inconsistencies in 
regulating market access of 
EU inland waterways?  

Assessment criteria  Type of information 
The aim is to analyse 
whether the different 
legal regimes, all 
providing conditions 
for market access, 
different from 
another and whether 
this leads to 
inconsistencies. 

inconsistencies between 
conditions laid down in 
EU law and the Act of 
Mannheim 
•  There are no 

Sources 
Targeted interviews with the DC 
Secretariat and MS that fall under the 
Danube regime, including third 
countries, UNECE and experts on the 
subject; targeted survey; , public 
consultation and SME panel. 

- Extent of similar /diverging 
provisions in EU law and the 
Belgrade Convention  

- Extent of similar/diverging 
provisions in EU law and the 
Act of Mannheim  

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

•  There are no 

inconsistencies between 
conditions laid down in 
EU law and the 
Belgrade Convention 

Literature and legislative review, in 
particular: 
Act of Mannheim 
Belgrade Convention 
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 
Public consultation 

Directive (EU) 2017/2397 

EQ-21b: Is the coexistence of 
different legal regimes a 
helping, hindering or neutral 
factor in pursuit of 
implementing an IWT Single 
Market?  

The aim is to analyse 
whether the fact that 
different legal 
regimes apply to 
market access 
influence the 
implementation of an 
IWT single market.  

•  The implementation of 
the single market is not 
hindered, or not 
hindered. Why. 
Is above response 
different by stakeholder 
or by river basin 

• 

Qualitative indicators: 

- River commissions agreeing to 
the statement, and the reasons 
why or why not (no estimate 
received) 

- Member State authorities 
agreeing to the statement, and 
the reason why or why not (no 
estimate recieved) 

184 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria  Type of information 

Indicators 
- Operators and other relevant 
economic actors agreeing to the 
statement, and the reason why or 
why not (no estimate received) 

Sources 

185 

 
 
 
22. a) To what extent are the legal acts in Group 2 consistent in their approach to regulate access to the EU IWT market 
by third countries (e.g. Switzerland, Serbia, Ukraine)? b) To what extent are any of the differences in approach justified 
by and proportionate to the countries’ different statuses (e.g. Association Agreements with Neighbourhood Countries 
and the Transport Community Treaty with Accession Countries, etc.)? 

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96  
Sub-question 
EQ-22a.1: How is market 
access regulated in each of the 
three legal acts towards non-
EU countries?  

similar approach regarding 
market access of EEA 
counties. 

Type of information 
•  The legal acts have a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to analyse which 
conditions have been set in the 
three legal acts to establish 
what legal regimes are 
applicable to non-EU 
countries such as Switzerland, 
Ukraine and Serbia? In other 
words, do the three legal acts 
have a similar approach? 

-  Similar provisions 
granting market access to EEA 
countries 

- Similar provisions granting 
market access to countries 
with whom the EU has an 
Association Agreement 

- Similar provisions granting 
market access to countries 
with whom the EU has signed 
the Transport Community 
Treaty with Accession 
Countries  

Sources 
Legal analysis: 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2919/85, Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 3921/91 and 
Council Regulation (EC) No 
1356/96, including relevant 
memoranda of Understanding 

literature research, including 
academic literature on market 
access and EU law in general 
(especially on enlargements) 
Danube Convention 

EUCJ, C-266/03, 2 June 2005, 
Commission v. Luxembourg 

Public consultation, 
(stakeholder input by EU and 
non-EU respondents, like 
Switzerland, Ukraine and 
Serbia was allowed) 

CCNR documentation (River 
Law Committee) 

•  All three legal acts have a 
similar approach regarding 
market access of countries 
with whom the EU has an 
Association Agreement. 
•  All three legal acts have a 
similar approach regarding 
market access of countries 
with whom the EU has 
signed the Transport 
Community Treaty with 
Accession Countries. 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Sub-question 
EQ-22a.2: In case of different 
regimes towards different 
countries: is such an approach 
justified? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to assess whether 
applying different regimes on 
market access are justified.  

Type of information 
•  Objective criteria can be 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

identified based on which 
difference can be justified. 

EQ-22b: To what extent are 
any of the differences in 
approach justified by and 
proportionate to the countries’ 
different statuses? 

The aim is to assess whether 
the different regimes on 
market access are applied in a 
justified and proportionate 
manner. 

•  Burden imposed by 
different regimes is 
proportionate to benefit 
from status  

187 

Sources 
Review of literature, research 
on EU accession law and 
policy 

Targeted interviews with 
stakeholders in Danube 
countries, including the 
Secretariat of the DC to 
understand practice of Danube 
regime today 

Public consultation reaching 
MS and 3rd country 
representatives. 

IWT statistics (such as # of 
vessels on EU waters, 
economic actors on EU 
market, # of crew working in 
the EU) e.g. from the CCNR 
market observation report. 

- Overview of the criteria 
applied per type of country 
seeking access 

- Input from stakeholders on 
justifiability of the application 
of different regimes 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Number of operators 
operating on EU waters from 
Switzerland, Ukraine and 
Serbia, UK & number of 
vessel 

- Number of third country 
operators who operate in EU 
IW 

- Number of refusals of 
vessels operating on EU water 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
27. To what extent are the requirements for carriers in the Directive consistent with the competence based-system set up 
for crew members under Directive (EU) 2017/2397 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland 
navigation? Are there any contradictions or overlaps? 

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC  
Assessment criteria 
Sub-question 
The aim is to obtain an 
EQ-27a: Which 
overview of the 
requirements are laid 
requirements laid down 
down in Directive 
in Directive (EU) 
(EU) 2017/2397? 
2017/2397 on the 
recognition of 
professional 
qualifications. 

EQ-27b: To what 
extent do Council 
Directive 
87/540/EEC and 
Directive (EU) 
2017/2397 overlap? 

The aim is to assess to 
what extent both 
Directives are coherent. 
In other words, do they 
overlap or are specific 
parts posing conflicts. 

Type of information 
Legal analysis 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Sources 
Council Directive 87/540/EEC 

- Overview of the requirements laid 
down 
- Overview to whom these 
requirements apply 
- Overview how these requirements 
apply 
- Impact of the requirements on 
crew 

•  There is no conflict 

Qualitative indicators: 

between Council Directive 
87/540/EEC and Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397  

•  The objectives achieved by 
both legal acts are partly 
similar (objective of 
Council Directive 
87/540/EEC is much 
broader) 

• 

- The number of overlapping 
requirements 
- The number of stand-alone 
requirements 
- The number of requirements that 
contradict the Directive (EU) 
2017/2397  
- Inconsistencies between Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC and Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397 

Review of Directive (EU) 2017/2397, 
including the memoranda of 
understanding, review of other policy 
documents such as impact assessments 
and evaluation of this Directive691 

Various consultations  

Targeted interview with EBU/ESO 

In addition to a., Review of Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC, including 
memoranda of understanding, other 
policy documents and studies if 
available and targeted interview with 
EBU/ESO. 

Public consultation 

Exploratory interview with EU IWT 
platform692 

691 For example: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0071 and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/EN/legissum:320404_1. 
692 p. 88 in the annexes to the support study 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28. To what extent are the requirements for carriers in the Directive consistent with the requirements pursuing similar 
objectives in other modes of transport, in particular road transport and aviation? 

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC  
Sub-question 
EQ-28a: Which 
rules on 
professional 
competence are laid 
down in EU 
aviation law? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to obtain an 
overview of the 
requirements laid down in 
EU law for professional 
competence for carriers in 
the aviation sector. 

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of provisions on 
professional competence for 
carriers in the aviation sector and 
what they entail 

EQ-28b: Which 
rules on 
professional 
competence are laid 
down in EU road 
transport law? 

The aim is to obtain an 
overview of the 
requirements laid down in 
EU law for professional 
competence for carriers in 
the road sector. 

n/a 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of provisions on 
professional competence for 
carriers in the road sector and 
what they entail 

189 

Sources 
Amended proposal for a Council Directive on 
safety requirements and attestation of professional 
competence for cabin crew in civil aviation / 
COM/99/0068 final - SYN 97/0212, including 
related policy documents, Regulation 965/2012, 
Regulation 452/2014, Regulation 859/2008 
repealed by Regulation 2018/1139 and Regulation 
1321/2014, Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, 
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, Regulation (EU) 
No 996/2010, Regulation (EU) No 376/2014, 
Directive 2014/30/EU, Directive 2014/53/EU, 
repealing regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) 
No 216/2008,  

literature research, including academic publications 
on professional qualifications in aviation, and ECA 
and with Member State  

Inspection authorities,  

targeted survey to all stakeholders.  
Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 + 2020/1055 + 
related policy documents, Literature research, 
including academic publications on professional 
qualifications in road transport, and IRU and with 
Member State authorities, targeted survey with all 
stakeholders 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-28c: Which 
rules on 
professional 
competence are laid 
down in EU rail 
transport law? 

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to obtain an 
overview of the 
requirements laid down in 
EU law for professional 
competence for carriers in 
the rail sector. 

EQ-28d: To what 
extent do the 
requirements for 
professional 
competence 
between the 
different modes of 
transport overlap?  

The aim is to assess 
whether IWT has any 
undue competitive 
disadvantage as opposed 
to other modes of 
transport.  

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of provisions on 
professional competence for 
carriers in the rail sector and what 
they entail 

Sources 
 Directive 2012/34/EU, Regulation (EU) 913/2010, 
literature research, including academic publications 
on professional qualifications in rail transport, 
targeted interview with ETF and ERFA and with 
Member State authorities, targeted survey with all 
stakeholders. 

Qualitative indicators: 

Analysis of the above 

- Number of similar provisions on 
qualifications  

- Number of similar provisions on 
training requirements  

- Number of similar provisions on 
certification requirements  

- Number of similar provisions on 
recording of activities  

•  The requirements 
for professional 
competence for 
carriers are similar 
between IWT and 
aviation 

•  The requirements 
for professional 
competence for 
carriers are similar 
between IWT and 
road transport 
•  The requirements 
for professional 
competence for 
carriers are similar 
between IWT and 
rail transport 
•  The requirements 
for professional 
competence for 
carriers are similar 
between IWT and 
maritime transport 

190 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - a) To what extent do the mechanisms set under the Regulation complement or 
interact with other EU sectoral instruments, in particular funding instruments? - b) Do any inconsistencies exist 
(between these instruments)? 

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC 
Sub-question 
EQ-33a: To what extent do 
mechanisms set under the 
Regulation complement or 
interact with other EU 
sectoral instruments, in 
particular funding 
instruments? 

Assessment criteria 
Screening relevant EU sectoral 
instruments in order to 
compare the consistency with 
the mechanisms laid down in 
Regulation 718/1999. 

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Overview of the relevant 
instruments  

- Screening of these instruments 
aim to achieve and how they 
intend to do it 

Sources 
H2020, CEF, Cohesion Fund, 
EUSDR, State aid law and 
instruments included therein, 
https://eibip.eu/funding/, other 

Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999, Council Directive 
96/75/EC, Regulation (EU) No 
546/2014 

EQ-33b: Do any 
inconsistencies exist between 
these instruments? 

The aim is to assess to what 
extent the scrapping fund and 
old-for-new legislation are in 
line with other instruments on 
sectoral support. 

•  The mechanisms 
mentioned in 
Regulation 718/1999 
are fully in line with 
identified EU 
sectoral instruments 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Overlaps between the 
mechanisms mentioned in 
Regulation 718/1999 and other 
EU Instruments  

- Discrepancies/ conflicts between 
the mechanisms mentioned in 
Regulation and other EU 
Instruments 

191 

Answer to EQ 33a, literature 
review, including academic papers 
on Regulation 718/1999, market 
studies, targeted interviews with 
representatives of different 
stakeholder groups (e.g. MS 
authorities (Ministry of Transport) 
and associations (EBU/ESO, Pro 
Danube, INE) and targeted 
surveys to MS authorities 
(Ministry of Transport) and 
associations (EBU/ESO, Pro 
Danube, INE) 

Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999, Council Directive 
96/75/EC, Regulation (EU) No 
546/2014 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34. Are there any inconsistencies a) within each of the two pieces of legislation of group 4 and b) between them?  

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC 
Sub-question 
EQ-34a: To what extent is 
Council Directive 96/75/EC 
internally coherent? 

Type of information 
•  The Directive does not 
contain contradicting 
provisions.  

Assessment criteria 
The aim is to assess whether 
provisions laid down in 
Council Directive 96/75/EC 
are in line with another or that 
inconsistencies or conflicts 
between certain provision 
exists 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Extent of similar/conflicting 
provisions  

• 
- Checks adjustment to cargo 
and passenger shipping 
separately 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Extent of similar/conflicting 
provisions 

Sources 
Council Directive 96/75/EC + 
relevant policy documentation, 
literature research, including 
academic papers on potential 
problems with Council 
Directive 96/75/EC 
Stakeholder consultation 

Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999 + relevant policy 
documentation, literature 
research, including academic 
papers on potential problems 
with Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999, targeted interview 
with legal expert on this 
Regulation and targeted 
survey to all stakeholders. 

•  The Regulation does not 
contain contradicting 
provisions. 

EQ-34b: To what extent is 
Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999 internally coherent? 

EQ-34c: Are there any 
inconsistencies between the 
two pieces of legislation of 
group 4? 

The aim is to assess whether 
provisions laid down in 
Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999 are in line with 
another or that inconsistencies 
or conflicts between certain 
provision exists 

The aim is to assess whether 
all provisions laid down in 
Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999 and Council 
Directive 96/75/EC are in line 
with one another or that 
inconsistencies or conflicts 
between certain provision 
exists 

•  The Council Directive and 
the Council Regulation do 
not contain contradicting 
provisions 

Qualitative indicators: 

Answer to EQ 34a & EQ 34b. 

- Extentof similar/conflicting 
Provisions  

192 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
EU Added value questions 

24. a) What is the rationale of public intervention at EU-Level for group 2? b) To what extent has there been evidence of 
actual EU-added value (in support of this rationale)? 

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 
Sub-question 
EQ-24a: What is the rationale 
of public intervention at EU-
Level for group 2? 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Type of information 
•  There is a welfare 

- Subsidiarity analysis  

Assessment criteria 
This question asks whether 
any EU Added Value could 
exist in theory; i.e. to make 
explicit the rationale that 
underlies the policy, with 
respect to optimising EU 
society’s welfare. 

economic rationale for 
EU-level public 
intervention due to a 
market failure (e.g. 
borders, high 
coordination cost); 
equity concerns. 
•  There is no conflict 
with the subsidiarity 
principle 

•  There is no conflict 

with the 
proportionality 
principle 

EQ-24b: What has been the 
actual EU-added value of 
group 2? 

This question is the 
counterpart to 24a and asks 
about empirical evidence for 
EU added value; i.e. evidence 
that the theoretical benefit 
from EU-level intervention 
has actually materialised. 

•  Group 2 led to a direct 
and clear welfare 
benefit for EU society 
as a whole beyond that 
which non-EU-level 
actors would likely 
have achieved 

193 

- Proportionality analysis  

- Mapping of political situation at 
time of adoption 

Quantitative indicators: 

Sources 
Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2919/85, Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 
3921/91, Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1356/96 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of 
Transport), international 
organisations, and 
associations and targeted 
surveys to authorities, 
associations, and businesses. 

Literature review  

Targeted survey  

- Relevant efficiency and 
effectiveness indicators (including 
for example market statistics) 

Public consultation and SME 
survey 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Legal, operational, political 
analysis 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

Type of information 

Indicators 
- Non quantitative information on 
benefits (e/g relating to synergies, 
etc) 

Sources 

194 

 
 
 
35. a) What is the rationale of public intervention at EU level for group 4? - b) To what extent does evidence suggest 
group 4 has generated added value over and beyond what could have been achieved by Member States at national level? 

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 and Council Directive 96/75/EC 
Sub-question 
EQ-35a: What is 
the rationale of 
public intervention 
at EU-Level for 
group 4? 

Assessment Criteria 
This  question  asks  whether  any  EU 
added value could exist in theory; i.e. 
to  make  explicit  the  rationale  that 
underlies  the  policy,  with  respect  to 
optimising EU society’s welfare. The 
question investigates whether there are 
conflicts  with  the  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality principle.   

Type of information 
•  There is no conflict with the 

subsidiarity principle. 

•  There is no conflict with the 
proportionality principle. 
•  There is a welfare economic 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 
- Subsidiarity analysis 
- Proportionality analysis 
- Mapping of political 
situation at time of adoption  

rationale for EU-level 
public intervention due to a 
market failure (e.g. borders, 
high coordination cost); 
equity concerns. 

EQ-35: What has 
been the actual EU-
added value of 
group 4? 

This question is the counterpart to 35a 
and asks about the empirical evidence 
for EU added value; i.e. evidence that 
the theoretical benefit from EU-level 
intervention has actually materialised. 

•  Group 4 led to a direct and 
clear welfare benefit for EU 
society as a whole beyond 
that which non-EU-level 
actors would likely have 
achieved 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Relevant efficiency and 
effectiveness indicators 
(Including for example fleet 
statistics, employment 
statistics, etc) 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Legal, operational, political 
analysis 
- Non quantitative 
information on benefits (e.g. 
relating to synergies, etc)  

195 

Sources 
Council Regulation (EC) 
718/1999, Council Directive 
96/75/EC 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of 
Transport), international 
organisations, and associations 
and targeted surveys to 
authorities, associations, and 
businesses. 

Literature review.  

Answers to EQ29, EQ30 & EQ31 
and Eurostat data on fleet and 
employment 

Literature review on politics and 
targeted interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of 
Transport), international 
organisations, and associations 

Targeted surveys to all 
stakeholders 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Relevance questions 

12. To what extent have the original objectives of the legal acts in Group 1 met the challenges and needs of the IWT 
sector over the evaluation period until today? Particular attention should be paid to the objectives of opening and 
improving the competitiveness of the IWT market and ensuring non-discrimination in transport rates and conditions. 

Type of information 

Group 1 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 and Council Directive 96/75 
Assessment criteria  
Sub-question 
Establish whether 
EQ-12a: To what extent 
objectives correspond to 
have the original objectives 
the scale of challenges in 
of the legal acts in Group 1 
the market when it comes 
met the policy needs of the 
to creating an open 
IWT market with respect to 
market with improved 
opening and improving the 
competitiveness 
competitiveness? 
throughout the evaluation 
period. 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicator: 

- Infringements cases 

- Assessment of stakeholders of how 
adequate the policy ambition/ 
objectives of the legislation has been to 
respond to the challenges in the sector 
with regard to opening, 
competitiveness and non-
discrimination  

EQ-12b: To what extent 
have the original objectives 
of the legal acts in Group 1 
met the policy needs of the 
IWT market with respect to 
ensuring non-discrimination 
in transport rates and 
conditions? 

Establish whether 
objectives correspond to 
the challenges in the 
market regarding non-
discrimination in 
transport rates and 
conditions. 

Sources 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 
Council 
Directive 96/75/EC 

11/1960, 

Literature  review  including 
the relevant legislation693, the 
Agreements, 
Bratislava 
studies694 
market 
and 
associations’ reports  

Targeted 
stakeholders 

survey 

to 

all 

Targeted interviews with MS 
international 
authorities, 
organisations, 
associations 
(e.g. EBU/ESO, Pro Danube, 
IWT  Platform,  EBU/ESO) 

693 i.e. Council Regulation (EC) 569/2008, Regulation (EU) 2020/1056; Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
694 NEA & PLANCO (1991). Towards a European Policy for the Inland WaterTransport Industry; 
CE Delft, MDS Transmodal, NEA, PLANCO, Via Donau & Panteia (2011). Medium- and Long-Term Perspectives of IWT in the European Union; 

196 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-12c: Have the objectives 
of Group 1 legal acts met the 
challenges and needs of the 
IWT sector apart from those 
with regards to opening and 
improving the 
competitiveness of the IWT 
market and ensuring non-
discrimination in transport 
rates and conditions? 

Assessment criteria  
Examine the extent to 
which the objectives of 
Group 1 were relevant to 
(and covered) the policy 
needs of the sector in 
terms of market access, 
competitiveness and 
barrier removal over the 
evaluation period.  

Type of information 
•  Objectives covered the 

actual needs of the sector. 

•  Whether there were other 
needs in terms of market 
access, competitiveness 
and barrier removal, that 
the original objectives did 
not consider/cover (or 
whether other needs 
appeared during the 
period). 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

- Market statistics 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Objectives cover actual needs 
(yes/no)  

- Review of needs development 
through the evaluation period  

Sources 
and  businesses  (individual 
carriers). 

Public 
consultation  with 
submitted  papers  from  EBU 
and  Enterprises  Fluviales  de 
France, SME panel 

Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and 
operators’ organisations 
during the gap filling phase 

- Identification of possible gaps and 
analysis of extent of needs coverage.  

- Indications from stakeholders sector 
needs not addressed during a specific 
period.  

INFR(2017)4115-BE 
INFR(1996)4448-NL 

Danube workshop, 20 
January 2022 

EQ-12d: Is there any 
discrimination among EU 
operators currently that is 
not addressed by these acts? 

This question aims to 
identify discrimination 
which is not addressed by 
the legal acts of this 
group.  

•  There is discrimination in 

Qualitative indicators: 

the sector in the EU 

- Occurrences of discrimination in 
IWT sector (not addressed by legal 
acts Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960 and Council Directive 96/75)  

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Assessment criteria 
The aim of this question 
is to analyse the 
objectives of the legal 
acts in Group 2 and 
compare them with 
actual sector needs (over 
the evaluation period) in 
terms of the conditions 
to access the IWT 
market. There were 
other needs in terms of 
market access, 
competitiveness and 
barrier removal, that the 
original objectives did 
not consider/cover (or 
other needs appeared 
during the period).  
The aim of this question 
is to analyse the 
objectives of Free Trade 
Agreements and 

23. Over the evaluation period, how well have the objectives of the legal acts corresponded to the sector’s needs arising 
from developments of the EU IWT market (including from the successive enlargements of the EU and the 
implementation of free trade agreements including commitments in IWT)?  

Type of information 
•  The objectives covered 

actual and real needs of the 
sector 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics  

Group 2 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 
Sub-question 
EQ-23a: To 
what extent 
have the 
objectives of the 
Group 2 legal 
acts covered the 
needs of the 
sector over the 
evaluation 
period? 

•  There were other needs in 
terms of market access, 
competitiveness and barrier 
removal, that the original 
objectives did not 
consider/cover (or other 
needs appeared during the 
period). 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Examination of the development of 
needs from the sector through the 
evaluation period  
- Indications from stakeholders that sector 
needs are addressed /not addressed.  
- Objectives covered actual needs (yes/no)  
- Identification of possible gaps and 
analysis of extent of needs coverage 

Sources 
Legislations including Council 
Regulation (EEC)  No 2919/85, 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91, 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96, 
TFEU 

Literature review including Policy 
documents, market studies and 
association reports, such as Eurostat695 
and the Inland Navigation in Europe 
Market Observation696 

Targeted interviews with associations 
(e.g. CCNR experts) 

Public consultation, SME panel 

Review of FTAs,697 TCT698, 
Association Agreements, review of 
literature on the principle of free 
navigation on inland waterways699 

EQ-23b: To 
what extent 
have free trade 
agreements 

•  The objectives covered 

actual and real needs of the 
sector 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics 
Qualitative indicators: 

695 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Inland_waterway_transport_statistics. 
696 https://inland-navigation-market.org/. 
697 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/. 
698 Transport Community Treaty 
699 Advisory opinion of the CESE, 17 April 1985 (CES 292/85 final, OJ No C 169, 8. 7. 1985): In practice, the undertakings involved in Rhine navigation are likely to remain established 
in Rhine riparian States. 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 
(including 
commitments in 
IWT) 
contributed to 
covering the 
needs of the 
sector? 

Assessment criteria 
compare them with the 
actual needs of the 
sector in terms of 
conditions to access the 
IWT market. There were 
other needs in terms of 
market access, 
competitiveness and 
barrier removal, that the 
original objectives did 
not consider/cover (or 
appeared during the 
period).  

Type of information 
•  There were other needs in 
terms of market access, 
competitiveness and barrier 
removal, that the original 
objectives did not 
consider/cover (or other 
needs appeared during the 
period). 

Indicators 
- Overview of relevant Free Trade 
Agreements- Indication from stakeholders 
to which extent the needs of the sector are 
addressed. 
- Identification of possible gaps and 
analysis of extent of needs coverage  

Sources 
Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
organisations during the gap filling 
phase 

Danube workshop, 20 January 2022 

Treaty establishing the Transport 
Community (Council Decision (EU) 
2019/392) 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25. To what extent are the scope and the requirements for the access to the occupation of carrier, laid down in the 
Directive, still relevant to address the current and future expected needs of the sector, particularly in view of a modern, 
digitalised, safe and environmental-friendly inland waterborne transport? 

Group 3 - Council Directive 87/540/EEC  
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ-25a: To what extent 
are the scope and 
requirements of Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC 
still relevant to address 
current and future needs 
of the sector? 

This question will examine 
whether the scope and the 
requirements of Council 
Directive 87/540/EEC are still 
relevant to address the 
challenges of today as well as 
those of the future, with a focus 
on digitalisation, safety and 
environment. 

Type of 
information 
•  Scope and 

requirements are 
appropriate for 
current needs 

•  Scope and 

requirements are 
appropriate for 
future needs 

Indicators 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics, number of entrepreneurs, 
information about courses  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Identification of current and future needs and 
comparison with existing scope and 
requirements 
- Assessment of the extent to which current 
provisions lead to a qualification level that 
addresses todays and future challenges 
- gaps as communicated by stakeholders 

EQ-25b: What are 
suggestions to improve 
legislation?  

In this question we will look for 
suggestions for improvement of 
the legislation, in order to keep 
its relevance with today’s 
challenges. 

•  n/a 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Suggestions made by different stakeholders 

Sources 

Council Directive 
87/540/EEC, TFEU 

Literature review 
including market studies 
and association reports700 

Targeted interviews 
with MS certification and 
inspection authorities, 
associations (e.g. 
EBU/ESO, Pro Danbe), 
targeted surveys to 
businesses (individual 
carriers, targeted 
consultation and SME 
panel. 

Public consultation701 

700 For instance: https://inland-navigation-market.org/chapitre/3-overview-of-the-european-inland-waterway-transport-labour-market/. 
701 p. 77-79 annexes to support study 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
32. Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 - How well do the original objectives of setting-up a Community-fleet capacity 
policy through the establishment of national Inland Waterways Funds, including Reserve Funds, correspond to the 
current situation and needs of the IWT sector and of the wider society? 

Group 4 – Regulation 718/1999 
Sub-question 

Assessment criteria 

EQ-32a: How do the 
original objectives of 
Regulation 718/1999 
correspond to current 
and future needs of the 
IWT sector and the 
general society? 

EQ-32b: How do the 
new objectives 
implemented by 
Regulation 546/2014 
amending Regulation 
718/1999 correspond to 
current and future needs 
of the IWT sector and 
the general society? 

This question investigates the 
extent to which objectives of 
Regulation 718/1999 regarding 
the establishment of the IW fund 
and the Reserve Fund are still 
• 
relevant to current and future 
needs of the sector and that the 
objectives are relevant to broader 
needs of the society. 
This question looks into the 
extent to which the new 
objectives of Regulation 
718/1999 as implemented by 
Regulation 546/2014 are still 
relevant to current and future 
needs of the sector and the 
society.  

• 

Type of 
information 
•  Objectives are 
appropriate for 
current needs 
of the sector 

•  Objectives are 
appropriate for 
future needs of 
the sector 

•  Objectives are 
relevant to 
broader needs 
of the society 

Indicators 

Sources 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Market, and fleet statistics 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Identification of current and future 
needs and comparison with existing 
objectives 

- Assessment of level of 
correspondence of objectives and 
needs first for the sector and then for 
the society (at a higher level) 

- Estimation by stakeholders current 
and future gaps  

- Identification of the actors benefitting 
from the activities of the IWT platform  

Regulation 718/1999, Council 
Directive 976/75/EC 
Literature review including market 
studies, statistics databases (e.g. 
Eurostat), background documents on 
amendment of Regulation in 2014 
and association reports and answer to 
EQ29. 
Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, associations (e.g. 
EBU/ESO, IWT Platform, Pro 
Danube), business (individual 
carriers) and individual IWT 
experts702 
Targeted survey to stakeholders and 
SME panel 
Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
associations during the gap filling 
phase 
Public consultation 

702 Especially experts with a long working experience in IWT who are able to provide details on the historical development of the sector and the contribution of this legislation on the 
sector’s development. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Matrices for the Framework as a whole 

Effectiveness 

2. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework been effective and led to the establishment of a true internal market in 
IWT? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 

EQ-2a: Has the overall legal 
framework reached its 
general objectives? 

Assessment 
Criteria 
The aim here is 
to see if the 
seven legal acts 
together have 
reached their 
objectives and 
whether the 
effects expected 
have been fully 
materialised.  

EQ-2b: Has the combined 
performance of the legal acts 
been effective? 

The aim of this 
question is to 
identify the 
extent to which 
the combined 
performance of 
the legal acts has 
supported or 
gone beyond the 

Type of information 

Indicators 

Sources 

•  Objectives have been 
reached addressed 

•  The effects expected by the 
• 
objectives have been fully 
materialised 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Assessment  by stakeholders of the 
achievement of fulfilled objectives  

Targeted surveys to MS authorities 
(Ministry of Transport) and 
associations (e.g. EBU/ESO, Pro 
Danube, INE) and SME panel, public 
consultation 

•  Final impacts go beyond 
those envisaged in the 
individual objectives. 

•  The result is directly linked 
to synergies of the legal 
framework 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Objectives attained a higher level of 
performance than expected (N.B. no 
data received to be able to perform 
such an assessment) 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of Transport), 
associations (e.g. EBU/ESO, Pro 
Danube, INE), and individual IWT 
experts703 

Literature research and in particular 
market studies and association 
reports704 

CCNR Market observatory reports 

Qualitative indicators: 

Eurostat data  

703 Especially experts with a long working life in IWT who are able to provide details on the historical development of the sector and the contribution of this legislation on the sector’s 
development. 
704 For instance annual reports Inland Navigation Europe – market observation. 

202 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

EQ-2c: To what extent can 
be considered that the 
internal market has been 
achieved in the IWT sector? 

Assessment 
Criteria 
attainment of the 
objectives 

Here the aim is 
to conclude 
whether IWT is 
considered 
complying with 
the proper 
definition of an 
internal market 

Type of information 

Indicators 

Sources 

•  The IWT market has the 

characteristics of an internal 
market 

•  The achieved internal 

market is a direct result of 
the legislative framework 

- Performance can be attributed to 
combined effect 

- Stakeholders agree to the existence of 
the effect 
Quantitative assessment: 
- Market size (volume) and share of 
volume of cross border traffic705  
- Number of employees and share of 
employees working in a cross border 
manner 
- Number of companies and share of 
companies operating in a cross border 
manner  
- Herfindahl–Hirschman 
Index, HHI 

Qualitative assessment: 
- Absence of barriers  
- IWT market can be defined as 
competitive, with no trade barriers and 
full four freedoms  

705 By cross border traffic in this evaluation questions, we mean traffic originating from countries in which a specific waterway does not flow. For example, we look at operators from 
Member States that do not have connecting waterways. We also consider operators from the Rhine active on the Danube and operators from the Danube active on the Rhine.  

203 

 
 
 
 
 
3. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework contributed to the objectives of the EU IWT 
policy, as laid down in the NAIADES action programmes? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-3a: What are the relevant 
objectives of the NAIADES 
action programmes?  

Assessment Criteria 
The  objective  is  to  identify 
which  NAIADES  objectives 
are linked with the working of 
the  IWT  market 
legislative 
framework 

EQ-3b: To what extent has 
the IWT Internal Market 
Legislative Framework 
contributed to reaching the 
NAIADES objectives? 

The aim is to assess to which 
extent the objectives achieved 
by NAIADES have been 
achieved as a result of the 
IWT Internal Market 
Legislative Framework.  

Type of information 
• 

Impact of the IWT market 
legislative framework on 
the achievement of the 
objectives of NAIADES 

•  The impacts of the IWT 

market legislative 
framework contribute to 
achieving the relevant 
NAIADES objectives 

•  Level of contribution to the 
objectives (individual per 
act if applicable and 
combined) 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Progress in each phase of 
NAIADES (for current 
situation) by the IWT market 
legislative framework  

Sources 
Literature review, including 
NAIADES policy documents 
and reports706  

Meeting with the NAIADES 
expert group  

706 For instance: European Commission (2011b), European Commission (2012a). 

204 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
4. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework improved the level playing field and 
competitiveness of the inland navigation sector compared to other transport modes, contributing notably to the modal 
shift objectives of the EU transport policy? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-4a: To what extent has the 
legislative framework 
supported the competitiveness 
of the IWT compared to other 
(inland) transport modes? 

Assessment Criteria 
Here we examine how and to 
what extent the legislative 
framework aids the 
competitiveness of IWT 
compared other transport 
modes 

Type of information 
•  There is quantitative 

evidence of competitive 
position 

•  The competitiveness is a 
direct impact of the 
legislative framework (and 
not for example of the 
technical legislation) 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

- Freight statistics; share of 
IWT over time 

- Freight costs/prices as 
compared to those in IWT 

Qualitative indicators: 

EQ-4b: To what extent has 
the legislative framework 
contributed to modal split 
objectives? 

