European SSS

..
..
..
..
..
European Union Short Sea Shipping
. . . . . . . . . .
European Union Transport Initiatives to

achieve sufficient mobility in order to
sustain economic growth
Prepared for the:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration
Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping
Study submitted by:

Mark Yonge, Maritime Industry Consultant
Maritime Transport & Logistics Advisors
8201 Peters Rd., Suite 1000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33324-3266
(P) 954-761-1718; (F) 954-763-1291
Email: mwy@peoplepc.com
www.maritimeadvisors.com
April 12, 2004

Contents
Section One (1) Introduction
Executive Summary
Conclusions
(Subsequent sections include official policy statement, details and reference)
Section Two (2) The European Union (EU) at a Glance
EU Commission Overview – “The European Union at a Glance”
EU Council and Parliament make-up
10 More Countries join EU, May 2004
European Member States & National Flags
Map of Europe
EU & International Institutions and Organizations
Glossary of geographical abbreviations
Section three (3) White Paper “European Transport Policy for 2010”
EU Commission “White Paper” (Extracts)
EU Commission Official Brief on White Paper – “A Transport Policy for Europe’s Citizens”
EU Commission statement – “European Transport Policy Conclusions: A Time to Decide”
Section Four (4) EU Maritime Transport Policy
Overview of EU Maritime Transport Policy
EU Commission Official brief on maritime State aid & policy-“Commission gives strong support to European
Maritime Transport Sector
Plan for Shipbuilding competitiveness – EU Commission Press Release
EU Merchant Fleet Chart
World Merchant Fleet Chart
Section Five (5) Definition of Short Sea Shipping by the European Union
1
(Contents continued)
Section Six (6) Short Sea Shipping in the European Union
EU Commission Short Sea Shipping Overview
EU Commission Short Sea Shipping Policy Statement
EU Commission Statistical Evidence of Success
EU Short Sea Shipping Brochure
Section Seven (7) EU “Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping”
EU Commission Summary of Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping
“Mirmal” maritime law bulletin , Spain – Opinion “The 14 Commandments of the EU

Commission
Bremen September2003 Power Point Presentation –Programme for the Promotion of Short
Sea Shipping
Section Eight (8) EU Short Sea Promotion Centers
Overview of the EU Shortsea Promotion Centres
EU listing of “Operational Shortsea Promotion Centres”
Member States and EA Countries – Sea Shipping Focal Points
European Shortsea Network Organization and Objectives information
The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in Europe (AMRIE) Information
E.S.P.O. (European Sea Ports Organization) Mission Statement
Regional Action for Logistical integration of Shipping across Europe (REALISE) information
EU Commission Transport Research Knowledge Center information
Section Nine (9) The Trans-European Transport Networks “TEN-T” transport policy & funding
EU Commission overview statement of the trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
EU Commission TEN-T Community Guidelines overview
EU Commission official statement re “Enlargement of the trans-European Transport Network: Commission

proposes new projects and new funds to dynamise Europe
EU Commission official MEMO detailing the EU Commissions proposals entitled “The trans-European
Transport Network: new guidelines and financial rules”
EU Commission official MEMO detaining Innovative funding solutions – Interoperability of electronic toll
systems
2
(Contents Continued)
Section Ten (10) TEN-T Quick Start Program – “Motorways of the Sea”
European Commission “Quick Start Map”
EU Parliament Press Release – “Parliament Set to back Motorways of the Sea”
EU Quick Start Projects Charts – “Motorways of the Sea”
E.S.P.O (European Sea Ports Organization) Newsletter regarding TEN-T priority to “Motorways to the Sea”
World Environment News article – “EU Ministers back “European Motorways of the Sea”
Section Eleven (11) EU Financing Instruments

EU Commission Revised overview of “Instruments that have been and could be used to provide financing
for Shortsea Shipping and its intermodal integration
EU Commission revised guidelines on State aid to maritime transport – “Community Guidelines on State Aid to
Maritime Transport
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) “scheme (Capital Grants) overview by Department for Transport, London
EU Framework on State Aid to Ship Building
Section Twelve (12) The Marco Polo Program – EU Commission freight transport project
EU Commission Introduction to the “Marco Polo Programme”
EU Commission Marco Polo Programme Executive Summary
EU Commission Marco Polo Programme “Frequently Asked Questions)
EU Commission 2002 Mini-Call Catalyst Action Projects List
EU Commission PowerPoint presentation – The Marco Polo Programme
Section Thirteen (13) PACT – Pilot Actions for Combined Transport – predecessor to Marco Polo
EU Commission Introduction to PACT
EU Commission Staff Working Paper – Results of PACT 1997-2001
AEA Technology Executive Summary – report to European Commission – mid-term evaluation of
Section Fourteen (14) Disclaimer Notices, reproduction permissions
Section Fifteen (15) EU websites, references
3
1
Section
Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
Conclusions
EuropeanUnionTransportInitiativestoachievesufficient
mobilityinordertosustaineconomicgrowth
Introduction
A recent European Commission working paper stated “Creating a dynamic EU

economy and fostering deeper integration of the national economies rely on a
properly functioning transport system. However, transport activities have certain
negative consequences, which could turn economic growth into unsustainable
development if left unmanaged”
Rising traffic levels in the European Union have lead to increasing congestion,
causing delays and unreliable journey times for both individuals and firms.
To the traveler, congestion means lost time, missed opportunities, frustration, and a
waste of personal resources. To the employer, congestion means lost worker
productivity, delivery delays, and increased costs. Nationally - and internationally -
speed, reliability and the cost of urban and inter-city freight movements are
increasingly affected by congestion.
In the European Union:
• 7,500 km, or 10% of the road network, is affected daily by traffic jams
• 16,000 km of railways, 20% of the network, are classed as bottlenecks.”
• Demand is expected to continue to grow rapidly.
• Freight volumes in particular are expected to rise by 70% in the current EU

15 states and 95% in the new Member States by 2020.
1
September 12, 2001, the European Commission adopted a White Paper on European
transport policy for 2010. It pointed out that if the policy status quo continues and the
above predictions become a reality, congestion is set to increase further, both in urban
and in inter-urban areas. The monetary value of congestion delays, as estimated to
come to almost €9 billion for inter-regional users just on the trans-European
Transport Network (TEN-T) road network by 2020. Congestion will grow most at the
borders between the current and new Member States as well as on major transit routes
such as the Alps and the Pyrenees.I
The European Commission has taken a number of steps to deal with their transport
needs, both successes and failures.
This report provides an overview of EU Short Sea Shipping as well as EU Transport

Policy of which Short Sea Shipping in the EU is an integral part.
*************************
This report has been prepared at the request of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Ports and Domestic
Shipping.
*************************
This report utilizes a compilation of information obtained from websites, periodicals

and research. Materials contained in this report have been assembled in a manner to
allow quick reference to particular sections or interest. Materials were selected that
would provide concise explanations and by most recent update.
************************
Study submitted by:

Mark Yonge, Maritime Industry Consultant
Maritime Transport & Logistics Advisors
8201 Peters Rd., Suite 1000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33324-3266
(P) 954-761-1718; (F) 954-763-1291
Email: mwy@peoplepc.com
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/yongdip/maritimeadvisors/
I
EU Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels, 01.10.203
2
EuropeanUnionTransportInitiativestoachievesufficient
mobilityinordertosustaineconomicgrowth
Executive Summary
Maritime transportation has historically been a major part of the

European Union’s (EU’s) transportation system and now Short Sea Maritime transportation
Shipping has become the sole transport mode that has been major part of EU
capable of keeping up with the fast expanding EU and rapid transport systems
economic growth.
Part of this success as been the result of the EU’s liberalization of Liberalization of
its maritime transport services since the 1980’s and free maritime cabotage has injured EU
cabotage since 1993. Unfortunately the result of this “opening ships and EU labor
up” of the national markets to competition has further increased
the flow of operators to “flags of convenience” from EU Flag.
The negative impact has been significant. The number of EU

seafarers employed on EU-flagged ships has fallen by 37% in the 37% loss of EU seafarer
jobs
space of ten (10) years (1985-1995). 51% of job losses are
attributed to “flagging out”. EU Flag vessels now only compose EU Flag vessels now
13% of the world fleet opposed to 32% in 1970 only 13% of world fleet
The European Union strongly supports their maritime transport

system and has taken new policy initiatives to make the EU fleet
competitive again as well as strict enforcement of international
standards within the EU.
New specific rules for state aid for Short Sea Shipping are focused EU initiates new rules to
incite growth in EU Flag
to provide a favorable tax environment for ship owners in an effort vessels and seafarer jobs
to counter international competition by open registers and flags of
convenience, utilizing tonnage tax schemes, reduced fiscal and
social security contributions for seafarers and Flag-links for state
aid.
Short Sea Shipping is seen as an opportunity to maintain if not

enhance the EU Flag maritime transport sector as well as
employment of EU state member maritime employment.
3
Short Sea Shipping is a transportation priority in the European

Union (EU). It is an integral part of EU’s transport policy and Short Sea Shipping an
goals to develop an efficient, multi-modal transport system capable integral part of EU
of meeting the existing and future freight logistic requirements of transport Policy
European business and the “Enlargement” of the EU which takes
effect May, 2004 (10 countries, 23% increase in size, 20% increase
in population).
In a statement from the European Parliament’s Regulation (EC)

No 1382/2003, dated July 22, 2003 – “….shifting the balance
between the modes of transport is at the heart of the sustainable
development strategy”; “If no decisive action is taken, total road
freight transport in Europe is set to grow by about 50% by Shifting the modal
2010.”….. “”In its White Paper, European transport policy for balances a priority
2010: time to decide, the commission proposed to take measures
which should make the market shares of the modes of transport
return, by 2010, to their 1998 levels”.
This regulation goes on to say: “….To achieve this objective ….

shift the aggregate increase in international road freight traffic to
short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways or to a combination
of modes of transport in which road journeys are as short as
possible.”
Short sea shipping is a successful mode of transport in Europe. For Short Sea Shipping is the
instance, in the 1990’s it was the only mode that was able to keep EU’s “Dynamic Choice
pace with the growth of road transport. It can help curb the complementing the
forecasted substantial increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic, Sustainable Transport
Chain”
rebalance the modal shares, bypass land bottlenecks and it is safe
and sustainable. Short Sea Shipping is seen as “The Dynamic
Choice Complementing the Sustainable Transport Chain”.i
The European Commission defines short sea shipping as: maritime

transport of cargo and passengers by sea between ports situated in
geographical Europe or between those ports and ports situated in EU Short Sea Shipping
non European countries having a coast line on the enclosed seas Definition
bordering Europe. It includes domestic and international maritime
transport including feeders along the coast, to and from the islands,
rivers and states.
4
EU Short Sea Shipping has a number of generally recognized

strong points. EU geography is highly favorable to it. With more Short Sea Shipping
infrastructure cost are
than 67,000 km of coastline, very few industrial centers are located low unlike railway &
more than 400 km from a seaport. In addition, the EU has some highway
25,000 km of navigable rivers and canals. Infrastructure costs
are low and are fully borne by users – unlike railway and
highway infrastructure costs which are supported by taxpayers.ii
In the EU, Short Sea Shipping energy consumption is virtually

insignificant, as demonstrated by data from British Department of
Short Sea Shipping
Transport showing that maritime transport consumes 0.12-0.25 Energy consumption is
mega-joules per ton/km, compared to 0.70-1.20 for highway virtually insignificant
transport and around 0.60 for rail traffic. Short sea shipping is and environmentally
seen as environmentally friendly as its CO² emissions stand at friendly
30g per ton/km against 41g for rail and 207g for highways. Safety
levels are high: British statistics show that the number of deaths
per 1 billion passenger-Km is 0.5 by sea against 2 by rail and 13
by highway.
The European Commission, Parliament and Council have taken EU takes positive actions
in support of Short Sea
positive actions in support of short sea shipping by: Shipping
• Developing supportive maritime policies
• Recognizing Short Sea Shipping as an integral Short Sea Shipping

part of long term transportation policy and the integral part of long
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) term transportation
Guidelines. policy
• Authorizing funding mechanisms for Funding mechanisms for

development programs such as Pilot Actions transport development
for Combined Freight (PACT) – later replaced programs
by the Marco Polo Program, and the new TEN-
T “Quick Start” program
• Including “Motorways of the Sea” as one of the “Motorways of the Sea”

“Quick Start Programs” in the revised TEN-T a “Quick Start” priority
guidelines that were recommended by the EU program
Commission, October, 2003
• Established and support Short Sea Shipping

Promotion Centers “Shortsea Promotion
Centres” established
• Established and supports a European Shortsea
Network
5
trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
On July, 1996 the European Parliament and Council adopted

Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European
EU transportation policy
Transport Network (TEN-T). TEN-T guidelines comprise roads, TEN-T guidelines
railways, inland waterways, airports, seaports, inland ports and adopted in 1996
traffic management systems which serve the entire continent.
Unfortunately, the work is not advancing as expected and has not
been able to keep up with the increase in traffic flows.
Since 1996, progress in implementing the TEN-T network has

been very uneven. For road, less than 4% of the length of planned 14 “Priority” projects
links will still not be completed by 2010, and, for rail, up to 50% Only 3 projects out of 14
of the length of planned links will remain uncompleted. As regards completed
the 14 priority projects, only three have been completed and five
are expected to be completed by 2007. The remaining investments
€60 billion of projects
in the order of magnitude of €60 billion - suffer from significant suffer from significant
delays. The main causes for these delays have been the lack of delays
firm planning, significant changes in project specifications,
challenges in local courts and lack of funding due to both changes
in national governments priorities and poor attractiveness for
private investors.
Cross-border projects
“The most significant delays were concentrated on the cross- encounter most
border sections of the projects, which in turn discourage Member significant delays
States to invest on access links.
Major projects take 10 to
15 years
Moreover, infrastructure project management has become
increasingly complex. Carrying out major projects today may take
10 to 15 years.
This affects cross-border projects in particular, typical obstacles

being different timetables and administrative procedures on both
sides of the border, or simply difficult negotiations on financing.
Cross Border projects
The political decision-makers are sometimes inclined to sacrifice sacrificed as politically
cross-border projects in favor of national projects, which are seen unattractive
as being more politically attractive. This indirectly affects the
domestic sections on transnational links, the profitability of which
depends on the cross-border section.
Long term vision needed
A long-term vision is therefore required in order to avoid short-
sighted decisions on financing infrastructure - according to the
political priorities of the day.
6
Continuity and coherence over time of policy decisions is in

particular required to attract private investors.
A Community vision of network development, on the scale of an

enlarged Europe, together with firm Member States commitments,
is therefore required for planning major infrastructure and
maximizing their social return.” iii
The 1996 guidelines for TEN-T were revised in May, 2002, and 2003 TEN-T revisions
additional revisions recommended in 2003 are expected to be define EU’ priorities
adopted. They define the Union’s priorities by attaching the
network “label” to certain routes, so channeling EU financial
Financial Support from
support to projects with greater Community added value. TEN-T TEN-T Budget; Cohesion
Budget, Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund; ERDF;EIB
Fund (ERDF) play an important role supporting, through direct
grants TEN-T projects, while the European Investment Bank (EIB)
provides loans.
The EU Commission’s 2003 proposals not only identify “Priority 2003 TEN-T revisions
Projects” of European Interest, i.e. reducing the bottlenecks on also propose a number
major routes without adding new infrastructure routes, but also of solutions to facilitate
financing
propose a number of solutions to facilitate their financing and their
actual implementation.
• A concentration of EU financial resources –

Funding sources
Ten-T funds, cohesion funds, structural funds concentrated on Priority
and ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies Projects
for Pre-Accession) funds be concentrated on
priority projects.
• An incentive for Member States to stick to Incentives to stick to

the agreed timetable – suggesting possible timetables
withdrawal of the project in case of
unjustifiable delays.
• Ex-post evaluations of each project
• Coordinated evaluation and public

consultation procedures
• Infrastructure charging initiative
7
The 2003 proposed guideline changes provide for EU funds up to

30% co-financing levels, (up from 10%), in an effort to create
enough incentive for the creation of public private partnerships
(PPP’s) on several cross-border sections. The proposal also
introduces a pluriannual financial planning/programming (i.e. the EU funding increased in
obligation to develop a coherent strategy setting policy priorities an effort to attract public
private partnerships
for a longer period covering more than one region and
incorporating a multi-task approach), which will give guarantees to
investors while allowing flexibility in the financial process.
The estimated amount of investment required for the “Priority

Projects” is around € 220 billion of which € 80 billion is planned €220 billion for
by 2006. “Priority Projects” -
€80 billion by 2006
The expected contribution from the private sector is estimated at
20%, the remaining part will be financed by the national budgets.
By 2020 the total cost of the trans-European network will amount
to € 600 billion.
The EU Commission suggests that carrying out these TEN-T

“Priority Projects” would:
• Produce significant time savings which would

add up to almost € 8 billion per year “Priority Projects” will
save travel €8 billion per
• Reduce CO² emissions by 17 million tons per year
year
CO² emissions reduced
by 17 million tons/yr
• Reduce other emissions, cutting external costs

of air pollution by over € 700 million per year
• Rebalance the modal split on the international

market segments Rebalance modal split
• Stimulate international trade, in particular in
acceding countries
• Reduction of road congestion by 14% and

improved safety by reducing the number of road
Reduction of road
accidents congestion by 14%
• Improve welfare which may lead to boost

economic growth 0.23% of GDP Boost economic growth
0.23% of GDP
8
New program for the promotion of Short Sea

Shipping
The European Commission recently adopted a new program for

the promotion of Short Sea Shipping along with a proposal to
standardize a new shipping container – European Intermodal New Program for the
Loading Units (EILU). Promotion of Short Sea
Shipping
This new program focuses on 14 actions (sometimes referred to as
the “14 Commandments”) to enhance the role of Short Sea
Shipping and govern the future of the European transport
Industry. “Motorways of the Sea” are included but other “14 Commandments to
significant “commandments” will have a positive impact on total enhance the role of Short
modality sectors, including Short Sea Shipping. Following are Sea Shipping
some of the key actions:
• The IMO FAL Directive – simplifying the
burden of documentary and administrative
procedures by standardizing certain reporting
Simplification of
formalities for ships to arrive in and/or depart
documentary &
from ports. administrative
procedures
• The European Intermodal Loading Unit
(EILU) – improvement of intermodal loading
units, both containers & swap bodies. .A new standardized EU
intermodal loading unit
(EILU)
• “Motorways of the Sea” – to alleviate major
land bottlenecks in the European transport “Motorways of the Sea”
system and enhance the logistics integration of TEN-T program will
short sea shipping. enhance logistics
integration of Short Sea
• The Marco Polo Program: expected to make Shipping
a substantial contribution to converting
intermodality into a reality in Europe. Budget
of € 75 million for the EU “15” (2003-2006)
“Marco Polo Program”
• A number of the “14 Commandments” will convert
presented by the European Commission are intermodality into a
Reality
designed to improve Short Sea Shipping
environmental performance, identify and
eliminate obstacles, continue legislative moves
towards enabling the use of electronic rather
than paper submissions, carry on Research and
Good functioning Short
Technological development, create “one-stop” Sea Promotion centers a
shops and ensure the good functioning of the priority
Short Sea Promotion Centers.
9
Shortsea Promotion Centers (SPC’s)
The first Short Sea Promotion Center (SPC) was established in

Holland in 1997 and today there are a total of sixteen (16) SPC’s.
Sixteen (16) Short Sea
The networks of SPC’s are coordinated by the European Shortsea Shipping Promotion
Network (ESN) co-operative made up of members of each country Centers(SPC’s) in the
that has a SPC. EU
According to the EU Commission, the establishment of the SPC’s

came from the need to change the incorrect and negatively
perceived image of the maritime transport industry that was SPC’s need to change
obstructing its potential future development. negative perception
There are a number of other Short Sea Shipping and/or maritime

promotion groups such as:
• The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in

Europe (AMRIE) formed to give the maritime
regional interest in Europe and effective
political voice and to contribute to establishing AMRIE formed to give
an “Integrated Maritime Strategy” the maritime interest
political voice
• Regional Action for Logistical Integration of
Shipping across Europe (REALISE) – formed
to develop technological strategies,
methodologies, and tools for the EU business
community and decision makers in order to REALISE formed to
encourage the use of Short Sea Shipping. develop tools to
encourage Short Sea
• The European Commission’s Transport Shipping
Knowledge Center which integrates transport
research results on a web site:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/index
.html Transport Knowledge
center integrates
• Numerous other National and regional co- research
operatives, coalitions and organizations
10
Summary & Conclusions
Loyola de Palacio, Vice President of the European Commission

states that “transport is at the heart of our economic system
and society but in Europe it is prey to growing congestion and
pollution.”
The “Enlargement” of Europe this year, May, 2004, produces a

double-edged sword – (1) the positive: enlarging the European
Transport is at the heart
Union and enlarging free trade between the countries; (2) the
of EU economic system
negative: adding new transport demands to a transport network and society but at risk
that is already congested and lacks adequate capacity. due to growing traffic
congestion and
Ms. De Palacio states that “if no action is taken to distribute the pollution
predicted increase more evenly between different modes, cargo
transport by road could increase by 50% by 2010 compared with
its 1998 level.”iv
The challenge of dealing with the increases has not only been
accepted at the EU Commission, Parliament & Council levels but
also at national and regional levels. Strong transport policy actions Road Transport could
are being enacted to encourage modal shifts to rail and water increase 50% by 2010 if
transport. nothing done
Short Sea Shipping in the EU is the only transport mode that has
been able to keep up with increases in road transport demand.
Strong actions being
Expansion of the Shortsea Network is recognized to be a lower taken to encourage
cost alternative and also provides decreases in environmental modal shifts to rail and
emissions, environmental impact, reduction in fuel consumption, water transport
as well as reduction of traffic accidents.
The success of Short Sea Shipping as well as the success in Short Sea Shipping the
changes in other transport modes is attributable to the fact that only mode able to keep
Europe approaches their transportation capacity policy as a fully up with increases in
integrated transportation system, inclusive of all modes of demand
transportation.
The European Commission recognizes the advantages of Short Sea

Shipping and has made Short Sea Shipping a significant
component in EU long term transport planning. The development EU transportation policy
of National and Regional Promotion Centers and the publishing of includes all modes
a common transport policy supports that there is an overall
strategy for Short Sea Shipping to be an integral part of the
transport future of the European Union.
11
Ideally, all the TEN-T transport policy guidelines and actions will
Short Sea Shipping a
outpace the rate of transport growth but clearly Short Sea Shipping significant part of
has already proven it’s capability to keep pace with the European European Long-Term
Unions fast growing transport needs. transport planning
More detailed information on all of these issues and policies are

contained in the following compilation.
Short Sea Shipping

proven mode that is able
to keep pace with EU’s
fast growing transport
needs
i
Europa Short Sea Shipping overview
ii
From AMRIE Short Sea Shipping: A viable Alternative to Overland Transport by Alan Donnelly, MEP with
Jacques Mazieres, Director AMRIE
iii
EU Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels, 01.10.203
iv
Loyola de Palacio discussion regarding Long-term solutions with Short Sea Shipping, 9/27/2002
*************************
12
2
Section
Contents
The European Union (EU) at a

Glance
EU Council and Parliament make-up

10 More Countries join EU, May 2004
European Member States & National
Flags
Map of Europe
EU & International Institutions and
organizations
Glossary of geographical
abbreviations
The European Union at a Glance
The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to

working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing states,
but it is more than any other international organisation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its Member
States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that
decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.
The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. The idea of
European integration was conceived to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening
again. It was first proposed by the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman in a speech on 9
May 1950. This date, the "birthday" of what is now the EU, is celebrated annually as Europe Day.
There are five EU institutions, each playing a specific role:
• European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);

