Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 19 February 2016
(OR. en)
6285/16
Interinstitutional File: ADD 1
2016/0050 (COD)
TRANS 51
MAR 54
CODEC 179
EDUC 35
SOC 85
ETS 4
MI 94
PROPOSAL
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 18 February 2016
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of
the European Union
No. Cion doc.: COM(2016) 82 final - Annexes 1 to 3
Subject: ANNEXES to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and
repealing Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
Delegations will find attached document COM(2016) 82 final - Annexes 1 to 3.
Encl.: COM(2016) 82 final - Annexes 1 to 3
6285/16 ADD 1 TA/il
DGE 2 A EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 18.2.2016
COM(2016) 82 final
ANNEXES 1 to 3
ANNEXES
to the
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
{SWD(2016) 35 final}
{SWD(2016) 36 final}
EN EN
ANNEXES
to the
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
Annex I
Minimum requirements for age, administrative compliance, competence and navigation
time
The minimum requirements for the deck crew qualifications set out in this Annex shall be
seen as an ascending level of qualifications, with the exception of the qualifications of
deckhands and apprentices which are considered to be at the same level.
1. DECK CREW QUALIFICATIONS AT ENTRY LEVEL
1.1. Minimum requirements for the certification of a deckhand
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
– not be less than 16 years of age.
1.2. Minimum requirements for the certification of an apprentice
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
– not be less than 15 years of age;
– have signed an apprenticeship agreement which provides for an approved
training programme referred to in Article 17.
2. DECK CREW QUALIFICATIONS AT OPERATIONAL LEVEL
2.1. Minimum requirements for the certification of a boatman
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
a)
– not be less than 17 years of age;
– have completed an approved training programme referred to in Article 17 of a
duration of not less than two years, based on the standard of competence for
the operational level set out in Annex II;
EN 2 EN
– have navigation time of not less than 90 days as part of this approved training
programme.
Or
b)
– not be less than 19 years of age;
– have passed an assessment of competence by an administrative authority aimed
at verifying that the standards of competence for the operational level set out in
Annex II are met;
– have navigation time of not less than 360 days or 180 days where the applicant
can, in addition, provide proof of work experience of at least 250 days acquired
on a seagoing vessel as a member of the deck crew.
Or
c)
– not be less than 19 years of age;
– have a minimum of five years' work experience prior to the enrolment in the
training programme;
– have completed an approved training programme referred to in Article 17
based on the standards of competence for the operational level set out in Annex
II;
– have navigation time of not less than 90 days as part of this approved training
programme.
2.2. Minimum requirements for the certification of an able boatman
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
a)
– have navigation time of not less than 180 days while qualified to serve as
boatman.
Or
b)
– have successfully completed an approved training programme referred to in
Article 17 based on the standards of competence for the operational level set
out in Annex II;
– have navigation time of not less than 270 days as part of this approved training
programme.
2.3. Minimum requirements for the certification of a helmsman
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
EN 3 EN
– have navigation time of not less than 180 days while qualified to serve as able
boatman.
3. DECK CREW QUALIFICATIONS AT MANAGEMENT LEVEL
3.1. Minimum requirements for Union certificates of qualification for boatmasters
Every applicant for a Union certificate of qualification shall:
a)
– not be less than 21 years of age;
– have successfully completed an approved training programme referred to in
Article 17 of a duration of not less than two years and based on the standards of
competence for the management level set out in Annex II;
– have navigation time of not less than 360 days, gained as part of this approved
training programme or after completion thereof.
Or
b)
– not be less than 21 years of age;
– hold the qualification of helmsman or have navigation time of not less than 540
days or 180 days where the applicant can provide, in addition, proof of work
experience of at least 500 days acquired on a seagoing vessel as a member of
the deck crew;
– have passed an assessment of competence by an administrative authority aimed
at verifying that the standard of competence for the management level set out
in Annex II are met.
Or
c)
– not be less than 21 years of age;
– have a minimum of five years' work experience prior to the enrolment of an
approved training programme;
– have followed an approved training programme referred to in Article 17 and
based on the standards of competence for the management level set out in
Annex II;
– have navigation time of not less than 180 days as part of this approved training
programme and not less than 180 days after completion thereof.
EN 4 EN
3.2. Requirements for specific authorisations for the boatmaster certificate of
qualification
3.2.1. Waterways with a maritime character
Every applicant shall:
– meet the minimum requirements for Union certificates of qualification for
boatmasters set out in this Annex;
– meet the standard of competence for sailing on waterways with a maritime
character set out in Annex II.
3.2.2. Radar
Every applicant shall:
– meet the minimum requirements for Union certificates of qualification for
boatmasters set out in this Annex;
– meet the standard of competence for sailing with the aid of radar set out in
Annex II.
3.2.3. Liquefied natural gas as fuel
Every applicant shall:
– meet the minimum requirements for Union certificates of qualification for
boatmasters set out in this Annex;
– meet the standard of competence for experts in the use of LNG as fuel set out
in Annex II.
3.2.4. Large convoys
Every applicant shall have a navigation time of not less than 720 days, including not
less than 540 days while qualified to serve as a boatmaster and not less than 180 days
in steering a large convoy.
4. QUALIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC OPERATION
4.1. Passenger navigation expert
Every applicant for the first Union certificate for passenger navigation expert shall:
– not be less than 18 years of age;
– meet the standards of competence for passenger navigation experts set out in
Annex II.
Every applicant for the renewal of a Union certificate for passenger navigation shall:
EN 5 EN
– pass a new administrative exam or complete a new training programme in
accordance with Article 15(2).
4.2. Expert in the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel
Every applicant for the first Union certificate for expert in the use of LNG as fuel
shall:
– not be less than 18 years of age;
– meet the standards of competence for experts in the use of LNG as fuel set out
in Annex II.
Every applicant for the renewal of a Union certificate for passenger navigation shall:
a) have the following navigation time aboard a vessel using liquefied natural gas
(LNG) as fuel:
– not less than 180 days during the previous five years, or
– not less than 90 days during the previous year;
or,
b) meet the standards of competence for experts in the use of LNG as fuel set out in
Annex II.
Annex II
Essential competence requirements
1. ESSENTIAL COMPETENCE REQUIREMENTS AT OPERATIONAL LEVEL
1.1. Navigation
The boatman shall assist the vessel’s management in situations of manoeuvring and
handling a vessel on inland waterways. The boatman shall be able to do so, using all types
of waterways and ports. In particular the boatman shall be able to:
– assist in preparing the vessel for sailing in order to ensure a safe voyage in all
circumstances;
– assist with mooring and anchoring operations at the start or end of the vessel’s
voyage;
– assist in the sailing and manoeuvring of the vessel in a nautically safe and
economical way.
1.2. Operation of vessels
The boatman shall be able to:
– assist the vessel’s management in controlling the operation of the vessel and care of
persons on board;
EN 6 EN
– use the vessel’s equipment.
1.3. Cargo handling, stowage and passenger transport
The boatman shall be able to:
– assist the vessel’s management in the preparation, stowage and monitoring of cargo
during loading and unloading operations;
– assist the vessel’s management in providing services to passengers.
1.4. Marine engineering and electrical, electronic and control engineering
The boatman shall be able to:
– assist the vessel’s management in marine, electrical, electronic, and control
engineering to ensure general technical safety;
– perform maintenance work on marine, electrical, electronic, and control engineering
equipment to ensure general technical safety.
1.5. Maintenance and repair
The boatman shall be able to:
– assist the vessel’s management in maintaining and repairing the vessel and its
devices and equipment.
1.6. Communication
The boatman shall be able to:
– communicate generally and professionally, which includes the ability to use
standardised communication phrases in situations with communication problems;
– be sociable.
1.7. Health and safety and environmental protection
The boatman shall be able to:
– adhere to safe working rules and understand the importance of health and safety rules
and the environment;
– acknowledge the importance of training on safety aboard and act immediately in the
event of emergencies;
– take precautions to prevent fire and use the firefighting equipment correctly;
– perform duties, taking into account the importance of protecting the environment.
EN 7 EN
2. ESSENTIAL COMPETENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENCES AT MANAGEMENT
LEVEL
2.1. Navigation
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– plan a journey and conduct navigation on inland waterways, which includes to be
able to choose the most logical, economical and ecological sailing route to reach the
loading and unloading destinations, taking into account the most efficient sailing
time schedule according to actual circumstances;
– sail and manoeuvre, ensuring the safe operation of the vessel in all conditions on
inland waterways;
– respond to navigational emergencies on inland waterways;
– use Very High Frequency equipment when navigating on inland waterways.
2.2. Operation of vessels
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– apply knowledge of inland waterway shipbuilding and construction methods to the
operation of various types of vessels;
– control and monitor the mandatory equipment as mentioned in the applicable vessel
certificate.
2.3. Cargo handling, stowage and passenger transport
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– plan and ensure the safe loading, stowage, securing, unloading and care of cargoes
during the voyage;
– plan and ensure correct stability of the vessel;
– plan and ensure the safe transport of passengers and their care during the voyage.
2.4. Marine engineering and electrical, electronic and control engineering
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– plan the workflow of marine engineering and electrical, electronic and control
engineering;
– monitor the main engines and auxiliary machinery and equipment;
– plan and give instructions in relation to the vessel’s pump and the pump control
system;
– organise the safe use and application, maintenance and repair of the vessel’s electro-
technical devices;
EN 8 EN
– control the safe maintenance and repair of technical devices.
2.5. Maintenance and repair
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– organise the safe maintenance and repair of the vessel and its equipment.
2.6. Communication
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– perform human resources management and be socially responsible, take care of the
organisation of workflow and training on board the vessel ;
– ensure good communication at all times, which includes the use of standardised
communication phrases in situations with communication problems;
– foster a well-balanced and sociable working environment on board.
2.7. Health and safety and environmental protection
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– monitor the applicable legal requirements and take measures to ensure the safety of
life;
– maintain safety and security for persons on board;
– set-up emergency and damage control plans and handle emergency situations;
– ensure compliance with requirements for environmental protection.
3. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENCE FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORISATIONS
3.1. Sailing on waterways with a maritime character
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– work with up-to-date charts and maps, notices to skippers and mariners and other
publications specific to waterways with a maritime character;
– use tidal datums, tidal currents, periods and cycles, the time of tidal currents and
tides and variations across an estuary;
– use SIGNI (Signalisation de voies de Navigation Intérieure) and IALA (International
Association of Lighthouse Authorities) on maritime waterways for safe navigation.
3.2. Radar navigation
The boatmaster shall be able to:
– take appropriate action in relation to navigation with the aid of radar before casting
off;
EN 9 EN
– interpret radar display and analyse the information supplied by radar;
– reduce interference of varying origin;
– navigate by radar in accordance with the CEVNI (Code Européen des Voies de
Navigation Intérieure) rules on radar navigation as well as the regulations specifying
the requirements for navigating by radar (such as manning requirements, technical
requirements for vessels);
– handle specific circumstances, such as density of traffic, failure of devices,
dangerous situations.
4. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENCE FOR SPECIFIC OPERATIONS
4.1. Passenger navigation experts
Every applicant shall be able to:
– organise the use of life-saving equipment on board passenger vessels;
– apply safety instructions and take the necessary measures to protect passengers in
general, especially in the event of emergencies (e.g. evacuation, damage, collision,
running aground, fire, explosion or other situations which may give rise to panic).
4.2. Experts in the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel
Every applicant shall be able to:
– Ensure compliance with legislation and standards applicable to vessels using LNG as
fuel, as well as other relevant health and safety regulations;
– be aware of specific points of attention related to LNG, recognise the risks and
manage them;
– operate the systems specific to LNG in a safe way;
– ensure regular checking of the LNG system;
– know how to perform LNG bunkering operations in a safe and controlled manner;
– prepare the LNG system for vessel maintenance;
– handle emergency situations related to LNG.
Annex III
Essential requirements regarding medical fitness
Medical fitness, comprising of physical and psychological fitness, means not suffering from
any disease or disability which makes the person serving on board a vessel unable:
EN 10 EN
– to execute the tasks necessary to operate a vessel;
– to perform assigned duties at any time; or
– to perceive correctly their environment.
The examination shall, in particular, cover visual and auditory acuity, motor functions,
the neuro-psychiatric state and cardiovascular conditions.
EN 11 EN
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 19 February 2016
(OR. en)
6285/16
Interinstitutional File: ADD 4
2016/0050 (COD)
TRANS 51
MAR 54
CODEC 179
EDUC 35
SOC 85
ETS 4
MI 94
PROPOSAL
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 18 February 2016
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of
the European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2016) 35 final - Part 2/2
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional
qualifications in inland navigation and repealing Council Directive
91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2016) 35 final - Part 2/2.
Encl.: SWD(2016) 35 final - Part 2/2
6285/16 ADD 4 TA/il
DGE 2 A EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 18.2.2016
SWD(2016) 35 final
PART 2/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
{COM(2016) 82 final}
{SWD(2016) 36 final}
EN EN
LIST OF ANNEXES
1 Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view p 2
2 Estimated number of IWT workers p 63
3 Baseline scenario: evolution of current IWT labour market (demand supply model) p 65
4 Comparison between Rhine Patent regulation and Directive 96/50/EC on requirements p 78
for issuing boatmasters’ certificates
5 Comparison table for the mutually recognition of boatmaster license per country and p 81
country where the license is issued
6 Comparison of functions on board the vessel p 82
7 Overview of KSS requirements in the EU member states p 86
8 Affected parties and their key interests p 89
9 Training and qualification rules in other transport modes p 90
10 Problem – objective tree p 92
11 Discarded policy measures and options p 93
12 Quantitative approach to safety – methodological remark p 96
13 Detailed information on investment costs for option C p 98
14 Detailed information on administrative costs for option C p 101
15 Overview of available quantitative estimates of the NPV of administrative costs, p 105
investment costs, safety effects and job quality/attractiveness of option C
16 Glossary p 107
17 List of abbreviations p 108
2
Annex 1:
Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view
INTRODUCTION
In the context of the impact assessment accompanying a potential legislative proposal on the
recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation, the
Commission services have conducted an online public stakeholder consultation. The goal of
the potential initiative is the removal of barriers between EU Member States for exercising
professions in the field of inland navigation, thus subscribing to the main goal of the
European Commission's common transport policy of the free movement of persons and goods
across the EU. The harmonisation of national legal and administrative regulations is of high
importance for creating fair conditions for competition within and between the different
transport modes 1. The aim of this public online consultation was to collect the stakeholders'
views in order to have their opinion on the identified problems and policy objectives and to
assess their support to the proposed policy measures.
The public consultation was open for 13 weeks (26/03/2013 to 21/06/2013), and it contained a
total of 90 questions, both quantitative and qualitative. The Commission services received a
total of 94 replies. This note follows the structure of the consultation document and provides a
summary of the nature of responses of different stakeholders. It is important to note that the
sample of respondents is not statistically representative, and thus results should be interpreted
with caution.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
1.1 Overall breakdown of consultation respondents by stakeholder type
The Commission services received a total of 94 contributions. 10 stakeholder groups (divided
by organisation type) 2 were represented among the respondents. Education and training
organisations were the largest participating group, with 18 responses, followed by
entrepreneurs/ship owners (15) and shipping companies (13). Public authorities account for a
total of 17 responses, divided between Member State representatives (7) and other public
authorities (10). The other categories had relatively few respondents (see graph below).
The graphs accompanying each section of this report indicate the proportions of each category
of respondents that gave a certain answer. Given the low number of responses received from
workers' organisations (1), river commissions (1) 3 and ports (4), these categories will not be
1
See the background document for more information.
2
Please note that opinions expressed do not always represent the position of an organisation (e.g. training
institute), but sometimes only the view of the person who responded to the public consultation. For the purpose
of data analysis, these contributions have nevertheless been considered as opinions expressed by a member of the
stakeholder's group to which the organisation they work for belongs.
3
The river commission participating in the public consultation was the Danube Commission.
3
included in the graphs throughout the report, but will be qualitatively assessed and referred to
in the text when appropriate.
Figure 1. Consultation respondents by stakeholder type
1.2 Overall summary of responses by nationality
The responses came from a total of 16 countries. Romania (15), Germany (13), the United
Kingdom (11) and Slovakia (9) account for the largest number of respondents, followed by
the Netherlands (7), Hungary (6), Austria (6), Croatia (6) and Belgium (5).
Figure 2. Responses by nationality
1.3. Specific geographical range(s) for which stakeholders have experience
Figure 3 presents the geographical ranges for which the respondents to the public consultation
have experience. The information provided reflects that a lot of respondents have experience
in multiple river basins. 47 stakeholders have experience in the Danube and Sava Basin, 38
have it for the Rhine basin and 30 for the Moselle Basin.
4
Figure 3. Respondents by geographical range of experience
Category Number
Rhine Basin 38
Moselle Basin 30
Danube and Sava Basin 47
Scheld and Meuse Basin 15
Elbe Basin 12
Other French waterways 6
Other German waterways 21
Other Dutch waterways 16
Oder Basin 7
Inland waterways of maritime character 28
Others 19
Total 239
2. Problems to be addressed
In this section of the public consultation, the European Commission sought to understand to
which extent stakeholders agree with the existence of the pre-identified problems regarding
the recognition of professional qualifications and training standards in inland navigation and
to identify other problems that would need to be taken into account.
2.1. Is the problem of restricted labour mobility relevant?
Almost 80% of all respondents rated the problem of restricted labour mobility derived from
the differences between countries in professional qualifications and training standards in
inland navigation as "important" or "very important". Education and training organisations are
the group that rates it as most important (95%), followed by public authorities and employers'
organisations (around 89% each). Entrepreneurs/ship owners present a more dispersed
distribution of responses, with almost 50% of the respondents considering the labour mobility
restrictions as "very important" or "important".
Figure 4. Relevance of the problem of restricted labour mobility by stakeholder type 4
4
This graph shows the distribution of answers given by each category of stakeholder, allowing the reader to
compare the answers provided by different groups of stakeholders. At the same time, the vertical axis presents
the number of respondents in each category (e.g. 18 public authorities). The last category of the graph (i.e. "total
respondents") includes the ones presented in the categories above, and also the answers of four ports, one river
commission, a workers 'organisation and nine responses classified as "others". This type of graph will be used
throughout the report.
5
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem as highly important. The four ports provided responses that range from
"somewhat important" to "very important".
2.2. Is the problem of safety relevant?
Around 70% of all respondents consider that safety problems derived from the differences
between countries in professional qualifications and training standards in inland navigation
are "important" or "very important". Nevertheless, responses vary by group of stakeholder:
whereas 83% of public authorities, boatmasters and education and training organisations
consider this problem as "very important" or "important", the percentage is of around 45% for
entrepreneurs/ship owners and employers' organisations. Despite this, it is important to note
that more than 60% of respondents of each group of stakeholders consider this problem at
least "somewhat important".
Figure 5. Relevance of the problem of safety by stakeholder type
6
3. Problem drivers
3.1. Problem of Restricted Labour Mobility: Overall perception of relevance of
different problem drivers
This section presents the overall perception of the relative importance of different drivers to
the problem of restricted labour mobility. It is important to note that these are the aggregated
responses of all stakeholders. Disaggregation by type of stakeholder is found in the following
section 3.2.
As shown in Figure 6, difficulties due to different requirements for professional qualifications
of workers within the inland navigation sector (56%) and the difficulties with the recognition
by national authorities of service record books (SRBs) or of the information contained in the
SRBs (55%) are in relative terms considered the aspects contributing the most to the problem
of restricted labour mobility. Around 50% of all respondents find that local knowledge
requirements (LKRs) preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch (51%) and
language problems preventing crew members of different nationalities to perform duties on
vessels sailing on the EU inland waters (48%) are "relevant" or "very relevant" problem
drivers. Finally, difficulties with the recognition of relevant professional qualifications of
workers from outside the sector are considered as the least important problem driver in
relative terms (43% rating it "very relevant" or "relevant").
The stakeholders were asked to assess the current system of mutual recognition of
Service Record Books operated through multilateral agreements between the
CCNR and a number of non-Rhine EU Member States. 40% of the respondents stated
that this system serves its purpose only partially, 21% consider that it does not serve its
purpose and only 13% of them consider that it serves its purpose fully.
When asked whether the current system of mutual recognition of boatmasters
certificates adequately addresses the labour mobility barriers for boatmasters from the
7
Non-Rhine EU Member States on the Rhine, 45% of the respondents say that mobility
barriers are only partially addressed, 26% think that they are not adequately addressed,
and only 12% consider that they are fully addressed through this system.
Figure 6. Relevance of different problem drivers to the problem of restricted labour mobility
3.2. Relevance of different problem drivers by type of stakeholder
3.2.1. Problem driver 1: Difficulties due to different requirements for professional
qualifications of workers within the inland navigation sector (requirements for
experience, exam programmes, physical and mental fitness)
Around 78% of education and training organisations and employers' organisations that
responded to the public consultation consider this problem driver as highly relevant, followed
by around 67% of boatmasters and public authorities, and 46% of shipping companies. Most
entrepreneurs/ship owners rated it as "somewhat relevant" (47%).
Figure 7. Relevance of problem driver 1 (different requirements for professional
qualifications) by type of stakeholder
8
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
Very relevant/ relevant Somewhat relevant
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Not relevant/very little relevance
Additionally, the river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the
public consultation rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas three out of four
ports rated it as "somewhat important". It is important to note that only 11% of the total
number of respondents finds this problem driver as "not relevant" or of "little relevance".
3.2.2. Problem driver 2: Difficulties with recognition of relevant professional
qualifications of workers from outside the sector (such as the maritime or fishing
sector)
The distribution of responses with regard to the second problem driver differs substantially by
group of stakeholder. An important percentage of education and training organisations (72%)
and employers' organisations (56%) consider it a highly relevant problem, followed by
shipping companies (46%). All the other groups consider it mainly "somewhat relevant", in
particular boatmasters (67%). Around 67% of public authorities and 60% entrepreneurs/ship
owners consider it at least "somewhat relevant".
Figure 8. Relevance of problem driver 2 (recognition of qualifications of workers from
outside the sector) by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas three out of four ports rated it as
"somewhat important".
9
3.2.3. Problem driver 3: Local Knowledge Requirements (LKRs) may prevent
boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch (relevant for boatmasters only)
Perceptions of the relevance of this problem driver vary between types of stakeholders, as
shown in Figure 9. Education and training organisations and employers' organisations are the
groups that consider it more important, with 67% of their respondents rating it as highly
relevant, followed by shipping companies (62%). At the same time, entrepreneurs/ship
owners and boatmasters are the groups of stakeholders that perceive this problem driver as
less relevant, in relative terms, with 67% of their respondents rating it as highly important or
somewhat important. With regards to public authorities, it should be noted that despite
presenting a relatively low percentage of "highly relevant" responses, only 11% of them
consider the issues with LKRs of no relevance. Additionally, the river commission and the
worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation consider this problem driver
as highly relevant.
Figure 9. Relevance of problem driver 3 (Local Knowledge Requirements) by type of
stakeholder
The public consultation also asked the stakeholders about the justification of local knowledge
requirements. As shown in Figure 10, 70% of the respondents consider that LKRs are
justified when there are some special hydro morphological characteristics of the river sector
which make navigation very difficult; 60% of them consider they are justified when there are
specific local traffic regulations in place due to safety concerns, and 49% of them refer to the
absence of appropriate marking systems.
Figure 10. Criteria for the establishment of Local Knowledge Requirements 5
5
This graph shows the percentage of stakeholders that consider each of these criteria relevant for the
establishment of LKRs. It has to be taken into account that more than one response was allowed.
10
When asked about whether the LKRs which are currently in force in Member States are
justified in view of the criteria referred to above (hydro morphological characteristics,
absence of marking systems, local traffic regulations), the responses provided were the
following:
Figure 11. Justification of the currently enforced LKRs 6
Answer Number
The currently enforced LKRs are fully justified in view of the criteria
38
mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are partially justified in view of the
30
criteria mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are not justified in view of the criteria
47
mentioned
Don't Know 15
Total 94
3.2.4. Problem driver 4: Difficulties with the recognition by national authorities in
the Member States of Service Record Books (SRBs) or of the information contained
in the SRBs
The difficulties with the recognition of SRBs are considered by 78% of employers'
organisations responding to the public consultation as "relevant" or "very relevant" drivers to
the problem of restricted labour mobility. A slightly lower percentage is registered for public
authorities and shipping companies (around 70% in each case). Entrepreneurs/ship owners are
the group of stakeholders that registers a lower percentage of "highly relevant" responses
(20%). Despite this, it is important to note that 67% of them consider it either "somewhat
relevant" or "highly relevant". Boatmasters present a divided position: half of the respondents
consider it very relevant, whereas the other half consider it of little relevance.
Figure 12. Relevance of problem driver 4 (recognition of Service Record Books) by type of
stakeholder
6
This graph shows the number of stakeholders that gave each response.
11
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as "very relevant" or "relevant", whereas three out of four ports rated
it as "somewhat relevant".
3.2.5. Problem driver 5: Language problems prevent crew members of a different
nationality to perform duties on vessels sailing on the EU inland waterways
Language problems are considered a relevant barrier to labour mobility in inland navigation
by education and training organisations and by boatmasters (67% each), while it is considered
as "somewhat relevant" by most employers' organisations responding to the consultation
(67%). Public authorities, shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners have an
intermediate position, with around 40-50% of them rating language problems as highly
relevant.
Figure 13. Relevance of problem driver 5 (language problems) by type of stakeholder
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very relevant/relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant/ very little relevance
Furthermore, the river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public
consultation rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas the ports present a more
12
dispersed opinion. In total, 80% of the respondents consider language problems as somewhat
relevant to very relevant with regard to labour mobility issues.
3.3. Safety problem: Overall perception of relevance of different problem
drivers
This section presents the overall perception of all stakeholders of the relative importance of
different problem drivers to the problem of safety. In order to do this, the responses "relevant"
and "very relevant" were aggregated. Responses by type of stakeholder are found in the
following section 3.4.
As shown in Figure 14, language problems caused by crew members of different nationalities
resulting in communication problems is, in relative terms, considered the aspect contributing
the most to the problem of safety (85% of the respondents considering it either highly relevant
or somewhat relevant). Around 76% of all respondents find that the standards for professional
training in inland navigation which are set at national level have not kept up with
technological development, making it a highly relevant or somewhat relevant problem driver.
Figure 14. Relevance of different problem drivers to the problem of safety
3.4. Relevance of problem drivers by type of stakeholder
3.4.1. Problem driver 1: The standards for professional training in inland navigation
which are set at national level have not kept up with technological development
The importance of this problem driver is perceived by the different groups of stakeholders as
relatively lower with respect to others, with the exception of education and training
organisations, with 78% of its respondents rating it as "relevant" or "very relevant". Despite
this, more than 60% of the respondents of each group of stakeholders consider it, at least,
"somewhat important", reaching 83% in the case of public authorities and boatmasters.
Employers' organisations and entrepreneurs/ship owners are the groups that consider it less
important, in relative terms.
13
Figure 15. Relevance of problem driver 1 (standards for professional training have not kept
up with technological development) by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat relevant" to "very relevant". In total, 75% of the respondents consider
language problems as somewhat relevant to very relevant with regard to safety issues.
3.4.2. Problem driver 2: Language problems caused by crew members of different
nationalities, resulting in communication problems
The perception of the importance of language problems for safety differs between groups of
stakeholders. Whereas education and training organisations and boatmasters rate it as highly
relevant (89% and 83% respectively), shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners find
it relatively less relevant. Despite this, almost 80% of both groups consider it either highly
relevant or somewhat relevant. As shown in Figure 16, the opinion of employers'
organisations is the most polarized.
Figure 16. Relevance of problem driver 2 (language problems) by type of stakeholder
14
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant.
4. Assessment of policy objectives
In this section of the public consultation, the Commission sought to identify the degree to
which Member States and stakeholders agree with the proposed objectives of the future
initiative.
4.1. Overall perception of relevance of different policy objectives
This section presents the overall perception of all stakeholders of the relative importance of
different policy objectives of the future initiative regarding the recognition and modernisation
of professional qualifications in inland navigation. Responses by type of stakeholder are
found in section 4.2. As shown in Figure 17, the three policy objectives (eliminate barriers to
labour mobility and improve safety both by addressing the human factor and by bringing
training standards in line with new technological development) are considered equally
relevant, with around 75% of respondents considering them "very important" or "important".
Overall, less than 10% of respondents consider the different policy objectives as not
important.
Figure 17. Relevance of different policy objectives
4.2. Relevance of policy objectives by type of stakeholder
4.2.1. Policy objective 1: Eliminate barriers to labour mobility
An important percentage of education and training organisations (89%), employers'
organisations (89%), shipping companies (84%), public authorities (71%) and boatmasters
(67%) consider this policy objective as "very important" or "important". Entrepreneurs/ship
owners present a more dispersed opinion, with 40% of them considering it "somewhat
important" and 20% of them stating that it is not an important objective.
15
Figure 18. Relevance of policy objective 1 by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy objective as "very important", whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat important" to "very important". As shown in Figure 18, the overall support
to this policy objective is very high, with only 7% of total respondents considering it not
important.
4.2.2. Policy objective 2: Improve safety in the IWT sector by addressing the human
factor
With regards to policy objective 2, responses differ considerably between groups of
stakeholders. Education and training organisations and public authorities consider that
addressing the human factor to improve safety is a highly important objective (with 94% and
89% of them, respectively, stating that it is "very important" or "important"). The groups that
in relative terms consider this objective as less important are entrepreneurs/ship owners and
employers' organisations.
Figure 19. Relevance of policy objective 2 by type of stakeholder
16
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy objective as very important, whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat important" to "very important".
4.2.3. Policy objective 3: Improve safety in the IWT sector by bringing training
standards in line with new technological development
As shown in Figure 20, the support to this policy objective is high in almost all groups of
stakeholders, with only 7% of total respondents considering it not important. All education
and training organisations participating in the public consultation consider it either "very
important" or "important", whereas the percentages are of 83% in the case of boatmasters and
of 78% in the case of public authorities and employers' organisations. Moreover, more than
50% of entrepreneurs/ship owners and shipping companies find it highly relevant, a
percentage that increases notably if responses "somewhat relevant" are also aggregated.
