Europaudvalget 2016
KOM (2016) 0082
Offentligt
1600577_0001.png
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
L
IST OF ANNEXES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view
Estimated number of IWT workers
Baseline scenario: evolution of current IWT labour market (demand supply model)
Comparison between Rhine Patent regulation and Directive 96/50/EC on requirements
for issuing boatmasters’ certificates
Comparison table for the mutually recognition of boatmaster license per country and
country where the license is issued
Comparison of functions on board the vessel
Overview of KSS requirements in the EU member states
Affected parties and their key interests
Training and qualification rules in other transport modes
Problem – objective tree
Discarded policy measures and options
Quantitative approach to safety – methodological remark
Detailed information on investment costs for option C
Detailed information on administrative costs for option C
Overview of available quantitative estimates of the NPV of administrative costs,
investment costs, safety effects and job quality/attractiveness of option C
Glossary
List of abbreviations
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
2
63
65
78
81
82
86
89
90
92
93
96
98
101
105
107
108
2
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0003.png
Annex 1:
Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view
I
NTRODUCTION
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. I
DENTIFICATION 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
included in the graphs throughout the report, but will be qualitatively assessed and referred to
in the text when appropriate.
1
2
See the
background document
for more information.
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0004.png
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.
Figure 3. Respondents by geographical range of experience
Category
Rhine Basin
Moselle Basin
Number
38
30
4
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0005.png
Danube and Sava Basin
Scheld and Meuse Basin
Elbe Basin
Other French waterways
Other German waterways
Other Dutch waterways
Oder Basin
Inland waterways of maritime character
Others
Total
47
15
12
6
21
16
7
28
19
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0006.png
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0007.png
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
Non-Rhine EU Member States on the Rhine, 45% of the respondents say that mobility
7
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0008.png
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
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
0%
Not relevant/very little relevance
Somewhat relevant
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0009.png
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".
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
9
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0010.png
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0011.png
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
The currently enforced LKRs are
fully justified
in view of the criteria
mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are
partially justified
in view of the
criteria mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are
not justified
in view of the criteria
mentioned
Don't Know
Total
Number
38
30
47
15
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
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0012.png
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%
Very relevant/relevant
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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
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
12
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0013.png
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.
Figure 15. Relevance of problem driver 1 (standards for professional training have not kept
up with technological development) by type of stakeholder
13
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0014.png
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
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
14
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0015.png
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.
Figure 18. Relevance of policy objective 1 by type of stakeholder
15
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0016.png
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
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
16
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0017.png
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
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
17
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0018.png
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
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.
18
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0019.png
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
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
19
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0020.png
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
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
20
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0021.png
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
21
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0022.png
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
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.
22
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0023.png
Figure 26. Relevance of policy measure 5 by type of stakeholder
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
23
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0024.png
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
Number
Yes, such a modular system should maintain the current specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate on
waterways of maritime character
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (less stringent) requirements
for boatmasters that operate
small vessels on small waterways only
47
37
% of
respondents
50%
39.4%
24
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0025.png
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate
large passenger vessels
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate
large convoys
Yes, such a modular system is important and
other categories need to be
considered
No, there is
no need for such a differentiated approach
I don’t know
Total
33
39
16
12
11
195
35.1%
41.5%
17%
12.8%
11.7%
-
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
25
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0026.png
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
establishing LKRs and
competency/examination
maritime waters in the EU requirements for LKRs and
maritime waters
Non-binding
recommendations
regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs and
maritime waters
Non-binding
recommendations
regarding criteria for
examination requirements
for LKRs and maritime
waters
Not appropriate/very little
Don’t know/N.A.
Very appropriate/appropriate
Somewhat appropriate
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.
26
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0027.png
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
27
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0028.png
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.
Figure 35. Relevance of policy measure 11 by type of stakeholder
28
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0029.png
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,
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".
29
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0030.png
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
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0%
Yes
20%
No
40%
60%
80%
100%
I don’t know
30
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0031.png
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
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.
31
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0032.png
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
The river commission participating in this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "somewhat appropriate".