• Council of the European Union (representing the governments of the Member States);
• European Commission (driving force and executive body);
• Court of Justice (ensuring compliance with the law);
• Court of Auditors (controlling sound and lawful management of the EU budget).
These are flanked by five other important bodies:
• European Economic and Social Committee (expresses the opinions of organised civil
society on economic and social issues);
• Committee of the Regions (expresses the opinions of regional and local authorities);
• European Central Bank (responsible for monetary policy and managing the euro);
• European Ombudsman (deals with citizens' complaints about maladministration by any
EU institution or body);
• European Investment Bank (helps achieve EU objectives by financing investment
projects);
A number of agencies and other bodies complete the system.
The rule of law is fundamental to the European Union. All EU decisions and procedures are
based on the Treaties, which are agreed by all the EU countries.
Initially, the EU consisted of just six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and
the Netherlands. Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, Greece in 1981,
Spain and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995. In 2004 the biggest ever
enlargement takes place with 10 new countries joining.
In the early years, much of the co-operation between EU countries was about trade and the
economy, but now the EU also deals with many other subjects of direct importance for our
everyday life, such as citizens' rights; ensuring freedom, security and justice; job creation;
regional development; environmental protection; making globalisation work for everyone.
The European Union has delivered half a century of stability, peace and prosperity. It has
helped to raise living standards, built a single Europe-wide market, launched the single European
currency, the euro, and strengthened Europe's voice in the world.
Unity in diversity: Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also
with shared values. The EU defends these values. It fosters co-operation among the peoples of
Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close
as possible to the citizens.
In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it will be even more necessary for
every European citizen to co-operate with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity,
tolerance and solidarity.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/print_index_en.htm
(European Commission website)
Keeping the EU democratic, fair and efficient
The EU needs a streamlined and efficient decision-making system as it enlarges from 15 to 25

and eventually more members. But the arrangements must be fair to all member states, old and
new, large and small.
Each EU country has a certain number of votes it can cast when the Council of Ministers takes
decisions. The people of each country also elects a certain number of members of the European
Parliament. These numbers roughly reflect the relative size of the country's population. They will
change in 2004, after ten countries have joined and following the European Parliament elections.
The new numbers will be as follows (in alphabetical order according to the country's name in its
own language): A decision by the Council often requires that countries representing about 72% of
the votes are in favour.
Number of
Number of votes in
members of
Council
Parliament
Belgium 12 24
Cyprus 4 6
Czech Republic 12 24
Denmark 7 14
Germany 29 99
Greece 12 24
Spain 27 54
Estonia 4 6
France 29 78
Hungary 12 24
Ireland 7 13
Italy 29 78
Latvia 4 9
Lithuania 7 13
Luxembourg 4 6
Malta 3 5
Netherlands 13 27
Austria 10 18
Poland 27 54
Portugal 12 24
Slovakia 7 14
Slovenia 4 7
Finland 7 14
Sweden 10 19
United Kingdom 29 78
TOTAL 321 732
http://europa.eu.int/abc/index2_en.htm
(European Union Website)
10 More Countries Join the EU May, 2004
Netherlands seeks leadership role in Europe*
In May, the European Union will expand to 25 nations, when 10 more countries join the
economic and political group, mainly from former communist Eastern Europe.
The expansion offers new opportunities for business to combine production in the lower-
wage eastern European nations with distribution in the higher-income parts of Western
Europe and beyond.
Netherlands is trying to position itself as the gateway to the larger union and its more
than 450 million residents, with Amsterdam as the hub.
The 10 countries joining the European Union this spring are Czech Republic, Estonia,
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia --
countries with a combined population of more than 70 million.
Two more countries are likely to join the EU in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania, bringing
the European Union to nearly 500 million residents, almost double the U.S.
population.
*Excerpts from Sun-Sentinel International Business article

by Doreen Hemlock, Business Writer, February 16, 2004
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-ybintl16feb16,0,7187314.story
European Union Member States
These are the main governmental sites for each country, which usually include the sites
for the Head of State, the Government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and sometimes a
portal site for the national civil service.
The section "Other useful links" gives users access to the sites for institutions such as the
national parliament, the national statistics office, the central bank and the national
cultural organisation.
Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France
Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg
Portugal Spain Sweden The Netherlands United

Kingdom
New Member States

Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia
Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia
Applicant countries
Bulgaria Romania Turkey
Other European countries

Albania Andorra Belarus Bosnia- Croatia

Herzegovina
Former Iceland Liechtenstein Moldova Monaco

Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Norway Russia San Marino Serbia and Switzerland

Montenegro
Ukraine Vatican City
http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm
(European Commission Web site)
European and International Institutions and Organs
1. European institutions
The statutes and general objectives of the Community institutions are defined in the Treaties.
Some new treaties are regularly signed to enlarge the competences of the institutions.
Five institutions exist: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union, the Court of justice of the European Communities and the Court of Auditors.
The other organisms are not considered as institutions but as complementary organs. They are
independent or annexed.
a) The European Commission
The European Commission has three responsibilities:

- It is the Guardian of the Treaties: it ensures the implementation of the Treaties and of the
community legislation.
- It has an initiative function: it proposes texts to the Parliament and the Council, which will then
adopt them and edit a European law or implement financing programmes.
- It has an execution and management function: it manages the budget, the community funds and
the common Structural Funds.
Finally it negotiates treaties for the Community.
b) The European Parliament
It is constituted of European Members of Parliament who are directly elected in each Member
State.
The Parliament holds a three-fold action:
- It is one of the European decision makers; it carries Community acts - Legislative Power.
- Its Budgetary Power allows it to define the definitive budget. It is enabled to reject it.
- It also holds a Political control of the institutions: it can ask the Commission to submit a proposal
to the Council or ask written or oral questions to the institutions.
c) The Council of the European Union
It is also called "Council" or "Council of Ministers" and it is constituted of fifteen ministers, who
represent the policy of their government. For instance, the Agriculture Council will gather 15
Ministers in charge of Agriculture.
It carries regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations or advice.
d) The Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC)
The Court of Justice ensures the strict observance of the Community law.
In the context of a national-wide trial, a judge may refer to the Court to answer to a Community
question.
WelcomEurope 2002 ©
www.welcomeurope.com
e) The Court of Auditors
It is an independent institution that monitors the financial management of the Union, its institutions,
the organisations or recipients of European financial supports.
f) A particular case: the European Council
The European Council has a vague and rather undefined statute. It is not a European institution.
It gathers the President or/and the Prime Minister of the Member States of the European Union in a
Summit at least twice a year. Together, they define the priorities and the calendar of the
Community construction.
2. The other Community organs
a) The Economic and Social Committee (ESC)
It gathers the representatives of the organised civil society of the Member States and the groups of
social and economic interests (employers, workers and activity groups regarding all sectors of
activity) to enable them to express and defend their opinions within the institutions.
The Commission must consult it before acts related to the internal market, education, consumers’
safety, environment, regional development or social affairs are adopted. However, it can decide to
issue opinion for the institutions to defend the living conditions of the citizens.
b) The Committee of the Regions
It is a consultative organ, which represents the local and regional authorities. The European
Commission or the Council and the Parliament must consult it when the matter may have regional
or local repercussions. It may emit opinions.
c) The European Investment Bank (EIB)
The EIB group is the financial organisation of the European Union. The Group consists of the EIB
itself, which allocates direct or indirect global loans and of the EIF (European Investment Fund)
that supports the innovative companies through activities of capital venture or guarantees. They
act in order to foster the implementation of fundamental and priority objectives in the European
Union.
d) The European Central Bank (ECB)
The ECB manages the introduction of the single currency and defines the monetary policy of the
countries belonging to the Euro-zone. Its fundamental mission is to monitor and master inflation
within the Union, but it also controls the reserves and leads the change operations.
e) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
The EBRD fosters the transition towards open market-oriented economies in the Central and
Eastern European countries and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It grants loans
and brings guarantees to the projects that aim at modernising infrastructures in those countries.
3. The international organisations
a) The Council of Europe
The Council of Europe gathers 43 Member States. Created in 1949, its first goal was to strengthen
the unity of the continent, to protect the dignity of the European citizens and to "create a union
getting always tighter between its members."
Important notice: this independent international organisation must not be confused with the Council
of the European Union and the European Council.
Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB)

It gathers 35 Member States. The Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) is the oldest
international financial institution in Europe and the only one with an exclusively social vocation.
It is placed under the supreme authority of the Council of Europe. It nevertheless has a financial
autonomy. The Bank participates to the financing of social projects, responds to emergency
situations and contributes to improving living conditions and social cohesion in the less advantaged
regions of Europe.
b) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Created in 1948, (under the name of EOCD, European Organisation for Co-operation and
Development), it was an American proposal, which objective was to distribute the Marshall Plan
funds after the war to reconstruct Europe.
After this period, it became the OECD. It counts 30 Member States and includes several countries
external to Europe such as the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia.
Currently, it is an organisation of co-operation for economic development.
c) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
This partnership gathering all North American and European democracies ensures their common
security thanks to a political and military alliance. It also facilitates the co-operation in other fields,
such as science and environment, emergency civil plans, and support in case of catastrophe.
NATO contributes to political stability, economic development and long-term security in the
Member States. It is ready to contribute to an efficient prevention of conflicts and to commit itself to
the crisis management.
ANNEX 2
Glossary of geographical abbreviations
ACP - Africa-Caribbean-Pacific: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados,

Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, The Dominican Republic,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabonese Republic, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda, Papua New
Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines,
Western Samoa, Sao Tome, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somali,
Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Chad, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Acceding countries in 2004: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
ALA: Asia, Latin America
ASEAN : Association of South –East Asian countries : Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, VietNam
Associated countries (within FP6): Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland,
Israel, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey
Candidate countries to EU: Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey
CEB - Council of Europe Development Bank (35 Members): Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldavia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
Vatican City State
CEEC - Central and Eastern European Countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Serbia and Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) ,
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
COE - Council of Europe (45 Member States): Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM),
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Moldavia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian
Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom
EBRD - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Albania, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,
FYR of Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
EEA - European Economic Area countries: All Member States of EU and EFTA, except
Switzerland
EFTA - European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland
European Union 15 Members : Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United
Kingdom
European Union 25 Members : Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania
Luxembourg, Malta the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom
FYROM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MERCOSUR: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay
New Independent States (NIS) – Central Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Moldavia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine
Mediterranean partner countries: Algeria, Palestinian Authorities, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel,

Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey
Overseas Countries and Territories - OCTs: Greenland,New Caledonia and

Dependencies,French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and
Futuna Islands, Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, Anguilla,
Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,
Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena and Dependencies, British Antarctic Territory, British
Indian Ocean Territory, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda.
Western Balkans – South East Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia
and Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM)
3
Section
Contents
White Paper “European Transport

Policy for 2010”
EU Commission White Paper

(Extracts)
EU Commission Official Brief on

White Paper
EU Commission statement – “A
Time to Decide”
European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
WHITE PAPER
time to decide
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
EUROPEAN TRANSPORT POLICY
FOREWORD
T ransport is crucial for our economic competitiveness

and commercial, economic and cultural exchanges. This
sector of the economy accounts for some _1000 billion,
or over 10 % of the EU’s gross domestic product, and employs
10 million people. Transport also helps to bring Europe’s citizens
closer together, and the Common Transport Policy is one of the
cornerstones of the building of Europe. However, the warning
signs are clear. Congestion, resulting in environmental nuisance
and accidents, is getting worse day by day, and penalising both
users and the economy. If nothing is done, the cost of congestion will, on its own, account for 1 % of
the EU’s gross domestic product in 2010 while, paradoxically, the outermost regions remain poorly
connected to the central markets.
Europe must bring about a real change in the Common Transport Policy. The time has come to set
new objectives for it: restoring the balance between modes of transport and developing
intermodality, combating congestion and putting safety and the quality of services at the heart of
our efforts, while maintaining the right to mobility. One of the main challenges is to define common
principles for fair charging for the different modes of transport. This new framework for charging
should both promote the use of less polluting modes and less congested networks and prepare the
way for new types of infrastructure financing.
The Transport White Paper adopted by the European Commission on 12 September 2001 paints a
realistic picture of the present situation with regard to transport and sets out an ambitious action
programme comprising 60 or so measures between now and 2010.
However, the White Paper is only the first step, and transport policy as such is only one part of the
answer. To meet our objectives, it will inevitably be necessary to take additional measures in other
areas, e.g. budget policy, industrial policy, regional policy, social policy and the organisation of
working time.
Loyola de Palacio
2 3
CONCLUSIONS: TIME TO DECIDE
A large number of political measures and instruments will be needed to launch the
process which, over the next 30 years, will lead to the kind of sustainable transport
system we might hope to achieve. The measures advocated in this White Paper are
merely the first stages of a longer-term strategy.
We will not be able to adapt the common transport policy to the requirements of
sustainable development unless a number of problems can be rapidly resolved:
— adequate funding of the infrastructure needed to eliminate bottlenecks and to link

the Community’s outlying regions to its central regions. Creation of the trans-
European network remains one of the preconditions for the rebalancing of transport
modes. That is why it is fundamentally important that external costs, and in partic-
ular environmental costs, be internalised into the infrastructure charges that all
users will have to pay;
— political determination to get the 60-odd measures proposed in the White Paper
adopted. The EU will avoid congestion only if it remains very attentive to the ques-
tion of regulated competition, in which, when it comes to freight transport, the rail-
ways are playing their last card;
— a new approach to urban transport by local public authorities which reconciles the
modernisation of public services with rationalisation of private car use; this is part
of what it will take to comply with the international commitments to reduce pollu-
tant CO2 emissions;
— satisfying the needs of users who, in return for the increasingly high cost of
mobility, are entitled to expect a quality service and full respect for their rights, irre-
spective of whether the service is provided by public enterprises or by private
companies; this will make it possible to place the user at the heart of transport
organisation.
However, the common transport policy alone will not provide all the answers. It must
be part of an overall strategy integrating sustainable development, to include:
— economic policy and changes in the production process that influence demand for
transport;
— land-use planning policy and in particular town planning — we must avoid any
unnecessary increase in mobility needs caused by unbalanced urban planning;
96 97
— social and education policy, through organisation of working patterns and school
hours;
— urban transport policy at local level and especially in large cities;
— budgetary and fiscal policy, to link the internalisation of external, and especially
environmental, costs with completion of the trans-European network;
— competition policy, to ensure, in line with the objective of high-quality public serv-
ices, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market is not
hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market;
— research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the various
research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line with the concept of
the European research area.
A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car and
the quality of public services, will involve choices and action decided at national level,
in the context of clearly delineated subsidiarity. The proposals put forward in the White
Paper (Annex I) focus on 60-odd measures to be taken at Community level. Along the
lines of what is happening in other areas such as energy, telecommunications and
financial services, there is a need for a new form of regulation to be developed in rela-
tion to transport at European level, whereby the national regulatory authorities now
being set up act in a coordinated fashion, e.g. for allocating slots in aviation or train
paths on the railways, or for road safety.This is a characteristic phenomenon of the new
governance (107).
As already emphasised, these measures are more ambitious than they may seem. We
should be aware that in terms of the adoption process — which more often than not
entails European Parliament/Council co-decision — we need to break with the Trans-
port Ministers’ present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We must fully
exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended by the
Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority.
To speed up the decision-making process and assess progress, the Commission has
decided to draw up a timetable with dates for achieving specific objectives, and in 2005
it will make an overall assessment of the implementation of the measures advocated in
the White Paper. This assessment will take account of the economic, social and environ-
mental consequences of the proposed measures (108). It will also be based on a detailed
analysis of those effects of enlargement liable to change the structure of the European
transport system. As far as possible, the Commission will also continue to quantify the
stated objectives and to this end intends to produce a communication in 2002 to
specify those objectives.
(107) ‘European governance: a White Paper’: COM(2001) 428.

(108) Monitored in the framework of ‘TERM’: transport and environment reporting mechanism.
ANNEX I
Action programme
WHITE PAPER
time to decide
ANNEX I
ACTION PROGRAMME
The measures proposed in the White Paper may will submit a second package of measures
be summarised as follows: for the rail sector with a view to:
— opening up the national freight markets
1. Shifting the balance between to cabotage;
modes of transport — ensuring a high-level safety for the
1.1. IMPROVING QUALITY IN THE ROAD SECTOR railway network based on rules and
regulations established independently
• Harmonise inspections and penalties by the and a clear definition of the
end of 2001 in order to: responsibilities of each player involved;
— promote efficient, uniform interpretation, — updating the interoperability directives
implementation and monitoring of for all components of the high-speed
existing road transport legislation; and conventional railway networks;
— establish the liability of employers for — gradual opening-up of international
certain offences committed by their passenger transport;
drivers; — promoting measures to safeguard the
— harmonise the conditions for quality of rail services and users’ rights. In
immobilising vehicles; particular, a directive will be proposed to
lay down the terms of compensation in
• increase the number of checks which
the event of delays or failure to meet
Member States are required to carry out
service obligations. Other measures
(currently on 1 % of days actually worked)
relating to the development of service
on compliance with driving times and
quality indicators, terms of contract,
drivers’ rest periods.
transparency of information for
• Keep the road transport profession attractive passengers and out-of-court dispute
by promoting the necessary skills and resolution mechanisms will also be
ensuring satisfactory working conditions. proposed.
• Harmonise the minimum clauses in • Step up rail safety by proposing a directive

contracts governing transport activity in and setting up a Community structure for
order to allow tariffs to be revised should railway interoperability and safety.
costs increase (e.g. a fuel price rise).
• Support the creation of new infrastructure,
1.2. REVITALISING THE RAILWAYS and in particular rail freight freeways.
• Gradually open up the railway market in • Enter into dialogue with the rail industries
Europe. By the end of 2001 the Commission in the context of a voluntary
100 101
agreement to reduce adverse environmental 1.4. ADAPTING THE MARITIME AND INLAND WATERWAY
impact. TRANSPORT SYSTEM
1.3. CONTROLLING THE GROWTH IN AIR TRANSPORT • Develop the infrastructure needed to build
veritable ‘motorways of the seas’.
• Propose the introduction by 2004, in the
context of the single sky, of: • Simplify the regulatory framework for
— a strong regulator with adequate maritime and inland waterway transport by
resources independent of the various encouraging in particular the creation of
interests at stake, and capable of setting one-stop offices for administrative and
objectives allowing traffic to grow while customs formalities and by linking up all the
guaranteeing safety; players in the logistics chain.
— a mechanism enabling the military to
maintain defence capabilities while using • Propose a regulatory framework for safety
the scope for cooperation to ensure controls for passengers embarking on ships
more efficient overall organisation of offering European cruises in order to combat
airspace; the risk of attacks, along the lines of what is
— social dialogue with the social partners, done in air transport.
which could begin with the air traffic
controllers, allowing consultation, • Tighten up the maritime safety rules in
following the experience in other sectors, cooperation with the International Maritime
on aspects of the common aviation Organisation and the International Labour
policy that have a considerable social Organisation, in particular:
impact. This dialogue could lead to — by incorporating the minimum social
agreements between the organisations rules to be observed in ship inspections,
concerned; and
— cooperation with Eurocontrol to draw on — by developing a genuine European
its expertise and know-how to develop maritime traffic management system.
and administer the Community rules;
— a surveillance, inspection and penalties • Encourage the reflagging of the greatest
system ensuring effective enforcement possible number of ships to Community
of the rules. registers, based on the best practices
developed in social and fiscal matters, by
• In the framework of the International Civil proposing in 2002 measures on tonnage-
Aviation Organisation, rethink air transport based taxation and the revision of the
taxation and negotiate the introduction of a guidelines on State aid to maritime
kerosene tax by 2004 and differential en transport.
route air navigation charges.
• Improve the situation of inland waterway
• Launch a debate in 2002 on the future of transport through:
airports in order to: — the current standardisation of technical
— make better use of existing capacity; requirements for the entire Community
— review the airport charges systems; waterway network by 2002;
— integrate air transport into a logical — greater harmonisation of boatmasters’
system with the other modes of certificates throughout the Community’s
transport; inland waterway network, including the
— determine what new airport Rhine. The Commission will present a
infrastructure is required. proposal on this subject in 2002;
— harmonisation of conditions in respect of
• Present a revision in 2003 of the slot rest periods, crew members, crew
allocation system, in order to improve composition and navigation time of
market access while taking account of the inland waterway vessels. The Commission
need to reduce environmental impacts at will present a proposal on this subject in
Community airports. 2002.
1.5. LINKING UP THE MODES OF TRANSPORT

• Negotiate with the United States a joint
transatlantic aviation agreement to replace • Establish by 2003 a new programme to
the current open skies agreements. promote alternative solutions to road
transport (Marco Polo), which could have a 3. Placing users at the heart of
budget of some EUR 30 million per year in transport policy
help launch commercial projects.
3.1. UNSAFE ROADS
• Propose by 2003 a new Community
• Set a target for the EU of reducing by half
framework for the development of the
the number of people killed on European
profession of freight integrator and the
roads by 2010.
standardisation of transport units and
freight loading techniques.
• By 2005 harmonise the rules governing
2. Eliminating bottlenecks checks and penalties in international
commercial transport on the trans-European
• In 2001 revise the trans-European network road network, particularly with regard to
guidelines in order to eliminate bottlenecks speeding and drink-driving.
by encouraging corridors with priority for
freight, a rapid passenger network and traffic • Draw up a list of ‘black spots’ on trans-
management plans for major roads, and European routes where there are particularly
adding to the ‘Essen’ list such projects as, by significant hazards and harmonise their sign-
way of illustration: posting.
— a high-capacity railway route through
the Pyrenees for freight; • Require coach manufacturers to fit seat belts
— East European high-speed on all seats of the vehicles they produce. A
train/combined transport
directive to this end will be proposed in
Paris–Stuttgart–Vienna;
2003.
— the Fehmarn bridge/tunnel between
Germany and Denmark;
• Tackle dangerous driving and exchange
— the Galileo satellite navigation project;
good practices with a view to encouraging
— improvement of the navigability of the
responsible driving through training and
Danube between Straubing and
education schemes aimed in particular at
Vilshofen;
young drivers.
— the Verona–Naples rail link, including the
Bologna–Milan branch;
• Continue efforts to combat the scourge of
— the interoperability of the Iberian high-
drink-driving and find solutions to the issue
speed rail network.
of the use of drugs and medicines.
• In 2001 increase to 20 % the maximum
funding under the trans-European network • Develop a methodology at European level to
budget for the main bottlenecks, including encourage independent technical
those still remaining on the Union’s frontiers investigations, e.g. by setting up a
with the accession candidate countries, and committee of independent experts within
then introduce conditionality rules. the Commission.
• In 2004 present a more extensive revision of 3.2. THE FACTS BEHIND THE COSTS TO THE USER
the trans-European network aimed in
• In 2002 propose a framework directive
particular at integrating the networks of the
setting out the principles and structure of an
accession candidate countries, introducing
infrastructure-charging system and a
the concept of ‘motorways of the seas’,
common methodology for setting charging
developing airport capacities and improving
levels, offset by the removal of existing taxes,
territorial cohesion on the continental scale.
and allowing cross-financing.
• Establish a Community framework for
allocating revenue from charges on • Make the tax system more consistent by
competing routes to the construction of proposing uniform taxation for commercial
new infrastructure, especially rail road transport fuel by 2003 to round off the
infrastructure. internal market.
• Harmonise minimum safety standards for • In 2002 propose a directive guaranteeing

road and rail tunnels belonging to the trans- the interoperability of means of payment on
European transport network. the trans-European road network.
102 103
3.3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF USERS 4. Managing the effects of
• In 2001 increase air passengers’ existing transport globalisation
rights through new proposals concerning in • Link the future Member States to the EU’s
particular denied boarding due to trans-European network by means of
overbooking, delays and flight cancellations. infrastructure of quality with a view to
maintaining the modal share of rail transport
• In 2001 put forward a regulation concerning
at 35 % in the candidate countries in 2010
requirements relating to air transport
by mobilising private-sector finance.
contracts.
• Make provision in the Community’s future
• By 2004, and as far as possible, extend the
financial perspective for adequate public
Community measures protecting
funding of infrastructure in the new member
passengers’ rights to include other modes of
countries.
transport, and in particular the railways,
maritime transport and, as far as possible,
• Develop the administrative capacities of the
urban transport services. This concerns in
candidate countries, notably by training
particular service quality and the
inspectors and administrative staff
development of quality indicators, contract
conditions, transparency of information to responsible for enforcing transport
passengers and extrajudicial dispute legislation.
settlement mechanisms.
• Full membership for the European
• Propose an adjustment of procedures for Community in the main international
notifying State aid, particularly in cases organisations, in particular the International
relating to compensation for public service Civil Aviation Organisation, the International
obligations on links to the Community’s Maritime Organisation, the Rhine Navigation
outlying regions and small islands. Commission, the Danube Commission and
Eurocontrol.
• Clarify the general principles which should
govern services of general economic interest • By 2008 develop for the EU a satellite
in the field of transport in order to provide navigation system with global cover, over
users with a service of quality, in keeping which it will have control and which will
with the Commission communication on meet its accuracy, reliability and security
services of general interest in Europe. requirements (Galileo).
,3
Brussels, 12 September 2001
$WUDQVSRUWSROLF\IRU(XURSH
VFLWL]HQV
7KH (XURSHDQ &RPPLVVLRQ