Figure 20. Relevance of policy objective 3 by type of stakeholder
The worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy
objective as "very important", the river commission considers it "important" and the responses
of the four ports range from "somewhat important" to "very important".
5. Assessment of policy options
The European Commission has identified a number of possible policy measures that may
address the problem areas referred to above. The results presented in this section reflect the
opinions of the different stakeholders with regards to the suitability of the different measures.
PROBLEM OF RESTRICTED LABOUR MOBILITY
Problem driver 1: Different requirements for professional qualifications of workers
within the inland navigation sector
Policy measure 1: Extension of the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition of
boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for mutual recognition of professional
qualifications in SRBs
Policy measure 2: Introduction of mandatory harmonised requirements for age and physical
and mental fitness for all crew members
Policy measure 3: Harmonisation of definitions of certain professional qualifications in inland
navigation and mandatory harmonised requirements for these qualifications
17
Policy measure 4: Harmonised EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications
in IWT
Policy measure 5: Introduction at EU level of a central register for EU boatmaster certificates
Policy measure 6: Introduction of voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector
towards lowering labour mobility obstacles
Problem driver 2: Different requirements for professional qualifications for workers
from outside the sector
Policy measure 7: Introduction of a common method for lowering the barriers for maritime
sailing time/experience to qualify as inland navigation sailing time/experience
Problem driver 3: LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river
Policy measure 8: Introduction of mandatory common criteria for establishing LKRs in the
EU
Policy measure 9: Harmonisation of competency/examination requirements for LKRs
Policy measure 10: Introduction of non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs in the EU
Policy measure 11: Introduction of non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
examination requirements for LKRs
Problem driver 4: Difficulty of extracting reliable information from SRBs needed for
workers to prove their professional qualifications in order to allow operating in another
country or other river basin
Policy measure 12: Introduction of a mandatory electronic SRB and a central register for e-
SRB
Problem driver 5: Language problems preventing crew members of a different
nationality to perform duties on vessels sailing on the EU inland waterways
Policy measure 13: Introduction of River Speak
PROBLEM OF SAFETY
Problem driver 1: Standards for professional training in inland navigation have not kept
up with technological development
Policy measure 14: Harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards for all
professional qualifications in inland navigation
Policy measure 15: Introduction of voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector
towards improving safety
Problem driver 2: Language problems, caused by crew members of different
18
nationalities, resulting in communication problems
Policy measure 13: Introduction of River Speak
PROBLEM OF RESTRICTED LABOUR MOBILITY
5.1 Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility due to different requirements for
professional qualifications of workers within the inland navigation sector
This section presents the overall perception of the relative suitability of different policy
measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility. It is important to note that
these are the aggregated responses of all stakeholders. Disaggregation by type of stakeholder
is found in section 5.2.
As shown in Figure 21, the harmonisation of definitions for certain professional qualifications
in inland navigation and mandatory harmonized requirements for these qualifications (74%)
and the harmonisation of EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications in
inland navigation (71%) are, in relative terms, considered the most adequate policy measures,
followed by the mandatory harmonisation of requirements for age and physical and mental
fitness (68%). Introducing voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector towards
lowering labour mobility obstacles is considered the least adequate policy measure in relative
terms by all stakeholders (56%), followed by the measure of extending the CCNR initiated
process of mutual recognition of boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for
mutual recognition of professional qualifications in Service Record Books (60%). It is
important to note that less than 10% of respondents find these policy measures as not
appropriate, with the exception of the introduction of an EU central register (15%). Therefore,
there is an overall high support to these measures.
Figure 21. Relevance of different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications of workers within
the inland navigation sector
19
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Extending the CCNR Harmonisation of Harmonisation of Harmonisation of Introducing an EU Introducing
initiated process of requirements for definitions of EU minimum central register for voluntary measures
mutual recognition age and physical professional training standards EU boatmaster towards lowering
and mental fitness qualifications for professional certificates labour mobility
for all crew qualifications obstacles
members
Very appropriate/appropriate Somewhat appropriate Not appropriate/very little Don't know
5.2. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour
mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications of workers
within the inland navigation sector, by type of stakeholder
5.2.1. Policy measure 1: Extending the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition
of boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for mutual recognition of
professional qualifications in Service Record Books
As shown in Figure 22, extending the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition would be
considered "very adequate" or "adequate" by 72% of public authorities and education and
training organisations and by 67% of employers' organisations that responded to the public
consultation. At the same time, the responses of around 70% of entrepreneurs/ship owners,
shipping companies and boatmasters range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat
appropriate". Entrepreneurs/ship owners are the group that register more "not appropriate"
responses.
Figure 22. Relevance of policy measure 1 by type of stakeholder
20
The workers' organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy measure
as "very appropriate", the river commission rates it "somewhat appropriate" and the responses
of the four ports range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat appropriate".
5.2.2. Policy measure 2: Mandatory harmonised requirements for age and physical
and mental fitness for all crew members
All boatmasters, 88% of employers' organisations, 83% of education and training
organisations and 72% of public authorities that answered to the public consultation consider
that this policy measure would be "appropriate" or "very appropriate" to deal with the
problem of labour mobility. The percentages are lower for the other types of stakeholders, in
particular for entrepreneurs/ship owners (40%). Despite this, it is important to note that 85%
of shipping companies and 73% of entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it, at least, "somewhat
appropriate".
Figure 23. Relevance of policy measure 2 by type of stakeholder
21
The river commission contributing to the public consultation rated this policy measure as
"appropriate", whereas the workers' organisation considers it "somewhat appropriate".
5.2.3. Policy measure 3: Harmonisation of definitions of certain professional
qualifications in inland navigation and mandatory harmonised requirements for
these qualifications
This measure is considered "very appropriate" or "appropriate" by all employers'
organisations and boatmasters that contributed to the public consultation, and by a high
percentage of education and training organisations (94%), and public authorities (83%). The
majority of shipping companies consider it "somewhat appropriate" (53%), whereas the
opinion of entrepreneurs/ship owners is more divided. Moreover, the river commission and
the worker's organisation contributing to the public consultation rated this policy measure as
"very appropriate".
When asked for which crew members they consider that policy measures 2 and 3 would be
most appropriate, 60% of respondents said that they should apply to boatmasters and
other crew members, whereas 24% answered they should only apply to boatmasters.
Figure 24. Relevance of policy measure 3 by type of stakeholder
5.2.4. Policy measure 4: Harmonised EU minimum training standards for
professional qualifications in inland navigation
Harmonising the EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications in inland
navigation is considered a highly appropriate policy measure by all education and training
organisations and by all boatmasters that contributed to the public consultation, as well as by
67% of employers' organisations, 61% of shipping companies and 61% of public authorities.
The opinion of entrepreneurs/ship owners is more divided, but only 13% consider it not
appropriate. It is important to note that more than 90% of all respondents consider this policy
measure at least "somewhat appropriate".
Figure 25. Relevance of policy measure 4 by type of stakeholder
22
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy measure as "very appropriate", whereas the four ports consider it either
"appropriate" or "very appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate, 61% of respondents stated that it should apply to boatmasters and other
crew members, whereas 28% answered it should only apply to boatmasters.
5.2.5. Policy measure 5: Introducing at EU level of a central register for EU
boatmaster certificates
Introducing a central register for EU boatmaster certificate is perceived by the majority of
education and training organisations and by public authorities that participated in the public
consultation as highly appropriate (with 89% and 78% of their respondents considering it
"very appropriate" or "appropriate", respectively), followed by boatmasters (67%). Around
40% of shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it highly appropriate, and
the percentage increases notably when "somewhat appropriate" is also taken into account.
Figure 26. Relevance of policy measure 5 by type of stakeholder
23
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy measure as "very appropriate", whereas the four ports consider it either
"appropriate" or "very appropriate".
5.2.6. Policy measure 6: Introducing voluntary measures from the inland navigation
sector towards lowering labour mobility obstacles
As shown in Figure 27, approximately 80% of respondents of all groups of stakeholders
consider this policy measure, at least, "somehow appropriate". The groups that register higher
percentage of highly appropriate responses are employers' organisations, with 89% of
respondents considering the measure as either "very appropriate" or "appropriate",
boatmasters (67%) and education and training organisations (61%). The workers'
organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy measure as "very
appropriate", the river commission considers it "somewhat appropriate" and the responses of
the four ports range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat appropriate".
Figure 27. Relevance of policy measure 6 by type of stakeholder
24
5.2.7. Additional issues: certification of professional qualification
Stakeholders were invited to comment on a number of aspects related to the policy measures
previously presented. In particular, this section presents the answers given to questions related
to the system of certification of professional qualifications for boatmasters. One of these
questions was: "Do you think it is necessary to extend the requirement for certification also to
the highest rank under the level of boatmaster?" Responses differ substantially by type of
stakeholder (see graph below). While the majority of respondents from education and training
organisations gave a positive response (83%), followed by boatmasters (67%), the majority of
respondents of other groups of stakeholders consider that only boatmasters should be required
to have a certificate, in particular employers' organisations (78%), shipping companies (70%)
and entrepreneurs/ship owners (60%).
Figure 28. Extension of certification to the highest rank of responsibility below
boatmasters
Stakeholders were also asked about the appropriateness of introducing a modular
certification system for boatmasters, which would imply the introduction of specific
requirements for certificates with regard to waterways on maritime character, operation
of only small vessels on small waterways, and operation of large convoys. Figure 29
presents the stakeholders' responses. In this case, more than one answer was allowed.
Half of the respondents considers that such a modular system should maintain the
current specific requirements for boatmasters that operate on waterways of maritime
character, 42% of them consider that the modular system should introduce specific more
stringent requirements for boatmasters operating large convoys, and 39% of them
consider that it should introduce less stringent requirements for boatmasters operating in
small vessels on small waterways.
Figure 29. Differentiation of boatmasters certificates
% of
Number
respondents
Yes, such a modular system should maintain the current specific (more stringent)
47 50%
requirements for boatmasters that operate on waterways of maritime character
25
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (less stringent) requirements
37 39.4%
for boatmasters that operate small vessels on small waterways only
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
33 35.1%
requirements for boatmasters that operate large passenger vessels
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
39 41.5%
requirements for boatmasters that operate large convoys
Yes, such a modular system is important and other categories need to be
16 17%
considered
No, there is no need for such a differentiated approach 12 12.8%
I don’t know 11 11.7%
Total 195 -
5.3. Relevance of policy measure 7 ("Introduction of a common method for
lowering the barriers for maritime sailing time/experience to qualify as inland
navigation sailing time/experience") to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications for
workers from outside the sector
The majority of stakeholders answering to this public consultation find this policy measure at
least somewhat appropriate. 67% of education and training organisations and 44% of
employers' organisations find it either "very appropriate" or "appropriate", whereas
boatmasters are the group of stakeholders presenting a lower percentage of these responses.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that more 80% of them consider it at least somewhat
appropriate. Public authorities, entrepreneurs/ship owners and shipping companies are
considerably divided in their responses. Additionally, the workers' organisation, the river
commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public consultation rate this policy
measure as "somewhat appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate, 53% of respondents said that it should apply to boatmasters and other crew
members, 17% answered it should only apply to boatmasters, and 17% answered that
answered it should only apply to other crew members.
Figure 30. Relevance of policy measure 7 by type of stakeholder
26
5.4. Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing
boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch of a river
This section presents the overall perception of all respondents of the relative suitability of
different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility due to local
knowledge requirements. As shown in Figure 31, the harmonisation of
competency/examination requirements (59%) and the establishment of mandatory common
criteria for establishing LKRs in the EU (57%) are, in relative terms, considered the most
adequate policy measures. The two remaining measures implying non-binding
recommendations are perceived as relatively less appropriate.
Figure 31. Relevance of different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Mandatory criteria for Harmonization of Non-binding Non-binding
establishing LKRs and competency/examination recommendations recommendations
maritime waters in the EU requirements for LKRs and regarding criteria for regarding criteria for
maritime waters establishing LKRs and examination requirements
maritime waters for LKRs and maritime
waters
Very appropriate/appropriate Somewhat appropriate Not appropriate/very little Don’t know/N.A.
53% of the respondents consider that the use of simulators in training programmes or exams
could lead to a reduction of training or experience requirements for LKRs, whereas 37% of
respondents do not agree with the previous statement.
27
5.5. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour
mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river, by stakeholder
5.5.1. Policy measure 8: Mandatory common criteria for establishing LKRs in the EU
This policy measure is considered highly appropriate by the majority of employers'
organisations (89% of them rating it either "very appropriate" or "appropriate"), education and
training organisations (78%), boatmasters (67%) and shipping companies (62%), whereas it
receives lower support from entrepreneurs/ship owners (40%) and public authorities (44%).
However, more that 50% of them rate this policy measure at least "somewhat appropriate".
Additionally, the river commission contributing to this public consultation considers this
measure as "very appropriate".
Figure 32. Relevance of policy measure 8 by type of stakeholder
5.5.2. Policy measure 9: Harmonisation of competency/examination requirements for LKR
As shown in Figure 33, the distribution of opinions about the appropriateness of this policy
measure varies by type of stakeholder. The majority of education and training organisations
consider it highly appropriate (89%), followed by shipping companies (69%), boatmasters
(67%), employers' organisations (67%) and public authorities (56%). Even though 40% of
entrepreneurs/ship owners find it "not appropriate", it should be noted that 53% of their
respondents consider the measure at least "somewhat appropriate". The river commission
contributing to this public consultation considers this policy measure as "very appropriate".
Figure 33. Relevance of policy measure 9 by type of stakeholder
28
5.5.3. Policy measure 10: Non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs in the EU
In general, this policy measure receives low support by the different groups of stakeholders,
with the only exception of boatmasters. As shown in Figure 34, most of the other groups of
stakeholders consider this policy measure as either "not appropriate" or only "somewhat
appropriate".
Figure 34. Relevance of policy measure 10 by type of stakeholder
The river commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public consultation
consider this policy measure as "not appropriate", whereas the other two ports and the
workers' organisation did not provide an answer.
5.5.4. Policy measure 11: Non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
examination requirements for LKR
Similarly to the previous measure, the establishment of non-binding recommendations
regarding criteria for examination requirements for LKR is in general not considered an
appropriate measure to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility. This policy
measure registers the lowest support among stakeholders, with the only exception of
boatmasters. The river commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public
consultation consider this policy measure as "not appropriate". The other two ports and the
workers' organisation do no provide an answer.
29
Figure 35. Relevance of policy measure 11 by type of stakeholder
When asked whether the information provided by River Information Services could
replace in certain cases the need for local knowledge requirements, 52% of the respondents
answered "yes, sometimes", 22% answered "never", and 18% answered "yes, always".
5.6. Relevance of policy measure 12 ("Introduce a mandatory electronic SRB
and a central register for e-SRB") to deal with the difficulty of extracting
reliable information from SRBs needed for workers to prove their professional
qualifications, by stakeholder
Introducing a mandatory electronic SRB is considered appropriate by 78% of education and
training organisations, 78% of employers' organisations and 72% of public authorities.
Despite registering a lower percentage of "very appropriate" and "appropriate" responses than
the previously mentioned groups, more than 60% of shipping companies, boatmasters and
entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it at least "somewhat appropriate". The specific
distribution of responses is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36. Relevance of policy measure 12 by type of stakeholder
The workers' organisation participating to this public consultation consider this policy
measure "very appropriate", whereas the river commission rates it as "very appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate for, 52% of respondents answered boatmasters and other crew members,
30
16% answered only boatmasters and 16% answered only other crew members. When asked
whether they think that introducing electronic SRBs would be beneficial for inland
navigation, 74% of the stakeholders responded positively. Furthermore, 64% of the
respondents consider that the introduction of electronic SRBs should be accompanied by the
introduction of electronic logbooks (for instance to verify entries made in the e-SRB with
regard to sailing time).
Stakeholders where additionally asked for what purposes would the e-SRB be used. Figure 37
below shows the percentage of total stakeholders that stated that they "totally agree" or "tend
to agree".
Figure 37. Use of the e-SRBs
5.7. Relevance of policy measure 13 ("Introduction of River Speak") to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility derived from language problems
The introduction of River Speak or other language-neutral means of communication in the
training programmes and as a part of professional qualifications is considered by 72% of
stakeholders contributing to the public consultation as a measure that could help addressing
the problem of mobility of IWT workers. As shown in Figure 38, education and training
organisations are the group that presents a higher support to this measure (94%), followed by
public authorities (78%) and entrepreneurs/ship owners (73%). 60% of shipping companies
rate the measure as relevant to improve labour mobility, despite being the group that gives the
lowest support to the measure, in relative terms. The river commission and the workers'
organisation that participated in the public consultation also consider this measure as very
appropriate.
Figure 38. Relevance of policy measure 13 to deal with the problem of mobility, by type of
stakeholder
31
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No I don’t know
PROBLEM OF SAFETY
5.8 Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
safety problem related to the fact that the standards for professional training in
inland navigation have not kept up with technological development
This section presents the relative importance of different policy measures to the problem of
safety, as results from the responses of all the stakeholders participating in the public
consultation. Responses by type of stakeholder are found in the following section 5.8. As
shown in Figure 39, the harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards for all
professional qualifications in inland navigation is in relative terms considered more
appropriate to deal with safety problems than introducing voluntary measures (83% of
respondents consider harmonisation “somewhat appropriate”, "appropriate" or "very
appropriate", versus 66% in the case of voluntary measures). Only 10% considers the
harmonisation measures as not appropriate, whereas this figure rises up to 23% for the
voluntary measures.
Figure 39. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the safety problem related to the fact
that standards for professional training have not kept up with technological development
32
Stakeholders were asked whether the use of simulators in inland navigation training and
education programmes would increase safety in the sector. The majority of respondents (84%)
answered positively.
5.9. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the safety problem related to the
fact that the standards for professional training in inland navigation have not
kept up with technological development, by type of stakeholder
5.9.1. Policy measure 14: Harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards
for all professional qualifications in inland navigation
The distribution of responses with regards to the appropriateness of this policy measure
differs notably by group of stakeholder. Approximately 90% of education and training
organisations consider it highly appropriate, followed by 67% of boatmasters and 61% of
public authorities. At the same time, employers' organisations, shipping companies and
entrepreneurs/ship owners present a higher percentage of "somewhat important" responses.
Figure 40. Relevance of policy measure 14 by type of stakeholder
The river commission contributing to this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "very appropriate", whereas the workers' organisation finds it "appropriate". The
opinion of ports is highly dispersed in this case. It is important to note that, in general, more
than 80% of respondents find this policy measure, at least, "somewhat important".
When asked for which crew members you consider that this policy measure would be the
most appropriate, 71% of respondents answered boatmasters and other crew members,
whereas 17% stated only boatmasters.
5.9.2. Policy measure 15: Introducing voluntary measures from the inland
navigation sector towards improving safety
The perception of the appropriateness of this measure to deal with the problem of safety is
comparatively more dispersed than in previous cases. The majority of respondents of all
groups of stakeholders perceive this measure as at least "somewhat appropriate". Education
and training organisations and boatmasters are the groups registering a higher percentage of
"very appropriate" or "appropriate" responses, with 50% of the respondents in each case.
Figure 41. Relevance of policy measure 15 by type of stakeholder
33
The river commission participating in this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "somewhat appropriate".
5.10. Relevance of policy measure 13 ("Introduction of River Speak") to deal with the
safety problem derived from language problems
Around 80% of the respondents consider that the introduction of River Speak or other
language-neutral means of communication in the training programmes and as a part of
professional qualifications would help improving the levels of safety in the sector. As shown
in Figure 42, all employers' organisations that participated in this public consultation give
support to this measure, followed by 94% of education and training organisations, 89% of
public authorities, 80% of entrepreneurs/ship owners and 77% of shipping companies. The
workers' organisation and the river commission participating in this public consultation also
have a positive opinion on this measure.
Figure 42. Relevance of policy measure 13 to deal with problem of safety, by type of
stakeholder
6. Regional differences in the impact of the measures as perceived by the stakeholders
The stakeholders in the online public consultation were asked to compare harmonised
requirements measures with voluntary measures. The main results for two important river
areas, the Rhine and Danube, are summarized below:
34
- With regard to labour mobility, mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and
training standards will, according to 85% of CCNR stakeholders, and a bit less than 80%
of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on labour mobility. For
voluntary measures these percentages are respectively around 50% and 60%.
- With regard to administrative burden: mandatory harmonised professional qualifications
and training standards will, according to 54% of CCNR stakeholders and more than 70%
of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on the administrative
burden. For voluntary measures these percentages are respectively around 23 and 62%.
With regard to safety: mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and training
standards will according to around 90% of CCNR stakeholders, and more than 85% of
Danube stakeholders result in fairly to very positive safety effects. For voluntary measures
these percentages are both only around 60%. For the voluntary approach, respectively 8
and 4 % of CCNR and Danube respondents foresee negative effects.
The online public consultation revealed similar support both from the CCRN and the Danube
region
7. Conclusions
The responses received within the online public stakeholder consultation on the
"Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation"
confirm that the problems of restricted labour mobility and safety identified by the
European Commission are of high importance and need to be dealt with, in order to
remove the barriers between EU Member States for exercising professions in the field of
inland navigation. The majority of the respondents considered the different problem
drivers and subsequent policy objectives identified as highly relevant.
The online consultation also gathered information about the opinion of different groups
of stakeholders with regards to the appropriateness of 15 different policy measures. The
responses received confirm a high level of support to measures implying the
harmonisation of professional requirements, qualifications and examinations in inland
navigation between EU Member States, whereas the introduction of voluntary measures
or non-binding recommendations receives a considerably lower level of support.
The voice of the stakeholders on specific problems and measures gathered through this
public consultation will help the European Commission to devise a set of appropriate
policy measures during the process of elaboration of the impact assessment
accompanying a potential legislative proposal on the recognition and modernisation of
professional qualifications in inland navigation.
35
Annex 12:
Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view
INTRODUCTION
In the context of the impact assessment accompanying a potential legislative proposal on the
recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation, the
Commission services have conducted an online public stakeholder consultation. The goal of
the potential initiative is the removal of barriers between EU Member States for exercising
professions in the field of inland navigation, thus subscribing to the main goal of the
European Commission's common transport policy of the free movement of persons and goods
across the EU. The harmonisation of national legal and administrative regulations is of high
importance for creating fair conditions for competition within and between the different
transport modes 7. The aim of this public online consultation was to collect the stakeholders'
views in order to have their opinion on the identified problems and policy objectives and to
assess their support to the proposed policy measures.
The public consultation was open for 13 weeks (26/03/2013 to 21/06/2013), and it contained a
total of 90 questions, both quantitative and qualitative. The Commission services received a
total of 94 replies. This note follows the structure of the consultation document and provides a
summary of the nature of responses of different stakeholders. It is important to note that the
sample of respondents is not statistically representative, and thus results should be interpreted
with caution.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
1.1 Overall breakdown of consultation respondents by stakeholder type
The Commission services received a total of 94 contributions. 10 stakeholder groups (divided
by organisation type) 8 were represented among the respondents. Education and training
organisations were the largest participating group, with 18 responses, followed by
entrepreneurs/ship owners (15) and shipping companies (13). Public authorities account for a
total of 17 responses, divided between Member State representatives (7) and other public
authorities (10). The other categories had relatively few respondents (see graph below).
The graphs accompanying each section of this report indicate the proportions of each category
of respondents that gave a certain answer. Given the low number of responses received from
workers' organisations (1), river commissions (1) 9 and ports (4), these categories will not be
7
See the background document for more information.
8
Please note that opinions expressed do not always represent the position of an organisation (e.g. training
institute), but sometimes only the view of the person who responded to the public consultation. For the purpose
of data analysis, these contributions have nevertheless been considered as opinions expressed by a member of the
stakeholder's group to which the organisation they work for belongs.
9
The river commission participating in the public consultation was the Danube Commission.
36
included in the graphs throughout the report, but will be qualitatively assessed and referred to
in the text when appropriate.
Figure 1. Consultation respondents by stakeholder type
1.2 Overall summary of responses by nationality
The responses came from a total of 16 countries. Romania (15), Germany (13), the United
Kingdom (11) and Slovakia (9) account for the largest number of respondents, followed by
the Netherlands (7), Hungary (6), Austria (6), Croatia (6) and Belgium (5).
Figure 2. Responses by nationality
1.3. Specific geographical range(s) for which stakeholders have experience
Figure 3 presents the geographical ranges for which the respondents to the public consultation
have experience. The information provided reflects that a lot of respondents have experience
in multiple river basins. 47 stakeholders have experience in the Danube and Sava Basin, 38
have it for the Rhine basin and 30 for the Moselle Basin.
37
Figure 3. Respondents by geographical range of experience
Category Number
Rhine Basin 38
Moselle Basin 30
Danube and Sava Basin 47
Scheld and Meuse Basin 15
Elbe Basin 12
Other French waterways 6
Other German waterways 21
Other Dutch waterways 16
Oder Basin 7
Inland waterways of maritime character 28
Others 19
Total 239
2. Problems to be addressed
In this section of the public consultation, the European Commission sought to understand to
which extent stakeholders agree with the existence of the pre-identified problems regarding
the recognition of professional qualifications and training standards in inland navigation and
to identify other problems that would need to be taken into account.
2.1. Is the problem of restricted labour mobility relevant?
Almost 80% of all respondents rated the problem of restricted labour mobility derived from
the differences between countries in professional qualifications and training standards in
inland navigation as "important" or "very important". Education and training organisations are
the group that rates it as most important (95%), followed by public authorities and employers'
organisations (around 89% each). Entrepreneurs/ship owners present a more dispersed
distribution of responses, with almost 50% of the respondents considering the labour mobility
restrictions as "very important" or "important".
Figure 4. Relevance of the problem of restricted labour mobility by stakeholder type 10
10
This graph shows the distribution of answers given by each category of stakeholder, allowing the reader to
compare the answers provided by different groups of stakeholders. At the same time, the vertical axis presents
the number of respondents in each category (e.g. 18 public authorities). The last category of the graph (i.e. "total
respondents") includes the ones presented in the categories above, and also the answers of four ports, one river
commission, a workers 'organisation and nine responses classified as "others". This type of graph will be used
throughout the report.
38
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem as highly important. The four ports provided responses that range from
"somewhat important" to "very important".
2.2. Is the problem of safety relevant?
Around 70% of all respondents consider that safety problems derived from the differences
between countries in professional qualifications and training standards in inland navigation
are "important" or "very important". Nevertheless, responses vary by group of stakeholder:
whereas 83% of public authorities, boatmasters and education and training organisations
consider this problem as "very important" or "important", the percentage is of around 45% for
entrepreneurs/ship owners and employers' organisations. Despite this, it is important to note
that more than 60% of respondents of each group of stakeholders consider this problem at
least "somewhat important".
Figure 5. Relevance of the problem of safety by stakeholder type
39
3. Problem drivers
3.1. Problem of Restricted Labour Mobility: Overall perception of relevance of
different problem drivers
This section presents the overall perception of the relative importance of different drivers to
the problem of restricted labour mobility. It is important to note that these are the aggregated
responses of all stakeholders. Disaggregation by type of stakeholder is found in the following
section 3.2.
As shown in Figure 6, difficulties due to different requirements for professional qualifications
of workers within the inland navigation sector (56%) and the difficulties with the recognition
by national authorities of service record books (SRBs) or of the information contained in the
SRBs (55%) are in relative terms considered the aspects contributing the most to the problem
of restricted labour mobility. Around 50% of all respondents find that local knowledge
requirements (LKRs) preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch (51%) and
language problems preventing crew members of different nationalities to perform duties on
vessels sailing on the EU inland waters (48%) are "relevant" or "very relevant" problem
drivers. Finally, difficulties with the recognition of relevant professional qualifications of
workers from outside the sector are considered as the least important problem driver in
relative terms (43% rating it "very relevant" or "relevant").
The stakeholders were asked to assess the current system of mutual recognition of
Service Record Books operated through multilateral agreements between the
CCNR and a number of non-Rhine EU Member States. 40% of the respondents stated
that this system serves its purpose only partially, 21% consider that it does not serve its
purpose and only 13% of them consider that it serves its purpose fully.
When asked whether the current system of mutual recognition of boatmasters
certificates adequately addresses the labour mobility barriers for boatmasters from the
40
Non-Rhine EU Member States on the Rhine, 45% of the respondents say that mobility
barriers are only partially addressed, 26% think that they are not adequately addressed,
and only 12% consider that they are fully addressed through this system.
Figure 6. Relevance of different problem drivers to the problem of restricted labour mobility
3.2. Relevance of different problem drivers by type of stakeholder
3.2.1. Problem driver 1: Difficulties due to different requirements for professional
qualifications of workers within the inland navigation sector (requirements for
experience, exam programmes, physical and mental fitness)
Around 78% of education and training organisations and employers' organisations that
responded to the public consultation consider this problem driver as highly relevant, followed
by around 67% of boatmasters and public authorities, and 46% of shipping companies. Most
entrepreneurs/ship owners rated it as "somewhat relevant" (47%).
Figure 7. Relevance of problem driver 1 (different requirements for professional
qualifications) by type of stakeholder
41
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
Very relevant/ relevant Somewhat relevant
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Not relevant/very little relevance
Additionally, the river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the
public consultation rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas three out of four
ports rated it as "somewhat important". It is important to note that only 11% of the total
number of respondents finds this problem driver as "not relevant" or of "little relevance".
3.2.2. Problem driver 2: Difficulties with recognition of relevant professional
qualifications of workers from outside the sector (such as the maritime or fishing
sector)
The distribution of responses with regard to the second problem driver differs substantially by
group of stakeholder. An important percentage of education and training organisations (72%)
and employers' organisations (56%) consider it a highly relevant problem, followed by
shipping companies (46%). All the other groups consider it mainly "somewhat relevant", in
particular boatmasters (67%). Around 67% of public authorities and 60% entrepreneurs/ship
owners consider it at least "somewhat relevant".