32
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0033.png
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:
-
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.
33
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0034.png
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 mea sures. 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.
34
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0035.png
Annex 12:
Online public consultation: summary of the stakeholders’ view
I
NTRODUCTION
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. I
DENTIFICATION 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
included in the graphs throughout the report, but will be qualitatively assessed and referred to
in the text when appropriate.
7
8
See the
background document
for more information.
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.
35
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0036.png
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.
Figure 3. Respondents by geographical range of experience
Category
Rhine Basin
Moselle Basin
Number
38
30
36
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0037.png
Danube and Sava Basin
Scheld and Meuse Basin
Elbe Basin
Other French waterways
Other German waterways
Other Dutch waterways
Oder Basin
Inland waterways of maritime character
Others
Total
47
15
12
6
21
16
7
28
19
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.
37
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0038.png
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
38
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0039.png
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
Non-Rhine EU Member States on the Rhine, 45% of the respondents say that mobility
39
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0040.png
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
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
0%
Not relevant/very little relevance
Somewhat relevant
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
40
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0041.png
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".
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
41
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0042.png
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.
42
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0043.png
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
The currently enforced LKRs are
fully justified
in view of the criteria
mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are
partially justified
in view of the
criteria mentioned
The currently enforced LKRs are
not justified
in view of the criteria
mentioned
Don't Know
Total
Number
38
30
47
15
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.
43
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0044.png
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%
Very relevant/relevant
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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
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
44
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0045.png
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.
Figure 15. Relevance of problem driver 1 (standards for professional training have not kept
up with technological development) by type of stakeholder
45
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0046.png
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
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
46
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0047.png
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.
Figure 18. Relevance of policy objective 1 by type of stakeholder
47
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0048.png
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
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
48
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0049.png
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
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
49
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0050.png
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
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.
50
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0051.png
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
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
51
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0052.png
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
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
52
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0053.png
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
53
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0054.png
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
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.
54
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0055.png
Figure 26. Relevance of policy measure 5 by type of stakeholder
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
55
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0056.png
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
Number
Yes, such a modular system should maintain the current specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate on
waterways of maritime character
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (less stringent) requirements
for boatmasters that operate
small vessels on small waterways only
47
37
% of
respondents
50%
39.4%
56
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0057.png
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate
large passenger vessels
Yes, such a modular system should introduce specific (more stringent)
requirements for boatmasters that operate
large convoys
Yes, such a modular system is important and
other categories need to be
considered
No, there is
no need for such a differentiated approach
I don’t know
Total
33
39
16
12
11
195
35.1%
41.5%
17%
12.8%
11.7%
-
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
57
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0058.png
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
establishing LKRs and
competency/examination
maritime waters in the EU requirements for LKRs and
maritime waters
Non-binding
recommendations
regarding criteria for
establishing LKRs and
maritime waters
Non-binding
recommendations
regarding criteria for
examination requirements
for LKRs and maritime
waters
Not appropriate/very little
Don’t know/N.A.
Very appropriate/appropriate
Somewhat appropriate
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.
58
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0059.png
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
59
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0060.png
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.
Figure 35. Relevance of policy measure 11 by type of stakeholder
60
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0061.png
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,
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".
61
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0062.png
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
Public Authority (18)
Education and Training Org. (18)
Employers' organisation (9)
Entrepreneur/ship owner (15)
Boatmaster (6)
Shipping company (13)
Total respondents (94)
0%
Yes
20%
No
40%
60%
80%
100%
I don’t know
62
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0063.png
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
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.
63
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0064.png
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
The river commission participating in this public consultation considers that this policy
measure is "somewhat appropriate".
64
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0065.png
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:
-
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.
65
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0066.png
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.
