Table of contents

1.Introduction

1.1.Context

1.2.Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check

1.3.Limitations

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1.Description of the intervention and its objectives

2.2.Point(s) of comparison

3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

3.1.Current state of play

3.2.State of play of key geopolitical and policy developments

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

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

4.1.1. Effectiveness

4.1.2. Efficiency

4.1.3. Coherence

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

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

5.1.Conclusions

5.2.Lessons learned

Annex I. Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion)

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs, table on simplification and burden reduction

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Annex VI. Summary of legislation in scope ‘inland navigation: access to the market’

Annex VII. Scope of the Fitness Check - Legislation on Posting of Workers and Social Security

Annex VIII. International treaties context

Annex IX. Inventory of national implementation of Council Directive 87/540/EEC (Group 3)

Annex X. On competitiveness and the predominance of Dutch operators

Annex XI. On overcapacity and Group 4 legislation

Annex XII. On data needs

Glossary

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 amended 1  

· 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 amended 2  

· Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March on a Community –fleet capacity to promote inland waterway transport, as amended 3 . 

1.1.Context

The EU’s inland waterways stretch over 45,419 km and are a key means of connecting seaports, cities and industrial centres 4 . The interconnected waterway network of 13,000 km covers 13 Member States 5 serving over 250 TEN-T inland ports in the TEN-T 6 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 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 modes 8 , covering 4.9% of inland freight traffic 9 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 2023 10 . 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 2023 11 . 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 observed in 2023 compared to 2022 (+32.8%), however, still remaining 70% below the pre-war levels 12 . 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 borders 13 . 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 2023 14 . 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 2023 15 .  

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 Europe 16 . 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, respectively 17 , while Italy 18 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 sector 20 .

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 as they derive from previously state-owned enterprises 21 .

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 Commission 23 . 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 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 transport 24 . 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 2024-2029 25 , 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 Communication 28 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

-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 roadmap 29 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 boatmen 30 , 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 2019 31 and 2024 32 . 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 Toolbox 33 . The support study 34 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.

The consultation strategy set out several stakeholder consultation activities ensuring a good overall geographical balance. A public consultation 35 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 survey 36 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 Danube 37 . 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 observatory 38 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 consultation with national authorities and business associations was launched in the fourth quarter of 2024 39 . 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 contributions 40 - 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.

2.1.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.

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.

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.

Figure 5: Intervention logic – Pillar 1

Figure 6: Intervention logic – Pillar 2

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

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

Table 2: Overview of legal acts according to applicable river basin

Source: European Commission

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’ systems 50 . 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 system 51 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 transport 52 effectively closed the Danube shipping market to outsiders 53 . 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 enough 54 . As IWT takes place primarily cross-border 55 , 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 legislation 56 , 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 study 57  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 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. 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.      

3.1.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 organisation 58 . 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 conditions 59 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) 2020/1056 60  will enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents 61  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 transport 62  - similarly to road, rail and inland navigation - to liberalize operations 63 . The CT Directive fully recognises the transport document 64 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 Committee 65 , composed of the representatives of the Member States, during the decision making related to serious disturbance of the market and the related measures 66 .

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 Programme 67 .

Implementation issues

For legislation in Group 1 notable infringement procedures targeted the Netherlands 68 in 1996 for discriminatory practices in freight transport services, while Belgium 69 faced and resolved an issue concerning obstacles to freedom of price formation. Additionally, France and Slovakia were subject to procedures due to non-transposition 70 . For Group 4 legislation, the Netherlands 71 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).

For legislation in Group 2, infringement procedures against Germany 72 , Austria 73 and France 74 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 Germany 75 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 States 76 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.

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 Deal 77 and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 78  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 have been set by the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 79 : (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 NAIADES 80 . 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 actions 82  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 reports 83 , in 2025 the EC presented the Competitiveness Compass 84 , a new roadmap to restore Europe’s dynamism and boost its economic growth. The new political guidelines 85  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 committed 86 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 year 87 . In most of Europe, passenger transport and in particular river cruises came to a standstill in the first half of 2020 88 . A major challenge during the pandemic was maintaining the functioning of the single market 89  during the time of increased border controls and entry bans 90 . 