In this sub-question we focus 
on the particular question of 
the modal split 

- Legal framework provisions 
actively supporting 
competitiveness of IWT in 
comparison with other modes 

- Competitive position and 
direct link with legislative 
framework 

•  There is quantitative 

Quantitative indicators: 

evidence of positive modal 
split development (i.e. 
share of IWT is increasing) 

- Modal split statistics and 
their evolution over time 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Barriers in achieving modal 
shift 

205 

Sources 
Literature research and in 
particular statistics (EU 
transport in figures. Statistical 
pocketbook 2024 (europa.eu)); 
CCNR market observatory 
reports, Danube Commission 
website; The Geography of 
Transport Systems 

Public consultation 

Studies, in particular:  
•  European Commission 
(2016), Staff Working 
Document Refit Ex-Post 
Evaluation of Combined 
Transport Directive 
92/106/EEC Final Report, 
SWD(2016) 140 final 
•  Jonkeren, O., Rietveld, P., 
& van Ommeren, J. (2007), 
Christodoulou, A., 
Christidis, P., & Bisselink, 
B. (2020). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
Sub-question 
EQ-4c: To what extent has the 
legislative framework 
established a level playing 
field with other competitive 
transport modes? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim here is to examine the 
existence of a level playing 
field the other transport modes 
(road and rail). 

Type of information 
•  Legislative framework 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

covers particularities of the 
IWT 

- Legal framework supports 
IWT characteristics (e.g. 
provisions promote market 
and operational advantages) 

- Legal framework contains 
same/analogous/ proportionate 
provisions with road/rail legal 
framework 

- Legal framework contains 
provisions that balance 
legal/market/operational 
characteristics of road and rail 
• 

Sources 
Targeted interview with 
ProDanube, with EBU/ESO, 
EICB, with the representative 
of Rhine operators and 
German Commissar to the 
CCNR representing the 
profession  

Legal analysis, in particular:  
•  Legislation in scope  
related amending acts 
• 
•  Commission Decision 
C(2017) 6663 final 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. a) To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework been effective in countering adverse effects on 
the sector due to the COVID-19 pandemic? b) Have there been unintended effects, such as unfair competition practices 
or discrimination? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-5a: To what extent was 
the legislative framework 
effective in addressing 
COVID-19 challenges? 

Assessment Criteria 
Here we examine if and 
the extent to which the 
legislative framework 
supported the resilience of 
the IWT sector 

Type of information 
•  The legislative 

framework was not an 
obstacle of flexibility of 
the sector (i.e. though 
inflexible provisions) 

• 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 
- Statistics on market 
performance and COVID-19 
impact  

•  The legislative 

Qualitative indicators: 

framework supported the 
resilience of the sector 
• 
(i.e. included provisions 
that supported the sector 
through the crisis) 

• 

EQ-5b: To what extent 
have there been unintended 
effects, such as unfair 
competition practices or 
discrimination? 

This is an exploratory 
question and will look into 
whether the MS and 
market reaction to 
COVID-19 brought any 
unintended effects 

•  Existence and size of 
unintended effects 

207 

- Absence of restricting 
provisions and existence of 
supporting provisions 

- Need for EU or national 
intervention to support the 
sector (in terms of acts 
adopted, derogations 
provided, etc) 
- Comparison of performance 
with that of other land 
transport modes 
Qualitative indicators: 

- Existence of unintended 
effects 

Sources 
Literature research and in particular 
statistics, market studies and association 
reports, study by the UNECE, CCNR 
market observatory reports, study by 
ABN AMRO, paper by the Robert 
Schuman Foundation, website of the 
IWT Platform 

Targeted interviews with EBO/ESO/, 
Danube workshop 

Reports, in particular:  
•  European Commission (2020). 

Communication from the Commission 
on the implementation of the Green 
Lanes under the Guidelines for border 
management measures to protect 
health and ensure the availability of 
goods and essential services 2020/C 
96 I/01; 
-  European Commission (2020). 

COVID-19 - Guidelines for border 
management measures to protect 
health and ensure the availability 
of goods and essential services 
2020/C 86 I/01; 

•  The seven legal acts in scope of the 

Fitness check  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
36. Has the implementation of the legal acts (in scope) revealed any other negative impacts or issues not covered under 
any of the other evaluation questions? 

Assessment Criteria 
These series of sub-
questions aim to identify 
the existence and extent 
of possible unintended 
effects. While the focus 
will be on negative 
effects, we do not 
exclude the 
identification of positive 
ones.  

Horizontal evaluation question – all seven legal acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-36a: Have there been any 
negative unintended effects or 
uncovered areas in terms of 
effectiveness? 
EQ-36b: Have there been any 
negative unintended effects or 
uncovered areas in terms of 
efficiency? 
EQ-36c: Have there been any 
negative unintended effects or 
uncovered areas in terms of 
relevance? 
EQ-36d: Have there been any 
negative unintended effects or 
uncovered areas in areas not 
identified above? 

This question will be 
examined for each of the 
legal acts. 

Type of information 
•  Existence of 

unintended effects 
•  Size and extent of 

such effects 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

- Any possible quantitative 
information in terms of costs, 
people, numbers, etc. 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Qualitative description of impact 
and its implications to the IWT 
sector or beyond 

Sources 
Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, associations and 
businesses (individual carriers), in 
particular interview with the HU 
and NL police 
Targeted survey to MS authorities 
(Ministry of Transport) and 
associations (e.g. ESO/EBU)  
SME panel 
Literature review, in particular: 
Survey on enforcement procedures 
(EFTI-D1.2.5 Annex III: Online 
survey on enforcement 
procedures) and Overview of the 
processes and procedures 
performed by different national 
competent authorities when 
checking regulatory information 
under the scope of the eFTI 
Regulation (EFTI-D1.2.5). 

Targeted consultation of 
operators’ associations and 
Member States authorities during 
the gap filling phase 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Efficiency 

6. To what extent has administrative costs and enforcement costs for authorities (e.g. issuing of documents and 
certificates, enforcement, administering funds) as well as compliance and administrative costs of other stakeholders 
affected by the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework proportionate and necessary in relation to the outputs and results achieved? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 

Type of information 

Indicators 

Sources 

Assessment 
Criteria 
The aim of this 
question is to 
examine the extent 
to which the 
burden imposed by 
the Legal 
Framework is 
justified and 
proportionate to the 
benefits 

The aim of this 
question is to 
examine the extent 
to which the 
burden imposed by 
the Legal 
Framework is 
justified and 
proportionate to the 
benefits 

EQ-6a: To what 
extent are 
administrative costs 
and enforcement 
costs for authorities 
introduced by the 
Legislative 
Framework 
proportionate and 
necessary to the 
results achieved? 
EQ-6b: To what 
extent are the 
compliance and 
administrative costs 
for the different 
stakeholders 
introduced by the 
Legislative 
Framework 
proportionate and 
necessary to the 
results achieved? 

•  Cost categories for 
authorities are 
necessary (i.e. 
benefits could not be 
achieved otherwise) 
•  Cost categories for 
stakeholders are 
necessary (i.e. 
benefits could not be 
achieved otherwise) 
•  Monetised costs are 
not disproportionate 
to the monetised 
benefits 

•  Monetised benefits 

• 

• 

• 

develop 
• 
proportionately to the 
monetised costs 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Cost elements per input and 
per stakeholder (direct, 
administrative, implementation, 
operational, one-off, recurrent, 
etc.)  
(N.B. Little evidence was 
received on costs and benefits) 
- administrative burden, 
reporting burden 
- Benefit indicators as 
identified in the efficiency 
questions 

Qualitative indicators: 

• 

• 

- Qualitative indicators on 
costs, administrative burden, 
reporting burden 
- Stakeholders confirm that 
costs are proportionate and 
necessary 

209 

Targeted survey to all stakeholders and SME panel, 
public consultation 
Targeted interviews with MS authorities, associations, in 
particular:   
•  with the NL and HU police,  
• 

Interview with the representative of Rhine operators 
and DE Commissar to the CCNR representing the 
profession (2021) 

Targeted consultation during the gap filling phase 
Literature review, in particular studies, legislation and 
policy documents related to the Combined Transport 
Directive and eFTI.( SWD(2018) 183 final),  

Market studies, in particular: tariff rates by Member State 
for the ISCO 1 category, tariff rate for the Netherlands for 
the ISCO 3 category, purchasing power parities published 
by Eurostat 
Legal analysis, in particular:  
•  Legislation in scope  
related amending acts 
• 
•  Commission Decision C(2017) 6663 final 
•  Directive (EU) 2016/1629 

Mannheim Convention, website of the CCNR, 
Certificate of belonging to the Rhine navigation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Is there a potential for simplification of the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework in particular in view of 
enabling the sector to adapt to significant disruption of the IWT market due to major macro-economic events or 
catastrophes (drought, flooding, epidemics)?  

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-7a: Is there a potential 
of simplification of the 
Legislative Framework in 
view of enabling the sector 
to adapt to important 
external disruptions? 

Assessment Criteria 
This question looks into 
whether provisions could 
improve the ability of the 
IWT sector to react 
flexibly to important 
market disruptions. 

Type of information 
• 

Identification of provisions 
that hinder the sector’s 
adaptation in case of 
important disruption 
Identification of provisions 
that may be removed or 
refined 

• 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 

- Cost benefit information ( NB. Little 
evidence received on cost and benefits) 
Qualitative indicators: 

- External factors which necessitate/ 
facilitate simplification of provisions 

- Assessment of provisions that can be 
removed/adapted 

- Stakeholders confirm potential for 
simplification  

Sources 
Answers to Effectiveness, 
Coherence and Relevance 
questions, literature 
review, including market 
studies, targeted 
interviews with MS 
authorities (Ministry of 
Transport), international 
organisations and 
associations (e.g. 
EBU/ESO) and targeted 
surveys to MS authorities 
(Ministry of Transport), 
associations, and 
businesses (including 
SME Panel) 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coherence questions 

8. To what extent are the legal acts forming the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework consistent with one 
another? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-8a: To what extent is the 
IWT Internal Market 
Legislative Framework 
internally consistent? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim is to assess whether 
the set of legal acts are 
coherent or that conflicts 
between them exist. Moreover, 
are there any overlaps, gaps, 
missing links?  

Type of information 
•  There is no conflict 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

• 

between the legal acts vis-
à-vis of the other acts 
• 
•  The framework as a whole 
does not have conflicting 
objectives or provisions.  

• 

- Extent of conflicting 
objectives between the legal 
acts  

• 

• 

• 

- Extent of conflicting 
provisions between the legal 
acts  

- Number of CJEU cases on 
conflicts between legal acts  

Sources 
Legal analysis: the seven legal 
acts in scope of the Fitness 
check707, plus their 
memoranda of understanding 
and other policy documents, 
Directive (EU) 2017/2397, 
literature research, targeted 
interviews with representatives 
of different stakeholder 
groups, targeted survey for all 
stakeholders, public 
consultation and SME panel. 

CJEU cases on conflicts 
between on two or more legal 
acts. 

707 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 

96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. To what extent does the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework align with wider EU policies (e.g. jobs, growth, 
trade, mobility, competition policy, Climate Change Policy)? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-9a: What are the main EU 
policies and what do they 
entail? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim is to obtain an 
overview of relevant policies 
and identify their key 
objectives. 

Type of information 
n/a 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 
- Overview of relevant policies 
related to the creation of jobs 
- Overview of relevant policies 
related to economic growth 
- Overview of relevant policies 
related to trade 
- Overview of relevant policies 
related to improving mobility  
- Overview of relevant policies 
related to Climate Change  

Sources 
The seven legal acts in scope 
of the Fitness check708,, 
Regulation (EU) 546/2014, 
literature research, including 
the European Green Deal, 
European Sustainable and 
Smart Mobility Strategy 
published Dec 2020, 
digitalisation policies, the 
European employment 
strategy, the European 
competition policy, the 
European policy on the single 
market for goods and service 
etc., the political priorities of 
the Commission, trade 
policies, including trade 
agreements, etc. and targeted 
interviews with Member State 
Authorities and other 
stakeholders, public 
consultation, targeted 
consultation,  Mission Letter 
Apostolos Tzitzikostas, 
Commissioner for Sustainable 

708 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council  Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 

96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 

212 

 
  
 
Sub-question 

Assessment Criteria 

Type of information 

Indicators 

EQ-9b: To what extent is the 
IWT internal market 
legislative framework in line 
with the broader EU policy 
objectives? 

The aim is to assess whether 
the IWT market access 
framework is in line with the 
wider EU policy goals or that 
the IWT framework is posing 
problems. 

•  The IWT internal 
market legislative 
framework continues 
to be aligned with the 
wider EU policies 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Stakeholders perceptions of the 
degree of conflicting provisions in 
each of the legal acts included in the 
fitness check  
- Stakeholders perceptions of the 
extent to which the provisions 
support the current EU policy 
objectives  

Sources 
Transport and Tourism, CJEU 
cases  

The seven legal acts in scope 
of the Fitness check  
targeted interviews with 
Member State Authorities and 
targeted survey to all 
stakeholders (including SME 
Panel), stakeholder 
consultation 

213 

 
  
 
 
 
10. To what extent is the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework consistent with market access rules set up under 
the legal systems regarding navigation on the Rhine and the Danube? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-10a: What are the 
market access rules 
under the Act of 
Mannheim (and other 
relevant CCNR-
legislation)? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim is to obtain a full 
overview of the market 
access rules under the Act 
of Mannheim and 
additional CCNR 
legislation. To whom, is 
market access granted and 
under which conditions? 
The aim is to obtain a full 
overview of the market 
access rules under the 
Belgrade Convention and 
additional legislation 
issued by the Danube 
Commission. To whom, is 
market access granted and 
under which conditions? 

Type of information 
see sub-question c  Qualitative indicators: 

Indicators 

- List of economic actors granted 
access to the Rhine market 

- Overview of the conditions under 
which market access is granted 

see sub-question c  Qualitative indicators: 

- List of economic actors granted 
access to the Danube market 

- Overview of the conditions under 
which market access is granted 

EQ-10b: What are the 
market access rules 
under the Belgrade 
Convention (and other 
relevant Danube 
Commission 
legislation)? 

EQ-10c: To what extent 
do the market access 
rules of the different 
legal regimes overlap 
and/or differ and how do 
they relate to market 
access provisions by the 
EU? 

The aim is to compare the 
conditions under which 
market access is granted 
as well to which 
economic actors under the 
different legal regimes 

•  There is no 

Qualitative indicators: 

conflict between 
EU law and law 
on market 
access issued by 
the CCNR 
•  There is no 

conflict between 

- The extent of overlapping economic 
actors 

- The extent of overlapping criteria (on 
conditions).  

Sources 
The seven legal acts in scope of the Fitness 
check709, legal text of the Act of Mannheim 
and other relevant CCNR legislation, 
memoranda of Understanding 
accompanying those legal acts and targeted 
interview with the legal experts of the 
CCNR, literature research, stakeholder 
consultation. 
The seven legal acts in scope of the Fitness 
check (idem), legal text of the Belgrade 
Convention and other relevant legislation 
issued by the Danube Commission, 
memoranda of Understanding 
accompanying those legal acts and targeted 
interview with the legal experts of the 
Danube Commission, literature research, 
stakeholder consultation. 

The seven legal acts in scope of the Fitness 
check (idem), legal texts + memoranda of 
understanding on the seven legal acts 
included in the fitness check, targeted 
interviews with Member States that fall 
under two legal regimes (either EU and 
CCNR or EU and Belgrade) and targeted 

709 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 

96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment Criteria 

Indicators 
- The extent of criteria (on conditions) 
that are different 

Sources 
surveys, especially to the IWT sector itself 
(i.e. barge operators), literature research. 

Type of information 
EU law and law 
on market 
access issued by 
the Danube 
Commission 

215 

 
 
 
 
37. Taking into account existing legislation, as well as any available ongoing policy developments, evaluations, impact 
assessments, and studies, are there any notable inconsistencies, overlaps, synergies or complementarities between the 
legal acts (in scope) and other relevant pieces of legislation, in particular: 

a.  other  EU  legislation  in  the  area  of inland waterway transport  policy  (for  example, the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive,  the  Directive  on  Technical 
Requirements for Inland Waterway Vessels and the River Information Services Directive) and in particular with regards to their scope of application? 

b. other EU legislation/initiatives concerning the transport of goods/passengers and logistics, including digitalisation of transport and logistics (e.g. relevant 
work within the Digital Logistics & Transport Forum (DTLF) and its sub-groups, Regulation on electronic freight transport information, (eFTI))? 

c. other EU legislation in areas outside transport policy, such as the Digital Single Market, e-Government initiatives in relation to digitalisation, exchange of 
information and interoperability, and initiatives in the area of private data protection?  

Horizontal evaluation questions – all seven legal acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-37a: Are there any 
notable inconsistencies, 
overlaps, synergies or 
complementarities between the 
legal acts in scope and other 
relevant pieces of legislation, 
in particular other EU 
legislation in the area of inland 
waterway transport policy and 
in particular with regards to 
their scope of application? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim is to assess whether 
there are any inconsistencies 
between the market access 
framework and other IWT 
related legislation. 
Special attention will be given 
to the use of connected notions 
such as “operator”, “carrier’, 
“owner” and “transport 
undertaking” 

Type of information 
•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
the legislation on vessels. 

•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
the legislation on jobs & 
skills 

•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
environmental legislation. 

•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
the RIS frameworks 

•  The market access 

framework is in line with 

Indicators 
Qualitative indicators: 

Sources 

- The extent of 
inconsistencies 
detected 

- Overview of what 
these inconsistencies 
entail  

- Overview of 
synergies among the 7 
pieces of legislation, 
potential of 
simplification etc.  

Legal analysis: the seven legal acts in 
scope of the Fitness check710, relevant 
legal acts in the domain of vessels 
(registration formalities and technical 
requirements, e.g. Directive (EU) 
2017/2397, Directive (EU) 
2016/1696), Council Regulation (EC) 
569/2008, jobs and skills, RIS, 
environment and others + memoranda 
of understanding and relevant policy 
documents (impact assessments and 
evaluations), market studies, public 
consultation, targeted interviews with 
representatives of different 
stakeholder groups, including CESNI, 

710 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 

96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment Criteria 

Type of information 
other IWT related 
legislation 

Indicators 

EQ-37b: Are there any notable 
inconsistencies, overlaps, 
synergies or 
complementarities between the 
legal acts in scope and other 
relevant pieces of legislation, 
in particular other EU 
legislation/initiatives 
concerning the transport of 
goods/passengers and 
logistics, including 
digitalisation of transport and 
logistics? 
EQ-37c: Are there any notable 
inconsistencies, overlaps, 
synergies or 
complementarities between the 
legal acts in scope and other 
relevant pieces of legislation, 
in particular other EU 
legislation in areas outside 
transport policy?  

The aim is to assess whether 
the market access framework 
is in line with other legal 
initiatives in the transport 
sector of that conflicts exists. 

The aim is to assess whether 
the market access framework 
is in line with legal initiatives 
outside the transport sector, 
which affect inland shipping, 
or whether conflicts exist.  

•  The market access 

Qualitative indicators: 

framework is in line with 
work ongoing in the DTLF 
and/or with the legislative 
framework as set by the 
Regulation on electronic 
freight transport 
information, (eFTI) 
•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
the Combined Transport 
Directive 

- The extent of 
inconsistencies 
detected 

- Overview of what 
these inconsistencies 
entail  

•  The market access 

Qualitative indicators: 

- The extent of 
inconsistencies 
detected 

- Overview of what 
these inconsistencies 
entail  

framework is in line with 
the Digital Single Market 

•  The market access 

initiative is in line with e 
government digitalisation 
efforts 

•  The market access 
initiative is in line 
initiatives on the exchange 
of information and 
interoperability 

217 

Sources 
targeted survey questions to all 
stakeholders (including SME 
Panel),comparative analysis of 
national transpositions. 

Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
associations during the gap filling 
phase.  

The seven legal acts in scope of the 
Fitness check (idem), information on 
work ongoing in DTLF, information 
stemming from policy documents, 
legislations and studies in particular 
on eFTI, Combined Transport 
Directive,  
targeted interviews with relevant 
stakeholders, including DTLF and 
SME panel, targeted survey questions 
to stakeholders and SME panel. 

The seven legal acts in scope of the 
Fitness check (idem), literature 
research on the Digital Single Market, 
including relevant legislation, e-
government initiatives, including 
relevant legislation, exchange of 
information and interoperability, data 
protection, including the legislation 
on GDPR. 

Targeted interviews with 
representatives of different 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment Criteria 

Indicators 

Type of information 
•  The market access 

framework is in line with 
initiative related to data 
protection. 

Sources 
stakeholder categories, targeted 
survey questions to stakeholders and 
SME panel 

218 

 
 
 
EU Added value questions 

11. To what extent has the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework permitted achievements that could not have 
been reached at other levels of governance, for instance at international, regional (river basin) or Member State level (including through 
bilateral agreements)? 

Assessment Criteria 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-
question 
EQ-11a: 
Could the 
same 
impacts 
have been 
reached 
during this 
period in the 
absence of 
the 
Legislative 
Framework? 

The aim of this question is to 
examine qualitatively (and if 
possible, quantitatively) if at 
least similar effects could 
have been achieved by other 
levels of governance over the 
same time period at roughly 
comparable cost?  

Type of information 

•  Actors on other levels of 
governance had the 
legal/operational ability 
to enact actions that 
would lead to similar 
achievements 

• 

• 

•  Extent to which actors 
on other levels of 
governance would have 
proceeded with such 
actions if 
available/possible 

•  Extent to which EU level 
action removed barriers 
or facilitated 
achievements  

Indicators 

Sources 

Quantitative indicators: 

- Relevant efficiency indicators 

- Costs associated with bilateral agreements 

Qualitative indicators: 

- Mapping of how the problems varied across the 
Member States 

- Legal, operational, political analysis 

- Description of the type and magnitude of 
transaction and coordination costs associated with 
action by actors other than EU 

- Summary assessment of the probability that 
non-EU actors could have undertaken relevant 
actions 

The seven legal acts in scope of 
the Fitness check 711  
Literature research and data 
collection, in particular from 
market studies and association 
reports. eFTI Regulation and 
Impact Assessment SWD , 
CCNR Market Observation 
report 2024 
Targeted interviews with MS 
policy decision makers, MS 
inspection authorities, and 
associations, targeted survey to 
the sector and SME panel. 
Public consultation & the 
Danube workshop712  
Targeted consultation of MS 
administrations and operators’ 
associations at the gap filling 
phase  

711 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council  Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 
96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
712 p.102 in final report of the support study 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Relevance questions 

1. Are the objectives of the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework still relevant considering the evolution of the 
market, the present transport policy priorities and the successive enlargements of the EU? 

General evaluation questions – all seven acts 
Sub-question 
EQ-1a: To what extent are the 
objectives of the Legislative 
Framework still relevant in 
relation to the IWT market? 

Assessment Criteria 
The aim of this question is to 
review whether the objectives 
of each of the seven legal acts 
under consideration 
correspond to actual needs of 
the IWT market today. 

Type of information 
•  The objectives are still 

relevant 

•  Adaptations to the 

existing objectives are 
needed 

•  Objectives need to be 
changed (added or 
removed) 

Indicators 
Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics  

Sources 
The seven legal acts in scope of 
the Fitness check713  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Analysis of market 
characteristics and needs and 
comparison with existing 
objectives  
- Indications from stakeholders 
on level of relevance 

Literature review including 
market studies, statistics 
databases (e.g. Eurostat) and 
association reports. 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, associations (e.g. 
EBO/ESO, Pro Danube), 
businesses (individual carriers) 
and individual IWT experts714, 
public consultation, targeted 
surveys to all stakeholders and 
SME panel. 
The seven legal acts in scope of 
the Fitness check (idem) 

Literature review including EC 
strategy and policy documents, 

EQ-1b: To what extent are the 
objectives of the Legislative 
Framework still relevant in 
relation to current transport 
policies? 

The aim of this question is to 
review whether the objectives 
of each of the seven legal acts 
under consideration 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics  
- Economic, social, 
environmental indicators.  

713 Regulation 11/1960, Council Directive 87/540/EC, Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85, Council Regulation (EEC) 3921/91, Council  Regulation (EC) 1356/96, Council Directive 
96/75/EC, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
714 Especially experts with a long working life in IWT who are able to provide details on the historical development of the sector and the contribution of this legislation on the sector’s 
development. 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 

Assessment Criteria 
correspond today with 
transport policy priorities 

EQ-1c: To what extent are the 
objectives of the Legislative 
Framework still relevant 
considering the successive 
phases of EU enlargements 

The aim of this question is to 
see to what extent the 
objectives of each of the seven 
legal acts (enacted in an era of 
a much smaller Community) 
are still relevant given the 
current geographical scope of 
the EU. 

Type of information 

Indicators 

Qualitative indicators: 
- Comparison between 
legislative framework 
objectives and those of main 
transport policies (e.g. 
European Sustainable and 
Smart Mobility Strategy 
published Dec 2020715, Green 
Deal, NAIADES, digitalisation, 
etc) 

- Indications from stakeholders 
on level of relevance. 

Quantitative indicators: 
- Market statistics  
- Economic, social, 
environmental indicators  

Qualitative indicators: 
- Analysis of extent to which 
objectives cover needs of an 
enlarged Union (e.g. the link 
between Rhine and Danube).  
- Indications from stakeholders 
on level of relevance.  

Sources 
statistics databases (e.g. 
Eurostat), market studies and 
association reports. 
Complaints and infringement 
cases 

Targeted surveys to all 
stakeholders and SME panel, 
public consultation 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, associations (e.g. 
EBO/ESO, Pro Danube), 
businesses (individual carriers) 
and individual IWT experts 

The seven legal acts in scope of 
the Fitness check (idem) 

Targeted interviews with MS 
authorities, international 
organisations, associations (e.g. 
EBO/ESO, Pro Danube), 
businesses (individual carriers) 
and individual IWT experts, 
targeted surveys to all 
stakeholders and SME panel.  

715 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/mobilitystrategy. 

221 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the fitness check  
Group 1 legislation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Administrative costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Cost description: 

EUR 582 million in 
2018,  
going down to EUR 
357 to 452 million in 
2030716 (upper bound 
estimate) 

Costs  for  IWT  operators  for 
transport  documents  required 
by  Council  Regulation (EEC) 
No  11/1960 
for  allowing 
checking  the  transport  rates. 
Upper  bound  estimate  as  not 
all  costs  are  attributed  to  the 
Regulation.  Post-2027, 
the 
impacts  of  eFTI  Regulation 
are reflected.   

or 

controls 

Not quantified  For  public  administrations  for 
inspections 
for 
checking  the  transport  rates,  and 
following up on infractions. Staff 
involved  in  checks  on  the  spot 
(e.g. police) spend 60-90 minutes 
per check, while staff involved in 
the following up of infractions and 
penalties  spend  90-480  minutes 
infraction.  Consultation 
per 
activities  provided  little  evidence 
on  the  number  of  inspections  or 
controls,  and  no  evidence  on  the 
to 
number  of 
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
11/1960.  

infractions  due 

Adjustment costs 

One-off 

- 

- 

Not quantified 

out 

Costs  for  IWT  operators  to 
minimum 
phase 
compulsory  tariffs  by  the  end 
of  1998  (Council  Directive 
96/75/EC). 

- 

- 

716 SWD(2018) 183 final 

222 

 
 
 
 
Enforcement costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Not quantified 

Costs  for  IWT  operators  for 
cooperating  to  inspections  or 
controls  (Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  11/1960)717.  Not 
possible  to  quantify  the  costs 
due to the lack of evidence. 

Benefits description: 

Benefits 

Recurrent 

Not quantified 

Not quantified  For passengers, 
increased safety 
on the waterways 
for passenger 
vessels due to 
Council 
Regulation (EEC) 
No 11/1960 

For  IWT  operators,  benefits 
due  to  easiness  in  obtaining 
easier 
insurance, 
identification/designation  of 
the  liable  party  thanks  to  the 
obligatory transport document 
on  board  of  the  vessel,  and 
the 
on 
safety 
increased 
waterways 
transport 
(i.e. 
indicating 
document 
dangerous  cargo),  due 
to 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
11/1960. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Reduced shipping 
prices by 60% for 
coal products and by 
40% for bulk cargo  

EUR 190 million 
annually 
(lower bound 
estimate) 

abolition 

of 
system 

For consigners and consignees 
in  Germany,  benefits  due  to 
the 
the 
Festfrachten 
of 
minimum  prices 
in  1994 
(Council Directive 96/75/EC). 
For consigners and consignees 
in  Belgium,  France  and  the 
Netherlands 
the 
abolition of the ‘Tour de Role’ 
(Council  Directive 
system 
96/75/EC).  The  benefits  refer 
to the Netherlands alone. 

due 

to 

717 Transport documents need to be available on board for inspection. Inspections do take place, though they could take place for other reasons than inspecting the transport documents 
(i.e. checking dangerous cargo, checking compliance with cabotage rules, transport of waste). 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
224 

 
 
 
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the fitness check  
Group 2 legislation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Administrative costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

EUR 987,000 

Cost description: 

IWT 

Rhine 

operators 

for 
For 
applying 
certificates 
for 
certifying  vessels  affiliation 
with 
navigation 
(Certificate of belonging to the 
Rhine navigation).  Koninlijke 
Nederland718 
Binnenvaart 
reported  that  applying  for  a 
Rhine  certificate 
takes  30 
minutes  on  average  and  costs 
75 EUR (i.e. fee) in addition to 
vessel  documents  required  by 
European  legislation719.  The 
total cost per certificate in the 
Netherlands  is  estimated  at 
EUR  94  (i.e.  EUR  19  for  the 
time spent applying and EUR 
75 the fee)720.  
Assuming  that  the  cost  per 
certificate  in  the  Netherlands 
is  representative  at  EU  level, 
in  the  absence  of  information 
on  the  costs  per  certificate 
provided  by  other  Member 
recurrent 
the 
States, 

EUR 81,500 
for Germany 

certificates 

(Certificate 
the 
to 

For  public  administrations  for 
issuing 
certifying 
vessels  affiliation  with  Rhine 
of 
navigation 
belonging 
Rhine 
navigation). Germany reported the 
issuance  of  about  440  Rhine 
certificates  per  year  on  average 
during  2022-2023  costing 
the 
administration about 185 EUR per 
certificate 
in 
(EUR 
total)722 while Luxembourg issued 
about 5 Rhine certificates per year 
on  average  during 
the  same 
period; only paper documents are 
issued  in  both  countries.  Total 
one-off  administrative  costs  for 
public  administrations  cannot  be 
estimated  as  the  total  number  of 
Rhine  certificates  issued  is  not 
known. 

81,500 

Not quantified 

For  public  administrations, 
to 
carry  out  checks  of  certificates.  

718 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
719 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
720 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 2022 prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 
722 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enforcement costs 

Recurrent 

Benefits 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Member  States  did  not  provide 
evidence to allow quantifying the 
costs 
recurrent 
associated to such checks723. 

administrative 

- 

- 

- 

- 

administrative  costs  for  IWT 
operators  could  be  estimated 
at  around  EUR  987,000721. 
This should be regarded as an 
order of magnitude rather than 
precise costs estimates. 

for 
operators 
IWT 
For 
cooperating 
to  checks  of 
certificates.    No  evidence  is 
available to allow quantifying 
such checks 

Not quantified 

Benefits description: 

Not quantified 

The 

Group 2 legislation  led to the 
creation  of  a  true  internal 
market. 
legislation 
ensured  providing  access  for 
vessel owners and/or operators 
of every EU Member State to 
the  Rhine.  The  associated 
benefits however could not be 
quantified. 

721 EU fleet consists of around 15,000 vessels, and according to CCNR (30/6/2025) around 70% of the fleet (10,500 vessels) possess the certificate of belonging to the Rhine fleet. Precise 
figures are not available, as the certificates of belonging to the Rhine fleet are issued by competent authorities of various states and currently there is no obligation (neither at the level of 
the Rhine nor at EU level) to report on the number of certificates. 
723 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

226 

 
 
 
 
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the fitness check  
Group 3 legislation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Cost description: 

Administrative costs 

Recurrent 

Adjustment costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EUR 13,413 
to 26,827 per 
year 

For  public  administrations,  for 
issuing  certificates  as  well  as  for 
replacements, 
issuing 
reclassifications and extensions of 
certificates.  

- 

- 

EUR 19,936 per year  For 

IWT 

operators, 

for 
applying  for  certificates  as 
for 
well  as 
replacements, reclassifications 
and extensions of certificates. 

for  applying 

EUR 198,173 

For IWT operators, for courses 
obtaining 
of 
view 
in 
certificates. 
Several 
exemptions  and  derogations 
lead  to  about 25%  of  persons 
the 
obtaining  by  practice 
certificate  of  carrier  of  goods 
in 
the  Netherlands  alone. 
Dedicated  courses  otherwise 
last  10  days  and  cost  2,500 
EUR as reported by EBU and 
ESO724.  
Assuming 
10 
certificates725 are obtained per 
year  on  average  per  Member 
that  for  7.5  of 
State  and 
certificates 
average 
dedicated courses are followed 
the 
in  view  of  obtaining 

that 

on 

724 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
725 On average 10 certificates are issued by each of the 13 Member States per year but whether those are thanks to dedicated courses or not it is not clear, except for the Netherlands. Note, 
aspiring operators have the option to provide proof of their knowledge of certain subjects referred to in Annex  of the Council Directive 87/540/EEC (e.g. law, finance, access to the 
market, technical standards and safety), however part of that knowledge (e.g. law, finance) can be obtained in a general course, not necessarily in a dedicated course. Moreover, the 
Directive provides for exemptions and derogations that lead to the possibility of obtaining by practice the certificate of carrier of goods, without following a course. 