66
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0067.png
Annex 2:
Estimated number of IWT workers
Table 1
Estimated number of workers in 2011
Total
freight
10,820
2,774
1,673
2,555
634
1,851
2,081
1,385
417
118
299
267
0
517
313
413
44
39
51
0
48
121
89
0
40
Total
passenger
3,088
2,815
2,027
256
1,919
548
248
294
1,197
983
752
600
853
283
303
31
344
228
157
145
95
12
17
61
21
Total IWT
employment
13,908
5,589
3,700
2,811
2,553
2,399
2,329
1,679
1,614
1,101
1,051
867
853
800
616
444
388
267
208
145
143
133
106
61
61
Total
boatmasters
6,053
1,337
790
668
1,290
1,659
491
911
416
250
263
201
55
135
284
89
62
41
88
11
24
20
5
7
38
Total
operational staff
7,855
4,252
2,910
2,143
1,263
740
1,838
768
1,198
851
788
666
798
665
332
355
326
226
120
134
119
113
101
54
23
Countries
Netherlands*
Germany*****
France*
Luxembourg**
Italy*
Belgium*
Romania*
Bulgaria*/***
Switzerland
Sweden*
United Kingdom*
Hungary*
Portugal**
Czech Republic*
Poland*
Slovakia*
Spain*
Finland*
Austria*
Lithuania*
Denmark*/**
Croatia*/**
Latvia*
Estonia**
Slovenia*
*
**
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).
67
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0068.png
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 trans port.
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
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
X
Poland
X
France
X
X
Switzerland
X
Austria
X
Slovakia
X
Czech Republic
X
Hungary
X
Romania
X
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
13
Rhine
X
X
X
North-South*
X
X
Danube
East-West**
X
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
68
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0069.png
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
DANUBE
2025
RHINE
2030
2035
2040
EAST-WEST
2045
2050
NORTH-SOUTH
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).
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,
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.
69
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0070.png
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
Fishery
Shore
Lateral inflow
Lateral inflow
Lateral inflow
Lateral inflow
Inflow from
IWT school
At 20 years
Cohort 1
+ 1 year
Cohort 2
+ n years
Cohort n
+ 1 year
Cohort n+1
At 65 years
Retirement
Due to:
Family;
Disability
Job mobility
Lateral
outflow
Lateral
outflow
Lateral
outflow
Lateral
outflow
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
Institute
STC (NL)
Time
2
17
Year
2006
2007
Students enrolled
185
177
Students graduating
184
172
Percentage
18
graduating
99,5%
97,2%
16
17
ibidem
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.
70
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0071.png
Institute
Time
17
Year
2008
2009
Students enrolled
169
180
135
124
57
70
52
61
40
108
94
98
119
116
106
123
144
2158
Students graduating
172
178
121
126
48
55
35
61
43
101
87
91
99
83
91
99
134
1980
Percentage
18
graduating
101,8%
98,9%
89,6%
101,6%
84,2%
78,6%
67,3%
100,0%
107,5%
93,5%
92,6%
92,9%
83,2%
71,6%
85,8%
80,5%
93,1%
91,8%
4
2006
2007
Harlingen (NL)
2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Duisburg
Schullschiff (DE)
3
2005
2006
2007
2008
Duisburg
SBK (DE)
3
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total
N/a
N/a
Source: Data collected by STC (2013)
If applicable, out of the 15%, 2/3
rd
take the experience based path to obtain their qualifications and
1/3
rd
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 (=1/3
rd
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
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.
19
71
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0072.png
School starters
(n=340)
15%
Non-Graduates
(n=51)
5% / n=17
10% / n=34
Lateral entrants
(n=41)
85%
n=41
Education
graduates
(n=289)
Experience
based path
(n=34)
Practical
examination
(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
21
ibidem
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.
72
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0073.png
3,5%
3,0%
Percentage of total
2,5%
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%
20
25
30
35
Netherlands
France
40
45
Belgium
Romania
50
55
60
Germany
65
70
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
23
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_projections
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.
73
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0074.png
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
Netherlands
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Belgium
Czech R.
Entrants in
IWT
340
197
28
19
33
31
Attraction
(per 10,000)
16.3
7.9
3.7
2.6
2.4
2.4
Country
Germany
France
Switzerland
Hungary
Poland
Austria
Entrants
in IWT
152
68
8
10
31
6
Attraction
(per 10,000)
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
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
74
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0075.png
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
Poland
France
Switzerland
Austria
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Romania
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
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
Poland
France
Switzerland
Austria
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
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
75
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0076.png
– 2050) can be observed in Figure 7. The exact figures per country are listed in Annex 5
of the external study
26
.