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine that started in February 2022 substantially impacted the Danube traffic. As part of the Solidarity Lanes Action Plan 91 , 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 Ukraine 92 .

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 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 requirements 93 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 study 94 , 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 Agreements 95 as of 1955.

Thanks to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 96 , price discrimination based on country of origin or destination has been eliminated. This was confirmed by several stakeholders, including ProDanube 97 (‘there is no price discrimination anymore’), the Danube Commission 98  (‘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 Platform 99 , EBU/ESO 100  and a sectoral expert 101 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative rates. In a survey 102 , the Croat administration also stated that the Regulation significantly diminished discriminatory and price-setting behaviour. On the other hand, EBU 103 and a French sectoral association 104 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 free 105 of authorisations and quotas. It also refers 106 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 reported 107 carrying out 318 checks in 2010 and 261 checks per year during 2020-2024, while Hungary reported 108  9,108 and 8,054 checks in 2010 and 2020, respectively 109 . In a survey 110 , on the question whether inspections are carried out to verify compliance of undertakings with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 111 , 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 initiative 112 , 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 in cooperation with neighbouring countries (especially DE and FR) through an international convention 115 .

The SME survey 116  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 documents 117 , while 3 (7%) responded that authorities do check transport documents 118 . The remaining 17 (41%) SMEs indicated ‘do not know’. 

EBU and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management explained 119  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 police 120 defended its practice regarding crime detection and preventing terrorism. Hungarian police 121  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 Festfrachten 123 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 cargo 124 . 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 prices 125 . Stakeholders confirmed the effectiveness of Council Directive 96/75/EC 126 . 

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 mechanism 127  not yet used, but available in case of serious market disturbance 128 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 demolished 129 .

The fitness check support study 130 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.

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 ports 131 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 shares 132 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 2023 133 .

As mentioned before, after April 2003 the inland waterways Fund has become a standby mechanism which can be used in two cases: either in connection with measures 134 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 disturbance 135 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 Austria 136 ) 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)

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 sector 137 . The Funds are, therefore, comparable to an escrow account 138 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 sector 139 , after hearing the sector’s opinion 140 .

In line with Article 3.5 of Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 the Reserve Fund was used in 2017 to create the IWT Platform 141 whose continuation was supported together with the continuation of the Fund in its current form 142 . Several stakeholders indicated 143 that the Reserve Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and support programmes for simulators for schools or catalysts 144 or for the uptake of clean technologies.

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 segment 145 . 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 2003 146 .

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 rules 147 and of the Danube rules 148 , 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-kilometres 150 , while for river cruise up to 80% of its activity 151 . In Bulgaria 74% of traffic is transit 152 . According to a 2024 survey 153 , carriers affiliated to responding operators’ associations do carry out international transport operations in other EU Member States 154 , including on rivers they are not initially affiliated with. Stakeholders agreed 155 that cross-border operations increased due to Regulation (EC) No 1356/96.

Surveys 156 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 recorded 157 , amounting to 2,745 thousand tonnes of cargo 158 . 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 opened cabotage on German waterways beyond the existing openness of Mosel and Rhine 159 . For example, Polish operators 160  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 States 161 . 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 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 CCNR 162 . 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 cabotage 163 , 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 1985 164 . 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) 1356/96 165 , 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 EEC 166 . 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 consultations 167 , 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/operators 168 , for example whether Rhine states 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 reports 169 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 duration 170 . SME replies widely varied on whether Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 brought about any changes regarding cabotage 171 .

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

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 transport 174 , 175 . Some stakeholders 176  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 dumping 177 , 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 consultation 179  and the survey of administrations 180 . 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 stakeholders 181 .

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 respondents 183  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

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 survey 184 , 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.

During the public consultation, it was noted 185 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 State 186 , and in some Member States also 12 replacements, reclassifications and extensions. Two Member States 187  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 only 188 .

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 market 189 raising some stakeholder concerns on a level playing field. Some Member States administrations 190 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 legislation 191  uses competence-based systems for professionals. Furthermore, there is no EU-wide harmonised certificate confirming the proof of professional competence. In 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 survey 192 .

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.