227 

 
 
 
certificate, 
adjustment 
the 
costs for IWT operators in the 
NL  are  estimated  at  EUR 
year.  Using 
18,750 
per 
extrapolation726  for 
the  13 
Member States with connected 
waterways  the  total  recurrent 
the 
costs 
adjustment 
operators of 13 Member States 
are estimated at EUR 198,173 
per year. 

for 

Benefits description: 

Benefits 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Not quantified 

The  aspiring  carrier  needs  to 
apply  only  once  to  become  a 
carrier  of  goods  in  the  EU 
instead  of 
for 
different  national  or  river-
based markets. 

repeatedly 

Not quantified  For  public  administrations,  for 
issuing  less  certificates  as  the  
aspiring  carrier  needs  to  apply 
only  once  to  become  a  carrier  of 
goods 
instead  of 
the  EU 
repeatedly for different national or 
river-based markets.  

in 

726 Assuming the purchasing power parities published by Eurostat to estimate the cost of a course in other Member States 

228 

 
 
 
 
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the fitness check  
Group 4 legislation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Administrative costs 

Recurrent 

Adjustment costs 

One-off 

Benefits 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Cost description: 

- 

- 

EUR 3,628 
per year 

for 

Reporting  obligations 
the 
Member  States  administrations 
that have setup and funded inland 
waterway Funds (AT, BE, DE, FR 
and NL). 

EUR 26 million for 
1999-2003 

For vessel owners, in the form 
for  new 
of  contributions 
vessels  put  into  service  under 
the  ‘old-for-new’  rule  before 
2003. 

EUR 7 
million 

Benefits description: 

From  the  Reserve  Fund,  used  to 
IWT 
support 
platform’ operations for the 2017-
2027 period. 

‘European 

the 

Not quantified  For 

and 
as  well 

regional 
national 
administrations, 
as 
UNECE,  river  Commissions  and 
river  protection  Commissions, 
thanks  to  the  ‘European  IWT 
platform’  that  promotes  safety, 
clean technologies and innovation 
of  the  fleet  as  well  as  education 
and training. 

For 
from 
IWT  operators, 
reducing  overcapacity  in  the 
IWT market before 2003 thus 
avoiding  decreases  in  their 
turnover  and  potential  losses. 
The  legislation  continues  to 
serve as basis for the potential 
IWT 
restructuring  of 
market 
in  case  of  market 
disturbance. 

the 

For operators, skippers, vessel 
logistics 
and 
owners 
companies 
the 
to 
thanks 
‘European IWT platform’ that 
clean 
promotes 
technologies and innovation of 

safety, 

Not quantified 

229 

 
 
 
 
the  fleet  as  well  as  education 
and training. 

230 

 
 
 
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the fitness check  
Overall framework 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Cost description: 

Administrative costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
EUR 582 million in 
2018,  
going down to EUR 
357 to 452 million in 
2030727 (upper bound 
estimate) 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

by 

Group 1 legislation: 
Costs  for  IWT  operators 
transport  documents 
for 
Council 
required 
(EEC)  No 
Regulation 
allowing 
11/1960 
for 
checking 
transport 
the 
bound 
Upper 
rates. 
estimate as not all costs are 
attributed 
the 
Regulation. Post-2027, the 
eFTI 
impacts 
Regulation are reflected. 

of 

to 

Group 2 legislation: 
EUR 987,000 

Group 2 legislation: 
EUR 81,500 for 
Germany 

Group 2 legislation: 
For  IWT  operators  for 
applying  for  certificates 
certifying 
vessels 
affiliation  with  Rhine 
navigation  (Certificate  of 
belonging  to  the  Rhine 
navigation). 
  Koninlijke 
Binnenvaart  Nederland728 

727 SWD(2018) 183 final 
728 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

231 

Group 1 legislation: 
For  public  administrations  for 
for 
inspections  or  controls 
checking the transport rates,and 
following  up  on 
infractions. 
Staff  involved  in  checks  on  the 
spot  (e.g.  police)  spend  60-90 
minutes  per  check,  while  staff 
involved in the following up of 
infractions  and  penalties  spend 
90-480  minutes  per  infraction. 
Consultation activities provided 
little evidence on the number of 
inspections  or  controls,  and  no 
the  number  of 
evidence  on 
to  Council 
infractions  due 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. 

Group 2 legislation: 
For  public  administrations  for 
issuing  certificates  certifying 
vessels  affiliation  with  Rhine 
navigation 
of 
belonging 
the  Rhine 
navigation).  Germany  reported 
the issuance of about 440 Rhine 
certificates  per  year  on  average 

(Certificate 
to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
period; 

during  2022-2023  costing  the 
administration  about  185  EUR 
per  certificate  (EUR  81,500  in 
total)732  while  Luxembourg 
issued about 5 Rhine certificates 
per  year  on  average  during  the 
same 
paper 
documents  are  issued  in  both 
countries. 
one-off 
administrative  costs  for  public 
administrations 
be 
estimated as the total number of 
Rhine  certificates  issued  is  not 
known. 

cannot 

Total 

only 

Not quantified 

For  public  administrations,  to 
carry  out  checks  of  certificates.  
Member  States  did  not  provide 
evidence  to  allow  quantifying 
administrative 
the 
costs 
such 
checks733. 

associated 

recurrent 

to 

total 

cost 
in 

reported that applying for a 
Rhine  certificate  takes  30 
minutes  on  average  and 
costs  75  EUR  (i.e.  fee)  in 
to 
addition 
vessel 
required  by 
documents 
legislation729. 
European 
per 
The 
certificate 
the 
Netherlands is estimated at 
EUR  94  (i.e.  EUR  19  for 
the  time  spent  applying 
and  EUR  75  the  fee)730. 
Assuming that the cost per 
the 
certificate 
is 
Netherlands 
representative at EU level, 
in 
of 
information  on  the  costs 
per certificate provided by 
other  Member  States,  the 
recurrent 
administrative 
costs  for  IWT  operators 
could  be  estimated  at 
around  EUR  987,000731. 
This should be regarded as 
an  order  of  magnitude 
rather  than  precise  costs 
estimates. 

absence 

the 

in 

729 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 
730 The tariff rate for the Netherlands for the ISCO 3 category (technicians and associate professionals) in 2022 prices was used to monetise the time spent for application. 
731 EU fleet consists of around 15,000 vessels, and according to CCNR (30/6/2025) around 70% of the fleet (10,500 vessels) possess the certificate of belonging to the Rhine fleet. Precise 
figures are not available, as the certificates of belonging to the Rhine fleet are issued by competent authorities of various states and currently there is no obligation (neither at the level of 
the Rhine nor at EU level) to report on the number of certificates. 
732 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
733 Gap filling survey for MS authorities, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group 3 legislation: 
EUR 19,936 per year 

Group 4 legislation: 
- 

Adjustment costs 

One-off 

- 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Adjustment costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Group 4 legislation: 
EUR 26 million for 
1999-2003 

Group 3 legislation: 
EUR 198,173 

233 

Group 3 legislation: 
EUR 13,413 to 26,827 
per year 

Group 4 legislation: 
EUR 3,628 per year 

Group 3 legislation: 
For  public  administrations,  for 
issuing certificates as well as for 
issuing 
replacements, 
reclassifications  and  extensions 
of certificates. 

Group 4 legislation: 
Reporting  obligations  for  the 
Member  States  administrations 
that  have  setup  and  funded 
inland  waterway  Funds  (AT, 
BE, DE, FR and NL). 

Group 1 legislation: 
- 

Group 1 legislation: 

- 

Group 4 legislation: 
EUR 7 million 

Group 4 legislation: 
From the Reserve Fund, used to 
the  ‘European  IWT 
support 
platform’  operations  for 
the 
2017-2027 period. 

Group 3 legislation: 
- 

Group 3 legislation: 

- 

Group 3 legislation: 
For  IWT  operators,  for 
applying for certificates as 
well  as  for  applying  for 
replacements, 
reclassifications 
extensions of certificates. 

and 

Group 4 legislation: 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
Costs for IWT operators to 
phase 
out  minimum 
compulsory  tariffs  by  the 
end  of  1998 
(Council 
Directive 96/75/EC). 

Group 4 legislation: 
For  vessel  owners,  in  the 
form  of  contributions  for 
new  vessels  put 
into 
service under the ‘old-for-
new’ rule before 2003. 

in 

Group 3 legislation: 
For  IWT  operators,  for 
view 
courses 
of 
obtaining 
certificates.  
Several  exemptions  and 
derogations  lead  to  about 
25%  of  persons  obtaining 
by  practice  the  certificate 
of  carrier  of  goods  in  the 
alone. 
Netherlands 
courses 
Dedicated 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
otherwise last 10 days and 
cost 
as 
2,500  EUR 
reported  by  EBU  and 
ESO734.  Assuming  that  10 
certificates735  are  obtained 
per  year  on  average  per 
Member State and that for 
7.5  of  certificates  on 
average  dedicated  courses 
are  followed  in  view  of 
obtaining  the  certificate, 
the  adjustment  costs  for 
IWT  operators  in  the  NL 
are  estimated  at  EUR 
18,750  per  year.  Using 
extrapolation736  for  the  13 
Member 
States  with 
connected  waterways  the 
total  recurrent  adjustment 
costs  for  the  operators  of 
13  Member  States  are 
estimated at EUR 198,173 
per year 

Group 1 legislation: 
Costs  for  IWT  operators 
for 
to 
cooperating 
inspections  or  controls 
(Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 11/1960)737. Not 

Group 1 legislation: 
- 

Group 1 legislation: 

- 

Enforcement costs 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

734 Gap filling survey for operators’ associations, organised by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2024. 
735 On average 10 certificates are issued by each of the 13 Member States per year but whether those are thanks to dedicated courses or not it is not clear, except for the Netherlands. Note, 
aspiring operators have the option to provide proof of their knowledge of certain subjects referred to in Annex  of the Council Directive 87/540/EEC (e.g. law, finance, access to the 
market, technical standards and safety), however part of that knowledge (e.g. law, finance) can be obtained in a general course, not necessarily in a dedicated course. Moreover, the 
Directive provides for exemptions and derogations that lead to the possibility of obtaining by practice the certificate of carrier of goods, without following a course. 
736 Assuming the purchasing power parities published by Eurostat to estimate the cost of a course in other Member States 
737 Transport documents need to be available on board for inspection. Inspections do take place, though they could take place for other reasons than inspecting the transport documents 
(i.e. checking dangerous cargo, checking compliance with cabotage rules, transport of waste). 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group 2 legislation: 
- 

Group 2 legislation: 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
- 

Group 1 legislation: 

- 

Group 2 legislation: 
Not quantified 

possible  to  quantify  the 
costs  due  to  the  lack  of 
evidence. 

Group 2 legislation: 
For  IWT  operators  for 
cooperating  to  checks  of 
certificates.    No  evidence 
is 
allow 
quantifying such checks 

available 

to 

Benefits 

Recurrent 

Group 1 
legislation: 
Not quantified 

Benefits description: 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 1 
legislation: 
For 
passengers, 
increased 
safety on the 
waterways for 
passenger 
vessels due to 
Council 
Regulation 
(EEC) No 
11/1960 

Group 1 legislation: 
For 
operators, 
IWT 
benefits due to easiness in 
obtaining insurance, easier 
identification/designation 
of the liable party thanks to 
the  obligatory 
transport 
document  on  board  of  the 
vessel, 
increased 
safety  on  the  waterways 
transport  document 
(i.e. 
dangerous 
indicating 
to  Council 
cargo),  due 
Regulation 
(EEC)  No 
11/1960. 

and 

consigners 

and 
For 
in  Germany, 
consignees 
the 
to 
benefits 
of 
the 
abolition 
Festfrachten 
system  of 
minimum  prices  in  1994 

due 

Reduced shipping 
prices by 60% for 
coal products and by 
40% for bulk cargo  

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Council 
96/75/EC). 

Directive 

consigners 

and 
For 
in  Belgium, 
consignees 
the 
France 
and 
Netherlands  due 
the 
abolition  of  the  ‘Tour  de 
Role’ 
(Council 
Directive  96/75/EC).  The 
benefits 
the 
refer 
Netherlands alone. 

system 

to 

to 

Group 2 legislation: 
Group  2  legislation  led  to 
true 
the  creation  of  a 
The 
internal  market. 
legislation 
ensured 
providing access for vessel 
owners and/or operators of 
every EU Member State to 
the  Rhine.  The  associated 
benefits however could not 
be quantified. 

Group 3 legislation: 
The  aspiring  carrier  needs 
to  apply  only  once 
to 
become a  carrier of goods 
instead  of 
in 
for  different 
repeatedly 
national  or 
river-based 
markets. 

the  EU 

Group 4 legislation: 
For  IWT  operators,  from 
reducing  overcapacity  in 
the  IWT  market  before 
avoiding 
2003 

thus 

Group 2 legislation: 
- 

Group 2 legislation: 

- 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 4 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 3 legislation: 
For  public  administrations,  for 
issuing  less  certificates  as  the  
aspiring  carrier  needs  to  apply 
only once to become a carrier of 
goods  in  the  EU  instead  of 
repeatedly for different national 
or river-based markets. 

Group 4 legislation: 
For  national 
regional 
and 
administrations,  as  well  as 
UNECE, river Commissions and 
river  protection  Commissions,  

EUR 190 million 
annually 
(lower bound 
estimate) 

Group 2 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 4 legislation: 
Not quantified 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
thanks  to  the  ‘European  IWT 
platform’  that  promotes  safety, 
and 
technologies 
clean 
innovation  of the fleet as well as 
education and  courses. 

decreases in their turnover 
and  potential  losses.  The 
to 
legislation  continues 
serve  as  basis  for 
the 
potential  restructuring  of 
the IWT market in case of 
market disturbance. 

For  operators,  skippers, 
vessel owners and logistics 
companies  thanks  to  the 
‘European  IWT  platform’ 
that promotes safety, clean 
technologies 
and 
innovation  of  the  fleet  as 
well  as  education  and 
training. 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers  Businesses 

Administrations 

Other 

Quantitative   Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative  Comment 

- 

- 

Administrative costs savings  

Recurrent  

- 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

in 

Group 1 legislation: 
The  amendment738  of 
(EEC) 
Regulation 
2008, 
11/1960 
simplified 
the 
administrative procedure 
by  reducing  the  amount 
of information needed in 
the transport documents. 
requirements 
Outdated 
were deleted and certain 
requirements 
were 
modified to minimise the 
administrative burden on 
businesses739. 
The 
consultation 
activities 
did not provide evidence 
on 
the  administrative 
costs  savings  related  to 
the amendment.  

an 

Group 3 legislation: 
By mutually recognising 
the  diplomas  proving 
competence  to  exercise 
as 
carrier, 
IWT 
carriers can more swiftly 
be authorised to carry out 
the  profession  of  IWT 
carrier  in  the  Member 
State where they chose to 
establish.  Thanks  to  the 
the  aspiring 
Directive, 

238 

Group 1 legislation: 
Not quantified 

in 

amendment 

Group 1 legislation: 
of 
The 
(EEC) 
Regulation 
2008, 
11/1960 
simplified 
the 
administrative procedure 
by  reducing  the  amount 
of information needed in 
the transport documents. 
requirements 
Outdated 
were deleted and certain 
requirements 
were 
modified,  also  reducing 
administrative  costs  for 
  The 
administrations. 
consultation 
activities 
did not provide evidence 
on 
the  administrative 
costs  savings  related  to 
the amendment. 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

an 

Group 3 legislation: 
By mutually recognising 
the  diplomas  proving 
competence  to  exercise 
as 
carrier, 
IWT 
carriers can more swiftly 
be authorised to carry out 
the  profession  of  IWT 
carrier  in  the  Member 
State where they chose to 
establish.  Thanks  to  the 
public 
Directive, 

 
 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
carrier  needs  to  apply 
only  once  to  become  a 
carrier  of  goods  in  the 
EU instead of repeatedly 
for  different  national  or 
river-based markets. The 
activities 
consultation 
did not provide evidence. 

administrations  need  to 
less  certificates. 
issue 
consultation 
The 
activities did not provide 
evidence. 

738 Council Regulation (EC) No 569/2008 of 12 June 2008 amending Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions 
739 Where existing documents, including the company’s accounting system, provide all details needed allowing to carry out a full check of the transport rates and conditions, carriers are 
no longer required to introduce a specific transport document. IWT operators can use for example a national transport document, a company-related consignment note, a bill of lading or 
a multimodal document etc. as long as the information required is provided. The amendment reduced the administrative costs, thanks to the elimination of the obligation to create an 
additional document and allowing the use of electronic systems. 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 

Citizens/Consumers/Worker
s 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative  Comment 

Administrative costs savings 

Recurrent  

- 

- 

Group 1 legislation: 
EUR 222 to 317 
million in 2030 (33% 
to 47% reduction 
relative to the 
baseline costs) 

Group 1 legislation: 
electronic 
Using 
documents  under  eFTI 
Regulation 
(Regulation 
(EU)  2020/1056)  from 
July 2027 will reduce the 
administrative  costs  for 
IWT operators related to 
the  transport  documents 
of 
consignments 
for 
goods  under  Regulation 
(EEC) No 11/1960. 

Group 1 legislation: 
- 

Group 1 legislation: 

- 

- 

- 

Group 2 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 2 legislation: 
the 
Discontinuing 
specific  Certificate  of 
belonging  to  the  Rhine 
navigation740 and instead 
relevant 
the 
including 
information  on  vessel 
ownership  in  the  Union 
inland 
navigation 
certificate  would  lead  to 
a  reduction  in  the  costs 
for businesses in the IWT 
sector, due to the fact that 
they do not have to apply 
additional 
for 
certificate. Future digital 
(vessel) documents could 
remove 
to 
provide the relevant data 
format  and 
in  paper 

the  need 

an 

Group 2 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 2 legislation: 
the 
Discontinuing 
specific  Certificate  of 
belonging  to  the  Rhine 
navigation741 and instead 
relevant 
the 
including 
information  on  vessel 
ownership  in  the  Union 
inland 
navigation 
certificate  would  lead  to 
a  reduction  in  the  costs 
for 
public 
administrations  because 
they would issue a lower 
number  of  certificates.  
Future  digital  (vessel) 
documents could remove 
the need of relevant data 
format  and 
in  paper 
reduce 
could 

further 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
further 

could 
administrative costs. 

reduce 

administrative  costs  for 
public administrations. 

the 

also 

lead 

Group 3 legislation: 
Introducing  an  EU-wide 
digital  template  for  the 
certificate  of  carriers 
to 
may 
administrative 
costs 
savings 
public 
for 
administrations.  In  view 
annual 
low 
of 
numbers  of  certificates 
is  doubtful 
issued, 
it 
however  whether 
the 
savings 
operational 
would  justify  necessary 
investments.  Synergies 
could  be  explored  with 
the  database  for  Union 
of 
certificates 
the 
qualifications 
context 
the 
Professional 
Qualifications 
Directive742.  

of 

in 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 3 legislation: 
Not quantified 

Group 3 legislation: 
for 
Potential 
simplification  of 
the 
certificate  of  carriers  by 
introducing  an  EU-wide 
digital  template  for  the 
certificate.  

740 if the Union inland navigation certificate and the registration certificate for a particular vessel are issued by the same state 
741 if the Union inland navigation certificate and the registration certificate for a particular vessel are issued by the same state 
742 Directive (EU) 2697/2017 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

This annex should be regarded solely as an overview of the contributions received during 
the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  on  market  access  Inland  Waterway  Transport 
(IWT) in the context of a Fitness Check. It cannot, under any circumstances, be regarded 
as the official position of the Commission or of its services. Furthermore, responses to 
the consultation activities cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views 
of the EU population. 

In  this  synopsis  report  on  stakeholder  consultation  activities  carried  out  for  this  Fitness 
Check, first the stakeholder consultation strategy is laid out, providing an overview of the 
stakeholder mapping and the various consultation activities carried out between 2019 and 
2024. Section 2 specifies the consultation activities in further detail. Section 3 describes the 
responsiveness  of  the  participants  to  the  various  consultation  activities.  Section  4 
summarises the findings of the stakeholder consultation activities structured around the five 
evaluation criteria, i.e. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 
Finally,  section  5  lists  the  observed  limitations  of  the  evidence  collection  process  of  the 
stakeholder consultation activities. 

I.  Stakeholder consultation strategy 

This Fitness Check examines how well the EU internal market legislative framework works 
for IWT, assessing the extent to which it is fit-for-purpose and helps ensure a smooth and 
fair internal market.  

The main objective of the stakeholder consultation process is to collect information, data, 
evidence,  and  opinions  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  internal  market  legislative 
framework for IWT in the EU acquis. Considering the stakeholders’ views, their practical 
experience,  and  data  provided,  the  stakeholder  consultation  improves  the  overall 
understanding  of  the  issues  at  stake,  thus  leading  to  better  quality  and  credibility  of  the 
Fitness Check. As can be seen in Tables 10-12 below, the stakeholder consultation activities 
span  from  July  2019  to  end  of  December  2024  and  include  feedback  to  the  roadmap, 
interviews,  stakeholder  workshops,  a  targeted  survey,  a  public  consultation,  a  survey 
targeting  Small  and  Medium  sized  Businesses  (SMEs)  and  an  additional  targeted 
consultation in order to fill remaining data gaps. 

Stakeholder mapping was carried out following the recommendations stated in Tool #52 
(Consultation  Strategy)  of  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox.  The  stakeholder  mapping 
identified  those  target  groups  who  were  directly  impacted  by  the  internal  market 
legislative  framework  of  IWT.  Particular  attention  was  paid  to  SMEs,  which  represent 
around 99.5% of operators in freight and passenger IWT743. 

The derived consultation strategy targeted a wide range of stakeholders who have stakes 
in the EU internal market legislative framework for IWT. The following major stakeholder 
groups were identified: 

•  National  public  authorities,  that  are  responsible  for  the  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  the  internal  market  legislative  framework  for  IWT  in  Member  States 
(MS), in EEA countries, in EU candidate countries and in non-EU riparian countries on 
the Rhine and on the Danube. 

743  EUROSTAT. Enterprise statistics by size class and NACE Rev.2 activity (from 2021 onwards). Freight 

and Passengers. 

242 

 
 
•  International  organisations  engaged  in  developing  and  implementing  international 
rules and agreements related to IWT navigation and safety, like river Commissions. 

•  Stakeholders in IWT including businesses/companies (mostly SMEs) operating as barge 
owners  and  operators,  shippers  and  logistics  service  providers  as  well  as  training 
providers. 

•  Stakeholder associations representing businesses in IW and trade unions representing 
IWT  sector  workers,  i.e.,  operators,  crew  members,  other  persons  involved  in  IW 
activities. 

•  Research  and  Academia  that  conduct  studies  and  specialise  in  the  IWT  sector  and 
Experts working in IWT in Europe, including past representatives of river Commissions 

•  EU Citizens interested or involved in the IWT sector e.g. as a passenger. 

Table 10: Timeline of consultation activities 

2019 

2021 

2022 

2024 

Jul  Aug  Jan  Mar  Jun  Aug  Sep  Dec  Feb  Mar  Oct  Dec 

Month 

Stakeholder 
consultation activity 

Roadmap 

Scoping Interviews 

Stakeholder Workshops 

Targeted Interviews 

Targeted Survey 

Open Public 
Consultation 

SME Survey 

Targeted Consultation 

Table 11: Key stakeholder groups reached through consultation activities  

Stakeholder group 

Roadmap 

Scoping 
interviews 

Targeted interviews  Targeted Survey 

National 
administrations 

International 
organisations  

Private sector 

Associations 

Research & 
innovation 

General public  

Experts 

Total respondents 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

4 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

15 

√ 

48 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

8 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Key stakeholder groups reached through consultation activities (continued) 

Stakeholder group 

SME survey 

Stakeholder 
workshops 

Public consultation 

Targeted 
Consultation 

National 
administrations 

International 
organisations  

Private sector 

Associations 

Research & 
innovation 

General public  

Experts 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

Total respondents 

41 

61 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

20 

√ 

√ 

√ 

14 

II.  Stakeholder consultation activities 
A Roadmap/Call for evidence744 kicked off the consultation activities, with 4 stakeholders 
providing feedback between 11 July and 30 August 2019. It aimed to inform citizens and 
stakeholders about the Commission’s initiative to evaluate those pieces of legislation that 
constitute the basis for the access and organisation of the IWT market745. 

10  scoping  interviews  were  conducted  between  11  February  and  23  March  2021  with 
stakeholders directly involved in (or impacted by) the implementation of the internal market 
legislation  framework  for  IWT.  Interviewed  stakeholder 
include  national 
administrations,  international  organisations,  associations,  and  experts  on  IWT.  The 
interviews  contributed  to  gaining  a  better  understanding  of  the  main  issues  at  stake. 
Stakeholders were asked about the status quo of the market, whether the legal acts had met 
their objectives and were still relevant, and what were the needs of the sector. 

types 

include 

representatives 

17 targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022. Interviewed 
stakeholders 
international 
organisations, associations, and experts from the sector and academia. Stakeholders were 
asked to provide their views on whether the 7 pieces of legislation were fit-for-purpose and 
had  successfully  addressed  both  sectoral  and  regional  goals  relating  to  competitiveness, 
open markets, safety and security, as well as supporting the transition to a more digital and 
environmentally sustainable IWT sector. 

from  national  administrations, 

3  stakeholder  workshops  were  held  in  2021  to  collect  views  from  specific  stakeholder 
groups  on  whether  the  internal  market  legislative  framework  for  IWT  had  effectively 
established a free market and if EU-level action was justified. The 1st stakeholder workshop 
took place on 20 January 2021 and included stakeholders involved or operating in IWT on 
the  Danube.  A  2nd  stakeholder  workshop  was  held  on  30  March  2021  with  stakeholders 
relevant to IWT activity on the Rhine. The 3rd workshop took place with the Navigation and 
Inland  Waterway  Action  and  Development  in  Europe  (NAIADES)  Commission  expert 
group  on  13  September  2021.  Stakeholder  workshops  helped  to  ensure  a  relevant 

744  Fitness check on market access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 
745  Two acts – Posted Workers Directive (96/71/EC) and its enforcement directive (2014/67/UE) have since 

been dropped from the scope of the fitness check. 

244 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
geographical representation and coverage of the most important waterways – i.e., the Rhine, 
Danube, Mosel and Sava – which account for 99.7% of EU transport performance on IW. 

A targeted survey was open between 18 June and 25 August 2021, collecting information 
from  Member  State  (MS)  ministries,  inspection  authorities,  and  to  a  lower  extent  barge 
associations and international organisations. Evidence was collected on vessel registration, 
certification, compliance, cabotage, and on the evolution of the IWT sector over the years 
and the impact of the legislation. 
The (Open) Public Consultation746 aimed at collecting public views and evidence about 
the implementation of the EU internal market legislative framework for IWT, specifically 
examining the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value of the 
legislative acts. The public consultation was accessible between 17 December 2021 and 11 
March 2022.  

An SME survey was conducted between 4 February and 11 March 2022, in cooperation 
with DG GROW’s Enterprise Europe Network. As SMEs represent around 99.5% of IWT 
operators for both freight and passengers, it was deemed crucial to gain their perspective on 
the matter747. 41 SMEs provided their views on whether the legislation framework had led 
to a single market in Europe, its impact on the competitiveness of IWT compared to other 
transport modes, whether intervention at the EU-level was justified, on additional costs that 
the  legislation  imposed,  as  well  as  processes  for  vessel  registration  and  for  obtaining 
certifications of professional competence as freight carriers. 

An additional targeted consultation, also referred to as gap filling survey took place 
between 15 October and 31 December 2024. Two questionnaires were sent, one to MS and 
another to associations of operators. This consultation activity was carried out with the aim 
to filling the remaining data gaps for the fitness  check of the internal market framework 
legislation for IWT. MS and operators’ associations were asked to provide further data on 
the individual and cumulative impacts of the legislations, including on costs and benefits of 
specific provisions. 

The data collected through these stakeholder consultation activities, both quantitative and 
qualitative, contributed to the evidence base for the analysis carried out in the fitness check 
of the internal  market  legislative framework  for  IWT. The insights  obtained through the 
interviews,  stakeholder  workshops  and  targeted  surveys  proved  particularly  useful  to 
complement and validate evidence collected via other means e.g. desk research. Throughout 
the  document,  and  where  possible,  stakeholder  views  and  other  evidence  provided  were 
contrasted and triangulated to ensure robustness in the analysis. 

III. Stakeholder groups that participated in consultation activities 

4  stakeholders  responded  to  the  consultation  at  the  stage  of  the  roadmap  (Call  for 
evidence748): 2 respondents are European associations (EBU and Coceral), 1 respondent is 
a German trade association749 and the 4th contribution was provided by the Swiss delegation 
of the CCNR. In addition, EBU submitted a position paper. 

746  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 

December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

747  EUROSTAT. Enterprise statistics by size class and NACE Rev.2 activity (from 2021 onwards). Freight 

and Passengers. 

748 11 July and 30 August 2019 
749 Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie 

245 

 
 
20  respondents  completed  the  public  consultation750  questionnaire,  with  all  answers 
considered  suitable  and  included  in  the  analysis,  and  three  respondents  also  submitted 
papers. The respondents represent 12 countries, 11 EU MS and 1 non-EU country (Russia). 
Belgium  had  the  most  respondents  (5),  followed  by  France  and  Austria  (both  with  3), 
followed by Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania (all 
with  1  response).  In  addition,  three  respondents  (EBU,  ETF  and  a  French  sectoral 
association751) also submitted a paper. 

The main stakeholder type of the respondents were business associations (4), trade unions 
(4), and public authorities (4), as shown in Figure 28. Fewer responses were received by 
companies/businesses (2), EU citizens (2), Other (2), non-governmental organisations (1) 
and  academic/research  institutions  (1).  The  2  respondents  that  identified  as  “other”  both 
concern IWT on the Rhine, these being the Secretariat of the CCNR and the Administrative 
Centre for the social security of Rhine boatmen. Apart from the 2 EU citizen respondents, 
the  organisation  size  of  the  respondents  is  well  balanced:  6  respondents  are  from  small 
organisations  (10  to  49  employees),  and  4  (each)  were  from  micro  (1  to  9  employees), 
medium (50 to 249 employees) and large (more than 250 employees) enterprises. 

Figure 28: Respondents of the Public Consultation752 by organisation type, N=20 

2

2

1

1

4

2

4

4

EU citizen
Company/business
Business association
Trade union
Public authority
Non-governmental organisation
Academic/research institution
Other

Concerning  the  10  scoping  interviews753,  3  interviewed  stakeholders  are  international 
organisations,  2  are  national  administrations,  2  are  EU  institutions,  2  are  business 
associations and 1 is an expert in IWT. The participating international organisations are key 
actors in the IWT sector, namely the Danube Commission, Pro Danube, and the EU IWT 
Platform. Concerning national administrations, interviewees represent the Netherlands and 
Austria. Experts from DG MOVE and DG TRADE represent the EU institutions while EBU 
and ESO are the business associations.  

The 17 targeted interviews were conducted with 5 national administrations, 7 international 
organisations, 2 associations, 1 academic/research institution and 2 experts. The targeted 
interviews  allowed  for  a  broad  representation  of  key  actors  regulating,  coordinating, 
managing and monitoring the internal market for the IWT sector, as the respondents – which 
include  the  Danube  Commission,  Mosel  Commission,  the  CCNR  among  other  actors  – 
oversee around 99% of all IWT in the EU. The 3 trade associations that were interviewed – 

750   Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
751 Entreprises Fluviales de France 
752  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
753 11 February and 23 March 2021 

246 

 
 
 
EBU, ESO and the Romanian association of inland owners and port operators – allowed to 
gather in-depth insights from a sectoral perspective that complemented other stakeholder 
consultation activities. 

The  1st  stakeholder  workshop  targeted  actors  relevant  to  the  river  Danube  (hereafter 
referred to as the “Danube workshop”). Of the 13 attendees, 5 are companies/businesses, 4 
national  authorities,  3  international  organisations  and  1  academic/research  institution. 
National authorities of countries that had not participated in stakeholder interviews had the 
opportunity  to  provide  feedback,  namely  the  Bulgarian  and  Romanian  Ministries  of 
Transport and the Serbian Port Governance Agency. 

The 2nd workshop targeted actors relevant to the river Rhine (hereafter referred to as the 
“CCNR  workshop”).  Counting  with  15  participants,  attendees 
include  country 
representatives  operating  in  the  Central  Commission  for  the  Navigation  of  the  Rhine 
(CCNR),  with  1  participant  represented  per  country  (the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg, 
Belgium,  Switzerland)  except  for  Germany  and  France,  which  had  3  and  2  participants, 
respectively.  Attendees  also  included  4  representatives  of  the  CCNR  including  the 
chairman, as well as 1 representant of an academic/research institute. 

The  3rd  workshop  was  with  the  NAIADES  expert  group  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the 
“NAIADES  workshop”).  The  37  participants  cover  9  EU  institutions,  14  national 
authorities, 10 international organisations including 4 IWT Commissions (i.e., the CCNR, 
the Mosel Commission, the Danube Commission, and the International Sava River Basin 
Commission) and 4 associations. The 14 national authorities are from Austria, Belgium, the 
Czechia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. 

Of the 90 stakeholders invited to respond to the  targeted survey 48 participated and 12 
completed it. The survey targeted national administrations, with participants representing 
mostly Ministries of Transport (16), enforcement authorities including the water police (7) 
and  inspection  authorities  (2).  The  remaining  23  respondents  identified  as  “other”. 
Geographical coverage was ensured by having participants from Luxembourg (9), Hungary 
(8), Austria (6), Finland, France and Slovakia (3 each), Belgium (2), and Croatia, Germany, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine (1 each). 
The remaining 5 respondents did not specify a country. 