Figure 8. Relevance of problem driver 2 (recognition of qualifications of workers from
outside the sector) by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas three out of four ports rated it as
"somewhat important".
42
3.2.3. Problem driver 3: Local Knowledge Requirements (LKRs) may prevent
boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch (relevant for boatmasters only)
Perceptions of the relevance of this problem driver vary between types of stakeholders, as
shown in Figure 9. Education and training organisations and employers' organisations are the
groups that consider it more important, with 67% of their respondents rating it as highly
relevant, followed by shipping companies (62%). At the same time, entrepreneurs/ship
owners and boatmasters are the groups of stakeholders that perceive this problem driver as
less relevant, in relative terms, with 67% of their respondents rating it as highly important or
somewhat important. With regards to public authorities, it should be noted that despite
presenting a relatively low percentage of "highly relevant" responses, only 11% of them
consider the issues with LKRs of no relevance. Additionally, the river commission and the
worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation consider this problem driver
as highly relevant.
Figure 9. Relevance of problem driver 3 (Local Knowledge Requirements) by type of
stakeholder
The public consultation also asked the stakeholders about the justification of local knowledge
requirements. As shown in Figure 10, 70% of the respondents consider that LKRs are
justified when there are some special hydro morphological characteristics of the river sector
which make navigation very difficult; 60% of them consider they are justified when there are
specific local traffic regulations in place due to safety concerns, and 49% of them refer to the
absence of appropriate marking systems.
Figure 10. Criteria for the establishment of Local Knowledge Requirements 11
11
This graph shows the percentage of stakeholders that consider each of these criteria relevant for the
establishment of LKRs. It has to be taken into account that more than one response was allowed.
43
When asked about whether the LKRs which are currently in force in Member States are
justified in view of the criteria referred to above (hydro morphological characteristics,
absence of marking systems, local traffic regulations), the responses provided were the
following:
Figure 11. Justification of the currently enforced LKRs 12
Answer Number
The currently enforced LKRs are fully justified in view of the criteria
38
mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are partially justified in view of the
30
criteria mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are not justified in view of the criteria
47
mentioned
Don't Know 15
Total 94
3.2.4. Problem driver 4: Difficulties with the recognition by national authorities in
the Member States of Service Record Books (SRBs) or of the information contained
in the SRBs
The difficulties with the recognition of SRBs are considered by 78% of employers'
organisations responding to the public consultation as "relevant" or "very relevant" drivers to
the problem of restricted labour mobility. A slightly lower percentage is registered for public
authorities and shipping companies (around 70% in each case). Entrepreneurs/ship owners are
the group of stakeholders that registers a lower percentage of "highly relevant" responses
(20%). Despite this, it is important to note that 67% of them consider it either "somewhat
relevant" or "highly relevant". Boatmasters present a divided position: half of the respondents
consider it very relevant, whereas the other half consider it of little relevance.
Figure 12. Relevance of problem driver 4 (recognition of Service Record Books) by type of
stakeholder
12
This graph shows the number of stakeholders that gave each response.
44
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as "very relevant" or "relevant", whereas three out of four ports rated
it as "somewhat relevant".
3.2.5. Problem driver 5: Language problems prevent crew members of a different
nationality to perform duties on vessels sailing on the EU inland waterways
Language problems are considered a relevant barrier to labour mobility in inland navigation
by education and training organisations and by boatmasters (67% each), while it is considered
as "somewhat relevant" by most employers' organisations responding to the consultation
(67%). Public authorities, shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners have an
intermediate position, with around 40-50% of them rating language problems as highly
relevant.
Figure 13. Relevance of problem driver 5 (language problems) by type of stakeholder
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very relevant/relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant/ very little relevance
Furthermore, the river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public
consultation rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas the ports present a more
45
dispersed opinion. In total, 80% of the respondents consider language problems as somewhat
relevant to very relevant with regard to labour mobility issues.
3.3. Safety problem: Overall perception of relevance of different problem
drivers
This section presents the overall perception of all stakeholders of the relative importance of
different problem drivers to the problem of safety. In order to do this, the responses "relevant"
and "very relevant" were aggregated. Responses by type of stakeholder are found in the
following section 3.4.
As shown in Figure 14, language problems caused by crew members of different nationalities
resulting in communication problems is, in relative terms, considered the aspect contributing
the most to the problem of safety (85% of the respondents considering it either highly relevant
or somewhat relevant). Around 76% of all respondents find that the standards for professional
training in inland navigation which are set at national level have not kept up with
technological development, making it a highly relevant or somewhat relevant problem driver.
Figure 14. Relevance of different problem drivers to the problem of safety
3.4. Relevance of problem drivers by type of stakeholder
3.4.1. Problem driver 1: The standards for professional training in inland navigation
which are set at national level have not kept up with technological development
The importance of this problem driver is perceived by the different groups of stakeholders as
relatively lower with respect to others, with the exception of education and training
organisations, with 78% of its respondents rating it as "relevant" or "very relevant". Despite
this, more than 60% of the respondents of each group of stakeholders consider it, at least,
"somewhat important", reaching 83% in the case of public authorities and boatmasters.
Employers' organisations and entrepreneurs/ship owners are the groups that consider it less
important, in relative terms.
46
Figure 15. Relevance of problem driver 1 (standards for professional training have not kept
up with technological development) by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant, whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat relevant" to "very relevant". In total, 75% of the respondents consider
language problems as somewhat relevant to very relevant with regard to safety issues.
3.4.2. Problem driver 2: Language problems caused by crew members of different
nationalities, resulting in communication problems
The perception of the importance of language problems for safety differs between groups of
stakeholders. Whereas education and training organisations and boatmasters rate it as highly
relevant (89% and 83% respectively), shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners find
it relatively less relevant. Despite this, almost 80% of both groups consider it either highly
relevant or somewhat relevant. As shown in Figure 16, the opinion of employers'
organisations is the most polarized.
Figure 16. Relevance of problem driver 2 (language problems) by type of stakeholder
47
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this problem driver as highly relevant.
4. Assessment of policy objectives
In this section of the public consultation, the Commission sought to identify the degree to
which Member States and stakeholders agree with the proposed objectives of the future
initiative.
4.1. Overall perception of relevance of different policy objectives
This section presents the overall perception of all stakeholders of the relative importance of
different policy objectives of the future initiative regarding the recognition and modernisation
of professional qualifications in inland navigation. Responses by type of stakeholder are
found in section 4.2. As shown in Figure 17, the three policy objectives (eliminate barriers to
labour mobility and improve safety both by addressing the human factor and by bringing
training standards in line with new technological development) are considered equally
relevant, with around 75% of respondents considering them "very important" or "important".
Overall, less than 10% of respondents consider the different policy objectives as not
important.
Figure 17. Relevance of different policy objectives
4.2. Relevance of policy objectives by type of stakeholder
4.2.1. Policy objective 1: Eliminate barriers to labour mobility
An important percentage of education and training organisations (89%), employers'
organisations (89%), shipping companies (84%), public authorities (71%) and boatmasters
(67%) consider this policy objective as "very important" or "important". Entrepreneurs/ship
owners present a more dispersed opinion, with 40% of them considering it "somewhat
important" and 20% of them stating that it is not an important objective.
48
Figure 18. Relevance of policy objective 1 by type of stakeholder
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy objective as "very important", whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat important" to "very important". As shown in Figure 18, the overall support
to this policy objective is very high, with only 7% of total respondents considering it not
important.
4.2.2. Policy objective 2: Improve safety in the IWT sector by addressing the human
factor
With regards to policy objective 2, responses differ considerably between groups of
stakeholders. Education and training organisations and public authorities consider that
addressing the human factor to improve safety is a highly important objective (with 94% and
89% of them, respectively, stating that it is "very important" or "important"). The groups that
in relative terms consider this objective as less important are entrepreneurs/ship owners and
employers' organisations.
Figure 19. Relevance of policy objective 2 by type of stakeholder
49
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy objective as very important, whereas the responses of the four ports range
from "somewhat important" to "very important".
4.2.3. Policy objective 3: Improve safety in the IWT sector by bringing training
standards in line with new technological development
As shown in Figure 20, the support to this policy objective is high in almost all groups of
stakeholders, with only 7% of total respondents considering it not important. All education
and training organisations participating in the public consultation consider it either "very
important" or "important", whereas the percentages are of 83% in the case of boatmasters and
of 78% in the case of public authorities and employers' organisations. Moreover, more than
50% of entrepreneurs/ship owners and shipping companies find it highly relevant, a
percentage that increases notably if responses "somewhat relevant" are also aggregated.
Figure 20. Relevance of policy objective 3 by type of stakeholder
The worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy
objective as "very important", the river commission considers it "important" and the responses
of the four ports range from "somewhat important" to "very important".
5. Assessment of policy options
The European Commission has identified a number of possible policy measures that may
address the problem areas referred to above. The results presented in this section reflect the
opinions of the different stakeholders with regards to the suitability of the different measures.
PROBLEM OF RESTRICTED LABOUR MOBILITY
Problem driver 1: Different requirements for professional qualifications of workers
within the inland navigation sector
Policy measure 1: Extension of the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition of
boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for mutual recognition of professional
qualifications in SRBs
Policy measure 2: Introduction of mandatory harmonised requirements for age and physical
and mental fitness for all crew members
Policy measure 3: Harmonisation of definitions of certain professional qualifications in inland
navigation and mandatory harmonised requirements for these qualifications
50
Policy measure 4: Harmonised EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications
in IWT
Policy measure 5: Introduction at EU level of a central register for EU boatmaster certificates
Policy measure 6: Introduction of voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector
towards lowering labour mobility obstacles
Problem driver 2: Different requirements for professional qualifications for workers
from outside the sector
Policy measure 7: Introduction of a common method for lowering the barriers for maritime
sailing time/experience to qualify as inland navigation sailing time/experience
Problem driver 3: LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river
Policy measure 8: Introduction of mandatory common criteria for establishing LKRs in the
EU
Policy measure 9: Harmonisation of competency/examination requirements for LKRs
Policy measure 10: Introduction of non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs in the EU
Policy measure 11: Introduction of non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
examination requirements for LKRs
Problem driver 4: Difficulty of extracting reliable information from SRBs needed for
workers to prove their professional qualifications in order to allow operating in another
country or other river basin
Policy measure 12: Introduction of a mandatory electronic SRB and a central register for e-
SRB
Problem driver 5: Language problems preventing crew members of a different
nationality to perform duties on vessels sailing on the EU inland waterways
Policy measure 13: Introduction of River Speak
PROBLEM OF SAFETY
Problem driver 1: Standards for professional training in inland navigation have not kept
up with technological development
Policy measure 14: Harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards for all
professional qualifications in inland navigation
Policy measure 15: Introduction of voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector
towards improving safety
Problem driver 2: Language problems, caused by crew members of different
51
nationalities, resulting in communication problems
Policy measure 13: Introduction of River Speak
PROBLEM OF RESTRICTED LABOUR MOBILITY
5.1 Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility due to different requirements for
professional qualifications of workers within the inland navigation sector
This section presents the overall perception of the relative suitability of different policy
measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility. It is important to note that
these are the aggregated responses of all stakeholders. Disaggregation by type of stakeholder
is found in section 5.2.
As shown in Figure 21, the harmonisation of definitions for certain professional qualifications
in inland navigation and mandatory harmonized requirements for these qualifications (74%)
and the harmonisation of EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications in
inland navigation (71%) are, in relative terms, considered the most adequate policy measures,
followed by the mandatory harmonisation of requirements for age and physical and mental
fitness (68%). Introducing voluntary measures from the inland navigation sector towards
lowering labour mobility obstacles is considered the least adequate policy measure in relative
terms by all stakeholders (56%), followed by the measure of extending the CCNR initiated
process of mutual recognition of boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for
mutual recognition of professional qualifications in Service Record Books (60%). It is
important to note that less than 10% of respondents find these policy measures as not
appropriate, with the exception of the introduction of an EU central register (15%). Therefore,
there is an overall high support to these measures.
Figure 21. Relevance of different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications of workers within
the inland navigation sector
52
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Extending the CCNR Harmonisation of Harmonisation of Harmonisation of Introducing an EU Introducing
initiated process of requirements for definitions of EU minimum central register for voluntary measures
mutual recognition age and physical professional training standards EU boatmaster towards lowering
and mental fitness qualifications for professional certificates labour mobility
for all crew qualifications obstacles
members
Very appropriate/appropriate Somewhat appropriate Not appropriate/very little Don't know
5.2. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour
mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications of workers
within the inland navigation sector, by type of stakeholder
5.2.1. Policy measure 1: Extending the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition
of boatmaster certificates by establishing a mechanism for mutual recognition of
professional qualifications in Service Record Books
As shown in Figure 22, extending the CCNR initiated process of mutual recognition would be
considered "very adequate" or "adequate" by 72% of public authorities and education and
training organisations and by 67% of employers' organisations that responded to the public
consultation. At the same time, the responses of around 70% of entrepreneurs/ship owners,
shipping companies and boatmasters range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat
appropriate". Entrepreneurs/ship owners are the group that register more "not appropriate"
responses.
Figure 22. Relevance of policy measure 1 by type of stakeholder
53
The workers' organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy measure
as "very appropriate", the river commission rates it "somewhat appropriate" and the responses
of the four ports range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat appropriate".
5.2.2. Policy measure 2: Mandatory harmonised requirements for age and physical
and mental fitness for all crew members
All boatmasters, 88% of employers' organisations, 83% of education and training
organisations and 72% of public authorities that answered to the public consultation consider
that this policy measure would be "appropriate" or "very appropriate" to deal with the
problem of labour mobility. The percentages are lower for the other types of stakeholders, in
particular for entrepreneurs/ship owners (40%). Despite this, it is important to note that 85%
of shipping companies and 73% of entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it, at least, "somewhat
appropriate".
Figure 23. Relevance of policy measure 2 by type of stakeholder
54
The river commission contributing to the public consultation rated this policy measure as
"appropriate", whereas the workers' organisation considers it "somewhat appropriate".
5.2.3. Policy measure 3: Harmonisation of definitions of certain professional
qualifications in inland navigation and mandatory harmonised requirements for
these qualifications
This measure is considered "very appropriate" or "appropriate" by all employers'
organisations and boatmasters that contributed to the public consultation, and by a high
percentage of education and training organisations (94%), and public authorities (83%). The
majority of shipping companies consider it "somewhat appropriate" (53%), whereas the
opinion of entrepreneurs/ship owners is more divided. Moreover, the river commission and
the worker's organisation contributing to the public consultation rated this policy measure as
"very appropriate".
When asked for which crew members they consider that policy measures 2 and 3 would be
most appropriate, 60% of respondents said that they should apply to boatmasters and
other crew members, whereas 24% answered they should only apply to boatmasters.
Figure 24. Relevance of policy measure 3 by type of stakeholder
5.2.4. Policy measure 4: Harmonised EU minimum training standards for
professional qualifications in inland navigation
Harmonising the EU minimum training standards for professional qualifications in inland
navigation is considered a highly appropriate policy measure by all education and training
organisations and by all boatmasters that contributed to the public consultation, as well as by
67% of employers' organisations, 61% of shipping companies and 61% of public authorities.
The opinion of entrepreneurs/ship owners is more divided, but only 13% consider it not
appropriate. It is important to note that more than 90% of all respondents consider this policy
measure at least "somewhat appropriate".
Figure 25. Relevance of policy measure 4 by type of stakeholder
55
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy measure as "very appropriate", whereas the four ports consider it either
"appropriate" or "very appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate, 61% of respondents stated that it should apply to boatmasters and other
crew members, whereas 28% answered it should only apply to boatmasters.
5.2.5. Policy measure 5: Introducing at EU level of a central register for EU
boatmaster certificates
Introducing a central register for EU boatmaster certificate is perceived by the majority of
education and training organisations and by public authorities that participated in the public
consultation as highly appropriate (with 89% and 78% of their respondents considering it
"very appropriate" or "appropriate", respectively), followed by boatmasters (67%). Around
40% of shipping companies and entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it highly appropriate, and
the percentage increases notably when "somewhat appropriate" is also taken into account.
Figure 26. Relevance of policy measure 5 by type of stakeholder
56
The river commission and the worker's organisation that contributed to the public consultation
rated this policy measure as "very appropriate", whereas the four ports consider it either
"appropriate" or "very appropriate".
5.2.6. Policy measure 6: Introducing voluntary measures from the inland navigation
sector towards lowering labour mobility obstacles
As shown in Figure 27, approximately 80% of respondents of all groups of stakeholders
consider this policy measure, at least, "somehow appropriate". The groups that register higher
percentage of highly appropriate responses are employers' organisations, with 89% of
respondents considering the measure as either "very appropriate" or "appropriate",
boatmasters (67%) and education and training organisations (61%). The workers'
organisation that contributed to the public consultation rated this policy measure as "very
appropriate", the river commission considers it "somewhat appropriate" and the responses of
the four ports range between "very appropriate" and "somewhat appropriate".
Figure 27. Relevance of policy measure 6 by type of stakeholder
57
5.2.7. Additional issues: certification of professional qualification
Stakeholders were invited to comment on a number of aspects related to the policy measures
previously presented. In particular, this section presents the answers given to questions related
to the system of certification of professional qualifications for boatmasters. One of these
questions was: "Do you think it is necessary to extend the requirement for certification also to
the highest rank under the level of boatmaster?" Responses differ substantially by type of
stakeholder (see graph below). While the majority of respondents from education and training
organisations gave a positive response (83%), followed by boatmasters (67%), the majority of
respondents of other groups of stakeholders consider that only boatmasters should be required
to have a certificate, in particular employers' organisations (78%), shipping companies (70%)
and entrepreneurs/ship owners (60%).
Figure 28. Extension of certification to the highest rank of responsibility below
boatmasters
Stakeholders were also asked about the appropriateness of introducing a modular
certification system for boatmasters, which would imply the introduction of specific
requirements for certificates with regard to waterways on maritime character, operation
of only small vessels on small waterways, and operation of large convoys. Figure 29
presents the stakeholders' responses. In this case, more than one answer was allowed.
Half of the respondents considers that such a modular system should maintain the
current specific requirements for boatmasters that operate on waterways of maritime
character, 42% of them consider that the modular system should introduce specific more
stringent requirements for boatmasters operating large convoys, and 39% of them
consider that it should introduce less stringent requirements for boatmasters operating in
small vessels on small waterways.
Figure 29. Differentiation of boatmasters certificates
% of
Number
respondents
Yes, such a modular system should maintain the current specific (more stringent)
47 50%
requirements for boatmasters that operate on waterways of maritime character
58
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (less stringent) requirements
37 39.4%
for boatmasters that operate small vessels on small waterways only
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
33 35.1%
requirements for boatmasters that operate large passenger vessels
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
39 41.5%
requirements for boatmasters that operate large convoys
Yes, such a modular system is important and other categories need to be
16 17%
considered
No, there is no need for such a differentiated approach 12 12.8%
I don’t know 11 11.7%
Total 195 -
5.3. Relevance of policy measure 7 ("Introduction of a common method for
lowering the barriers for maritime sailing time/experience to qualify as inland
navigation sailing time/experience") to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to different requirements for professional qualifications for
workers from outside the sector
The majority of stakeholders answering to this public consultation find this policy measure at
least somewhat appropriate. 67% of education and training organisations and 44% of
employers' organisations find it either "very appropriate" or "appropriate", whereas
boatmasters are the group of stakeholders presenting a lower percentage of these responses.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that more 80% of them consider it at least somewhat
appropriate. Public authorities, entrepreneurs/ship owners and shipping companies are
considerably divided in their responses. Additionally, the workers' organisation, the river
commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public consultation rate this policy
measure as "somewhat appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate, 53% of respondents said that it should apply to boatmasters and other crew
members, 17% answered it should only apply to boatmasters, and 17% answered that
answered it should only apply to other crew members.
Figure 30. Relevance of policy measure 7 by type of stakeholder
59
5.4. Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing
boatmasters to operate on a certain stretch of a river
This section presents the overall perception of all respondents of the relative suitability of
different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility due to local
knowledge requirements. As shown in Figure 31, the harmonisation of
competency/examination requirements (59%) and the establishment of mandatory common
criteria for establishing LKRs in the EU (57%) are, in relative terms, considered the most
adequate policy measures. The two remaining measures implying non-binding
recommendations are perceived as relatively less appropriate.
Figure 31. Relevance of different policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted
labour mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Mandatory criteria for Harmonization of Non-binding Non-binding
establishing LKRs and competency/examination recommendations recommendations
maritime waters in the EU requirements for LKRs and regarding criteria for regarding criteria for
maritime waters establishing LKRs and examination requirements
maritime waters for LKRs and maritime
waters
Very appropriate/appropriate Somewhat appropriate Not appropriate/very little Don’t know/N.A.
53% of the respondents consider that the use of simulators in training programmes or exams
could lead to a reduction of training or experience requirements for LKRs, whereas 37% of
respondents do not agree with the previous statement.
60
5.5. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the problem of restricted labour
mobility due to LKRs potentially preventing boatmasters to operate on a certain
stretch of a river, by stakeholder
5.5.1. Policy measure 8: Mandatory common criteria for establishing LKRs in the EU
This policy measure is considered highly appropriate by the majority of employers'
organisations (89% of them rating it either "very appropriate" or "appropriate"), education and
training organisations (78%), boatmasters (67%) and shipping companies (62%), whereas it
receives lower support from entrepreneurs/ship owners (40%) and public authorities (44%).
However, more that 50% of them rate this policy measure at least "somewhat appropriate".
Additionally, the river commission contributing to this public consultation considers this
measure as "very appropriate".
Figure 32. Relevance of policy measure 8 by type of stakeholder
5.5.2. Policy measure 9: Harmonisation of competency/examination requirements for LKR
As shown in Figure 33, the distribution of opinions about the appropriateness of this policy
measure varies by type of stakeholder. The majority of education and training organisations
consider it highly appropriate (89%), followed by shipping companies (69%), boatmasters
(67%), employers' organisations (67%) and public authorities (56%). Even though 40% of
entrepreneurs/ship owners find it "not appropriate", it should be noted that 53% of their
respondents consider the measure at least "somewhat appropriate". The river commission
contributing to this public consultation considers this policy measure as "very appropriate".
Figure 33. Relevance of policy measure 9 by type of stakeholder
61
5.5.3. Policy measure 10: Non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs in the EU
In general, this policy measure receives low support by the different groups of stakeholders,
with the only exception of boatmasters. As shown in Figure 34, most of the other groups of
stakeholders consider this policy measure as either "not appropriate" or only "somewhat
appropriate".
Figure 34. Relevance of policy measure 10 by type of stakeholder
The river commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public consultation
consider this policy measure as "not appropriate", whereas the other two ports and the
workers' organisation did not provide an answer.
5.5.4. Policy measure 11: Non-binding recommendations regarding criteria for
examination requirements for LKR
Similarly to the previous measure, the establishment of non-binding recommendations
regarding criteria for examination requirements for LKR is in general not considered an
appropriate measure to deal with the problem of restricted labour mobility. This policy
measure registers the lowest support among stakeholders, with the only exception of
boatmasters. The river commission and two of the four ports contributing to this public
consultation consider this policy measure as "not appropriate". The other two ports and the
workers' organisation do no provide an answer.
62
Figure 35. Relevance of policy measure 11 by type of stakeholder
When asked whether the information provided by River Information Services could
replace in certain cases the need for local knowledge requirements, 52% of the respondents
answered "yes, sometimes", 22% answered "never", and 18% answered "yes, always".
5.6. Relevance of policy measure 12 ("Introduce a mandatory electronic SRB
and a central register for e-SRB") to deal with the difficulty of extracting
reliable information from SRBs needed for workers to prove their professional
qualifications, by stakeholder
Introducing a mandatory electronic SRB is considered appropriate by 78% of education and
training organisations, 78% of employers' organisations and 72% of public authorities.
Despite registering a lower percentage of "very appropriate" and "appropriate" responses than
the previously mentioned groups, more than 60% of shipping companies, boatmasters and
entrepreneurs/ship owners consider it at least "somewhat appropriate". The specific
distribution of responses is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36. Relevance of policy measure 12 by type of stakeholder
The workers' organisation participating to this public consultation consider this policy
measure "very appropriate", whereas the river commission rates it as "very appropriate".
When asked about which crew members they consider that this policy measure would be most
appropriate for, 52% of respondents answered boatmasters and other crew members,
63
16% answered only boatmasters and 16% answered only other crew members. When asked
whether they think that introducing electronic SRBs would be beneficial for inland
navigation, 74% of the stakeholders responded positively. Furthermore, 64% of the
respondents consider that the introduction of electronic SRBs should be accompanied by the
introduction of electronic logbooks (for instance to verify entries made in the e-SRB with
regard to sailing time).
Stakeholders where additionally asked for what purposes would the e-SRB be used. Figure 37
below shows the percentage of total stakeholders that stated that they "totally agree" or "tend
to agree".
Figure 37. Use of the e-SRBs
5.7. Relevance of policy measure 13 ("Introduction of River Speak") to deal with the
problem of restricted labour mobility derived from language problems
The introduction of River Speak or other language-neutral means of communication in the
training programmes and as a part of professional qualifications is considered by 72% of
stakeholders contributing to the public consultation as a measure that could help addressing
the problem of mobility of IWT workers. As shown in Figure 38, education and training
organisations are the group that presents a higher support to this measure (94%), followed by
public authorities (78%) and entrepreneurs/ship owners (73%). 60% of shipping companies
rate the measure as relevant to improve labour mobility, despite being the group that gives the
lowest support to the measure, in relative terms. The river commission and the workers'
organisation that participated in the public consultation also consider this measure as very
appropriate.
Figure 38. Relevance of policy measure 13 to deal with the problem of mobility, by type of
stakeholder
64
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No I don’t know
PROBLEM OF SAFETY
5.8 Overall perception of relevance of different policy measures to deal with the
safety problem related to the fact that the standards for professional training in
inland navigation have not kept up with technological development
This section presents the relative importance of different policy measures to the problem of
safety, as results from the responses of all the stakeholders participating in the public
consultation. Responses by type of stakeholder are found in the following section 5.8. As
shown in Figure 39, the harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards for all
professional qualifications in inland navigation is in relative terms considered more
appropriate to deal with safety problems than introducing voluntary measures (83% of
respondents consider harmonisation “somewhat appropriate”, "appropriate" or "very
appropriate", versus 66% in the case of voluntary measures). Only 10% considers the
harmonisation measures as not appropriate, whereas this figure rises up to 23% for the
voluntary measures.
Figure 39. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the safety problem related to the fact
that standards for professional training have not kept up with technological development
65
Stakeholders were asked whether the use of simulators in inland navigation training and
education programmes would increase safety in the sector. The majority of respondents (84%)
answered positively.
5.9. Relevance of policy measures to deal with the safety problem related to the
fact that the standards for professional training in inland navigation have not
kept up with technological development, by type of stakeholder
5.9.1. Policy measure 14: Harmonisation at EU level of minimum training standards
for all professional qualifications in inland navigation
The distribution of responses with regards to the appropriateness of this policy measure
differs notably by group of stakeholder. Approximately 90% of education and training
organisations consider it highly appropriate, followed by 67% of boatmasters and 61% of
public authorities. At the same time, employers' organisations, shipping companies and
entrepreneurs/ship owners present a higher percentage of "somewhat important" responses.
Figure 40. Relevance of policy measure 14 by type of stakeholder
The river commission contributing to this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "very appropriate", whereas the workers' organisation finds it "appropriate". The
opinion of ports is highly dispersed in this case. It is important to note that, in general, more
than 80% of respondents find this policy measure, at least, "somewhat important".
When asked for which crew members you consider that this policy measure would be the
most appropriate, 71% of respondents answered boatmasters and other crew members,
whereas 17% stated only boatmasters.
5.9.2. Policy measure 15: Introducing voluntary measures from the inland
navigation sector towards improving safety
The perception of the appropriateness of this measure to deal with the problem of safety is
comparatively more dispersed than in previous cases. The majority of respondents of all
groups of stakeholders perceive this measure as at least "somewhat appropriate". Education
and training organisations and boatmasters are the groups registering a higher percentage of
"very appropriate" or "appropriate" responses, with 50% of the respondents in each case.
Figure 41. Relevance of policy measure 15 by type of stakeholder
66
The river commission participating in this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "somewhat appropriate".
5.10. Relevance of policy measure 13 ("Introduction of River Speak") to deal with the
safety problem derived from language problems
Around 80% of the respondents consider that the introduction of River Speak or other
language-neutral means of communication in the training programmes and as a part of
professional qualifications would help improving the levels of safety in the sector. As shown
in Figure 42, all employers' organisations that participated in this public consultation give
support to this measure, followed by 94% of education and training organisations, 89% of
public authorities, 80% of entrepreneurs/ship owners and 77% of shipping companies. The
workers' organisation and the river commission participating in this public consultation also
have a positive opinion on this measure.
Figure 42. Relevance of policy measure 13 to deal with problem of safety, by type of
stakeholder
6. Regional differences in the impact of the measures
The stakeholders in the online public consultation were asked to compare harmonised
requirements measures with voluntary measures. The main results for two important river
areas, the Rhine and Danube, are summarized below:
67
- With regard to labour mobility, mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and
training standards will, according to 85% of CCNR stakeholders, and a bit less than 80%
of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on labour mobility. For
voluntary measures these percentages are respectively around 50% and 60%.
- With regard to administrative burden: mandatory harmonised professional qualifications
and training standards will, according to 54% of CCNR stakeholders and more than 70%
of Danube stakeholders, result in fairly to very positive effects on the administrative
burden. For voluntary measures these percentages are respectively around 23 and 62%.
With regard to safety: mandatory harmonised professional qualifications and training
standards will according to around 90% of CCNR stakeholders, and more than 85% of
Danube stakeholders result in fairly to very positive safety effects. For voluntary measures
these percentages are both only around 60%. For the voluntary approach, respectively 8
and 4 % of CCNR and Danube respondents foresee negative effects.