V REMHFWLYH IRU WKH QH[W WHQ \HDUV LV WR UHIRFXV
(XURSH
V WUDQVSRUW SROLF\ RQ WKH GHPDQGV DQG QHHGV RI LWV FLWL]HQV ,Q
DGRSWLQJ WKH :KLWH 3DSHU (XURSHDQ 7UDQVSRUW 3ROLF\ IRU 7LPH WR
'HFLGHWKH(XURSHDQ&RPPLVVLRQLVIRUWKHILUVWWLPHSODFLQJXVHUV
QHHGV
DW WKH KHDUW RI LWV VWUDWHJ\ DQG SURSRVLQJ RU VR PHDVXUHV WR PHHW WKLV
FKDOOHQJH 7KH ILUVW RI WKHVH PHDVXUHV LV GHVLJQHG WR VKLIW WKH EDODQFH
EHWZHHQPRGHVRIWUDQVSRUWE\E\UHYLWDOLVLQJWKHUDLOZD\V SURPRWLQJ
PDULWLPHDQGLQODQGZDWHUZD\WUDQVSRUWDQGOLQNLQJXSWKHGLIIHUHQWPRGHVRI
WUDQVSRUW7KH(XURSHDQ&RPPLVVLRQZDQWVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHGHYHORSPHQW
RIWUDQVSRUWLQ(XURSHJRHVKDQGLQKDQGZLWKDQHIILFLHQWKLJKTXDOLW\DQG
VDIHVHUYLFHIRUFLWL]HQV7KLV:KLWH3DSHUDQGWKHSURSRVDOVLWFRQWDLQVDOVR
FRQVWLWXWH WKH ILUVW SUDFWLFDO FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH VXVWDLQDEOH GHYHORSPHQW
VWUDWHJ\ DGRSWHG E\ WKH *RWKHQEXUJ (XURSHDQ &RXQFLO LQ -XQH /R\ROD GH
3DODFLR WKH 9LFH3UHVLGHQW IRU 7UDQVSRUW DQG (QHUJ\ VDLG WKDW WKH
(XURSHDQ 8QLRQ PXVW PHHW WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI (XURSHDQV DQG UHFRJQLVH
UHTXLUHPHQWV WKDW DUH DW WLPHV FRQWUDGLFWRU\ LQ RUGHU WR FRQWULEXWH WR
HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW ZKLOH LPSURYLQJ RXU TXDOLW\ RI OLIH 6KH ZHQW RQ WR
VD\ WKDW (XURSH
V FLWL]HQV GHVHUYH DQ HIILFLHQW WUDQVSRUW V\VWHP RIIHULQJ D
KLJKOHYHORITXDOLW\DQGVDIHW\WKH:KLWH3DSHUOD\VWKHIRXQGDWLRQVIRUWKLV
RQWKHEDVLVRIDPRUHLPDJLQDWLYHDQGUDWLRQDOXVHRIWKHGLIIHUHQWPHDQVRI
WUDQVSRUWDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHV
With its new Transport Policy White Paper, the Commission is proposing an Action
Plan aimed at bringing about substantial improvements in the quality and efficiency
of transport in Europe. It is also proposing a strategy designed to gradually break the
link between constant transport growth and economic growth in order to reduce the
pressure on the environment and prevent congestion while maintaining the EU’s
economic competitiveness.
It is proposing 60 or so measures to develop a transport policy for Europe’s citizens.
- 3URPRWLQJ SDVVHQJHUV
ULJKWV The Commission will shortly be proposing a
reinforcement of air passenger rights, including compensation where travellers
are delayed or denied boarding due to overbooking by airlines. The next step
will be to extend the passenger protection measures to other modes of
transport, notably rail, maritime and, as far as possible, urban transport
services.
- ,PSURYLQJURDGVDIHW\ Over 41 000 Europeans lost their lives on the roads in
the year 2000. The Commission wants every effort to be made to halve the
number of road deaths by 2010. It will submit proposals concerning the
development of appropriate signposting of blackspots, combating excessively
long driving times, harmonising road transport penalties at European level, and
considerably increasing the use of new technologies: safe new vehicles, the
protection of vehicle occupants in the event of impact, and the setting of safety
standards for the design of car fronts in particular.
- 0DNLQJ VDIHW\ D SULRULW\ More generally, the Commission’s objective is to
ensure that safety takes priority in all circumstances. Citizens must be
guaranteed the highest possible level of safety as a result of appropriate
legislation and the strict application of controls and penalties for modes of
transport such as aviation, shipping and the railways.
- 3UHYHQWLQJ FRQJHVWLRQ If nothing is done, Europe will rapidly be threatened
with "apoplexy at the centre and paralysis at the extremities". The Commission
is proposing to put an end to current trends and shift the balance between the
different modes of transport through a proactive policy to encourage the
linking-up of the different modes and promote rail, maritime and inland waterway
transport. Therefore, the Commission will create a new programme to promote
intermodality, called “Marco Polo”, with an annual budget of around ¼ million.
- 7RZDUGV VXVWDLQDEOH PRELOLW\ Transport in Europe must, as a matter of
priority, be compatible with environmental protection. To this end, the
Commission is proposing a wide range of measures to develop fair
infrastructure charging which takes into account external costs and encourages
the use of the least polluting modes of transport, to define sensitive areas, in
particular in the Alps and Pyrenees, which should be eligible for additional
funding for alternative transport, and to promote clean fuels ...
- 7RZDUGV KDUPRQLVHG WD[DWLRQ RI IXHO IRU SURIHVVLRQDO URDG WUDQVSRUW:
harmonising taxes on diesel for professional use would reduce distortions of
competition on the liberalised road transport market.
- (QVXULQJDKLJKTXDOLW\RIWUDQVSRUWVHUYLFHVLQ(XURSH The development
of transport in Europe must go hand in hand with a high level of quality. The
Commission is recommending in particular the harmonisation of working
conditions, especially in road transport, and the maintenance of high-quality
public services. In addition, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle, it
intends to encourage good practices to ensure a high quality of urban transport
services aimed at making better use of public transport and the existing
infrastructure.
- &DUU\LQJRXWPDMRULQIUDVWUXFWXUHZRUN In the context of the trans-European
networks, the Commission is proposing to concentrate on the missing links (in
particular the trans-European high-speed passenger rail network, including
airport connections) and infrastructure with genuine potential for transferring
goods from the roads to the railways (in particular the large-capacity rail link
across the Pyrenees).
- *DOLOHR (XURSH
V UDGLRQDYLJDWLRQ V\VWHP Satellite radionavigation
technology is at present in the hands of the United States and Russia. The time
has come to offer Europe's citizens a reliable European system offering
everyone everywhere new universal services: location of vehicles, telemedicine,
and geographical information systems for agriculture for example. The
Commission is proposing that the Galileo system should be operational in 2008.
- 0DQDJLQJ JOREDOLVDWLRQ: All too often Europe's appearances on the world
stage are uncoordinated or inadequate, to the detriment of efficiency. The
White Paper is proposing to raise the European Union's profile within
international organisations such as the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to make Europe
more assertive and place the EU at the forefront of the efforts to improve safety
and protect the environment.
2
The new White Paper advocates a qualitative change of direction in transport policy
in order to ensure that measures to promote an environmentally friendly mix of
transport services go hand in hand with the measures to open up the markets. The
competitiveness of Europe’s economy and the establishment of a high-quality
European model for citizens will depend upon the common desire to bring about the
proposed changes.
The full text of the White Paper will be available shortly on the following website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html.
*LOOHV*$17(/(7
'LQD$95$$0
3
EU White Paper, September 12, 2001
EUROPEAN TRANSPORT POLICY CONCLUSIONS:

TIME TO DECIDE
A large number of political measures and instruments will be needed to launch the
process which, over the next 30 years, will lead to the kind of sustainable transport
system we might hope to achieve. The measures advocated in this White Paper are
merely the first stages of a longer-term strategy.
We will not be able to adapt the common transport policy to the requirements of
sustainable development unless a number of problems can be rapidly resolved:
— adequate funding of the infrastructure needed to eliminate bottlenecks and to

link the Community’s outlying regions to its central regions. Creation of the
trans-European network remains one of the preconditions for the
rebalancing of transport modes. That is why it is fundamentally important
that external costs, and in particular environmental costs, be internalized
into the infrastructure charges that all users will have to pay;
— political determination to get the 60-odd measures proposed in the White

Paper adopted. The EU will avoid congestion only if it remains very attentive
to the question of regulated competition, in which, when it comes to freight
transport, the railways are playing their last card;
— a new approach to urban transport by local public authorities which

reconciles the modernization of public services with rationalization of private
car use; this is part of what it will take to comply with the international
commitments to reduce pollutant CO2 emissions;
— satisfying the needs of users who, in return for the increasingly high cost of
mobility, are entitled to expect a quality service and full respect for their rights,
irrespective of whether the service is provided by public enterprises or by private
companies; this will make it possible to place the user at the heart of transport
organization.
However, the common transport policy alone will not provide all the answers. It
must be part of an overall strategy integrating sustainable development, to include:
— economic policy and changes in the production process that influence

demand for transport;
— land-use planning policy and in particular town planning — we must avoid

any unnecessary increase in mobility needs caused by unbalanced urban
planning; social and education policy, through organization of working
patterns and school hours;
— urban transport policy at local level and especially in large cities;
— budgetary and fiscal policy, to link the internalization of external, and

especially environmental, costs with completion of the trans-European
network;
— competition policy, to ensure, in line with the objective of high-quality public

services, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market
is not hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market;
— research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the

various research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line
with the concept of the European research area.
A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car
and the quality of public services, will involve choices and action decided at national
level, in the context of clearly delineated subsidiarity. The proposals put forward in
the White Paper (Annex I) focus on 60-odd measures to be taken at Community
level. Along the lines of what is happening in other areas such as energy,
telecommunications and financial services, there is a need for a new form of
regulation to be developed in relation to transport at European level, whereby the
national regulatory authorities now being set up act in a coordinated fashion, e.g.
for allocating slots in aviation or train paths on the railways, or for road safety. This
is a characteristic phenomenon of the new governance (107).
As already emphasized, these measures are more ambitious than they may seem. We
should be aware that in terms of the adoption process — which more often than not
entails European Parliament/Council co-decision — we need to break with the
Transport Ministers’ present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We
must fully exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended
by the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority.
To speed up the decision-making process and assess progress, the Commission has
decided to draw up a timetable with dates for achieving specific objectives, and in
2005 it will make an overall assessment of the implementation of the measures
advocated in the White Paper. This assessment will take account of the economic,
social and environmental consequences of the proposed measures (108). It will also
be based on a detailed analysis of those effects of enlargement liable to change the
structure of the European transport system. As far as possible, the Commission will
also continue to quantify the stated objectives and to this end intends to produce a
communication in 2002 to specify those objectives.
(107) ‘European governance: a White Paper’: COM(2001) 428.

(108) Monitored in the framework of ‘TERM’: transport and environment reporting
mechanism.
2
4
Section
Contents
EU Maritime Transport Policy
Overview of EU Maritime Transport

Policy
EU Commission Official brief on
maritime State aid & policy
Plan for Shipbuilding
competitiveness – EU Commission
Press Release
EU Merchant Fleet Chart
World Merchant Fleet Chart
European Commission Overview of maritime transport policy
By virtue of its geography, its history and, nowadays, of globalisation,

the European Union is still very dependent on maritime transport:
• Over 90% of its external trade and some 43% of its internal
trade goes by sea; more than 1 billion tonnes of freight a year
are loaded and unloaded in EU ports.
• Maritime companies belong to European Union nationals control
one third of the world fleet, and some 40% of EU trade is carried
on vessels controlled by EU interests.
• The maritime transport sector - including shipbuilding, ports,
fishing and related industries and services - employ around 2.5
million people in the European Union.
As in air, road and river transport, in maritime transport too the

process of liberalisation and opening up national markets to
competition within the EU is almost complete. Apart from a few
restrictions (passenger services between the Greek islands, which will
not be opened up to competition until 2004), maritime cabotage - that
is to say an operator's right to provide a service between two ports in a
country other than the one in which he is established - has been
liberalised since 1 January 1999 (Regulation (EEC) 3577/92). There
is thus virtually total freedom to provide services within the EU.
Regrettably this necessary process has not been enough to slow the
steady drift of the EU fleet towards "flags of convenience", countries
which are far more attractive to shipowners than Europe in terms of
taxation, social legislation and safety or environmental standards.
The effects in the EU have been harsh, especially for jobs: the number
of EU seafarers employed on EU-flagged ships fell by 37% in the space
of ten years (1985-1995), whilst the number of seafarers from non-EU
countries rose by 14% over the same period. 51% of job losses are
thought to be due to flagging out.
Moreover, just 13% of the world's shipping now sails under a Member
State flag, compared with 32% in 1970.
In the face of this phenomenon, affecting mainly the freight sector, the
European Union decided on two lines of action:
• to devise a global strategy to make the EU fleet competitive

again, by means of "positive measures".
to improve on-board safety and environmental protection through strict

enforcement of international standards within the EU
last update: 15-01-2004
From the European Commission Web site

IP/03/1484
Brussels, 30 October 2003
Commission gives strong support to European

maritime transport sector
The Commission unveiled the new Guidelines on State aid to maritime

transport. These guidelines follow the same approach as their former 1997
version but they are strongly reinforcing the monitoring of the effects of
State aid and provide new guidance on tax exemptions rules for seafarers
and public support to Short Sea Shipping. The new framework will continue
to allow Member States to support the European maritime industry by means
of favourable tax environments while ensuring a level playing field in the
internal market. “Maritime Transport is of great importance for the EU due to
its impact in economic and social terms, but also on environmental grounds”
explained Loyola de Palacio, European Commission vice-president in charge
of transport and energy. “The new framework will significantly contribute to
its promotion and give the needed instruments for maintaining a competitive
and of quality EU flag. This will also have a relevant impact on employment
and maritime safety issues” she added.
The Commission has adopted yesterday a new Communication on State aid

Guidelines to maritime transport that aims at further ensuring a favourable tax
environment for ship-owners to counter international competition by open registers
and flags of convenience. Tonnage tax schemes, reduced fiscal and social security
contributions for seafarers and training aid will be allowed to this effect. Shipping
companies may continue to benefit from those measures as far as they respect
safety, environmental and social standards on their ships.
As for the new provisions contained in the 2003 guidelines, they include:
New, clearer provisions on seafarers tax exemptions. As a matter of principle,
the new communication allows such cost alleviation for all seafarers, irrespective of
their nationality or residence. However, in the case of seafarers serving on board
ships providing regular passenger services between ports of the Union, such
schemes shall only apply to EU/EEA citizens, as most EU citizens are employed on
this kind of ships.
A still flexible but more effective « flag-link » principle for tax arrangements.
The flag-link is the requirement that ships fly the flag of a Member State in order to
qualify for State aid. Even though tax arrangements such as tonnage taxes may
continue to be "flag-neutral–“,shipping companies operating less than 60% of their
tonnage under an EU flag will have to maintain under an EU flag at least the same
tonnage which they will have when the new communication enters into force.
Otherwise they will not be able to benefit of the measure for any non EU-flagged
vessel added to their fleet. Member States may derogate from this rule only if their
EU tonnage is not decreasing. Moreover, they will have to provide the Commission
with regular reports to this effect as well as with proof of the respect of the other
requirements for derogating from the flag-link principle.
From the European Commission web site

New specific rules for Short Sea Shipping. Guidance for State aid to Short Sea
Shipping has been introduced. Aids may be granted for the launching phase of new
services and must be of a kind to permit transport (of cargo essentially) by road to be
carried out wholly or partly by sea. They must be limited in time (3 years maximum).
Recipients have to be selected in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
Other features regard: new guidance on tonnage taxes and other similar tax
arrangements as well as specific provisions for towage and dredging for which the
actual operation of vessels at sea is the main criterion for eligibility.
Background
Fighting against flagging-out
The Union has been fighting against the flagging-out of European fleets for many
years. For this purpose, the Commission already adopted two communications, in
1989 and in 1997, laying down the requirements that Member States have to fulfil
when providing State aid to this sector. The objective is to maintain as many ships as
possible under an EU flag whilst ensuring a level playing field in the internal market.
Assessment of the existing guidelines

The Commission assessed the existing guidelines in 2002. The exercise started with
a questionnaire sent to the Member States in January last year. Both a study of the
replies to the questionnaire and a wide consultation of stakeholders were carried out.
The consultation and the study revealed that the present guidelines gave satisfactory
results and contributed to reverse the trends of abandoning EU flags. Therefore the
EU Commission intends to maintain and strengthen its policy. Nevertheless, it also
showed that some measures had to be more detailed and new considerations had to
be added, as the promotion of short-sea shipping and the clear definition of the
seafarers.
Aid schemes in the Member States

The main schemes adopted by the Member States in this sector are the so-called
tonnage taxes, as well as the tax alleviation schemes for seafarers. Tonnage tax
means that the shipowner pays an amount of tax linked directly to the tonnage
operated: it will be paid irrespective of the company’s actual profits or losses.
Tonnage tax schemes exist in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Ireland, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, UK. Labour cost related measures are in
force in Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Greece, the
Netherlands and Sweden.
According to the replies of the Member States to the Questionnaire sent in January
2002 and to recent data1, the Member States which introduced aid measures, in
particular by means of tax relief, obtained good results in terms of a significant
volume of tonnage being re-flagged. In terms of percentage, the fleet registered in
the registers of the Member States increased on average by 0.4% per year in
number of ships, and of 1.5% in tonnage. This percentage raises to 12,4% in the
case of container ships. In spite of this, the share of the world tonnage registered in
the Member States has slightly decreased.
1
ISL, Shipping Statistics 2001
From the European Commission web site 2

Public service obligations and contracts
In the field of maritime cabotage, public service obligations may be imposed or public
service contracts may be concluded provided they and their compensations fulfil the
conditions of EC Treaty and procedures as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The
Commission also accepts that if an international transport service is necessary to
meet imperative public transport needs, public service obligations may be imposed
or public service contracts may be concluded, provided that any compensation is
also subject to EC Treaty state aid rules and procedures.
The duration of public service contracts should be limited to a reasonable and not
overlong period, normally in the order of six years, since contracts for significantly
longer periods could entail the danger of creating a (private) monopoly. Current
tenders remain into force and specific rules for small islands are also considered in
a separate legislation (see IP/03/1483)
From the European Commission web site 3

European Commission Press Release
Commission and European shipbuilders present work plan for future

LeaderSHIP in shipbuilding competitiveness
DN: IP/03/1464 Date: 28/10/2003
IP/03/1464
Brussels, 28th October 2003
Commission and European shipbuilders present work plan for

future LeaderSHIP in shipbuilding competitiveness
The initiative launched earlier this year to ensure and further develop the
competitiveness of the European shipbuilding and ship repair industry has
reached a new milestone. After the establishment of a High Level Advisory
Group for the LeaderSHIP 2015 initiative in January 2003 (see IP/03/120)
work has progressed as planned and the Advisory Group now presents the
results of its work in eight key areas crucial for competitiveness. In a booklet,
entitled “LeaderSHIP 2015 Defining The Future of the European Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair Industry” published today, 30 concrete recommendations in
areas ranging from trade policies to industrial consolidation are made.
Translating these recommendations into action will help ensure a prosperous
future for European shipyards and marine equipment manufacturers. The work
undertaken represents one of the first applications of the Commission's
renewed approach to industrial policy in a specific manufacturing sector, as
requested by the European Council.
European Commissioner for Enterprise Erkki Liikanen, who chaired the

LeaderSHIP 2015 Advisory Group, said: “LeaderSHIP 2015 is an outstanding
example of the results which can be achieved through stakeholders working
together to promote the competitiveness of their sector. The initiative brought
together a wide range of leading industry representatives, trade unions, MEPs and
seven Commissioners whose policy briefs relate to shipbuilding. All areas that
affect industrial competitiveness in the sector are addressed in the report and I am
confident that we now have a clear and promising work plan for the future.
LeaderSHIP can serve as an example for a targeted industrial policy that can also
be applied to other sectors to tackle their specific challenges.”
European shipbuilders continue to face serious problems in the market, with very
low prices still offered by Far East competitors, despite much increased demand
for certain shiptypes in 2003 and significant cost increases in particular in South
Korea. At the same time the market for cruise ships, a domain in which EU
shipyards excel, still feels the effects of September 11 and the global economic
downturn, and shows only weak signs of recovery.
LeaderSHIP 2015 comes at a crucial time for European shipbuilders, and it sets
out the key challenges the industry is facing while offering concrete measures that
will address the problems identified in a timely and realistic manner. Based on
intense consultations with all stakeholders, LeaderSHIP 2015 shows the way
forward for an important branch of the European manufacturing industries, in
order to ensure technological leadership, to strengthen customer focus and to
facilitate the move to more knowledge-based products, services and production
methods.
The LeaderSHIP 2015 booklet and its translation into all EU official languages
and Polish can be downloaded at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/maritime/index.htm
Summary of the LeaderSHIP 2015 recommendations
A Level Playing Field in World Shipbuilding
• Continuation of the present EU trade policy approach with determination.

• Full enforcement of applicable WTO rules to shipbuilding.
• Development of enforceable OECD disciplines through a new
shipbuilding agreement by 2005 and an unambiguous interpretation of
existing rules.
Improving Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Investment
• The European dimension of shipbuilding RDI should be strengthened

through integrating and concentrating efforts, with the aim to create
Technology Platforms. Work being undertaken within the Maritime
Industries Forum should form the base for this approach.
• Shipbuilding should, in substance, enjoy the same conditions as other
industries that engage in similar RDI activities.
• Levels of state aid need to reflect the actual technological risks taken in all
phases of design, development and production.
• New definitions, notably regarding innovation aid, need to be developed
where necessary.
• RDI investment support needs to aim at enhancing European technological
leadership and should reward risk taking.
Advanced Financing and Guarantee Schemes
• Explore the possibility of establishing an EU-wide guarantee fund for pre-

and post-delivery financing. The alternative of harmonising standards in
EU member states, in line with common market and OECD rules, could
also be considered, albeit difficult to fully achieve. Any such tools have to
be easily applicable.
• Export credit insurance companies, covered by appropriate re-insurance,
should offer hedging instruments for currency risks.
Promoting Safer and More Environment-Friendly Ships
• Existing and future EU legislation has to be strictly implemented and

“exported” at international level.
• A more transparent, uniform, efficient and independent system of
technical surveys of vessels has to be promoted.
• A quality assessment scheme for shipyards at world-wide level should be
developed, covering new building and repair.
• Maintaining and strengthening ship repair capabilities in Europe is
important to ensure a high level of transport safety and environmental
protection.
• An expert committee is to be established to provide technical support to
the European Commission and to EMSA.
• The great potential of Short Sea Shipping needs to be exploited through
appropriate political and economic framework conditions.
A European Approach to Naval Shipbuilding Needs
• Joint requirements should be established to shape a number of major

projects, enabling co-operation between yards and leading to inter-
operability of systems, vessels and fleets.
• Member states should address the issue of harmonisation of export rules.
• Common rules to create a European market for defence equipment have to
be developed, based on the Council's request to create an
intergovernmental agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments.
Protection of European Intellectual Property Rights
• The existing instruments for IPR protection (copyright, registered designs,

trademarks, patents, non-disclosure and specific collaboration agreements)
need to be exploited to the full.
• Knowledge data bases for shipbuilding, containing information about the
state of the art, existing patents, the specific competitive situation for
certain products and solutions, and key knowledge holders, should be built
and run by dedicated IPR entities.
• International patent rules applicable to shipbuilding need to be examined
and possibly strengthened.
Securing the Access to a Skilled Workforce
• Programmes for shipbuilding-specific management training need to be

developed and established.
• New skill requirements need to be analysed and addressed, ideally through
a sectoral social dialogue.
• Exchange of staff and know-how needs to be organised on all levels, from
shop floor to academia.
• A publicity campaign, showing the vitality and sustainability of the
shipbuilding industry, has to be implemented.
• Regional centres of excellence could provide crucial input for the
realisation of the above recommendations.
Building a Sustainable Industry Structure
• Non-action is not an option, neither is protectionism: the EU of 25 must

further develop its policy approach to the sector, in line with its principles
on industrial policies.
• A consolidation process among European producers should be
encouraged, providing incentives to remove less efficient production
capacity and thereby freeing resources for new investment.
• The current closure aid rules in the EU should be scrutinised with a view
to a more pro-active approach, based on the idea of “aid to consolidation”.
Background
The LeaderSHIP 2015 High Level Advisory Group convened for the first time on
28 January 2003. It established eight working groups, composed of industry
representatives, Commission staff and selected experts, to address questions of
competitiveness in the areas of trade, research and innovation, financing,
maritime safety, naval shipbuilding, intellectual property rights, skills and
industry structure. The Advisory Group re-convened on 15 July to analyse the
first results from the working groups and prepare its recommendations, released
today.
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1464|0|RA
PID&lg=EN;
(European Commission Press Release from European Commission Web Site)
3.3.2.5
EU Merchant Fleet
Ships of 1000 grt and over Data as at January 1st, 2002
B DK* D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU-15 as at 1.1.