Figure 7
40.000
39.500
39.000
38.500
38.000
37.500
37.000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Total aggregated supply of workers in IWT sector (2013-2050)
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.
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
26
27
ibidem
ibidem
28
ibidem
76
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0077.png
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)
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
Dutch
Czech
German
Polish
Belgian
Romanian
Philippine
French
Slovenian
Hungarian
Bulgarian
Spanish
29
Numbers counted in survey
of Dutch Inspectorate
414
69
64
38
32
25
16
14
4
3
2
2
Total workers in IWT in % of total workers in IWT in
the Netherlands
29
the Netherlands
6,473
60%
1,079
10%
1,001
9%
594
5%
500
5%
391
4%
250
2%
219
2%
63
1%
47
0%
31
0%
31
0%
Percentage multiplied by amount of workers in IWT in the Netherlands, see Table 2.1.
77
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0078.png
Serbian
Russian
Ukrainian
British
Yugoslavian
30
Cape Verdian
Total
2
2
2
1
1
1
692
31
31
31
16
16
16
10,820
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
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 110
11
);
Gap between demand of workers and supply (Figure 1341
12
);
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
A
B
C
D
Inflow
0
0
+
+
Outflow
+
+
+
31
0
Difference
-
-
+
+
30
31
The exact nationality could not be retrieved in the database.
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.
78
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0079.png
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)
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
32
33
See Annex 5, table A 4
In 2013, there are 923 new entrants to the sector. In 2012, only 503 new entrants have been reported.
79
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0080.png
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
112
11
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
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
80
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0081.png
Source: Panteia (2013)
Gap between demand and supply of workers
Figure 1343
12
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 attractive ness 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
Source: Panteia (2013)
81
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0082.png
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
.
Directive 96/50/EC
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;
examination
every year after 65 years
3.Professional
4 years, including, at least, 2 years as
experience
rating, engine-minder or, at least, 1 year
as leading crewman.
The experience must be acquired on a
self-propelled vessel for which a Rhine
patent is required.
A year is defined as 180 days of inland
navigation.
The
proof
of Service record book delivered by the
professional experience Rhine
authorities
or
a
valid
administrative document as described in
article 2.09.
Reduction
of
the By a max. 3 years for the time spent in a
required
professional training programme;
experience
Every year starting from the age of 65 years
Min. 4 years of professional experience as a
member of the deck crew on an inland
waterway vessel.
No definition is given on how many working
days should be included in a year.
General Requirements The Rhine Patent Regulation
1. Minimum Age
21 years
Validated by the competent authority of the
MS - personal service record.
By a max of 3 years
- if the applicant has a diploma recognised
by the competent authority which confirms
specialised training in inland navigation
comprising practical navigation work;
- if the applicant has passed a practical
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
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.
82
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0083.png
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.
83
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
84
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0085.png
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
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Hungary
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Poland
C.C.N.R
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Italy
Sweden
Portugal
Finland
Lithuania
Estonia
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
AT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
BE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
BG
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
CZ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HR
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
FR
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
DE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HU
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
LU
NL
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PL
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
CCNR
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RS
x
SK
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
CH
UA
x
UK
IT
SE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PT
FL
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
LT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
EE
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.
85
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0086.png
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
Decksmann
Leichtmatrosen
Matrosen
Matrosen-
Motorwart
Bootsmann
Steuermann
Schiffsführer
Maschinist
UNECE
Deck-hand
Apprentice
Ordinary
crewmen
Engine-minder
Able crewmen
Helmsmen
Boatmasters
Engineer
Electrician-
engineers
Radio operator
Danube
Commission
Decksmann
Leichtmatrose
Matrose
Matrosen-
Motorwart
Bootsmann
Steuermann
Schiffsführer
Maschinist
Elektromechanik
er
Funker
Sava
River
Commission
Ordinary crewman
Engine-minder
Boatswain
Helmsman
Chief Mate
Boatmaster
Engineer
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.