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

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 analysis of costs and benefits is based on data collected through the fitness check support study 193 , 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 Regulation 194 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 million 195 . 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 respondents 196 , 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 survey 197 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and Port information systems 198 ) 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 Regulation 199 , 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 2030 200 . 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 survey 201 , 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 operators 202  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 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

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

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 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 alone 206 . 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 1999-2003 208 . 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 State 209 , 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) 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.

EBU 211  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 Commission 212 , 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 benefits 214 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 respondents 215 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 – 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 Nederland 216 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 legislation 217 . 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 987,000 219 . 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 checks 221 . This is also the case of recurrent enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating to such checks.  

Administrations 222  and SMEs 223  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 certificate 224 . 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 minutes 225 . 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 year 226 . 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 Netherlands 227 . 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 year 228 , 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 ESO 231 . Assuming that 10 certificates 232 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 extrapolation 233 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 234 .

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 view 235 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 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 11/1960 236 . 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.

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 Annexes 237 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.

Analysis 238  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 activities 239 . 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 ESO 240  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 checks 241 . Starting from July 2027 the eFTI Regulation 242 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 Regulation 243 . These provisions include, among others, information requirements as in the transport document 244 . Information on infringements count as information that can optionally be added by MS also as from July 2027 245 . The collection of the statistical information by the Member States will be done automatically, by means of mandatory logs 246 . 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 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 review 247 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, stakeholders 248 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 basis 249 . 

-Furthermore, there is no uniform application 250  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 link 252 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, operator 253 ). Stakeholders 254  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.

Table 5: Overview of access granted per mode of transport

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

As regards the genuine link, during the public consultation ETWF 255  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 256 . Some stakeholders 257  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 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. ETF 258 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 different 259 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 knowledge 260 , 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 consultation 261 , the SME survey and the scoping interviews 262 .

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.

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 practices 263 ).

Eliminating discriminatory pricing and restrictive commercial practices potentially lowers transport costs for consignors and consignees 264 thanks to fairer and more transparent competition among carriers. The abolition of the Festfrachten system of minimum prices, was estimated to have resulted 265 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 prices 266 . 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 level 267 . In the 1990’s, action was taken at European level with Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999 and 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 Platform 268 , 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 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 view 269 .

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 activity 270 , 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 recognition 271  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 value 272 . 

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.

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)

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

8 out of 9 respondents in the Danube workshop 273  also agreed or strongly agreed that the Framework led to results that could not have been achieved without it (see Figure 17).

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 requirements 274 . Technical advancements were also addressed, namely that certain information (available in carriers’ accounting systems) would no longer have to be retained on paper 275 . The eFTI Regulation 276  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 Directive 277 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 2017 278 . 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 Serbia 279 . 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 associations 280 . Responding stakeholders were less divided on the relevance of Council Directive 96/75/EC 281 . 

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 Belgium 282 , 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 4 283  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 Strategy 284 , 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.

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 relevant 285 .  

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 States 286 . 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.

Responding stakeholder expressed a wider range of views on Group 2 legislation’s relevance 287 .

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 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.

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

5.1.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 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 procedure 289 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 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 goods 290  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 navigation 291  and instead including the relevant information on vessel ownership in the Union inland navigation certificate 292 . 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 Group 293 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/EEC 294 . These relate to differences in the templates of the certificate and the transport activity for which a certificate of professional competence is 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 carriers 295 . 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:

oIs 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; 

oDoes 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 checks 297 as well as infringements, starting from July 2027 the eFTI Regulation 298 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 718/1999 299 .

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 2025 300 .

For Group 2 and 3 legislation there are upcoming potential synergies on monitoring. Firstly, the revised River Information Service Directive 301  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 ECDB 303 , EHDB 304 and ERDMS 305 as well as the future EU RIS Platform and the IWT eTools 306 , while aiming to limit the administrative burden on public authorities and operators. In addition, the IWT Market observation reports 307 can also possibly take up some additional statistics, notably regarding the certificates of belonging to the Rhine navigation  308 . 

Overall, for streamlining regulatory reporting 309  horizontal digital approaches and tools can also be considered like ‘one-stop shops’, the ‘once only’ principle / ‘report once’ principle, ‘digital by default’ 310  while for holding of certificates the use 311 of EU digital identity wallet 312 and the forthcoming business wallet 313 .