2001
Total fleet controlled
Number 123 629 2169 3122 224 215 45 593 2 651 38 49 135 327 643 8 965 8 885
mio dwt 7.1 16.9 37.2 145.2 3.7 6.0 0.20 12.6 0.01 5.4 0.8 1.4 1.9 7.9 18.2 264.5 257.3
National flag
Number 2 310 402 775 134 121 26 472 2 484 20 32 97 157 263 3 297 3 316
mio dwt 0.01 7.98 7.26 45.62 1.71 2.86 0.14 8.49 0.01 3.25 0.10 0.45 0.98 1.35 7.77 88.0 84.8
Foreign flag
Number 121 319 1767 2347 90 94 19 121 - 167 18 17 38 170 380 5 668 5 569
mio dwt 7.05 8.92 29.95 99.55 2.02 3.13 0.06 4.10 - 2.18 0.67 0.98 0.91 6.58 10.45 176.5 172.5
Share of foreign flag in total fleet
Number 98% 51% 81% 75% 40% 44% 42% 20% 0% 26% 47% 35% 28% 52% 59% 63% 63%
dwt 100% 53% 80% 69% 54% 52% 31% 33% 0% 40% 87% 68% 48% 83% 57% 67% 67%
Source : ISL merchant fleet data bases; aggregates based on quarterly updates from the Lloyd's Maritime Information System
* : including international registers like the Danish International Ship Register; including vessels registered at territorial dependencies
3.3.2.6
World Merchant Fleet
by world region
Total controlled fleet
dwt (million)
(ships of 1000 gt and over) 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002
Europe 312.6 345.7 351.1 361.4 372.3
of which: EU-15 207.5 242.0 247.5 257.3 264.5
North America 51.0 46.5 49.4 45.4 42.6
Latin America 18.7 16.0 15.7 14.3 15.5
Asia/Oceania 245.4 286.6 291.3 301.2 303.1
Africa 6.7 7.0 7.1 5.4 5.1
Unknown 38.0 40.1 38.6 42.4 52.7
Total 672.4 741.9 753.2 770.2 791.3
of which: EU controlled 31% 33% 33% 33% 33%
EU-15 fleet:
52.1% 60.2% 60.9% 60.2% 59.0%
Foreign flag share
by type of ship
Total registered fleet EU
dwt (1000)
controlled*
January 1st, 2002 Number
dwt
World EU flag World EU flag
(ships of 300 gt and over) 1000
Oil tankers 7 311 957 303 234 51 905 100 962
Chemical tankers 1 291 207 8 489 1 312 1 675
Liquid gas tankers 1 114 158 18 994 2 097 4 180
Bulk carriers 5 907 435 277 067 22 960

93 337
Ore/bulk/oil carriers 197 6 14 108 391
General cargo ships 15 642 1 550 88 763 7 486 26335**
Container ships 2 726 545 76 131 18 904 35 844
Pass./Cargo & Ro-Ro 3 561 1 418 11 448 4 757

2190**
Passenger ships 1 364 319 1 528 359
[ gt (1000) ] [ 9 938 ] [ 2 340 ]
Cruise ships 257 62
(ships of 1000 gt and over) n.a.
[ gt (1000) ] [ 9 529 ] [ 2 439 ]
Source : Institute for Shipping Economics and Logistics, Bremen
* : ships of 1000 gt and over
**: Ro-Ro cargo with general cargo instead of passenger ships
No dwt for cruise ships, since dwt is a measure of the weight admissible
5
Section
Contents
Definition of Short Sea Shipping by

the European Union
Definition on shortsea shipping by the European Union
(1) Shortsea shipping means the movement of (2) cargo and passengers by sea
between ports situated in geographical Europe or between those ports and ports
situated in non European countries having a coastline on the enclosed seas bordering
(3) Europe.
Shortsea shipping includes (4) domestic and international maritime transport,

including (5) feeder services, along the coast, to and from the islands (6) rivers
and lakes. The concept of short sea shipping also extends to maritime transport
between the Member States of the Union and Norway and Iceland and other States
on the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
1. Shortsea shipping
Shortsea shipping can be divided in
· Liner shipping
· Tramp shipping
Another way of looking is according to type of cargo

· Dry or wet bulk
· Conventional
· Neo-bulk
· Project cargo
· Ro-Ro
· Containers
2. Cargo in containers
· Palletized cargo in containers
· LCL/part loads
· Liquid bulk, food or non food in tank containers
· Dry bulk, such as plastics in 30ft bulk containers
3. Europe
4. Domestic and international maritime transport

Shortsea shipping in Europe consists mainly of transport between European
countries. However the larger European countries have (international) services that
also carry cargo between 2 or more ports in that country. Examples are Norway,
United Kingdom, Italy.
5. Feeder services
Feeder services versus intra European services
Definition: Feeder containers: schedule of vessel follows the deep sea carrier
Intra European containers: schedule according to market demand.
However, both types of cargo are shipped quite often on the same vessels.
Feeder traffic:
· Quay-quay operation
· Customer is deep sea carrier
· Schedule follows deep sea carrier
· Vessel calls deep sea terminal
· Limited customer base
· Easy market entry
· Intercontinental cargo
· Character * shipping activity
* optimize use of vessel
Intra European traffic

· Intermodal door to door transport
· Customers; shippers and forwarders
· Schedule according to market demand
· Special shortsea terminals or smaller ports
· Extensive customer base
· Intra European cargo
· Difficult market entry
6. Rivers and Lakes

Sea-river shipping is one of the forms of shortsea transport. Its concept is simple;
one vessel, sailing coastal and inland waters alike. Sea-river vessels share specific
characteristics such as draught, height and length, relating to the navigating
possibilities offered by rivers and canals. Usually sea-river vessels do not exceed
3,000 dwt with draughts limited to 5 and bridge clearance to 9 m. Although at
present these vessels are mainly employed to convey conventional and bulk loads,
container transport is on the increase as well.
http://www.shortsea.info/front/frameset.asp
(European Shortsea Network Web Site)
6
Section
Contents
Short Sea Shipping in the European Union
EU Commission Short Sea Shipping

Overview
EU Commission Short Sea Shipping
Policy Statement
EU Commission Statistical Evidence
of Success
EU Short Sea Shipping Brochure
Short Sea Shipping Overview
The Dynamic Choice Complementing the Sustainable Transport Chain
Short Sea Shipping is a successful mode of transport in Europe. For
instance, in the 1990’s it was the only mode that was able to keep pace with
the growth of road transport. It has in fact started to outpace road transport.
Short Sea Shipping is also an obvious choice to play a key role in reaching
the objectives of the European Transport Policy. It can help curb the
forecasted substantial increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic, rebalance the
modal shares, bypass land bottlenecks, and it is safe and sustainable.
The European Commission has an active policy to promote Short Sea
Shipping. In 1999 it presented a Communication with a comprehensive
approach to increase the use of the mode. Furthermore, the recent European
Commission White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010
emphasised the role of Short Sea Shipping in maintaining an efficient
transport system in Europe now and in the future.
Continuous political support from the Council, Member States and
European Parliament is vital for Short Sea Shipping to capture its true
market share. Such support was last confirmed in the informal meeting of
the European Union Transport Ministers that took place in May/June 2002
in Gijón (Spain) and that was fully devoted to ways to promote Short Sea
Shipping.
To make full use of Short Sea Shipping in Europe, it needs to be seamlessly
integrated into logistics chains and offer door-to-door solutions to
customers. Such logistics chains should be managed and commercialised by
one-stop shops offering the customers a single contact point that takes
responsibility for the whole intermodal chain. Further, the notion of
competition between modes should be replaced by complementarity
because co-operation between modes is vital in door-to-door chains
involving more than one mode. This requires efforts from all parties but it is
a clear win-win situation.
A number of obstacles still impede the further development of Short Sea
Shipping. First, many commercial players still view it, wrongly, as an old-
fashioned mode of transport. Second, full integration of Short Sea Shipping
into door-to-door multimodality remains to be accomplished. Third, the
complexity of documentary and administrative procedures in Short Sea
Shipping is a fact that needs to be examined and tackled. Fourth, the
efficiency of ports, port services and port-hinterland connections needs to
be enhanced.
The Community is in the process of pursuing solutions to a number of these
obstacles.
The Commission is convinced that co-ordinated efforts at all levels
(Member States, regional, local, industry and Commission) will
substantially help accelerate the growth of Short Sea Shipping, alleviate
obstacles and allow Short Sea Shipping to become a true success story of
the 21st century.

(From European Transport website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/sss/index_en.htm)
European Short Sea Shipping Policy Statement
Short Sea Shipping
,QWURGXFWLRQ
Short sea shipping is an obvious choice to play a key role in
reaching the objectives of the recent Commission White Paper
on European Transport Policy for 2010. It can help curb the
50 % increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic forecasted in that
Paper, it can rebalance the modal split, bypass land bottlenecks,
and it is safe and sustainable.
For a long time, we have been talking about the potential of
Short Sea Shipping without realising that it is much more than
just a potential. In fact it is a highly successful mode. For
instance, it was the only mode of transport in the 1990’s that
was able to keep pace with the growth of road transport. And in
the latter part of the decade it actually grew faster than road.
Nevertheless, Short Sea Shipping suffers from a number of
problems that need to be identified and solved whenever
possible. The Commission has already identified some of these
problems under the bottleneck exercise that was carried out in
2000. Now all the parties need to work together to find solutions
to them.
6LPSOLILFDWLRQDQGUDWLRQDOLVDWLRQRISURFHGXUHV
The recent IMO-FAL (Facilitation) Directive will help simplify
Short Sea Shipping. It introduces five standard forms that will
replace the very substantial variety of different forms that ships
have to submit each time they call at EU ports. Thanks to the
excellent co-operation between the Commission, Council and
European Parliament, this Directive was adopted almost at
record speed.
The Commission is currently in the process of addressing a
further administrative matter: customs procedures. People’s
From the European Commission Website

immediate reaction is that customs matters are too complicated
and decrease the attractiveness of Short Sea Shipping.
A couple of examples can be mentioned:
• In some ports unloading of the ship can start only after all
documentary formalities have been completed. This can take
up to half a day. Modern just-in-time logistics cannot sustain
such delays.
• In some Member States certain customs documents have to
be given in original to a customs office which might be far
from the quay or even in a neighbouring port 100 km away.
Electronic or other forms of modern communication cannot
be used for this purpose.
Of course the Community customs system cannot be overthrown
because of the particularities of Short Sea Shipping. Instead, any
concrete problems need to be identified in order to work towards
solving them. The Commission has recently published a Guide
to Customs Procedures in Short Sea Shipping. This guide is
intended to present the different customs procedures in a factual
way. But more importantly, it should open a targeted discussion
towards finding concrete procedures where further
simplification might be possible.
3URPRWLQJ6KRUW6HD6KLSSLQJVHUYLFHVLQSRUWV
Ports play an indispensable role in Short Sea Shipping. What we
need are efficient and short-sea friendly ports with open access
and fair and transparent procedures. The Commission proposal
on access to the port services market will contribute to this. The
Transport Council reached a political agreement on a Common
Position concerning this proposal in June 2002.
One further area that could be developed is dedicated port
services for Short Sea Shipping. Obviously, the situations in
ports differ considerably, but ports should consider within their
commercial strategies, whether dedicated short-sea terminals or

other specialised services might boost port business and create
win-win situations.
Furthermore, an idea that could be promoted is to have one-stop
administrative shops or helpdesks in ports.
Port-hinterland connections are also vital when talking about
port efficiency. The EU Member States can foster these
connections and their quality in their national infrastructure
plans, and the Commission is paying special attention to them.
This will become even more obvious in the forthcoming
revision of the Guidelines for the Trans-European Transport
Networks.
,QWHUFRQQHFWLRQDQGLQWHURSHUDELOLW\RIVHDDQGODQGQHWZRUNV
The term ‘Motorway’ refers to easy access, relatively high
average speed, bypassing congested urban areas, reliability and
high level of safety. This must also be the case with the
Motorways of the Sea, one of the proposals in the White Paper,
for them to attract commercial operators.
These Motorways should make it possible to bypass land
bottlenecks in Europe as part of comprehensive door-to-door
logistics chains. These bottlenecks may be geographical, such as
the Alps and Pyrenees, or areas where there is recurrent road
congestion or they may be border areas between EU and non-
EU countries.
The Sea Motorways should offer efficient, regular and frequent
services that can compete with road. Ports connected to the
Motorways should have efficient hinterland connections and a
high level of short-sea service.
The Commission is currently working on the details of the
concept to present it in the next revision of the Trans-European
Transport Network Guidelines.

The Trans-European Transport Networks - for infrastructure -
and Marco Polo Programme - for operational aspects - should be
able to assist these Motorways.
As to interoperability between modes of transport, one area that
the Commission is currently examining is loading units. It
intends to present a concept that involves harmonising and
standardising these units. The aim is to eliminate friction costs
and delays in handling operations between modes and combine
the strengths of containers and swap bodies.
Furthermore, the Directive setting-up a Community vessel
traffic monitoring and information system will increase
electronic data exchange between ships’ operators, ports and
administrations. The Commission has already launched, through
the SafeSeaNet project, preliminary studies for the setting-up of
a European telematic platform between national maritime
administrations for the implementation of maritime safety
Directives.
3XEOLFVHFWRUPHDVXUHVDQG0DUFR3ROR
Public measures should be avoided in so far as they distort
competition. This is particularly true in markets where
established short-sea lines already operate.
Nevertheless, the intention to increase the use of Short Sea
Shipping is not contrary to this principle. The new Community
support programme Marco Polo will show this. It should
become operational as from 2003 to give incentives to starting
up new intermodal operations. The principle of avoiding
distortions of competition is central in this programme.
Further initiatives at European, national and regional levels are
certainly welcome. However, the central role of private
operators in Short Sea Shipping should not be forgotten. What
the administrations can do is to create the necessary
preconditions to attract those private operators. And this is to be
done within the existing legal frameworks.

One such framework is State aid. In the revision of the maritime
State aid guidelines, the Commission intends to pay particular
attention to the needs of Short Sea Shipping.
A further Community initiative mentioned in the White Paper is
infrastructure charging. Because Short Sea Shipping is
environmentally less damaging than other modes, it is safe and
the sea offers an open infrastructure, it could be expected to gain
from such an initiative covering all modes.
,QYROYLQJ DOO WKH DFWRUV RI WKH LQWHUPRGDO FKDLQ DQG WDNLQJ
DGYDQWDJHRIH[LVWLQJ(XURSHDQIRUD
To fully use Short Sea Shipping, it needs to be comprehensively
integrated into logistics chains and offer door-to-door
operations. Such chains should be managed and commercialised
by logistics one-stop shops. These shops should offer customers
a single contact point that takes responsibility for the whole
intermodal chain. Further, the notion of competition between
modes should be replaced by complementarity because co-
operation between modes is vital in chains involving more than
one mode. This requires efforts from all parties but it is a win-
win situation.
There are several well-functioning co-operation platforms for
Short Sea Shipping at international and European levels. For
instance, the United Nations and other international
organisations discuss issues that are in the Community interest.
Consequently, Community presence and efforts should be co-
ordinated in them.
At European level the Group of Short Sea Shipping Focal Points
is an indispensable forum for co-operation. These Focal Points
are representatives of national maritime administrations who
have been assigned the specific task of promoting Short Sea
Shipping. They follow developments, work on solving
bottlenecks and oversee actions at European and national levels.

Further, national Short Sea Promotion Centres exist in almost all
maritime Member States and Norway and Poland. These
Centres are driven by the industry and they offer a practical tool
to promote Short Sea Shipping at national level. They have
already realised that using Short Sea Shipping is a win-win
situation to all modes and Europe as a whole. The Centres can
approach companies and offer impartial advice on the benefits
of Short Sea Shipping. The Commission strongly supports their
establishment and operation. For practical advice to cover both
ends of an international journey, the Centres have established a
network between themselves - European Short Sea Network.
In addition to these fora, we have several regional initiatives in
the north and south that address Short Sea Shipping. They are
important because they can complement the European
discussions by introducing regional perspectives to the Focal
Points’ work and promoting concrete solutions to local
problems.
,QFRQFOXVLRQ
The Commission is determined to make Short Sea Shipping
even more successful than it is today. A lot has already been
done to improve the preconditions for Short Sea Shipping but a
lot remains to be done.
Beyond the short-term measures mentioned above, new
technologies can help us promote Short Sea Shipping in the
medium to long term. A new generation of faster ships that can
better accommodate the new loading units and new technologies
in ports will help boost the short-sea business. And Europe will
need well-trained personnel onboard ships, in ports and logistics
companies. Therefore, the promotion of Short Sea Shipping can
also offer benefits to other parts of the maritime industries, such
as shipbuilding and making seafaring more attractive as a
profession.
*****

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT
May 2002
STATISTICS ON SHORT SEA SHIPPING DEVELOPMENT:
STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS
Last time the Commission published comprehensive statistics on cargo carried by Short
Sea Shipping was in June 1999, in the Communication COM(1999) 317 final on the
Development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe. That statistical data covered the period
until 1997. Now that almost three years have passed since the presentation of that data,
the Commission carried out an updated statistical analysis. The results of this new
analysis have led to the following conclusions:
• During the last decade the growth rate in the number of tonne/km carried by road and
Short Sea Shipping kept the same pace (41% for road and 39% for Short Sea
Shipping).
•
CARGO TRANSPORT MODES (TONNE-KM GROWTH IN %)
150
140
130
120
% 110
100
90
80
70
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Road SSS IWW Rail
During the second half of the nineties, the average yearly growth of Short Sea
Shipping in tonne/km overtook that of road. The evolution of Short Sea Shipping and
road transport during the last decade shows two different patterns: one before and
another after the year 1995. During the first half of the last decade Short Sea Shipping
grew at an annual average rate of 3.2%, compared with 3.7% for road, whereas in the
second half, Short Sea Shipping grew annually by 3.5% against 3.4% for road.
• Short Sea Shipping kept its market share at 42% of the total freight market from 1990
to 1999. Although road transport increased its share from 42% in 1990 to 46% in
1999, it is estimated that that share went down to 45% in the year 2000 to the full
benefit of Short Sea Shipping.
SHARE OF CARGO in 1990 ESTIMATED SHARE OF CARGO in 2000
SEA (INTRA EU)

SEA (INTRA
42% EU)
43%
RAIL RAIL
Other 11% 8%
Other
16% INLANDW 12% INLANDW
5%
4%
ROAD ROAD
42% 45%
___________
The present statistical analysis was done on the basis of the following sources:
• Study on Certain freight flows in the Union, by NEA. 1999.
• Study on Short-term trends in the European transport market, by PROGNOS. 2001.
• Reporting on a voluntary basis by 22 ports members of the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO): Antwerp, Barcelona,
Bilbao, Bremen, Dublin, Dunkerque, Genoa, Gdynia, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Helsinki, Kokkola, La Spezia, Lisbon, Lübeck,
Oslo, Piraeus, Pori, Rotterdam, Savona Vado, Sczecin and Valencia. The Commission wishes to thank those ports for their
substantial contribution and ESPO for co-ordinating the collection of data.
• Statistical data published by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT).
• EUROSTAT, International Union of Railways (UIR), European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP) data and the 2001 Statistical
Pocket Book published by the Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport have been used to confirm the data
from the main sources mentioned before.
2
KO-43-02-074-EN-D
STEEL BY SEA
Based in the Ghent canal zone, Sidmar NV is one of the Sidmar is convinced of the advantages of sea transport.
world’s largest steel producers. It provides materials for On the basis of both environmental and cost consider-
the automotive, white goods, furniture, shelving, ations, use of short
radiator and construction industries, where high quality sea shipping in pre-
is required. ference to road trans-
Exporting a very large proportion of its output, Sidmar port has become a
makes extensive use of short sea shipping, and in 2000 clear company policy,
shipped 465 000 tonnes of steel to other countries in
Europe and beyond.
and Sidmar is con-
tinuing to explore the
possibility of using it
SHORT SEA SHIPPING
Sidmar uses regular services provided from Antwerp on additional routes.
by the operating company Transaf Antwerpen, as well
as chartering ships directly. Short sea shipping carries
all its exports to Finland, Israel and Tunisia, and more
than 90% of the steel destined for the British, Danish,
Norwegian, Turkish and Portuguese markets.
SHIPPING GIVES
a t r a n s p o r t s u c c e s s s t o r y
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
A two-year EU-sponsored project has shifted 18.25 Together with Caberos Enterprises of Patras in Greece
timulating the growth of short sea short sea shipping
million tonne-kilometres per year of heavy goods traffic
off roads between northern Italy and Greece. It clearly
demonstrates the commercial benefits to road hauliers
of co-operation with partners in the shipping industry.
and the Minoan and Strintzis shipping lines, the Italian
logistics firm Danzas SpA is offering a new maritime link
between Venice and Patras. The daily voyages in each
direction offer cost reductions to customers in the
S shipping has been a priority of EU
transport policy since 1995. It remains
central to the comprehensive strategy for a
• an efficient and environmentally-friendly
transport mode
• often, the most cost-effective means to shift
chemicals, food-processing, machine-tool and con- clean, safe and efficient European transport long-distance traffic off Europe’s roads
The project has involved the adaptation of terminals at
each port, the introduction of new and upgraded sumer- goods sectors. This positive market response is system set out in the Commission’s 2001 White • an essential link to islands and outlying regions
trailers for rapid loading and unloading, and the likely to encourage similar operations, removing more
Paper, European transport policy for 2010: time
improvement of a ‘tracking and tracing’ system for the trucks from long-distance routes.
to decide. the challenges
exchange of consignment data with customers via • to promote short sea shipping’s reliability and
electronic data interchange (EDI) or the Internet. Short Sea transport grew by 29.6% between 1990 frequency
and 1999. A total of 40% of all trade within the • to ensure that its reliability, quality and safety are
European Union is now carried by sea, surpassed recognised
only by road transport. But its potential is much • to remove unnecessary costs and delays at ports
greater. Still needed are improved links to inland
networks and the establishment of ‘sea the goals
motorways’ between key ports. Promoted in this • to integrate shipping more fully in door-to-door
freight transport services
way, short sea shipping could take substantial
• in conjunction with rail and inland waterways, to
volumes of goods traffic off Europe’s congested absorb predicted increases in EU goods transport
roads and ease major road and rail bottlenecks.
The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport develops and carries out EU policy in these closely linked Community action
areas. The 2001 White Paper, European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide, sets out 60 practical measures designed to bring about • active promotion of short sea shipping
significant improvements in the quality and efficiency of transport in • administrative simplification of shipping logistics
Europe by 2010, and to break the link between economic growth and
growth in the demands on transport systems. Short sea shipping is a • targeted investment in infrastructure and
vital component of this overall strategy. support for R & D where possible
Published by: European Commission, Energy and Transport DG

B-1049 Brussels
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html
© European Communities, 2002 EUROPEAN

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. COMMISSION
Photos courtesy: Ghent Port Company, Shortsea Promotion Centre Flanders, Port of Calais,
Port of Hamburg Text completed on 20-03-2002.
Map courtesy: Ufficio per la Promozione del Trasporto Marittimo a Corto Raggio, Roma
EFFICIENT, CLEAN -
AND GROWING FAST
he Commission defines short sea shipping as the
T movement of passengers and cargo by sea within

Europe, both inside and outside the EU, as well as to
and from all ports in the Mediterranean, the Baltic and
the Black Sea. Its 1999 communication The development of
short sea shipping in Europe: a dynamic alternative in a
sustainable transport chain (COM(1999) 317 final) reports
good progress towards the long-term goal of establishing sea
transport as a viable alternative to road haulage. Short sea
shipping produces fewer polluting emissions than any other
mode of transport and, for passengers, has a death rate only a
fraction of those of other modes.
But the communication goes further, describing a strategic
vision of maritime transport as a fully integrated component of
door-to-door intermodal transport services, and a major con-
tributor to sustainability, cohesion, and competitiveness. As the successful recent expansion of Italian
Specifically, short sea shipping has the potential to accom- coastal shipping routes demonstrates, short sea
modate much of the anticipated growth in freight without shipping can provide a real off-shore alter-
increasing pressure on Europe’s already crowded roads. native to congested road networks. The devel-
opment of regular connections along the
Italian coasts and with non-Italian ports has
Key link in intermodal transport been steady and, as the map shows, has PROMOTING
chains progressed to take in more and more destina-
tions over recent years. The progressive shift of AND STREAMLINING
Intermodality – the easy transfer of goods and passengers cargo onto these ‘motorways of the sea’ has
SHORT SEA SHIPPING
between road, rail, sea and air transport – is the key to the devel-
opment of short sea shipping.
produced cost savings for users, profits for
operators, and cleaner, less congested roads for
THE SERVICE PROMOTION CENTRES
Italian citizens throughout the country.
Sea transport is already highly competitive for long distances.
The Commission has actively supported the creation of
T
But short sea shipping needs to become more attractive as an he Commission is engaged in an on-going
alternative for shorter journeys. If it is to fulfil its potential, part- exercise to identify critical bottlenecks pre- Shortsea Shipping Promotion Centres (SPCs) in each of
nerships with operators of other transport modes are vital, as the venting more widespread use of short sea the 13 maritime Member States, providing one-off
basis for intermodal transport service packages oriented to shipping, as well as possible solutions. For financial support for the establishment of 12 centres to
customers’ changing needs. example, the documentary and administrative proce- date. Independent of individual regions or ports, the
dures for short sea shipping differ widely between SPCs act in the interests of all cargo-movers – whether
Member States and between individual ports. As a first owners, shippers or operators. Funded by both public
step towards remedying this, standard use will soon and private sectors, all share the mission of demon-
be made across the EU of the IMO-FAL forms required strating that sea transport is reliable, safe, cost-effective
when ships enter or leave ports. Furthermore, the and technically advanced.
Commission is proposing possible simplifications on The Commission has also financed and supported the
customs rules for short sea shipping. launch of the European Shortsea Network (ESN), which
When adopted, the ‘Marco Polo’ programme pro- links the national SPCs to facilitate collaborations and
posed in the transport White Paper will provide a the exchange of experience.
budget of $115 million over the five years 2003-2007 Click here: www.shortsea.info
for actions aimed at shifting 12 billion tonne-kilo-
Growth of intra-EU transport, 1970-1999, by mode metres per year of road freight from Europe’s roads to
its rail and inland waterway networks – and, in
Since 1970, short sea shipping’s share of total particular, to its short sea shipping routes.
billions of tonne-kilometres
road intra-EU goods transport has increased from

short sea shipping 35.3 to 40.4%. Tonne-kilometres of cargo carried
have grown by 153% (see chart), outstripping
rail
overall freight growth (121%). But road haulage
inland waterways has grown faster, by 220% in the same period, and
pipelines now accounts for 44.5% of the total.
7
Section
Contents
EU “Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea

Shipping”
EU Commission Summary of
Programme for the Promotion of Short
Sea Shipping
“Mirmal” maritime law bulletin, Spain –

Opinion “The 14 Commandments of the
EU Commission
Bremen September2003 Power Point

Presentation –Programme for the
Promotion of Short Sea Shipping
Back
MARITIME TRANSPORT
Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping
1) OBJECTIVE
To establish a programme for the promotion of Short Sea Shipping within the European Union
(EU).
2) ACT
Communication from the Commission: Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea
Shipping [COM(2003) 155 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
3) SUMMARY
The White Paper on European transport policy for 2010 highlights the role that Short Sea
Shipping can play in curbing the growth of heavy goods vehicle traffic, rebalancing the modal
split and bypassing land bottlenecks.
The development of Short Sea Shipping can also help to reduce the growth of road transport,
restore the balance between modes of transport, bypass bottlenecks and contribute to
sustainable development and safety.
The Commission's programme contains a set of 14 actions subdivided into measures, and
mentions the actors responsible and the timetable (2003-2010) for each measure.
The programme describes legislative, technical and operational initiatives which are aimed at
developing Short Sea Shipping at EU, national, regional and industry levels.
A) Legislative Actions
• Implementation of the Directive on certain reporting formalities for ships

arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States (IMO-FAL).
This directive requires Member States to accept the standard International Maritime
Organisation ( IMO ) FAL forms when it is possible to obtain the relevant
arrival/departure information for a ship from these forms. This means that the
multitude of different national forms will be replaced by one common set of forms.
The Directive will take effect from 9 September 2003 at the latest.
• Implementation of the Marco Polo programme
The Marco Polo programme, with an average annual budget of 18.75 million, is aimed
at shifting 12 billion tonne-kilometres a year of road freight to Short Sea Shipping, rail
and inland waterways
• Standardisation and harmonisation of intermodal loading units
The multitude of different configurations of intermodal loading units (containers and
swap-bodies) creates delays when moving from one mode of transport to another. The
Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Directive (COM(2003) 155 final)
which will help decrease friction costs and enable Short Sea Shipping to acquire a
larger share of the swap-body market.
• Development of 'Motorways of the Sea'
Motorways of the Sea should make it possible to bypass land bottlenecks in Europe as
part of comprehensive door-to-door logistics chains, by offering efficient, regular and
frequent services that can compete with road, particularly in terms of transit time and
price.
• Improvement of the environmental performance of Short Sea Shipping
Maritime transport is, in general, less harmful to the environment per tonne or
passenger carried. A modal shift to Short Sea Shipping could, for example, contribute
to fulfilling the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol .
B) Technical Actions
• Guide to Customs Procedures for Short Sea Shipping

The Commission has published a Guide to Customs Procedures for Short Sea
Shipping which has a dual purpose: firstly, to explain the Customs rules, indicating
opportunities for using simplified procedures (the basis for the second objective) and,
secondly, to identify specific needs for further simplification.
• Identification and elimination of obstacles to making Short Sea Shipping more
successful
Since 1999 the Commission has been making a list of the factors hampering the
development of Short Sea Shipping. These obstacles can be classified into five
categories: its old-fashioned image, its complex administrative procedures, the lack of
efficiency at ports, inconsistency in the application of rules and procedures among
Member States and the fact that it is not integrated into the intermodal logistics chain.
• Alignment of the national application of, and computerisation of, EU Customs
Procedures
The 'eCustoms' initiative is aimed at speeding up and simplifying the procedures
involved in declaring cargo. One of the first tasks in this initiative is to implement the
New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), which will replace the paperwork required
by the Single Administrative Document (SAD) procedure, in some 3 000 Customs
offices in 22 countries.
• Research and Technological Development
The objectives of this research are to improve the quality, safety, security and
environmental performance of maritime transport. A Thematic Network for Short Sea
Shipping has been established within the framework of the Sixth Framework
Programme , to carry out research directly related to Short Sea Shipping.
C) Operational Actions
• One-Stop Administrative Shops

'One-stop administrative shops' in ports are aimed at simplifying the formalities relating
to the arrival, departure and clearance of ships. The aim is firstly, to limit the number of
administrative authorities boarding and checking every ship, or at least to coordinate
their activities, and secondly, to offer port users a single contact point or help-desk for
administrative formalities.
• Ensuring the vital role of Short Sea Shipping Focal Points
It is necessary to ensure continuous cooperation between the Focal Points and the
Commission by organising regular meetings and also to ensure a continuous flow of
information via the internet-based tool 'CIRCA' (Communication and Information
Resource Centre Administrator).
In tandem with this, the accession countries need to be involved in this work in order
to raise their awareness of the importance of Short Sea Shipping.
• Maintaining the efficient operation and guidance of Short Sea Promotion
Centres
These centres are driven by business interests and offer a practical tool to promote
Short Sea Shipping at national level. The national centres are presently being
integrated into the European Short Sea Network (ESN) which provides a common tool
for the promotion of Short Sea Shipping in Europe. The aim of this network is to
exchange information and best practices and also to provide practical advice covering
the various stages of a short-sea journey.
• Promoting the image of Short Sea Shipping as a successful transport alternative
Short Sea Shipping needs to acquire a more modern, dynamic image by highlighting
its current potential, i.e. its speed, reliability, flexibility, regularity and high degree of
cargo safety.
• Collection of statistical information
Europe-wide statistics on Short Sea Shipping trade are not sufficiently detailed. The
objective is to collect information on Short Sea Shipping from the European Sea Ports
Organisation ( ESPO ) until the Directive on maritime statistics provides sufficient
information to enable comparisons to be made.
4) IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002
on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member
States of the Community [Official Journal L 67 of 9 March 2002].
Council Directive 95/64/EC of 9 December 1995 on statistical returns in respect of

carriage of goods and passengers by sea [Official Journal L 320 of 30 December 1995].
5) FOLLOW-UP WORK
Last updated: 13.10.2003
THE SHORT SEA SHIPPING:
THE 14 COMMANDMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
by Miquel Roca
I- Introduction
II- The 14 commandments
II.A - The IMO FAL Directive
II.B - The Marco Polo programme
II.C - The European Intermodal Loading Units
(EILUs)
II.D - The Motorways of the Sea
II.E - The remaining commandments
III- Conclusions
I.- Introduction.
On 10 April 2003 the European Commission adopted a new program for the promotion of
Short Sea Shipping along with a proposal for a directive to standardise a new sort of
containers: the so-called European Intermodal Loading Units. The European Commission
affection towards the Short Sea Shipping is not unknown to the European transport
industry, although it can be argued that with this new adopted program the agenda is
definitely set and both Governments and industry players are strongly committed to its
end. For what the European Intermodal Loading Units concerns, and according to the
Commission itself, they are called to be the authentic revolution of the European
transport and the world logistics as we understand it today (1).
The program focuses on 14 actions to enhance the role of Short Sea Shipping in Europe.
We will draw special attention to the ones we consider more relevant, such as the action
aiming to harmonise the considerable number of technical specifications currently
existing for swap bodies in trade within the EU which, as a result of their diversity, are
said to cause unnecessary additional costs. Other short and medium-term measures, to be
as well considered, tackle de issue of removing the obstacles to the growth of Short Sea
Shipping and the non less important marketing one to improve its general image as a
slow and old fashioned mode of transport (2). The remaining actions contained in the
program focus on the need to create the so-called ‘motorways of the seas’, computerising
customs procedures and setting up one-stop administrative shopping in ports.
These fourteen actions are called to be the rules to govern the future of the European
transport industry, fourteen commandments to be followed by both the Member States’
governments and the industry players if they are to succeed in drawing up the new era of
transportation. As the White Paper reads in its own title: it is time to decide.
2- The fourteen commandments.
2.A - The IMO FAL Directive (3): The first step to speed up the logistics chain within
the boundaries of the European Union aims to simplify the burden of documentary and
administrative procedures by standardising certain reporting formalities for ships to arrive
in and/or depart from ports in the Member States. In practice, this means that the
multitude of different national forms needed to be provided at the time of arrival or
departure of a vessel into a Member State’ port will be replaced by one common set of
forms by 9 September 2003 the latest.
2.B - The Marco Polo programme: Being the heir of the
‘Pilot Actions for Combined Transport’, the new Marco Polo
programme is expected to make a substantial contribution to
converting intermodality into a reality in Europe. With a
budget of €18,75 million (4) it aims to contribute to shifting
12 billion tonne-kilometres a year from road to Short Sea
Shipping, rail and inland waterways. The deadline to
measure its success in this case, stated as well in the White
Directorate-General Energy
and Transport (Brussels) Paper (5) is 2010, with annual revisions until that date.
2.C - The European Intermodal Loading Unit (EILU): One of the measures put
forwards in the White Paper is the improvement of intermodal loading units, both
containers and swap bodies. The Commission understands that standardising a European
loading unit that would combine the stackability of a container with the pallet-wide cargo
space of a swap body could offer a solution.
The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Intermodal
Loading Units lays its rational on the inconvenience caused by the current diversity of
Intermodal Logistic Units (i.e. a container or a swap body). The diversity of their
handling and security devices in particular are blamed for hampering the efficiency of
transhipment operations, considered to be slow and cost ineffective for what the Short
Sea Shipping interest concerns (6). It seems that the European Commission is somehow
spoiling the virtues of the container as a revolutionary asset in the transport industry.
When even today, after decades of its creation, when a large number of articles, books,
and conferences speak wonders about the container, the European Commission unveils its
weak points and the need of reinventing the container, not only as a valid transport unit,
but also as a valid unit able to be hundred per cent multimodal, able to be fully
transhipped into all modes of transport, and able to respond to the needs of optimising its
actual cargo-space for pallets, both European and UK pallets.
The EILU would combine the benefits of containers

(their solidity and stackability) with those of swap
bodies (in particular their greater capacity). Together
with their ability to be stacked, and in order to meet
the necessary requirements for maximum
intermodality, they need to be suitable for top lifting
and seaworthy. The new European units should offer
the maximum allowable space for transporting ISO
pallets, and they should also offer fast loading and
unloading of pallets in order to reduce costs and
delays. Basically, the EILUs will consist of a general-
purpose dry cargo box allowing two pallets to be
loaded side by side.
With the application of these measures, and additionally by equipping the new units with
the best anti-intrusion devices available, such as electronic seals, able to track when the
unit has been opened, the European Commission intends to shift the actual figures and
increase the use of sea containers in Europe’s roads and rails. It is assumed by the
Commission that ISO containers are not optimal to be used in all modes of transport, at
least in what transhipment and handling operations refers (6).
A good question to ask is what about the existing units. The European Commission
responds to this question that ‘it is not economically justifiable to require existing units to
be altered or refurbished with the harmonised characteristics’ (7) This means that once
the Directive comes into force the EILUs will have to share their lives with the existing
ISO containers, but it also implies that existing containers are already sentenced to death.
It is estimated that on average in five years the weaker swap bodies will disappear,
whereas stronger containers will pass away in about 10-15 years. They will remain alive,
however, in those situations in which water carriage is not a viable option, being weak
swap bodies a cheaper and more reasonable logistic solution.
The most dramatic change in the new EILUs will be their measures. The length of the
‘long EILUs’ will be of 13.2 m. (40’ ISO containers have a length of 12 m.) and the
length of the ‘short EILUs’ will be of 7.2 m. (20’ ISO containers have a length of 5.867
m.). In practical terms this means that the ‘long EILU’ will be able to carry 33
europalettes or 26 UK pallets (compared to 25 europalettes or 22 UK palettes able to be
carried today by the 40’ ISO containers). The ‘short EILUs’ will be able to carry 18
europalettes or 14 UK pallets (whereas the 20’ ISO containers can only carry 11
europalettes or 9 UK palettes).
In percentage terms, it means that the ‘short EILU’ improves the cargo capacity by 63%
in case of europalettes and 55% for UK palettes, whereas the ‘long EILU’ improves the
cargo capacity by a 32% in case of europalettes and 18% in case of UK palettes.
In front of all this obvious advantages there is a quite dangerous impact to the industry.
Cellular ships and barges will need to adjust their cell guides to a new length and width.
This will mean additional costs for effectively running the EILUs or loss of cargo space if
the readjustments are not undertaken or even directly rejecting business when the EILUs
are to be used. On the other hand, it seems reasonable for any shipowner to readapt its
vessels and take the advantage of the new units, as it seems assured that the greater
capacity of EILUs compared with containers should largely compensate for these
additional costs.
2.D - Motorways of the Sea: the notion of
‘motorways of the sea’ implies to alleviate
major land bottlenecks in the European transport
system and enhance the logistics integration of
Short Sea Shipping. They have the task to save
the traffic jams created both in the Pyrenees and
the Alps due to heavy road transport. The
Commission will, by June of the present year
and once the industry has been heard, finally
establish the routes to be considered as
‘motorways of the sea’. One particular case
named in the White Paper is that of an ‘Italian
company creating a service of road transport The Grimaldi Lines service Barcelona-Genoa
connecting the ports of Genoa and Barcelona’,
making obvious reference to the Grimaldi
Group service.
2.E - The remaining commandments: Other actions to be taken according to the
Program presented by the European Commission imply improving the environmental
performance of Short Sea Shipping; outline a Guide to Custom procedures for Short Sea
Shipping; identify and eliminate the obstacles to make Short Sea Shipping more
successful than it is today (which in turn means to ‘adopt and implement the Directive on
market access to port services as soon as possible’ (8)); continue legislative moves
towards enabling the use of electronic rather than paper submissions towards the creation
of a non-bureaucratic environment that limits the use of paper documents to the
minimum; carry on with the research and technological development; create the so-called
one-stop administrative shops as to reduce, or at least co-ordinate; the number of
administrations boarding and checking every single ship and to offer port users a single
contact point or help-desk for administrative formalities; ensure the vital role of Short
Sea Shipping focal points in every Member State; ensure the good functioning of the
Short Sea Shipping promotion centres; promote the Short Sea Shipping as a successful
transport alternative and collect relevant statistical information to track the development
of the Short Sea Shipping.
There is still one last statement contained in the White Paper worth to be mentioned. The
European Commission finds necessary to ‘promote the profession of freight integrators’.
It does not say anything about the logistics providers, nor about the Value Added
Services departments already in existence in most shipping companies (offering door-to-
door services, insurance coverage, etc), as it refers only to freight integrators. It does not
define what a ‘freight integrator’ is, not where lies the line between a freight integrator, a
freight forwarder and a logistics provider. As stated in the White Paper itself, we will
have to wait until further proposals to this end are submitted in the present year 2003.
3. Conclusions.
Over the last years most of the legislative initiatives taken by the Directorate-General for
Energy and Transport of the European Commission have created great concerns.
Resulting in strikes all over Europe, in several sectors of the maritime industry such as
stevedores, and combined with a warm welcome from certain Members States such as
Austria, happy to see how the European institutions fight against the chaotic Alpine road
network.
By submmitting this 14 measures programm it appears clear that
Ms. Loyola de Palacio and her team in Brussels, are determined to
do something about the actual inconvenient European transport
network, and to do it fast. Her perseverance was not heard in her
intention to shorten the deadline of incorporating the legislation of
single hull oil carriers, and the Prestige incident came along.
Should the Member States have paid more consideration to Ms. De
Palacio concerns, the Prestige would not have been aloud to sail
across European waters by the time of the accident. Ms. Loyola de Palacio
She is now aware of the collapse of European roads and rails, as well as about the misuse
of the coastal capabilities of Europe. Under her direction, the European Commission is
changing the access to the port services market, the way goods will be transported in the
future in Europe and even the containers that will be used for that purpose. Indeed more
contrary reactions and demonstration will come on the way, but the agenda is already on
the table and the clock has started to run.
Footnotes:
(1) See the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council in Intermodal Loading units.
(2) See id., explanatory memorandum.
(3) Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in
and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community.
(4) Budget foreseen for 1.1.2003 – 31.12.2006
(5)See White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide" http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html
(6)See the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Intermodal Loading Unit.
(7) Id.
(8) Id.
(9) See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council on Market Access to Port Services.
http://www.derechomaritimo.info/pagina/enindex.htm
European Commission
Realise Workshop - Bremen
22 September 2003
Programme for the promotion of

Short Sea Shipping (SSS)
by Wolfgang Elsner
Head of Unit
Short Sea Shipping & Port Policy
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 1

SSS = safe and
sustainable transport
European Commission White Paper on
European Transport Policy for 2010 proposes a
policy for the promotion of SSS
Transport Ministers of the EU Member States

met in Gijón (2002), inviting the Commission to
elaborate an Action Plan for SSS

REALISE Research
Project expected results
• Statistics:
•Electronic distance matrix for converting tonnes into
ton-kms
•Origin-destination data door to door
•Feeder statistics
•Evolution of unitised cargo
•Comparative Emission study (is SSS more or less harmful

to the environment than other modes?)
•Comparative Price study (is SSS cheaper of more

expensive than other modes?)

Shortsea Promotion
Centres (SPCs)
• SPCs already exist in:
Belgium (Flanders) The Netherlands
Denmark Portugal
Finland Spain
France Sweden
Germany United Kingdom
Greece Lithuania
Ireland Norway
Italy Poland
• SPCs objective: Practical promotion of Short Sea

Shipping

SSS is already a success
story
Freight Transport Modes (Tonne-km Growth in %)
150
140
130
120
% 110
100
90
80
70
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Road SSS IWW Rail

But a number of problems still
hamper SSS development
• Insufficient integration in the intermodal

chain
• Administrative complexity
• Lack of efficiency, flexibility and

transparency in ports

Actions to solve SSS
development problems
• One-Stop commercial shops
• IMO-FAL forms
• Customs Guide
• Port Services
• Port Hinterland Connections
• Loading Units
• Marco Polo
• Motorways of the Sea
Marco Polo (1)
Main breakthroughs in comparison to the previous
PACT programme:
• All segments of SSS, rail and inland waterways
will be co-funded
• Actions involving candidate and accession

countries will be also supported
• Features quantified and verifiable modal shift

objectives

Marco Polo (2)
Three types of actions are proposed:
• Modal shift actions (start-up aid for new

services)
• Catalyst actions (that allow to tackle existing

structural market barriers)
• Common learning actions (useful in improving

co-operation and sharing know-how)

Motorways of the sea
Proposals by the Van Miert Group:
• Motorway of the Baltic Sea
• Motorway of the Sea of Western Europe
• Motorway of the Sea of south-east Europe
• Motorway of the Sea of south-west Europe

European Commission
For further information on the
European Commission Short Sea
Shipping policy please contact:
sss@cec.eu.int
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/
maritime/english/sss/index_sss.html

8
Section
Contents
EU Short Sea Promotion Centers
Overview of the EU Shortsea Promotion Centres
EU listing of “Operational Shortsea Promotion

Centres”
Member States and EA Countries – Sea Shipping

Focal Points
European Shortsea Network Organization and

Objectives information
The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in

Europe (AMRIE) Information
E.S.P.O. (European Sea Ports Organization) Mission

Statement
Regional Action for Logistical integration of Shipping

across Europe (REALISE) information
EU Commission Transport Research Knowledge

Center information
The EU Shortsea Promotion Centres
The establishment of the Shortsea Promotion Centres (SPCs) at a European level,
stemmed from the need indicated in the Communication of the Commission of 1999,
already recommended by the Maritime Institute Forum (MIF) in 1995, to change the
incorrect and negatively perceived image of the maritime transport industry that was
obstructing its potential future development.
The first promotion office was established in Holland in 1997, followed by Belgium,
France, and then Finland. In 2000, all the offices that currently exist were
established.
Right from the start, it was clear that the promotion of information within a single
country would not have been sufficient and that for a more effective way of
developing Short Sea Shipping (SSS), there needed to be a way of acting
collectively, as one unit. In addition, it was also clear that there had be a ‘level
playing field’ on a European level.
After there was a sufficient number of countries with SSS promotion offices, the
process of making the network a reality was started although some offices have
different structures and objectives, all have in common the desire to promote SSS, in
the broad sense of the term, which allows a very practical approach to the activities
of the network.
The first preliminary meeting of the ESN was held in Anversa, on December 1st,
2000. This was followed by the first official meeting (8th March 2001) that the Dutch
SPC organised near their office in Rhoon (Holland), directly after a meeting organised
by the EC on March 7th , 2001. The second official meeting was held on June 28th in
Naples, which was organised by the Italian SPC.
The meetings were helpful to lay down the bases of the co-operation (with some
decisions taken):
• Although the centres will maintain their names of the SPC in their original
language, they will all have a common name in English: Shortsea Promotion
Centre (SPC) followed by the name of the country in English, e.g. Shortsea
Promotion Centre – Italy
• The centres will register a web site with the following domain name:
www.shortsea.extention of the county, e.g. www.shortsea.it (Italy),
www.shortsea.nl (Netherlands), or www.shortsea.fr (France);
• Collectively, the centres will register the domain of the common web site,
www.shortsea.info which will simply become, www.shortsea.eu when the
extension is available;
• The network will have the name European Shortsea Network (ESN), with its
own logo, even though the legal structure of the ESN is not separate from the
14+ individual offices.
Within the network, the Italian SPC is responsible for the administration and
development of the CIRCA intra-net site, which was made available to the ESN by
the EC.
In the future, the number of countries within the network will increase, with the
inclusion of the Eastern European countries (Poland has already set up a promotion
centre and a web site: www.shortsea.pl), while Italy has been approaching and
promoting SSS to the countries that border the Mediterranean. These countries can
turn to Italy – the natural logistical platform of the Mediterranean – for advise as
suggested by the EC because of the establishment of a free trade zone in 2010.The
Italian promotion centre is willing to provide information and practical advice to
whichever country wants more information regarding SSS.
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRES
BELGIUM
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - FLANDERS