86
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0087.png
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.
87
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0088.png
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.
88
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
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.
89
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0090.png
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
Austria
Stretch
a) Km 2094,5
(Wallsee)–
km 2060,4
(Persenbeug)
(b) Km 2032.8 (Melk)
–km 1979,8
(Altenwörth)
(c) Km 1921 (Wien–
Freudenau)–the
Austrian–Slovak
border
Danube (E 80) – total of
11 stretches
Required knowledge /
experience
16 trips on the respective stretch
(8 upstream, 8 downstream)
Procedure
Experience is
service booklet
shown
through
Bulgaria
Croatia
France
At least 16 runs for
Several examinations,
each sector of Danube
including a written test.
for which the certificate
is delivered.
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.
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
the last three years, of which at
least 4 in the last year prior to
41
Panteia (2014), Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation : technical
support for an impact assessment, p.187-190.
90
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0091.png
Country
Stretch
Required knowledge /
experience
renewal.
Procedure
Harbour of Marseille-Fos
and connecting channels
to the Rhône (E10)
42
10 trips on the respective
stretch/area in the last year prior
to the exam, plus local conditions
and regulations.
Besides, a proof of physical and
mental fitness, not being older than
three months, should be provided
in order to renew the license.
Experience is shown through
service booklet and take exam.
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.
Experience is shown through
service booklet and take exam
Germany
Rhine
(Iffezheim
Spijksche Veer);
-
Hungary
- Elbe (Schöna -
Hamburg Port);
- Weser (Hannover-
Münden - Oberweser);
- Danube (Vilshofen -
Straubing);
-
Untere
Havel-
Wasserstraße (Plaue -
Havelberg), if water at
Unterpegel Rathenow is
above 130 cm;
- Oder (Ratzdorf -
Widochowa);
- Saale (Elbe - Calbe).
All of Danube (E80)
Km 1811–km 1433
16 trips on the respective stretch
in the last 10 years (and 3 times
in each direction in the last 3
years) plus local conditions and
regulations.
16 trips on the respective stretch
in the last 10 years (and 3 times
in each direction in the last 3
years).
Experience is
service booklet
shown
through
Poland
16 trips on the respective stretch
(8 upstream, 8 downstream) plus
local conditions and regulations.
Half of the practice
should be carried out in
the quality of helmsman
and within 18 months
prior to the examination
There are some stretches on Vistula and Oder affected
Experience is shown through
service booklet and take exam. Use
of interpretation is allowed.
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.
91
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0092.png
Country
Slovakia
43
Stretch
Austrian – border stretch
Hungarian border stretch
Basel
–
Augst
KM 167 – KM 156
Augst – End of Rhine
MK 156 - KM 150
Schweiz
United
Kingdom
Tidal River Thames
(Putney Bridge - eastern
limit of the Thames
Barrier Control Zone)
Portsmouth Harbour
Isles of Scilly
Required knowledge /
experience
At least 16 runs for each sector
of Danube for which the
certificate is delivered.
16 trips on the respective stretch
in the last 10 years (and 3 times
in each direction in the last 3
years).
8 trips on the respective stretch (4
upstream, 4 downstream in the
last two years).
6 months / 60 days of service,
including work in different
directions, in varying conditions
and darkness
Local conditions and regulations
6 months / 60 days of service
Local conditions and regulations
Procedure
Experience is shown through
service booklet and take exam
Experience is
service booklet
shown
through
Experience is
service booklet
shown
through
Show experience through service
booklet and take exam
Show experience through service
booklet and take exam
Padstow Harbour
Bristol Port
Caernarfon and Menai
Strait
Dee Conservancy
Dover Harbour
Fowey Harbour
Gloucester Harbour
Port of Liverpool
Teignmouth
6 outward, 6 inward journeys
under supervision of a Harbour
Authority representative
Local conditions and regulations
Local conditions and regulations
Show experience through service
booklet and take exam
Take exam
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.