The SME Survey754 received 41 replies from SMEs located in 12 countries. Germany is the 
most represented country with 12 entries, followed by Austria, Belgium and Romania (4 
each),  the  Netherlands  and  France  (3  each),  Bulgaria  and  Hungary  (2  each)  and 
Luxembourg,  Slovakia,  Croatia  and  Poland  (1  each),  with  3  SMEs  not  providing 
information on their location. The responding companies are mostly active on the Rhine (19 
entries) and on the Danube (17 entries), followed by the Elbe (5), the Mosel (4) and the Saar 
(3). Furthermore, 2 respondents are active on all European IW. 

The  additional  targeted  consultation755  received  14  responses  in  total,  9  from  the  MS 
national  administrations  and  5  from  operator  associations.  Most  MS  responses  are  from 
Croatia  (3),  followed  by  Belgium  (2),  and  Germany,  Luxembourg,  Austria,  and  the 
Netherlands (1 response each). Since 2 identical entries were received from Croatia, only 1 
was  kept,  leaving  the  total  of  Croatia’s  contributions  to  2  and  total  participants  to  8.  4 
respondents are active on the Danube, followed by the Rhine (3), the Mosel (2) and the Elbe 
(1). In addition, 2 MS (Sweden and Ireland) confirmed no intention to contribute as they 
have  no  practical  experience  in  the  implementation  of  the  legislation  in  scope.  Of  the  5 

754 4 February and 11 March 2022 
755  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 

247 

 
 
associations,  3  have  European  membership  while  2  responses  stem  from  a  Dutch 
association. 

IV.  Findings of the stakeholder consultation activities 

This section presents a summary of the stakeholder input received through the consultation 
activities on the internal market legislation framework for IWT, structured around the five 
evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 

1.  Relevance 

Of the 7 acts in scope, responses from the public consultation756 show that those considered 
as either very or somewhat relevant today are Council Regulation N° 2919/85 and Council 
Directive  87/540/EEC  (12  of  14  respondents  each),  followed  by  Council  Regulation  N° 
1356/96 (11 of 14) and Council Regulation N° 718/1999 (10 of 14). Regulation N° 11/1960 
received  the  most  “non  relevant”  votes  (6  of  14),  followed  by  Council  Regulation  N° 
3921/91 and Council Directive 96/75/EC (4 each). Overall, all pieces of legislation received 
more “relevant” votes than “non-relevant”. 

Concerning  Regulation  N°  11/1960,  7  of  10  respondents  of  scoping  interviews757  – 
including  the  CCNR,  the  Danube  Commission  and  Pro  Danube  –  stated  that  since  it 
established a relevant legal basis for the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and 
conditions at the time, the high level of liberalisation currently observed in IWT in the EU 
has made it less relevant. The Danube workshop758 also points to this, with all participants 
agreeing on having achieved a full liberalisation for market entry and pricing policy within 
the Danube region, except for rare smaller restrictions for vessels operating with a flag from 
a non-EU MS. The participants referred to the need to revise the legislation to ensure it is 
relevant to current needs. 

Relating  to  Council Directive 96/75/EC, all 4 country delegations consulted in  targeted 
interviews759 – 2 for the CCNR and 2 for the Mosel Commission – confirmed the relevance 
of the Directive for establishing an internal market in IWT.  In its feedback to the roadmap760, 
EBU also underlined the relevance and effectiveness in aim and scope of the Directive. 

Regarding Council Regulation N° 718/1999, 2 of 4 stakeholders having sent feedback to 
the roadmap761 confirmed its relevance, stating that it aims to reducing sectoral overcapacity 
through  vessel-scrapping  schemes  whilst  avoiding  excessive  social  costs.  During  their 
scoping interview762, EBU and ESO highlighted that the Regulation’s relevance lies in its 
link to the Reserve Fund – created in 1989 and that the Council Regulation N° 718/1999 
adjusted – was used to create the EU IWT Platform and the remaining funds available to 
address  sectoral  needs.  In  the  additional  targeted  consultation763,  5  of  the  5  MS  having 
responded to the question expressed that the IWT Platform is still relevant.  

756  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
757 11 February and 23 March 2021 
758 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
759 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
760 11 July and 30 August 2019 
761 11 July and 30 August 2019 
762 11 February and 23 March 2021 
763  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 

248 

 
 
Regarding  Council  Regulation  N°  2919/85,  EBU  expressed  in  its  feedback  to  the 
roadmap764  that  although  it  is  considered  relevant,  it  should  be  replaced  by  a  European 
system fitting in the existing Regulation on the Rhine.  

Concerning Council Regulation N° 3921/91, 4 of 17 targeted interviewees765 and 1 scoping 
interviewee766 stated that the main impact was the opening of cabotage to undertakings from 
all EU MS, thus differing from the past where third countries were granted occasional access 
through bilateral treaties on waterways other than the Rhine. 

Concerning Council Regulation N° 1356/96, stakeholders have expressed that its relevance 
lies in  the definition it  provides of the link between a vessel and a MS.  In their scoping 
interview767, the Danube Commission stated the importance of ensuring that third country 
vessels  comply  with  EU  technical  requirements  on  vessels  and  on  reducing  pollution  to 
reduce cases of unfair competition from third countries riparian to the Danube. Relating to 
Council Directive 87/540/EEC on access to the profession of IWT carriers, EBU stated in 
their feedback to the roadmap768 that the Directive’s relevance lies in its introduction of a 
quality standard for access to the occupation. Despite its relevance, when asked if the list of 
topics  for  which  proof  of  professional  competence  must  be  provided  is  accurate,  5 
respondents state to a large or to some extent, 3 responded “to no extent”, while 6 of 14 
national authorities having responded to the targeted survey769 stated that they did not know. 
The  stakeholders  specified  that  the  list  as  stated  in  the  Annex  of  the  Council  Directive 
87/540/EEC does not cover needs that have arisen since its adoption, namely knowledge on 
sustainability, digitalisation, and automation.  

Conclusions are difficult to draw regarding the evolution of the IWT market over time, 
given that Regulation N° 11/1960 dates back more than 60 years. In the targeted survey770 
for  national  authorities,  when  asked  how  the  IWT  had  developed  over  time  14  of  30 
respondents answered “NA” regarding non-discrimination in transport rates, and 13 of 30 
responded  “NA”  concerning  market  openness.  For  the  remaining  respondents,  there  are 
slightly more respondents perceiving an increase in market openness and competitiveness 
(10 of 30) than in reducing discrimination (8 of 30). 1 of 4 respondents to the roadmap771 
and 1 national authority having participated in the targeted survey772 stated that while the 
Regulation N° 11/1960 originally aimed at checking if transport was carried out according 
to the legislations, it is currently being abused by the water police to check if transported 
cargo is legal. A respondent of the targeted survey773 suggested that it could be revised to 
serve  as  a  basis  for  freight  flows  data  collection.  No  consensus  is  found  among  the 
respondents to the targeted survey774 on whether there have been changes in the conditions 
to access the IWT freight carrier occupation over time. 5 of 15 respondents of the targeted 
survey775 answered that there have been changes, against 3 that did not notice any change 
and 7 that did not provide an answer. 

764 11 July and 30 August 2019 
765 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
766 11 February and 23 March 2021 
767 11 February and 23 March 2021 
768 11 July and 30 August 2019 
769 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
770 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
771 11 July and 30 August 2019 
772 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
773 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
774 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
775 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 

249 

 
 
2.  Effectiveness 

Regarding  overall  effectiveness  of  the  internal  market  legislation  for  IWT,  results  from 
stakeholder consultation activities show a consensus that the objectives of Regulation N° 
11/1960,  Council  Regulation  N°  3921/91,  Council  Regulation  N°  2919/85,  Council 
Regulation N° 1356/96 and Council Directive 96/75/EC have been met, as the sector has 
experienced significant liberalisation and the establishment of fairer price competition: 

•  12 of 15 respondents of the public consultation776 (5 did not answer) find that the acts 
have  positively  impacted  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  the  freedom  to  provide 
services, a result that parallels the Danube workshop777 (8 of 9 stakeholders agreed with 
this view), the scoped interviews (6 of 10 agreed) and the targeted interviews778 (8 of 13 
agreed). SME survey779 results also confirm this perception, with 38 of 41 SMEs either 
agreeing  or  strongly  agreeing  with  the  statement  that  the  European  internal  market 
legislation led to a single market which ensures the free movement of goods across the 
EU, against 1 disagreeing780. 

•  Of the 16 national authorities having responded to the targeted survey781, 10 agree that 
there has been either a slight or large increase in market openness and competitiveness. 
6  of  7  MS  having  answered  the  targeted  consultation782  consider  the  legislative 
framework for IWT market access appropriate to ensure competitiveness of the sector 
both  within  the  internal  market  and  vis-à-vis  third  countries.  This  mirrors  public 
consultation783 results, where 11 of 15 respondents affirmed that the acts have achieved 
their goal of opening and liberalising the market, and 10 of 15 claimed that they ensure 
non-discriminatory access within the single market.  For all these objectives, 2 or less 
respondents  claimed that the acts  have neither contributed nor hindered achieving the 
objectives. 

Public consultation784 respondents expressed differing views with regards to whether the 7 
legislative acts provide a solid basis to address the sector’s challenges. 8 of 14 respondents 
stated that these provide a solid basis to address the uptake of innovation, the greening of 
the IWT fleet and sector, as well as the promotion of IWT’s role in intermodal transport (4 
claimed that it does not, 1 did not know and 1 thinks the framework is irrelevant for these 
challenges). In contrast, 6 of 14 expressed that the legislation does not provide a solid basis 
to increase resilience against economic fallouts (5 think it does, 1 does not know and 2 state 
the framework is irrelevant for these challenges). 

No conclusion can be drawn from the targeted survey785 to national authorities on whether 
the  need  to  carry  transport  documents  on  board  the  vessel  –  made  compulsory  through 

776  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
777 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
778 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
779 4 February and 11 March 2022 
780   This SME is active only in the Danube IWT and does not provide further information regarding its strong 
reservations towards the existence of a free internal market for IWT in the EU. 
781 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
782  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
783  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
784  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
785 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 

250 

 
 
Regulation N° 11/1960 – had strengthened freer markets: between 60% and 80% of the 30 
respondents to the questions answered “N/A” or “I don’t know, with the rest almost equally 
divided between “Yes” and “No”. When asked whether authorities check vessel transport 
documents  to  verify  if  prices  are  based  on  fair  competition  and  non-discrimination,  the 
majority,  21  of  41  surveyed  SMEs786  answered  “No”,  3  stated  “Yes”,  and  17  answered 
“Don’t  Know”.  3  of  17  targeted  interviewees787  believe  that  the  reason  the  water  police 
inspect  transport  documents  is  to  verify  the  legality  of  the  vessel’s  cargo  rather  than 
transport documents. 

6 of 10 scoping interviewees788 and 9 of 13 targeted interviewees789 expressed that Council 
Directive 96/75/EC was effective in eliminating national rules and practices that hindered 
freedom of chartering and pricing, underlining the abolishing of the fixed freight systems in 
Germany  and  the  tour-de-role  systems  in  the  Netherlands,  France,  and  Belgium.  During 
their targeted interviews790, the Dutch, German and Swiss delegations to the CCNR stated 
that  EU  legislation  ending  price  discrimination  and  establishing  a  free  market  had 
effectively  led  to  increases  in  productivity,  competitiveness,  and  efficiency  in  Rhine 
navigation. 

Only 7 of 15 public consultation791 respondents claim that Council Regulation N° 718/1999 
has led to structural improvements, modernisation, and improved competitiveness of IWT 
compared  to  other  transport  modes,  against  5  respondents  claiming  the  opposite.  SME 
survey792  results  also  show  contrasting  views,  with  17  of  40  (responding)  disagreeing  or 
strongly disagreeing with the statement that the acts have improved IWT competitiveness 
compared to other transport modes (against 14 agreeing or strongly agreeing and 9 with no 
opinion).  For  the  same  question,  4  of  9  Danube  workshop793  respondents  disagreed  or 
strongly disagreed, 5 neither agreed nor disagreed, and none agreed. The 4 having disagreed 
with the statement are businesses and justified their answer mentioning government support 
to railway companies that IWT companies do not receive, unpredictable water levels of IW, 
lower  investments  in  infrastructure,  and  less  efficient  connections  with  other  transport 
modes.  3  of  10  scoping  interviewees794  expressed  that  it  is  difficult  to  evaluate  the 
effectiveness of Council Regulation N° 718/1999 in reducing overcapacity, as older IWT 
vessels are generally replaced by newer ones. At the CCNR workshop795 an MS explained 
that  overcapacity  is  being  handled  by  the  IWT  market  itself,  ‘old-for-new’scrapping 
schemes  does  not  seem  to  be  necessary  anymore  and  suggested  that  it  would  be  more 
effective to focus on strengthening the sector, through e.g. the EU IWT Reserve Fund. 

In the targeted survey796, when asked to what extent the IWT Reserve Fund had contributed 
to achieving sectoral goals, 3 of 4 national authorities claimed that it contributed to creating 
neither a more sustainable market nor a level playing field between IWT and other transport 
modes (1 did not know). 2 of 4 national authorities also  were of the view that it did not 

786 4 February and 11 March 2022 
787 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
788 11 February and 23 March 2021 
789 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
790 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
791  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
792 4 February and 11 March 2022 
793   Note that Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 contains an exclusion for vessels circulating exclusively 
on the Danube  
794 11 February and 23 March 2021 
795 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
796 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 

251 

 
 
contribute to either a better functioning nor safer IWT market, 1 stated “to some extent” (1 
did not know). In a scoping interview797, the EU IWT Platform stated that the effectiveness 
of the Reserve Fund is undermined by the complexity of the IWT sector (due to the existence 
of  various  regimes)  and  the  low  quantity  of  funds  available  with  respect  to  the  size  and 
needs  of  the  sector.  Through  the  scoping  interviews798  and  feedback  sent  via  the  public 
consultation799, 2 national authorities underscored the effectiveness of Council Regulation 
N° 2919/85 in avoiding the risks of unfair competition vis-a-vis third countries. However, 
these stakeholders find that issues remain, mainly unclear cabotage rules in IWT, claiming 
that MS are taking advantage of the ambiguity to protect national markets, undermining the 
legislation’s effectiveness in creating a total free market. This point was also brought up by 
5 of 10 scoping interviewees800 and by 2 SMEs in the SME survey801, asking for clarification 
in the definitions of the “right of establishment” and “temporary cabotage”, as well as on 
the genuine link between circulating vessels and MS. These points resonate with 3 views 
expressed at the Danube workshop802, 2803 of 4 respondents that provided feedback to the 
roadmap804 have deemed that no temporary restriction should remain on cabotage anymore. 
In contrast, 21 of 41 SMEs from the SME survey805 claimed that they do not experience time 
limitations for cabotage (Council Regulation N° 3921/91) when providing IWT services 
on the territory of another MS (3 stated that they do, 16 answered “Don’t Know” and 1 did 
not  answer).  Those  that  do,  mention  problems  including  locks  stoppages  preventing 
connections between canals and difficulties in entering foreign markets. 

Concerning  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC,  25  SMEs  (of  25  that  responded  to  the 
question)  stated  having  obtained  the  certificate  of  professional  competence  as  freight 
carriers in IWT: 10 in Germany, 4 in Belgium, 4 in the Netherlands, 2 in Romania, 2 in 
France, 1 in Bulgaria, 1 in Hungary and 1 in Switzerland. However, there are differences 
between MS concerning how a certificate is obtained and for which activity: of the 32 SMEs 
that  answered,  10  stated  that  the  process  of  acquiring  a  certificate  of  professional 
competence applies both to IWT freight and passenger carriers, whilst 4 answered that it 
applies only to IWT freight carriers. 1 trade union also stated in its feedback that some MS 
operators in IW passenger transport do not need to prove any professional competence in 
the EU. In the SME survey806, 18 SMEs (of 32) stated that an exam is required to obtain the 
certificate of professional competence, with 6 stating the contrary. Similar findings stem 
from the targeted interviews807, with 2 business associations and 1 trade union deeming the 
Directive  a  good  starting  point  despite  having  been  only  partly  effective  in  creating 
uniformity across the EU. 

National  authorities  find  it  difficult  to  conclude  that  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  has 
improved the scheme for freight carriers’ professional qualifications; 10 of 15 answered “I 
don’t know”, 3 stated “it improved” and 2 noted “no improvement”. 

797 11 February and 23 March 2021 
798 11 February and 23 March 2021 
799  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
800 11 February and 23 March 2021 
801 4 February and 11 March 2022 
802 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
803 EBU and a German trade union 
804 11 July and 30 August 2019 
805 4 February and 11 March 2022 
806 4 February and 11 March 2022 
807 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 

252 

 
 
Regarding  the  transparency  of  the  process  of  obtaining  professional  certificates,  in  the 
targeted  survey808,  10  of  15  national  authorities  labelled  the  scheme  as  sufficiently 
transparent, 2 as somewhat transparent and 3 did not know. In the SME survey809, 15 SMEs 
(of  the  30  SMEs  having  responded)  deemed  the  process  of  obtaining  the  certificate  of 
professional  competence  as  sufficiently  transparent,  and  8  stated  that  the  process  is  not 
transparent (for which 6 obtained it in Germany). 

3.  Efficiency 

Overall, stakeholders have underlined their difficulty in assessing benefits versus costs of 
the  internal  market  legislative  framework  for  IWT.  When  looking  at  results  from  the 
targeted consultation810 to  MS, 5 of 7 state “cannot say” whether the benefits from the 7 
pieces  of  legislation  outweigh  the  costs,  with  1 stating  that  the  benefits  are  significantly 
larger than the costs and 1 stating the opposite. At the same time, concerning Regulation 
N° 11/1960, 19 of 41 SME survey811 respondents stated that they did not experience costs 
by keeping  transport documents available on board, while 11 answered “Yes” and 11 “I 
don’t know”. Answers are similar when asked about costs related to inspections to check 
transport rates and conditions, to which 21 answered “No” against 10 stating “Yes” and 7 
“I  don’t  know”.  The  costs  related  to  inspections,  and  borne  by  businesses,  were  also 
highlighted  by  a  business  association  in  a  targeted  interview812  (EBU),  expressing  that  a 
potential negative consequence of the Act  is  the fact  that vessels are being detained and 
asked  to  show  transport  documents  for  each  container,  leading  to  an  increase  in  the 
administrative  burden  for  the  carrier.  Results  from  the  public  consultation813  are  not 
conclusive with regards to costs and benefits, less than 8 out of 20 respondents answered 
those questions.In the targeted survey814, when asked about the benefits of making transport 
documents  compulsory  for  IWT  operators,  national  authorities  did  not  have  a  uniform 
opinion.  While  6  of  30  respondents  claimed  as  benefit  the  easier  identification  of  liable 
parties (for which 5 disagreed and 19 did not know), 6 respondents claimed that it had led 
to  safer  waterways  (against  6  that  disagreed  and  18  that  did  not  know). One  respondent 
elaborated that both the digitisation of transport documents and making them official and 
acceptable  towards  all  authorities,  such  as  dictated  by  the  Electronic  Freight  Transport 
Information  (eFTI)  Regulation,  would  positively  impact  the  IWT  sector  by  reducing 
administrative burden for operators. This was also underlined by EBU in their feedback to 
the roadmap 815. 

Regarding the other pieces of legislation, 5 of 13 public consultation816 respondents stated 
that Council Directive 96/75/EC requires low levels of effort to comply with, compared to 
2 claiming “medium effort” and 1 that claimed “significant effort”. 

With regards to the  Council Regulation N° 718/1999, when asked about the costs related 
to  the  establishment,  management  and  use  of  the  Reserve  Funds  administered  by  MS, 

808 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
809 4 February and 11 March 2022 
810  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
811 4 February and 11 March 2022 
812 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
813  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
814 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
815 11 July and 30 August 2019 
816  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

253 

 
 
respondents answered “NA” or did not answer. In their scoping interview817, the Netherlands 
stated that one of the biggest benefits brought forth by the Council Regulation N° 718/1999 
is  the removal of more than 2000  older vessels  from  the market,  thus  tackling structural 
overcapacity issues. The same stakeholder however expressed that the direct benefits linked 
to the structural transformation of the sector – through for instance greening, digitalisation, 
and innovation – remained limited due to an insufficient availability of funds required for 
this transition and modernisation. 

In the targeted consultation818 EBU confirmed that there are no costs related to the ongoing 
efforts to enforce Council Regulation N° 718/1999, only benefits, as the legislation serves 
as the basis for the potential restructuring of the IWT market in case of market disturbance 
and the use of the Reserve Fund, which benefit of the entire IWT sector. When asked about 
the  benefits  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999  brings,  AT  highlighted  the  qualitative 
development of shipping, while LU remarked that the old for new rule might no longer be 
adequate  and  appropriate  in  today’s  IWT  landscape.  Operators’  organisations  and  MS 
administrations, who responded to the targeted consultation activities819, consider the IWT 
platform useful. Still in the targeted consultation820 regarding the IWT Platform, 2 out (NL, 
HR) of 9 MS administrations are of the view that its benefits are significantly larger than 
the required effort/costs, 2 (AT, DE) are of the view that benefits and effort/costs are of a 
similar  size  and  the  remaining  cannot  say.  On  the  same  question,  3  out  of  5  operator 
organisations  (incl.  the  IWT  platform  itself)  are  of  the  view  that  benefits/efforts  are  of 
similar size, while 2 are of the view that benefits are significantly larger than the required 
effort/costs. Finally, during the public consultation821, 8 out of the 13 respondents perceived 
Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 as providing overall benefits or benefits of similar size 
with the effort/costs. 

Regarding  Group  2  legislation,  in  the  targeted  consultation822  LU  highlighted  the 
simplification potential of Group 2.  

Concerning vessel registration costs, 21 of 40 SMEs (that responded to the question) find 
that  the  vessel  registration  process  is  clear  and  easy,  against  13  stating  the  opposite.  3 
respondents  brought  up  the  process’  lengthiness  as  an  important  burden  that  requires 
simplification.  
4  of  13  public  consultation823  respondents  find  that  compliance  with  Council  Directive 
87/540/EEC requires significant effort, 4 consider that it requires medium effort, and 2 that 
it requires low effort.  

In  addition,  MS  administrations  expressed  the  view  that  lack  of  a  harmonised  set  of 
requirements for the carriers of passengers across the EU results in less resilience of those 
carriers (2out of 7), in diverging requirements by MS (3) and in low quality service (1). One 
MS also mentioned loss of time (possibly related to the application for and granting of the 

817 11 February and 23 March 2021 
818  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
819  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
820  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
821  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
822  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
823  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

254 

 
 
certificate). One MS mentioned, however, that in view of the very few certificates issued, 
the effects of the rules are negligible. 

4.  Coherence 

There seems to be a consensus among responding stakeholders that Regulation N° 11/1960 
and Council Directive 96/75/EC have indeed removed restrictions and discriminations to 
entering and operating in IWT, therefore aligning with wider EU policies aiming to ensure 
the free movement of goods and services with the European single market.  

Regarding Council Regulation N° 718/1999, 3 international organisations and 1 expert (4 
of 10 scoping interviews824) manifested that the EU IWT Reserve Fund is in line with wider 
EU policies aimed at greening the transport sector. Albeit, in a targeted interview825 with the 
Danube  Commission  Secretariat  expressed  that  EU  requirements,  such  as  those  limiting 
pollutant emissions, are likely to be more stringent than those imposed in Danube and non-
Danube  third  countries,  potentially  impacting  competitiveness.  and  also  brought  up  the 
current lack of clarity on how to carry out the transition to green vessels, a point alluded to 
by a national administration in their scoping interview826. 

Relating to the measures that can be taken in case of a serious market disturbance is declared 
(Council  Regulation  N°  718/1999  and  Article  7  of  Council  Directive  96/75),  2  of  4 
international organisations consulted through scoping interviews827 highlighted the lack of 
clarity on how to use the Reserve Fund to reach greening and innovation sectoral objectives.  

On legislation in Group 22 German SMEs expressed that since EU enlargement, there are 
vessels permanently operating on the Rhine, with operators established in EU MS with little 
to  no  IWT activity and that apply  lower social  and fiscal  standards. This point was  also 
brought  up  at  the  CCNR  workshop828  and  in  a  scoping  interview829  by  1  national 
administration and 1 business association. An expert stated that even if undertakings active 
on the Rhine have a stronger incentive to relocate to lower-cost countries, effective access 
to the Rhine by the Danube fleet and vice versa remains limited.  In the Danube workshop830, 
the Danube Commission Secretariat expressed the fear that some companies be tempted to 
relocate  to  less-demanding  Danube  third  countries  to  get  their  vessel  certificate  (among 
others),  thus  gaining  a  competitive  advantage.  The  same  stakeholder  however  expressed 
that for the moment, although flags from non-EU countries have been spotted operating in 
the Danube, the impact on weakening fair competition remains limited. 

Concerning the coherence of Directive 87/540/EC regulating access to the IWT profession, 
in written contributions submitted via the public consultation831, 1 EU citizen and 1 company 
(of 20 respondents) highlighted that contrary to the transport of goods, proof of professional 
competence  is  not  needed  for  passenger  transport,  thus  raising  questions  about  the  level 
playing field within the IWT market. The EU citizen also expressed that since there is no 
harmonised  certificate  confirming  proof  of  professional  competence  nor  harmonised 

824 11 February and 23 March 2021 
825 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
826 11 February and 23 March 2021 
827 11 February and 23 March 2021 
828 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
829 11 February and 23 March 2021 
830 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
831  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

255 

 
 
legislation on the registration of IW navigation vessels, it is complicated for enforcement 
authorities to ascertain the compliance of transport operations.  

7  of  41  SMEs  perceived  differences  between  EU  MS  in  the  process  of  obtaining  the 
certificate of professional competence as a freight carrier (31 did not know, 3 mentioned 
different  levels  of  exam  difficulty  depending  on  the  MS  delivering  the  certificate).  This 
mirrors comments made by EBU and ESO in their scoping interview832, stating that little 
can be said about a company’s quality through the certificates due to varying conditions for 
recognition of professional competence across MS.  

The  CCNR  Secretariat  expressed  another  concern  in  the  public  consultation833  over 
inconsistencies between Directive (EU) 2017/2397 – which actively pursues a competence-
based system for crew members – and Council Directive 87/540/EEC, which only lists items 
of knowledge not associated with practical skills 

Stakeholders also addressed the coherence of IWT legislation compared to the legislation 
of other freight and passenger transport modes. EBU and ESO stated in their targeted 
interview834 that acceptance of electronic documents is less clear for IWT than for road and 
rail  transport,  despite  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Regulation  N°  11/1960  applying 
equally to all transport modes covered in the Act’s scope. Both trade associations expressed 
that since IWT electronic documents are only accepted when MS laws allow it, coherent 
application across the EU is not ensured. 2 national administrations also expressed in their 
targeted  interviews835  that  despite  EU  rules  on  access  to  a  transport  market  requiring 
transport undertakings to be established in the country from which it manages and maintains 
its fleet, such requirements are absent in Council Regulations N° 3921/91 and N° 1356/96.  

With regards to the coherence of EU legislation with the other legislative frameworks in 
the IWT sector, some stakeholders underline the need for more clarity and simplification. 
An EU citizen indicated in the public consultation836 that the number of legislation relevant 
to IWT makes it complicated for vessel owners to follow. A similar point was brought up 
by EBU and ESO in their scoping interview837, stating that the difference in concept between 
the Rhine regime and the EU system is not clearly considered by the 3 legal acts regulating 
conditions of access to the IW network. This also echoes a comment from the  Secretary 
General of Romanian Association of Inland Ship Owners and Port Operators in the targeted 
interview838, expressing the lack of clarity in the distinction between Council Regulation N° 
2919/85 and the cabotage legislation stipulated in Council Regulation N° 3921/91, as well 
as between the Danube regime and the EU legal acts. In contrast to the Rhine, during their 
targeted  interviews839  both  the  French  and  Luxembourgish  delegations  to  the  Mosel 
Commission stated that there is no incoherence between the provisions of the 1956 Mosel 
Convention  and  EU  legislation.  5  of  7  MS  having  responded  to  the  additional  targeted 

832 11 February and 23 March 2021 
833  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
834 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
835 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
836  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
837 11 February and 23 March 2021 
838 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
839 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 

256 

 
 
consultation840, agree that there is a potential for simplification of the IWT market access 
legislative framework.  

Concerning Council Regulations N° 2919/85, N° 3921/91, N° 1356/96, stakeholders have 
expressed several concerns. In the targeted survey841, 13 of 22 national authorities stated that 
“temporary” cabotage is not defined in their country, against 5 informing that it is. In the 
evidence collected from the targeted survey842 and the NAIADES workshop843, 4 national 
authorities  (Austria,  Slovakia,  Hungary,  Romania)  expressed  that  in  Danube  countries 
conditions to obtain authorisation on access to cabotage varies between countries. In the 
CCNR workshop844, the Dutch and German delegations  expressed their wish to  maintain 
cabotage being defined at the level of the river, in which no distinction is made between 
national  and  international  transport  operators  transporting  freight  between  two  points 
through the Rhine. This is consistent with access to the Rhine being separately regulated 
through Council Regulation N° 2919/85 to consider the Rhine regime predating the EU. 

Differences across MS in vessel registration procedures were also highlighted as an issue 
impacting  the  legislative  framework’s  coherence.  In  the  SME  survey845,  10  of  40  SMEs 
noted differences between EU MS in vessel registration processes, against 5 that stated the 
opposite (25 did not know). Notable differences include the length of the processing time 
for vessel registration (5 of 10 having answered “Yes” expressed this) and the possibility of 
registering ships in digital form in some MS (e.g., the Netherlands, Switzerland) but not in 
others  (e.g.,  Germany).  In  the  targeted  survey846,  despite  16  of  21  national  authorities 
confirming that registration of commercial vessels is mandatory in their MS, the means in 
which the genuine link is assessed varies: 10 of 21 stated that the link is assessed against 
the owner of the vessel, 1 answered that it is against the operator of the vessel, 6 expressed 
that it is against both the vessel’s owner and operator, and 4 that the link is assessed against 
other  criteria.  Another  concern  relevant  to  market  access  comes  from  the  public 
consultation847, where an EU citizen  highlighted the needs  for a clearer understanding  of 
what operations “third country carriers” are allowed to perform. 

5.  EU added value 

Public consultation848 results indicate a consensus among stakeholders that the legislative 
framework at the EU level has led to achievements that could not have been reached at other 
levels of governance, whether at the international, regional, local or MS level. Regarding 
market  liberalisation  through  the  removal  of  restrictions  and  discriminations  to 
entering and operating in IWT: 

•  12 of 13 respondents claimed that the framework at the EU level has led to the freedom 
to  move goods (5 to  a great  extent and 7 to  a moderate extent) against 1 that did  not 
know. 

840  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
841 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
842 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
843 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
844 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
845 4 February and 11 March 2022 
846 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
847  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
848  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

257 

 
 
•  11 of 13 respondents stated that it has contributed to the freedom to provide services as 
well as the liberalisation of the sector (7 to a great extent and 4 to a moderate extent for 
both questions). 

•  10 of 13 respondents answered that the framework had contributed to modernising the 
sector  (4  to  a  great  extent  and  6  to  a  moderate  extent)  and  to  the  non-discriminatory 
access to the market (7 to a great extent and 3 to a moderate extent). 

•  9 of 13 respondents  claimed that it  has led to an increase of  IWT  competitiveness  as 
compared to other modes of transport (5 to a great extent and 4 to a moderate extent). 

•  Of the questions having received most “did not contribute” answers, 2 of 13 respondents 
answered that the framework did not contribute to market liberalisation nor to increasing 
the sector’s competitiveness compared to other transport modes. 

These views mirror those obtained in other consultation activities: when asked whether the 
legislation  had  led  to  achievements  that  could  not  have  materialised  at  other  levels  of 
governance: 

•  6 out of 8 respondents of the Danube workshop849 agreed with the statement, listing as 
main  benefits  the  harmonisation  of  practices  and  of  enforcement  procedures,  the 
establishment of a free market and increased cooperation between national authorities. 

•  of the 39 SMEs responding to the statement in the SME survey850, 18 agreed (of which 7 
strongly and 11 agreed), 13 neither agreed nor disagreed, 8 respondents  disagreed (of 
which 5 disagreed and 3 strongly disagreed). 

•  in  their  targeted  interview851,  the  representative  of  Rhine  operators  and  Germany’s 
representative to the CCNR stated that although the transition to price liberalisation via 
Council  Directive  96/75/EC  had  led  to  hardship  on  the  German  profession  due  to 
increased competition, it had indeed led to a decline in logistics costs and to an increase 
in the sector’s productivity. 

Concerning  legislation  referring  to  the  structural  improvement  of  the  IWT  market 
through  Council  Regulation  N°  718/1999  and  Article  7  of  the  Council  Directive 
96/75/EC: 

•  The  EU  IWT  Platform  stated  in  the  scoping  interview852  that  uncoordinated  attempts 
during the 1980s at national level to reduce structural overcapacity in the IWT sector had 
been  unsuccessful  due  to  the  international  cross  border  nature  of  the  sector,  whereas 
action at the EU level had led to a common structure capable of dealing with the issue 
across the board. 