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.

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 Roadmap 314  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.

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 transport market’ was 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:

-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 consultation 315 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.

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.

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 Roadmap 316  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 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 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 consultation 317  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

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.

Table 7: Consultation tools

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 study 319 provides a comprehensive description of the evolution and current status of the implementation of the Framework that allows to assess whether the Framework 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.

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 Agreements 320 as of 1955.

Thanks to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 321 , 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 ProDanube 322 (‘there is no price discrimination anymore’), the Danube Commission 323 (‘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 Platform 324 , EBU/ESO 325 and a sectoral expert 326 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative rates. In a survey 327 , the Croat administration also stated that the Regulation significantly diminished discriminatory and price-setting behaviour. On the other hand, EBU 328 and a French sectoral association 329 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’).

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 free 330 of authorisations and quotas. It also refers 331 to the transport document as contained in the Council Regulation, thereby broadening the effect of the initial Council Regulation.

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 benefitted 332 .

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 reported 333 carrying out 318 checks in 2010 and 261 checks per year during 2020-2024, while Hungary reported 334 9,108 and 8,054 checks in 2010 and 2020, respectively 335 . In a survey 336 , on the question whether inspections are carried out to verify compliance of undertakings with Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 337 , 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 initiative 338 , 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 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 convention 341 .

The SME survey 342  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 documents 343 , while 3 (7%) responded that authorities do check transport documents 344 . 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 explained 345 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 police 346 defended its practice regarding crime detection and preventing terrorism. Hungarian police 347 also combines checks (including 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’ systems 348 . 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 system 349 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 transport 350 effectively closed the Danube shipping market to outsiders 351 . 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 Role’ 352 and Festfrachten 353 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 cargo 354 . 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 prices 355 . Stakeholders confirmed the effectiveness of Council Directive 96/75/EC 356 . 

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 EICB 357 does not see any hindrances in the market anymore. A sectoral expert 358 expressed the view that the Directive brought very good results including decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity, while a Romanian stakeholder 359 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 aspect 360 . In various consultations 361 , 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 consignees 362 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 survey 363 , 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.

During the public consultation, it was noted 364 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.

3 out of 15 respondents to the targeted survey 365 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 view 366 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 survey 367 , 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 market 368 . In written contributions submitted during the public consultation, one EU citizen and one company 369 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 2024 370 , 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.

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 prices 371 . 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 mechanism 372  not yet used, but available in case of serious market disturbance 373 and generally welcomed by stakeholders 374 .

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 demolished 375 .

The fitness check support study 376 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’ rules 377 . The funds have not been used until the Commission 378 , 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 administrations 379 consider that the Platform adds benefits 380 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 Austria 381 ) 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.

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 State 382 , 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) 718/1999 384 the Reserve Fund was used in 2017 to create the IWT Platform 385 whose continuation was supported together with the continuation of the Fund in its current form 386 . Several stakeholders indicated 387 that the Reserve Fund could be used in the future to stimulate innovation and support programmes for simulators for schools or catalysts 388 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 States 389 , 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 measures 390 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 disturbance 391 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 disturbance 392 , outlined in the Council Directive 96/75/EC on the systems of chartering and pricing, EBU/ESO and the IWT Platform stated in an interview 393 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?

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 study 394 , 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 Regulation 395 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 million 396 . 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 respondents 397 , 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 survey 398 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and Port information systems 399 ) 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 Regulation 400 , 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 2030 401 . 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 survey 402 , 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 operators 404 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. 

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 conditions 406 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) 2020/1056 407 will enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents 408 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).

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 survey 409 , 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 compensate the efforts/costs 410 .

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 1999-2003 411 . 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 State 412 , 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 mechanism 414  not yet used, but available in case of serious market disturbance 415 and generally welcomed by stakeholders 416 .

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 survey 417 . During the public consultation, 8 out of the 13 respondents 418 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) 2020/1056 419 will enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents 420 for freight transport, including inland navigation.

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 modes 421

·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 carriage 422 .