The online public consultation revealed similar support both from the CCRN and the Danube
region
7. Conclusions
The responses received within the online public stakeholder consultation on the
"Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation"
confirm that the problems of restricted labour mobility and safety identified by the
European Commission are of high importance and need to be dealt with, in order to
remove the barriers between EU Member States for exercising professions in the field of
inland navigation. The majority of the respondents considered the different problem
drivers and subsequent policy objectives identified as highly relevant.
The online consultation also gathered information about the opinion of different groups
of stakeholders with regards to the appropriateness of 15 different policy measures. The
responses received confirm a high level of support to measures implying the
harmonisation of professional requirements, qualifications and examinations in inland
navigation between EU Member States, whereas the introduction of voluntary measures
or non-binding recommendations receives a considerably lower level of support.
The voice of the stakeholders on specific problems and measures gathered through this
public consultation will help the European Commission to devise a set of appropriate
policy measures during the process of elaboration of the impact assessment
accompanying a potential legislative proposal on the recognition and modernisation of
professional qualifications in inland navigation.
68
Annex 2:
Estimated number of IWT workers
Table 1 Estimated number of workers in 2011
Total Total Total IWT Total Total
Countries
freight passenger employment boatmasters operational staff
Netherlands* 10,820 3,088 13,908 6,053 7,855
Germany***** 2,774 2,815 5,589 1,337 4,252
France* 1,673 2,027 3,700 790 2,910
Luxembourg** 2,555 256 2,811 668 2,143
Italy* 634 1,919 2,553 1,290 1,263
Belgium* 1,851 548 2,399 1,659 740
Romania* 2,081 248 2,329 491 1,838
Bulgaria*/*** 1,385 294 1,679 911 768
Switzerland 417 1,197 1,614 416 1,198
Sweden* 118 983 1,101 250 851
United Kingdom* 299 752 1,051 263 788
Hungary* 267 600 867 201 666
Portugal** 0 853 853 55 798
Czech Republic* 517 283 800 135 665
Poland* 313 303 616 284 332
Slovakia* 413 31 444 89 355
Spain* 44 344 388 62 326
Finland* 39 228 267 41 226
Austria* 51 157 208 88 120
Lithuania* 0 145 145 11 134
Denmark*/** 48 95 143 24 119
Croatia*/** 121 12 133 20 113
Latvia* 89 17 106 5 101
Estonia** 0 61 61 7 54
Slovenia* 40 21 61 38 23
Total 26,549 17,277 43,826 15,190 28,636
* Based on division between mobile workers and self-employed given by EUROSTAT for 2010
** Based on number of enterprises in 2010 (or most recent information) and the average number of self-
employed and average number of workers per enterprise.
*** Based on survey carried out in 2013 under Ministries, Trade unions and Employer organisations in EU-28.
**** Based on share freight and passenger vessel within the IVR ship registration for the 2011.
***** Based on available statistics for 2011.
Source: Ecorys (2013), updated by Panteia (2014).
69
Annex 3:
Baseline scenario: evolution of current IWT labour market (demand supply model)
This Annex is an extract from the study « Contribution to the problem definition in the
context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment: Recognition of professional qualification
and training standards in inland navigation" (Panteia 2014, pages 59-71 as well as Appendix 4
of Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland
navigation : technical support for an impact assessment). The extract provides the
assumptions, methodology and calculations supporting the demand supply model developed
by Panteia, and underpinning the evidence in the problem definition, baseline scenario and
assessment of impact of this IAR.
Introduction
In this Annex, the evolution of the IWT labour market will be further described. Building on
the data from the earlier chapters, a labour market model is set up that takes account of the
demand for IWT workers on the one hand and the supply of IWT workers on the other hand.
This will be done for each IWT corridor and altogether, so that regional differences in the
demand/supply gap over time can be identified. A sensitivity analysis will test for the impact
of changes in the assumptions that have been made.
Demand for workers for different IWT corridors
The demand for workers in the inland navigation sector is related to the total number of
vessels (and the amount of cargo transported) and the manning requirements. In the
study concerning the European Agreement on Working Time in IWT 13, the total amount
of workers needed in EU IWT has been forecasted from now up to 2050, taking into
account the enlargement of the fleet and the prospected growth of IWT transport.
This demand of labour has been distributed proportionally over four main IWT corridors
in Europe. The corridors and the countries which are in these corridors can be seen in
Table 1.
Table 1 Corridor-country matrix
Rhine North-South* Danube East-West**
Netherlands X X X
Belgium X X
Germany X X
Poland X
France X X
Switzerland X
Austria X
Slovakia X
Czech Republic X
Hungary X
Romania X
13
Ecorys (2013), Study on the costs and benefits of the implementation of the European Agreement on working
time in inland waterway transport – A comparison with the status quo
70
Bulgaria X
* The North-South corridor includes the following river basins: Scheldt, Rhône, Meuse and Seine
** The East-West corridor includes the following river basins: Elbe, Weser and Odra
Source: Panteia (2013)
Demand of workers
The demand of workers is determined as follows:
1. The distribution of the demand for workers over the various corridors is related to the
amount of cargo transported on these corridors.
2. The total amount of cargo transported on the corridors has been determined for 2007,
2020 and 2040 (NEA et al., 2011).
3. Extrapolating this data resulted in the amount of cargo transported in the years in between
the intervals and after 2040.
4. As smaller vessels operate on the North-South and East-West and thus traffic on these
corridors is more labour-intensive. A multiplication factor of 1.5 is used for traffic on
these corridors for the extra personnel needed.
5. Dividing the values for each corridor by the total, will give the ratios for the distribution
for demand of workers.
6. Multiplying the ratios by the total demand of workers as determined in Ecorys (2013) 14
will give the demand of workers per corridor per year.
The results of the proportional distribution of labour demand (for both operational
workers and boatmasters) for the period 2013 - 2050 can be seen in Figure 1. Figures are
presented in Annex 5, table A2 of the external study 15.
Figure 1Demand for workers in IWT sector (operational workers and boatmasters)
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
DANUBE RHINE NORTH-SOUTH EAST-WEST
Source: Panteia (2013), based on Study on the costs and benefits of the implementation of the European
Agreement on working time in inland waterway transport – A comparison with the status quo (Ecorys, 2013),
adjusted for corridors and the projected transport performances in 2020 and 2040 in Medium and Long Term
Perspectives of IWT in the European Union, Annex 2. NEA (2011).
14
Ecorys et al. (2013), Study on the costs and benefits of the implementation of the European Agreement on
working time in inland waterway transport – A comparison with the status quo.
15
Panteia (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact
Assessment: Recognition of professional qualification and training standards in inland navigation.
71
Figure 1 shows that the demand for workers is expected to increase at the start of 2035. This
can be seen for all corridors, however, the amount of workers needed in the Rhine corridor
will increase more steeply. A small decline can be noted on the Rhine corridor up to 2035,
whilst the demand of workers on the Danube and North-South corridor is expected to increase
slightly. In general, the demand of workers is expected to decrease up to 2035, as can be seen
from Figure 1 and Annex 5, Table A2 of the external study 16.
Supply of workers for different corridors
The supply side of IWT workers is modelled according to the scheme that is shown in
Figure 2. The core of the model consists of a subdivision of the workforce in different
age cohorts. Over a certain time span, the various age cohorts either increase or
decrease, because of:
• Inflow from younger workers from a lower age cohort
• Outflow of workers to a higher age cohort
• Lateral inflow of workers in an age cohort from other sectors (fishery, maritime, shore
side, others)
• Lateral outflow of workers in an age cohort (family circumstances, disability, job
mobility)
As special cases, the lowest age cohort also has inflow from IWT training institutes
(demonstrating the attractiveness of the IWT sector), while the highest age cohort has an
outflow due to retirement.
Figure 2 Schematic overview of evolution of age structure of IWT workforce
From:
• Maritime
Lateral inflow Lateral inflow Lateral inflow Lateral inflow
• Fishery
• Shore
At 20 years + 1 year + n years + 1 year At 65 years
Inflow from
Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort n Cohort n+1 Retirement
IWT school
Due to:
• Family; Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral
• Disability outflow outflow outflow outflow
• Job mobility
The following assumptions are made in order to estimate the supply of workers:
• All persons that enrol in a IWT-training institute will have an IWT job, either by graduating (85%) or
by a pathway via gaining experience in practice (15%);
Table 2 Statistics on the amount of students enrolled and graduating
16
ibidem
72
Institute 17 Year Students enrolled Students graduating Percentage
Time
18
graduating
STC (NL) 2 2006 185 184 99,5%
2007 177 172 97,2%
2008 169 172 101,8%
2009 180 178 98,9%
4 2006 135 121 89,6%
2007 124 126 101,6%
Harlingen (NL) 2 2005 57 48 84,2%
2006 70 55 78,6%
2007 52 35 67,3%
2008 61 61 100,0%
2009 40 43 107,5%
Duisburg 3 2005 108 101 93,5%
Schullschiff (DE) 2006 94 87 92,6%
2007 98 91 92,9%
2008 119 99 83,2%
Duisburg 3 2005 116 83 71,6%
SBK (DE) 2006 106 91 85,8%
2007 123 99 80,5%
2008 144 134 93,1%
Total N/a N/a 2158 1980 91,8%
Source: Data collected by STC (2013)
• If applicable, out of the 15%, 2/3rd take the experience based path to obtain their qualifications and
1/3rd will take a practical examination.
• All people entering the IWT workforce via education, enter at the age of 20.
• Outflow (apart from retiring at the age of 65) and lateral inflow from other sectors balance each
other for all age categories, as currently no data is available concerning lateral entrants or people
leaving the sector before retiring 19.
Onderwijs Centrum Binnenvaart (2014) has reported 58 practical exams in 2013. We have assumed
that 17 (=1/3rd of 15% of 340) of them are early school leavers that obtain their professional
qualifications by practical examination. The latter (41 workers) is considered lateral inflow. Nederland
Maritiem Land (2012) also reported an outflow of 130 workers in 2012, of which 32% is considered
as lateral outflow. This equals 41 workers.
Thus, see figure 3 for an overview of entrants to the IWT sector
Figure 3 Schematic overview of entrants and paths to qualifications
17
Duration of Education Program (2 years for boatsmen, 3 years for helmsman and 4 years for captain)
18
This number can be above 100%, when students double a year.
19 Apart from the fact that in the base case, lateral entrants are not taken into account due to the absence of reliable data, it must be noted
that lateral inflow/outflow may help to level a labour market imbalance between demand and supply.
73
School starters Lateral entrants
(n=340) (n=41)
15%
Non-Graduates
(n=51)
85% n=41
5% / n=17
10% / n=34
Education Experience Practical
graduates based path examination
(n=289) (n=34) (n=58)
• Attractiveness of IWT-education remains constant over the years, meaning that a constant
proportion of 20-year olds choose to enrol in an IWT training institute per year.
• The age of retirement for all workers has been set at 65 years.
• The distribution of IWT workers over the corridors remains proportionate.
In this study, the supply of workers is therefore determined by the current amount of workers
plus the amount of new students entering in training institutes, minus the amount of retirements
per year.
Current age distribution
The age distributions for the five countries with the largest workforce in IWT can be
seen in Figure 4. These age distributions are continuous, while the one from Figure 2.4
of the external study 20 have been divided into cohorts that span 10 years. In addition, an
estimation was made for the age distributions for Romania and other countries 21, due to
lack of data for these Member States. An average of the total EU IWT workforce
population was used to estimate the age distributions in these countries. For Romania,
data was only available for boatmasters and not for operational workers.
Figure 4 Age distributions for the five countries with most workers in IWT for 2013
20
ibidem
21
Other countries include Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria, as
well as all the other countries listed in table 2.1 and not specifically mentioned in this footnote and in figure 6.3.
This involves countries with isolated IWT networks, such as Italy, the United Kingdom, etc.
74
3,5%
3,0%
Percentage of total
2,5%
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Netherlands Belgium Germany
France Romania Other countries
Source: Panteia (2013) based on data from ITB and Ecorys (2013)
Future developments of IWT labour market
Attractiveness of IWT sector (representing the students outflow from training
institutes)
For the evolution of the IWT workforce in time it is important to predict the outflow
from training institutes. Partly, this depends on the amount of youth available. In the
base case, it is assumed that a constant proportion of youth will choose to enrol (and
graduate) in IWT training. The proportion of students enrolled in IWT training institutes
compared to the total amount of students is defined as the attractiveness of IWT
training. In this study, we have assumed the amount of 20-year-olds per country as a
proxy to the total amount of students per country. The attractiveness of IWT education is
further assumed to remain constant over time and it is estimated, based on the current
proportion between new entrants to IWT education and current 20-year-olds.
The Europop2010 22 population projections on country level have been taken for the
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Austria to determine the amount of 20-
year-olds within the period of scope (2013 – 2050). For all the other countries, data from
the World Bank has been used 23. By multiplying this amount by the attractiveness of
IWT education, the amount of young people entering the profession can be determined
for each year.
22
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_projections
23
The national statistical institutes of the mentioned countries have shown disaggregated data for the
Europop2010 population projections. Eurostat, the data source for the other countries, showed the population
projections in age groups of five years. World Bank data, however, provided disaggregated data for these
countries.
75
Attractiveness of IWT education in 2013
STC 24 determined the amount of students entering in IWT training institutes. The survey
comprised 12 countries and 26 training institutes. The attractiveness of IWT education is
calculated as follows:
1 The amount of 20-year-olds for each country, is taken from Europop2010 or World Bank
population projections;
2 The amount of new entrants per year as reported by STC is taken and divided by the
amount of 20-year-olds from the population projections.
As not all of these institutes provided data for the amount of graduates per year, the amount of
new entrants per year has been taken as a proxy for the amount of people eventually entering
the IWT sector, either by a path through the education institutes or by gaining experience. See
section 2.9 of the external study 25 for further evidence of this.
The attraction of IWT education in 2013 per 10,000 adolescents of 20 years old can be
observed in Table 3. In total, it is estimated that the sector attracts 923 new entrants in
2013.
Table 3 Attractiveness of IWT education in 2013, per country
Country Entrants in Attraction Country Entrants Attraction
IWT (per 10,000) in IWT (per 10,000)
Netherlands 340 16.3 Germany 152 1.9
Romania 197 7.9 France 68 0.9
Bulgaria 28 3.7 Switzerland 8 0.8
Slovakia 19 2.6 Hungary 10 0.8
Belgium 33 2.4 Poland 31 0.6
Czech R. 31 2.4 Austria 6 0.6
Source: STC (2013), adjusted by Panteia based on Europop2010 population projections for the Netherlands,
Belgium, Germany, France and Austria and Worldbank-projections for the other countries.
As we have assumed the attractiveness of IWT education institutes to remain constant
over time, multiplying the amount of 20-year-olds per year by the attractiveness of IWT
(divided by 10,000) will give the amount of new entrants per year. This can be seen in
Figure 5.
Figure 5 New entrants to IWT sector per country (2013-2050)
24
STC B.V. provides tailor-made training and education for the complete logistics chain, offshore,
dredging, shipping, maintenance and process industry.
25
ibidem
76
400 Netherlands
350 Belgium
Germany
300
Poland
250 France
200 Switzerland
Austria
150
Slovakia
100
Czech Republic
50 Hungary
0 Romania
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Bulgaria
Source: STC, 2013, adjusted by Panteia based on Europop2010 population projections for the Netherlands,
Belgium, Germany, France and Austria and World Bank-projections for the other countries.
Figure 5 shows that, in general, the amount of new entrants to the sector is expected to
decrease over time. Starting with 923 new entrants in 2013, the number of new entrants will
drop to 860 in 2020, 823 in 2040 and 778 in 2050. The main ‘contributors’ to this decrease
over time are Romania, the Czech Republic and Germany. In the case of Romania, 197 new
entrants to the sector have been observed in 2013 and this is expected to decrease to 132 new
entrants in 2050. In other countries, the number of new entrants to the sector each year is
expected to be rather constant.
Retirements
In this study, we have made the assumption that IWT workers will retire at the age of 65. As
we know the age distribution per country, the amount of retirements per year can be
determined. This can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Amount of retirements in IWT per country per year
350 Netherlands
300 Belgium
Germany
250 Poland
200 France
Switzerland
150 Austria
100 Slovakia
Czech Republic
50 Hungary
0 Romania
Bulgaria
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Panteia (2013)
The amount of retirements per year will reach its maximum levels in the period 2025 – 2030.
All current workers aged 50 or more – the majority of IWT workers as can be observed from
Figure 6 – will retire during this period.
Evolution of total supply of workers
The total amount of workers can be determined by summing up the amount of workers
in the previous year and the new entrants to the sector, minus the amount of retirements
per year. The expected evolution of the amount of workers in the period of scope (2013
77
– 2050) can be observed in Figure 7. The exact figures per country are listed in Annex 5
of the external study 26.
Figure 7 Total aggregated supply of workers in IWT sector (2013-2050)
40.000
39.500
39.000
38.500
38.000
37.500
37.000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Panteia (2013)
In order to distribute the workers among the corridors, a distribution has been applied.
The values and further background on the calculation of this distribution can be found in
Annex 7 of the external study 27. This distribution is assumed to remain constant over
time.
The distribution of workers among corridors is determined by multiplying the total
amount of workers per year by the distribution rate per corridor (see Annex 5). The
amount of workers per corridor is shown in Figure 8 (see Annex 5 of the external study 28
for a table with the data that was used for this figure).
Figure 8 Total supply of workers in IWT sector per corridor (2013-2050)
Source: Panteia (2013)
It can be concluded from Figure 8 that the supply of workers in the Rhine corridor and
North-South corridor is expected to decrease over the period 2013-2050, whilst the
amount of workers in the Danube corridor and East-West corridor is expected to
increase.
26
ibidem
27
ibidem
28
ibidem
78
Evolution of the gap between demand and supply of workers in IWT per corridor
The gap between the demand for workers and the supply of workers can be determined by
subtracting the graphs in Figure 1 and Figure 8. The difference between demand and supply
for each of the corridors shows the regional differences. Also the total EU gap between
demand and supply has been included (see Figure 9).
As shown in Figure 8, regional differences between corridors are expected to increase in the
long term. On the Danube corridor and the East-West corridor, there will be a surplus of about
2,500 and 4,000 workers respectively. On the other hand, on the North-South and Rhine
corridor there will be a shortage of labour.
Figure 3 Gap between demand and supply of workers in IWT per corridor (2013-2050)
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Source: Panteia (2014)
It must be noted that deficits exist at this moment for the Rhine corridor, while there is a
surplus of workers on the Danube, the North-South and East-West corridor. This gap is the
reason for which so many workers from Eastern-Europe are working on vessels sailing under
the flag of the Netherlands and Germany, as can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4 Amount of workers per country of origin in the Netherlands in 2011
Nationality Numbers counted in survey Total workers in IWT in % of total workers in IWT in
of Dutch Inspectorate the Netherlands 29 the Netherlands
Dutch 414 6,473 60%
Czech 69 1,079 10%
German 64 1,001 9%
Polish 38 594 5%
Belgian 32 500 5%
Romanian 25 391 4%
Philippine 16 250 2%
French 14 219 2%
29
Percentage multiplied by amount of workers in IWT in the Netherlands, see Table 2.1.
79
Slovenian 4 63 1%
Hungarian 3 47 0%
Bulgarian 2 31 0%
Spanish 2 31 0%
Serbian 2 31 0%
Russian 2 31 0%
Ukrainian 2 31 0%
British 1 16 0%
Yugoslavian 30 1 16 0%
Cape Verdian 1 16 0%
Total 692 10,820 100%
Source: Dutch Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate, inspection language problems (2011)
Figure 9 shows that labour mobility is very important for the functioning of the IWT labour
market. Restrictions on accessibility on the Rhine occur even now with a shortage of over
8,000 workers on the Rhine corridor. These figures are expected to increase over time, up to a
shortage of nearly 12,000 workers in 2050.
Although agreements exist between a certain number of countries, ensuring mutual
recognizing of Service Record Books and boatmaster licences, these agreements are not yet
perfect and further legislation on these subjects can help the IWT sector.
Sensitivity analysis
In order to test the sensitivity of the model to the parameters used, five scenarios have
been tested. The assumptions apply for the whole period of scope. The scenarios
include:
A) 10% dropout at the age of 35, due to paternity and movement to ‘shore’;
B) 10% dropout at the age of 45, due to disabilities;
C) 10% influx at the age of 35 from other sectors, such as maritime or fishery;
D) 10% extra attractiveness of IWT education;
E) 10% less attractiveness of IWT education;
For each of these scenarios, the impact has been determined:
• Inflow of employees (Figure 10);
• Outflow of employees (Figure 11);
• Difference between inflow and outflow (Figure 11011);
• Gap between demand of workers and supply (Figure 134112);
In the Figures mentioned above, also the Base Case has been included (as “0”). The
impacts of the five scenarios on the inflow, outflow and thus the balance can be
observed from Table 5.
Table 5 Impact of scenarios on parameters compared to the baseline for the whole period
Inflow Outflow Difference
A 0 + -
B 0 + -
C + + 31 +
30
The exact nationality could not be retrieved in the database.
80
D + 0 +
E - 0 -
0 means no difference compared to the baseline scenario; + means an increase compared to the
baseline scenario; - means a decrease compared to the baseline scenario.
Source: Panteia (2013)
Inflow
Figure 10 shows the amount of new entrants to the sector for all the scenarios. It can be
observed that the 10% influx at the age of 35 from other maritime sectors (scenario C)
gives the total inflow a boost, when compared to the baseline scenario. The sharp
increase (2028) is the result of the enlarged inflow in 2013 compared to the years before
and the multiplier of 10% on 35-year-olds. The age distribution of 2013, only involves
513 21-year-olds. Compared with the projected increase of 923 new entrants at the age
of 20 32, there will be a sharp increase of the amount of 35-year-olds in 2028 compared to
2027. The amount of new entrants to the sector does not change for scenarios A and B
compared to the baseline scenario The new entrants in scenarios D and E are either 10%
higher and 10% lower than the baseline scenario.
Figure 10 Total inflow of workers per scenario (2013-2050)
1.050
1.000
950
900
850
800
750
700
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
0+A+B
10% Inflow-35
+10% attractiveness
Source: Panteia (2013)
31
The extra inflow at the age of 35 will retire within the period of scope, starting in 2043, thus causing extra
outflow in this scenario as well.
32
See Annex 5, table A 4
81
Outflow
Figure 11 shows the amount of outflow of workers in the IWT sector for all the scenarios. It
can be observed that the outflows follow a pattern that resembles a parabola, mainly due to
current age characteristics of the IWT sector. However, minor differences between the curves
can be seen. Firstly, scenarios O, D and E (green line) and scenario C follow the same line,
until 2043. At that time, the new entrants due to lateral inflow (which again was a result of the
enlarged inflow in 2013, compared to the years before 33 and the multiplying effect) from
other maritime sectors retire, thus causing extra retirements compared to the baseline
scenario.
The same goes for scenario A in 2028. Here, at the age of 35, 10% of the employees are
supposed to leave the sector due to paternity. Since the inflow in 2013 was enlarged
compared to the years before, this causes a sharp rise. However, the amount of
retirements drops to normal levels in 2043, which is the result of the fewer amount of
65-year olds at that time. It must be noted that 10% of these workers already left the
sector in 2013 at the age of 35.
Scenario B seems much alike scenario A at first sight. However, big differences can be
observed from the graph. This is the result of people first leaving the sector, before the
big wave of new entrants (in 2013) will cause an increase in the outflow. It takes 20
years before the graph ‘benefits’ from the fewer amount of 65-year olds, and it takes 25
years before the new entrants in 2013 reach the age of 45.
Figure 11 Total outflow of workers in scenarios
Source: Panteia (2013)
Differences between inflow and outflow
From Figure 11211 it can be observed that all graphs follow the same pattern. All
scenarios start with a surplus of entrants compared to the workers leaving the sector.
Compared to the baseline scenario, scenario D (10% more attractiveness of IWT
education) seems to show the best results in terms of net inflow, as inflow overcomes
outflow for most of the years. On the other hand, a less attractive IWT sector (scenario
33
In 2013, there are 923 new entrants to the sector. In 2012, only 503 new entrants have been reported.
82
E) would mean a deficit for nearly all the years. No scenario manages to create positive
numbers all the time, mainly due to the large amount of 40-55-year-olds that will retire
between 2020 and 2040.
Figure 12 Net result of inflow minus outflow for all scenarios
Source: Panteia (2013)
Gap between demand and supply of workers
Figure 134312 shows us the gap between the demand of workers (which remains the same for all
scenarios) and the supply of workers, which of course varies depending on the situation. It can
be observed that the baseline scenario results in a smaller deficit of workers on the short term,
whilst a much bigger gap would emerge in the long run.
None of the scenarios is able to keep up with the increased demand of workers in the long term.
This holds even for the most positive scenarios: scenarios that increase the attractiveness of the
IWT sector and scenarios that increase lateral inflow from other maritime sectors are not able to
keep up with the increasing demand. This emphasises even more the need for measures to lower
the entry barriers to the IWT labour market. The more negative scenarios show that there is a
possibility that the situation may end up even worse, with shortages of labour of up to 10,000
workers in 2050, meaning a vacancy rate of more than 20%.
In the medium term, unemployment can be seen in IWT for scenario D (10% more attractive
IWT sector). This happens when the 40-55-year-olds at this time reach their retirement.
Unemployment rates will be low however; this scenario never exceeds a surplus of more than
500 workers.
Figure 134 Gap between demand and supply of workers for scenarios
83
Source: Panteia (2013)
Annex 4:
Comparison between Rhine Patent regulation and Directive 96/50/EC on requirements
for issuing boatmasters’ certificates
This annex is based on the external study in support of the impact assessment 34.
General Requirements The Rhine Patent Regulation Directive 96/50/EC
1. Minimum Age 21 years 21 (18) years
Exception: MS may still issue certificates to
persons 18 years old or older.
2. Physical and mental Physical and mental fitness, certified by Examination carried out by a doctor
fitness a document issued by a doctor recognised by the competent authority.
recognised by the competent authorities.
Additional medical Every five years between 50– 65 years; Every year starting from the age of 65 years
examination every year after 65 years
3.Professional 4 years, including, at least, 2 years as Min. 4 years of professional experience as a
experience rating, engine-minder or, at least, 1 year member of the deck crew on an inland
as leading crewman. waterway vessel.
The experience must be acquired on a No definition is given on how many working
self-propelled vessel for which a Rhine days should be included in a year.
patent is required.
A year is defined as 180 days of inland
navigation.
The proof of Service record book delivered by the Validated by the competent authority of the
professional experience Rhine authorities or a valid MS - personal service record.
administrative document as described in
article 2.09.
Reduction of the By a max. 3 years for the time spent in a By a max of 3 years
required professional training programme; - if the applicant has a diploma recognised
experience by the competent authority which confirms
specialised training in inland navigation
comprising practical navigation work;
- if the applicant has passed a practical
34
Panteia (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact
Assessment: Recognition of professional qualification and training standards in inland navigation, p. 35-36.
84
General Requirements The Rhine Patent Regulation Directive 96/50/EC
examination in sailing a vessel; the
certificate shall in that case cover only
vessels with nautical characteristics similar
to those of the vessel which underwent the
practical examination.
4.Examination of The candidates must demonstrate their The applicant must have passed an
professional knowledge professional knowledge and skills by examination of professional knowledge
passing a theoretical examination
Source: Rhine Patent regulation and Directive 96/50/EC
The table indicates specific differences in requirements for issuing boatmasters’
certificates, including:
• For the minimum age to obtain a boatmasters’ certificate the Rhine Patent Regulation and
Directive 96/50/EC both include 21 years, however, Directive 96/50 adds the exception in
which Member States can issue a boatmasters’ certificate at age 18. This exception is
used, e.g. by the Netherlands and France.
• Regarding proof of physical and mental fitness, systems are basically similar, except for
the additional medical examination. In the Rhine regulation this needs to be done every
five year between age 55-65, and each year afterwards. Directive 96/50 just states each
year starting from the age of 65 years.
• The years of professional experience is treated differently between the two regimes. Not in
terms of duration, this is 4 years for both, but in terms of how this time is to be spent.
Directive 96/50/EC does not provide any specifications on how time is to be spent on
board and does not define how many working days should be considered as one year. The
Rhine Patent regulation prescribes at least two years as rating, engine-minder or at least
one year as leading crewman. A year is defined as 180 days of inland navigation.
• Also with regard to the reduction of the required professional experience, differences
prevail. Although under both systems reductions up to a maximum of 3 years exist, for the
Rhine Patent regulation one year is calculated on the basis of 180 effective working days,
whereas for the Directive no definition is given on how many working days should be
included in a year. Moreover, the Directive allows for a reduction of the required
professional experience if the applicant has passed a practical examination. This is not the
case for the Rhine patent regulation, which only allows for a reduction on the basis of time
spent in a training programme.
• Regarding the examination, article 7.12 of RNP states explicitly that for obtaining the
Rhine patent or small patent the exam shall be theoretical, whereas the Directive 96/50/EC
does not specify the form of exam.
85
86
Annex 5:
Comparison table for the mutually recognition of boatmaster license per couny and
country where the license is issued
Comparison table for the mutually recognition of boatmaster license per country / river
commission and country / river commission where the license is issued 35
Recognizes AT BE BG CZ HR FR DE HU LU NL PL CCNR RO RS SK CH UA UK IT SE PT FL LT EE
Austria x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Belgium x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Bulgaria x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Croatia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Czech Republic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
France x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Germany x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Hungary x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Luxemburg x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Netherlands x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Poland x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C.C.N.R x x x x x x x x x x x
Romania x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Serbia x x x x x x x x
Slovakia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Switzerland x x
Ukraine x x x x x x x x
United Kingdom x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Italy x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Sweden x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Portugal x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Finland x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Lithuania x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Estonia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
* Spain, Latvia, Denmark, Cyprus, Malta, Irelenad and Slovenia are not included in this analysis, as these countries are generally not considered as IWT-countries.