•  In  the  targeted  survey853,  when  asked  if  the  EU  or  the  MS  should  put  in  place  public 
intervention  measures  to  respond  to  external  economic  shocks,  5  of  13  national 
authorities answered “Yes, by the EU”, 2 responded “Yes, Member States”, 5 did not 
know and 1 answered “No”. This position was seconded by EBU, ESO and the German 
delegation  at  the  CCNR  during  their  scoping  interviews854,  with  the  3  stakeholders 

849 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
850 4 February and 11 March 2022 
851 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
852 11 February and 23 March 2021 
853 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 
854 11 February and 23 March 2021 

258 

 
 
underlining the importance of an existing clear crisis mechanism to be deployed at the 
EU-level during times of crises. 
In a targeted interview855, a Rhine IWT expert expressed that a fund to make the fleet 
climate-neutral would best be carried out at EU level. In the NAIADES workshop856, 2 
of 37 participants (CCNR and Germany) welcomed the Reserve Fund, expressing that 
the pathway to zero-emission vessels was a considerable challenge that would best be 
addressed at the EU level.  The same expert stated that measures taken at the national 
level aiming to tackle the supply side of IWT, specifically overcapacity, would not lead 
to significant results given the number of MS in which vessel operators are established. 
An academic/research institution agreed with this view, adding that despite the benefits 
of EU-level legislation to the supply side of IWT, more attention should be paid to the 
demand side (i.e. transport mode preference by shippers). 

Concerning the conditions of access to the IW network: 

•  In its feedback to the roadmap857, a German trade association underscored the importance 
of EU-level legislation that keeps market entry hurdles low and enables new participants 
to enter the market.  

•  In their scoping interview858, the EU IWT Platform expressed that the harmonisation of 
technical and qualification provisions was very strong, adding that before the adoption 
of legislation at the EU level not much initiative had been taken by the MS to open up 
the markets. 

•  In their scoping interview859, an expert highlighted the importance of Council Regulations 
N° 3921/91 and N° 1356/96 in opening national markets to foreign (non-resident EU) 
operators to cabotage trade. The expert added that the legislation had led to lower prices 
for  domestic  IWT  through  increased  competition,  thus  forcing  German  operators  to 
restructure and become more efficient. 

•  In their scoping interview860, the Danube Commission expressed that as a consequence 
of  EU  legislation,  3  of  4  non-EU  members  of  the  Danube  Commission  (i.e.,  Serbia, 
Ukraine, and Moldova) had started harmonising their legislation with the EU acquis. 

Less stakeholder input could be obtained regarding whether the legislation addressing the 
access  to  the  profession  of  the  IWT  carrier  (Directive  87/540/EC)  could  have  been 
achieved at the national, regional, or local level: 

•  In its feedback to the roadmap861, a German trade association underscored the importance 
of EU-level legislation that keeps market entry hurdles low and enables new participants 
to enter the market.  

•  In their scoping interview862, the EU IWT platform stated that despite EU-level legislation 
having  led  to  harmonisation  across  MS,  insight  was  needed  on  how  they  had  been 
transposed. 

855 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
856 Stakeholder workshops were held 20 January 2021 -13 September 2021 
857 11 July and 30 August 2019 
858 11 February and 23 March 2021 
859 11 February and 23 March 2021 
860 11 February and 23 March 2021 
861 11 July and 30 August 2019 

862 11 February and 23 March 2021 

259 

 
 
•  In the public consultation863, a research/academic institution praised the introduction of a 
common standard of qualification on the European waterways, which contributes to the 
freedom  of  movement  for  professionals  and  to  an  increase  in  operational  safety.  In  a 
targeted  interview864,  Slovakia  stated  that  the  lack  of  an  EU  scheme  for  professional 
competence of IWT freight carriers would be detrimental to the IWT sector. 

V.  Limitations 

Several limitations to the stakeholder consultation process that warrant being mentioned: 

•  Results are not representative for all stakeholders and a low number of responses 
were received. For example, while 41 SMEs answered the SME survey865, for the same 
year (2021) there were 5,070 and 4,204 EU SMEs registered for inland waterway freight 
and  passenger866  transport,  respectively.  Therefore,  the  findings  of  these  stakeholder 
consultation activities reflect only the respondents’ opinion and cannot be generalised to 
represent views of   EU stakeholder groups. 

•  Uneven  participation  of  various  organisations  and  countries  in  the  consultation 
activities. Since certain organisations and countries participated more than others in the 
consultation activities, certain stakeholder might have had more opportunities to express 
their opinion. For instance, views from trade associations and national authorities were 
well represented while input from SMEs were more difficult to obtain. 

•  The long data collection process. From feedback to the roadmap867 received in 2019 to 
results  of  the  targeted  consultation868  received  in  December  2024,  the  data  collection 
process spans 5 years. Collected evidence and stakeholder input might differ based on 
the  year  it  was  collected,  especially  since  several  crises  impacting  the  sector  have 
occurred  during  that  period,  including  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  Russia’s  full-scale 
invasion of Ukraine. 

•  Incomplete  responses  were  received  in  the  surveys,  public  consultation869  and 
questionnaires.  It  is  important  to  mention  that  this  is  due  to  the  highly  regionalised 
nature  of  the  IWT  market  where  some  businesses  and  international  organisations  are 
often operating in one area, such as the Danube, Rhine, or Mosel for instance.  

•  Due to the long-dating Regulations and Directives, which span more than 6 decades, 
it is difficult to find actors that provide a long-term perspective of the legislation’s impact 
on the IWT sector from the 1960’s until the 2020s. 

863  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 
864 Targeted interviews were organised between March 2021 and March 2022 
865 4 February and 11 March 2022 
866  EUROSTAT. (2021).  Enterprise statistics by size class and NACE Rev.2 activity  (from 2021 onwards) 

[database]. Retrieved from Statistics | Eurostat (europa.eu) 

867 11 July and 30 August 2019 
868  A  targeted  consultation,  also  referred  to  as  gap  filling  survey  took  place  between  15  October  and  31 
December 2024 
869  Public  consultation  –  Fitness  check  on  market  access  in  inland  waterway  transport  (europa.eu),  17 
December 2021 and 11 March 2022 

260 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION IN SCOPE ‘INLAND NAVIGATION: ACCESS TO THE 
MARKET’ 

1.  Council Regulation No 11/1960 

Council  Regulation  No  11/1960,  adopted  on  27  June  1960,  addresses  discrimination  in 
transport  rates  and  conditions  within  the  European  Economic  Community  (EEC).  This 
regulation implements Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the EEC and aims to ensure 
fair competition by prohibition of fixing of rates. The regulation applies to the carriage of 
goods by rail, road, or inland waterway within the Community, including journeys involving 
third or associated countries. It covers only parts of journeys within the Community, even 
if the goods are carried by other modes of transport over other parts of the journey.  

Objectives:  The  objectives  of  Council  Regulation  No  11/1960  include:  ensuring  a  level 
playing  field  for  carriers  within  the  EEC,  preventing  unfair  advantages  based  on 
discriminatory pricing and promoting fair competition and market access for all transport 
operators. Requiring transport documentation increases transparency in transport rates and 
conditions, helping to detect and address discriminatory practices more effectively. Clear 
rules against discrimination reduce legal uncertainties for carriers and facilitate smoother 
cross-border transport operations by harmonizing rules within the Community. Moreover, 
encouraging  efficient  transport  services  by  eliminating  discriminatory  pricing  and 
conditions potentially lowers costs for consignors and consignees thanks to fair competition 
among carriers. 

Key Provisions:  

•  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (Article  4):  Carriers  are  prohibited  from  charging 
different  rates  or  imposing  different  conditions  for  the  same  goods  over  the  same 
transport links based on the country of origin or destination. Fixing transport rates and 
conditions that result in discrimination is also prohibited. 

•  Transport Document Requirements (Article 6870): A transport document is required 
for each consignment of goods, detailing the consignor's name and address, nature and 
weight of the goods, place and date of acceptance, place of delivery. These documents 
must be made out in duplicate, numbered, and retained for two years. 

•  Notification  and  Information  (Article  5871):  Member  States  must  notify  the 
Commission of any discriminatory tariffs or agreements before 1 July 1961. Transport 
undertakings  must  provide  relevant  information  to  their  respective  governments  and 
notify them of any new discriminatory measures. 

•  Inspection and Compliance (Article 14): Member States are responsible for checking 
compliance with the regulation. The Commission can send officials for inspections to 
ensure adherence, with rights to access premises, records, and vehicles of undertakings. 

•  Penalties  for  Non-Compliance  (Articles  16,  17  &  18):  After  consulting  the 
Commission, Member States can impose penalties for discrimination, with fines up to 20 
times the carriage charge obtained or demanded. Further penalties of up to 10,000 units 

870 As amended by Council Regulation 569/2008 
871 Article 5 was removed by Council Regulation 569/2008 

261 

 
 
of account can be imposed if discrimination continues despite orders to cease. 

Obligations:  Regulation  No  11/1960  requires  carriers  to  ensure  that  transport  rates  and 
conditions  are  non-discriminatory.  Moreover,  they  are  obliged  to  maintain  accurate 
transport  documents  in  duplicate  for  two  years  and  provide  necessary  information  to 
authorities.  The  Regulation  also  includes  obligations  for  the  national  administrations  to 
carry out checks or controls (Art 14), follow up of infringements and issuing penalties. 

Implementation  and  enforcement:  Carriers  are  responsible  for  carrying  transport 
documents  as  per  Article  5.  Certain  low-weight  or  short-distance  transport  is  exempted 
under Article 8. Forwarding and other agents must provide relevant information on services 
and  rates  as  per  Article  13,  if  required  by  their  Governments’  or  by  the  Commission. 
Governments  and  undertakings  must  supply  additional  information  if  requested  by  the 
Commission  under  Articles  11  and  13.  Member  States  are  responsible  for  checking 
compliance (with enforcement assisted by the Commission, if needed) as per Article 14 and 
are also required to establish penalties for non-compliance under Articles 16, 17 and 18. 

2.  Council Directive 96/75/EC872 

Council Directive 96/75/EC, adopted on 19 November 1996, aims to liberalise systems of 
chartering and pricing  in  national  and international  inland waterway transport within the 
European  Community.  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  applies  to  both  national  and 
international inland waterway transport within the European Community. It sets a uniform 
timetable at Community level for the gradual liberalization of the market. By promoting the 
use of inland waterways, the directive aims to contribute to addressing challenges such as 
road and rail congestion, transport safety, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. 

Objectives:  The  objectives  of  the  directive  include  enhancing  competitiveness  in  inland 
waterway transport by allowing contracts to be freely negotiated and prices set based  on 
market conditions, promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness.  

Key Provisions: 

•  Freedom of Contract and Pricing (Article 2): The directive establishes the principle 
that contracts in inland waterway transport shall be freely concluded between parties and 
prices shall be freely negotiated. This provision aims to enhance market efficiency by 
allowing carriers and shippers to adapt their pricing according to market conditions. 

•  Transitional Period and Exceptions (Articles 3, 4 and 5): While certain cargo (such 
as dry bulk, liquid bulk, oil and gas) was immediately subject to liberalisation under the 
Directive,  for  the  remaining  cargo  types  Member  States  were  allowed  to  maintain 
systems of minimum compulsory tariffs and chartering by rotation until 1 January 2000, 
while  maximising  flexibility  in  those  systems.  This  transitional  phase  facilitated  a 
gradual  shift  towards  a  liberalised  market,  allowing  carriers  to  adjust  to  new  market 
conditions. 

•  Contractual Flexibility (Article 6): Within two years of the directive’s entry into force 
(end  of  1998),  Member  States  involved  in  systems  of  chartering  for  rotation  were 
required to enable shippers to choose between different types of contracts (time based, 

872 As amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 

262 

 
 
tonnage  contracts  and  contracts  for  single  or  multiple  trips).  This  flexibility  aimed  at 
supporting  operational  efficiency  and  customer  choice  in  inland  waterway  transport 
services. 

•  Possible measures in Case of Serious Market Disturbance (Article 7): The directive 
empowers the European Commission, at the request of a Member State, to take suitable 
measures, in particular measures designed to prevent any new increase in the transport 
capacity,  in  response  to  serious  market  disturbances  in  the  inland  waterway  transport 
sector.  

Obligations:  Implementing  Council  Directive  96/75/EC  imposes  several  obligations  for 
Member States and stakeholders. Member States were obliged to adapt national legislation 
and administrative procedures to ensure compliance with the directive by 1 January 1997 
(Article  9).  Additionally,  carriers  were  required  to  transition  from  regulated  tariffs  to 
negotiating prices freely in a competitive market (Articles 3, 4 and 5).  

Implementation and enforcement: 

•  Transposition Deadline: Member States were required to transpose the directive into 
national law by 1 January 1997 and to promptly inform the European Commission. 

•  Gradual  Implementation:  By  end  of  1998,  several  Member  States  had  phased  out 
minimum compulsory tariffs and enabled shippers873 to have free choice of contracts and 
prices in inland waterway transport. The transitional period, where some carriers under 
certain  conditions  were  allowed  to  continue  the  chartering  contracts,  elapsed  on  1 
January 2000. 

•  Standby Mechanism: The European Commission, under Article 7, continues to have a 
legal basis to take measures - at the request of a Member State  - to prevent excessive 
increase in transport capacity in the event of serious market disturbance. 

3.  Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999874 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999,  adopted  on  29  March  1999  and  active  until  29 
April  2003,  establishes  measures  concerning  the  reduction  of  overcapacity  in  the 
Community  fleet  engaged  in  inland  waterway  transport.  The  regulation  builds  upon  its 
predecessor  (Regulation  (EEC)  No  1101/89)  to  address  overcapacity  issues  in  the  fleets 
operating on linked inland waterway networks of Member States where overcapacity exists. 
The  regulation  aimed  to  retain  and  gradually  phase  out  the  old-for-new  rule  mechanism 
during the four years of its activity. Beyond April 2003 the Regulation continues to offer a 
standby mechanism where the Commission may temporarily reinstate the 'old-for-new' rule 
for a limited period - in the event of serious market disturbance, as defined in Article 7 of 
Directive 96/75/EC. 

The  regulation  applies  to  commercial  vessels  and  pusher  craft875  engaged  in  transport 
operations between two or more points via inland waterways within the Member States. It 

873 Shipper refers to a customer or client. 
874 As amended by Regulation (EU) 546/2014 
875 A vessel specifically designed to push barges or other non-motorised cargo units ahead of it.  

263 

 
 
excludes vessels operating exclusively on closed national waterways or the Danube up to 
Kelheim, as well as vessels under 450 deadweight tonnes and specialized vessels.  

Objectives: Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 enhances market stability by addressing 
overcapacity. The old-for-new rule assures new vessels are introduced only when a special 
contribution is paid, or equivalent old vessel tonnage is scrapped. This capacity policy leads 
to the modernisation and restructuring of fleets, encouraging the adoption of vessels that 
align with environmental and safety advancements. Lastly, it fosters fair competition among 
vessel  owners  and  operators  across  Member  States  by  implementing  uniform  rules  and 
scrapping premiums. 

Key provisions 

•  'Old-for-new'  Rule  (Article  4):  Central  to  the  regulation  is  the  'old-for-new'  rule, 
requiring  owners  introducing  new  vessels  into  service  to  either  scrap  compensatory 
tonnage or contribute to designated Funds. This rule aims to prevent the influx of new 
vessels that could lead to overcapacity by introducing a special contribution to be paid at 
a certain ratio, when a new vessel is brought to the market. This mechanism was active 
until 29 April 2003 in a differentiated manner (ratio could be set at different levels for 
dry  cargo876,  tanker877  or  pusher  craft)  and  a  gradual  manner  (by  the  end  date  the 
contribution ratio was reduced to zero). Special contributions are uniformly set across 
Member States to ensure fair competition and market neutrality. 

•  Establishment of the Inland Waterways Funds (Article 3): Each Member State who 
has linked waterways and a fleet tonnage above 100,000 tonnes must establish an Inland 
Waterways Fund, financed through industry contributions and surpluses from previous 
structural  improvement  schemes878.  These  Funds  are  segregated  into  accounts  for  dry 
cargo  carriers,  tanker  vessels,  and  pusher  craft  to  manage  capacity  reductions  and 
scrapping premiums effectively. 

•  Use of the Inland Waterways Funds (Article 3.4 and 3.5): The regulation provides for 
the use of Funds either in connection with suitable measures referred to in Article 7 of 
Directive 96/75/EC or for the measures referred to in Article 8 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 718/1999.  

•  Standby  Mechanism  -  Measures  in  the  Event  of  Serious  Market  Disturbance 
(Article  6):  Beyond  April  2003,  and  in  the  event  of  serious  market  disturbance  –  as 
defined in Article 7 of Directive 96/75/EC, the Commission may temporarily reinstate 
the 'old-for-new' rule for a limited period. This includes providing scrapping premium 
and  implementing  structural  improvement  measures  to  avoid  aggravation  of  existing 
overcapacity  or  the  emergence  of  further  overcapacity  the  inland  waterway  transport 
market. 

Obligations: Stakeholders in the inland waterway transport sector have specific obligations 
under  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  718/1999.  Vessel  owners  are  required  to  ensure 
adherence to the old-for-new rule, which requires the scrapping of old vessels or payment 

876 Refers to goods that are not liquid or gas, instead transported in a solid, unpackaged form, typically in bulk 
or containers. 
877 A vessel designed and equipped for the transport of liquid or gaseous cargo in bulk. 
878 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland waterway 
transports 

264 

 
 
of  a  special  contribution  under  certain  conditions  before  bringing  new  capacities  into 
service.  Furthermore,  they  are  required  to  provide  special  financial  contributions  to  the 
Inland Waterways Funds established by Member States when opting not to scrap equivalent 
tonnage. 

Implementation and enforcement: Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 is implemented 
and enforced through structured mechanisms: 

•  National  Implementation:  Member  States  establish  Funds  and  enforce  compliance 
through national legislation, ensuring vessel owners adhere to contribution requirements. 
This includes maintaining records and verification of compliance. Member States shall 
communicate to the Commission annually all relevant information on progress with the 
"old-for-new"  scheme  and  on  the  financial  position  of  the  Funds  and  of  their  reserve 
fund. 

•  EU-level Coordination: The European Commission oversees implementation and sets 
uniform  contribution  rates  during  the  period  when  the  mechanism  is  active,  manages 
Funds  disbursements,  and  intervenes  in  the  event  of  market  disturbance  –  if  such  is 
successfully  requested  by  Member  States.  Collaboration  with  Member  States  and 
industry stakeholders aims at ensuring consistent application and enforcement across the 
European Union. 

•  Compliance Requirements: Vessel owners must adhere to the old-for-new mechanism 
outlined  in  the  regulation.  Compliance  involves  accurately  documenting  processes 
related  to  bringing  a  new  vessel  to  the  market  and  scrapping  old  vessels,  financial 
transactions  related  to  Funds  contributions,  and  ensuring  vessels  meet  regulatory 
standards. 

•  Enforcement  Measures:  Member  States  establish  penalties  for  non-compliance  with 

regulation provisions, as stipulated in Article 9.  

4.  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85,  adopted  on  17  October  1985,  is  designed  to 
regulate access conditions to the Rhine for European Economic Community (EEC) vessels. 
This  regulation  transposes  relevant  provisions  of  the  Additional  Protocol  2  to  the  Rhine 
Convention879  into  EU  law,  by  copying  relevant  provisions  into  the  Annex  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85. This legislation defines criteria and procedures for certifying 
vessels belonging to the Rhine Navigation, ensuring uniform treatment of vessels. Vessels 
from  non-Rhine  Member  States  are  granted  equal  status  with  vessels  from  Rhine 
Contracting States in terms of access to the Rhine. 

The regulation applies to Rhine Navigation only and it sets conditions for their access to the 
Rhine's  transport  while  not  making  distinction  between  cabotage  and  cross-border 
transport.  

Objectives:  The  regulation  promotes  fair  competition  by  establishing  uniform  rules  for 
access to the Rhine's navigation arrangements for all EEC vessels meeting the ownership 
conditions, it supports the integration of the common internal transport market, promotes 
trade and transport efficiency and mitigates discriminatory practices in Rhine navigation. 

879 Revised Convention for the navigation of the Rhine 

265 

 
 
Criteria  for  document  issuance  aim  to  facilitate  regulatory  compliance  and  reduce 
uncertainty of access for vessel owners. 

Key Provisions: 

•  Conditions (Article 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Annex): In order to obtain a certificate, vessels 
must be owned by nationals of Member States or legal persons with a registered place of 
business  in  a  Member  State  and  majority  ownership  by  Member  State  nationals.  The 
same conditions must be fulfilled by the operator of a vessel.  

•  Certificates  (Article 2,  3 and 7 of Annex): Vessels  must have certificates  issued by 
their Member State of registration to prove compliance with ownership conditions and 
to establish that the vessel belongs to Rhine Navigation. The certificate must be kept on 
board the vessel. 

Obligations: The Annex of Regulation No 2919/85 imposes several obligations on Member 
States, vessel owners, and operators. Member States are obligated to establish procedures 
for issuing and verifying the document certifying vessel affiliation with Rhine navigation.  
Vessel owners  and operators have the obligation to  meet  criteria for document issuance, 
which  may  involve  ensuring  compliance  with  nationality/place  of  establishment 
requirements, maintaining documents or certificates, and responding to verification requests 
from  authorities.  Vessel  owners  must  obtain  and  maintain  certificates  proving  their 
compliance with ownership conditions.  

Implementation  and  enforcement:  Member  States  must  adopt  national  provisions  to 
enforce the regulation's requirements, notifying these provisions to the EC as well as the 
Central  Commission  for  the  Navigation  of  the  Rhine  (CCNR)  (Article  2).  Competent 
Authorities  have  the  power  to  withdraw  the  document  certifying  vessel  affiliation  if 
conditions  are  no  longer  met  (Article  6  of  Annex),  ensuring  adherence  to  regulatory 
standards. 

5.  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91, adopted on 16 December 1991, sets conditions 
under which non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway 
within a Member State, known as 'cabotage.' The regulation seeks to remove restrictions 
based on nationality or place of establishment within the EU. While this Regulation applies 
to  entire  EU,  including  the  Rhine  basin,  it  does  not  affect  the  rights  existing  under  the 
Mannheim Convention (Article 6). 

Objectives: The Regulation facilitates market integration by allowing non-resident carriers 
to  perform  cabotage  operations  within  Member  States  on  a  temporary  basis  under 
harmonized conditions, promoting market integration and enhancing economic efficiency 
by reducing barriers to entry and operational complexities. 

Key Provisions: 

•  Conditions for Cabotage Operations (Article 1 and 2): Article 1 permits carriers from 
one Member State to conduct national transport (cabotage) of goods or passengers by 
inland waterway in another Member State, provided they are established in a Member 
State and authorized to carry out international transport of goods or persons by inland 
waterway. This provision facilitates temporary cabotage operations without requiring a 

266 

 
physical  establishment  in  the  host  Member  State.  Article  2  provides  for  additional 
conditions regarding the ownership of vessels used for cabotage and the certificate that 
needs to be produced to this end. The certificate shall prove that the carrier fulfils the 
conditions related to vessel ownership. A certificate establishing that a vessel belongs to 
Rhine  Navigation  in  accordance  with  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2919/85  is 
equivalent. 

•  Application of National Laws and Regulations (Article 3): Cabotage operations are 
subject to the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the host Member State, 
particularly  in  fields  such  as  transport  contract  rates,  operating  procedures,  technical 
vessel  specifications,  navigation  and  police  regulations,  navigation  time,  rest  periods, 
and  VAT  on  transport  services.  These  provisions  ensure  compliance  with  national 
standards while adhering to Community rules to prevent discrimination. 

•  Transitional  Provisions  (Article  4):  While  the  Regulation  is  directly  applicable  in 
Member States, i.e. as of 1991, certain Member States negotiated a transitional period of 
about 4 years during which they restricted cabotage operations (until 1 January 1995): 
Germany and France restricted cabotage to one or two trips following an international 
transport operation, respectively. Moreover, transport operations between specific ports 
in  Germany  were  excluded  from  this  Regulation’s  scope  during  the  above-mentioned 
transitional period. These provisions acknowledge national considerations while moving 
towards harmonisation of transport services across the Community. 

•  Standstill  Clause  (Article  5):  Member  States  are  prohibited  from  introducing  new 
restrictions on Community carriers’ freedom to provide services that existed upon the 
Regulation's entry into force. This article aims to maintain the achieved level of freedom 
and prevent additional barriers to market access. 

•  Relationship with Existing Conventions (Article 6): Regulation No 3921/91 does not 
affect rights established under the Revised Convention for the navigation of the Rhine 
(Convention of Mannheim). This provision ensures coherence between EU regulations 
and pre-existing international agreements governing inland waterway transport, notably 
with the Mannheim Convention. 

•  Implementation by Member States (Article 7): Member States are required to adopt 
necessary laws, regulations, and administrative provisions to comply with Regulation No 
3921/91 and inform the Commission accordingly. This step ensures uniform application 
and enforcement of the regulation across all Member States. 

Obligations:  The  Annex  of  Regulation  No  3921/91  lists  obligations  on  Member  States, 
vessel owners, and operators. Carriers must obtain certificates from the Member State where 
their vessels are registered or where they are established (if vessels are not registered) to 
prove compliance with ownership and establishment conditions.  

Implementation and enforcement: Member States are required to harmonise their national 
laws  with  EU  standards  as  specified  in  Regulation  No  3921/91.  This  ensures  consistent 
application of cabotage rules in inland waterways. Competent authorities monitor carriers' 
compliance  with  national  and  EU  regulations,  particularly  concerning  technical  vessel 
specifications and operational requirements (Article 3).  

267 

 
6.  Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96, adopted on 8 July 1996, establishes common rules 
applicable  to  the  cross-border  transport  and  transit  of  goods  or  passengers  by  inland 
waterway  between  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  (EU).  The  primary  aim  is  to 
ensure  freedom  to  provide  transport  services  across  Member  States,  eliminating 
discrimination  based  on  nationality  or  place  of  establishment.  The  regulation  aims  to 
harmonize  market  access  conditions  for  cross  border  transport  and  transit  and  eliminate 
distortions of competition that may arise from varying national regulations. Consequently, 
it ensures a unified approach to market access. 

While this Regulation applies to entire EU, including the Rhine and Danube basins, it does 
not  affect  the  rights  of  third-country  operators  under  the  Mannheim  Convention  and  the 
Belgrade Convention (Article 3). 

Objectives:  The  objectives  of  the  regulation  include  non-discriminatory  access  to  the 
market  for  operators,  allowing  them  to  provide  cross-border  transport  services  across 
Member States without facing barriers based on nationality or establishment location and 
eliminating discrimination.  

Key Provisions: 

•  Non-Discrimination and Conditions (Article 2): Operators must meet specific criteria 
to qualify for non-discriminatory access, including being established in a Member State, 
having the right to conduct international inland waterway transport, and using vessels 
registered in a Member State.  

•  Rights of Third-Country Operators (Article 3): The regulation respects the rights of 
third-country  operators  under  international  conventions  such  as  the  Mannheim 
Convention  for  the  Rhine  and  the  Belgrade  Convention  for  the  Danube,  ensuring 
consistency with existing international obligations. 

Obligations:  Implementing  Regulation  No  1356/96  imposes  several  obligations  on 
operators and Member States. Operators must ensure their vessels are registered or have a 
certificate  of  membership,  and  they  must  adhere  to  the  legal  requirements  of  both  the 
regulation and the establishment rules in their Member States. Ensuring compliance with 
the  regulation  may  involve  additional  administrative  procedures,  such  as  obtaining 
necessary certificates and maintaining documents or certificates.  

Implementation and enforcement: as the Regulation is directly applicable in all Member 
States, transposition is not required. 

7.  Council Directive 87/540/EEC 

Council Directive 87/540/EEC, adopted on 9 November 1987, aims to harmonize access 
to the occupation of carrier of goods by waterway  in national and international transport 
within  the  European  Economic  Community  (EEC).  It  sets  common  rules  to  enhance  the 
level of qualifications among carriers, contributing to the efficiency of transport services 
and  promoting  the  freedom  to  provide  services  and  establish  businesses  across  Member 
States.  

268 

 
The  directive  applies  to  natural  persons  and  undertakings  engaged  in  the  commercial 
transport of goods by waterway vessels within the EEC. It defines the occupation of carrier 
of goods by waterway and excludes certain minor transport activities and ferries. Member 
States may furthermore – after consulting the EC – grant exemption to carriers operating on 
navigable waterways  exclusively  within a Member State's territory not  linked to  another 
Member State's network. 

Objectives: The  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  aims  at  enhancing  service  quality  by 
improving the quality of waterway transport services through ensuring that carriers meet 
standardised competence levels across the EU. Additionally, the directive’s objective is to 
facilitate freedom of establishment, enabling carriers to establish operations across Member 
States  more  easily  by  recognising  qualifications  uniformly.  Furthermore,  it  aims  at 
promoting  market  efficiency  and  improving  service  standards,  thereby  contributing  to 
increased resilience of carriers, market stability and overall efficiency.  

Key Provisions:  

•  Access  to  the  Occupation  and  Proof  of  Professional  Competence  (Article  3): 
Individuals  and  undertakings  must  demonstrate  professional  competence  through 
specified knowledge or practical experience in subjects outlined for national transport 
carriers and international transport carriers in the Annex. This competence is certified by 
competent authorities designated by each Member State. 

•  Exemptions and Derogations (Articles 4, 5, and 6): Member States may exempt certain 
carriers from these requirements, such as those operating on their own territory's non-
linked  waterways  or  those  with  significant  practical  experience  but  lacking  formal 
qualifications. 

•  Mutual Recognition of Qualifications (Articles 7, 8, and 9): The directive promotes 
mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other evidence of formal qualifications 
among  Member  States.  It  ensures  that  certificates  issued  by  one  Member  State  are 
recognized  as  sufficient  proof  of  competence  by  another,  facilitating  freedom  of 
establishment for carriers. 

Obligations:  The  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  requires  aspirant  carriers  to  obtain  or 
prove professional competence, necessitating course attendance or practical experience, or 
both.  It  also  obliges  aspirant  carriers  to  maintain  and  present  necessary  documents  and 
certificates  to  authorities.  Member  States  need  to  designate  competent  authorities,  issue 
certificates, etc. 

Implementation and enforcement: The implementation and enforcement of the directive 
involve several key processes. The certification process, as outlined in Article 3, designates 
competent  authorities  in  each  Member  State  as  responsible  for  issuing  certificates  of 
professional  competence  based  on  specified  criteria.  Exemptions  and  derogations  are 
detailed in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6, allowing Member States to adopt national measures to 
exempt  certain  carriers  or  apply  temporary  provisions,  provided  they  notify  the 
Commission. Mutual recognition, covered in Articles 7, 8, and 9, mandates that Member 
States  recognise  qualifications  issued  by  other  Member  States,  ensuring  the  effective 
exercise of the right of establishment. 

269 

 
This directive was to be implemented by Member States by 30 June 1988. Member States 
were  also  required  to  inform  the  Commission  of  national  law  provisions  by  that  date. 
Transitional  measures  are  specified  in  Article  11,  requiring  the  initial  verification  of 
competence standards to be completed by 1 July 1990.  

270 

 
 
ANNEX VII. SCOPE  OF  THE FITNESS CHECK - LEGISLATION  ON POSTING  OF WORKERS 
AND SOCIAL SECURITY 

In addition to the seven pieces of legislation that are in scope of this Fitness Check on market 
access  in  inland waterways transport880, it was  initially envisioned to  also  include in  the 
scope of the Fitness Check the following as indicated in the Roadmap881: 

•  application in IWT of the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC, concerning the posting 
of workers in the framework of the provision of services, and its Enforcement Directive 
2014/67/EU.  

•  Derogation  Agreement  for  Rhine  boatmen  concluded  on  the  basis  of  Article  16(1)  of 
Regulation  (EC)  883/2004  on  the  coordination  of  the  Social  Security  Systems 
(specifically  the  agreement  on  the  determination  of  legislation  applicable  to  Rhine 
boatmen, concluded on this basis). 

However, following an assessment of the situation, the Commission concluded that a fully-
fledged  analysis  of  EU’s  social  legislation  would  not  be  part  of  this  Fitness  Check.  The 
reasons for this decision are presented below.  

Posting of Workers Directive 

Firstly, the initial reason to include aspects related to IWT sector of the Posting of Workers 
Directive 96/71/EC (PWD) in the scope of the IWT Fitness Check is no longer valid. The 
initial  decision  to  include  the  PWD  in  the  scope  of  the  Fitness  Check  was  prompted  by 
complaints882 received by the Commission from the European Barge Union (EBU) and the 
European Skippers Organisation (ESO). These organisations represent national associations 
of barge owners and barge operators of the main European inland navigation countries and 
private inland shipping entrepreneurs. In the meantime, the complaints led to infringement 
procedures  against  several  Member  States,  and  in  response  some  States  adapted  their 
legislation. 

The Commission found that EBU and ESO’s complaints concerned the implementation of 
some provisions of Directive 2014/67/EU on the enforcement of the PWD (the Enforcement 
Directive) by some Member States. The Enforcement Directive, however, allows Member 
States to impose certain measures883 - such as the declaration obligation or the need to have 
a representative - in the host Member State. Commission services therefore concluded that 
the Member States measures in question were in line with the provisions of the Enforcement 
Directive.  

Moreover, the Enforcement Directive is a horizontal, non-sectoral legislation, going well 
beyond the IWT sector, and its implementation has already been comprehensively assessed 

880 See the list of legislation in Chapter 1. 
881 A Fitness Check Roadmap on the initiative was published on 11 July 2019, see Fitness check on market 
access in inland waterway transport (europa.eu) 
882 The initial decision to include the PWD in the scope of the Fitness Check was prompted by complaints 
received by the Commission from the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Barge Union 
(EBU) in 2016 and 2017 respectively. 
883 Such as the declaration obligation or the  need to have  a representative in the host Member State in its  
Article 9. 

271 

 
 
in 2019884. In addition, in 2018 the Commission amended885 the PWD based on an impact 
assessment  accompanying  its  proposal886,  resulting  in  the  adoption  of  Directive  (EU) 
2018/957.  Moreover,  in  line  with  Article  2  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/957  (the  amending 
Directive), an implementation report on the application and implementation of the amending 
Directive was published in April 2024887..  