·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 EEA 423 and Switzerland 424 since 1 January 1993 425 . This occurred progressively through three regulatory “packages” 426 . These packages are now 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 2009 427 .

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 established 428 .

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 air 429 and rail transport 430 , where the legal framework has progressively evolved towards an absence of distinction. As explained in 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 market 431 (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 State 432 .

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 owner 433 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 2015 434 , 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 Regulation 435  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 carriers 436 . 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 field 438 . 

·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 IWT 439 .

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.

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:

·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 areas 440  the different legal regimes might be perceived as a hindering factor, as described in Annex VIII International Treaties Context.

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 countries 441 . 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 EU 442 . 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 EU 443 . 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 Convention 444 any third country has access to international 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.

Regarding Switzerland, a Rhine riparian state

At least in the original CCNR setting 445 , 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 requirements 446 . 

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 countries 448 . Accepting operation, within the EU, of carriers established in these 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 proportionate 449 .

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.

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 CESNI 451 ; 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 passengers 452 . Moreover, the CCNR Secretariat also noted 453 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 stakeholder 454 during the public consultation.

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.

Table 8: Comparison between modes: relevant legislation and professional competence required

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), relevant legislation 460

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 1071/2009 461 , as presented in the next section.

Specific benchmark on professional competence required with road transport

The relevant legislation for the IWT and road transport sector 462 , 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’, 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 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 scheme 467 . 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.

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).

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 operators 469 . 

Group 2 470  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 confirmed 471 that before the adoption of legislation at the EU level, Member States had little appetite to open up the markets. Also, an expert highlighted 472 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 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.

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 Platform 473 covering the sector in the EU, financed from IW Funds as in Council Regulation (EC) 718/1999, has been confirmed by Member State administrations 474 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 Agreements 475 as of 1955.

Thanks to Council Regulation (EEC) No 11/1960 476 , price discrimination based on country of origin or destination has been eliminated. This was confirmed by several stakeholders, including ProDanube 477 (‘there is no price discrimination anymore’), the Danube Commission 478 (‘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 Platform 479 , EBU/ESO 480 and a sectoral expert 481 confirmed that the Regulation had a positive effect on abolishing discriminative rates. In a survey 482 , the Croat administration, too, stated that the Regulation significantly diminished discriminatory and price-setting behaviour. On the other hand, EBU 483 and a French sectoral association 484 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 Festfrachten 486 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, resulting 487 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 estimate 488 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.

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 expert 489 expressed the view that the Directive brought very good results including decreased logistics costs and increase in productivity, while a Romanian stakeholder 490 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 aspect 491 . In various consultations 492 , 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 consignees 493 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 Belgium 494 , as mentioned above, and earlier, in 1996 495 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 Serbia 496 . 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.

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 market 497 .

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 workshop 498 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.

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 indicated 500 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 Rhine 501 . For example, Polish operators 502  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 States 503 . 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 (EEC) No 3921/91 cabotage was possible under bilateral agreements only 504 ). 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 Germany 505 . 

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 Community 506  (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 transport 507 ; 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 legislation 508 .

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

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 States 510 . 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 extensions 511 .

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 consultation 512 , 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 operators 513 as well as the French sectoral association 514 . HU MoT 515 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 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 legislation 516 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 Strategy 517 , 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 Funds 518 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 States 519 , 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 association 520 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.

In the same survey, 5 521 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 underlined 522 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 remarked 523 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 survey 524 .

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, 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 measures 525 , 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 NAIADES 526  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 consultation 527 to explore why the Reserve Funds as Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 remained underutilized.

 NAIADES II 528 , '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 Chain 529 . 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 amended 530 , 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 instruments 531 . The Combined Transport Directive also underwent evaluation in 2016 532 . 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 Roadmap (Call for evidence) 533 for the market access fitness check was published, followed by the publication of the eFTI Regulation 534 in 2020.

The current NAIADES III 535 , '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 modes 537 , covering 4.9% of inland freight traffic 538 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 decrease 539 after the implementation of the legislation. 

Group 4 legislation restricted the unnecessary increase of capacity while renewing the fleet and removed older vessels from operating. The legislation 540  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 implementation 541  across Member States – a point also highlighted by a stakeholder 542 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 Strategy 543 , 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.