* The United Kingdom, Italy and Portugal do not issue boatmaster certificates in line with Directives 96/50/EC and 91/672/EEC.
* Luxemburg does not issue boatmaster certificates at all.
Source: Panteia (2014)
35
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in Inland Navigation, Technical
support for an impact assessment, Final report, page 51.
87
Annex 6:
Comparison of functions on board the vessel
This annex is an extract from the external study in support of the impact assessment 36.
CCNR UNECE Danube Sava River
Commission Commission
Decksmann Deck-hand Decksmann
Leichtmatrosen Apprentice Leichtmatrose
Matrosen Ordinary Matrose Ordinary crewman
crewmen
Matrosen- Engine-minder Matrosen- Engine-minder
Motorwart Motorwart
Bootsmann Able crewmen Bootsmann Boatswain
Steuermann Helmsmen Steuermann Helmsman
Chief Mate
Schiffsführer Boatmasters Schiffsführer Boatmaster
Maschinist Engineer Maschinist Engineer
Electrician- Elektromechanik
engineers er
Radio operator Funker
Source: EDINNA
The Rhine region works with the Rhine regulations whereas the Danube countries work
according to UNECE regulations or recommendations by the Danube Commission. The
manning regulation of the Sava River Commission does not recognise the two starting
functions. Member States have national manning regulations, based on the existing manning
regulations of the River Commissions. As said, countries from the Rhine region have based
their manning regulations on the Rhine regulation and this applies to the waterway network as
defined in the Mannheim Convention. For the waterways not covered by the Mannheim
Convention, different manning regulations can be applied at national level. A similar principle
applies to the Danube countries, i.e. UNECE regulations or recommendations by the Danube
Commission apply, however, countries can apply their own regulations for their national
waterways.
Linked to the functions presented here above, professional qualifications are described in the
relevant regulations of the governing bodies. Below is presented an overview of function
descriptions and professional qualifications from the relevant regulations. It indicates that
professional qualifications are to some extent harmonised, however, differences remain.
General overview
Currently in Europe, function names and descriptions seem not to differ a lot between relevant
authorities, either being countries or river commissions. However, based on the analysis 37 of
36
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in Inland Navigation, Technical
support for an impact assessment, Final report 2014, page 52-55.
88
the function descriptions and requirements of three river basins, six Member States and the
UNECE, it can be concluded that there are many minor differences between the function
descriptions and the required professional qualification. These differences have effects on the
mobility of some workers.
Deckhands
The minimum age for deckhands is 16 years in every country, except of Austria. In this
country, deckhands need to be at least 18 years old. The Sava Commission function
descriptions do not include deckhands. Poland does not include deckhands either. See the
Polish definition of an apprentice.
Apprentices
The Sava Commission does not include functions for deckhands and apprentices. This makes
recruitment of personnel difficult, as newcomers to the sector will not be able to contribute to
the daily operation of a vessel 38. Other authorities agree on the function of apprentice: that
should be a person of at least 16 years of age, with an education contract of a certified IWT
education school. The only exception is Poland: a Polish operational worker will be regarded
apprentice if he has undergone basic training in health and safety on board, issued by the
boatmaster.
Boatman
Overall, two paths to the function of boatmaster can be identified from the function
descriptions and requirements.
1. Boatman need to have completed an IWT training course and their minimum age is 17;
2. If they did not complete IWT training, their minimum age is set at 19 years and (in
general) they need to prove three years of professional experience, of which at least one
year in inland navigation and either two years in inland navigation or maritime. However,
there are exceptions:
a. Germany is least strict when it comes to the recognition of professional experience
of lateral entrants. Normally, three years of professional experience, of which at
least six months of professional experience in inland navigation is required. For
workers aged 20 years or above, their gained professional experience is doubled.
However, the doubling does not apply for the experience gained in inland
navigation. Still, this is much less stringent than the other countries and river
basins.
b. In particular, the Dutch authorities are the strictest for applying for the function of
Boatman. All other authorities (MS, River Commissions) ask three years (and a
minimum age of 19) of professional experience 39 (with a minimum of one year in
inland navigation and two years in either maritime or inland navigation) if no
examination or completion of a training can be provided. The Dutch require
37
See also Annex 3, Panteia et al. (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation
of the Impact Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation
38
Operators that want to train deckhands and/or apprentices, will not benefit from the deckhand and/or
apprentice in such a way that no other crew member can be replaced by them. Thus their daily operation will be
less efficient: more costs should be spend on personnel with nothing in return. In other river basins, adding a
crew member leads to longer daily operating times.
39
Austria only requires one year of professional experience. However, as deckhands need to be at least 18 years
of age (instead of 16 years elsewhere), this brings no different at this point. The worker is only less experienced.
89
additional examination for boatmen. However, practical examination provides a
loophole for this. This way, workers only need 60 days of experience in inland
navigation as a deckhand.
c. In Poland, one will qualify for the function of Boatman after nine months 40 of
experience in inland navigation and having passed a practical exam.
Engine-minders
For Engine-minders, function descriptions and requirements are harmonised within Europe.
The national regulations of the Czech Republic do not include a function for engine-minders.
Able Boatman
In general, one can become Able Boatman if one has successfully completed training, the
final examination of a boatmaster school or have passed any other examination for Able
Crewman recognised by the competent authority and if at least one year of professional
experience as Boatman can be proved. If the education lasted at least three years, no
additional professional experience is required. If one did not complete an IWT education
course, the requirements for the function of Able Boatman are at least two years of
professional experience as Boatman. The CCNR offers a loophole: one can attend for a
practical examination in accordance with the Rhine Licensing Regulations and once passed,
the function of Able Boatman can be acquired with only year of professional experience at
Boastman.
Some derogations from the standard can however be noticed:
• The function of Able Boatman does not exist in the national regulations of Germany.
• Austria does not make a distinction between the path based on education (two years) and
the path based on only professional experience. After two years as Boatman, one can apply
for the function of Able Boatman.
• In Poland, one can be an Able Boatman after six months of professional experience as
Boatman.
Engineer
The function descriptions and requirements for Engineers are the same throughout Europe,
with a small deviation from the standard in Austria and the Czech Republic. In general,
engineers need to be at least 18 years of age and need to have passed an examination or a
completion of a full training course in the engine and mechanics sector, or they need to be at
least 19 years of age and prove at least two years of experience as an engine-minder on a self-
propelled vessel.
Some derogations to this:
• Austria and the Czech Republic do not include a minimum age for engineers that gained
their function based on two years of experience as an engine-minder;
• In Poland, at least 20 months of professional experience in inland navigation plus a
minimum 16 months of professional experience at shipyards will result in the function of
engineer too, but only if the mandatory exam is passed.
40
A month is defined as a maximum of 15 days in a period of 30 days.
90
Helmsman
The general requirements for the function of helmsman in Europa are at least:
1. One year of professional experience in inland navigation as Able Boatman, or;
2. Three years of experience as Boatman.
However, small deviations can be notified throughout Europe;
• On sections where KSS is required, not having KSS but having a license results in the
function of helmsman (instead of boatmaster);
• The Danube Commission and the Sava Commission award the function of Helmsman
after a vocational training of at least three years is completed, and if practical
examination approved by the competent authority is passed. This in in line with the
UNECE resolution that is applied in countries such as Ukraine and Russia.
• Germany requires two years of professional experience as Boatman or engine-minder.
This seems a deviation of the standard, but it is however a result of not applying the
function of Able Boatman in their national regulations. For workers that have not
completed a vocational training, this approach reduces the path to the function of
helmsman by one year.
• The Netherlands and Belgium do not award the function of helmsman after vocational
training of at least three years of completed. However, after having passed examination,
the function of helmsman will be awarded.
• In the Czech Republic, a minimum of at least two years of professional experience as
Able Boatman is required.
• In Poland, one needs to prove six months of professional experience as an Able
Boatman or 12 months as Boatman. For both paths, examination of the required
knowledge and practical skills is obliged.
91
Annex 7:
Overview of KSS requirements in the eu member states
This annex is an extract from the external study in support of the impact assessment 41.
Table 2 KSS in EU Member States
Country Stretch Required knowledge / Procedure
experience
Austria a) Km 2094,5 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
(Wallsee)– (8 upstream, 8 downstream) service booklet
km 2060,4
(Persenbeug)
(b) Km 2032.8 (Melk)
–km 1979,8
(Altenwörth)
(c) Km 1921 (Wien–
Freudenau)–the
Austrian–Slovak
border
Bulgaria Danube (E 80) – total of At least 16 runs for Several examinations,
11 stretches each sector of Danube including a written test.
for which the certificate
is delivered.
Croatia All of Danube (E80) 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
Km 1433–km 1295.5 (8 upstream, 8 downstream) service booklet and take exam
Sava (E80-12) 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
in the last 3 years (and 3 times in service booklet and take exam
each direction in the last 3 years)
plus local conditions and
regulations.
France Rhine (E 10). There is a 18 km stretch of the Rhine at the border with Germany between Iffezheim
and Lauterbourg
Seine Maritieme (E80) – For barges or convoys with a Experience is shown trough
Km 260.100 to Atlantic length smaller than or equal to service booklet and take exam.
Ocean, a total of five 135 metres: at least 12 trips on
stretches the respective stretch in the last If the applicant passes the exam,
year prior to the exam, plus local his license will be valid for a
conditions and regulations. maximum of three years. In order
to renew the license, at least 6 trips
For barges or convoys with a on the respective stretch should
length greater than to 135 metres: have been made in the past three
at least 20 trips on the respective years, of which at least 2 in the last
stretch in the last year prior to the year prior to renewal for barges
exam, plus local conditions and with a length smaller than or equal
regulations. to 135 metres.
For barges larger than 135 metres,
at least 12 trips should have been
made on the respective stretch in
41
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p.187-190.
92
Country Stretch Required knowledge / Procedure
experience
the last three years, of which at
least 4 in the last year prior to
renewal.
Besides, a proof of physical and
mental fitness, not being older than
three months, should be provided
in order to renew the license.
Harbour of Marseille-Fos 10 trips on the respective Experience is shown through
and connecting channels stretch/area in the last year prior service booklet and take exam.
to the Rhône (E10) 42 to the exam, plus local conditions
and regulations. The Local Knowledge Certificate
will be valid for a year. In order to
renew this license, the applicant
should have made at least five trips
in the year prior to renewal.
Besides, a proof of physical and
mental fitness, not being older than
three months, should be provided
in order to renew the license.
Germany Rhine (Iffezheim - 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
Spijksche Veer); in the last 10 years (and 3 times service booklet and take exam
in each direction in the last 3
years) plus local conditions and
regulations.
- Elbe (Schöna - 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
Hamburg Port); in the last 10 years (and 3 times service booklet
- Weser (Hannover- in each direction in the last 3
Münden - Oberweser); years).
- Danube (Vilshofen -
Straubing);
- Untere Havel-
Wasserstraße (Plaue -
Havelberg), if water at
Unterpegel Rathenow is
above 130 cm;
- Oder (Ratzdorf -
Widochowa);
- Saale (Elbe - Calbe).
Hungary All of Danube (E80) 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
Km 1811–km 1433 (8 upstream, 8 downstream) plus service booklet and take exam.
local conditions and regulations. Use of interpretation is allowed.
Half of the practice
should be carried out in
the quality of helmsman
and within 18 months
prior to the examination
Poland There are some stretches on Vistula and Oder affected
42
For vessels with a length smaller than 70 metres and not transporting hazardous cargoes, no Local Knowledge
Certificate is needed. For vessels transporting hazardous cargoes, this limit is 50 metres.
93
Country Stretch Required knowledge / Procedure
experience
Slovakia 43 Austrian – border stretch At least 16 runs for each sector Experience is shown through
Hungarian border stretch of Danube for which the service booklet and take exam
certificate is delivered.
Schweiz Basel – Augst 16 trips on the respective stretch Experience is shown through
KM 167 – KM 156 in the last 10 years (and 3 times service booklet
in each direction in the last 3
years).
Augst – End of Rhine 8 trips on the respective stretch (4 Experience is shown through
MK 156 - KM 150 upstream, 4 downstream in the service booklet
last two years).
United Tidal River Thames 6 months / 60 days of service, Show experience through service
Kingdom (Putney Bridge - eastern including work in different booklet and take exam
limit of the Thames directions, in varying conditions
Barrier Control Zone) and darkness
Local conditions and regulations
Portsmouth Harbour 6 months / 60 days of service Show experience through service
Isles of Scilly Local conditions and regulations booklet and take exam
Padstow Harbour 6 outward, 6 inward journeys Show experience through service
under supervision of a Harbour booklet and take exam
Authority representative
Local conditions and regulations
Bristol Port Local conditions and regulations Take exam
Caernarfon and Menai
Strait
Dee Conservancy
Dover Harbour
Fowey Harbour
Gloucester Harbour
Port of Liverpool
Teignmouth
Panteia (2014): underlying source: Combination of (i) Europe Economics (2009) Impact Assessment and
Evaluation Study "Proposal for a Legal Instrument on the harmonisation of boatmasters’ certificates in Inland
Waterway Transport” and (ii) UNECE (2010) “Exchange of Information on local knowledge requirements in
the ECE countries", Sava Commission (2011) and the authorities in Croatia and Slovakia (2014) , ARRÊTÉ N°
21/2011 DU 21 MARS 2011 (Calvados) and Arrêté du 8 août 2008.
43
On the 56 kilometre stretch that is entirely in Slovakia, there are no KSS requirements.
94
Annex 8:
Affected parties and their key interests
Affected parties and their key interests
Stakeholder Description Key interests
Boatmasters Human resources - Around 42.000 Pay and employment conditions, health
and other people and safety in the workplace, valorisation
crew of qualifications and professional careers,
members low administrative burden
Workers Human resources – Workers coming Acknowledgement of the value of their
from outside from the fishery or maritime sector but past experience, possibility to access to a
the IWT also workers from outside the high level IWT qualification in a quick
sector waterborne sector willing to change their way, pay and employment conditions,
carreer. health and safety in the workplace, low
administrative burden
Ship owners, Ship operators providing freight and -Cost-efficient and reliable freight and
barge passenger services within the EU. passengers services
operators Around 9700 entreprises. The majority -Safety and low administrative burden
are micro-entreprises (vessels owned -High quality of trained staff on board the
and operated by a family). vessels
MS National, regional and local bodies - Facilitation of the decision-making
regulators regulating and enforcing IWT process
and legislation. IWT regulatory and - Effective enforcement
enforcement enforcement framework is characterised -Prevention of accidents (for people,
bodies by a high degree of fragmentation. economic impact and environment)
River International organisations with Each river commission should ensure for
Commissions administrations enabling them to address the river under its authority:
all issues concerning inland navigation - free navigation for the vessels flying the
on the concerned rivers. flags of their MS
- Rhine Commission (MS: FR, DE, NL, - uniform regulations for entire navigable
BE and CH) – adopt binding regulations length
- Danube Commission (MS: AT, BU, - safety of navigation, for both people and
HU, DE, MD, RU, SR, SK, UA, HR) the environment
- Sava Commission (MS: HR, SR, BA, - qualifications and a social framework
SI) suited to the navigation workers
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission - Smooth and efficient inland water
for Europe, consisting of 56 member transport across the ECE region
states, has two working parties on inland - Pan-European dimension of inland
waterways waterways
Education Inland waterway navigation schools and High quality of trained staff on board the
and training training institutes vessels.
institutes
Industry Barge industry and agricultural groups Cost-efficient and reliable freight and
using IWT passengers services
Freight Agents who act on behalf of third Safe, efficient and cost-effective
forwarders companies or persons to arrange the best transportation of goods on the inland
means of transport, taking into account waterway network
the type of goods and customers'
delivery requirements
95
Annex 9:
Training and qualification rules in other transport modes
In the last decade, the EU has adopted legislation for other transport modes harmonising the
requirements with the main objective of transport safety. Recitals of the legislative
instruments always mention that such rules at EU level should also contribute to the aims of
EU policies on the freedom of movement of workers/persons, freedom of establishment and
freedom to provide services in the context of the common transport policy, while avoiding
any distortion of competition. As far as the level of harmonisation is concerned, the aviation
sector with an EU Regulation reached the most unified system. As it includes all seafarers and
refers to STWC standards 44 the legislation for the maritime sector has however the largest
substantial and geographical scope. Below the legislative instruments regulating training and
qualification rules in other transport modes are briefly presented:
Maritime: Directive 2008/106/EC 45 sets out the rules on training and the standards of
competence to be met by seafarers who are candidates for the issue or revalidation of
certificates that allow them to perform the functions for which the relevant certificate of
proficiency is issued. Recital n°6 mentions that 'a standardised level of training for all
seafarers serving on board is vital for the viewpoint of maritime safety'. The directive requires
that officers (at managerial and operational levels) must have completed approved education
and training and have to meet the stipulated standards of competence. A number of other crew
members (ratings) must also have completed onboard training and meet standards of
competence for obtaining their qualification.
Aviation: Regulation 216/2008/EC 46 lays down essential requirements applicable to persons
and organisations involved in the operation of aircraft, and to persons and products involved
in the training and medical examination of pilots. Implementing Regulation (EU) No
1178/2011 47 related to civil aviation aircrew regulates conditions for certifying pilots and
persons involved in their training and testing. Requirements for training course and
examination for attestation of cabin crew members are also specified. Training shall be
provided by approved training organisations performed by qualified personnel and conducted
according to the training programmes and syllabus documented in the organisation's approval.
Pilot training is already highly sophisticated and is continuously adapted to the development
of aircraft types and navigational technologies. In pilot training it is also expected that the
development will be towards evidence based training and competency based training as this is
44
The 1995 STCW Convention is one of several key initiatives that underpin this new philosophy at IMO. It
seeks to establish a baseline standard for the training and education of seafarers throughout the world by placing
an emphasis on quality control and competence-based training. It has 133 IMO signatory countries in the world.
See: http://www.stcw.org
45
Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum
level of training of seafarers, OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p.33.
46
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common
rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, OJ L 79, 13.3.2008, p.1.
47
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and
administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew, OJ L 311, 25.11.2011, p.1.
96
expected to better accommodate future trends in man-machine interface training taking into
account human factors as technology develops further.
Rail: Directive 2007/59/EC 48 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and
trains on the railway system in the Community ensures recognition of licences and
harmonised complementary certificates by all railway sector stakeholders. The directive
addresses both examination and training. As far as training is concerned, not only professional
knowledge required for obtaining the licence is concerned but also training method, training
objectives, training tasks (requirements for instructors) and process of continuous training.
Road: Directive 2003/59/EC 49 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of
certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers sets qualification requirements
for drivers of buses or lorries. According to the directive, a bus or truck driver in addition to
the relevant driving licence needs to have obtained a certificate of professional competence.
The Directive requires drivers to prove their initial qualification either through a combination
of training and theoretical test or of practical and theoretical exam. It also requires periodic
training. The Commission is working on a review of this directive. The intention is to submit
a proposal that will specify higher training requirements formulated in terms of skills and
competencies, in line with the European Qualifications Framework.
48
Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification
of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the Community's rail network, OJ L 315 of 3.12.2007.
49
Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, OJ
L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4–1.
97
Annex 10: problem – objective tree
In the figure below an overview is given of the general, specific and operational objectives, while
linking them to the general problem and its underlying problem drivers.
Main problem:
Difficulties in worker mobility result in the suboptimal functioning of the IWT labour market. Despite
attempts by the sector to tackle the problem at bilateral and multilateral level, the issue continues to hinder
the contribution of the IWT sector as a cost and energy efficient transport mode to EU energy efficiency,
growth and industrial development goals.
Problem driver 1: Problem driver 2:
Workers face difficulties Requirements regarding
with mutual recognition of knowledge of Specific
professional qualifications Situations (KSS) may
unecessarily restrict labour
mobility
General objective:
To improve the functioning of the IWT labour market to help ensure the sector can play its role in
contributing to EU energy efficiency, growth and industrial development goals.
Specific objective:
facilitate labour mobility in the IWT sector by ensuring that qualifications of skilled workers
are aligned with the competencies needed on-board
Operational objective 1: Operational objective 2:
Ensure mutual recognition Ensure that KSSs are
of professional proportionate to their safety
qualifications of workers goals and do not
unnecessarily hamper labour
mobility
98
Annex 11: discarded policy measures
Below it is explained why certain policy measures have been discarded.
A. Discarded policy measures
1. Rules for crew on recreational craft
Today no harmonized EU rules exist for licenses to navigate recreational craft. This initiative
will not consider to alter this situation as it is aimed solely at professional qualifications.
Extending the regulation to the operation of recreational craft does not seem proportionate, in
view of the number of cross-border recreational craft on inland waterways and of the fact that
no major safety issues in relation to the lack of European intervention in this field have been
reported. As significant additional administrative burden would be imposed for the alignment
of national certification systems, and education and examination standards, EU intervention
may moreover not be cost-effictive. A minority of Member States has nevertheless indicated
to be in favor of regulating navigation of recreational boats at EU level. It is also questionable
whether such an initiative would pass the test of the subsidiarity principle.
This segment of the market is also not left without further initiatives. At UN level the UNECE
'Resolution 40' already covers this category of craft 50. Furthermore, the European
Commission (under the lead of DG ENTR) is conducting a study on recreational craft with the
objective to identify the main problems preventing more effective development of the sector
and to come up with possible solutions. In this context, a detailed identification of the
different training requirements for skippers of recreational craft with a length below 24 m will
be carried out in all EU Member States as well as a quantification of the potential for
employment in this market segment. In parallel, the Commission (under the lead DG MARE)
is also considering to evaluate the subject of common boating licenses for recreational use by
private individuals. The Commission will therefore take position at a further stage on the most
appropriate actions to be taken for this specific sector.
2.Introduction and mutual recognition of certificates with exam for all skilled crew members
beyond the categories of boatmaster and boatman (e.g. able boatmen and helmsmen)
It is not considered to introduce exams for all crew members below the category of
boatmaster (including able boatmen and helmsmen) as the improvements of safety from
covering also these categories are not clear. Indeed, skilled crew about the level of boatman
would already have obtained the boatman qualifications, and only marginal improvement
could be expected from requiring additional exams. Moreover, the Member States did not
favour such a policy measure. The results of the online public consultation were also mixed
on this point. As the analysis of the main problem did not reveal specific problems with
50
It recommends to issue an international certificate concerning the competence of operators of pleasure craft
bound for the waters of foreign countries. Ten Member States, Switzerland and Croatia apply Resolution 40.
Recommendations on Harmonized Europe-Wide Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels,
Resolution No. 61, Revision 1' defines “recreational craft” as 'a vessel, other than passenger vessels, intended for
sport and pleasure and of a length of 20 meters and more'.
99
intermediate crew categories, their recognition of professional qualifications through the
experience as documented in the service record books is maintained.
3. The electronic service record book and logbook
As mentioned in section 3.3.1.2 of the IAR, the service record books are not fit for purpose as
regards their content and format. Paper format is considered to be outdated and generates
administrative burden for both the authorities in charge of verifying documentation and crew
members. This issue is confirmed by respondents to the online public consultation. 70% of the
total respondents asked for the introduction of an electronic service book (e-SRB) and a
related central register for e-SRBs. Support was highest amongst employers' organisations and
public authorities. More than 60% of the shipping companies, boatmasters and
entrepreneurs/ship owners also consider it at least 'somewhat appropriate'. After addressing
the subject with members of the CEG in meetings and by questionnaires which were sent to
them, it became clear that the e-SRB should be introduced simultaneously with the e-logbook
for efficiency reason.
Adding this measure to some policy options would have been logical because it could have
provided an efficient solution for some SRB problems and had strong support from
stakeholders. However, the introduction of e-SRBs and e-logbooks requires a very specific
and multidimensional cost-benefit analysis because such electronic tools may be used more
widely than for professional qualifications in IWT. A decision has therefore been made not to
include this measure in the policy options for the moment. Preparatory works are ongoing
between the Commission services and relevant actors regarding the possibility of making a
proposal to introduce e-SRBs and e-logbooks in due course. In this case, if appropriate, a
separate impact assessment will be carried out.
4. Harmonised/identical EU wide requirements for professional qualifications and KSS
Instead of European minimum requirements, harmonised requirements would be imposed.
Measures imposing a uniform system to all Member States without any possibility for
Member States to take into account the national specificities of their IWT sector. Therefore, in
line with the proportionality principle, this has been discarded: similar results could be
achieved with the introduction of minimum requirements only.
5. Waving the possibility of exemption for qualification of crew operating exclusively on non-
interconnected waterways
The evaluation of the existing legislative framework concluded that this exemption does not
affect free navigation in the European Union 51. As a result of the use of the possibility of
exemption, restrictions to labour mobility do exist (e.g. boatmasters 'licence issued in United
Kingdom or Portugal are not recognised on other EU inland waterways) but are limited in
number of workers affected. In order to respect the proportionality and subsidiarity principle
this measure has therefore been discarded after a preliminary analysis.
51
Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the relevant directives related to the initiative on recognition and modernisation
of professional qualifications in inland navigation (Directives 91/672/EEC and 95/50/EC), p.38.
100
101
Annex 12:
Quantitative approach to safety – methodological remarks
Next to a qualitative description of the measures on safety, the IAR provides for quantitative
data in order to give an indication of the magnitude of the potential impact. To this end, input
from the external support studies 52 to the IAR was used.
It should be underlined that the quantitative analysis is only provided by illustration only.
Uncertainties and limitations to this exercise should be acknowledged. The quantitative
results do not have the intention to provide for exact cost-estimates or accidents number but to
complement and illustrate the qualitative reasoning and to provide an indication for a possible
order of magnitude of impacts in quantitative terms.
As a preliminary remark it is important to stress that the differentiation between the two
groups of Member States (referred to in the studies and in the IAR as CCNR and non-CCNR
countries) and their relative performance as regards the output of their education systems in
terms of competencies of the boatmasters is not determined by the two Dutch databases used
by the consultants. If this would have been the case, the methodology would have been
flawed: one cannot first divide a set of Member States in two groups according to their
accident levels and then make an analysis for the two groups of the accident levels on the
basis of the same data and come to the conclusion that the difference in accidents is due to
different levels of education. For the IAR, the differentiation between groups of Member
States according to their level of has been done in a first step on the basis of different data
independent from the accident databases. The two Dutch databases have then been used in a
second step to test the hypothesis of the interrelationship between quality of education
systems and accident frequency and to provide an indication of possible consequences of the
shortcomings in quantitative terms. This two-step approach is explained below.
Step 1: Analysis of the situation with regard to education/training standards resulting in
two categories of countries: 1) DE, FR, BE, NL and 2) the other countries.
The PLATINA I project 53 has made a comparative analysis of the training curricula in
Member States based on the inventory of IWT schools and their curricula made. The project
has counted the amount of relevant 54 competencies per topic from the Standards of Training
and Certification in Inland Navigation (STCIN) 55 (i.e. 53 competencies) for the training
institutes represented in PLATINA I for both the staff at operational level and management
level, and divided the amount of competences covered by the curricula by the total number of
52
Panteia et al. (2014), Contribution to the problem definition in the context of the preparation of the Impact
Assessment regarding the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, p.73-82, Panteia
(2014), Technical support for an impact assessment: Recognition and modernisation of professional
qualifications in inland navigation, p.37-61 and Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures on safety
impact in the context of the technical support for the impact assessment on the recognition of professional
qualifications in inland navigation.
53
PLATINA 1 D3.8, Strategy for harmonized IWT education and training standards, Annex II (BDB, 2010)
54
Specific information about passenger transport has been considered irrelevant, as both our analysis on safety
focus on freight transport only.
55
EDINNA (2011), Development of the Standards of Training and Certification in Inland Navigation.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/sc3wp3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-WP3-inf10e.pdf
102
competences per category. This way, scores per training institute were presented per topic.
Based on this comparison two groups of Member States were formed: 1) DE, FR, BE, NL
(best performers 56) and 2) other countries (extrapolated to all non-CCNR countries based on
expert views):
The strong link between training and therefore qualifications/competencies on one hand
and safety on the other is beyond any doubt. This strong interrelationship is the driving
force behind the major efforts made on training and qualifications in all transport modes –
aviation, maritime, rail, road. It provides also the rationale for linking higher
education/training standards and more generally the introduction of competencies standards
with an increase of safety performance. It is because of this generally accepted
interrelationship that the difference in accident rates have been tested between groups of
Member States with varying levels of quality of education (step 2), with a view to bring some
elements of quantification.
Step 2: Differences in accident frequencies are calculated for each group of Member
States identified in step 1), on the basis of accident statistics available intwo Dutch
databases. These accident frequencies are then extrapolated to the EU level in order to
obtain a quantitative indication of the number of accidents that may be caused by
suboptimal education/training and by lacking competency standards.
As regards the Dutch databases…
- 2 databases from the Netherlands have been used:
o one database from the Labour Inspectorate (work related accidents)
o one database from Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (navigation related
accidents)
o there are no overlaps between the two databases (only 1 out of 2290 accidents overlap)
- No other IWT specific databases are available in Europe that provide a sufficient
number of registered events and the necessary information, including the accident causes
and the nationality of those who were involved.
- The data in these databases is considered to be a sufficiently representative sample for
European IWT. The fact that more than 35% of European IWT takes place on Dutch
territory provides reasonable support for this assumption.
56
It needs to be noted that even the best performers do not cover all competencies, so further improvements
could also be made in these countries.
103
Annex 13:
Detailed information on investments costs for option C
Section 6.2.3 table 2 presents a summary overview of the investment cost estimates that are
linked to option C. More detailed explanation can be found in this annex with relevant
references for the assumptions and the underlying calculations behind the cost estimates.