92
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0093.png
Annex 8:
Affected parties and their key interests
Affected parties and their key interests
Stakeholder
Description
Human resources - Around 42.000
Boatmasters
and
other
people
crew
members
Human resources – Workers coming
Workers
from outside
from the fishery or maritime sector but
the
IWT
also workers from outside the
waterborne sector willing to change their
sector
carreer.
Ship owners,
Ship operators providing freight and
passenger services within the EU.
barge
Around 9700 entreprises. The majority
operators
are micro-entreprises (vessels owned
and operated by a family).
National, regional and local bodies
MS
regulating
and
enforcing
IWT
regulators
legislation.
IWT regulatory and
and
enforcement framework is characterised
enforcement
by a high degree of fragmentation.
bodies
International
organisations
with
River
Commissions
administrations enabling them to address
all issues concerning inland navigation
on the concerned rivers.
- Rhine Commission (MS: FR, DE, NL,
BE and CH) – adopt binding regulations
- Danube Commission (MS: AT, BU,
HU, DE, MD, RU, SR, SK, UA, HR)
- Sava Commission (MS: HR, SR, BA,
SI)
United Nations Economic Commission
UNECE
for Europe, consisting of 56 member
states, has two working parties on inland
waterways
Inland waterway navigation schools and
Education
and training
training institutes
institutes
Barge industry and agricultural groups
Industry
using IWT
Agents who act on behalf of third
Freight
companies or persons to arrange the best
forwarders
means of transport, taking into account
the type of goods and customers'
delivery requirements
Key interests
Pay and employment conditions, health
and safety in the workplace, valorisation
of qualifications and professional careers,
low administrative burden
Acknowledgement of the value of their
past experience, possibility to access to a
high level IWT qualification in a quick
way, pay and employment conditions,
health and safety in the workplace, low
administrative burden
-Cost-efficient and reliable freight and
passengers services
-Safety and low administrative burden
-High quality of trained staff on board the
vessels
- Facilitation of the decision-making
process
- Effective enforcement
-Prevention of accidents (for people,
economic impact and environment)
Each river commission should ensure for
the river under its authority:
- free navigation for the vessels flying the
flags of their MS
- uniform regulations for entire navigable
length
- safety of navigation, for both people and
the environment
- qualifications and a social framework
suited to the navigation workers
- Smooth and efficient inland water
transport across the ECE region
- Pan-European dimension of inland
waterways
High quality of trained staff on board the
vessels.
Cost-efficient and reliable freight and
passengers services
Safe,
efficient
and
cost-effective
transportation of goods on the inland
waterway network
93
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0094.png
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
expected to better accommodate future trends in man-machine interface training taking into
account human factors as technology develops further.
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.
94
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0095.png
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.
95
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0096.png
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:
Workers face difficulties
with mutual recognition of
professional qualifications
Problem driver 2:
Requirements regarding
knowledge of Specific
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:
Ensure mutual recognition
of professional
qualifications of workers
Operational objective 2:
Ensure that KSSs are
proportionate to their safety
goals and do not
unnecessarily hamper labour
mobility
96
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0097.png
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
intermediate crew categories, their recognition of professional qualifications through the
experience as documented in the service record books is maintained.
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'.
97
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0098.png
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.
98
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0099.png
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
99
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0100.png
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.
100
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0101.png
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
boatmen can have a much simpler format and as Member States can draw upon practical
57
58
Not in a systematic way for the standard boatmaster certificae but for lateral entrants.
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.
101
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0102.png
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
universities) in the Netherlands and Flanders, one might consider that a less stringent
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.
102
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0103.png
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
66
Information communicated by EDINNA to the Commission on 30/11/2014
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.
103
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0104.png
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
exams. The external study concluded that for variant C1 the average NPV of this measure
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.
104
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0105.png
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.
105
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0106.png
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
106
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0107.png
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.