Figure 24: Modal share of inland transport modes in the EU-27 (in %) 2009-2022 544

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 traditionally been important for goods transport, as in many Danube countries 545 .

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.

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 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-ESO 547 is that in the Combined Transport Directive 548 , 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

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.

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 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 resolution 567 came into force immediately. 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 mean 573 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 workshop 574 , 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 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 initiative 575 , 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 survey 577 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 documents 578 , while 3 (7%) responded that authorities do check transport documents 579 . The remaining 17 (41%) SMEs indicated ‘do not know’. 

EBU and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management explained 580 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 police 581 defended its practice regarding crime detection and preventing terrorism. Hungarian police 582  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 study 583 , 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 Regulation 584 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 million 585 . 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 respondents 586 , 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 survey 587 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and Port information systems 588 ) 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 Regulation 589 , 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 2030 590 . 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 survey 591 , 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. 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 operators 593 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 shipping prices by 60% for coal products and by 40% for bulk cargo 596 . In addition, the abolishment of the ‘Tour de Role’ system led to annual benefits estimated at EUR 190 million in the Netherlands alone 597 . 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 1999-2003 599 . 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 State 600 , 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) 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.

EBU 602 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 Commission 603 , 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 administrations 604 consider that the Platform adds benefits 605 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 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 Nederland 606 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 legislation 607 . 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 checks 610 . This is also the case of recurrent enforcement costs for IWT operators for cooperating to such checks.

Administrations 611 and SMEs 612 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 certificate 613 . 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

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 minutes 614 . 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 year 615 . 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 Netherlands 616 . 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 year 617 , 618 . 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 ESO 619 . 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 view 620 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 11/1960 621 . 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 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.

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 Annexes 622 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.

Analysis 623 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 basis 624 . 

- Furthermore, there is lack uniform application 625 of temporary cabotage due to the lack of EU-wide definition of what is meant by “temporary” 626 . 

-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 627 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, operator 628 ). Stakeholders 629 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 administrations 630 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, ETWF 631  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 stakeholders 633 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.

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. ETF 634 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 different 635 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 knowledge 636 , 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 consultation 637 , the SME survey and the scoping interviews 638 .

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.

Table 9: Wider EU policy considered for the comparison with the IWT Internal Market Legislative Framework

Competition, trade and growth

Following up on the findings of the 2024 Letta and Draghi reports 643 , in 2025 the EC presented the Competitiveness Compass 644 , a new roadmap to restore Europe’s dynamism and boost its economic growth. The new political guidelines 645 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 committed 646 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 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 practices 647 ). 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 activities 648 . 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 ESO 649  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 Deal 650 and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 651 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 have been set by the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 652 : (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 2014 654 , 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, stakeholders 655 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 Platform 656 whose continuation was supported together with the continuation of the Fund in its current form 657 . Several stakeholders indicated 658 that the Reserve Fund could be used to stimulate innovation and support programmes for simulators for schools or catalysts 659 or for the uptake of clean technologies.

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 remarked 660  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 legislation 661 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 noted 662 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 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 (DFND 663 , 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 the market, this is could be regarded as a possible disruption of the competitive position of the EU operators vis-à-vis non-EU operators 664 . Third country vessels do not have to comply with the EU technical requirements, the social legislation and transition to a zero-emission fleet 665 . 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, ETWF 667  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 stakeholders 669 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? 

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. ETF 671 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 different 672 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 knowledge 673 , 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 convention 675 this could be regarded as a synergy. Moreover, Hungarian police 676 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 navigation 677 and instead including the relevant information on vessel ownership in the Union inland navigation certificate 678 . 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 Group 679 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 free 680 of authorisations and quotas. It also refers 681 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) 2020/1056 682 . 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) 2020/1056 683 will enable the electronic submission of information contained in the transport documents 684 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 Regulation 685  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 up to 200 containers). 7 (41%) of the 17 respondents to the targeted survey 686 mentioned digitalisation (including eFTI Regulation, RIS Directive and Port information systems 687 ) 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 internal market, resulting in improved competitiveness, more harmonisation and creation of a level playing field.

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 workshop 688  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 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 results 689 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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