Impact on investment costs resulting from the introduction of competence-based minimum
requirements for boatmasters certificates tested through a practical exam (measure 2):
introducing this measure under option C may require investment costs associated with the
introduction of practical exams. Practical exams to obtain a boatmaster certificate already
exist in AU, BE, FR, HU, NL 57, PL and RO. Other countries (BU, HR, CZ, DE and SK)
would need to develop exams and programs. Based on the experience of the Netherlands, the
development costs of a new intensive practical programme for boatmasters are estimated at a
maximum of €100,000 per Member State. Since the format of the standard exam for
boatmasters can be much simpler, and since Member States can base their new practical
exams upon those already in place in other Member States, real investment costs are expected
to be much lower. The development of a practical exam for boatmasters is therefore estimated
at €10,000 to €100,000 per Member State where such an exam is not yet in place.
In addition, investment costs for an examination ship or a simulator may have to be
considered. The recent HINT study 58 estimated that the acquisition costs for a new school
ship amounts to €2.1–3.2 million. Although training ships are quite frequently used in
Western Europe, there are none for the entire Danube corridor. In this study, Danube
countries are considering sharing one ship in order to share investment costs. As a possible
alternative or complement to a training ship, the investment costs of a simulator is taken into
account, estimated at €1 million. 59 Finally, requiring candidates to bring the boat (their own or
rent) for their own examination could also be an alternative which would entail no additional
investment. This approach is already adopted in a number of Member States with a mandatory
practical exam (e.g. FR and AT). As an average costs for all MS with no requirements for
practical exams, a rough estimation of 5.5 million 60 has been used for investment costs,
knowing that cheaper alternatives exist.
Impact on investment costs resulting from the introduction of a mandatory exam at boatman
level (measure 8): not significant. If Member States decide to opt for an administrative exam
only, no investment costs are incurred, since all of the topics to be tested for boatman are
already tested in the boatmaster exams. On the other hand, the costs of developing a practical
exam for boatmen are estimated at maximum €100,000 per country. 61 As standard exams for
57
Not in a systematic way for the standard boatmaster certificae but for lateral entrants.
58
Hint (2014), Danube school ship, concept.p.9. see http://www.hintproject.net/getpage.php?page=danube-
school-ship.
59
Information provided by STC on November, 7th 2014. Until now, no simulator producer is already offering
ship-handling simulators for inland navigation and training purposes. For this reason, prices may vary, according
to functional and technical standards offered.
60
55.000€ per MS * 5 + 2.6 million *2 = 5.5 million.
61
Panteia (2014) Addendum on the estimated costs for the introduction of an administrative exam for getting the
qualification of boatma based on information provided by STC on May 6th, 2014.
104
boatmen can have a much simpler format and as Member States can draw upon practical
exams already in place in other countries, the real investment costs are expected to be much
lower. Moreover, additional investment costs for the training vessel(s) or simulators are not
needed as these are already incurred for the mandatory practical examination of boatmasters.
Impact on investment costs resulting from certificates for large convoys (measure 2):
investment costs for this aspect of the measure, compared to BAU, are related to the fact that
all current workers on large convoys will have to obtain a certificate stating that they are
permitted to operate on such a vessel. The total investment costs of this measure for EU
Member States are insignificant 62.
Impact on investment costs resulting from EU harmonised SRB and logbook (measure 10):
As there would be no requirement for replacing existing paper SRBs and only new SRBs
would be are issued in line with the harmonised EU model, it can be considered that there are
no investment costs.
Impact on investment costs resulting from harmonised qualifications for operational workers
and mutual recognition (measure 7): no investment costs are expected apart from human
resources costs incurred by national administrations setting up new standards. These would
remain very limited though since Member States under measure 7 do not have to integrate in
their systems all the recognised qualifications defined at EU level.
Impact on investment costs resulting from the optional introduction of a practical
examination programme for workers entering from outside the sector (measure 12): since
investments costs for the development of practical exam programme(s) have already to be
incurred for the mandatory practical examination at boatmaster level under the competence
based system for measure 2, costs are not to be duplicated as the investments can largely serve
both purposes. However, separate certification/recognition will be required as third paths for
entry to the profession constitute distinct programmes. The external study has estimated the
costs for certification at around €9,000 per programme. 63 On this basis, investment costs can
be estimated at €108,000€ at EU level under option C, assuming that within the 11
interconnected Member States which have training institutes, the 'participation rate' would be
50%, either because a number of Member States would organize such a programme only at
one level (boatmaster or boatman) or would not organize it at all.
Variant C1 only: Impact on investment costs due to minimum competence-based standards
for examination of future boatmen and boatmasters in schools and training institutes
(measure 3): variant C1 would entail investment costs resulting from the introduction of an
accreditation/recognition system of IWT schools and training institutes programs and
corresponding diplomas or certificates. The external study estimated that if all institutes were
to adhere to the minimum standards, the investment cost would amount to around €420,000 64
for the initial recognition/accreditation. However, as this cost estimate is based on the
general high standard accreditation system of higher education systems (high schools and
62
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p. 33-35
63
Idem p.142
64
Idem.
105
universities) in the Netherlands and Flanders, one might consider that a less stringent
certification/recognition system would be introduced in the IWT sector. As such, a more cost
effective approach (as outlined by EDINNA 65) would be that an inspector/auditor of the
Ministry of Transport 66 executes an inspection to verify that the school's examination program
meets the requirements of the standards. In most Member States, there is already a
shipping inspectorate or similar body. To facilitate such inspections EDINNA will finalise
in the coming year their “LDV TOI” program with the deliverable “Course Manual”. This
manual can be used by every IWT education and training institute to prove that they meet the
standards requirements. EDINNA is also responsible for the project of developing a quality
and assessment system which could be used for such inspections. This would simplify the
process and reporting for the inspection authorities and reduce investment costs considerably.
Furthermore, investment costs will be needed for the modification of training and
examination programs necessary for meeting the required EU competence standards. The
costs related to the adaptation will strongly vary from school to school, depending on their
existing levels of standards. Although generic course material are being developed by projects
within EDINNA, some courses may need to be tailor-made. Adaptation costs may run into the
hundreds of thousands of Euros according to STC. However, recent experience has revealed
that only 80 person-hours were needed to adapt an existing curriculum of a school to new
more stringent requirements 67. Hence, the investment costs can be estimated to range between
several thousands and several hundreds of thousand euros per school. Considering that the
estimation of several hundreds of thousands of euros is at the high end, this would represent
for the 43 identified programmes in the EU 68, an investment cost in the range of €400,000 –
€4,000,000. It could however also be considered that these costs, although significant, are
inherent to the necessary adjustments education and training system have to make
anyway if they wish to keep up with external (including technological) developments.
B) Impact of the policy options on investment costs due to measures linked to KSS
Under option C, a justification of KSS requirements based on the criteria and principles
outlined in the legislation is required. Investment to be incurred mainly concerns some extra
work for the administration, but no specific highly technical study would be required.
Option C also allows Member States to organise KSS exams for all KSS in Europe. This
would incur translation costs for exams that will take place through multiple choice questions.
These costs are difficult to estimate at this stage as they will depend on the examination
requirements and on the number of Member States that will wish to organise KSS exams for
stretches located in another Member State. If KSS is tested with a simulator, it is considered
that no investment would be needed, based on the assumption that only Member States that
possess simulators would organise such exams. If KSS is tested with by completing journeys
on the waterway sectors concerned, no investments would be needed neither, as this cannot be
tested by the other Member States.
65
Information communicated by EDINNA to the Commission on 30/11/2014
66
Or another ministry depending on the system applicable in each Member State.
67
Data comunicated by CERONAV to the Commission on 16/12/2014.
68
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment p. 142.
106
Annex 14:
Detailed information on administrative costs for option C
Section 6.2.4 table 3 presents a summary overview of the administrative cost estimates that
are linked to option C. This annex provides more detailed explanations on the assumptions
and the underlying calculations behind the cost estimates.
A) Impact on recurrent administrative costs linked to mutual recognition of
professional qualifications
Impact on recurrent administrative costs due to minimum standards linked to the frequency of
the medical check-up (measure 2): Different levels of frequency of medical check-up would
obviously influence the administrative costs. Introducing the more stringent approach CCNR-
standards to all Member States will result in more costs than applying a system with less
frequent check-ups (e.g. the Directive 95/50/EC approach or the new frequency). The external
study 69 concluded, taking 2030 as a time horizon, that the new frequency produces the highest
savings (Net Present Value: around € 7,7 million), followed by the EU Directive (Net Present
Value: € -2,3 million. The stricter CCNR-policy would result in more costs (Net Present
Value: € 1,3 million). With a time horizon of 2050, these Net Present Value figures are
respectively € -13,2 million € 3,3 million and € 2,1 million.
Impact on recurrent administrative costs due to minimum standards linked to competence
based approach tested by a practical exam for boatmasters (option C with measure 2 + in case
of C1: measure 3): Option C would lead to extra administrative costs as practical exams
would be mandatory introduced. Variants C1 and C2 are affected in a different way. Only
boatmasters obtaining their professional qualifications via the experience based path will do a
practical exam in case of option C1. Average cost estimates take into account two scenarios:
1) exam has to be carried out on a dedicated school ship that needs to be chartered for a day
and 2) candidate has to use his own ship. Based on estimated costs for practical exams (e.g.
school ship, assessors) the external study concluded that the average Net Present Value of this
measure would be for variant C1 € 0.5 million taking 2030 as the time horizon and € 0.7
million taking 2050 as a time horizon. For variant C2, the amounts are €1.9 taking 2030 as a
time horizon and €2.8 with 2050 as a time horizon. Further information on the assumptions
and the underlying calculations can be found in the external study and attached Addendum 70.
Impact on recurrent administrative costs due to the introduction of a boatman exam (option C
with measure 8 + in case of C1: measure 9): Option C would lead to extra administrative costs
as mandatory exams would be introduced. Variants C1 and C2 are affected in a different way.
Only boatmen obtaining their professional qualifications via the experience based path will
take an administrative exam in case of option C1, whereas 100% in case of option C2.
Average cost estimates take into account various combinations for theoretical and/or practical
69
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p 79-81
70
Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures on administrative costs for examination in the context of
technical support for an impact assessment for the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation.
107
exams. The external study concluded that for variant C1 the average NPV of this measure
would be € 0.8 million taking 2030 as a time horizon and € 1.3 million taking 2050 as a time
horizon and, for variant C2, €3.5 million taking 2030 as a time horizon and €5.2 million
taking 2050 as a time horizon. Further information on the assumptions and the underlying
calculations can be found in the external study and attached Addendum 71.
In case of option C1 only, impact on recurrent administrative costs due to education and
training standards measures (measure 3 and 9)
The measures linked to education standards will lead to administrative costs in variant C1 of
option C due to the mandatory recognition/accreditation system. In order to maintain a
certification, the IWT training and education centres will need to be checked every couple of
years in order to verify whether they are still compliant with the relevant standards. Member
States opting for a system based on recognition (following inspection) will incur a lower
administrative burden than those opting for accreditation, where compliance with the
mandatory EU minimum competence-base standards for examination needs to be verified by
a third party.
The external study concluded that for all IWT institutes in the EU, the total annual costs for
the certification amount to around €0.7 million based on a compliance check performed every
6 years 72. The Net Present Value of administrative costs adds up to €8.3 million by 2030, and
up to €13.2 million by 2050. Further information on the assumptions and the underlying
calculations can be found in the external study. 73
However, these figures need to be interpreted with caution. No estimations have been found
for specific accreditation systems for IWT education. The external study therefore estimated
the administrative costs by using costs estimates from the high-standard accreditation system
of higher education in the Netherlands. The quality assurance system as put forward in option
C will however be less stringent than the accreditation system of higher education in the
Netherlands. Therefore, costs are expected to be much lower.
Based on discussions with Member States, DG EAC, EDINNA and schools that went through
recognition process with the CCNR, it was considered that these costs could be considerably
reduced in the IWT context if the Member States opt for a recognition system instead of an
accreditation. Administrative costs related to recognition are considered not significant. The
The external study estimates have therefore been reduced by one third, and even this is
considered to be an estimation at the high end of the range. Experience of the implementation
of the Directive 2007/59/EC on the certification of train drivers underpins this assumption.
Under article 20 of the Directive, the choice is left to the Member States to opt for a
recognition or for an accreditation system. As a result, accreditation is used in very few MS
and when it is used it is limited to a certain category or for a specific purpose.
Impact on recurrent administrative costs due to harmonization of required information in
SRBs and logbooks (option C with measure 10): With regard to SRBs, administrative costs
would be saved with option C as non-Rhine workers may have their SRBs checked in their
own country in case they acquire enough navigation time to promote to a higher Rhine
71
Panteia (2015), Addendum, complementary figures on administrative costs for examination in the context of
technical support for an impact assessment for the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation.
72
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2005), Accreditatie: de kosten in kaart
73
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p 145-146.
108
function. Currently, only Rhine authorities can award functions on the Rhine. The external
study concluded that the Net Present Value of these savings with regards to administrative
costs adds up to € 0.1 million by 2030 and € 0.2 million by 2050. With regard to logbooks, no
specific costs would be saved or added. Further information on the assumptions and the
underlying calculations can be found in the external study. 74
Impact on recurrent administrative costs due to the introduction of practical exam for workers
from outside the IWT sector (optional - option C with measure 12): In option C the practical
exam would be voluntary introduced by Member States. The price for a practical exam
programme at boatman level is estimated per candidate at 800€ and at 6000€ at boatmaster
level. These prices are those applicable in the Netherlands in 2014 75. The prices cover the
costs of procedure, portfolio check, sailing time check, training and assessors. In addition
yearly operating cost for the training vessels and/or simulators should also be taken into
account. These are however assumed to be already covered by measures linked to boatman
and boatmasters from inside the IWT sector.
B) Impact on recurrent administrative costs of the policy options linked to knowledge
of specific situation (KSS)
Option B would not bring about any additional administrative costs compared to option A.
Option C on the other hand would influence the administrative costs through the possibility
for Member States to organise exams and issue authorisations for all KSS in all Member
States.
The administrative costs for all Member States together would not change much as it is
expected that only a limited number of additional boatmasters would take KSS exams
compared to the baseline. Only the country in which the exam takes place would change.
Therefore, although at EU level no significant extra administrative costs are foreseen, certain
Member States will see an increase of their costs due to the increased number of exam
participants. This could for example be the case for Poland and the Czech Republic as several
of their boatmasters would no longer go to a Rhine country to have their KSS on the Rhine
River attested. Instead, they would take the exam in their own country. Also for example
Belgium and the Netherlands could experience a similar effect as their boatmasters could be
interested in taking the Seine KSS exam in their own country. Conversely, several other
Member States will experience lower administrative costs as they will have less exam
participants compared to the baseline scenario. This effect will be felt in the Rhine countries
for example. The total cost change for an individual Member State will depend on the net
effect on the number of participants multiplied by the costs of a KSS exam. In The
Netherlands for example the cost for a KSS exam is around 52 euros 76, in Belgium the cost is
around 70 euro 77.
Apart from the Member State authorities, also the participants to the KSS exams are affected.
If boatmasters are allowed to take the exam in their own country, they will have less travel
expenses, they will have fewer expenses for language courses and they will lose less time
74
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p 133-135
75
http://www.binnenvaartacademie.nl/home/praktijkexamen
76
http://www.cbr.nl/download/Tarieven%20Binnenvaart%20per%201%20januari%202014.pdf
77
http://www.mobilit.belgium.be/nl/Resources/formulieren/scheepvaart/form_binnen_rijnpatent_riviergedeelte.jsp
109
travelling to the examination centre. In other words, their administrative costs will go down.
The external study concluded that the NPV of this administrative costs savings adds up to €
0.7 million by 2030, and up to € 0.8 million by 2050. Further information on the assumptions
and the underlying calculations can be found in the external study 78. The external study
concluded that this relatively modest savings can be explained by the fact that for CCNR
countries, the exams for the KSS stretches on the river Rhine can already be done in the
country of origin and in the native language of the respective CCNR Member State.
Moreover, in the case of the Danube, boatmasters from Danube countries are granted KSS
recognition on most of the Danube upon passing their boatmasters exam.
However, the effect is uncertain, as each Member State may choose whether or not to
implement the measure. Member States that do not want to bear the possible associated extra
administrative burden are allowed not to introduce the measure.
78
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p 113-119.
110
Annex 15:
Overview of the available quantitative estimates of the Net Present Value (NPV) of
administrative costs, the safety effect and job quality/attractiveness of policy option C
It was not possible to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the options as not all costs and benefits
could be monetised. Monetised estimates are available for investments costs, administrative costs,
safety effects and job quality/attractiveness. For other impacts, qualitative assessments are available.
The table below provides an overview of the available quantitative estimates of the Net Present Value
(NPV) of administrative costs, the safety effect and job quality/attractiveness of policy option C, as
presented in section 6 of the Impact Assessment Report.
Policy measures NPV of recurrent Investment NPV of safety Job
administrative costs 79 costs effects 80 (euro) quality/attractiven
(euro) ess 81 (euro)
2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050
For boatmasters: frequency
of the medical check-up new +7.7 +13.2 0 - 2.0 - 3.3 0 0
frequency (measure 2) All All All All
For boatmasters: C1: -0.5 C1: -0.7
competence based standards Private/all Private/all -5.5 +72.6 +182,8 +21.0 +31.6
tested by practical exam All Private Private
and C2: -1.9 C2: -2.8
mutual recognition of the Private/all Private/all
certificates (measure 2)
Boatmaster certificate for 0 + + - 0.1 - 0.2
Insignificant Insignificant
large convoys (measure 2) All All Private Private
Recognition of EU 0
Insignificant Insignificant +4.2 +11.8 +10.4 + 15.9
harmonised crew
Private Private 82 All All Private Private
qualifications (measure 7)
Introduction of a boatman C1: -0.8 C1: -1.3
exam (theoretical and/or Private Private Insignificant
practical) (measure 8 + for Public
+ + + +
C1 measure 9) C2: -3.5 C2:-5.2
Private Private Insignificant
Public
Harmonization of required
information in SRBs and +0.1 +0.2 Insignificant Insignifi Insignifi
Public 0 0
logbooks (measure 10) Private Private cant cant
Recognition/certification C1 only:
C1 only: C1 only:
system for education/exam + + + +
-2.8 -4.4 -2.2
programs and recognition of
Public Public
diplomas (measure 3 and 9)
79
Negative figures (in red) refer to an increase in the NPV of administrative costs. Positive figures (in green) refer to a
decrease in the NPV of administrative costs or 'savings'.
80
Negative figures (in red) refer to a reduction in the NPV of safety effect: more accidents will take place, which represent a
higher cost. Positive figures (in green) refer to a positive safety effect: fewer accidents will take place, resulting in a higher
NPV of the safety effect.
81
Negative figures (in red) refer to a negative NPV of the impacts on job quality/attractiveness: it represents a loss in wages
for workers. Positive figures (in green) refer to a positive effect on job quality/attractiveness: it represents a gain in worker’s
salary.
82
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation: technical support for an
impact assessment, p.85: savings due to less checks of worker’s SRBs.
111
Optional: Practical exam for (No NPV available: Insignifi Insignifi + +
workers entering from -800€ per exam at boatman -0.1 cant cant
outside the IWT sector level and -6000€ at
(measure 12) boatmaster level)
Private
Optional :Organisation of
exams and issuance of Neutral Neutral Insignificant 0 0 + +
authorisations for all KSS in public public Public
Member States (measure 16)
(0 to +0.7) (0 to +0.8)
Private Private
Total C1:+3.7 C1:+7.0 C1: -8,0 +75 +191 +31 +47
C2:+2.4 C2:+5.4 C2: -5,6
The following conclusions can be drawn from the table above:
The total available monetised cost and benefits - benefits in terms of safety, job
quality/attractiveness and even administrative costs outweigh by a significant
marging the NPV of the investment costs (to be borne by the public sector).
It should be noted that apart from these available monetised impacts, also other impacts have
to be considered when concluding on the effectiveness and efficiency of option C. For
example, for labour mobility, the impact has been calculated in terms of extra workforce
available on the labour market, and not in monetary terms. As demonstrated in section 6, this
impact is also positive. Furthermore, also the impact on SMEs and the filling rate of vacancies
(employment effect) is expected to be positive. It can therefore be concluded that the impacts
described in qualitative terms further strengthen the conclusion that policy option C is the
most effective option.
112
ANNEX 16:
GLOSSARY
• Directive 91/672/EEC: Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on
the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters' certificates for the carriage
of goods and passengers by inland waterway provides for the mutual recognition
by the Member States of each other’s boat masters’ certificates, and establishes a
committee to facilitate the process by delivering its opinion on the draft for the
amendment of Annex I, i.e. the list of national boat masters' certificates for the
carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway.
• Directive 96/50/EC: Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boat masters' certificates
for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community
laid down harmonised basic conditions for obtaining national boat masters'
certificates for inland waterway navigation between the EU member States. The
Directive distinguishes between an “A” type certificate which is valid for all
inland waterways not falling under Rhine regulations, and the “B” type which is
similar but not valid on inland waterways with a maritime character, such as
estuaries.
• Mannheim Convention: Its legal foundation is the Revised Convention for
Navigation on the Rhine - referred to as the Mannheim Document - of 17 October
1868
• Danube Commission: The Danube Commission is an international
intergovernmental organization established by the Convention regarding the
regime of navigation on the Danube signed in Belgrade on 18 August 1948. The
main objectives of the Danube Commission's activity are to provide and develop
free navigation on the Danube for the commercial vessels flying the flag of all
states in accordance with interests and sovereign rights of the Member States of
the Belgrade Convention, as well as to strengthen and develop economic and
cultural relations of the said states among themselves and with the other
countries. The Member States of the Danube Commission are: the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Bulgaria, Hungary, the Federal Republic of Germany,
the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Romania, the Republic of
Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and the Republic of Croatia.
• Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel (RNP) 83: The Regulations for Rhine
navigation personnel includes all the existing Rhine regulations for navigation
personnel. The existing regulations were comprised of three sets of regulations,
namely:
83
http://www.ccr-zkr.org/12020300-en.html
113
• Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel, adopted in june 2007,
• Chapter 23 of the Inspection regulations for vessels on the Rhine;
• Regulations for safety personnel on passenger vessels, adopted in December
2004.
These regulations have been replaced by the RPN. Most of the rules, however, remain
unchanged, since the new regulation merely constitutes a regulatory restructuring
designed to ease the reading of Rhine regulations.
• The "hidden reserve": capacity reserve which consists of persons with the right
qualifications but that are available for IWT work on an incidental basis only. This
concerns for example persons that are of an age older than 65 years and/or relatives
that may provide support in exceptional cases.
• Service Record Books (SRBs) register navigation time and qualifications. They as
also provide proof that mental and physical fitness requirements have been met by
each crew member. In this respect, SRBs are an important factor for obtaining a
certificate to operate in a certain Member State or river basin.
114
ANNEX 17:
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations used in the Impact Assessment Report are presented in the table below.
Abbreviation Description
AT Austria
BAU Business As Usual
BE Belgium
BM Boatmaster
CCNR Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine
Common Expert Group on professional qualifications and training standards in
CEG
inland navigation
Committee for the Creation of Technical Standards in the field of inland
CESNI
navigation
CH Switzerland
CPI Consumer Price Index
CZ Czech Republic
DC Danube Commission
DE Germany
DG MOVE Directorate General for Mobility and Transport
EBU European Barge Union
EC European Commission
EDINNA Education in Inland Navigation
ESO European Skippers Organisation
e-SRB Electronic Service Record Book
ETF European Transport Workers' Federation
EU European Union
FIS Faiway Information System
FR France
Harmonised Inland Navigation Transport through education and information
HINT
technology
HR Croatia
115
HU Hungary
IAR Impact Assessment Report
ICT Information and communication technology
IT Italy
IWT Inland Waterway Transport
KSS Knowledge of Specific Situations
MS Member States
NAIADES Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe
NL Netherlands
NPV Net Present Value
NUTS Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics
PLATINA Platform for the implementation of NAIADES
RIS River Information System
RNP Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel
RO Romania
SB Serbia
SK Slovak Republic
SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
SRB Service Record Book
STCIN Standards of Training and Certification for Inland Navigation
STF Committee on Social issues, Employment and Professional Training
UK United Kingdom
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
116
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 19 February 2016
(OR. en)
6285/16
Interinstitutional File: ADD 2
2016/0050 (COD)
TRANS 51
MAR 54
CODEC 179
EDUC 35
SOC 85
ETS 4
MI 94
PROPOSAL
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 18 February 2016
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of
the European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2016) 36 final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal
for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland
navigation and repealing Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council
Directive 96/50/EC
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2016) 36 final.
Encl.: SWD(2016) 36 final
6285/16 ADD 2 TA/il
DGE 2 A EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 18.2.2016
SWD(2016) 36 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 91/672/EEC and Council Directive 96/50/EC
{COM(2016) 82 final}
{SWD(2016) 35 final}
EN EN
A. Need for action
Why? What is the problem?
Inland waterway transport (IWT) is a cost-saving and energy-efficient transport mode that has a lot of spare
capacity to support EU energy efficiency, growth and industrial development goals. The future contribution of
the IWT sector to these EU policy goals is however hampered by difficulties in terms of labour mobility,
manpower shortages and skills mismatches. Despite attempts by the sector to tackle the problems at bilateral
and multilateral level, these difficulties prevent inland navigation from fully contributing to improving the
efficiency of multimodal logistics on which European industries depend for their competitiveness and further
growth. Two problem drivers are identified: 1) Workers face difficulties with mutual recognition of professional
qualifications; 2) Knowledge of specific situations (KSS) requirements may create unnecessary labour mobility
barriers. It is expected that the problems and their drivers will continue to be present in the period from 2030 to
2050.
What is this initiative expected to achieve?
The general objective is to help build up the internal IWT labour market so that the IWT sector can fully
contribute to EU policy objectives for fuel savings as expressed in the Energy Union package and restore
industry’s weight in the EU’s GDP to 20 % by strengthening the EU’s industrial base. The related specific
objective is to facilitate labour mobility in the IWT sector by ensuring that the recognition of qualifications of
skilled workers is based on the competencies needed on board vessels. This leads to the following operational
objectives: 1) Ensure mutual recognition of professional qualifications of workers; 2) Ensure that KSS
requirements are proportionate to their safety goal and do not unnecessarily hamper labour mobility.
What is the added value of action at EU level?
Despite decade-long efforts by Member States and River Commissions to tackle difficulties in the EU labour
market at bilateral and multilateral level, barriers to workers’ mobility persist. The current organisational and
legal frameworks governing the sector have proved to be a significant obstacle to solving these problems. A
new EU regulatory framework relying upon the recently created CESNI i will extend the scope of the EU legal
framework to include the Rhine river, representing 67 % of total IWT transport, and will establish fair, safe and
competence-based access to the profession. This enhancement of the EU internal market for IWT is essential
for improving the energy efficiency of transport, for developing the EU’s industrial base and for efficient
functioning of the TEN-T Network.
B. Solutions
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred option?
The following policy options are considered: A) Baseline scenario B) Initiatives taken by the sector with EU
support C) Recognition of professional qualifications based on minimum competence requirements for
boatmen and boatmasters, differentiated in two suboptions: C1 including examination standards for training
and education institutes and C2 excluding examination standards for training and education institutes.
Taking into account effectiveness, efficiency and coherence, option C is to be preferred over options A and B.
Under option C, suboption C1 is judged to be slightly more effective and efficient than suboption C2. The
Impact Assessment Report leaves it up to the political decision-makers in the College of Commissioners to
decide on the preferred policy suboption under option C.
Who supports which option?
The preferred option and its two suboptions are in line with stakeholders’ opinions expressed both in the online
public consultation and in the Common Expert Group (CEG). Stakeholders indicated a high level of support for
regulatory measures in relation to the harmonisation of professional requirements, qualifications and
examinations, whereas the introduction of voluntary measures received much less support. There was no
support for leaving the initiative to the sector or for continuation of the status quo.
C. Impacts of the preferred option
What are the main benefits of the preferred option?
Option C improves labour mobility in particular through the recognition of qualifications on the Rhine for
boatmasters and operational workers. Around 15 % of the holders of EU boatmasters' certificates who
are currently excluded from navigating the Rhine would have their EU certificate automatically
recognised on the Rhine. Furthermore, boatmasters that already navigate the Rhine under the CCNR
1
bilateral arrangements would enjoy benefits as the limitations inherent in these arrangements will
disappear. The establishment of EU relevance criteria for knowledge of specific situations (KSS) and
the possibility for boatmasters to take KSS exams in their own country will further promote mobility. The
positive impact for operational workers, who are twice as numerous as boatmasters, is even more
significant. They will no longer be downgraded due to non-recognition of their qualifications.
1
For instance, boatmasters from all Member States except Germany (10 000 boatmasters in total) have to meet
additional conditions for the recognition of their boatmaster certificate.
2
The new inflow of skilled crew members will improve safety (with benefits estimated at € 190 million by
2050). Finally, job quality/attractiveness will improve because of safety and due to improved work
autonomy and career development prospects (with wage benefits for workers estimated at € 50 million
by 2050). The benefits of suboption C1 are slightly higher than for C2. The recognition of diplomas and
training certificates giving automatic access to the profession without having additional examinations
imposed by an administrative authority will increase attractiveness and reduce administrative burden.
The indirect effects of enhancing the internal market for IWT labour are significant. By addressing one of the
barriers to development of the IWT sector, the efficiency of multimodal logistics — an important
competitiveness factor for the EU’s industries — would increase, thereby underpinning the development of the
EU’s industrial base.
What are the main costs of the preferred option?
Option C will require one-off investment costs estimated at € 8 million for suboption C1 (borne
exclusively by the public sector) and € 5.6 million for suboption C2 (borne by the public sector and by
IWT training institutes). The main costs come from the introduction of the practical exam at boatmaster
level where this does not yet exist and, under suboption C1, from the adjustments that training
institutes have to make. The recurrent benefits in terms of administrative savings (€ 13.2 million by
2050 due to the new medical check-up frequency) would by themselves already outweigh the recurrent
administrative costs (€ 6 million for suboption C1 and € 8 million for suboption C2).These costs mainly
relate to the mandatory examination to test competencies at boatman and boatmaster levels where it
does not yet exist and, in the case of suboption C1 only, to the recognition/accreditation system for
exam programmes in training institutes. Suboption C1 would be less costly than C2 overall, but more
costly for the public sector and less costly for the private sector (due to the exemption from taking
administrative exams for workers with recognised training).