Internet: www.shortsea.be
DENMARK
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - DENMARK
Internet: www.shortsea.dk
FINLAND
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - FINLAND
Internet : www.shortsea.fi
FRANCE
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - FRANCE
Internet : www.shortsea.fr
GERMANY
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - GERMANY
Internet : www.shortseashipping.de
GREECE
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - GREECE
Internet: www.shortsea.gr
IRELAND
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - IRELAND
Internet : www.shortsea.ie
ITALY
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - ITALY
Internet: www.shortsea.it
NETHERLANDS
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - HOLLAND
Internet: www.shortsea.nl
NORWAY
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - NORWAY
Internet: www.shortseashipping.no
POLAND
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - POLAND
Internet: www.geocities.com/shortseapt/
PORTUGAL
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - PORTUGAL
Internet: www.shortsea.pl
UNITED KINGDOM
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - UK
Internet: www.seaandwater.org
SLOVENIA
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - SLOVENIA
Mr. Andrej Koprivec
e-mail: andrej.koprivec@gov.si
SPAIN
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - SPAIN
Internet: www.short-es.org
SWEDEN
SHORTSEA PROMOTION CENTRE - SWEDEN
Internet: www.maritimeforum.se
From the Shortsea Promotion Center, Italy web site:
http://www.shortsea.it/Home/eng/partners/index.htm
Update: 05 June 2003
CM/cv-s:/secr./SSS meeting
23(5$7,21$/6+2576($352027,21&(175(6
'DQPDUN
)OHPPLQJ:LFKPDQQ%UDQGW'LUHFWRU
2OLHKDYQVYHMVWIORRU
'.$DUKXV&'HQPDUN
7HO
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDGN
HPDLOVKRUWVHD#VKRUWVHDGN
)LQODQG
5LLWWD3|QW\QHQ,QIRUPDWLRQ0DQDJHU
3%
3RKMRLVUDQWD
),325,)LQODQG
7HO
)D[
HPDLOVKRUWVHD#VKRUWVHDILULLWWDSRQW\QHQ#VKRUWVHDIL
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDIL
)ODQGHUV
:LOO\'H'HFNHU0DUNHW3URVSHFWRU
9HUELQGLQJVGRN2RVWNDDL%XV
%($QWZHUS%HOJLXP
7HO
0RELOH
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDEH
HPDLOZLOO\GHGHFNHU#VVVEHFRPVKRUWVHDVKLSSLQJ#VVVEHFRP
)UDQFH
$QGUp*UDLOORW&KDLUPDQ
0DUF$EHLOOH0DQDJLQJ'LUHFWRU
UXHGH&RXUFHOOHV
)53DULV)UDQFH
7HO
0RELOH
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDIU
HPDLOVKRUWVHD#VKRUWVHDIU
*HUPDQ\
*HRUJ:DLVFKQRU0DQDJLQJ'LUHFWRU
7HO
0RELOH
)D[
HPDLO:DLVFKQRU#VKRUWVHDVKLSSLQJGH
5RODQG6FKQHLGHU2SHUDWLRQV
7HO
0RELOH
)D[
HPDLO6FKQHLGHU#VKRUWVHDVKLSSLQJGH
FR%XQGHVPLQLVWHULXPIU9HUNHKU%DXXQG:RKQXQJVZHVHQ
5REHUW6FKXPDQ3ODW]
'(%211*HUPDQ\
LQWHUQHW
ZZZVKRUWVHDVKLSSLQJGHhttp://www.shortseashipping.de/http://www.shortseashipping.
deroland/
HPDLOLQIR#VFKRUWVHDVKLSSLQJGH
*UHHFH
&KULVWRV3DSDJHRUJDNLV$GYLVHURQ6663ROLF\
$NWL0LDRXOL
*53,5$(86*UHHFH
7HO
)D[
HPDLOHHPIS#DWKIRUWKQHWJU
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDJU
,UHODQG
0V %ULGJHW0RQFULHII
,0'26KRUW6HD6KLSSLQJ,QGXVWU\/LDLVRQ2IILFHU
'LUHFW7HO
EULGJHWPRQFULHII#PDULQHLH
&R0DULQH,QVWLWXWH+DUFRXUW6WUHHW
,('XEOLQ,UHODQG
7HO
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDLHHPDLOVKRUWVHD#VKRUWVHDLH
2
,WDO\
3DROD/DQFHOORWWL350NWJ([HFXWLYH
3LD]]D66$SRVWROL
,7520(,WDO\
7HO
7ROOIUHHQXPEHU
RQO\IRU,WDO\
0RELOH
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDLW
HPDLOLQIR#VKRUWVHDLW
SDRODODQFHOORWWL#VKRUWVHDLW
1HWKHUODQGV
6DQGHUYDQ¶W9HUODDW'LUHFWRU
P.O.Box 938,
NL-3160 AC Rhoon,
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 10 5061931
Fax. +31 10 5061935
e-mail: shortsea@shortsea.nl
internet: www.shortsea.nl
3RODQG
.U]\V]WRI/HZDQRZLF]([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU
8O%\WRPVND
6]F]HFLQ3RODQG
7HO
*60
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDSO
HPDLONO#VKRUWVHDSO
ELXUR#VKRUWVHDSO
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDSO
3RUWXJDO
$QWyQLR%HOPDUGD&RVWD
0DQDJLQJ'LUHFWRU
$YGH2XWXEURQ*
376HW~EDO3RUWXJDO
7HO
0RELOH
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZJHRFLWLHVFRPVKRUWVHDSW
HPDLODSWPFG#FOL[SWRUDDQS#FOL[SW
3
6SDLQ
-RVp)UDQFLVFR9LGDO0DQDJLQJ'LUHFWRU
0DXGHV'FKR
(60DGULG6SDLQ
7HO
)D[
LQWHUQHWZZZVKRUWVHDHVRUJ
email: info@shortsea-es.org
jfvidal@shortsea-es.org
6ZHGHQ
3HU-HVVLQJ6HFUHWDU\JHQHUDO
Marieholmsgatan 1
02 Göteborg, Sweden
Tel. +46 31 7076010
Mobile. +46 70 5100038
Fax. +46 31 154099
internet:www.maritimeforum.se
email:per.jessing@maritimeforum.se,
Info@maritimeforum.se
4
UPDATE: 22 JULY 2003
6($6+,33,1*)2&$/32,176
0(0%(567$7(6$1'($&28175,(6
&RXQWU\ )XOO1DPH (PSOR\HU (PDLODGGUHVV $GGUHVV 7HO )D[
BE Rik GOETINCK Ministerie van de Vlaamse rik.goetinck@lin.vlaanderen.be Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 5 T 32 2 553 77 56
Gemeenschap Afdeling Vlaamse 1000 BRUSSEL
Nautische Autoriteit
BE Ilse HOET Ministerie van de Vlaamse Ilse.hoet@lin.vlaanderen.be Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 5 T 32 2 553 77 36
Gemeenschap 1000 BRUSSEL F 32 2 553 77 15
Afdeling Vlaamse Nautische
Autoriteit
BE Michel JOSEPH Ministère des Communications et michel.joseph@vici.fgov.be Rue d'Arlon 104 T 32 2 230 51 04
de l'Infrastructure B-1040 Brussels F 32 2 230 30 02
Administration des Affaires
Maritimes et de la Navigation
BE Geert VAN CAPPELLEN Flemish Administration of Geert.vancappellen@lin.vlaander Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 5 T 32-2-553.77.51
Waterways & Maritime Affairs en.be 1000 Brussel F 32-2-553.77.15
DE Hartmut BLOCK Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Hartmut.block@bmvbw.bund.de Robert Schuman-Platz 1, T 49-228-300.46.11
Bau und Wohnungswesen D-53175 Bonn-Bad Gdesberg F 49-228-300.45.99
DE Dr. Reinhard PUSCH Bundesministerium für Verkehr, reinhard.pusch@bmvbw.bund.de Robert Schuman-Platz 1 T 49 228 300 46 10
Bau-und Wohnungswesen D-53175 Bonn-Bad Gdesberg F 49 228 300 46 09
DK Kenneth ROSLIND Danish Maritime Authority Ker@dma.dk Vermundsgade 38C T 45-39-17.46.38
2100 Copenhagen F 45-39-17.44.19
DK Mogens Schröder BECH Ministry of Communications Mb@dma.dk Vermundsgade 38C T 45-39-17.45.01
2100 Copenhagen F 45-39-17.44.19
ES Pedro LÓPEZ MAURIZ Direccion General de la Marina plmauri@mfom.es c/Ruiz de Alarcon, 1 T 34 91 597 92 72
Mercante E - 28071 Madrid F 34 91 597 92 35
Jefe de Servicio de Trasnporte ESPANA
Maritimo
FI Harry FAVORIN Ministry of Transport and harry.favorin@mintc.fi POB 235 T 358-9-160 2492
Communications FIN-00131 Helsinki F 358-9-160 2591
FR Nicolas PEHAU Ministère de l’Equipement, des Nicolas.pehau@equipement.gouv. 22 Rue Monge T 33-1-40.81.73.22
Transports et du Logement fr F - 75005 Paris F 33-1-40.81.73.15
GR Venetia KALLIPOLITOU Ministry of Mercantile Marine Venice@yen.gr 150, Grig. Lambraki Ave. T 30-10-419.11.71
GR. 18518 Piraeus F 30-10-417.08.55
1
GR Georgios GIANNIMARAS Ministry of Mercantile Marine. dpns@yen.gr Gr. Lambraki 150 18535 T 30-10 419 13 43
Directorate for Shipping Policy Piraeus F 30-10 417 08 55
and Development
GR Evangelos TSANTSALOS Ministry of Mercantile Marine. dpns@yen.gr Gr. Lambraki 150 18535 T 30-10 419 12 14
Directorate for Shipping Policy Piraeus F 30-10 417 08 55
and Development
IS Sigurbergur BJÖRNSSON Ministry of Communication, sigurbergur.bjornsson@sam.stjr.is Hafnarhusid Tryggvagata 150 T 354 545 8200
Transport and Tourism Reykjavík Iceland F 354 562 1702
IS Helgi JÓHANNESSON The Icelandic Maritime helgij@sigling.is Vesturvör 2 T 354 560 00 00
Administration P.O. Box 120 F 354 560 00 60
IS-202 Kopavogur
Iceland
IE David GLYNN Dpt. Of Communications, Marine David.glyn@dcmnr.gov.ie Leeson Lane T 353-1-618.2400
and Natural Resources IRL-Dublin 2
IT Enrico-Maria PUJIA Ministry of Transport and Pujia@tiscali.it Viale dell’Arte 16 T 39-06-590.84.762
Navigation TMA1@trasportinavigazione.it 00144 Roma Eur F 39-06-590.84.739
NL Xander VAN HOLK Ministry of Transport, Public Xander.vholk@dgg.minvenw.nl P.O. Box 20904 T 31 70 351 16 33
Works NL-2500 Ex Den Haag F 31 70 351 1692
and Water Management
Division
NL Hans C. GARDENIER Ministry of Transport hans.gardenier@dgg.minvenw.nl P.O. Box 20904 NL-2500 EX T 31 70 3511616
Public Works and Water Den Haag F 31 70 3511692
Management
Directorate-General for Freight
Transport
Directorate Transport Industry
Division for Maritime Transport
NO Emil SCHMIDT Ministry of Fisheries Emil.schmidt@fich.dep.no P.O. Box 8014 T 47 22 24 64 35
0030 Oslo F 47 22 24 95 85
NO Grete PETTERSEN Ministry of Trade and Industry Grete.pettersen@nhd.dep.no P.O. Box 8014 Dep T 47-22-240.474
N-0030 Oslo F 47-22-242.779
NO Thomas SAXEGAARD Ministry of Trade and Industry Thomas.saxegaard@nhd.dep.no P.O. Box 8014 Dep T 47-22-240.477
N-0030 Oslo F 47-22-242.779
PT Jorge SEMEDO DA SILVA Directorate-General for Ports, Jorge.semedo@imarpor.pt Edifício Vasco da Gama, T 351-21.3010194
Navigation and Maritime Cais Alcântara-Mar, 1350 Lisbo F 351-21.3016234
Transport
SE Per JESSING Maritime Forum per.jessing@maritimeforum.se Marieholmsgatan 1 T 46 31 707.60.10
S-41502 Gothenburg F 46 31 15 40 99
SE Lars VIEWEG Swedish Maritime Administration lars.vieweg@sjofartsverket.se S-601 78 Norrköping T 46-11-191550
F 46-11-107841
SE Magnus SUNDSTRÖM Swedish Maritime Administration Magnus.sundstrom@sjofartsverke S-601 78 Norrköping T 46-11-191.271
t.se F 46-11-107.841
2
UK John LILLEY Dpt. For Transport John.lilley@dft.gsi.gov.uk 76, Marsham Street – 2/22 T 44-20-7944.68.46
(Great Minster House) F 44-20-7944.2928
SW1P 4DR London
$&&(6,21$1'&$1','$7(&28175,(6
BG Vladimir NEDYALKOV Ministry of Transport and Vnedyalkov@mail.bg or 9 Levski Street T 359-2-930.936

Communications ilhristova@marad.bg BG-1000 Sofia F 359-2-930.0.920
Maritime Administration
ET Olev-Erik LEINO Head of Maritime Division of Olev-Erik.Leino@mkm.ee 11 Harju Street T 37 2 639.76.39
Aviation and Maritime Department. 15072 Tallinn F 37 2 639.76.06
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Estonia
Communications
LT Jelena ANTONEVIC Ministry of Transport and j.antonevic@transp.lt Gedimino av. 17 T 37-05-239.39.87
Communications LT-2679 Vilnius F 37-05-239.38.80
MT Charles SCHEMBRI Ministry for Transport and Charles.schembri@mma.gov.mt House of The Four Winds T 356-21.22.26.79
Communications Hastings Gardena F 356-21.22.22.08
Ports Directorate MT-Valletta CMR 02
Malta
PL Andrzej GDULA Director of the Maritime agdula@mi.gov.pl 6, Chalubinskiego Str. T 48-22-628 64 38
Transport Department PL - 00-928 Warsaw F 48-22-830 09 47
SI Andrej KOPRIVEC Ministry of Transport andrej.koprivec@gov.si Langusova 4 T 386-1-478 82 11
SI-1535 Ljubljana F 386-1-478 82 30
RO Mircea MARINEL Ministry of Public Works, News24@mt.ro Bd. Dinicu GOLESCU no.38 T 40-21-224 90 12
Transport and Housing Bucharest-ROMANIA F 40-21-223 05 81
Expert on Maritime transport and
Inland Waterways
TR Hayati OZCAN Ministry of Transports Hayatiozcan1961@hotmail.com T 90 312 30 90 515
Head of section of ports operation F 90 312 31 26 506
and direction. Directorate-
General for Railways
3
27+(5&28175,(6
HR Alfred Themel Losinjska Plauidba Themel&ri.hinet.hr Ede Jardasa 4 T 385-51-319.000

Rijeka, Croatia
HR Maja Markovcic Kostelac Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Maja.markovcic@pomorstvo.hr Prisavlje 14 T 385-1-616.90.25
Transport and Communications 1000 Zagreb F 385-1-619.59.56
Maritime Authority Croatia
Head of Department
Alfons Guinier MIF Guinier@ecsa.be Rue Ducale 45 32-2-511.39.40

1000 Brussels 32-2-511.80.92
4
9-3-04 4:08:45
Organisation
The European Shortsea Network is a co-operation between all national shortsea promotion centres.
ESN has no legal status, but is an agreement between the members.
• ESN will not have an official board. Although a chairman will be active to co-ordinate the
work of ESN. The chairman will be from the promotion centre of the country that chairs the
European Council. The chairman will also be active for the same period, which is 6 months.
In case an EU member has no promotion centre, the sitting chairmanship will be extended by
3 months and the following chairman will start 3 month earlier.
• One of the national promotion centres will be responsible for the financial affairs of the
network. They will manage the bank account of the network, make payments and report
financial results each quarter. This centre will also monitor the annual returns that are agreed
upon by an external controller.
The members that have signed the MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) support the grant
application and are jointly responsible.
• All the other work of ESN will be carried out by working groups or by one single centre.
These groups can either be permanent or temporary in nature. Working agreements will be
made according to each individual case.
Membership
• The membership of ESN is not exclusively opened for European Union member states, but is
in principle open to all shortsea promotion centres from European countries
• Promotion centres from non-EU countries will be associate members.
• Although membership is in principle open to all European shortsea promotion centres, the
criteria is that the centres have to be active on a national basis or at least active in a federal
state such as Flanders.
• Co-operation with local shortsea centres is possible and should be co-ordinated through the
national bureau.
• ESN should encourage European countries to establish a shortsea promotion centre,
especially those countries that are eligible for EU membership.
• Membership ends if the shortsea centre in question ceases their activities or if the activities
do not meet with standards for promotion of the other members and/or the network.
Disclaimer: The ESN strives to ensure that the information (expressed or implied) is correct. Every precaution will be taken to provide
accurate and up to date information for this site. However the ESN cannot be responsible for any error or omission. The ESN also
reserves the right to terminate the distribution, modify, substitute or delete the contents of this website without prior notice.
9-3-04 4:20:00
Objectives
The main objective of the European Shortsea Network (ESN) is to promote short sea in the broadest
sense of the word on a European level. The definition of the European Commission will be used.
Short sea shipping means the movement of cargo and passengers by sea between ports situated in
geographical Europe or between those ports and ports situated in non-European countries having a
coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe.
Short sea shipping includes domestic and international maritime transport, including feeder services,
along the coast to and from the islands, rivers and lakes. The concept of short sea shipping also
extends to maritime transport between the Member States of the Union and Norway and Iceland and
other States on the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
The ESN should strengthen the activities of the national centres in promoting short sea with shippers,
forwarders, etc. Other main points are:
• The exchange of ideas between centres to stimulate individual national work (best practise)
• Support and guidance to newly established centres beginning their work
• Identification of common problems, needs and bottlenecks arising from the contacts with the
(potential) users
The promotion is aimed at the following target groups:
• Shippers and forwarders

• Logistics/transport service providers, including road hauliers
• Shortsea shipping lines, ship owners and agents, ports
• EU bodies and national governments
• European organisations, such as ECSA, ESPO etc, etc
• Inland shipping and rail
Targets
Quantitative targets are difficult to define and measured for a promotion-orientated organisation like
ESN. However, the following points give a direction for the work and activities of ESN.
• To create awareness of the ESN and provide contact details to all national and European
potential users of shortsea transport, shipping companies and organisations.
• One of the main targets of ESN is to play a significant role in enhancing the growth rate of
shortsea shipping. Ideally the growth rate should be higher than other modes of transport, in
particular road transport.
• To pursue these goals in the general context and objectives of the EU policy.
Disclaimer: The ESN strives to ensure that the information (expressed or implied) is correct. Every precaution will be taken to provide
accurate and up to date information for this site. However the ESN cannot be responsible for any error or omission. The ESN also
reserves the right to terminate the distribution, modify, substitute or delete the contents of this website without prior notice.
The Alliance of
Maritime Regional
Interests in Europe
An initiative of Members of the
European Parliament
AMRIE Missions
AMRIE, The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in Europe was formed in 1993 on the initiative of three
Members of the European Parliament - Alan Donnelly (rapporteur on the Commission Communication on
"New challenges for maritime industries"), Brigitte Langenhagen and Roberto Speciale - in connection with the
launching of the Maritime Industries Forum. (more on AMRIE's origins). They are now 23 sponsoring MEPs who
support AMRIE
The goal was to give the maritime regional interests in Europe an effective political voice and to contribute to
establishing an "Integrated Maritime Strategy". Indeed, it is in the regions that the integration and co-
ordination of maritime activities effectively take place. The ambition is to ensure that there is the political will and
drive to implement the measures which are identified as being beneficial to the regional maritime activities.
AMRIE is the platform for people involved to express their ideas, protect their interests and develop the
prosperity of the European maritime economy at the regional level
1 - The MAIN THEMES of AMRIE policy are economic development, transport economics, employment,
environment and excellence, all within the framework of improving competitiveness.
2 - The MEANS OF ACTION are
• Policy Development to influence and shape the EU policy-making process affecting the European
Maritime Economy. This means frequent and close contacts with the European Parliament, the European
Commission, the Committee of the Regions, ECOSOC and the Council of Ministers.
AMRIE tries to influence the draft Directives, Regulations, Communications, White and Green Papers
from the Commission, to ensure that the interests of the maritime regions are properly considered and
favour a development of the European Maritime economy. With this aim in view, AMRIE prepares clearly
stated position papers and regular briefings for MEPs.
• Networking between AMRIE members and other maritime organisations to launch common research
and technology projects which are in line with the AMRIE policy development activities. Click here to see
the projects in which the AMRIE Secretariat is involved.
• Communication and Information for AMRIE members and potential members on the activities of
AMRIE and of the European Institutions as well as on opportunities for networking. See News Flash and
High Level Conference.
3 -The MAIN SECTORS that AMRIE wants to develop because they are key factors
for the competitiveness of the maritime regions are
• Maritime transport :
o A great deal of work has been done on the Trans European transport networks, which will
make the regions more accessible
o Our main action is to promote short sea shipping, an environmentally friendly and economic
mode of transport. AMRIE was a member of the DG Transport Concerted Action on Short Sea
Shipping, that has published an Internet database. We have also prepared position papers on
Short Sea Shipping and launched Regional promotion centres. AMRIE is now the co-ordinator
of REALISE, a Thematic Network on Short Sea Shipping, funded by the European Commission
DG TREN.
• Maritime industries : AMRIE is very much concerned with the situation of the European
Shipbuilding Industry and notably the issues of unfair competition of South Korean yards and of new
regulation on State aids
• Shipping quality : One of the principal targets of our work has been the elimination of substandard
ships to raise safety levels and avoid pollution and the reinforcement of the Port State Control. Further
to the Erika accident, AMRIE has published several position papers and continues to support the work of
the European Commission to increase safety at sea.
• Marine Environmental care : AMRIE is developing a programme of actions covering the key
environmental aspects of maritime industrial activities.
• Research and Development : AMRIE was very active, during the preparation of the Sixth Framework
RTD Programme, working to create a budget line for "surface transports" and to increase the budget
available for maritime projects. The AMRIE Secretariat is a member of several research consortia
• Maritime Information Society : AMRIE was the initiator of MARIS, the Maritime Information Society
and launched in 1994 the idea to create a specific project for the use of Information Technology to
improve maritime activities. MARIS was then adopted as an international pilot project by the G7
Summit in 1995. The principal objective of MARIS was to increase political awareness of the impact that
information technology has in areas such as maritime safety, transport, industrial activities and marine
resources and to support relevant projects. It has been very successful in raising the political profile of
the maritime industries and improving co-ordination on these matters across the Directorates of the
European Commission. Now, AMRIE is involved in several projects dealing with an
increased use of IST.
• Education and training : Regional centres of excellence in AMRIE have concentrated on

networking between organisations concerned with education, training and technological developments.
• Spatial planning : Our membership has established a number of major maritime projects, including
the Mediterranean project (ARCMEDPLUS).
See more information on AMRIE organisation chart or membership
AMRIE Specialist Working

Groups
AMRIE has created five Specialist Working Groups, consisting of both political
representatives from the regions and specialists from industry, commerce and other
AMRIE members. They prepare recommendations for the Steering Group and the
Secretariat and meet three times per year. They deal with
• Short Sea Shipping and Intermodality

• Maritime Regional Economic Development - MARED
• Shipping Quality
• Centres of Excellence
• Marine Environmental Care
Summary of previous matins, held between 15th and

19th February 2004
• The Steering Group has confirmed the creation within AMRIE of a
policy research institute (APRI) to develop the think-tank activities
of AMRIE in the fields of maritime transport and maritime regional
development.
• Several study proposals will be prepared by the AMRIE Secretariat:
- A study on taxonomy of maritime regions and the regional economic
role of ports
- A study on "software" aspects of ports in Accession countries
• A regionally-based demonstration on places of refuge is envisaged
(how to manage maritime disasters in places of refuge and help taking
rational decisions to accept ships in places of refuge)
• Several resolutions will be prepared for the next General Assembly
(on TENs-T, on the enlargement of the Union from a maritime
perspective, on training, on R&D, on places of refuge and on the
environmental impact of TENs-T)
• Interesting presentations, followed by lively discussion, were given
by Mr Ismo Koskinen (on the activities and projects of DG Tren to
promote short sea shipping) and by Mr Louis Baumard (on EMSA)
• Progress reports were made on REALISE, EUROSION, I-MARQ,
SEAM, DG Environment Marine Strategy, ICZM, etc.
Specialist Working Group on Short Sea Shipping and

Intermodality
• Missions : Discussions, exchange of ideas and proposals for the
development of Short Sea Shipping, its inclusion in the whole logistics
transport chain and the improvement of Intermodality
• Chairman : Kari Hannus (City of Pori)
• Vice-chair : Harry Heijveld (University of Plymouth)
• Last meeting : 17 February 2004
• Next meeting : 16 June 2004 at 10:00
Back to top
Specialist Working Group on Maritime Regional

Economic Development (MARED)
• Missions : Discussions, exchange of ideas and proposals to improve
maritime regional economic development, the input of the regional and
local Authorities and the development of port cities and urban areas.
• Chair : Marco Rolandi (Region of Liguria)
• Vice-chair : Aude Leblanc (MEF of Cherbourg)
• Last meeting: 17 February 2004
• Next meeting : 16 June 2004 at 14:00
Back to top
Specialist Working Group on Shipping Quality

• Missions: Discussions and proposals for the improvement of safety at
sea and the elimination of substandard ships, monitoring of EU policy
developments.
• Chairman: Des Howell (Isle of Man)
• Vice chairman: Allan Graveson (NUMAST)
• Next Meeting : 15 June 2004 at 14:00
Back to top
Specialist Working Group on Centres of Excellence

• Missions: Exchange of experience, launching of common projects in
the fields of Research and Development and of Education and Training,
monitoring of EU policy developments.
• Chairman: Richard Garcia (Gibraltar Maritime Authority)
• Vice chairman: Luigi Mor (CETENA, Italy)
• Next Meeting : 17 June 2004 at 10:00
Back to top
Specialist Working Group on Marine Environmental Care

• Missions: Exchange of experiences, launching of common projects for
the protection of the maritime environment and the coastal
management, monitoring of EU policy developments.
• Chairman: Tom Reincke (Gauss/Bremen, Germany)
• Vice chairman: Manfred Grigo (MIZ, Germany)
• Next Meeting : 17 June 2004 at 14:30 in Ostend
EUROPEAN SEA
PORTS
ORGANISATION
About ESPO
MISSION STATEMENT
ESPO’s mission is to influence public policy in the

EU to achieve a safe, efficient and
environmentally sustainable European port
sector, operating as a key element of a transport
industry where free and undistorted market
conditions prevail, as far as practicable.
Key objectives :
• To ensure that the economic importance of