107
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0108.png
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
administrative costs
79
(euro)
2030
For boatmasters: frequency
of the medical check-up
new
frequency (measure 2)
For boatmasters:
competence based standards
tested by practical exam
and
mutual recognition of the
certificates (measure 2)
Boatmaster certificate for
large convoys (measure 2)
Recognition of EU
harmonised crew
qualifications (measure 7)
Introduction of a boatman
exam (theoretical and/or
practical) (measure 8 + for
C1 measure 9)
+7.7
All
C1: -0.5
Private/all
C2: -1.9
Private/all
Insignificant
Insignificant
Private
C1:
-0.8
Private
C2:
-3.5
Private
2050
+13.2
All
C1: -0.7
Private/all
C2: -2.8
Private/all
Insignificant
Insignificant
Private
82
C1: -1.3
Private
C2:-5.2
Private
0
0
+
All
+4.2
All
+
All
+11.8
All
- 0.1
Private
+10.4
Private
- 0.2
Private
+ 15.9
Private
0
Investment
costs
NPV of safety
effects
80
(euro)
2030
- 2.0
All
+72.6
All
2050
- 3.3
All
+182,8
Job
quality/attractiven
ess
81
(euro)
2030
2050
0
0
-5.5
+21.0
Private
+31.6
Private
Insignificant
Public
+
Insignificant
Public
Insignificant
Public
C1 only:
-2.2
+
+
+
+
Insignifi
cant
Insignifi
cant
+
+
+
Harmonization of required
information in SRBs and
logbooks (measure 10)
Recognition/certification
system for education/exam
programs and recognition of
diplomas (measure 3 and 9)
Optional:
Practical exam for
workers entering from
outside the IWT sector
+0.1
Private
C1 only:
-2.8
Public
+0.2
Private
C1 only:
-4.4
Public
0
0
(No NPV available:
-800€ per exam at boatman
level and -6000€ at
-0.1
Insignifi
cant
Insignifi
cant
+
+
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
.
108
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0109.png
(measure 12)
Optional
:Organisation of
exams and issuance of
authorisations for all KSS in
Member States (measure 16)
boatmaster level)
Private
Neutral
public
(0 to +0.7)
Private
C1:+3.7
C2:+2.4
Neutral
public
(0 to +0.8)
Private
C1:+7.0
C2:+5.4
Insignificant
Public
0
0
+
+
Total
C1: -8,0
C2: -5,6
+75
+191
+31
+47
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.
109
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0110.png
A
NNEX
16:
G
LOSSARY
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
110
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
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.
111
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0112.png
A
NNEX
17:
L
IST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations used in the Impact Assessment Report are presented in the table below.
Abbreviation
AT
BAU
BE
BM
CCNR
CEG
CESNI
CH
CPI
CZ
DC
DE
DG MOVE
EBU
EC
EDINNA
ESO
e-SRB
ETF
EU
FIS
FR
HINT
HR
HU
Austria
Business As Usual
Belgium
Boatmaster
Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine
Common Expert Group on professional qualifications and training standards in
inland navigation
Committee for the Creation of Technical Standards in the field of inland
navigation
Switzerland
Consumer Price Index
Czech Republic
Danube Commission
Germany
Directorate General for Mobility and Transport
European Barge Union
European Commission
Education in Inland Navigation
European Skippers Organisation
Electronic Service Record Book
European Transport Workers' Federation
European Union
Faiway Information System
France
Harmonised Inland Navigation Transport through education and information
technology
Croatia
Hungary
Description
112
 kom (2016) 0082 - Ingen titel
1600577_0113.png
IAR
ICT
IT
IWT
KSS
MS
NAIADES
NL
NPV
NUTS
PLATINA
RIS
RNP
RO
SB
SK
SME
SRB
STCIN
STF
UK
UNECE
Impact Assessment Report
Information and communication technology
Italy
Inland Waterway Transport
Knowledge of Specific Situations
Member States
Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe
Netherlands
Net Present Value
Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics
Platform for the implementation of NAIADES
River Information System
Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel
Romania
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Service Record Book
Standards of Training and Certification for Inland Navigation
Committee on Social issues, Employment and Professional Training
United Kingdom
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
113