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?
The private IWT sector is almost exclusively composed of SMEs and micro-enterprises. Therefore all direct
private sector impacts described in this report are for SMEs and micro-enterprises only. Increased labour
mobility will help SMEs to recruit staff from across the EU, thereby reducing labour shortages. Competence-
based qualifications will increase safety and reduce accident costs. Increased attractiveness of the profession
will help SMEs to expand their business. SMEs would only bear a small proportion of the overall costs (in
particular for participation of crew in administrative exams), which are largely borne by the public sector. The
costs for SMEs would be widely offset by the benefits described above. Reduction of administrative burden for
SMEs under suboption C1 would be substantially lower than for C2, due to the exemption from taking
administrative exams for already qualified personnel. Indirect private sector impacts are significant and relate
to the advantages of a developing IWT sector for EU industries including SMEs, by improving the efficiency of
multimodal logistic chains, an important competitiveness factor for export-oriented SMEs.
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?
The costs of the preferred option will mainly be borne by national administrations and training institutes. All
Member States will not be affected in the same way. Costs and benefits will depend on the region, the pre-
existing situation and decisions on the uptake of optional measures. Overall, the benefits will outweigh the
costs by a wide margin.
Will there be other significant impacts?
The preferred option will have a positive impact on employment. By stimulating job mobility across
European regions, it will reduce the supply-demand gap and help to fill existing vacancies. As a result, a
more attractive energy-efficient IWT sector will help to improve the overall fuel efficiency of EU transport.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that several measures in the various policy options will affect different European
regions in a distinctive way as described in section 6.2.5 of the Impact Assessment Report.
D. Follow-up
When will the policy be reviewed?
The Commission services will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this initiative through a set of
core progress indicators. It is expected that the Commission services will carry out an evaluation seven years
from the date following the end of the period for transposition of the proposed legislation.
i
Comité Européen pour l’élaboration des standards pour la navigation intérieure
3
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 18 February 2016
(OR. en)
6285/16
Interinstitutional File:
2016/0050 (COD)
TRANS 51
MAR 54
CODEC 179
EDUC 35
SOC 85
ETS 4
MI 94
PROPOSAL
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 18 February 2016
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of
the European Union
No. Cion doc.: COM(2016) 82 final
Subject: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland
navigation and repealing Council Directive 96/50/EC and Council Directive
91/672/EEC
Delegations will find attached document COM(2016) 82 final.
Encl.: COM(2016) 82 final
6285/16 TA/il
DGE 2 A EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 18.2.2016
COM(2016) 82 final
2016/0050 (COD)
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 96/50/EC and Council Directive 91/672/EEC
(Text with EEA relevance)
{SWD(2016) 35 final}
{SWD(2016) 36 final}
EN EN
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The objective of the initiative is to facilitate labour mobility in the inland waterway transport
sector by ensuring that skilled workers’ qualifications are recognised throughout the Union.
The initiative builds upon over 19 years of experience with implementation of Directives
96/50/EC 1 and 91/672/EEC 2 which are however limited to the mutual recognition of
boatmasters operating on EU inland waterways other than the Rhine river.
Inland waterway transport (IWT) is a cost-saving and energy-efficient transport mode that
could be used more efficiently to support the European Union’s energy efficiency, growth and
industrial development goals. However, its contribution is hampered by difficulties in terms
of labour mobility, persistent vacancies and skills mismatches, which continue in spite of
attempts by the sector to tackle the problems at bilateral and multilateral level. Varying
minimum requirements for professional qualifications across the Member States do not
provide sufficient assurance for individual countries as regards the recognition of professional
qualifications of crew from other Member States, in particular as this also affects the safety of
navigation.
This initiative therefore proposes to extend the scope of recognition of professional
qualifications beyond the level of boatmasters to all crew involved in the operation of vessels,
including on the Rhine river. To instil the necessary confidence which is a prerequisite for
such recognition, this initiative proposes to base the recognition of the professional
qualifications on the competences that are needed for the operation of vessels and to balance
the recognition of qualifications with safeguards introducing standards as regards assessment
of competence, approval of training programmes and monitoring and evaluation of
certification and training.
The initiative responds to long-standing calls from the sector and Member States to revise the
existing outdated legal framework and replace it with a modern, competence-based
framework in line with the approach towards recognition of qualifications for other modes of
transport.
1.2. Consistency with existing policies in this area
Directive 91/672/EEC and Directive 96/50/EC provide for the reciprocal recognition and set
minimum requirements for obtaining boatmasters’ certificates. This initiative builds upon
these instruments and extends the requirements to cover all crew in inland navigation in the
EU, including on the Rhine river.
1
Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining
national boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the
Community, OJ L 235, 17/09/1996 p. 31.
2
Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national
boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway, OJ L 373,
31.12.1991 p. 29.
EN 2 EN
As there is no EU-wide sectoral legislation for the recognition of professional qualifications
for workers below the level of boatmaster, the general Directive 2005/36/EC on the
recognition of professional qualifications is applicable. In practice however, this Directive
does not provide an effective solution for professionals performing frequent and regular cross-
border activities in IWT and for this reason the possibilities offered by this general framework
have hardly been used by the workers in the sector.
The proposal has been prepared under the Commission’s policy framework for promoting
IWT, NAIADES II 3, entailing review of the framework on the harmonisation and
modernisation of professional qualifications in the sector. As part of the new approach to
governance in IWT, the Commission has strengthened its cooperation with various River
Commissions, in particular with the Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine
(CCNR). This cooperation has led amongst others to the creation of a new body open to
experts from all EU Member States, known by the French acronym CESNI 4 whose task is to
develop technical standards for the inland waterway sector. Its expertise may be used by the
EU also in the area of professional qualifications in this sector. The development of minimum
competence-based standards which the EU, the CCNR and other international bodies and
third countries may use within their legal frameworks is an important step towards mutual
recognition of qualifications for inland navigation across the EU.
1.3. Consistency with other Union policies
This initiative is consistent with and contributes to the internal ’market as it helps to overcome
barriers that prevent realising its full potential. It can help give businesses access to IWT
services offering for the best quality, price or service available and help professionals to
provide services across the EU quickly and conveniently. The initiative contributes to the
2014-2019 strategic objectives that the Commission is pursuing to promote ‘a deeper and
fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base’, ‘a new boost for jobs, growth and
investment’, ‘energy union’ and the EU as ‘a stronger global actor’.
More particularly, the initiative is consistent with the Commission’s 2016 work programme
which underlines both the importance of supporting labour mobility while tackling abuse and
of promoting skills development, including the mutual recognition of qualifications. The
present initiative illustrates a balanced approach to labour mobility for a fairer and deeper
internal market as it addresses issues of persistent vacancies in the inland waterway transport
sector and paves the way for measures to combat abuse or fraudulent claims. At the same
time, with making the competences the cornerstone of the mutual recognition of qualification,
the initiative aims at giving boost for jobs and careers.
This further accomplishment of the EU internal market for IWT is essential for improving the
energy efficiency of transport and participates, with new the setting up of common standards
across the EU, in making the Union a ‘stronger global actor’.
3
Communication: Towards Quality Inland Waterway Transport — NAIADES II COM (2013) 623 final.
4
Comité Européen pour l’élaboration des standards pour la navigation intérieure
EN 3 EN
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
2.1. Legal basis
The proposal is based on Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, which is the legal base for the adoption of Union measures relating to inland waterway
transport.
2.2. Subsidiarity
This initiative is justified because the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently
achieved by Member States acting alone. All aspects of transporting goods over the IWT
network are generally transnational. Differences in the Member States’ national legislation
undermine the functioning of the internal market for goods and workers. Without EU action,
the completion and efficient use of the Trans-European Transport Network would be
jeopardised and the investments of EU funds in the IWT network would not have optimal
results. Differences in legal regimes 5 for professional qualifications in IWT throughout the
EU cannot be entirely resolved by the Member States individually or in the framework of
international conventions, nor by the industry itself. This reasoning is valid for measures
applying to boatmasters and for other categories of crew members. Extending the scope to
include the Rhine river adds value compared to the existing legal framework as it provides for
common standards that are a necessary component of the internal market for skilled workers
in IWT at EU level.
2.3. Proportionality
In line with measures taken for other modes of transport, competence-based EU-wide
minimum requirements, verified through examinations, are only envisaged for skilled crew —
boatmen and boatmasters. For unskilled crew, such as deckhands, only minimum
requirements with regard to age and medical fitness are proposed.
The measure designed to certify training programmes is proportionate to its goals as it does
not interfere with the national education curricula on general subjects but relates to
competences and skills necessary to ensure safety of navigation and the protection of human
life, and does not require that those who have already successfully completed an approved
training programme in the EU to pass additional administrative exams on the same subjects
already covered by their training programme.
Introducing common criteria for competence for specific risks is necessary as such
requirements should be justified on safety grounds and the knowledge required should be
proportional to the risk at stake.
The inclusion of information on certified qualifications in a database kept by the Commission
or a designated body is necessary to streamline the exchange of information between the
Member States and to ensure efficient implementation of the initiative.
To instil the necessary confidence among the Member States in the mechanism for mutual
recognition, the requirements in terms of quality standards with respect to assessment of
5
The Council of the European Union, in its Conclusions of 16 June 2011, stressed the complexity of the
current organisational structure of the sector.
EN 4 EN
competences and skills, recognition of training programmes and monitoring of the whole
certification system are also considered proportionate.
A number of measures, such as extending the requirements to crew working on inland
waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State, have been discarded
for reasons of proportionality. Member States with non-linked inland waterways nevertheless
have to recognise the certified qualifications of crew members from other Member States.
As such, the proposed intervention is proportionate to its goals.
2.4. Choice of instrument
For the purpose of establishing a harmonised and efficient system of recognition of
professional qualifications in inland navigation and complying with the principle of
proportionality, a directive is the most appropriate instrument. The present proposal also does
not change the type of instrument previously used. A directive will enable Member States to
take the actions needed to comply with the obligations foreseen in this Directive by taking
also into account national specificities. Provided that it recognises qualifications certified by
other Member States, a Member State may also apply more stringent requirements for
certifying qualifications on its own territory.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
3.1. Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
An external evaluation of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC was carried out 6. The study
showed that the existing framework has been partially effective in fulfilling the objective of
reciprocally recognising boatmasters’ certificates and harmonising conditions for obtaining
the certificates, but several barriers remain. All recommendations were taken into account in
the framework of the impact assessment.
3.2. Stakeholder consultations
Stakeholders were consulted on several occasions and by different methods on the various
elements which are now the subject of the proposal:
(1) In 2012 the Commission created a Common Expert Group (CEG) on professional
qualifications and training standards in inland navigation. The consultation within the
CEG took the form of 11 expert meetings between September 2012 and November
2014 and included international river commissions, national administrations,
professional organisations, trade unions, training institutions and other associations 7.
6
The evaluation of the current framework can be found on:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2014-03-evaluation-report-directive-1996-
50.pdf
7
The following organisations were represented: 1) international river commissions: Central Commission
for Navigation on the Rhine, Danube Commission, Sava Commission, 2) United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe 3) National administrations in charge of IWT policy-making and legislative and
administrative activities, 4) Professional organisations: European Barge Union & the European Skippers
Organisation, 5) Trade unions: European Transport Workers’ Federation — IWT section, 6) PLATINA
EN 5 EN
Those meetings provided the opportunity for useful exchanges on the measures
envisaged for a Commission proposal. They showed broad support for an initiative at
EU level.
(2) The Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for Inland Waterway Transport at European
level 8 was also involved in the consultations. The social partners submitted on 16
September 2013 a document entitled ‘Social partners’ position on professional
qualifications and training standards for crew members on inland waterways
transport vessels’. They pointed out that the current ‘patchwork arrangement’ is quite
clearly no longer fit for purpose. It hampers the attractiveness of the profession and
makes the sector vulnerable to illegal practices that may distort the competition.
They confirmed the need for a modern and flexible regulatory tool regarding training
and certification. Social partners also stressed that the proposal on professional
qualifications is only one part of the puzzle. The electronic service record book,
logbook and tachograph are the missing pieces that have to be addressed without too
much delay in order to ensure a level playing field.
(3) An online public consultation on the essential elements of the Impact Assessment
took place from 26 March to 21 June 2013 9. The Commission received a total of 94
replies from education and training organisations, entrepreneurs/ship owners,
shipping companies, public authorities, ports, workers’ organisations and river
commissions. Responses came from a total of 16 countries. The online public
consultation highlighted the fact that the problems addressed in the Commission
proposal are of great importance. The responses indicated a high level of support for
regulatory measures aiming to harmonise professional requirements, qualifications
and examinations in inland navigation.
3.3. Impact assessment
This proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment report which has been reviewed by the
Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which issued a positive opinion on 31 July 2015. All the
recommendations from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board have been taken into consideration in
the final impact assessment report. More information on the way these have been addressed is
included under section 2.2. of the impact assessment report.
In order to address the main problems identified, namely that workers face difficulties with
regard to mutual recognition of professional qualifications and that local knowledge
requirements may create unnecessary difficulties for boatmasters operating on certain river
stretches, the policy option introducing minimum competence requirements for boatmen and
boatmasters, including examination standards for training institutes, has been chosen.
This option is preferred as it offers a more effective way to improve labour mobility than the
‘do nothing’ and the ‘voluntary measures’ options.
-Platform for the implementation of NAIADES, 7) IWT Training and education institutions in Europe
EDINNA, 8) AQUAPOL & European Federation for Inland Ports.
8
The European Inland Waterways Transport Social Partners include the European Barge Union-, the
European Skippers’ Organisation and the European transport Workers’ Federation.
9
All relevant documents can be found on: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/2013-06-21-
inlandnavigqualifications_en.htm
EN 6 EN
The preferred option also addresses the difficulties for labour mobility arising from
requirements for local knowledge requirements and allows Member States to carry out
assessments of required competences for specific risks also for inland waterways located in
another Member State, which further improves the effectiveness of this option.
The impact assessment presented two variations of the preferred option, one limiting the
regulatory requirements for assessment of competences to mandatory administrative
examination and one including alongside the mutual recognition of approved training
programmes. Under the first variant, all boatmen and boatmasters are required to pass an
administrative exam organised by a competent authority in order to have their qualifications
recognised across the EU, even if they are already in possession of a diploma or certificate
from an IWT education or training institute. The second variant has been preferred as it
minimises the administrative burden for those applicants who have already acquired the
necessary skills and who have demonstrated their competences in the course of their training,
by sparing them the need to take additional exams. As a result, there is also a positive impact
on attractiveness of the profession, labour mobility, access to the profession and
administrative savings. The latter impact makes the second variant also more efficient
compared to the first variant. Finally, this variant is also more coherent as similar legislative
requirements for education and training institutes already exist at EU level for the rail and air
transport sector. In these sectors, the requirements even go further as they also entail
continuous training. Overall, the second variant is more coherent, more effective and more
efficient and complies with the principles of proportionality as outlined in section 2.3.
3.4. Regulatory fitness and simplification
The private IWT sector is almost exclusively composed of SME’s and micro-enterprises.
They are therefore not excluded from this initiative as doing so would neutralise the effect
completely. This proposal has been drafted with SME’s in mind. The impact of this proposal
on SMEs and micro-enterprises is positive, as they will have to bear only a small proportion
of the costs, which will be more than off-set by the benefits of enhanced labour mobility.
By providing the common standards across the Union necessary to achieve the internal market
for workers in IWT, the proposal streamlines the legal framework related to professional
qualifications in the European IWT sector, which is currently fragmented. The proposal will
replace a complex set of regional requirements with multilateral and bilateral agreements by a
simpler and, more importantly, EU-wide framework for certification and mutual recognition.
The proposal minimises the administrative burden for those applicants who completed an
approved training programme by avoiding that they would have to take unnecessary
additional administrative exams.
The proposal also facilitates the electronic exchange of information and paves the way for the
introduction of electronic tools, with a view to reduce the administrative burden whilst
rendering the documents less prone to tampering
The proposal repeals Directive 91/672/EEC and Directive 96/50/EC and provides for gradual
phasing-in with transitional measures.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
The proposal has no implications for the EU budget.
EN 7 EN
5. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS
5.1. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
It is anticipated that the Commission will submit, at the latest seven years after the end of the
transposition period, a report to the European Parliament and the Council, evaluating the
effectiveness of the measures introduced by this proposal.
5.2. Explanatory documents
The proposed Directive contains a significant number of more extensive legal obligations
compared to the existing Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC. Given this, and the fact that
the proposal includes provisions on a number of qualifications not yet covered in a mandatory
way by the current legal framework i.e. deck crew members other than boatmasters, experts in
the use of liquefied natural gas as a fuel and passengers navigation experts, explanatory
documents accompanying the notification of transposition measures will be needed so that
measures which the Member States have introduced are clearly identifiable.
EN 8 EN
2016/0050 (COD)
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing
Council Directive 96/50/EC and Council Directive 91/672/EEC
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Article 91(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 10,
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions 11,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1) Council Directive 91/672/EEC 12 and Council Directive 96/50/EC 13 are the first steps
taken towards the harmonisation and recognition of professional qualifications for
crew members in inland navigation.
(2) The requirements for crew members navigating on the Rhine river, who are outside the
scope of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC, are established by the Central
Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR), pursuant to the Rhine Navigation
Personnel Regulation under the Revised Convention for Rhine Navigation.
(3) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 applies to
inland waterway occupations other than boatmasters, who are covered by that
10
OJ C , , p. .
11
OJ C , , p. .
12
Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national
boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (OJ L 373,
31.12.1991, p. 29).
13
Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining
national boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the
Community (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 31).
EN 9 EN
Directive. The mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates under Directive
2005/36/EC does not, however, provide an optimised response to regular and frequent
cross-border activities of inland waterways occupations.
(4) An evaluation study carried out by the Commission in 2014 highlighted the fact that
the limitation of the scope of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC to boatmasters, as
well as the lack of automatic recognition of boatmasters’ certificates issued in
accordance with those Directives on the Rhine, greatly hinders the mobility of crew
members in inland navigation.
(5) To facilitate mobility, to ensure the safety of navigation and the protection of human
life, it is essential for deck crew members, persons in charge of emergency situations
on board passenger vessels and persons involved in the bunkering of liquefied natural
gas-fuelled vessels to hold certificates of qualification proving their qualifications. For
efficient enforcement, they should carry such certificates while exercising their
occupation.
(6) Boatmasters sailing in circumstances presenting a particular safety hazard should hold
a specific authorisation, in particular, for sailing large convoys, sailing liquefied
natural gas-fuelled vessels, sailing in conditions of reduced visibility, sailing on
waterways with a maritime character or sailing on waterways with specific risks for
navigation. In order to obtain such authorisation, boatmasters should be required to
demonstrate additional competences.
(7) For ensuring safety of navigation, Member States should identify waterways with a
maritime character, in accordance with harmonised criteria. The competence
requirements for navigating on these waterways should be defined at Union level.
Without unnecessarily limiting the mobility of boatmasters, when necessary for
ensuring safety of navigation, Member States should also have the possibility to
identify the waterways entailing specific risks for navigation in accordance with
harmonised criteria and procedures, pursuant to this Directive. In such a case, the
related competence requirements should be set at Member State level.
(8) For reasons of cost-effectiveness, holding Union certificates of qualification should
not be made compulsory on national inland waterways not linked to the navigable
network of another Member State.
(9) With a view to contributing to the mobility of persons involved in the operation of
vessels across the Union and considering that all certificates of qualification, service
record books and logbooks issued in accordance with this Directive should comply
with minimum standards, Member States should recognise the professional
qualifications certified in accordance with this Directive. Consequently the holders of
such qualifications should be able to exercise their profession on all Union inland
waterways.
(10) In view of the established cooperation between the Union and the CCNR since 2003
which has led to the establishment of a European Committee for drawing up Standards
in Inland Navigation (CESNI), an international body set up under the auspices of the
14
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L. 255, 30. 9.2005, p. 22).
EN 10 EN
CCNR, and in order to streamline the legal frameworks governing the professional
qualifications in Europe, certificates of qualification, service record books and
logbooks, issued in accordance with the Rhine Navigation Personnel Regulation under
the Revised Convention for Rhine Navigation which lay down requirements that are
identical to those of this Directive should be valid on all Union inland waterways.
Such documents issued by third countries should be recognised in the Union, subject
to reciprocity. To further remove barriers to labour mobility and further streamline the
legal frameworks governing the professional qualifications in Europe, any certificate
of qualification, service record book or logbook issued by a third country on the basis
of requirements which are identical to those laid down in this Directive may also be
recognised on all Union waterways, subject to an assessment by the Commission and
subject to recognition by that third-country of documents issued in accordance with
the present Directive .
(11) Directive 2005/36/EC remains applicable for deck crew members exempted from the
obligation of holding a Union certificate of qualification issued in accordance with this
Directive, as well as for inland waterways qualifications not covered by the present
Directive.
(12) Member States should issue certificates of qualification only to persons that have the
minimum levels of competence, the minimum age, the minimum medical fitness and
the navigation time required for obtaining a specific qualification.
(13) To safeguard the mutual recognition of qualifications, the certificates of qualification
should be based on the competences necessary for the operation of vessels. Member
States should ensure that persons receiving certificates of qualification have the
corresponding minimum levels of competence, verified following an appropriate
assessment. Such assessments may take the form of an administrative examination or
may form part of approved training programmes carried out in accordance with
common standards in order to ensure a comparable minimum level of competence in
all Member States for various qualifications.
(14) Due to the responsibility with respect to safety when exercising the profession of
boatmaster, sailing with the aid of radar and bunkering liquefied natural gas-fuelled
vessels or sailing liquefied natural gas-fuelled vessels, verification through practical
examinations on whether the required level of competence has effectively been
reached is required. Such practical examinations may be carried out using approved
simulators, with a view to further facilitating the evaluation of competence.
(15) Approval of training programmes is necessary to verify that the programmes comply
with common minimum requirements regarding content and organisation. Such
compliance allows for eliminating unnecessary barriers to entering the profession by
preventing those who already acquired the necessary skills during their vocational
training from passing unnecessary additional examination. The existence of approved
training programmes may also facilitate the entry of workers with prior experience
from other sectors into the profession of inland navigation as they may benefit from
dedicated training programmes that take account of their already acquired
competences.
(16) To further facilitate mobility for boatmasters, all Member States should be allowed,
where practicable, to assess the necessary competence for addressing specific risks for
EN 11 EN
navigation for all inland waterway stretches in the Union where such risks are
identified.
(17) The navigation time should be verified by means of entries in service record books
validated by a Member State. To allow for such verification, Member States should
issue service record books and logbooks and ensure that the latter provide a record of
the journeys of vessels. Medical fitness of a candidate should be certified by an
approved medical practitioner.
(18) Whenever the measures provided for in this Directive entail the processing of personal
data, they shall be carried out in accordance with Union law on the protection of
personal data 15.
(19) To contribute to an efficient administration with respect to the issuing, renewing and
withdrawing certificates of qualification, Member States should designate the
competent authorities for implementing this Directive and set up registers for
recording data on Union certificates of qualification, service record books and
logbooks. In order to facilitate the exchange of information between Member States
and with the Commission for the purpose of implementation, enforcement and
evaluation of the Directive as well as for statistical purposes, for maintaining safety
and for ease of navigation, Member States should report such information, including
data on the certificates of qualifications, service record books and logbooks, in a
database kept by the Commission.
(20) Authorities, including in third countries, issuing certificates of qualifications, service
record books and logbooks in accordance with rules that are identical to those of this
Directive are processing personal data. For the purpose of evaluation of the Directive,
for statistical purposes, for maintaining safety, for ease of navigation and in order to
facilitate the exchange of information between the authorities involved in the
implementation and enforcement of this Directive, these authorities and, where
relevant, international organisations that established these identical rules, should also
have access to the database kept by the Commission. This access should however be
subject to adequate level of data protection, including of personal data.
(21) With a view to further reducing administrative burden whilst rendering the documents
less prone to tampering, the Commission should as a second step, after the adoption of
this Directive, examine the possibility of introducing an electronic version of service
record books and logbooks, as well as electronic professional cards incorporating
Union certificates of qualifications. In doing so, the Commission should take existing
technologies in other modes of transport into account, in particular road transport.
After conducting an impact assessment including of cost-benefit and of the impacts on
the fundamental rights, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data, the
15
In particular Regulation (EU) No XXX/2016 (number to be added after formal adoption) of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (reference
to OJ to be added after formal adoption) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L
8, 12.01.2001, p. 1).
EN 12 EN
Commission should present, if appropriate, a proposal to the European Parliament and
the Council.
(22) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive,
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt decisions
approving measures proposed by the Member States with respect to requirements for
the competence for specific risks on certain stretches of inland waterways.
(23) The implementing powers relating to the adoption of models for the issuing of Union
certificates of qualification, service record books and logbooks and the adoption of
decisions for establishing or suspending the recognition of such documents issued by a
third country or under an international agreement regulating navigation on a Union
inland waterway should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No
182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council 16.
(24) In order to provide minimum harmonised standards for the certification of
qualifications and to facilitate the exchange of information between Member States
and the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of this Directive by the
Commission, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission as
regards the setting of standards of competence, standards for medical fitness, standards
for practical examinations, standards for the approval of simulators and standards
defining the characteristics and conditions of use for a database kept by the
Commission to host a copy of key data related to Union certificates of qualifications,
service record books, logbooks and recognised documents. It is of particular
importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its
preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission when preparing and
drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate
transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
(25) Transitional measures should address the problem of national certificates in use,
including those issued by the CCNR, for boatmasters, but also for other categories of
deck crew members falling in the scope of the Directive. They should safeguard as far
as possible entitlements previously granted and aim at providing for reasonable time to
skilled crew members to apply for a Union certificate of qualification. They should
therefore provide for a period of maximum 10 years in which these certificates may be
used on the Union waterways where they were valid before the end of the
transposition period and ensure a system of transition to the new rules for all these
certificates on the basis of a single EU set of criteria.
(26) The CESNI which is open to experts from all Member States, draws up standards in
the field of inland navigation, including for professional qualifications. The
Commission may take into account such standards when empowered to adopt acts in
conformity with this Directive.
(27) Since the objective of this Directive, namely establishing a common framework on the
recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, cannot be sufficiently
16
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of
the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
EN 13 EN
achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be
better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In
accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this
Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
(28) In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member
States and the Commission on explanatory documents 17, Member States have
undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition
measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the
components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition
instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of
such documents to be justified.
(29) Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC should therefore be repealed,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
CHAPTER 1
SUBJECT MATTER, DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE
Article 1
Subject matter
This Directive lays down the conditions and procedures for the certification of the
qualifications of persons involved in the operation of a vessel for the carriage of goods and
passengers by inland waterways in the Union, as well as the recognition of such qualifications
in the Member States.
Article 2
Scope
1. This Directive applies to deck crew members, persons who are involved in the
operation of bunkering vessels using liquefied natural gas as fuel and passenger
navigation experts of the following vessels on any Union inland waterway:
(a) vessels having a length (L) of 20 metres or more;
(b) vessels where the length (L), breadth (B) and draught (T) is a volume of 100
cubic metres or more;
17
OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14.
EN 14 EN
(c) tugs and pushers intended for:
(i) towing or pushing vessels referred to in points (a) and (b),
(ii) towing or pushing floating equipment
(iii) moving vessels referred to in points (a) and (b) or floating equipment
alongside.
(d) passenger vessels;
(e) self-propelled floating equipment.
2. This Directive does not apply to persons involved in the operation of:
(a) recreational craft;
(b) ferries not moving independently.
Article 3
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ‘inland waterway’ means a stretch of water not part of the sea, open to navigation;
(2) ‘vessel’ means an inland waterway vessel or sea-going ship;
(3) ‘passenger vessel’ means a day trip or cabin vessel constructed and equipped to carry
more than 12 passengers;
(4) ‘recreational craft’ means a vessel other than a passenger vessel, intended only for
sport or pleasure;
(5) ‘Union certificate of qualification’ means a certificate issued by a competent
authority attesting that a person fulfils the requirements under this Directive;
(6) ‘deck crew members’ means persons involved in the operation of a vessel navigating
on Union inland waterways carrying out tasks related to navigation, cargo handling,
stowage, maintenance or repair, with the exception of persons solely assigned to the
operation of the engines, electrical and electronic equipment;
(7) ‘passenger navigation expert’ means a person competent to take measures in
emergency situations on board passenger vessels;
(8) ‘boatmaster’ means a deck crew member qualified to sail a vessel on the Member
States’ inland waterways and who has nautical responsibility for the vessel;
(9) 'specific risk' means a safety hazard due to particular navigation conditions which
require boatmasters to have competences beyond what is expected under the general
standards of competence for the management level;
EN 15 EN
(10) ‘competence’ means the proven ability to use knowledge and skills required by the
established standards for the proper performance of tasks necessary for the operation
of inland waterway vessels;
(11) ‘management level’ means the level of responsibility associated with
serving as boatmaster and ensuring that all tasks in the operation of a vessel are
properly performed;
(12) ‘large convoy’ means a pushed convoy composed of the pusher and seven or more
barges;
(13) ‘service record book’ means a personal register recording details of a crew member’s
work history, in particular navigation time and journeys carried out;
(14) ‘logbook’ means an official record of the journeys made by a vessel;
(15) ‘navigation time’ means the time that deck crew members spent aboard during a
journey performed by a vessel on inland waterways and validated by the competent
authority;
(16) ‘active record book or active logbook’ means a record book or logbook which is
open for recording data;
(17) ‘competent authority’ means any authority or body designated by a Member State
with the responsibility for issuing Union certificates of qualification, conducting
examinations, issuing other documents or information and taking the necessary
decisions;
(18) ‘operational level’ means the level of responsibility associated with serving as
boatman, as able boatman or as helmsman and maintaining control over the
performance of all tasks within his or her designated area of responsibility in
accordance with proper procedures and under the direction of a person serving at
management level.