European ports is recognized in the EU and
its Member States and that the sector is
consulted substantively on any measure
likely to affect it;
• To promote free and fair competition in the
port sector;
• To ensure that European ports play their
full part in delivering economic efficiency;
• To promote the highest possible safety
standards in European ports;
• To encourage ports to be proactive in
protecting the environment.
REALISE:
Regional Action for Logistical Integration of Shipping across Europe.
REALISE is a three year Thematic Network with 6 Principal Contractors, 26 members,

and 6 Work Packages, under the Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme ,
starting the 1st October 2002.
The overall objective of REALISE – taking account of what has already been achieved
by EU and national activities and projects – is to develop technological strategies,
methodologies, and tools for the European business community and decision-makers in
order to encourage the use of short sea shipping. These efforts will focus on the carriage
of unitised cargo.
The project is to assist European business actors and policy-makers to secure the key
maritime transport objective of the European Commission White Paper on ‘A European
Transport Policy’. This is to achieve a substantial modal shift of incremental freight
from road to sea and a development of intermodality during the next decade. REALISE
sets out to provide these methodologies and tools in the context of the development of
short sea shipping via its integration in the complete logistics supply chain.
In the context of the above mentioned objectives the work programme of REALISE is
focussed on three integrative studies: Statistics, Environment impact, Multi-modal
pricing and cost structures.
REALISE, in the service of this overall aim, will pre-figure the establishment of a
Virtual European Research Area/Platform covering all aspects of short sea.
≥≥ ≥ CONTACTS:
Michael Lloyd: Network Co-ordinator
Walter Vassallo: Project Manager
http://www.realise-sss.org/default.aspx
Site last updated: 12-12-2003
Knowledge Centre integrating transport research results at EU and

national level
This site provides a library of significant findings from the Fourth Framework
Research Programme underpinning policy developments in transport.
The aim is to provide a reference point for decision-makers from national,

regional and local administrations, industry and researchers.
In early 2004, an extended web site will be launched. This will cover not only EU
supported but also nationally financed research in the European Research Area.
To fulfil this ambitious objective, for the first time ever in Europe, the European
Commission has designed a Reporting Scheme that will be used by programme
managers and project coordinators to collect, structure and disseminate
research results in a harmonised way thus providing an integrated overview of
transport issues and key thematic findings.
Information on completed projects
You can search by theme and mode for summaries of project results and their
policy implications.
Relating research to policy
In our publications and thematic overviews, you can study the overall
contribution of research to the development of policy in key areas.
Accessing more detail
You can download the final reports of research projects and find links to their
web sites.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/index.html
European Commission Transport Website
9
Section
Contents
The Trans-European Transport Networks “TEN-T”

transport policy & funding
EU Commission overview statement of the trans-

European Transport Network (TEN-T)
EU Commission TEN-T Community Guidelines
overview
EU Commission official statement re “Enlargement
of the trans-European Transport Network:
Commission proposes new projects and new funds to
dynamise Europe
EU Commission official MEMO detailing the EU
Commissions proposals entitled “The trans-
European Transport Network: new guidelines and
financial rules”
EU Commission official MEMO detaining
Innovative funding solutions – Interoperability of
electronic toll systems
The Trans-European Transport Networks "TEN-T"
Overview
In contributing to the implementation and development of the Internal Market, as

well as re-enforcing economic and social cohesion, the construction of the trans-
European transport network is a major element in economic competitiveness and a
balanced and sustainable development of the European Union.
This development requires the interconnection and interoperability of national

networks as well as the access to them.
Lastly, to achieve these objectives, the Community has established guidelines

covering the objectives, priorities, the definition of projects of common interest, and
the main themes of the envisaged measures.
From European Commission web site:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/index_en.htm
The Trans-European Transport Networks "TEN-T"
Community Guidelines
Introduction to the Community Guidelines for the development of

the Trans-European Transport Network
On July 1996 the European Parliament and Council adopted Decision N°

1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-
European transport network (TEN-T). These guidelines comprises roads,
railways, inland waterways, airports, seaports, inland ports and traffic
management systems which serve the entire continent, carry the bulk of
the the long distance traffic and bring the geographical and economic areas
of the Union closer together.
The legal basis for the TEN-T is provided in the Treaty on the European
Union. Under the terms of Chapter XV of the Treaty (Articles 154, 155 and
156), the European Union must aim to promote the development of trans-
European networks as a key element for the creation of the Internal
Market and the reinforcement of Economic and Social Cohesion. This
development includes the interconnection and interoperability of
national networks as well as access to such networks.
In accordance with these broad objectives, the Community developed the

above mentioned guidelines, a general reference framework for the
implementation of the network and identification of projects of common
interest. The time horizon to complete the network is 2010. The maps in
Annex I of Decision 1692/96/EC illustrate the outline of the trans-European
transport network as planned for 2010. The guidelines also includes a list of
14 projects to which the Essen European Council (1994) attributed particular
importance.
Decision 1692/96/EC is addressed primarily to Member States. Member

States are primarily responsible to realise the TEN-T. A number of financial
instruments have been set up at Community level, each with their own legal
basis, in order to conduct the development of the TEN-T and to support
Member States financially in specific cases.
Unfortunately, work is not advancing as rapidly as expected when the idea

of trans-European networks was launched. As indicated in the 1998 TEN-T
implementation report, the investments in the trans-European network
projects in 1996-1997 was about €38 billion, while the financial resources
needed to complete the network in 2010 are estimated to be €400 billion. If
the rate of funding does not increase between now and 2010, there is a
serious likelihood that the network will not be fully completed, in particular
the railway and inland waterway components. This becomes more serious as
traffic flows are rising on several routes.
The European Parliament and the Council adopted in May 2001 Decision N°
1346/2001/EC which amend the TEN-T guidelines as regards seaports,
inland ports and intermodal terminals. It specifies also more in detail the
criteria of projects of common interest in relation to these infrastructures.
With this amendment the multimodal dimension of the network is
emphasised as seaports and inland ports become fully part of the network.
In view of the delays in completing the planned network, the Commission

considers that a headlong rush to create new infrastructure routes cannot be
the answer to the capacity requirements. Instead, the planned revision of
the guidelines should confirm that it is necessary to complete what was
decided in 1996 by focusing Community activities and projects on reducing
the bottlenecks on major routes and on a small number of major projects.
Against this background the Commission initiated in October 2001 a first
revision of TEN-T Guidelines in the lines of the White Paper on a
European transport policy for 2010 to tackle the new challenges facing
transport and to help to meet the objectives of the new transport policy as
described in the White Paper. It aims at reducing the bottlenecks in the
planned or existing network without adding new infrastructure routes by
concentrating investments on a few horizontal priorities and a limited
number of new specific projects.
In parallel the Commission has proposed to amend Regulation (EC)

2236/95, laying down general rules for the granting of Community
aids in the field of trans-European networks. It concentrates on raising
the current maximum level of Community support of 10% to 20% for
specific projects, namely cross-border rail projects in areas with natural
barriers and projects in frontier regions of the candidate countries.
A more fundamental revision the TEN-T Guidelines will be proposed by

the Commission at the end of 2003, to take account of Enlargement and
expected changes in traffic flows. New outline plans for 2020 will be drawn
up with the aim of efficiently channelling tomorrows trans-European traffic
in an enlarged Union. In this context the Commission will look at the idea to
concentrate on a primary network made up of the most important
infrastructure for international traffic and cohesion on the European
continent, introduce the concept of 'sea motorways' and include sections of
pan-European corridors situated on the territory of candidate countries,
including those which will still not be members of the Union at that time.
From European Commission web site:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/guidelines/index_en.htm
IP/03/1322
Brussels, 1 October 2003
Enlargement of the trans-European transport

network: Commission proposes new projects and
new funds to dynamise Europe
Today the Commission proposed adapting the guidelines for the trans-
European transport network (TEN-T) to the dimensions of the enlarged
European Union. It proposed that a series of priority projects which will cost
a total of €220 billion should be declared to be of European interest. The
extension of the major routes to the future Member States should help to
make enlargement a success and provide the Union with a new opportunity
to reduce congestion and encourage intermodality. This proposal, which
follows up the report by the High-Level Group on the TEN-T chaired by Mr
Van Miert, goes hand in hand with a parallel proposal to amend the rules on
financial aid for the TEN-T in order to allow a higher rate of co-funding for the
cross-border sections of the priority projects. This package is part of the
European growth initiative ( IP/03/1321) designed to mobilise new investment
in the trans-European networks and in research, development and innovation
in order to boost the competitiveness of the Union. " The trans-European
networks are a motor and precondition for Europe's economic development
and cohesion. I hope that these latest proposals, adding to the amendments
proposed in 2001, will make it easier to reach agreement rapidly within the
Council and Parliament, as called for by the European Council. The new rules
and structures proposed should provide a means of attracting more funding
to the priority projects and of turning them into reality faster," said Loyola de
Palacio, the Commission Vice-President responsible for energy and
transport.
In addition to publication of a new list of priority projects commensurate with the

enlarged Union, today the Commission also proposed that these projects should be
declared to be of European interest in order to focus on them the resources
available from the various Community financial instruments for the networks. These
declarations of European interest would open the way to coordinating between
Member States the evaluation and public consultation procedures prior to the
authorisation of projects and to carrying out a single transnational enquiry in the case
of certain cross-border sections.
This list is backed up by new rules on coordination and funding of the trans-
European transport network, with a view to closer coordination of the work and
investment on the network, particularly on the cross-border sections. These
proposals incorporate and add to the amendments proposed to the guidelines in
October 2001 and September 2002 and the amendments proposed to the TEN
Financial Regulation in March 2002 and January 2003. They are designed, in
particular, to make it easier to reach agreement within the Council and the European
Parliament.
A limited number of new priority projects. In addition to the projects proposed
back in October 2001, the Commission advocated including in the TEN-T guidelines
the projects proposed in the report by the High-Level Group on the TEN-T on
30 June 2003.1 The new list is annexed. The estimated cost of carrying out all these
projects will be around €220 billion by 2020, €80 billion of which will go to the more
mature projects by 2006. Some 20% of the total amount could be raised from the
private sector and the rest will have to come from the national and Community
budgets, notably within the framework of the financial perspectives after 2006. The
total cost of completion of the trans-European transport network, including the
projects of common interest not identified as priority projects, will add up to €600
billion. Implementation of the priority projects should produce time savings worth
€8 billion a year, help to reduce the growing pollution due to transport, contribute to
more balanced spatial development and boost the growth potential of the Union.
Concentration of aid from the Community. The fact that the priority projects will
be declared to be of European interest will make it easier to focus on them the aid for
the trans-European networks, from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds. In
particular, the new rules for the granting of aid in the field of trans-European
networks propose increasing the co-funding rate from 10% to 30% (compared with
20% in the earlier proposals) for the cross-border sections of the priority projects.
This rate should provide a greater incentive for implementation of projects like public-
private partnerships. These new rules would also allow multiannual commitments,
which would provide a guarantee to promoters of TEN-T projects plus flexibility in the
financial commitments.
A new mechanism for supporting motorways of the sea is proposed to
encourage joint initiatives by the Member States to launch new regular transnational
cargo shipping lines. This mechanism will enable Member States, with Community
assistance, to support packages involving infrastructure, logistic systems and launch
aid. It will give motorways of the sea which improve links with islands and countries
isolated by natural barriers such as the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Baltic Sea the
same importance as motorways and railways in the trans-European network.
Closer international cooperation. Delays in completion of links reduces the return
on the investments made by neighbouring Member States on the same route. To
encourage better synchronisation of investment, the Commission proposes
designating, case by case, a European coordinator for projects or groups of
projects located on the same European route. The coordinator, acting in the name
and on behalf of the Commission, will also give advice on the financial package for
the projects.
Coordinated evaluation procedures: To solve the difficulties caused by Member
States' separate national evaluation procedures, the Commission has proposed to
Member States coordinated evaluation and public consultation procedures prior to
the authorisation of projects. For certain cross-border sections, such as bridges or
tunnels, the Member States could, for example, conduct a transnational enquiry.
1
The projects on "list 1" in the report. For further details, see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/revision/hlg_en.htm
2
Annex:
Priority projects declared to be of European interest

(indicative list; see the text of the decision for the authentic list)
New projects compared with the 2001 Commission proposal are shown in
italics. The indicative date proposed for completion of the projects is shown in
brackets.
1. Railway line Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-Napoli-Messina

– Halle/Leipzig–Nürnberg (2015);
– Nürnberg-München (2006);
– München–Kufstein (2015);
– Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009);
– Brenner tunnel (2015), cross-border section;
– Verona–Napoli (2007);
– Milano–Bologna (2006);
– Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015).
2. High-speed railway line Paris-Bruxelles/Brussel-Köln-Amsterdam-London

– Channel tunnel-London (2007);
– Bruxelles/Brussel-Liège-Köln (2007);
2
– Bruxelles/Brussel-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007).
3. High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe

– Lisboa/Porto–Madrid (2011);
– Madrid-Barcelona (2005);
– Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2008);
– Perpignan–Montpellier (2015);
– Montpellier–Nîmes (2010);
– Madrid-Vitoria-Irun/Hendaye (2010);
– Irun/Hendaye–Dax, cross-border section (2010);
– Dax–Bordeaux (2020);
– Bordeaux–Tours (2015).
4. High-speed railway line east

– Paris-Baudrecourt (2007);
– Metz-Luxembourg (2007);
– Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007).
5. Betuwe line (2007).

3
6. Railway line Lyon–Trieste/Koper–Ljubljana–Budapest-Ukrainian border
– Lyon–St Jean de Maurienne (2015);
– Mont-Cenis tunnel (2015-2017), cross-border section;
– Bussoleno–Torino (2011);
– Torino-Venezia (2010);
– Venezia–Trieste/Koper–Divaca (2015);
– Ljubljana–Budapest (2015).
2
Including the two high-speed train stations in Rotterdam and Amsterdam which were not
included in the project endorsed by the Essen European Council in 1994.
3
Parts of this route correspond to pan-European corridor V.
3
7. Motorway route Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athina-Sofia–Budapest
– Via Egnatia (2006);
– Pathe (2008);
– Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border motorway (2010), with Promahon-Kulata as cross-border
section;
– Nadlac–Sibiu motorway (branch towards Bucuresti and Constanta) (2007).
8. Multimodal link Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe

– Railway line Coruña-Lisboa-Sines (2010);
– Railway line Lisboa-Valladolid (2010);
– Railway line Lisboa-Faro (2004);
– Lisboa-Valladolid motorway (2010);
– Coruña-Lisboa motorway (2003);
– Sevilla-Lisboa motorway (completed 2001);
– New Lisboa airport (2015).
4
9. Railway line Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer (2001)
10. Malpensa (completed 2001)
11. Öresund fixed link (completed 2000)
12. Nordic triangle railway line/road

5
– Road and railway projects in Sweden (2010);
– Helsinki-Turku motorway (2010);
– Railway line Kerava-Lahti (2006);
– Helsinki–Vaalimaa motorway (2015);
– Railway line Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2014).
13. UK/Ireland/Benelux road link (2010)
14. West coast main line (2007)
15. Galileo (2008)
16. Freight railway line Sines-Madrid-Paris

– New high-capacity rail link across the Pyrenees;
– Railway line Sines-Badajoz (2010).
17. Railway line Paris–Strasbourg–Stuttgart–Wien–Bratislava

– Paris-Baudrecourt (2007);
– Metz-Luxembourg (2007);
– Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007);
– Baudrecourt–Strasbourg–Stuttgart (2015) with the Kehl bridge as cross-border section;
– Stuttgart–Ulm (2012);
– München–Salzburg (2015), cross-border section;
– Salzburg–Wien (2012);
– Wien–Bratislava (2010), cross-border section.
6
18. Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway route
– Rhine–Meuse (2019) with the lock of Lanaye as cross-border section;
– Vilshofen–Straubing (2013);
– Wien–Bratislava (2015) cross-border section;
– Palkovicovo–Mohàcs (2014);
– Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011).
4
A further increase in capacity on this line was decided in 2003 and added to list 1 as a
separate project.
5
A few short sections of road and railway line will be completed between 2010 and 2015.
6
Part of this route corresponds to the definition of pan-European corridor VII.
4
19. High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula
– Madrid-Andalucia (2010);
– North-east (2010);
– Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2010);
– North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2010);
– Extremadura (2010).
20. Fehmarn Belt railway line

– Fehmarn Belt fixed rail/road link (2014);
– Railway line for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015);
– Railway line for access in Germany from Hannover (2015);
– Railway line Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015).
21. Motorways of the sea

Projects concerning one of the following motorways of the sea:
– Motorway of the Baltic Sea (linking the Baltic Sea Member States with Member States in Central
and Western Europe) (2010);
– Motorway of the sea of western Europe (leading from the Iberian peninsula via the Atlantic Arc to
the North Sea and the Irish Sea) (2010);
– Motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (connecting the Adriatic Sea to the Ionian Sea and the
Eastern Mediterranean to include Cyprus) (2010);
– Motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (western Mediterranean), connecting Spain, France,
7
Italy and including Malta, and linking with the motorway of the sea of south-east Europe. (2010)
8
22. Railway line Athina–Sofia–Budapest–Wien–Praha–Nürnberg/Dresden
– Railway line Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia–Vidin/Calafat (2015);
– Railway line Curtici–Brasov (towards Bucuresti and Constanta) (2010);
– Railway line Budapest–Wien (2010), cross-border section;
– Railway line Brno–Praha–Nürnberg (2010), with Nürnberg–Praha as cross-border section.
9
23. Railway line Gdansk–Warszawa–Brno/Bratislava-Wien
– Railway line Gdansk–Warszawa–Katowice (2015);
– Railway line Katowice–Brno-Breclav (2010);
– Railway line Katowice-Zilina-Nove Misto n.V. (2010).
24. Railway line Lyon/Genova–Basel–Duisburg–Rotterdam/Antwerpen

10
– Lyon–Mulhouse–Mülheim, with Mulhouse-Mülheim as cross-border section (2018);
– Genova–Milano/Novara-Swiss border (2013);
– Basel–Karlsruhe (2015);
– Frankfurt–Mannheim (2012);
11
– Duisburg–Emmerich (2009);
– "Iron Rhine" Rheidt–Antwerpen (2010).
12
25. Motorway route Gdansk–Brno/Bratislava-Wien
– Gdansk–Katowice motorway (2010);
– Katowice–Brno/Zilina motorway (2010), cross-border section
– Brno–Wien motorway (2009), cross-border section
26. Railway line/road Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe

13
– Road/railway corridor linking Dublin with the North (Belfast-Larne) and South (Cork) (2010);
– Road/railway corridor Hull-Liverpool (2015);
– Railway line Felixstowe–Nuneaton (2011);
– Railway line Crewe–Holyhead (2008);
– West coast main line (2007).
7
Including to the Black Sea.
8
This major route largely corresponds to the definition of pan-European corridor IV.
9
This major route largely corresponds to the definition of pan-European corridor VI.
10
Including the TGV Rhin-Rhône, minus the western branch.
11
Project No 5 (Betuwe line) links Rotterdam and Emmerich.
12
This major route largely corresponds to the definition of pan-European corridor VI.
13
Including Essen project No 13: road link Ireland/United Kingdom/Benelux.
5
27. "Rail Baltica" line Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn
– Warsaw–Kaunas (2010);
– Kaunas–Riga (2014);
– Riga–Tallinn (2016).
28. "Eurocaprail" on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway line

– Brussels–Luxembourg-Strasbourg (2012).
29. Railway line of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor

– Kozani–Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012);
– Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014).
The date in brackets is that agreed in advance for completion of the work. The dates for completion of
the work on projects 1-20 and the details of the sections have been taken from the report of the High-
Level Group, where indicated.
6
European Commission MEMO
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport
The trans-European transport

network: new guidelines and
financial rules
The Commission’s proposals
The trans-European transport network (TEN-T) needs to be broadened to improve territorial cohesion and
boost the competitiveness and growth potential of the enlarged European Union. The extension of the
network to the future Member States provides a new opportunity to reduce congestion on the major routes
and encourage intermodality in the enlarged Europe. It is against this backdrop that the Commission
proposed on 1st October 2003, a new revision of the trans-European transport network guidelines and of
the TEN-T financial rules with a view to adapt them to their new required dimension. This proposed revision
complements and updates its 2001 proposals for an adaptation of the guidelines and of the TEN-T financial
rules. Its aim is to concentrate resources on priority infrastructure projects and to facilitate Council and
Parliament’s agreement on these new proposals so that they can enter into force as soon as possible, as
requested by the European Council.
1. What is the trans-European transport network?
The trans-European transport network (TEN-T) has a crucial role in

securing the free movement of goods in the European Union. It carries The current TEN-T network in
about half of all freight and passengers. The guidelines for the TEN-T figures
define the Union's priorities by attaching the network "label" to certain
routes, so channelling EU financial support to projects with greater • 75200 km of roads
Community added value. TEN-T budget, Cohesion Fund, ERDF play an • 78000 km of railtracks
• 330 airports
important role supporting, through direct grants TEN-T projects, while
• 270 international sea ports
EIB provides loans. The network serves as a reference framework for
• 210 inland ports
other Community legislation and promotes the economic, social and
• Traffic management systems,
territorial cohesion of the Union. Some major projects are included in a navigation and user information
list of priority projects. They only represent a part of the numerous systems are also part of the TEN-
projects of the TEN-T, however their selection from a wide-range of T network
projects gives them a high profile making it possible to concentrate,
attract and co-ordinate financial resources.
1
MEMO
2. Revising the guidelines and the TEN-T financial rules

The first guidelines for the TEN-T network were established in 19961. They need to be reviewed. As
underlined in the 2001 White Paper on transport2, they should be adapted to take into account a worrying
increase in congestion due to the persistence of bottlenecks, missing links, a lack of interoperability, and
the pressing need to promote a modal rebalancing. The prospect of enlargement to include 12 new
countries accentuates the need for a new approach to preserve the competitiveness of the European
economy and to guarantee a balanced and sustainable development of transport. Since then, the
European Councils of Göteborg, Barcelona and Brussels have repeatedly called on the Community
institutions to adopt revised guidelines by 2003 and new priority projects.
A first limited revision was proposed by the Commission in October 2001 and was accepted, in its broad
lines, by the European Parliament on 30 May 2002. The Commission issued a revised proposal in
September 2002 to outline its positions on the Parliament’s amendment but this revised proposal is still
pending an agreement within the Transport Council.
Given the delays that were affecting many key priority projects; particularly in their cross-border sections, a
revision of the financial rules for the TEN-T3 was also proposed in October 2001 with a view to heighten
from 10 to 20% EU financial support to rail projects affected by difficult geographical conditions on their
cross-border sections or for cross-border sections with candidate countries. The Commission issued a
revised proposal in January 2003 following Parliament’s agreement but this revised proposal is also still
pending an agreement from the Council.
Without waiting the final adoption of these proposals, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of
Transport and Energy, Loyola de Palacio, decided to initiate a second step for a more profound revision of
the guidelines for the TEN-T. In order to involve the States and the European Investment Bank from the
outset of this extensive exercise, given the important territorial and financial impacts of major infrastructure
projects, a High-Level Group on the TEN-T was set up by the Commission. The Group, led by the former
commissioner Karel Van Miert issued its report on 30 June 20034.
After a careful examination of the Group’s report, the Commission decided to propose without
waiting new revised proposals for trans-European transport network guidelines and for the TEN-T
financial regulation with a view to facilitate Council and Parliament’s agreement, as requested by
the European Council. The Commission’s proposals not only identify projects of European interest
but also propose a number of solutions to facilitate their financing and their actual implementation.
3. The proposed revision
1. New “priority projects”
a- A refined concept
The trans-European transport network is made up of many projects of common interest. Some
projects are however of particular importance for the European Union given their scale, their role in
supporting transnational trade, in reinforcing the cohesion in the Union or because they help
concentrating long distance traffic flows on environmentally friendly modes of transport. A particular
effort of the Community to support these projects is therefore justified and necessary to ensure a
coherent development of the network and to promote a common vision of its main axes towards
national and regional authorities. These projects, selected according to a strict methodology included
in the guidelines, are called “priority projects”.
1
Decision 1692/96
2
Published on 12 Sept 2001 and available for consultation at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html
3
Regulation 2236/95
4
More information at http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/revision/hlg_en.htm
2
MEMO
The Commission proposes for each for them a Declaration of European Interest which entails:
• A concentration of EU financial resources. A new Article of the draft Decision proposes that
TEN-T funds, cohesion funds, structural funds and ISPA funds be concentrated on priority
projects.
• An incitation for Member States to stick to the agreed timetable by introducing the possibility
of withdrawing the project from the list in case of unjustified delays.
• Ex-post evaluations of each project to prepare the next revisions and improve project
evaluation methods. These evaluations would be made available to the Commission.
• A coordinated evaluation and public consultation procedures, prior to the project’s assent.
In the case of certain cross-border sections like tunnels or bridges, Members will have the
possibility to implement a single transnational enquiry to evaluate and consult the project.
b- A new list of priority projects
The Commission proposes to include all projects identified in the list 1 of the High Level Group report
published on 30th June and three projects which were debated within the group and for which new
development since June make them to meet the criteria. These new projects therefore come as an
addition to the 6 new projects and 2 new extensions proposed by the Commission in October 2001
and approved by the European Parliament in May 2002.
New proposed projects (as compared with the 2001 proposal) are in italics. The indicative date of
5
completion is in between brackets.
1. Rail axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Napoli-Messina-Palermo