Therefore,  considering  the  various  assessments  throughout  recent  years  (the  2019 
implementation  report  of  the  Enforcement  Directive,  the  2016  impact  assessment 
accompanying  the  proposal  of  the  amending  Directive  (EU)  2018/957,  and  its 
implementation report published in 2024), as well as the fact that the initial reason to include 
such  elements  in  the  scope  of  the  Fitness  Check  is  no  longer  relevant,  the  Commission 
concluded that there is no need to include the aspects related to  IWT of the PWD in the 
scope of this Fitness Check. 

Coordination of Social Security Systems 

Prior to the European Economic Community, in 1949, the Rhine States have established a 
common instrument for coordinating social security legislation among themselves and in 
the interest of the Rhine boatmen. This Agreement was adopted by an ILO Conference888 
and  is  referred  to  as  the  “Rhine  Agreement”889.  However,  after  the  Regulation  on  the 
Coordination of Social Security Systems (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004) entered into force, 
the Rhine Agreement no longer applied in Rhine States that were also members of the EU.  

Therefore,  BE,  DE,  FR,  LU,  NL  used  the  opportunity  given  by  Article  16(1)  of  the 
Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004  that  allows  two  or  more  Member  States  by  common 
agreement to provide for exceptions ‘in the interest of certain persons or certain categories 
of persons’, in this case the Rhine boatmen. The “Agreement on determination of legislation 
applicable to Rhine boatmen, concluded on the basis of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) 
883/2004”890 (also called Derogation Agreement) was signed and entered into force on 11 
February 2011, with retroactive affect as of 1 May 2010. Also, two states that are not part 
of  the  EU,  namely  Switzerland891  and  Lichtenstein892  decided  to  become  a  party  to  the 
Derogation Agreement in 2012 and 2018 respectively. 

The initial consideration for including the Derogation Agreement in the scope of the Fitness 
Check was based on the IWT social partners’ suggestions893 that specific rules on applicable 

884 eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0426&from=EN 
885 Directive (EU) 2018/957   
886 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52016SC0052 
887 eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52024DC0320 
888  ILO  Conference  Paper,  Report  of  the  Director-General.  Sixth  supplementary  report,  Convocation  of  a 
Special  Tripartite  Conference  of  States  bordering  on  the  Rhine  and  of  Belgium  to  prepare  International 
Agreements  concerning  social  security  and  conditions  of  work  of  workers  engaged  in  Rhine  navigation: 
summary,  International  Labour  Organization.  Governing  Body  (108th:  1949:  Geneva,  Switzerland); 
International  Labour  Organization.  Governing  Body,  issuing  body,  Geneva:  ILO;  1949,  G.B.108/13/16. 
https://labordoc.ilo.org/permalink/41ILO_INST/1jaulmn/alma995656197202676 
889 https://ccr-zkr.org/12060300-fr.html 
890 “Agreement on determination of legislation applicable to Rhine boatmen, concluded on the basis of 
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) 883/2004” (Also referred to as “Derogation Agreement”) 
891 AvenantAccordDerogatoire_en.pdf 
892 ZKR FRÜHJAHRSSITZUNG 2019 ANGENOMMENE BESCHLÜSSE (2019-I), p.56, https://www.ccr-
zkr.org/files/documents/resolutions/ccr2019-Id.pdf?utm_source  and  Liechtenstein  Law  Gazette  (LGBl.), 
2018, No. 205, issued 26 October 2018 (Systematic Register: 0.831.109.105.1) 
893 Letter dd 20/01/2016 signed by EBU, ESO and ETF 

272 

 
 
social security legislation set out in the Derogation agreement shall be extended to European 
inland waterways beyond the Rhine. These arguments were re-confirmed in a joint letter894 
by EBU, ESO and ETF in reaction to the EC’s Roadmap on the Fitness Check. In these 
letters social partners have raised  concerns resulting  from  the coexistence of two sets  of 
social  security  rules  governing  inland  water  transport  workers.  Until  recently,  social 
partners have advocated for a single rule applicable to all workers, favouring the Rhine rule, 
which designates the law of the country where the vessel operator is established.  

However, according to Article 16(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 it is the Member 
States  concerned  who  are  competent  to  decide  on  such  a  request  and  to  provide  -  by 
common agreement - for an exception to the rules on applicable legislation in Articles 11-
15 for this specific category of persons. Such a derogation must be in the interest of the 
persons or category of persons concerned. Concretely, at least two Member States (which 
are  not  part of the current  Derogation Agreement) might  conclude their  own agreement, 
based on Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. Alternatively, Member States might 
decide to join the existing Derogation Agreement.  

Therefore, given that the competence of concluding further Derogation agreements is at the 
level of Member States, the Commission decided to exclude the Derogation Agreement for 
Rhine boatmen concluded on the basis of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 
from the scope of the Fitness Check on IWT. 

It needs to be noted that the Commission has proposed a revision of the Regulation (EC) No 
883/2004 and its Implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in December 2016. Despite 
the fact that negotiations are still ongoing, Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - 
that is the legal basis on which the Rhine boatmen Derogation Agreement was concluded 
and  on  which  any  future  new  agreement  could  be  concluded  -  was  not  modified  by  the 
Commission Proposal nor by any subsequent amendments of the co-legislators. 

Conclusion 

To conclude, the Commission’s decision to exclude the Posting of Workers Directives and 
the  Derogation  Agreement  to  Rhine  boatman  concluded  on  the  basis  of  Article  16(1)  of 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 from the scope of the IWT Fitness Check has been based on 
the following reasons:  

•  The initial reasons for considering the inclusion of these pieces of legislation in the scope 
of  the  Fitness  Check  are  no  longer  relevant.  The  Posting  of  Workers  Directives  have 
already  been  comprehensively  evaluated  and  two  implementation  reports  were  also 
published in 2019895 and 2024896. Regarding the EU legislation on the coordination of 
Social Security systems, the Commission has already evaluated and proposed a revision 
in 2016, which did not affect Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.  

•  Both pieces of legislation are horizontal and sector neutral and go well beyond the IWT 

sector itself in terms of scope.  

The decision to exclude them from the scope of the IWT Fitness Check, and to focus solely 
on the seven legislations which are specific to the IWT sector, allows for a more targeted 

894 Letter dd 2/06/2020 signed by EBU ESO ETF  
895 EUR-Lex - 52019DC0426 - EN - EUR-Lex 
896 eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52024DC0320  

273 

 
 
and  focused  analysis  and  -  as  demonstrated  -  does  not  risk  undermining  the 
comprehensiveness  of  the  Fitness  Check  on  the  market  access  in  the  inland  waterways 
transport. 

274 

 
ANNEX VIII. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES CONTEXT 

1.  Introduction 

Today’s European inland navigation is governed by multiple international organisations. 
These international organisations have partially overlapping memberships, competences 
and  geographic  scope.  Through  the  harmonisation  of  certain  requirements  for  inland 
waterway transport (IWT), the EU has gradually increased its role in the governance of 
inland  navigation  in  Europe  over  time,  in  the  21st  century  by  introducing  common 
technical requirements for vessels, common rules for qualification for crew and waterway 
conditions, amongst others. This has helped to establish uniform rules in Europe. However, 
the EU has limited legal competences (e.g. in the field of traffic rules – so-called police 
regulations) as well as limited capabilities (it has no technical agency for IWT). Continuous 
cooperation is needed between pre-existing international organisations, the EU as well as 
Member State administrations (i.e. the police) in certain cases.  

The main governing structures in Europe are the European Union, the Central Commission 
for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), the Danube Commission (DC), and the United 
Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE).  International  river  commissions, 
such as CCNR or the Danube Commission (and to a lesser extent the Sava Commission 
and the Mosel Commission), have enabled, for more than a hundred years, free navigation 
on their own respective basins, including with non-EU countries.  

This  annex  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  actors  of  the  complex  inland  navigation 
governance setup as well as further explanation on the historical circumstances in which 
they were established and the specificities of each international organisation.  It draws a 
picture of how the different legal regimes and actors currently coexist, bringing into light 
some intricacies and recurrent issues for specific policies.  

2.  Historical background and features of each organisation  

From the early stage of  the European integration, the transport policy has been of high 
importance  for  Community  policies.  The  Rome  Treaty  (1957)  envisioned 
the 
establishment of a broad common market for all sectors of the economy. Accordingly, the 
EEC Common Transport Policy (CTP) was designed to promote market interpenetration 
in  general  and  to  foster  integration  within  the  transport  sector  itself,  including  inland 
waterway transport897.  

However,  the  European  Communities  were  not  the  first  international  body  regulating 
inland  transport.  As  rivers  often  span  across  multiple  countries,  inland  navigation 
inherently  bears  a  strong  international  dimension.  The  need  for  coordination  among 
riparian  states  was  always  essential  to  enable  a  good  management  of  river  transport 
systems. Following the natural conditions created by the European watershed, countries in 
Europe  had  set  up  international  organisations  to  enable  cross-border  navigation  and 
discussion on matters of common interests. Therefore, the European Communities started 
regulating the framework for inland navigation operations with the aim to liberalise inland 
transport  market,  while  there  have  been  pre-existing  and  well-established  international 
regimes.  

897  Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study, Annexes, p.58 

275 

 
 
Two  main  river  commissions  in  Europe  were  established  long  before  the  start  of  the 
European integration process: the CCNR898 in 1815899 and the DC900 in 1948901. They both 
rely on their respective international convention to implement their primary mission: to 
ensure the freedom of navigation and to address matters of common interest on the rivers. 
On  top  of  these  two  river  commissions  regimes,  the  United  Nations  also  developed  a 
cooperation  framework  to  facilitate  international  waterway  transport  (UNECE  –  IWT 
transport Committee) and has played an important role in developing inland waterways 
policy since 1949.  The role of each of these organisations are briefly introduced in the 
coming sections. 

1) 

The CCNR and the Rhine Regime902  

The Rhine river has been a vital artery for trade and commerce in Northern and Western 
Europe for centuries, connecting on the one hand key seaports like Rotterdam, Antwerp, 
and  Amsterdam,  forming  a  major  economic  hub  known  as  the  ARA  zone903  as  well  as 
connecting this area with the Rhine basin. These seaports are among the largest and busiest 
ports in Europe and in the world904. The Rhine basin still represents a large share of inland 
waterway transport in Europe and ensures that major economic hubs in the hinterland have 
access to the sea by water. 

Given  the  importance  of  the  Rhine  river,  its  riparian  countries  created  the  Central 
Commission  for  Rhine  Navigation  (CCNR),  which  was  established  by  the  Treaty  of 
Vienna in 1815. The Central Commission is known as the oldest international organization 
still operational today905. Its primary purpose was to regulate navigation along the Rhine 
River, while it also has a role in dispute resolution as well as to ensure free and secure 
passage for ships and promoting economic cooperation and stability. 

898 The current members of the CCNR are DE, BE, FR, NL and CH. 
899 Dating back to the Congress of Vienna (1815), the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine 
is the oldest international organisation in modern history. Its legal foundation is the Revised Convention for 
Navigation on the Rhine - referred to as the Mannheim Document or Mannheim Convention, dated of 17 
October 1868. 
900 The current members of the Danube Commission (DC) are BG, HU, RO, SK, HR, AT and DE, as well as 
Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine. At the XII-th Extraordinary session of the DC on 17 March 2022 Danube states 
decided to suspend representatives of the Russian Federation from participation in all meetings of the  DC 
and its working bodies until the restoration of peace, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within 
its internationally recognized borders. Additionally, at the 100th Jubilee Session of the DC on 14 December 
2023 the Danube states adopted a decision urging the Russian Federation to draw the consequences of its 
attacks by withdrawing from the Belgrade Convention until 29 February 2024, or, failing that, as of 1 March 
2024, the Danube States will no longer consider themselves bound by the obligations under the Belgrade 
Convention vis-à-vis the Russian Federation. 
https://www.danubecommission.org/uploads/doc/press/2023/en_Press_release_100.pdf 
901  The  Danube  Commission  is  an  international  intergovernmental  organization  established  by  the 
Convention regarding the regime of navigation on the Danube signed in Belgrade on 18 August 1948 
902  In  2023,  the  Rhine  countries  represented  80.1%  of  inland  waterway  transport  in  Europe  (EU27, 
Switzerland, Serbia, and Moldova). Source: CCNR (2024), Market observation annual report 2024. 
903 Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Amsterdam 
904 CECILE TOURNAYE Legal Consultant, Ad'Missions (2015), What prospects for the 200 years old Rhine 
legal regime in the European Context?, The Journal of International Maritime Law, Volume 21, Issue 5.  
905 CCNR: Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine - Introduction 

276 

 
 
The role of the CCNR was later reaffirmed by the Mannheim Act in 1868906 to extend its 
competence.  The  act  upheld  the  principle  of  free  navigation  on  the  Rhine  and  the 
possibility for members of the Central Commission to adopt common regulations. Detailed 
regulations were developed to provide a precise organisation of navigation on the Rhine in 
various field such as the transport of dangerous goods (1868), police regulations (1869), 
boatmen’s licences (1898), etc. These texts have since been updated regularly. 

Under the Mannheim Act, the CCNR developed a strong and complete legislative system. 
It was given the power to adopt binding regulations on any aspect concerning the safety 
and prosperity of navigation on the Rhine. On top of that, the Central Commission was 
also granted with implementing power to investigate complaints of failure to comply with 
the  Rhine  regulation  and  it  possesses  its  own  chamber  of  appeals  to  deal  with  appeals 
against court judgments involving navigation on the Rhine.  

Related to the decision-making within the Rhine regime, member states of the CCNR come 
together for the plenary session twice a year where decisions are reached unanimously. 
The  resolutions  of  the  plenary  sessions  are  prepared  beforehand  by  committees  and 
working parties of the Central Commission in which each member state is represented. 

With  the  gradual  empowerment  of  the  European  Communities  in  the  fifties  and  sixties 
came  the  question  of  the  interrelation  between  the  CCNR  and  the  ECC.  The  transport 
provisions  of  the  Paris  and  Rome  Treaties  did  not  contain  any  exceptions  for  Rhine 
shipping,  which  was  already  covered  by  the  Act  of  Mannheim.  The  mandate  of  the 
European Communities overlapped to a substantial degree with the mandate of the CCNR 
and  tensions  arose  because  of  uncertainty  regarding  the  compatibility  of  proposed  or 
possible Community measures with the Mannheim regime907. 

The  EU  recognised  to  some  extent  the  specificity  of  the  Rhine  regime,  which  is  often 
referred  to  in  EU  legislation.  However,  with  the  growing  EU  involvement  in  inland 
waterways policies and the successive enlargements, the need for harmonisation has been 
increasing  in  the  European  inland  waterway  sector,  increasingly  questioning  the 
“distinctiveness of the Rhine regime”.  

Cooperation with the EU  

Lately,  both  organisations  have  been  working  towards  greater  harmonisation.  The 
foundation  of  cooperation  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  CCNR  is  an 
Administrative  Agreement  established  in  2003908,  which  facilitates  the  exchange  of 
information and sets up regular meetings to coordinate activities. Under this agreement, 
the European Commission holds observer status within the CCNR, while the CCNR is a 
member  European  Commission’s  various  expert  groups  related  to  IWT.  Together,  the 

906 The initial signatory states were France, the Netherlands and four German States (Baden, Bavaria, Hesse 
and Prussia). After the Versailles treaty (1919), Switzerland, Belgium, the UK and Italy became members as 
well. Italy withdrew in 1937, and the UK in 1993. The USA were also member of the Convention from 1945-
1964. 
907 Collinson D.S (1972), The Rhine Regime in Transition-Relations between the European Communities 
and the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, (Mar., 1972), pp. 
485-516 
908 accord_CCNR-CE_03032003_fr.pdf 

277 

 
 
CCNR and the European Commission have been developing a market observation program 
for over a decade, regularly publishing studies on the findings. 

In addition, the European Commission and the CCNR signed in 2013 an administrative 
arrangement909  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  the  two  institutions.  Their  common 
objectives are to ensure the optimal functioning of the market for inland navigation and to 
remove obstacles that prevent a broader use of this mode of transport. 

This administrative arrangement focuses on three key areas of collaboration: 

•  adaptation of the technical requirements for inland navigation vessels; 

•  modernisation of professional qualifications for crew members; 

• 

the development of market observation for inland navigation in Europe. 

2) 

The Danube Commission and the Danube Regime910  

The Danube River is one of the longest and most important rivers in Europe. It crosses 
several EU Member States and non-Member States. The river has a long history when it 
comes to international trade.  

Similarly to the Rhine development, the Paris Treaty of 1856 enshrined the principle of 
free navigation on the Danube and created the “European Commission of the Danube” in 
charge of implementing the freedom of navigation on the lower part of the river911, other 
parts of the river being covered by other organizations912.  

However, the 20th century brought significant challenges to trade in the region. The two 
World Wars, particularly World War II, disrupted economies and international exchanges, 
hindering freedom of navigation on the river.  

After the World War II, a new Danube Commission (DC) was established by the Belgrade 
Convention (1948) which records the close cooperation and the development of economic 
and cultural relations of the Member States913. The main binding obligation of the Belgrade 
Convention was to ensure free and costless passage over the Danube River to all operators, 
no matter their origin. The Danube Commission issues recommendations aimed to ensure 
safety of navigation and respect of the principles of the convention. 

During  the  Cold  War,  the  division  between  Eastern  and  Western  Europe  resulted  in 
fragmented  trade  relationships.  The  Iron  Curtain  prevented  economic  interactions  by 
creating a divide between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern Bloc countries, aligned 
with the Soviet Union, operated under controlled economic systems, while Western Europe 
maintained market-based economies. This separation slowed trade and limited economic 
growth,  especially  in  regions  like  the  Danube,  which  became  a  point  of  geopolitical 

909 Arrangement20130522_en.pdf 
910 In 2023, the Danube countries (without UA) represented 19.6% of inland waterway transport in Europe 
(EU27, Switzerland, Serbia, and Moldova). Source: CCNR (2024), Market observation annual report 2024. 
911  La  coopération  internationale  dans  le  domaine  de  la  navigation fluviale  européenne  :  les  instances  de 
coopération  pour  la  navigation  rhénane  et  danubienne  (Jean-Marie  Woehrling),  14_cooperation-rhin-
danube.pdf 
912  La  coopération  internationale  dans  le  domaine  de  la  navigation fluviale  européenne  :  les  instances  de 
coopération  pour  la  navigation  rhénane  et  danubienne  (Jean-Marie  Woehrling),  14_cooperation-rhin-
danube.pdf 
913 Source: www.danubecommission.org/dc/en  

278 

 
 
tension. Austria and Germany914 although riparian Danube states were excluded from the 
Danube Commission, contrary to the USSR, who was admitted.  

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Danube regime encountered further crises. During 
the  Yugoslavian  war,  NATO  bombing  on  the  Novisad  bridge  (now  Serbia)  prevented 
inland navigation for years on the Lower Danube915. Additionally, the former communist 
states went through severe economic crisis linked to the transition of their plan economy 
to  the  market-based  economic  system.  This  also  deeply  affected  inland  transport  in  the 
region.  

The gradual integration of countries such as Austria, (East) Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, 
Romania,  Bulgaria  and  Croatia  into  the  European  Union  has  facilitated  cross-border 
exchange, removed tariff barriers and fostered improved transport infrastructures. 

Cooperation with the EU  

The cooperation and exchange of ideas between the DC and the European Commission is 
ensured by means of an administrative arrangement. The EU is an observer organisation 
to the DC916, and DC cooperates with the EC and other international organisations, like the 
CCNR or UN-ECE or CESNI917. The framework for cooperation of 2015918 between DC 
and European Commission encompasses several areas: follow-up of the implementation 
of  the  rehabilitation  and  maintenance  of  the  Danube  River  Master  plan,  elaboration  of 
technical standards for navigation, and technical standards for inlands waterway vessels, 
as well as market observation.  

Interaction between the DC and the CCNR 

The Rhine and the Danube share common principles and goals  (freedom  of navigation, 
management  by  an  international  body,  conflict  resolution).  However,  as  detailed  in  the 
previous  paragraphs,  their  geopolitical  history  turned  out  to  be  extremely  different  and 
until the late 20th century, the two rivers had no physical connection with each other919. 
Thus, the political and legal realities of the two Commissions strongly diverge.  

The CCNR has succeeded to develop harmonised legislations within its basin, based on a 
strong (obligatory) regulatory competence. Contrastingly, the Danube Commission issues 
recommendations  only,  leaving  more  discretion  to  its  members  to  implement  them.  In 
addition to the lack of regulatory competence for the DC, the Danube River crosses regions 
with somewhat more diverse geographic and cultural features than the Rhine basin which 
also makes further integration more difficult.  

914 Austria and Germany acceded the DC only after 1990. 
915  La  coopération  internationale  dans  le  domaine  de  la  navigation fluviale  européenne  :  les  instances  de 
coopération  pour  la  navigation  rhénane  et  danubienne  (Jean-Marie  Woehrling),  14_cooperation-rhin-
danube.pdf 
916  Observer  organizations  and  partners  of  the  Danube  Commission  –  Danube  Commission  – 
Donaukommission – Commission du Danube – Дунайская Комиссия 
917 European committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation (CESNI) - CESNI - Comité 
Européen pour l’Élaboration de Standards dans le domaine de la Navigation Intérieure  
918  Administrative  Arrangement  between  the  DC  Secretariat  and  DG  MOVE  –  Danube  Commission  – 
Donaukommission – Commission du Danube – Дунайская Комиссия 
919 The Danube and the Rhine are today physically connected through the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal since 
1992.  

279 

 
 
3) 

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)  

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) was established in 1947. 
Its  general  aim  was  to  develop  economic  activity  and  strengthen  economic  relations  in 
Europe and the rest of the world. The UNECE enabled the dialogue between East and West 
during the period of the Cold War. With this vast experience to initiate and keep up the 
process of dialogue between a wide range of parties920, the UNECE has been a main driver 
for international agreements contributing significantly to international inland waterways 
policy921. 

The UNECE working party on inland water transport922 has played a major role as inland 
waterways regulatory body, providing a comprehensive platform for consideration of all 
aspects of inland transport development and intergovernmental cooperation. The scope of 
the working party covers a large range of areas from facilitation of international transport 
to harmonization and improvement of technical and operational regulations, to safety and 
environmental  protection.  Within  these  working  parties,  experts  in  inland  navigation 
(UNECE  member  states,  river  commissions,  non-governmental  organisations,  industry 
and  science)  are  brought  together.  In  the  past,  the  UNECE  managed  to  reach  various 
agreements and conventions on different subjects923. 

Although  those  are  legal  instruments  developed  on  an  international  level,  they  are  not 
binding for all members of the UNECE. The UNECE parties decide whether they ratify 
the  agreements.  This  leads  to  the  situation  that  UNECE  has  the  widest  geographical 
extension concerning regulations in inland navigation in Europe but at the same time the 
lowest level of executive implementation capacities924.  

Due  to  the  enlargement  of  the  EU,  more  and  more  UNECE  member  states  are  also 
members of the EU (especially following the enlargements to the Central-Eastern part of 
Europe). This weakens the role of the UNECE in the EU member states as the EU is of 
higher  political  level  and  provides  a  binding  legal  framework.  Nevertheless,  UNECE 
legislative  activities  have  heavily  influenced  EU  IWT  policy  as  -  in  several  cases  - 
international agreements and standards developed within those working parties served as 
basis for EU legislation.  

4)  Other river Commissions in Europe 

In addition to the organisations presented previously, there are other recently established 
river  Commissions,  covering  the  rivers  Mosel925  and  Sava926.  Their  scope  is  briefly 
presented the figure below.  

920  Nowadays  56  countries  from  western,  central  and  eastern  Europe,  central  Asia  and  North  America 
(Economic Commission for Europe (2012): Inventory of main standards and parameters of the e waterway 
network, "Blue Book"). 
921 List of United Nations Transport Legal Instruments | UNECE 
922 UNECE working party on inland water transport  - SC.3 
923 To name just two of them: "European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance" 
(AGN) for establishing a coordinated plan for the development and the construction of the pan-European 
network (E waterways) and the "European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous 
Goods by Inland Waterways" (ADN). 
924 Briefing EU Legislation in Progress February 2018, Recognition of professional qualifications in inland 
navigation, p.3 : Briefing European Parliamentary Research Service  
925 www.moselkommission.org. 
926 www.savacommission.org. 

280 

 
 
However, these Commissions are less determining for the following reasons. Firstly, for 
historical  reasons:  both  the  Mosel  Commission  and  the  Sava  River  Commissions  were 
formed  after  the  Paris  Treaty  (1952),  establishing  the  European  Coal  and  Steel 
Community. The Mosel Commission has exclusively EU Member States as its members, 
so these countries are already subject to EU legislation. Contrastingly, member states of 
the Sava Commission are four states none of which were EU Member States until 2004. 
Secondly,  Mosel  Commission  tends  to  refer  to  CCNR  or  EU  rules,  while  the  Sava 
Commission tends to refer to EU or Danube rules. Thirdly, the Mosel Commission and 
Sava  River  Commissions  have  a  very  limited  geographical  scope927  (also  in  cargo 
volumes) and therefore smaller ‘standalone’ impact than the Rhine and Danube rivers.  

Therefore,  when  considering  the  governance  and  legal  framework,  this  Staff  Working 
Document  focuses  on  the  governance  and  legal  framework  of  the  Danube  and  Rhine 
Conventions,  and  their  interplay  with  the  legislative  framework  of  the  EU.  These 
conventions are the most pertinent and relevant for the scope of the fitness check. 

5)  CESNI 

In accordance with the administrative agreement of 2013 between the CCNR and the EU, 
the European committee for drawing up common standards in the field of inland navigation 
(CESNI)  was  created  in  2015.  The  Committee  works  as  an  independent  institution 
comprising  experts  from  the  CCNR,  and  EU  Member  States,  as  well  as  further 
representatives  of  international  organisations  and  stakeholders  in  the  field  of  inland 
navigation in Europe928.  

The Committee dedicates its work to: 

-  adopting technical standards concerning vessels, information technology and crew, 

-  deliberating on the uniform interpretation and application of said standards, 

-  deliberating on derogations and equivalences of technical requirements for a specific 

craft, 

-  deliberating  on  priority  topics  regarding  safety  of  navigation,  protection  of 

environment. 

The  work  on  these  topics  is  carried  out  in  various  working  groups  of  CESNI.  As  a 
committee  of  experts,  CESNI  develops  recommendations  for  standardisation  in  the 
different fields of interest within the regulatory framework of EU and CCNR legislation. 
CESNI doesn't have legislative competence, but it provides necessary and qualified input 
to the EU regulations929.   

The creation of CESNI was in line with the desire of the CCNR and the European Union, 
to  reinforce  governance  at  the  European  level,  particularly  in  the  field  of  regulations 
governing inland navigation930. It was aimed at replacing various existing groups dealing 
with these areas, avoiding duplication of work and incoherence.  

927 Mosel Commission: DE, FR, LU; Sava Commission: Bosnia and Herzegovina,  Serbia (former Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia), Croatia and Slovenia. 
928 Source: www.cesni.eu/en/about-cesni 
929 Source: www.cesni.eu/en/about-cesni. 
930 Source: www.cesni.eu/en/about-cesni 

281 

 
 
The cooperation mechanisms put in place have improved legal harmonisation, i.e. certain 
EU legislation in the IWT area refers now to CESNI standards.  

Figure 29: Overview of geographical coverage of IWT regulatory bodies in Europe 931 

Source: International Labour Office (2013), Living and Working Conditions in Inland Navigation in 
Europe 

6)  Decision  making  in  river  commissions  and  in  CESNI  related  to  matters  of  EU 

competence 

It needs to be borne in mind that rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded 
before 1 January 1958 - such as the Mannheim Convention or the Belgrade Convention - 
are not affected by the provisions of the Treaties. However, Article 351 TFEU also requires 
Member States to adopt a common approach and to take all appropriate steps to eliminate 
any  incompatibilities  that  may  arise.  As  described  above  under  points  1  and  2, 
administrative arrangements provide the basis for cooperation and the exchange of ideas 
between the river commissions and the European Commission.  

While  the  primary  law  of  the  EU  and  the  river  commissions  does  not,  in  itself,  create 
contradictions, there is a possibility that their secondary legislation may conflict. This risk 
has  increased  following  the  adoption  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  and  Directive  (EU) 
2017/2397, which address matters traditionally regulated by the river commissions through 
their own secondary law. See more under point 3 of Annex VIII below. In this context, 

931 Source: International Labour Office (2013): Living and Working Conditions in Inland Navigation in 
Europe, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---
sector/documents/publication/wcms_234892. Map with main river systems in EU, showing coverage of 
different bodies, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the EU (EC), the Central 
Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), the Danube Commission (DC) and the International 
Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) 

282 

 
 
 
CESNI has played an important role in aligning the substantive norms of the CCNR and 
the EU by establishing common technical standards.  

Decision-making in international organisations on matters falling within EU competence - 
such  as  the  work  of  the  river  commissions  -  is  subject  to  Article  218(9)  TFEU.  This 
provision also applies to CESNI standards, as they are referenced by EU and CCNR law. 
Under  Article  218(9)  TFEU,  a  coordinated  EU  position  must  be  established  before  EU 
Member States participate in decision-making (e.g. voting) in such fora. In practice, this 
means that acts having legal effects may only be voted by EU Member States in accordance 
with and following the adoption of an EU position. Initially, the need for such coordination 
raised  legal  questions,  but  these  issues  have  now  been  resolved  for  the  CCNR  and  are 
expected to be resolved shortly for the Danube Commission.

283 

 
Table 13: Overview of inland waterways transport international organisations   

Legal Basis  Member 

Name of the 
organisation 
Central 
Commission 
of the Rhine 
(CCNR)  

Mannheim 
Convention 
(1868) 

Danube 
Commission 
(DC) 

Belgrade 
Convention 
(1948) 

states 
EU: BE, 
DE, FR, 
NL 
Non-EU: 
CH 

EU: BG, 
HU, RO, 
SK, HR, 
AT, DE 
Non-EU: 
MD, RS, 
UA, 
Russia933 

Observer 
States 
AT, BG, 
CZ, LU, 
HU, SK, 
PL, RO, 
RS, UA, 
UK  

BE, CY, 
CZ, EL, 
FR, GE, 
ME, MK, 
NL, TR 

Objectives/scope 

Legal instruments   Decision-making  

Binding regulations  Unanimity932 

-  Regulating navigation on the Rhine (including 

safety/technical requirements, access to profession...). 
-  Maintenance of good conditions for navigation on the 

Rhine 

-  Promotion of ecological inland navigation  
-  Development of law of inland Navigation (CLNI, 

CMNI, AND, CDNI…) 

-  Coordination of national regulations regarding the 

social protection of boatsmen 

-  Providing freedom of navigation on the Danube 
-  Maintenance and improvement of navigation 

Non-Binding 
(Recommendations) 

Majority of present 
members934 

conditions 

-  Promotion of ecological inland navigation  

932 In addition, in case of binding regulations touching upon EU competence, a coordinated EU position needs to be defined prior to decision making (i.e. voting) by EU Member States. 
Concretely, a binding decision or binding standards may be voted only in line with the EU position encoded in an EU Council Decision as per Article 218 paragraph 9 of the TFEU. 
933 The current members of the DC are BG, HU, RO, SK, HR, AT and DE, as well as Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine. At the XII-th Extraordinary session of the DC on 17 March 2022 Danube 
states decided to suspend representatives of the Russian Federation from participation in all meetings of the Danube Commission and its working bodies until the restoration of peace, 
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. Additionally, at the 100th Jubilee Session of the DC on 14 December 2023 the Danube states 
adopted a decision urging the Russian Federation to draw the consequences of its attacks by withdrawing from the Belgrade Convention until 29 February 2024, or, failing that, as of 1 
March  2024,  the  Danube  States  will  no  longer  consider  themselves  bound  by  the  obligations  under  the  Belgrade  Convention  vis-à-vis  the  Russian  Federation. 
https://www.danubecommission.org/uploads/doc/press/2023/en_Press_release_100.pdf 
934 In addition, in case of binding regulations touching upon EU competence, a coordinated EU position needs to be defined prior to decision making (i.e. voting) by EU Member States. 
Concretely, a binding decision or binding standards may be voted only in line with the EU position encoded in an EU Council Decision as per Article 218 paragraph 9 of the TFEU. 

284 

 
 
 
 
Name of the 
organisation 
Sava 
Commission  

Legal Basis  Member 

states 
EU: SL, 
HR 
Non-EU: 
BiH, SRB 

Framework 
Agreement 
on the Sava 
River Basin 
(2002) 

Observer 
States 
MoU with 
ME 

Mosel 
Commission  

UN-ECE  

EU 

Convention 
on the 
Canalisation 
of the Mosel 
(1956) 
Resolution of 
the fourth 
session of 
the UN 
Economic 
and Social 
Council 
(ECOSOC) 
(1947) 
TFEU  

EU: FR, 
GE, LU 

NA 

NA 

56 
members: 
see 
Member 
States | 
UNECE 
(including 
EU27) 

EU27 

NA 

Objectives/scope 

Legal instruments   Decision-making  

-  Establishing an international regime of navigation  
-  Sustainable water management 
-  measures to manage or reduce risks/issues caused by 

floods, ice, droughts, and incidents involving 
substances hazardous to water.  

-  Freedom of navigation  
-  Safety regulations 
-  Shipping dues 
-  Police regulations 

Consensus/unanimity935 

Binding regulations 
on measures aimed 
to provide 
conditions for safe 
navigation. 
Recommendations 
regarding other 
issues. 