CHAPTER 2
UNION CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFICATION
Article 4
Obligation to carry a Union certificate of qualification for deck crew members
1. Member States shall ensure that deck crew members navigating on Union inland
waterways carry a Union certificate of qualification for deck crew members issued in
accordance with Article 10 or a certificate recognised in accordance with Articles
9(2) or (3).
2. A Member State may exempt all deck crew members or groups of crew members
having a specific qualification operating exclusively on national inland waterways
EN 16 EN
not linked to the navigable network of another Member State from the obligation set
out in paragraph 1. That Member State may issue national certificates of qualification
for desk crew members under conditions that differ from the general conditions set
out in this Directive. The validity of those national certificates of qualification shall
be limited to those national inland waterways which are not linked to the navigable
network of another Member State.
3. By derogation from paragraph 1, certificates of qualification for deck crew members
other than boatmasters, issued in accordance with Directive 2008/106/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council 18, shall be valid on seagoing vessels
operating on inland waterways.
Article 5
Obligation to carry a Union certificate of qualification for specific operations
1. Member States shall ensure that passenger navigation experts and persons who are
involved in the operation of bunkering vessels using liquefied natural gas as fuel
carry a Union certificate of qualification issued in accordance with Article 10 or a
certificate recognised in accordance with Article 9(2) or (3).
2. A Member State may exempt all persons referred to in paragraph 1, or groups of
such persons having a specific qualification, operating exclusively on national inland
waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State from the
obligation set out in paragraph 1. That Member State may issue national certificates
of qualification which may be obtained under conditions that differ from the general
conditions set out in this Directive. The validity of those national certificates of
qualification shall be limited to those national inland waterways which are not linked
to the navigable network of another Member State.
3. By derogation from paragraph 1, certificates of qualification for persons referred to
in that paragraph, issued in accordance with Directive 2008/106/EC shall be valid on
seagoing vessels operating on inland waterways.
Article 6
Obligation for boatmasters to hold specific authorisations
Member States shall ensure that boatmasters hold specific authorisations issued in
accordance with Article 11 when:
(a) sailing on inland waterways with a maritime character pursuant to Article 7;
(b) sailing on inland waterways stretches with specific risks pursuant to Article 8;
(c) sailing with the aid of radar;
(d) sailing vessels using liquefied natural gas as fuel;
(e) sailing large convoys.
18
Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the
minimum level of training of seafarers (OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33).
EN 17 EN
Article 7
Classification of inland waterways with a maritime character
1. Member States shall classify a stretch of inland waterway in their territory as an
inland waterway with a maritime character when one of the following criteria is met:
(a) International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are applicable;
(b) the buoys and signs are according to the maritime system;
(c) terrestrial navigation is necessary; or
(d) maritime equipment which requires special knowledge for its operation is
necessary for navigation.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the classification of a specific stretch
of inland waterways on their territory as an inland waterway with a maritime
character. The notification to the Commission shall be accompanied by a justification
based on those criteria. The Commission shall publish the list of notified inland
waterways with a maritime character.
Article 8
Inland waterway stretches with specific risks
1. When necessary for ensuring safety of navigation, Member States may identify
stretches of inland waterways with specific risks, except for inland waterways of a
maritime character referred to in Article 7, where such risks are due to:
(a) frequently changing stream patterns and speed;
(b) the absence of appropriate Fairway Information Services on inland waterways
or suitable charts combined with the hydro-morphological characteristics of the
inland waterway;
(c) the presence of a specific local traffic regulation not part of the European Code
for Navigation on Inland Waterways justified by specific hydro-morphological
features.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the measures they intend to adopt
pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and Article 18, together with the reasoning on
which the measure is based.
The Member State shall not adopt the measure for six months from the date of
notification.
3. Within a period of six months from the notification, the Commission shall issue an
implementing decision approving the proposed measures if they are in accordance
with this Article and with Article 18, or, if it is not the case, requiring the Member
State to amend or not adopt the proposed measure.
4. The measures adopted by the Member States in accordance with this Article shall be
communicated to the Commission.
EN 18 EN
The Commission shall publish the measures adopted by the Member States, together
with the reasoning referred to in paragraph 2.
5. Where stretches of inland waterways referred to in paragraph 1 are situated along the
border between two or more Member States, the Member States concerned shall
consult one another and notify the Commission jointly.
Article 9
Recognition
1. Any Union certificate of qualification referred to in Articles 4 and 5, as well as
service record books and logbooks referred to in Article 16 issued by the competent
authorities in accordance with this Directive, shall be valid on all Union inland
waterways.
2. Any certificate of qualification, service record book or logbook issued in accordance
with the Rhine Navigation Personnel Regulation under the Revised Convention for
Rhine Navigation which lay down requirements that are identical to those of this
Directive shall be valid on all Union inland waterways.
When such certificates, service record books and logbooks are issued by a third
country they shall be valid on all Union inland waterways only if that third country
recognises within its jurisdiction Union documents issued pursuant to the present
Directive.
3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, any certificate of qualification, service record book
or logbook issued in accordance with national rules of a third country stipulating
requirements that are identical to those laid down pursuant to this Directive shall be
valid on all Union inland waterways, subject to the procedure and the conditions set
out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article.
4. Any third country may submit to the Commission a request for recognition of
certificates, service record books or logbooks issued by its authorities. The request
shall be accompanied by all information necessary for determining that the issuing of
these documents is subject to requirements identical to those laid down pursuant to
this Directive.
5. Upon receiving the request referred to in paragraph 4, the Commission shall carry
out an assessment of the certification systems in the third country for which the
request for recognition was submitted, in order to determine whether the issuing of
these documents is subject to requirements identical to those laid down in this
Directive.
If this requirement is met, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act on the
recognition in the Union of the certificates, record books or logbooks issued by that
third country, subject to that third country recognising within its jurisdiction Union
documents issued pursuant to the present Directive.
When adopting this implementing act, the Commission shall specify for which
documents, referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, the recognition applies.
EN 19 EN
Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure
referred to in Article 29(2).
6. If the Commission determines that the requirements referred to in paragraphs 2 or 4
are no longer met, it shall adopt an implementing act suspending the validity on all
Union inland waterways of the certificates of qualification, service record books and
logbooks issued in accordance with these requirements.
The Commission may at any time terminate the suspension, if the identified
shortcomings as regards the standards applied have been solved.
7. The Commission shall publish the list of third countries referred to in paragraph 3,
together with the documents which are recognised as valid on all Union inland
waterways.
CHAPTER 3
CERTIFICATION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Section I
Procedure for issuing Union certificates of qualification and specific authorisations
Article 10
Issuing and validity of Union certificates of qualification
1. Member States shall ensure that applicants for Union certificates of qualification for
deck crew members and for specific operations provide satisfactory documentary
evidence:
(a) of their identity;
(b) that they meet the minimum requirements laid down in Annex I on age,
competence, administrative compliance and navigation time corresponding to
the qualification applied for;
(c) that they meet the standards for medical fitness in accordance with Article 21,
where applicable.
2. Member States shall verify the authenticity and validity of the documents provided.
3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing models for Union
certificates of qualification. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance
with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2). When adopting those acts
the Commission may make a reference to standards established by an international
body.
EN 20 EN
4. The validity of the Union certificate of qualification for deck crew members shall be
limited to the date of the next medical examination required pursuant to Article 21
5. Without prejudice to the limitation referred to in paragraph 4, Union certificates of
qualification for boatmasters shall be valid up to a maximum of 10 years.
6. Union certificates of qualification for specific operations shall be valid up to a
maximum of five years.
Article 11
Issuing specific authorisations for boatmasters
1. Member States shall ensure that applicants for specific authorisations referred to in
Article 6, other than for that provided in Article 6(b), provide satisfactory
documentary evidence:
(a) of their identity;
(b) that they meet the minimum requirements laid down in Annex I on age,
competence, administrative compliance and navigation time corresponding to
the specific authorisation applied for.
2. For specific authorisations for sailing on inland waterways stretches with specific
risks required pursuant to Article 6(b), applicants shall provide satisfactory
documentary evidence to the competent authorities of the Member States referred to
in Article 18(2):
(a) of their identity;
(b) that they meet the requirements for the competence for specific risks for the
specific stretch for which the authorisation is required, established in
accordance with Article 18;
(c) that they hold a Union certificate of qualification for a boatmaster or a
certificate recognised in application of Article 9(2) and (3) or that they meet
the minimum requirements for Union certificates of qualifications for
boatmasters provided for by this Directive.
3. Member States shall verify the authenticity and validity of the documents provided.
4. The competent authority issuing Union certificates of qualification to boatmasters
shall specify in the certificate any specific authorisation issued pursuant to Article 6,
in accordance with the model referred to in Article 10(3).
5. By derogation from paragraph 4, the specific authorisation referred to in Article 6 (d)
shall be issued as a specific Union certificate of qualification, in accordance with the
model referred to in Article 10(3).
EN 21 EN
Article 12
Renewal of Union certificates of qualification
Upon expiry of the validity of a Union certificate of qualification, Member States
shall, upon request, renew the certificate provided that:
(a) for Union certificate of qualification for crew members, satisfactory
documentary evidence referred to in Article 10(1)(a) and (c) is submitted;
(b) for Union certificates of qualification for specific operations, the satisfactory
documentary evidence referred to in Article 10(1)(a) and (b) is submitted.
Article 13
Withdrawing Union certificates of qualification or specific authorisations
When there are indications that the requirements for certificates of qualifications or
specific authorisations are no longer met, the Member States shall undertake all
necessary assessments and, where appropriate, withdraw those certificates.
Section II
Competences
Article 14
Requirements for competences
1. Member States shall ensure that persons referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6 have the
necessary competences for the safe operation of a vessel as laid down in Article 15.
2. By derogation from paragraph 1, assessment of the competence for specific risks
referred to in Article 6 (b) shall be demonstrated in accordance with Article 18.
Article 15
Assessment of competences
1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with
Article 29 to lay down the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge
and skills in compliance with the essential requirements set out in Annex II.
2. Persons applying for the documents referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6 shall
demonstrate that they meet the standards of competence referred to paragraph 1 by
passing an examination organised:
(a) under the responsibility of an administrative authority in accordance with
Article 16 or;
(b) as part of a training programme approved in accordance with Article 17.
EN 22 EN
3. The demonstration of compliance with the standards of competence shall include a
practical examination for obtaining:
(a) the Union certificate of qualification for boatmasters;
(b) the specific authorisation for sailing with the aid of radar as referred to in
Article 6(c);
(c) the Union certificate of qualification for experts in the use of liquefied gas as
fuel.
To obtain documents referred to under points (a) and (b), practical examinations may
take place on board a vessel or on a simulator compliant with Article 19. For point
(c), practical examinations may take place on board a vessel or an appropriate shore
installation.
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with
Article 29 to lay down standards for practical examinations referred to in paragraph 3
specifying the specific competences and the conditions to be tested during the
practical examinations, as well as the minimum requirements for the vessels on
which a practical examination may be taken.
Article 16
Examination under the responsibility of an administrative authority
Member States shall ensure that examinations referred to in Article 15(2)(a) are
organised under their responsibility. They shall ensure that those examinations are
conducted by examiners qualified to assess the competences and the corresponding
knowledge and skills referred to in Article 15(1).
Article 17
Approval of training programmes
1. Training programmes leading to diplomas or certificates demonstrating compliance
with the standards of competence referred to in Article 15(1) shall be approved by
the competent authorities of the Member States in whose territory the relevant
education or training institute is established.
2. Member States may approve the training programmes referred to in paragraph 1 only
if:
(a) the training objectives, learning content, methods, media delivery, procedures
and course material are properly documented and allow applicants to achieve
the standards of competence referred to in Article 15(1);
(b) the programmes for the assessment of the relevant competences are conducted
by qualified persons having in-depth knowledge of the training programme;
(c) an examination verifying compliance with the standards of competence
referred to in Article 15(1) is carried out by qualified examiners.
EN 23 EN
3. Member States shall notify the list of the approved training programmes to the
Commission, who will publish this information. The list shall indicate the name of
the training programme, the titles of diplomas or certificates awarded, the body
awarding the diploma or certificates, the year of entry into force of the approval as
well as the relevant qualification and any specific authorisations to which the
diploma or certificate gives access.
Article 18
Assessment of competence for specific risks
1. The Member States that identify inland waterways stretches with specific risks in the
meaning of Article 8(1), shall define the additional competence required from
boatmasters navigating on these stretches and the means to prove that such
requirements are met.
Those means may consist of a limited number of journeys to be carried out on the
stretch concerned, a simulator examination, a multiple choice examination or a
combination thereof.
When applying this paragraph, the Member States shall apply objective, transparent,
non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria.
2. These Member States shall put in place the procedures for assessing applicants’
competence for specific risks and shall make tools publicly available to facilitate
boatmasters with a Union certificate of qualification in acquiring the competence for
specific risks.
3. Any Member State may carry out assessments of applicants’ competence for specific
risks for stretches located in another Member State based on the requirements
established in accordance with paragraph 1. Upon request and in case of examination
by means of multiple choice exams or simulators, Member States referred to in
paragraph 1 shall provide other Member States with the available tools allowing
them to carry out that assessment.
Article 19
Use of simulators
1. Simulators used for the assessment of competences shall be subject to an approval by
Member States. That approval shall be issued upon request when it is demonstrated
that the device complies with the standards for simulators established by delegated
acts referred to in paragraph 2. The approval shall specify which particular
assessment of competence is authorised as regards the simulator.
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with
Article 29 to lay down standards for the approval of simulators, specifying the
minimum functional and technical requirements and administrative procedures in this
regard, with the objective of ensuring that the simulators used for an assessment of
competences are designed in such a way as to allow for the verification of the
competences as prescribed under the standards for practical examinations referred to
in Article 15(3).
EN 24 EN
3. Member States shall notify the list of the approved simulators to the Commission,
who will publish this information.
Section III
Navigation time and medical fitness
Article 20
Service record book and logbook
1. Navigation time, as referred to in Article 10(1)(b) and journeys carried out referred
to in Article 18(1) shall be recorded in a service record book referred to in paragraph
5 or a service record book recognised pursuant to Article 9(2) or (3).
2. Upon request from any deck crew member, Member States shall validate data
provided by the boatmaster following the verification of the authenticity and validity
of any necessary documentary evidence, including the logbook referred to in
paragraph 4 of this Article.
3. Data regarding navigation time and journeys carried out shall be valid for a period of
15 months, pending validation by a Member State. Where electronic tools are put in
place, including electronic service record books and electronic logbooks associated
with appropriate procedures for safeguarding the authenticity of the documents, the
corresponding data may be considered validated without additional procedures.
Navigation time may have been acquired on any of the Member States’ inland
waterways. In the case of inland waterways whose courses are not fully within Union
territory, the navigation time acquired on all sections located within and outside of
those watercourses shall be taken into consideration.
4. Member States shall ensure that journeys of vessels referred to in Article 2(1) are
recorded in a logbook referred to in paragraph 5 or a logbook recognised pursuant to
Articles 9(2) or (3).
The Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing models for service
record books and logbooks. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance
with the advisory procedure pursuant to Article 30(2), taking into account the
information required for the implementation of this Directive as regards the
identification of the person, their navigation time and the journeys carried out. When
adopting those models, the Commission shall take into consideration that the
logbook is also used for the implementation of Council Directive 2014/112/EU 19 for
verifying manning requirements and recording journeys of the vessels and may make
a reference to standards established by an international body.
19
Council Directive 2014/112/EU of 19 December 2014 implementing the European Agreement
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport, concluded
by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European
Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) (OJ L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 86).
EN 25 EN
5. Member States shall ensure that crew members hold a single active service record
book and that vessels hold a single active logbook.
Article 21
Medical fitness
1. Persons referred to in Article 4(1) and 5(1) shall hold a valid medical certificate
issued by a medical practitioner recognised by the competent authority, based on the
successful completion of a medical fitness examination.
Member States shall determine which medical practitioners may issue such medical
certificates.
2. Medical certificates shall be provided to the competent authority:
(a) for issuing applicant’s first Union certificate of qualification;
(b) for issuing Union certificates of qualification for boatmasters;
(c) for the renewal of a Union certificate of qualification in case the conditions
specified in paragraph 3 of this Article are met.
Medical certificates issued for the purpose of obtaining a Union certificate of
qualification shall be dated no earlier than three months before the date of application
for a Union certificate of qualification.
3. On reaching the age of 60, the holder of a Union certificate of qualification shall
successfully complete a medical fitness examination in the three months thereafter
and shall subsequently successfully complete this examination every five years
thereafter. On reaching the age of 70, the holder shall successfully complete this
examination every two years thereafter.
4. Employers, boatmasters and Member States authorities shall require a deck crew
member to report for a medical examination, whenever there are objective
indications that the medical fitness requirements referred to in paragraph 6 of this
Article may be no longer fulfilled.
5. Where medical fitness cannot be fully demonstrated, mitigation measures that
provide equivalent navigation safety may be required or restrictions imposed. In that
case, these mitigation measures and restrictions related to medical fitness shall be
mentioned in the Union certificate of qualification in accordance with the model
referred to in Article 10(3).
6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with
Article 29 and on the basis of the essential requirements for medical fitness referred
to in Annex III to lay down the standards for medical fitness specifying the
requirements with regards to medical fitness, in particular with regard to the tests that
medical practitioners must carry out, the criteria they must apply to determine fitness
for work and the list of restrictions and mitigation measures.
EN 26 EN
CHAPTER 4
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Article 22
Protection of personal data
1. Any processing of personal data by the Member States provided for in this Directive
shall be carried out in accordance with EU law on the protection of personal data, in
particular Regulation (EU) No XXX/2016 (number to be added after formal
adoption) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement
of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) 20.
2. Any processing of personal data by the European Commission provided for in this
Directive shall be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data 21.
3. Personal data may be processed only for the purposes of:
(a) implementation, enforcement and evaluation of this Directive;
(b) exchange of information between the authorities that have access to the
database referred to in Article 23 and the Commission;
(c) producing statistics.
Anonymised information derived from such data may be used to support policies to
promote inland waterway transport.
4. Member States shall ensure that persons referred to in Articles 4 and 5 whose
personal data, and particularly their health data, are processed in the registers
referred to in Article 23(1) and the database referred to in Article 23(2) are informed
ex ante. They shall be granted access to the personal data concerning them and be
provided with a copy of that data on request at any time.
Article 23
Registers
1. To contribute to an efficient administration with respect to the issuing, renewing and
withdrawing certificates of qualification, Member States shall keep registers for all
Union certificates of qualification, service record books and logbooks issued under
their authority in accordance with this Directive and, where relevant, for documents
20
(reference to OJ to be added after formal adoption)
21
OJ L 8, 12.01.2001, p. 1
EN 27 EN
recognised pursuant to Article 9(2), which are issued, renewed, expired, suspended,
withdrawn or reported lost, stolen or destroyed.
For Union certificates of qualifications, registers shall include the data appearing on
the Union certificates of qualifications and the issuing authority.
For service record books, registers shall include the holder’s identification number,
the service record book identification number, the name of the holder, the date of
issuance and the issuing authority.
For logbooks, registers shall include the name of the vessel, the European Number of
Identification or European Vessel Identification Number (ENI number), the logbook
identification number, the date of issuance and the issuing authority.
To further facilitate the exchange of information between Member States, the
Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article
29 to complement the information in the registers for service record books and
logbooks with other information required by the models of service record books and
logbooks adopted pursuant to Article 20(5).
2. For the purpose of implementation, enforcement and evaluation of this Directive, for
maintaining safety, for ease of navigation as well as for statistical purposes and in
order to facilitate the exchange of information between the authorities implementing
this Directive, Member States shall record reliably and without delay in a database
kept by the Commission data related to the certificates of qualifications, service
record books and logbooks referred to in paragraph 1.
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with
Article 29 concerning the standards laying down the characteristics and conditions of
use of this database, in particular to specify:
(a) instructions for encoding data into the database;
(b) the access rights of the users, where appropriate differentiated according to the
type of users, the type of access and the purpose for which the data is used;
(c) the maximum duration of data retention in accordance with paragraph 3,
differentiated, where appropriate, according to the type of document;
(d) instructions regarding the functioning of the database and its interaction with
the registers referred to in paragraph 1.
3. Any personal data included in the registers referred to in paragraph 1 and the
database referred to in paragraph 2 shall be stored for no longer than is necessary for
the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further
processed pursuant to this Directive. Once the information is no longer needed for
these purposes, such personal data shall be destroyed.
4. Commission may provide access to the database to an authority of a third country or
to an international organisation, in so far as this is necessary for the purposes referred
to in paragraph 2, provided the requirements of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No
45/2001 are fulfilled and only on a case-by-case basis. The Commission shall ensure
EN 28 EN
that the third country or international organisation does not transfer the data to
another third country or international organisation unless it is given express written
authorisation and complies with the conditions specified by the Commission.
Article 24
Competent authorities
1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities which will:
(a) organise and supervise the examinations referred to in Article 16;
(b) approve the training programmes referred to in Article 17;
(c) issue the certificates and specific authorisations referred to in Articles 4, 5 and
6, as well as the service record books and the logbooks referred to in Article
20;
(d) keep the registers referred to in Article 23;
(e) detect and combat fraud and other unlawful practices referred to in Article 27.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission all competent authorities within their
territory referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The Commission shall publish this
information.
Article 25
Monitoring
Member States shall ensure that:
(a) all activities associated with training, assessment of competence, issuing and
updating of Union certificates of qualification, service record books and
logbooks carried out by governmental and non-governmental bodies under
their authority are continuously monitored through a quality standards system
to ensure the achievement of the objectives provided in this Directive;
(b) training objectives and related standards of competence to be achieved are
clearly defined and identify the levels of knowledge and skills to be assessed
and examined in accordance with this Directive;
(c) the fields of application of the quality standards cover the issuing, renewing,
replacing and withdrawing of Union certificates of qualifications, service
record books and logbooks, all training courses and programmes, examinations
and assessments carried out by or under the authority of each Member State
and the qualifications and experience required of trainers and examiners,
having regard to the policies, systems, controls and internal quality-assurance
reviews established to ensure achievement of the defined objectives.
Article 26
Evaluation
1. Member States shall ensure that the competence acquisition and assessment
activities, and the administration of Union certificates of qualifications, services
EN 29 EN
record books and logbooks, are evaluated at intervals of no more than five years by
independent bodies.
2. The results of those independent assessments shall be duly documented and brought
to the attention of the competent authorities concerned. If necessary, Member States
shall take appropriate measures to remedy any shortcomings identified by the
independent assessment.
Article 27
Prevention of fraud and other unlawful practices
1. Member States shall take and enforce appropriate measures to prevent fraud and
other unlawful practices involving Union certificates of qualification, service record
books, logbooks, medical certificates and registers provided for in this Directive.
2. Member States shall exchange information with the competent authorities of other
Member States concerning the certification of persons involved in the operation of a
vessel.
Article 28
Penalties
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of
the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures
necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions
to the Commission by [date for transposition of the Directive] at the latest and shall
notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
CHAPTER 5
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 29
Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the
conditions laid down in this Article.
2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 15(1) and (4), Articles 19, 21 and 23
(1) and (2) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time
from (*entry into force).
3. The delegation of power referred to in this Article may be revoked at any time by the
European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the
delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect on the day
following publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union
EN 30 EN
or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts
already in force.
4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to
the European Parliament and to the Council.
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to this Article shall enter into force only if no
objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council
within a period of two months from notification of that act to the European
Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European
Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not
object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European
Parliament or the Council.
6. When exercising its power of delegation referred to in Article 15(1) and (4), Articles
19, 21 and Article 23(1) and (2) the Commission may adopt delegated acts which
make a reference to standards established by an international body.
7. The Commission may designate a body for the purpose of receiving notifications and
for making available information to the public provided for in this Directive.
Article 30
Committee
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a
committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. References to the
committee set up pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 91/672/EEC, which is repealed
by this Directive, shall be construed as references to the committee set up by this
Directive.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No
182/2011 shall apply. If the committee’s opinion is to be obtained by written
procedure, its chair may decide to terminate the procedure without result within the
time-limit for delivery of the opinion.
Article 31
Review
1. The Commission shall evaluate this Directive together with the implementing and
delegated acts referred to in Articles 8, 10, 20 and 29 and submit the results of the
evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council no later than seven years after
the date referred to in Article 33(1).
2. By [two years before the date indicated in paragraph 1], each Member State shall
make available to the Commission the information needed for the purposes of
monitoring the implementation and evaluation of the Directive, in accordance with
guidelines provided by the Commission in consultation with Member States as
regards information collection, format and content.
EN 31 EN
Article 32
Phasing-in
1. Within one year of the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall
gradually adopt delegated acts setting up:
(a) the standards for the characteristics and conditions of use of the database
provided for in Article 23;
(b) the standards of competences referred to in Article 15(1);
(c) the standards for medical fitness provided for in Article 21
(d) the models provided for in Articles 10 and 20;
(e) the standards for practical examinations provided for in Article 15(3);
(f) the standards for simulators approval provided for in Article 19.
2. At the latest two years after the adoption of the parameters of the database set out in
paragraph 1(a) of this Article, the database provided for in Article 23 shall be set up.
Article 33
Repeal
Directives 96/50/EC and 91/672/EEC are repealed with effect from [insert here the
date following the end of the transposition period].
Article 34
Transitional provisions
1. Boatmasters’ certificates issued in accordance with Directive 96/50/EC as well as
Rhine navigation licences referred to in Article 1(5) of that Directive, issued prior to
the date following the end of the transposition period referred to in Article 35 of this
Directive, shall remain valid on the Union waterways where they were valid before
this date for a maximum of 10 years after that date. Before the expiry of validity, the
Member State that issued those documents shall issue a Union certificate of
qualification to boatmasters holding such certificates in accordance with the model
prescribed by this Directive or a certificate in application of Article 9(2) of this
Directive, under the conditions that they provide satisfactory documentary evidence
as referred to in Article 10(1)(a) and (c) of this Directive and:
(a) that the legislation on the basis of which their certificate was issued requires a
minimum of 720 days of navigation time as a condition for obtaining a
boatmaster certificate valid on all Union waterways; or
(b) where the legislation, on the basis of which their certificate was issued,
requires less than 720 days of navigation time as a condition for obtaining a
boatmaster certificate valid on all Union waterways, that the boatmaster
provides proof, by means of a service record book, of navigation time
EN 32 EN
equivalent to the difference between those 720 days and the experience
required under the legislation on the basis of which the certificate was issued.
2. When issuing Union certificates of qualification in accordance with paragraph 1 of
this Article, Member States shall safeguard, as far as possible, entitlements
previously granted in particular as regards the specific authorisations referred to in
Article 6.
3. Crew members other than boatmasters holding a certificate of qualification issued by
a Member State prior to the date following the end of the transposition period
referred to in Article 35 of this Directive or holding a qualification recognised in one
or more Member States may still rely on that certificate or qualification for a
maximum of 10 years after that date. During this period, crew members other than
boatmasters may continue to rely on Directive 2005/36/EC for the recognition of
their qualification by other Member States' authorities. Before the expiry of this
period, they may apply for a Union certificate of qualification or a certificate in
application of Article 9(2) to a competent authority issuing such certificates, on
condition that they provide satisfactory evidence as referred to in Article 10(1) (a)
and (c) of this Directive and provide proof, by means of a service record book, of the
following navigation time:
(a) for the Union certificate of qualification for a boatman: 540 days of navigation
time including at least 180 days were in inland navigation;
(b) for the Union certificate of qualification for an able boatman: 900 days
including at least 540 days were in inland navigation;
(c) for the Union certificate of qualification for a helmsman: 1080 days including
at least 720 days were in inland navigation.
4. Service record books and logbooks issued prior to the date following the end of the
transposition period referred to in Article 35 in accordance with rules other than
those set out by this Directive may remain active for a maximum of 10 years after the
date following the end of the transposition period referred to in Article 35.
Article 35
Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [3 years after the entry into
force] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of
those provisions.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this
Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
EN 33 EN
Article 36
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 37
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels,
For the European Parliament For the Council
The President The President
EN 34 EN
Saatja: Andres K�nd
Saatmisaeg: 16. m�rts 2016. a. 13:46
Adressaat: Keiu Leopard
Teema: Ed: Uus direktiiv Br�sselis "sisevee laevajuhtide �htse
tunnustamise" kohta
Manused: DO_6285_16_Impact Assessment_Inland Waterways.pdf;
DOC_6285_16_ANNEXES to the Directive.pdf; DOC_6285_16_Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the
recognition of professional qualifications in inland waterways.pdf;
st06285-
ad04 en16.pdf
Palun registreeri ja edsata resolutsiooni saamiseks.
Tervitustega
Andres
Saatja: Kadi Saks
Saatmisaeg: 11. m�rts 2016 10:57
Adressaat: Andres K�nd <
[email protected]>; Raul Tell
<
[email protected]>
Koopia: Merily Must <
[email protected]>
Teema: Uus direktiiv Br�sselis "sisevee laevajuhtide �htse tunnustamise"
kohta
Tere Andres ja Raul,
Br�sselis on arutlusel uus direktiiv millega plaanitakse kehtestada
�htsed p�devusn�uded siseveeteedel
s�itvatele laevapereliikmetele.
Palun l�bi vaadata manuses olevad direktiiv, lisad, hinnang ja
m�juanal��s ja arvamust avaldada.
(Soovitavalt j�rgmise n�dala jooksul).
MKM-i merendustalitus on hetkel seisukohal, et v�imalusel v�iks EE selle
direktiivi kohaldamise alt v�lja
j��da.
Kui see ei �nnestu, siis teine variant oleks teiste EL liikmesriikide
siseveelaeva laevapereliikmete
k�esoleva direktiivi alusel v�lja antud tunnistuste tunnustamine.
Juhul kui see direktiiv peaks meile kohalduma t�ies mahus, siis avaldab
see m�ju nii riigieelarvele kui
halduskoormusele. Nii v�i teisiti tuleb v�tta VV-st mandaat.
J��n teie vastust ootama,
Kadi Saks
Merendustalitus
MKM
6256404