Binding regulations  Unanimity936 

-  Transport of dangerous goods 
-  Standardization of Signalling systems (CEVNI) 
-  Safety/ technical requirements. 
-  Pollution prevention 
-  Access to profession 
-  Digitalisation: (Data exchange (ECDIS), RIS, 

automated and smart shipping) 

Non-Binding 
Agreement through 
ratification of 
international 
convention (see : 
Texts and Status | 
UNECE)  

-  Market access 
-  Safety/ technical requirements. 
-  Access to profession 
-  Transport of dangerous goods  
-  Digitalisation (RIS, data exchange) 

Binding regulations  Ordinary Legislative 

Procedure 

935 In addition, in case of binding regulations touching upon EU competence, a coordinated EU position needs to be defined prior to decision making (i.e. voting) by EU Member States. 
Concretely, a binding decision or binding standards may be voted only in line with the EU position encoded in an EU Council Decision as per Article 218 paragraph 9 of the TFEU. 
936 In addition, in case of binding regulations touching upon EU competence, a coordinated EU position needs to be defined prior to decision making (i.e. voting) by EU Member States. 
Concretely, a binding decision or binding standards may be voted only in line with the EU position encoded in an EU Council Decision as per Article 218 paragraph 9 of the TFEU. 

285 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Related policy areas relevant for IWT but out of scope of this Fitness Check  

As  a  result  of  the  historically  complex  governance  setup,  under  the  NAIADES  II937 
Communication the EU has sought to simplify the governance scheme and to address the 
overlap of legal frameworks and competencies in the inland waterway sector.  It established 
institutional and legislative measures taking into account the entry into force of the Lisbon 
Treaty,  which  provided  new  rules  on  delegated  and  implementing  powers  and  on  the 
coordination of the Union's position for the adoption of acts with legal effect in international 
bodies. 

This approach was backed up by the administrative arrangement between the Commission 
and the CCNR Secretariat (2013) which allowed - as described above, a deeper and targeted 
cooperation aiming at achieving uniformisation for technical requirements for vessels first, 
then later for professional qualifications for crew and potentially other areas. The creation 
of CESNI in 2015 reflects progress made towards a greater harmonisation. Nevertheless, 
and as underlined in the NAIADES III938 action plan, the governance remains an area where 
further improvements are needed.  

The following description of some specific inland waterways policy areas – out of scope of 
this Fitness check - will illustrate some of the remaining incoherence, inconsistencies and 
complexities resulting from the current governance setup. 

Recognition  of  professional  qualifications  for  crew  in  inland  navigation:  Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397939  

An example that could be used to illustrate these complexities and the lack of level playing 
field is the Directive on professional qualifications for crew in inland navigation (Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397). The Directive (EU) 2017/2397 lays down the conditions and procedures 
for  the  certification  of  the  qualifications  of  persons  involved  in  the  operation  of  a  craft 
navigating on Union inland waterways, as well as for the recognition of such qualifications 
in the Member States.  

The Directive highlights that the harmonisation  of legislation in the field of professional 
qualifications  in  inland  navigation  in  Europe  is  facilitated  by  close  cooperation  with  the 
Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR) and by the development of 
standards,  by  the  European  committee  for  drawing  up  common  standards  in  the  field  of 
inland  navigation  (CESNI).  The  Directive  foresees  the  Commission  to  refer  to  CESNI 
standards when adopting implementing and delegated acts.  

937 Since 2006 the EC has adopted three successive strategic policy papers for IWT called NAIADES. The 
NAIADES  II  Communication  aims  at  creating  the  conditions  for  inland  navigation  transport  to  become  a 
quality mode of transport. It sets out the programme for policy action in the field of inland waterway transport 
for the period 2014-2020. 
938 In June 2021 the European Commission published NAIADES III, a 35-point action plan to boost the role 
of inland waterway transport in our mobility and logistics systems. The core objectives are to shift more cargo 
over Europe's rivers and canals,and facilitate the transition to zero-emission barges by 2050. 
939  Directive  (EU)  2017/  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2017  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing Council Directives 91/672/EEC 
and 96/50/EC 

286 

 
 
Accordingly, the Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12, adopted to supplement Directive (EU) 
2017/2397, introduced the European Standard for Qualifications in Inland Navigation (ES-
QIN), which was adopted by CESNI in 2018, into the EU legal order.  

In 2024, CESNI adopted an updated version of ES-QIN (ES-QIN 2024/1) which means that 
the EU will adopt these standards as EU legislation, by way of a Delegated Directive. Given 
the  legislative  process  and  the  time  given  to  the  Member  States  to  transpose  the  new 
delegated directive, the new delegated directive is expected to be applicable as of 1 January 
2026. The CCNR also adopts the ES-QIN 2024/1 standards into its own legal regime940, 
however the CCNR’s procedure to do so is shorter than that of the EU, meaning that the 
latest ES-QIN 2024/1 standards are applicable already as of 1 January 2025 according to 
CCNR rules.  

Consequently, there is a temporary difference (i.e. during the year of 2025, when CCNR 
rules are already updated to the latest standards while the EU legislative basis  is not yet 
updated) in the applicable standards as encoded in the EU law and at the level of the CCNR. 
The respective legal frameworks of the CCNR and the EU do not apply the standards in a 
coordinated manner which creates (temporary) incoherence, and (temporary) lack of legal 
clarity and certainty. 

Technical requirements for inland waterways vessels: Directive (EU) 2016/1629 

Technical requirements for vessels set out in Directive 2006/87/EC incorporated most of 
the  provisions  laid  down  in  the  Rhine  rules941  of  2004.  However,  the  conditions  and 
technical requirements for issuing inland navigation certificates for Rhine Navigation were 
updated regularly to meet technological developments, which was not the case for Directive 
2006/87/EC. 

Given the different legal frameworks and timeframes for the decision-making procedures, 
it was difficult to maintain the equivalence between the Union inland navigation certificates 
issued pursuant to Directive 2006/87/EC and the certificates issued pursuant to Rhine rules. 
This  resulted  in  a  lack  of  legal  certainty,  which  has  a  potentially  negative  impact  on 
navigation safety. 

During the preparation of Directive (EU) 2016/1629, repealing Directive 2006/87/EC, the 
EU and the CCNR set out to harmonise the technical standards and conditions for issuing 
certificates and to  have uniform  requirements across all Member States. It  was a way to 
simplify rules, to improve the level of safety, and to contribute directly to a deeper and fairer 
internal market. 

In  Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  requirements  are  established  by  making  reference  to  the 
European  Standards  laying  down  Technical  Requirements  for  Inland  Navigation  vessels 
(ES-TRIN standards), drawn up by CESNI. EU legislation refers to this standard and its 
updates, and so do the CCNR rules. 

This approach ensured that Union inland navigation certificates attesting that all types of 
crafts are fully compliant with the aforementioned revised technical requirements are valid 

940 By amending its Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel (RPN) 
941 Vessel Inspection Regulations 

287 

 
 
on all EU inland waterways, including on the Rhine, and that Rhine certificates are valid on 
all EU inland waterways. 

Figure 30: Alignment of CCNR and EU requirements with ES-TRIN

Source: Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine - Technical requirements for vessels 

To regularly update the technical requirements, the EU directive is amended by means of 
commission  delegated  regulations  to  incorporate  new  standards  into  EU  legal  regime.  
However, due to applicable internal procedures related to delegated regulations, the time to 
amend  those  standards  in  EU  legislation  is  longer  than  the  incorporation  of  ES  TRIN 
standards into the CCNR rules, as the procedures of CCNR are less constraining.  

Another important difference between the EU and CCNR rules is the transitional period for 
vessels to comply with new technical standards. For instance, the transitional period related 
to  sanitary  installations  and  to  other  accommodations  installations  ends  in  2035  for  the 
Rhine Regime942. The same provisions have transitional period that goes until 2049 in the 
EU regime943.  

Social security regimes  

IWT workers are often employed on vessels that operate on inland waterways across various 
Member States, making it difficult to establish a clear point of attachment that is stable over 
time. The CCNR, however, has a long  tradition  when it comes to  social security, it also 
championed the first Agreement concerning the social security of Rhine boatmen in 1949. 
This Agreement instituted a system for coordinating social security legislation among the 
countries  concerned  in  the  interests  of  Rhine  boatmen.  The  Contracting  Parties  to  the 

942 ES-TRIN 2025: p.233-234 (ES-TRIN 2025/1 - European Standard laying down Technical Requirements 
for Inland Navigation vessels) 
943 ES-TRIN 2025 : p. 291-292: (ES-TRIN 2025/1 - European Standard laying down Technical Requirements 
for  Inland  Navigation  vessels).  Chapter  15  of  ES-TRIN  2025  is  referring  to  standards  concerning 
accommodation . While the transitional period of certain provisions (e.g. art.15.03 on sanitary installations 
and art.15.07 on other accommodations installations) in chapter 15 ends in 2035 for the Rhine Regime, the 
same provisions have transitional period that goes until 2049 in the EU regime. 

288 

 
 
 
Agreement  were  the  member  states  of  the  CCNR:  Germany,  Belgium,  France,  the 
Netherlands, Switzerland, as well as Luxembourg. Under this Agreement944, IWT workers 
are subject to the state legislation where the company in charge of the vessel is located945.  

With the entry into force of the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, the Rhine Agreement adopted 
in 1949 did no longer apply in signatory States that are also members of the European Union 
(BE, DE, FR, LU, NL). Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) 883/2004, however, allows two or 
more EU Member States to conclude common agreement in the interest of certain persons 
or categories of persons. The CCNR member states946 have done just that by concluding the 
“Agreement  on  determination  of  legislation  applicable  to  Rhine  boatmen”947  and  thus 
reintroduced the application of the Rhine rule in these countries, as described in Annex VII.  

To conclude, the Rhine Agreement benefits crew employed by operators established on the 
Rhine, while crew employed by operators in EU countries not part of the Rhine Agreement 
stays in the general regime. Regulation (EU) 883/2004 leaves companies free to establish a 
subsidiary or a recruitment agency in any Member State of their choice. However, constructs 
involving letterbox companies, which lack genuine economic activity in the Member State 
concerned, with the sole aim to benefit from more favourable social security conditions in 
that Member State, are not allowed. 

Conclusion  

The  current  fragmented  governance  setup  for  IWT  results  from  particular  historical 
dynamics  in  Europe.  It  leads  to  issues  in  several  areas948  described  above,  though  these 
subjects are not in scope of the Market Access Fitness Check. The coexistence between the 
international conventions and the EU legislative system prevents the market players from 
benefitting of level playing field in the EU in those specific areas, and it also creates a high 
level of complexity for the operators and the Member States alike during the implementation 
of EU law.  

Although  much effort has been  undertaken in  the past  years to  harmonise the legislative 
framework in these areas (which are out of scope of the Market Access Fitness Check), there 
is still a certain gap in legal clarity and transparency in these areas. The creation of CESNI 
and  the  continuous  efforts  of  the  EU  through  implementing  three  successive  strategic 
programmes  called  NAIADES949  have  significantly  improved  the  situation,  however  the 
high degree of governance complexity remains.  

944 Accord concernant la sécurité sociale des bateliers rhénans (révisé):  Accord 
945 Accord concernant la sécurité sociale des bateliers rhénans (révisé):  Accord 
946 As described in Annex VII, two states that are not part of the EU, namely Switzerland and Lichtenstein 
also decided to become a party to the Agreement in 2012 and 2018 respectively. 
947 Also referred to as ‘Derogation Agreement’ 
948  Recognition  of  professional  qualifications  for  crew  in  inland  navigation:  Directive  (EU)  2017/2397, 
Technical requirements for inland waterways vessels: Directive (EU) 2016/1629, Social security regimes 
949 NAIADES I, NAIADES II and NAIADES III 

289 

 
 
ANNEX  IX.  INVENTORY  OF  NATIONAL  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 
87/540/EEC (GROUP 3)950 

For  the  inventory  of  national  implementation  of  the  Council  Directive  87/540/EEC  in 
Group 3, desk research and a targeted survey951 was carried out in the following Member 
States: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovakia.  

The  Council  Directive  has  been  implemented  in  the  Member  States  reviewed,  based  on 
similar principles, with local differences. These differences are rooted in the fact that the 
Directive,  by  nature,  leaves  flexibility  in  transposing  legislation  at  a  national  level. 
Differences can be found in exemptions, procedures followed and the coverage (freight or 
freight and passenger transport), as shown in the following table. 

All  reviewed  Member  States  require  a  certificate  of  professional  competence.  Some 
Member  States  have  introduced  additional  requirements,  such  as  financial  standing 
(Austria) or honourability (Austria, Luxembourg). Based on the following table it can be 
concluded that requirements to access the occupation in these selected EU Member States 
have a common basis (certificate of professional competence), with some Member States 
adding specific requirements.  

Table 14: Requirements to access the occupation in selected EU Member States  

Requirements to access the 
profession 

AT  Requirement of professional 

competence; 
Nationality; 
Requirement of honourability; 
Requirement of financial 
standing; 
Proof of sufficient equipment 
for the exploitation of boat. 
BE  Certificate of access to the 

occupation; 
Certificate of professional 
competence. 

FR  Certificate of professional 

competence. 

DE  Certificate of professional 

competence. 

LU  Requirement of honourability; 
Requirement of financial 
capacity; 
Requirement of professional 
competence. 

Requirements to obtain certificate of 
professional competence 
By an exam, but exemption for certain 
diplomas whose equivalence is recognised in 
the regulation. 

Certification authority 

Exam commission at 
regional level 

By an exam, but exemption for (i) a three 
years of professional experience; (ii) a 
diploma delivered by a recognised institution; 
or (iii) presentation of a certificate issued by 
another Member State. 
By an exam, both multiple-choice and oral 
exam, but exemption for (i) three-years of 
professional experience; or (ii) a higher 
education diploma. 
By an exam with a written part and an oral 
part, but exemption for (i) three-years of 
professional experience; or (ii) a higher 
education diploma. 
By an exam, but exemption for three-years of 
professional experience. 

Private institution or an 
exam commission 

TBD 

Waterways and Shipping 
Directorates of the place of 
establishment or the place 
of the registered office. 
Minister having within its 
competence the 
authorisations of 
establishment. 

 Ecorys, STC-Nestra and Tournaye Consulting (2023), Fitness check support study 
951 The targeted survey was open for feedback between 18 June and 25 August 2021 

290 

 
 
 
 
 
Requirements to access the 
profession 

NL  Certificate of professional 

competence. 

SK  Extract from the criminal 

record; 
Proof of the highest level of 
education attained; 
Proof of professional 
competence (in the field of 
professional management in 
the operation of inland 
waterway transport). 

Requirements to obtain certificate of 
professional competence 
By an exam, and the national legislation lists 
three diplomas that are equivalent to the 
certificate of professional competence. 
By an exam, but exemption for (i) a 
university degree of at least second level in 
transport, transport services, business 
economics and management, international 
business or sectoral economics and 
management or a related field of study, (ii) a 
university degree of at least first level in a 
subject referred to above and at least two 
years’ work experience; or (iii) a level of 
upper secondary education in the field of 
study referred to above and at least three 
years’ professional experience. 

Certification authority 

Private institutions issuing 
the diplomas. 

Ministry of Transport and 
Communication  

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on relevant legislation, survey 

According  to  the  evidence  collected,  a  rather  harmonised  approach  across  the  Member 
States is observed as means to obtain the certificate of professional competence – as seen in 
the table above. An exam is needed in all analysed Member States to obtain the certificate 
of professional competence. People are exempted from taking an exam if certain conditions 
are met, mainly based on professional experience (often three years) or relevant diplomas. 
Some differences on this can be noticed in Table 14. In addition, some stakeholders in the 
SME survey indicated that the level of exams differs per country.  

The authority issuing the certificate of competence is in most cases the public administration 
in the transport domain and in some cases a private institution that carries out the exam, as 
illustrated in the Table above.  

For all 11 reviewed Member States952, a certificate of professional competence is needed 
for  freight  transport,  whereas  for  4  countries  a  certificate  is  needed  for  both  freight  and 
passenger transport, as presented in the Table below.  

Table 15: Transport activity for which a certificate of professional competence is needed  
Type of 
transport 
operations 

a
i
r
t
s
u
A
x 

m
u
i
g
l
e
B
x 

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B
x 

d
n
a
l
n
i
F
x 

e
c
n
a
r
F
x 

y
n
a
m
r
e
G
x 

y
r
a
g
n
u
H
x 

Freight  

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L
x 

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N
x 

a
i
n
a
m
o
R
x 

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S
x 

Passenger 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), based on relevant legislation, survey 

What  relates  to  the  certificate  itself,  four  Member  States  included  in  the  table  provide  a 
single  certificate  of  professional  competence,  in  which  the  different  activities  (freight, 
passenger both) can be specified. In addition, Austria has the option to provide two separate 
certificates for freight and passenger transport.  

952 In addition to the seven earlier mentioned Member States, four additional member States have responded 
to the survey, hence bringing the total to 11 Member States.  

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX X. ON COMPETITIVENESS AND THE PREDOMINANCE OF DUTCH OPERATORS 

On the impact of the intervention on the competitiveness of the sector 

Thanks to the legislation the IWT market is now open, liberalised and harmonised thus 
facilitating the access to all operators from all Members States to provide IWT services 
within the EU according to the same rules. It is important to clarify that the legislation in 
scope does not intend to target new operators specifically: its intention is to accord equal 
status  to  all  operators  (including  new  and  already  active  operators)  by  eliminating 
discrimination  and  thereby  creating  a  single  market  accessible  to  all. The  aim  of  these 
legislations is partly related to market entry barriers (Group 2), and partly to creating a 
level playing field on the market (Group 3). Legislation in Group 3 that creates harmonised 
rules to the access to the profession, focuses on harmonisation across countries (reducing 
discrimination) and thereby enabling mutual recognition of diplomas and creating a level 
playing  field.  In  the  past  cases  of  enlargements  of  the  EU  as  well  as  in  any  future 
enlargements, operators from new MS need to be put on an equal footing with those from 
existing MS, and waterways of new MS need to open for operators from existing MS and 
vice versa.  

The  IWT  sector’s  competitiveness  depends  on  many  factors.  The  NAIADES  III 
Communication953 in 2021 set out core objectives and a related action plan to achieve more 
freight transport carried by inland waterways, putting the sector on an irreversible path to 
zero-emissions, a paradigm shift towards further digitalisation, as well as accompanying 
measures for the IWT workforce.  

Complementing the strategic objectives as in the NAIADES III Communication, the EU 
also  disposes  of  various  regulatory  areas  for  the  inland  waterway  transport  market,  as 
illustrated in the following Figure: the Market access legislation, as explained above, is 
mainly focused on clarifying and harmonising access rules for all operators,  and is only 
partly indirectly geared towards improving competitiveness. Only one of the 7 legislations 
in scope of this Fitness Check has improving competitiveness specifically mentioned as an 
objective. 

953 COM(2021) 324 final, eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0324 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  31:  Overview  of  EU  regulatory  areas  for  the  inland  waterway  transport 
market954 

Source: European Commission 

954 List of legislation for EU regulatory areas (extract):  

Market Access: 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable to the transport of goods 
or  passengers  by  inland  waterway  between  Member  States  with  a  view  to  establishing  freedom  to 
provide such transport services (OJ L 175, 13.7.1996, p. 7). 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying down the conditions under which non-
resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member State (OJ L 
373, 31.12.1991, p. 1). 

Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community fleet capacity policy to promote 

inland waterway transport (OJ L 90, 2.4.1999, p. 1). 

Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and 

international inland waterway transport in the Community (OJ L 304, 27.11.1996, p. 12). 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2919/85 of 17 October 1985 laying down the  conditions for access to the 
arrangements under the Revised Convention for the navigation of the Rhine relating to vessels belonging 
to the Rhine Navigation (OJ L 280, 22.10.1985, p. 4). 

Council Directive No 87/540/EEC of 9 November 1987 on access to the occupation of carrier of goods by 
waterway in national and international transport and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates 
and other evidence of formal qualifications for this occupation (OJ L 322, 12.11.1987, p. 20). 

Jobs and skills: 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2397  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2017  on  the 
recognition  of  professional  qualifications  in  inland  navigation  and  repealing  Council  Directives 
91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC (OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 53). 

Directive (EU) 2021/1233 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 amending Directive 
(EU) 2017/2397 as regards the transitional measures for the recognition of third-country certificates (OJ 
L 274, 30.7.2021, p. 52-54). 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/184 of 22 November 2021 amending Annex IV to Directive 

(EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 30, 11.2.2022, p. 3--4). 

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 of 2 August 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  standards  for  competences  and 
corresponding knowledge and skills, for the practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and 
for medical fitness (OJ L 6, I 0.1.2020, p.15). 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/473  of  20  January  2020  supplementing  Directive  (EU) 
2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the standards for databases for 
the Union certificates of qualification, service record books and logbooks (OJ L I 00, 1.4.2020, p. I). 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, the Market  access  legislation influences competitiveness. An overview of the 
impacts of the intervention on the competitiveness and on the barriers to entry of the inland 
waterway transport market is shown in the following table.  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2020/  l  82  of  14  January  2020  on  models  in  the  field  of 

professional qualifications in inland navigation (OJ L 38, 11.2.2020, p. l ). 

Vessels: 
Directive 2009/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on reciprocal 

recognition of navigability licences for inland waterway vessels (OJ L 259, 2.10.2009, p. 8). 

Directive (EU) 2016/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 laying down 
technical  requirements  for  inland  waterway  vessels,  amending  Directive  2009/100/EC  and  repealing 
Directive 2006/87/EC (OJ L 252, 16.9.2016, p. 118). 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1308 of28 April 2021 amending Annexes I and II to Directive 
(EU) 2016/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards modifying the list of Union 
inland waterways and the minimum technical requirements applicable to craft C/2021/2853 (OJ L 284, 
9.8.2021, p. 1-13). 

Commission  Delegated  Directive  (EU)  2018/970  of  18  April  2018  amending  Annexes  II,  III  and  V  to 
Directive  (EU)  2016/1629  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  technical 
requirements for inland waterway vessels (OJ L 174, I 0.7.2018, p. 15). 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/474 of 20 January 2020 on the European Hull Data Base (OJ 

L I 00, 1.4.2020, p. 12). 

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1122 of 28 July 2020 on the recognition of DNV GLAS as 
a classification society for inland waterway vessels in accordance with Directive (EU) 20 l 6/1629 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 245, 30.7.2020, p. 15). 

Directive 20 I 0/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 on transportable 
pressure  equipment  and  repealing  Council  Directives  76/767/EEC,  84/525/EEC,  84/526/EEC, 
84/527/EEC and 1999/36/EC (OJ L 165, 30.6.2010, p. I). 

Etc. 

294 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 16: Overview of the impacts the intervention had on competitiveness and on barriers to entry of the inland waterway transport market 

Legislation 

Group  1  legislation 
of 
– 
removal 
and 
restrictions 
discrimination 

Group  4  legislation 
– 
structural 
improvement of the 
IWT market 

Initial  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market 
Following  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning  of  the  market  in  the  area  of  distortive  pricing 
practices were addressed: 

-  discrimination in rates and conditions on grounds of 
the country of origin or destination of the cargo; 
-  price fixing, including national or regional price fixing 

schemes, 

-  other  commercially  restrictive  practices  (‘tour-de-

role’) were abolished. 

Outcome and → causal impact on competitiveness 

Contracts  are  freely  concluded  and  prices  are  freely 
negotiated. 

➔  Operators  of  all  MS  can  compete  on  level 
playing-field, without price discrimination 

Following  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market were addressed: 

Until April 2003, a coordinated approach of the capacity 
management mechanism at European level.  

-  overcapacity  on  the  Rhine  caused  by  several  factors 
including the artificially high prices due to the ‘tour-
systems955.  National 
de-role’  and  Festfrachten 
scrapping schemes956 to reduce overcapacity were not 
effective enough.  

-  Replacement of outdated vessels difficult due to long 
lifespan of vessels and important capital expenditure  

➔  Thanks  to  vessel  scrapping  schemes  and  the 
‘old-for-new’  rule957  the  fleet  was  modernised 
and  vessels  were  replaced  with  larger,  more 
modern ones as a result of the intervention. 

o  Introduction of larger barges has implied 
significant  gains  in  labour productivity, 
transport  of 
while 
hazardous  goods  has  been  increased 

the  safety  of 

955 On the Danube and other waterways, overcapacity has not been an issue 
956 Implemented in BE, DE, NL, FR 
957 Vessel scrapping schemes under predecessor Regulation (EEC) no 1101/89 and the ‘old-for-new’ rule under Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 

295 

 
 
 
  
 
Legislation 

Initial  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market 

Outcome and → causal impact on competitiveness 

thanks  to  double-skinned  hulls  and 
vessel stability technologies.958 

o  On the market of flammable liquids and 
compressed  or  liquified  gases959  the 
competitive position for IWT improved 
compared  to  other  modes,  thanks  to 
higher safety on vessels.  

Beyond  April  2003,  a  mechanism  available  for  EU 
Member  States  to  request  recognition  of  a  serious 
market disturbance related to overcapacity.  

Legal basis available for suitable measures in the event 
of a serious disturbance of the market can be taken. 

➔  In case of need, legal basis is available for the 
sector  (operators  of  all  MS)  to  benefit  from 
harmonised rules and suitable measures in case 
serious  market 
to 
overcapacity,  therefore  they  can  compete  on 
level playing-field, without discrimination 

disturbance 

related 

958 Crompton, G (The Journal of Transport History - 25/2): 'The tortoise and the economy”: Inland waterway navigation in international economic history (2004) 
959 Crompton, G (The Journal of Transport History - 25/2): 'The tortoise and the economy”: Inland waterway navigation in international economic history (2004) 

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Initial  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market 

Outcome and → causal impact on competitiveness 

Inland Waterway Funds had been set up in relevant MS 
and these can be used for the benefit of the sector for 
specific measures960. 

➔  From  the  Inland  Waterway  Funds  the  IWT 
Platform  has  been  set  up,  which  supports  the 
IWT sector across the EU. 
Same rules for operators/vessels of all MS:  

-  all vessels of EU countries, allowed to access the 

Rhine, under the same conditions 

-  common rules on cabotage for all EU operators 

-  common rules on cross-border transport for all 

EU operators 

➔  Operators of all MS can access EU waterways 
under  the  same  condition,  resulting  in  level 
playing-field, without discrimination 

Group  2  legislation 
–  access 
the 
inland  waterway 
network 

to 

Following market access restrictions were removed as a result 
of the intervention: the extent of access and services allowed 
varied based on the state affiliation of the operator (or vessel): 
-  only  operators  of  Rhine  contracting  states  were 
international 
to  provide  cabotage  and 

allowed 
transport on the Rhine961. 

-  no  common  rules  on  cabotage,  except  on  the 
intermediate waterways between the Netherlands and 
Belgium  (i.e.  for  those  two  countries)  and  on  the 
Rhine for the Rhine countries. Cabotage ass subject to 
implementation  and/or  bilateral 
diverse  national 
(national) agreements. On the Danube962 decision on 
cabotage  conferred  the  decision  on  the  right  to 
cabotage to Danube States 

-  no level playing field for cross-border transport of EU 

operators on waterways other than the Danube 

960 Art 8, Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 
961 Mannheim Convention 
962 Belgrade Convention 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Group  3  legislation 
the 
–  access 
profession  of  IWT 
carrier 

to 

Initial  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market 
Following  market  failures  impairing  the  smooth  and  fair 
functioning of the market were addressed: 

No harmonised provisions on mutual recognition of diplomas, 
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications by EU 
the  carriers  of  goods  causing 
Member  States 
administrative  burden,  costs  and  uncertainty  when  operator 
intended to establish itself in another Member State.  

for 

There  were  also  diverging  requirements  across  the  EU  for 
enabling  operators  to  prove  sufficient  commercial  and 
technical knowledge before being authorised to exercise as an 
IWT carrier. 

Outcome and → causal impact on competitiveness 

Harmonised requirements across the EU for operators 
to prove sufficient commercial and technical knowledge 
before being authorised to exercise as an IWT carrier.  

➔  Common  rules  for  the  mutual  recognition  of 
diplomas,  certificates  and  other  evidence  of 
formal qualifications by EU Member States for 
the  carriers  of  goods  EU  wide,  harmonised 
common standards for accessing the profession 
of IWT carrier resulting  in  a level  EU playing 
field.  Level  of  qualifications 
improved, 
businesses  are  sounder,  quality  of  service 
improved.  This  in  turn  benefits  users,  carriers 
and the economy as a whole963. 

➔  less  administrative  burden  and  lower  costs  for 
operators  and  national  administrations  when 
operator  intends  to  establish  itself  in  another 
Member State. 

963 Preamble of Council Directive 87/540/EEC 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To  see  whether  improved  competitiveness  translated  into  higher  IWT  transport 
performance,  we  have  turned  to  long-term  cargo  volume  time  series964  as  shown  on 
following Figure. On the Rhine we can observe a temporary increase of volume transported 
after  1998  which  may  be  causally  linked  to  the  entry  into  force  of  Council  Directive 
96/75/EC. However, this trend was not sustained. Moreover, on the Danube we can observe 
a general increase of volume transported after 2004/2007, which may be causally linked to 
Danube  states  joining  the  EU  and  therefore  having  improved  access  to  the  entire  IWT 
market. (Note, however, that the Belgrade Convention (1948) allowed free access to the 
Danube for internation transport prior to EU accession already, as explained in Annex VIII 
International  treaties  context,  though the  division  between  Eastern  and  Western  Europe 
resulted  in  fragmented  trade  relationships.)  Due  to  the  many  other  factors  influencing 
competitiveness, including  the cost  structure  (see Figure 38), the  possible events  in  the 
sectoral environment (see Figure 36) and lack related data, the causal link cannot be further 
substantiated and underpinned with evidence.   

Figure 32: IWT transport performance by region (Rhine, Danube, Other EU27) 

Source:  Bureau  Voorlichting  Binnenvaart,  EICB,  Koninklijke  Binnenvaart  Nederland: 
Transport Performance and Market Shares of Inland Navigation on the Rhine, Danube, 
and in the European Union, 2025, EC 

964 Transport Performance and Market Shares of Inland Navigation, June 2025 by EICB, Bureau Voorlichting 
Binnenvaart, Koninklijke Binnenvaart Nederland 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
A  negative  impact  of  the  Combined Transport  Directive  (which  is  not  in  scope  for  the 
Market access legislation) on competitiveness of IWT vis-à-vis rail was remarked: 

The  Combined  Transport  Directive  (EEC)  92/106  (CT  Directive)  builds  on  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 is applicable to the 
carriage  of  goods  by  any  of  the  three  inland  transport  modes:  rail,  road  and  inland 
waterway, while the CT Directive is focused on road transport in combination with rail or 
IWT journey. Therefore, both legal acts have a cross-modal aspect.  

The  CT  Directive  requires  the  abolition  of  any  system  of  authorisation  or  quotas  in 
combined transport965, to liberalize operations966, similarly to the uni-modal abolition for 
road, rail and inland navigation by Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960. Moreover, it 
fully recognises the transport document967 as a basis of eligibility under CT Directive.  

The  fact  that  the  CT  Directive  recognises  road  transport  as  a  starting  or  final  leg  for  a 
transport  operation  including  an  IWT  journey,  can  be  considered  a  potential  synergetic 
effect resulting in additional transport volumes in IWT. However, there are several limiting 
factors.  Firstly,  according  to Article  6  of  the  CT  Directive,  Member  States  may  grant 
reductions or reimbursements on the basis of rail journeys but not journeys by IWT. This 
is a relative disadvantage of IWT as opposed to rail and it was also remarked by EBU-
ESO968. Secondly, the CT Directive’s application is precisely described: it applies to lorry, 
trailer, semi-trailer, with or without tractor unit, swap body or container of 20 feet or more 
- consequently it does not apply to the most frequently carried cargo by IWT, which are 
bulk, break bulk or liquid, i.e. roughly 90% of transported goods.  

On  the  reasons  for  the  predominance  of  Dutch  operators  in  the  sector  and  the 
economic consequences 

The EU's market access regulations ensure non-discriminatory access for all operators by 
establishing  common  conditions  throughout  the  EU.  The  predominance  of  certain 
nationalities  among  operators  cannot  be  attributed  to  these  regulations.  Instead,  the 
utilization  of  inland  waterway  transport  by  logistics  operators  is  influenced  by  various 
factors. 

Infrastructure is a key determinant in the attractiveness of IWT. A well-maintained inland 
waterway infrastructure is essential to ensure navigability, requiring proper maintenance, 
dredging,  functional  locks,  and  efficient  transshipment  terminals.  The  extent  to  which 
Member States invest in public infrastructure for inland navigation significantly impacts 
its  development. Additionally,  the  volume  and  market  for  inland  navigation  are  highly 
dependent on access to ports, hinterland connections, and integration into comprehensive 
door-to-door multimodal logistics chains. 

965 Combined transport refers to the transport of goods between Member States where road is used on the 
initial or final leg of the journey and, on the other leg, rail or inland waterway or maritime services are used 
for more than 100 km (see detailed provisions in Article 1 of Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC). 
966 Article 2 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
967 Article 3 of the Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EEC 
968 Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, p 85 

300 

 
 
 
Trade  and  transportation  are  closely  interconnected.  The  Dutch  dominance  in  inland 
navigation, for example, can be also ascribed to its economic strength and geographically 
favourable  position  (including  the  proximity  and  connectivity  to  key  seaports),  as 
illustrated by the following figure, where it is compared to that of Germany.  

Figure 33: Modal split in the Netherlands and Germany since 1970 

Source:  Bureau  Voorlichting  Binnenvaart,  EICB,  Koninklijke  Binnenvaart  Nederland: 
Transport Performance and Market Shares of Inland Navigation on the Rhine, Danube, 
and in the European Union, 2025 

Trade is a cornerstone of the Dutch economy, with a substantial share of goods (around 
40%) transported via waterways. This focus has driven the development and optimization 
of  the  inland  shipping  sector.  Dutch  operators  have  led  innovations  in  ship  design  and 
logistics technology, enhancing  efficiency and reducing  costs to  maintain a competitive 
edge. For instance, a Dutch shipbuilding innovation in the 16th century969 (using windmills 
to cut timber instead of manual sawing) improved efficiency and output of shipyards in the 
Netherlands. By the 17th century, the Dutch have a fleet of over 2500 ships, twice the size 
of the English fleet.970 

The Netherlands benefits from an extensive network of waterways and its strategic location 
at the mouth of the Rhine, where Europe’s largest port, Rotterdam, is situated. This port 
links  key  industrial  areas,  cities,  and  international  ports  via  the  Rhine.  (Similarly, 
Romania's location at the mouth of the Danube results in a somewhat larger fleet compared 
to other Danube-region states.) 

969 Source: Maritime Museum, Rotterdam, October 2025 
970 Source: Maritime Museum, Rotterdam, October 2025 

301 

 
 
 
 
 
In 2023 the modal share971 of IWT in the Netherlands is the highest in Europe with 40,9% 
Belgium follows in Western Europe with a 9.3% IWT modal share while in the Danube 
region Romania and Bulgaria have shares of 22.3% and 17.9%, respectively. The inter-
maritime  port  traffic  between  Rotterdam,  Antwerp,  Amsterdam,  and  North  Sea  ports 
connects  vital  petroleum  and  chemical  industrial  hubs,  as  well  as  numerous  container 
terminals. Inter-port traffic between cities like Rotterdam, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Flushing, 
and Gent is also significant, linking key industrial clusters and container hubs.  

The  above  mentioned  geographical  and  infrastructural  advantages  contribute  to  the 
significant volumes transported by IWT in these countries, but do not directly correlate 
with  the number of operators. In the Netherlands, operators  are typically family-owned 
businesses with smaller vessels. In contrast, Romanian and German operators tend to use 
larger  ships  with  higher  capacities,  leading  to  fewer  operators  in  these  countries.  For 
example, in 2021 the Netherlands hosted 4,364 freight and passenger transport companies 
with  12,226  employees.  In  Romania,  there  are  2,227  employees  spread  across  just  347 
companies, while in Germany 10,123 employees work for 901 operators972. 

Working  on  an  IWT  vessel  is  considered  to  be  hard  due  to  varied  and  challenging 
conditions,  including  unpredictable  weather,  equipment  malfunctions,  and  demanding 
physical labour, requiring quick problem-solving and strong communication skills, as well 
as constant vigilance to ensure safety and navigate safely through rough waters. Workers 
face  long  hours973,  away  from  home  while  they  must  possess  a  broad  skillset  for 
maintaining  their vessels  and managing  cargo or  passengers, making the job inherently 
demanding  and  requiring  significant  adaptability  and  resilience.  Consequently,  this 
profession brings about a particular lifestyle which many associate with having to make 
difficult choices when aligning it private /family life as it requires being constantly away. 
In the BE974 or the NL for instance, due to the larger size of the sector this particular lifestyle 
is more known and therefore socially accepted, in which is less the case in smaller IWT 
countries. 

In  conclusion,  the  high  number  of  operators  in  the  Netherlands  is  primarily  a  result  of 
historical, geographical, and general policy factors on national level that have facilitated 
business development in the Netherlands. These factors have contributed to a concentration 
of companies, making it easier for new businesses to adopt and replicate proven business 
models.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  40%  of  transport  is  conducted  through  this  mode 
enhances  the  sector’s  political  leverage  and  access  to  investments  (excellent  training 
facilities and training ships).  

The  EU  market  access  framework975  does  not  influence  the  number  of  operators  (in  a 
certain Member State), as it does not favour any specific type of operator or operational 

EU 

971  Source:  Bureau  Voorlichting  Binnenvaart,  EICB,  Koninklijke  Binnenvaart  Nederland:  Transport 
Performance and Market Shares of Inland Navigation on the Rhine, Danube, and in the  European Union, 
2025 
972Source: 
(europa.eu)  
Based on the figures cited above, NL operators have 2,8 employees on average, while RO and DE operators 
have 6,4 and 11,2 employees respectively. 
973 BRUZZ, 15/10/2025 ‘In een huis voel ik me opgesloten’ 
974 BRUZZ, 15/10/2025 ‘In een huis voel ik me opgesloten’ 
975 With the exception of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 

pocketbook 

Statistical 

transport 

figures. 

2024 

in 

302 

 
 
 
model. On the contrary, it aims to ensure equal access to transport on EU waterways. As 
shown in the following figure976, operators of various nations are active on NL waterways 
indicating the absence of access barriers to the NL market for operators from MS other 
than NL. 

Figure 34: IWT cabotage in the Netherlands 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), Fitness check support study, based on CBS, the Netherlands.  

976  The  figure  shows  the  volume  transported  by  foreign  flagged  vessels  on  the  waterway  network  in  the 
Netherlands between Dutch (inland) ports 

303 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XI. ON OVERCAPACITY AND GROUP 4 LEGISLATION 

Overcapacity in the inland navigation sector had been a long-standing concern, dating back 
to the 1930s for the Rhine.977 IWT did not operate based on a market economy with open 
competition but was governed by fixed prices978 and first-come first-served979 spot cargo 
contracts,  which  resulted  in  structural  overcapacity  in  a  market  run  by  mainly  owner-
operated enterprises using small, older vessels.  

Prior  to  1989  Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  France  implemented  national 
scrapping  schemes  without  lasting  success  to  overcome  overcapacity  and  ultimately 
requested  the  introduction  of  a  coordinated  approach  at  European  level.  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 introduced a vessel-scrapping system and an old-for-new 
scheme for a period of 5 years that was later prolonged to 10 years in total, expiring in 
1999. 

With Council Regulation No. 718/1999 part of the scheme (the old-for-new scheme) was 
prolonged once again for four years this time, until 2003 and – together with the Council 
Directive  96/75/EC980  -  a  mechanism  for  future  activation  in  case  of  serious  market 
disturbance related to capacity of the IWT market was introduced. Council Regulation No. 
718/1999 aimed to avoid aggravation of existing overcapacity or the emergence of further 
overcapacity, and to improve its competitiveness at the same time.  

Central to the regulation is the 'old-for-new' rule, requiring owners introducing new vessels 
into service to either scrap compensatory tonnage or contribute to designated Funds. This 
rule aims to prevent the influx of new vessels that could lead to overcapacity by introducing 
a special contribution to be paid at a certain ratio981, when a new vessel is brought to the 
market. This mechanism was active until 29 April 2003 in a differentiated manner (ratio 
could be set at different  levels for dry cargo982, tanker983 or pusher craft) and a gradual 
manner (by the end date the contribution ratio was reduced to zero). Special contributions 
are uniformly set across Member States to ensure fair competition and market neutrality. 

Council Regulation No. 718/1999 did not aim to restrict or regulate supply. It was a time-
limited  umbrella  to  avoid  aggravation  of  existing  overcapacity.  Stakeholders  who  have 
responded to  the gap filling survey984  largely  agreed that the legislative framework had 
increased  the  competitiveness  of  the  sector,  but  without  being  able  to  provide  further 
substantive quantitative evidence.  

977 Source: Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway 
sector - To intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge     
978 Festvrachten 
979 ‘Tour-de-role’ = ‘chartering by rotation’ system, see in Art. 1.a of Council Directive 96/75/EC 
980 Art 7 of Council Directive 96/75/EC and Art 6 of Council Regulation 718/1999 
981 Article 4 of Council Regulation 718/1999 
982 Refers to goods that are not liquid or gas, instead transported in a solid, unpackaged form, typically in 
bulk or containers. 
983 A vessel designed and equipped for the transport of liquid or gaseous cargo in bulk. 
984 Additional targeted consultation (gap filling survey) between 15 October and 31 December 2024; see also 
Annex V of draft fitness check 

304 

 
 
 
The link between freight rates and structural overcapacity 

According to supply and demand, freight prices increase in times of high demand. In a 
perfectly competitive market, an increase in freight rates attracts more IWT barge operators 
bringing more IWT vessels into the market. Moreover, if a further growth in demand is 
expected, more vessels will be ordered and built. Because there is a large time lag between 
ordering  and  delivering  new  vessels  (around  1.5  years),  the  barge  operator  risks 
overshooting the demand for IWT shipping capacity. On the supply side, due to the long 
lifetime  of  a  vessel  (minimum  30  years  or  more)  the  IWT  market  is  unable  to  flexibly 
decrease capacity. So, excess supply results in overcapacity. 

Figure 35: Impact of increase in supply on the freight price

Source:  Van  Hassel  E.,  Vanelslander  T.  and  Sys  C.  (2016),  ‘Managing  capacity  in  the 
inland waterway sector - To intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, 
Routledge     

The supply function is not only influenced by the number and size of vessels active in the 
sector,  but  also  by  the  sailing  speed,  the  type  of  operation  (round-the-clock  or  semi-
continuous) and bridge height and varying water level. This last element in particular can 
influence the actual load capacity of larger vessels.  

On  the  demand  side,  transport  demand  per  cargo  segment985  appears  as  an  important 
influencing factor. 

To preserve a significant reserve capacity to balance fluctuations in supply, which are a 
result  of,  for  instance,  low  water  levels  and  seasonal  peaks,  is  typical  in  this  sector. 
Structural overcapacity, however, keeps freight tariffs permanently low986. In such case 
the freight prices can thus get lower than the average cost, so that ship owners cannot, in 
the long run, fulfil their repayment of the loans to the bank and will default. When this 

985 Note that different cargo segments require different vessel type (eg. Tanker used for liquid cargo cannot 
be used for carrying containers) 
986 Beelen, M., 2011, Structuring and modelling decision making in the inland navigation sector, Antwerp: 
University of Antwerp. 

305 

 
 
 
 
situation  occurs  and  is  recorded  by  a  large  majority  of  vessel  owners,  then  the  sector 
experiences structural overcapacity. To effectively address overcapacity, the sector may 
choose  to  reduce  capacity  and/or  wait  until  demand  increases  while  capacity  remains 
constant, so that supply and demand will be more in balance. The main problem of the 
IWT sector is that when there is excess capacity, it can hardly be reduced in the short-term; 
both  in  terms  of  number  of  vessels,  as  well  as  the  capacity  in  certain  segments  (like 
container vessel, tankers, etc.).987  

Transport  rates  are  commercially  sensitive  information,  therefore  are  not  collected  in 
monitoring  activities.  Transport  rates  are  dependent  on  many  factors,  including  market 
structure, water levels and operating costs (such as fuel/energy or staff costs – see Figure 
36  in  the  section  ‘On  the  impact  of  the  intervention  on  cost  structure’),  type  of  vessel, 
quality  of  vessel,  special  vessel  requirements,  origin  and  destination  of  the  voyage, 
duration  of  the  voyage  and  waiting  times  (for  instance  in  ports  during  loading  and 
unloading  processes),  type  of  cargo,  value  of  the  cargo  and  quantity,  expected  empty 
sailing time, and rate of inflation, were also pointed out (non-exhaustive list) as important 
factors988. External factors such as water levels economic and geopolitical conditions (i.e. 
Russian  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine)  also  impact  the  freight  rates,  as  well  as 
regulatory  factors989. The  following  figure  shows  an  example  how  the  freight  rates  for 
tanker barges are influenced by external factors. 

Structural overcapacity, however, keeps freight tariffs permanently low, the freight prices 
can become lower than the average cost, so that ship owners cannot, in the long run, fulfil 
their repayment of the loans to the bank and will default. When this situation occurs for a 
large majority of the vessel owners, then the sector experiences structural overcapacity990. 

987 Source: Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway 
sector - To intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge     
988 CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023 
989 CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023 
990 Van Hassel E., Vanelslander T. and Sys C. (2016), ‘Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector - 
To intervene or not to intervene?’, Inland Waterway Transport, Routledge, available at: Managing capacity 
in the inland waterway sector 

306 

 
 
 
Figure 36: Tanker barge freight rates vs main influencing factors 

Source: CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023, based on Insights Global  

307 

 
 
 
 
On the impact of the intervention on cargo volumes carried 

Looking at the long-term cargo volume time series on the Rhine between 1970-1989 in the 
following  Figure,  a  general  increase  of  volume  transported  can  be  observed.  However, 
during the active years of the legislations tackling overcapacity991, between 1989 and 2003, 
the trend in the increase of volume transported continues. However, it is not possible to 
attribute  a  causal  link  to  the  legislation  as  this  is  one  factor  of  many  influencing  cargo 
volumes.  

Figure  37:  Transport  performance  in  the  period  before  and  during  the  measures 
aiming to reduce overcapacity  

Source:  Bureau  Voorlichting  Binnenvaart,  EICB,  Koninklijke  Binnenvaart  Nederland: 
Transport Performance and Market Shares of Inland Navigation on the Rhine, Danube, 
and in the European Union, 2025, EC 

On the impact of the intervention on cost structure 

The inland navigation sector is a capital-intensive market. Within the sector, vessels have 
different cost structures, cost prices and revenues, depending on a series of factors such as 
the method of financing, sailing area, fluctuations in water levels and global trade. The 

991 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 introduced a vessel-scrapping system and an old-for-new scheme 
for a period of 5 years that was later prolonged to 10 years in total, expiring in 1999. Council Regulation No. 
718/1999 part of the scheme (the old-for-new scheme) was prolonged once again for four years this time, 
until 2003. 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
general cost structure comprises both fixed and variable costs. Under the variable costs, 
expenses  for  staff  and  fuel  are  important  components,  whereas  for  fixed  costs,  the 
depreciation of the vessel, interest rates for loans and insurance and maintenance represent 
a significant part of the operational costs structure. Navigation costs like costs for lock, 
navigation rights etc. should be added to these cost components992. 

As can be seen in the following Figure, the cost of investment (‘depreciation’) in vessel 
taken  together  with  the  financing  costs  equals  about  35%993  representing  an  important 
proportion of the cost base. 

Figure 38: General cost components 

Source: CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023, based on NPRC  

On the outcome of Group 4 legislation and its current status  

As  shown  in  the  Figure  below,  the  schemes  overall  resulted  in  a  50%  reduction  of  the 
number of vessels between 1975 and 2000, while the average capacity per vessel increased 
by 60% during the same period as mainly small and medium size vessels were taken out 
of operation. 994 

992 CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023 
993 CCNR Price formation workshop report, 2023 
994 Crompton, G (The Journal of Transport History - 25/2): 'The tortoise and the economy”: Inland 
waterway navigation in international economic history (2004) 

309 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 39: Evolution of the inland cargo fleet in Rhine Member States 

Source: CCNR Market reports and ECE 

The next Table shows the effects of the scrapping scheme between 1990-1996 by indicating 
the reduction of number of vessels, decrease in total tonnage of the fleet and decrease of 
tonnage per vessel. 

Table 17: Overview of all scrapping scheme measures between 1.1.1990 and 31.12.1996 

Number 

Tonnage            kW 

Average tonnage          /kW 

Dry 
carriers 

cargo 

2 406 

1 498 769 

Tanker vessels 

471 

442 091 

623 

939 

Pusher crafts 

97 

72 404 

746 

Total 

2 974 

1 940 860 

72 404 

675 

Source: Report by the Commission on the overall impact of the measures provided for in Council Regulation 
(EC) No 844/94 of 12 April 1994 extending until 28 April 1999 the Old for New arrangements in the context 
of the measures to promote structural improvements in inland waterway transport introduced under Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 

The  Table  below  shows  that  the  reduction  in  capacity  (in  number  of  vessels,  in  total 
tonnage of fleet, in average tonnage per vessel) had been accompanied by an increase in 
the  average  capacity  of  the  fleet,  and  hence  an  improvement  in  productivity,  especially 
regarding tanker capacity. 

310 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 18: Comparative position of the fleet 1990 and 1997 

Source: Report by the Commission on the overall impact of the measures provided for in Council Regulation 
(EC) No 844/94 of 12 April 1994 extending until 28 April 1999 the Old for New arrangements in the context 
of the measures to promote structural improvements in inland waterway transport introduced under Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 

From 2000 onwards, further liberalisation of the inland navigation market came into effect, 
abandoning the fixed price regimes995. In 2003, the old-for-new rules were abandoned (by 
setting the corresponding rate to zero)996. Since then, demolitions or introduction of new 
vessels  have  been  dealt  with  by  market  actors  themselves,  without  coordinated 
interventions.  Market  forces  have  for  example  resulted  in  a  28%  increase  of  dry  cargo 
transport  capacity  while  the  overall  number  of  vessels  only  increased  by  4%.  This 
coincided with increased numbers of demolitions of older and smaller vessel (after 2008 – 
economic crisis) in the market, without EU intervention997.     

Figure 40: Evolution of inland waterways total capacity in Western Europe 

Source: CCNR; Note: Western Europe stands for BE, DE, FR, NL and CH 

The Figure below shows that the market trend to take smaller vessels out of operation and 
introduce (fewer) large vessels continues also in recent years. 

995 Council Directive 96/75/EC 
996 Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 
997 Edwin van Hassel: Managing capacity in the inland waterway sector: To intervene or not to intervene? 
(2016; Inland Waterway Transport; ISBN: 9781138826717) 

311 

1990199719901997199019971990199719901997Dry cargo carriers12 42110 10910 429 7929 518 446839941Tanker vessels1 8811 3662 046 9651 775 4211 0881 300Pusher crafts507455384 183354 476757779Total14 55511 93012 476 69411 293 867384 183354 476872947NumberTonnage    kWAv. tonnageAv.   /kwH 
 
 
  
 
Figure 41: Evolution of the vessels fleet by size 

Source: CCNR 

On the continued relevance of the mechanism 

As described above, the regulation aimed to retain and gradually phase out the old-for-new 
rule mechanism during the four years of its activity. As of April 2003, the Regulation is not 
applied actively. Therefore, the Regulation continues to offer a standby mechanism where 
the Commission may temporarily reinstate the 'old-for-new' rule for a limited period - in 
the event of serious market disturbance, as defined in Article 7 of Directive 96/75/EC. 

This mechanism has not been activated but is considered still relevant especially in view 
of possible fundamental challenges for the sector that may emerge due to climate change 
effects (navigability of rivers changing, possibly requiring general adaptation of the fleet). 
During  the  public  consultation,  majority  of  respondents998  (10  out  of  14  respondents) 
viewed Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 very or somewhat relevant, while 9 of 14 
respondents viewed Directive 96/75/EC very or somewhat relevant. 

On the impact of the intervention on competitiveness 

Finally, regarding the impact of Community-fleet capacity policy on the competitiveness 
of the sector, IWT was and still is seen as a mode which combined high mass transport 
capacity  with  low  operating  costs,  average  predictability  and  good  traffic  safety.  The 
introduction of larger barges, a major trend of the last few decades (enabled in part by the 
introduction  of  the  ‘old-for-new'  rule),  has  usually  implied  significant  gains  in  labour 
productivity. The generally high level of safety was another traditional advantage of the 
mode. This consideration became more relevant to both shippers and policy makers as IWT 
demonstrated  its  suitability  for  carrying  hazardous  products,  especially  chemicals. 
Flammable liquids and compressed or liquified gases have provided a growth market for 

998 During the public consultation, 6 of 14 respondents were of the view that the Council Regulation  (EC) 
No 718/1999 is very relevant, 4 respondents replied that it is somewhat relevant, while 3 respondents were 
of  the  view  that  the  Directive  is  no  longer  relevant,  1  respondent  did  not  know.  In  the  same  public 
consultation, 6 of 14 respondents were of the view that the Directive 96/75/EC is very relevant, 3 respondents 
replied that it is somewhat relevant, while 4 respondents were of the view that the Directive is no longer 
relevant. 1 respondent did not know. 

312 

 
 
 
 
IWT. Dangerous goods  of all categories now account  for  almost  a quarter of  waterway 
freight in Germany. The use of double-skinned hulls has virtually eliminated the risk of 
pollution999. 

To conclude, the ‘old-for-new’ rule in Group 4 legislation enabled the modernisation of the 
fleet and the replacement of vessels with larger ones. 

999 ‘The tortoise and the economy’, Gerald Crompton (University of Kent) 

313 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX XII. ON DATA NEEDS 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  legal  acts,  there  were  no  reporting  and  monitoring 
requirements foreseen, except for Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 (Group 4). As a 
result, data is  not  systemically and consistently collected and reported for the pieces of 
legislation in scope.  

It was hard to find information related to historical cargo volumes as of 1960s, when the 
first legislation in scope of the fitness check (Group 1) entered into force.1000 A recently 
published report1001, however, for the first time, features long time series as of 1970 for IW 
transport, which are now included in Annexes X, XI and XII. 

The legislation of Groups 2 and 3 do not require the establishment of national registries or 
databases  and  from  the  scarce  data  obtained  from  repeated  consultations  of  public 
authorities during this fitness check we conclude that data is not systematically collected 
at national level.   

Annex  V  synopsis  report  contains  an  overview  of  various  stakeholder  consultation 
activities  carried  out  for  this  Fitness  Check,  its  Section  II  specifies  the  consultation 
activities  carried  out  between  2019  and  2024  in  further  detail,  including  data  gathering 
activities to fill data gaps.  

The Table below lists the data needs (data currently available is marked with the  sign), 
and possible avenues towards filling data gaps specific to the groups of legislation in scope.  

Overall, for streamlining regulatory reporting1002, horizontal digital approaches and tools 
can be considered like ‘one-stop shops’, the ‘once only’ principle / ‘report once’ principle, 
‘digital by default’1003 while for holding of certificates the use1004 of EU digital identity 
wallet1005 and the forthcoming business wallet1006. 

1000  Transport  Performance  and  Market  Shares  of  Inland  Navigation,  June  2025  by  EICB,  Bureau 
Voorlichting Binnenvaart, Koninklijke Binnenvaart Nederland 
1001  Transport  Performance  and  Market  Shares  of  Inland  Navigation,  June  2025  by  EICB,  Bureau 
Voorlichting Binnenvaart, Koninklijke Binnenvaart Nederland 
1002 Streamlining regulatory reporting | Interoperable Europe Portal 
1003 To lighten reporting burdens and compliance costs, we will further embed the ‘digital by default’ and 
‘once-only’  principles  in  partnership  with  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  and  the  relevant  EU 
agencies. (A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification, COM(2025) 
47 final) 
1004 For smaller firms, it would be particularly welcome if there were a single digital platform, a ‘one-stop 
shop’, where they could … manage reporting ... With regard to reporting, it must be sufficient for a firm to 
submit information only once. Similarly, both the e-wallet for businesses and e-ID for citizens should now 
be implemented quickly in all Member States. (EP Own-initiative procedure: 2025/2009(INI)) 
1005 European Digital Identity - European Commission 
1006 Carriages preview | Legislative Train Schedule 

314 

 
 
 
Table 19: Data needs and mapping of possibilities of addressing data gaps 

Legislation 

Group  1  legislation 
of 
removal 
– 
restrictions 
and 
discrimination 

Data  needs 
(data 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 
Number  of  transport 
documents, 
compliance 
and infringements 

checks 

Related  efforts  and 
costs 

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

For Group 1 legislation, concerning the transport document and its compliance checks1007, starting from 
July 2027 the eFTI Regulation1008 will gather data for monitoring purposes. Member States are required 
to record statistics and report to the Commission on the number of checks they perform electronically 
of information required in accordance with the EU and national law provisions that fall under the scope 
of the eFTI Regulation1009. These provisions include, among others, information requirements as in the 
transport document1010. Information on infringements count as information that can optionally be added 
by MS also as from July 20271011. 

The collection of the statistical information by the Member States will be done automatically, by means 
of mandatory logs1012. Member States shall report to the Commission every five years, with information 
provided on yearly basis. 

However, statistics generated by eFTI will provide only a partial view because operators are not obliged 
to  submit  the  information  (contained  in  the  transport  document)  electronically;  they  still  retain  the 
option to provide the information by means of paper documents. It is only when operators provide the 

1007 Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 
1008 Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information 
1009 As referred to in Article 3 
1010 Referred to in Article 6(1) of EEC Council Regulation No 11 
1011 In case of infringements, competent authorities may also lodge electronically so-called “follow-up communications”, by means of which the competent authority may notify 
the operator that an infringement had been recorded (pursuant Article 8 of the eFTI Regulation, and corresponding specifications in Commission Implementing  Regulation 
2024/1942). However, lodging follow-up communications is not mandatory for the authorities, since national legislation covering how Member States deal with infringements 
does not fall under the scope of the eFTI regulation. 
1012 These logs will keep record of the date and time of the checks performed electronically by the competent authorities’ officers in each Member State, and of the date and 
time of the follow-up communications, when made. The collection of this information will start as of 9 July 2027, the date of full application of the eFTI Regulation 

315 

 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

(data 
Data  needs 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

information electronically that the authorities have the obligation to perform the checks on that basis 
and, correspondingly, record the number of checks.  

Further  synergies will be sought with future monitoring and reporting systems, in particular for the 
certificates  required  by  Groups  2  and  3  legislation  and  the  existing  IWT  databases  kept  by  the 
Commission, namely the ECDB1013 EHDB1014 and ERDMS1015 as well as the future EU RIS Platform, 
while aiming to limit the administrative burden on public authorities and operators. 

For  Group  4  legislation,  as  mentioned  above,  yearly  reporting  requirements  are  currently  already 
included in Council Regulation (EC) No 718/19991020. 

Group  4  legislation 
– 
structural 
improvement of the 
IWT market 

  Progress  with  the 
"old-for-new" 
scheme1016  

  Financial  position 
of  the  Funds  and  of 
the reserve fund1017 

1013 ECDB – European Crew  database  –  a database established based on Dir (EU) 2017/2397 on professional qualification in IWT  – Database collects main data of crew 
members working on inland waterways vessels. The statistics provide information on the number of crew members, their nationality, number of qualification documents issued 
by Member States (divided into the categories). 
1014 EHDB – European Hull DataBase – established based on Directive (EU) 2016/1629 on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels. This is a database where basic 
data for vessels is entered (ca. 20 data – dimensions/ owner/operator/certificates). It is also foreseen to collect data related to the propulsion of vessels which may  help in 
assessing of the environmental performance of the EU fleet 
1015  ERDMS  –  the  European  Reference  Data  Management  System;  database  (library)  supporting  implementation  of  RIS Directive.  Important  elements  of  this  database  is 
collection of infrastructure data - localization of infrastructure (ports, bridges, etc.). 
1016 Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 Art 9.2 ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission annually all relevant information on progress with the "old-for-new" 

scheme and on the financial position of the Funds and of their reserve fund’. 

1017 Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 Art 9.2 ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission annually all relevant information on progress with the "old-for-new" 

scheme and on the financial position of the Funds and of their reserve fund’. 

1020 Article 9.2 

316 

 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Group  2  legislation 
the 
–  access 
inland  waterway 
network 

to 

(data 
Data  needs 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 

  Annual  report  and 
audited  statement  of 
accounts  of  the  IWT 
Fund1018 
 
Long-term 
evolution  of  cargo 
transport  carried  by 
IWT1019 
of 
Number 
of 
certificates 
belonging 
the 
Rhine navigation1021 

to 

of 
Number 
compliance 
checks 
and infringements for 
Rhine  access  and 
cabotage  and  related 
efforts and costs 

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

There are upcoming potential synergies on monitoring. Firstly, the revised River Information Service 
Directive1022 will set up an EU RIS Platform which will be the entry point for users to feedback any 
problems  of  traffic  on  EU  waterways.  Here  operators  will  be  able  to  report  issues,  including  those 
regarding access to waterways (Group 2 legislation). 

It is furthermore recommended to look into opportunities for synergies between future monitoring and 
reporting systems, in particular for the certificates required and the existing IWT databases kept by the 

1018 Commission Decision C(2017) 6663 final of 5.10.2017 authorizing the use of the Inland Waterways Fund, Art 4.2 ‘The European IWT platform shall submit to the Member 
States concerned and to the Commission Annual Reports accompanied by an audited statement of accounts’. 
1019  Source:  Bureau  Voorlichting  Binnenvaart,  EICB,  Koninklijke  Binnenvaart  Nederland:  Transport  Performance  and  Market  Shares  of  Inland  Navigation  on  the  Rhine, 
Danube, and in the European Union, 2025 
1021 Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 
1022 Co-legislators agree on upgrading river information services - Consilium, trilogue concluded 26 June 2025 

317 

 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

(data 
Data  needs 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 

Extent 
to  which 
operators  of  non-
Rhine  MS  are  active 
on the Rhine 

Extent to which non-
resident operators are 
transporting goods or 
passengers  within  a 
MS (cabotage)  

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

Commission, namely the ECDB1023, EHDB1024 and ERDMS1025 as well as the future EU RIS Platform 
and  the  IWT  eTools1026,  while  aiming  to  limit  the  administrative  burden  on  public  authorities  and 
operators. In addition, the IWT Market observation reports1027 can also possibly take up some additional 
statistics, notably regarding the certificates of belonging to the Rhine navigation 1028. 

. 

Data on transport performance (tkm) for IWT freight transport are being gathered by EUROSTAT and 
river commissions alike. However, volumes by origin/destination combined with state of establishment 
of operator, to determine share of cabotage transport or market interpenetration (activity of non-Rhine 
operators on the Rhine or vice versa, for instance) are not consistently available. 

EUROSTAT and EU MS agreed to start data collection on a voluntary basis for IWT passenger transport 
as from 2026 (reference year 2025)1029.  

1023 ECDB – European Crew  database  –  a database established based on Dir  (EU) 2017/2397 on professional qualification in IWT  – Database collects main data of crew 
members working on inland waterways vessels. The statistics provide information on the number of crew members, their nationality, number of qualification documents issued 
by Member States (divided into the categories). 
1024 EHDB – European Hull DataBase – established based on Directive (EU) 2016/1629 on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels. This is a database where basic 
data for vessels is entered (ca. 20 data – dimensions/ owner/operator/certificates). It is also foreseen to collect data related to the propulsion of vessels which may  help in 
assessing of the environmental performance of the EU fleet 
1025  ERDMS  –  the  European  Reference  Data  Management  System;  database  (library)  supporting  implementation  of  RIS Directive.  Important  elements  of  this  database  is 
collection of infrastructure data - localization of infrastructure (ports, bridges, etc.). 
1026 NAIADES III - Flagship 7: Smart and flexible EU crewing rules - The Commission will assess the need for legislative initiatives for on-board digital tools for recording 
and exchanging information on crews and vessels, as well as on crewing requirements for better harmonisation at EU level. 
1027 Other reports - CCNR - Observation Du Marché 
1028 Council Regulation (EEC) 2919/85 
1029 Meeting of the WG on IWW Transport Statistics, 30 September 2025 

318 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

(data 
Data  needs 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

Group  3  legislation 
–  access 
the 
profession  of  IWT 
carrier 

to 

to 

Number 
certificates 
access 
profession1030 
-  national 
- 
-  cargo 

international 

of 
the 
the 

For Group 3 legislation, the draft fitness check report contains a recommendation to explore synergies 
between  the  certificate  of  carrier  of  cargo  and  the  database  for  Union  certificates  of  qualifications 
(ECDB1031).1032  

It is furthermore recommended to look into opportunities for synergies between future monitoring and 
reporting systems, in particular for the certificates required and the existing IWT databases kept by the 
Commission, namely the ECDB1033, EHDB1034 and ERDMS1035 as well as the future EU RIS Platform 
and  the  IWT  eTools1036,  while  aiming  to  limit  the  administrative  burden  on  public  authorities  and 

1030 Council Directive 87/540/EEC 
1031 ECDB – European Crew database – a database established based on Dir (EU) 2017/2397 on professional qualification in IWT – DB collects main data of crew members 
working on inland waterways vessels. The  statistics provide  information on the number of crew  members, their nationality, number of qualification documents issued by 
Member States (divided into the categories). 
1032 Regulation (EU) 2020/182 of 14 January 2020 on models in the field of professional qualifications in inland navigation you will find models of certificates with data 
which should be kept in the ECDB: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R0182&qid=1752662962169 
1033 ECDB – European Crew  database  –  a database established based on Dir (EU) 2017/2397 on professional qualification in IWT  – Database collects main data of crew 
members working on inland waterways vessels. The statistics provide information on the number of crew members, their nationality, number of qualification documents issued 
by Member States (divided into the categories). 
1034 EHDB – European Hull DataBase – established based on Directive (EU) 2016/1629 on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels. This is a database where basic 
data for vessels is entered (ca. 20 data  – dimensions/ owner/operator/certificates). It is also foreseen to collect data related to the propulsion of vessels which may  help in 
assessing of the environmental performance of the EU fleet 
1035  ERDMS  –  the  European  Reference  Data  Management  System;  database  (library)  supporting  implementation  of  RIS Directive.  Important  elements  of  this  database  is 
collection of infrastructure data - localization of infrastructure (ports, bridges, etc.). 
1036 NAIADES III - Flagship 7: Smart and flexible EU crewing rules - The Commission will assess the need for legislative initiatives for on-board digital tools for recording 
and exchanging information on crews and vessels, as well as on crewing requirements for better harmonisation at EU level. 

319 

 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

(data 
Data  needs 
currently available is 
marked  with  the   
sign) 
-  passenger 

of 
Number 
checks 
compliance 
and infringements, as 
well as related efforts 
and costs 

Possibilities to fill the data gap 

operators. In addition, the IWT Market observation reports1037 can also possibly take up some additional 
statistics. 

1037 Other reports - CCNR - Observation Du Marché 

320