– Halle/Leipzig–Nürnberg (2015)
– Nürnberg-München (2006)
– München–Kufstein (2015)
– Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009)
– Brenner Tunnel (2015), cross-border section
– Verona–Napoli (2007)
– Milano–Bologna (2006)
– Rail/road bridge over the Messina Strait (2015)
2. High Speed Rail Axis Paris-Bruxelles-Köln-Amsterdam-London
– Tunnel under the English Channel - London (2007)
– Bruxelles/Brussel-Liège-Köln (2007)
Bruxelles/Brussel-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007)
6
–
3. High Speed Rail Axis of South-West Europe
– Lisboa/Porto–Madrid (2011)
– Madrid-Barcelona (2005)
– Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2008)
– Perpignan–Montpellier (2015)
– Montpellier–Nîmes (2010)
– Madrid-Vitoria-Irun/Hendaye (2010)
– Irún/Hendaye–Dax, cross-border section (2010)
– Dax–Bordeaux (2020)
– Bordeaux–Tours (2015)
4. TGV East
– Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)
– Metz-Luxembourg (2007)
– Saarbrück-Mannheim (2007)
5. Betuwe Line (2007)
6. Rail Axis Lyon–Trieste/ Koper– Ljubljana– Budapest- Ukrainian border
– Lyon–St-Jean-de-Maurienne (2015)
– Mont-Cenis tunnel (2015-2017), cross-border section
– Bussoleno–Torino (2011)
– Torino-Venice (2010)
– Venice–Trieste/Koper–Divaca (2015)
– Ljubljana–Budapest (2015)
5
For the sake of clarity, all completed sections are not indicated.
6
Incl 2 TGV stations (Rotterdam and Amsterdam) not foreseen in the project adopted by the European Council of Essen in 1994.
3
MEMO
7. Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athina-Sofia–Budapest

– Via Egnatia (2006)
– Pathe (2008)
– Motorway Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010), with Promahon-Kulata as cross-border section
– Motorway Nadlac–Sibiu–(section towards Bucuresti and Constanta) (2007)
8. Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain with the rest of Europe
– Rail line Coruña-Lisboa-Sines (2010)
– Rail line Lisboa-Valladolid (2010)
– Rail line Lisboa-Faro (2004)
– Motorway Lisboa-Valladolid (2010)
– Motorway Coruña- Lisboa (2003)
– Motorway Sevilla- Lisboa (completed-2001)
– Lisboa new airport (2015)
7
9. Rail link Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer (2001)
10. Malpensa airport (completed-2001)
11. Fixed link Öresund (completed-2000)
12. Rail/road axis of the Nordic Triangle
8
– Road and rail projects in Sweden (2010)
– Motorway Helsinki-Turku (2010)
– Rail link Kerava-Lahti (2006)
– Motorway Helsinki–Vaalimaa (2015)
– Rail link Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2014)
13. Road link UK/Ireland/Benelux (2010)
14. West Coast Main Line (2007)
15. Galileo (2008)
16. Freight rail line Sines-Madrid-Paris
– New trans-pyrenean high capacity rail line (2020)
– Rail line Sines-Badajoz (2010)
17. Rail axis Paris–Strasbourg–Stuttgart–Wien–Bratislava
– Baudrecourt–Strasbourg–Stuttgart (2015) with the Kehl bridge as cross-border section
– Stuttgart–Ulm (2012)
– München–Salzburg (2015), cross-border section
– Salzburg–Wien (2012)
– Wien–Bratislava (2010), cross-border section.
18. Rhin/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway route
– Rhin–Meuse (2019) with the lock of Lanay as cross-border section
– Vilshofen–Straubing (2013)
– Wien–Bratislava (2015) cross-border section
– Palkovicovo–Mohàcs (2014)
– Bottlenecks in Roumana and Bulgaria (2011)
19. High Speed Rail Interoperability of the Iberian Peninsula
– Madrid-Andalucia (2010)
– Nordeste (2010)
– Madrid-Levante y Mediterráneo (2010)
– Corredor Norte-Noroeste, including Vigo-Porto (2010)
– Extremadura (2010)
20. Rail axis of Fehmarn Belt
– Fixed rail/road link Fehmarn Belt (2014)
– Railway line for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015)
– Railway line for access in Germany from Hannover (2015)
– Rail line Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015)
21. Motorways of the Sea
Projects concerning one of the following motorways of the sea :
– Motorway of the Baltic Sea (linking the Baltic Sea Member States with the Member States in Central and Western
Europe) (2010)
– Motorway of the sea of western Europe (leading from the Iberian peninsula via the Atlantic Arc to the North Sea
and the Irish Sea) (2010)
– Motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (connecting the Adriatic Sea to the Ionian Sea and the Eastern
Mediterranean to include Cyprus) (2010)
– Motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (western Mediterranean), connecting Spain, France, Italy and including
9
Malta, and linking with the motorway of the sea of south-east Europe. (2010)
7
A new increase in capacity of the line was decided in 2003 et portée in project No 26.
8
Some small road and rail sections will be completed between 2010 and 2015.
4
MEMO
22. Rail Axis Athina–Sofia–Budapest–Wien–Praha–Nürnberg /Dresden

– Rail line Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia–Vidin/Calafat (2015)
– Rail line Curtici–Brasov (towards Bucuresti and Constanta) (2010)
– Rail line Budapest–Wien (2010), cross-border section
– Rail line Brno–Praha–Nürnberg (2010), with Nürnberg–Praha as cross-border section.
23. Rail axis Gdansk–Warszawa–Brno/Bratislava-Wien
– Rail line Gdansk–Warszawa–Katowice (2015)
– Rail line Katowice–Brno-Breclav (2010)
– Line Katowice-Zilina-Nove Misto n.V. (2010)
24. Rail axis Lyon/Genova–Basel–Duisburg–Rotterdam/Antwerp
10
– Lyon–Mulhouse–Mülheim, with Mulhouse-Mülheim as cross-border section (2018)
– Genova–Milano/Novara-Swiss border (2013)
– Basel–Karlsruhe (2015)
– Frankfurt–Mannheim (2012)
11
– Duisburg–Emmerich (2009)
– "Iron Rhine" Rheidt–Antwerp (2010)
25. Motorway Gdansk–Brno/Bratislava-Wien
– Motorway Gdansk–Katowice (2010)
– Motorway Katowice–Brno/Zilina (2010), cross-border section
– Motorway Brno–Wien (2009), cross-border section
26. Rail/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/Continental Europe
12
– Road/rail corridor linking Dublin with the North (Belfast-Larne) and with the South (Cork) (2010)
– Road/rail corridor Hull-Liverpool (2015)
– Rail line Felixstowe–Nuneaton (2011)
– Rail line Crewe–Holyhead (2008)
– West Coast Main Line (2007)
27 . « Rail Baltica »: Rail axis Warsaw - Kaunas - Riga – Tallinn
− Warsaw - Kaunas (2010)
− Kaunas - Riga (2014)
− Riga - Tallinn (2016)
28. « Eurocaprail »
- Rail axis Bruxelles-Luxembourg-Strasbourg (2012)
29. Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor
- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)
- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)
Freight flows (excl. Crude Oil) Sea Motorways Bas eyear 2000
c- A new mechanism to support (million tons)

> 300
200 to 300
100 to 200
motorways of the sea < 100
A new priority project concerns the

development of motorways of the sea to
ensure that transnational maritime links
between countries isolated for geographical
reasons or affected by road congestion be
treated with the same importance as land
links. The objective is to concentrate freight
transport for some key links on a limited
number of ports to increase the viability of
these links. Member States will be
encouraged to jointly establish transnational
maritime links in a way to avoid distortion of
competition:
9
Including towards the Black Sea.
10
Including the TGV Rhin-Rhône, minus the western branch.
11
Project No 5 (Betuwe line) links Rotterdam to Emmerich.
12
Including sections of Essen project No 13
5
MEMO
- Projects can include both port infrastructures and access infrastructure, electronic systems to
manage logistics and start-up aids.
- Projects must concern a limited number of ports and aims at developing transnational links to
reduce congestion or link peripheral countries.
- Projects must be proposed by at least two Member States who organise jointly an open
tendering procedure.
- Projects can then be submitted to the Commission in view of declaring their eligibility to
Community funding.
2. Reinforcing international cooperation
Traditionally in the field of transport infrastructure, Member States have their own planning systems,
provide most of the public financing, canvass private investors, manage the complex administrative
procedures prior to construction authorisations and supervise the awarding of contracts and the
approval of work. As Member States are carrying out all these tasks separately, coordination
becomes an important issue. The profitability of investments is also closely linked to the sequence of
putting into operation the various sections on the route in question. Investments therefore have to be
synchronised along transnational routes. Given the transnational dimension of the projects declared
of European interest, the Commission takes the opportunity of the revision of the guidelines to
introduce new coordination mechanisms.
European coordinators
For some large projects located on the major European routes, the Commission thus proposes to set
up a coordination team. The Commission would designate a personality, after consulting the
Member States concerned, to be responsible for this coordination. This European coordinator,
acting on behalf of the Commission, would encourage cooperation with users and operators,
promote the projects amongst private investors and financial institutions, including the EU, and keep
the EU informed of progress so that, if necessary, measures can be taken to overcome any possible
difficulties. The Commission will assess the operation of these European coordinators to envisage
whether the setup of a common structure, responsible for promoting projects amongst private and
public investors, and even carrying out projects is feasible.
Transnational enquiry prior to the assent
Some cross-border projects experience difficulties because of separate evaluation and public
consultation procedures carried out by Member States prior to the administrative authorisations. To
overcome the difficulties linked to the partitioning of these procedures, the Commission proposes
that the Declaration of European Interest calls on the Member States to coordinate their national
procedures to evaluate the environmental, economic, social impacts of projects. In the case of
certain cross-border sections like bridge or tunnel, Member States will have to carry out a single
transnational enquiry based on a "transnational" commission of enquiry which would run the
impact assessment studies and to obtain the opinion of all interested parties in the Member States
concerned prior to the assent.
6
MEMO
3. New financial rules for transborder projects
The proposed revision of the guidelines is accompanied by a proposed modification of the financial
rules for TEN-T so that cross border sections of projects declared of European interest can
benefit from EU funds up to a 30% co-financing level. The current maximum cofinancing level is at
10% and propositions made so far by the Commission limited the increased cofinancing share at
20% only for rail projects on cross-border sections characterized by natural barriers or for cross-
border sections with candidate countries. This new increased EU cofinancing share should create
enough incentive for the creation of public private partnerships on several cross-border sections.
The proposal also introduces a pluri-annual financial planification which will give guarantees to
investors while allowing flexibility in the financial process.
4. The new proposed guidelines in figures
The estimated amount of investment required to carry out all priority projects (projects already
proposed in 2001 plus new projects following the high-level group) is around € 220 billion, of which
€ 80 billion by 2006 for the most technically and financially mature projects.
The expected contribution from the private sector is estimated at 20%, the remaining part will be
financed by the national budgets with leverage support from the Community budget. By 2020 the
total cost of the trans-European network, including the projects of common interest not identified as
priority projects, will amount to € 600 billion.
The impact assessment conducted for the Commission13 suggests that carrying out these projects, if
coordinated with intermodality, interoperability and charging for the use of infrastructure, as proposed
in the White Paper on European transport policy14 would:
- produce significant time savings which could add up to almost € 8 billion per year;
- reduce CO2 emissions generated by inter-regional traffic flows by 17 millions tonnes per year;
- reduce other emissions, cutting external costs of air pollution by over € 700 million per year;
- rebalancing the modal split on the international market segments;
- stimulate international trade, in particular in acceding countries;
- other advantages include a reduction in road congestion by up to 14% and improved safety as a
result of promoting alternatives to road transport and thereby reducing the number of road accidents.
- improve welfare which may lead to boost economic growth by 0.23% of GDP .
This MEMO is prepared by the Information and Communication Unit of DG Energy and Transport. Do not hesitate to contact us for
further information (tel +32 2 2968 042)
Our website address is as follows : http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_fr.html
Subscribe to DIGEST, our electronic newsletter "Energy and Transport in Europe Digest " at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/mm_dg/index_en.html
13
See SEC (2003) 1060
14
More information at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html
7
European Commission MEMO
Building the trans-European

transport network
...without high-performance transport networks,

economies cannot be competitive…
Innovative funding solutions
Interoperability of electronic toll systems
Introduction
This memo examines the situation of infrastructure in the trans-European network and the way it is
financed, and shows the need to implement, without delay, a set of complementary measures
geared towards a more effective use of funding earmarked for trans-European infrastructure. The
proposed measures are based on two major pillars: better coordination of public financing and an
effective "European electronic toll service".
These measures should advance the implementation of the major trans-European network projects.
1
MEMO
Why do we need to develop the trans-European network?
Without high-performance transport networks, economies cannot be competitive. The creation and
smooth operation of the trans-European transport network, which became official Community policy
10 years ago, is a key condition for the success of the internal market and to ensure sustainable
mobility in an enlarged Union. At present, however, traffic on the network is continuing to grow apace
but unevenly. Transport infrastructure is still under-financed, owing to a lack of adequate funds and
the absence of a framework conducive to investment.
It is no small paradox to note that the Treaty makes the Community responsible for producing
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) without granting it
the financial resources to execute that task.
There is no denying, however, that one of the keys to a successful enlargement will be the creation
of a proper transport infrastructure network which supplies the links still missing between the Fifteen
and with the new member countries and enables full benefit to be derived from the European single
area. This will involve infrastructure being modernised or newly built not just in the future member
countries, but also in the existing EU Member States, given that some projects have not yet been
carried out, that new traffic flows will develop and that connections between the two zones are few
and far between.
Apart from technical and planning problems, the main difficulty facing TEN projects is funding. The
estimated cost of the trans-European transport network alone is around €400 billion for all the projects to
be completed by 2010, plus over €100 billion more for projects involving the future Member States.
Although the objectives set by the Union for development of the networks are, rightly, ambitious, the
results are failing to live up to expectations: only three of the 14 priority projects endorsed by the Heads of
State and Government in Essen in December 1994 have been completed and some of the other 11 are still
at the preliminary studies stage.
How can we develop the trans-European transport

network?
• Through innovative funding solutions
• Through the interoperability of electronic toll

systems
2
MEMO
1 Innovative funding solutions
Why are these necessary?

In its White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide the Commission already drew
attention to the clear mismatch between the advertised objectives and the financial resources
available to the Community in respect of the trans-European network. The fact is that the budget the
Member States put aside for developing such transport infrastructure and the funds made available
by the Union are insufficient.
Whereas in the 1980s the Member States used to invest, on average, 1.5% of their GDP on building
transport infrastructure, they now invest less than 1% (all transport infrastructure combined).
Consequently, the Member States put €15 to €20 billion a year into the various trans-European
transport network projects. This funding is clearly inadequate to complete all the planned projects by
2010 and, strictly speaking, takes no account of the new needs which will emerge with enlargement.
There seems to be little possibility at present of seeing a significant increase in the public funding
allocated to these infrastructure projects, given the budget constraints of the public administrations.
Use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to supplement public financing may be envisaged for some
types of project. However, there are still too many unknowns regarding the projects to be carried out
– especially railway and cross-border projects – and regarding transport policy choices.
Consequently, the private sector has insufficient confidence to commit to financing them.
Moreover, PPPs almost always require major public financial support in the form of subsidies or
guarantees.
The Community is also helping to finance the TEN-T
This co-financing mainly takes the form of direct grants, though the Regulation (of the EP and of the
Council) also allows guarantees for loans or subsidies of the interest on loans. Alongside this, the
Community also helps finance these networks via the Structural Funds (Cohesion Fund and ERDF).
In the case of links inside the future Member States, the Pre-Accession Structural Instrument is helping to
develop the networks in these countries. The total Community contribution in the European Union (all
instruments combined excluding EIB loans) for the entire period from 2000 to 2006 adds up to around
€20 billion. Clearly, the Community support therefore covers only a very small fraction of the funding
requirements and is far from sufficient to make an effective contribution to developing the networks.
To promote a new culture of transport infrastructure funding in Europe which complies with
Article 155 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (which stipulates that "the
Community may support the financial efforts of the Member States"), the Commission may, in close
cooperation with the Member States, take any useful initiative to encourage such financial
coordination and to facilitate synergy between the public and private sectors.
3
MEMO
A new approach is needed
To promote a new culture of transport infrastructure funding in Europe which complies with
Article 155 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (which stipulates that "the
Community may support the financial efforts of the Member States"), the Commission may, in close
cooperation with the Member States, take any useful initiative to encourage such financial
coordination and to facilitate synergy between the public and private sectors.
The new approach being proposed is therefore based on the following set of
options:
Developing synergy between public funds

• Greater synergy in public investment:
whatever the principal method of funding, Public funds - both national and Community - do
whether it is public or private, the size, not appear to be used optimally. In the context of
the trans-European transport network they are
complexity and cross-border nature of the main
often spread among a large number of projects
trans-European transport network projects with no real order of priority being observed. All
increase the need for better definition of Community resources are covered by rules and
priorities and coordination of funding. priorities, which are different but complementary.
In its resolution on the Transport White Paper, the

• The introduction of legal and financial
European Parliament (report by Mr Izquierdo
management structures modelled on a Collado) thus proposed the setting-up of a "new
European company: the introduction of European transport fund as a financial
structures specially created for each major instrument with a substantial budget allocation,
project and benefiting from European company which would be applied across all Member States
rules could provide the legal and financial and deal with all modes of transport". This
proposal would confirm the need for a coordinated
transparency and coordination that are lacking in management of all funds committed to the TEN.
many financial packages for infrastructure
projects. Taking this further, the idea of a Beside this, EIB loans and other national or
European structure for the Promotion and regional public funds could, where they concern
Active Coordination of the cross border the trans-European transport network, usefully be
brought together under coordinated management,
projects of the Trans-European Transport
which could be provided by a structure responsible
Network able to fulfil the role of a catalyst for the for promotion and active coordination of the trans-
use of existing public funds should be European transport network.
developed.
Lastly, consideration should also be given - in the

framework of the preparatory works - on the next
review of the financial perspective to increasing
specific funds and introducing Community loans
or guarantees for other loans, specifically dedicated
to targeted trans-European transport network
projects.
4
MEMO
The development of new Community funding

instruments
The redirection and reprogramming of financial resources decided on by the Berlin European
Council, the second review of the trans-European transport network master plans now under way
(for all modes) supported by a High Level Group chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert, and the definition of
a trans-European network for rail freight open to competition are providing fresh momentum for
trans-European transport network policy in an enlarged Europe. This will need to be at the heart of
the next review of the financial perspective.
In this context, short of removing investments from the calculation of budgetary deficits, it is hard to
see how the Union will be able to escape a debate on a substantial increase in the Community funds
given over to building the trans-European transport network.
Lastly, the solution for creating new Community financial instruments could also involve developing
guarantees for the political risks related to the construction of certain major infrastructure (such as
the Lyon–Turin project) in the trans-European transport network.
Conclusions that can be drawn
Financing of the trans-European transport network in an enlarged European Union will in future make
it necessary to:
• use innovative means to promote the involvement of private capital so as to overcome the
factors currently preventing the general use of public-private partnerships;
• ensure coherence and complementarity between the management structures for projects of this
type, particularly by setting up new transnational entities such as "European companies";
• re-assess – in the context of the debate on the review of the financial perspective - the overall
amount of Community funding for development of the trans-European transport network in an
enlarged Europe.
2 A uniform electronic toll system throughout Europe
This Directive was announced in the White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide.
It prescribes the conditions necessary for a European electronic toll service to be put in place as
soon as possible on all parts of the road network subject to tolls. This service will be based on the
principle of "one contract per customer, one box per vehicle".
The Directive does not deal with road-charging policy as such. However, by ensuring the
interoperability of toll systems in the internal market it will facilitate the implementation of a Europe-
wide infrastructure-charging policy.
The recommended technologies can cover all types of infrastructure (motorways, roads, bridges,
tunnels, etc.) and vehicles (HGV, light vehicles, motorbikes, etc.).
5
MEMO
What is the aim of such a Directive?
Originally conceived for the convenience of people who frequently use the motorway network,
electronic tolls are now recognised as an essential tool of the new transport policy in terms of
sustainable development. But recent decisions by several Member States to introduce national
systems for lorries – systems which are unfortunately mutually incompatible –demonstrate the need
for firm Community action unless we want to see the cabs of heavy goods vehicles becoming a
showcase for the European electronics industry, or drivers unwittingly breaking the law as result of
the complexity of the operations they need to carry out. The growth in international traffic raises the
question of whether these systems should not be interoperable at European level.
• While the maximum flow for a lane equipped with a bank card machine or a manual toll is 120
vehicles per hour, a lane with an electronic toll can handle between 200 and 300 vehicles per hour,
depending on its configuration.
• Moreover, particularly at peak periods, but also more persistently at certain very busy points in the
European road network, the collection of tolls causes congestion, delays, accidents and
incidents which are detrimental both to road users and to the environment. Electronic tolls put
users and their vehicles at the centre of the transport system. They are an excellent tool for
reducing congestion.
• By eliminating these bottlenecks and making traffic flow more smoothly, electronic tolls also help
reduce the number of accidents and thus improve road safety. By limiting cash transactions at toll
stations, they also reduce the risks associated with the transport of money.
Lastly, electronic tolls are the key to developing the information society in road transport, as the
same on-board equipment will allow value-added telematic services to be deployed for travellers: an
automatic emergency call in the event of an accident, real-time information on traffic conditions and
journey times, etc. They therefore help to strengthen the European electronics industry, which is at
the forefront of this technology, but which requires technical standards to be implemented in order to
avoid market fragmentation.
How can we implement a uniform electronic toll

system?
Motorway operating companies have invested large sums of money (several hundred million euros
per network) to equip their networks with systems originally intended to provide a better service to
the drivers of light vehicles. Account needs to be taken of these investments and their amortisation
(in accounting and technical terms) in the progressive migration towards interoperable systems as
part of the "European service".
In this way, progress can be made towards the interoperability of existing systems. However, some
countries want to introduce an electronic toll system for HGVs in 2003 or 2004. Certain cities, such
as Rome and London, have decided to install a toll system to control vehicle access to the city
centre. Technical guidelines therefore need to be laid down now to ensure the interoperability of
future systems. Moreover, the market is in favour of establishing a reference system for the future.
In response to these twin problems, the European electronic toll service will be based on a short-
term solution (until 2005) which takes account of existing systems, and then on a long-term
solution (2008- 2012), which is already being decided on and presented.
6
MEMO
A. The short-term technical solution for deploying the European

service:
• Combining satellite positioning and mobile telephony with microwave technologies in the
short to medium term, but opting exclusively for the more modern technology in the long
term
This combination is intended to make network charging possible without having to build new
stations. The widespread introduction of road-charging policies requires new technological solutions
capable of covering all road infrastructure. Toll lanes cannot be built on all parts of the road network,
including town centres, for financial reasons, let alone environmental and safety reasons.
This proposal is based on the use of new technologies that are already available: the GNSS
(satellite positioning) / GSM combination in conjunction with microwave technology, which is
already in widespread use in the Union. These three technologies are the only ones currently
being considered for new toll systems in Europe.
The use of satellite positioning and mobile telephony technologies is advocated because they
are more flexible and better suited to the new Community charging policies. However, operators who
want to continue using microwave technology for new systems will be allowed to do so subject to
compliance with certain strictly defined conditions.
This choice protects the continuity of the investments that have already been made in several
European countries, while allowing for the fact that the strengths of the new technologies will
inevitably dominate in the near future, especially as they will open the door to new value-added
services aimed at travellers. This choice also gives operators the freedom to choose the best
solution for their specific problem, while ensuring the conditions necessary for the deployment of the
European electronic toll service.
B. The long-term technical solution for deploying the European

service: imposition of the satellite solution from 2008 for new
systems and from 2012 generally
In 2008, microwave technology, a product of the 1970s, will be over 30 years old, and will have been
left behind by new technology, even if it is still in use on the motorway networks. Satellite technology,
on the other hand, boosted by the full implementation of Galileo in 2008, will have matured and had
time not only to prove itself but also to acquire the necessary experience to be able to support the
European electronic toll service by itself. In particular, the tricky problem of fraud prevention,
currently handled by means of complex short-range roadside-vehicle communication, should
become easier to deal with thanks to the emergence of new technological solutions.
There is also a risk that there may be further attempts to introduce new microwave systems, different
from the current systems, between now and 2008, thus creating more technical interoperability
problems.
This is why the proposed Directive stipulates that in 2008 the satellite solution involving the
combination of satellite positioning and mobile telephony must be adopted, in preference to
microwave technology, for all new systems brought into service on or after that date as part of the
European electronic toll service.
To ensure that the fraud prevention problems in evidence today have been properly taken into
account and dealt with, the Commission will have to produce a report by 31 December 2007.
7
MEMO
Timetable for implementing the European electronic toll service
The service will be deployed in two stages:

– from 2005 for electronic toll payments by HGVs, buses and coaches,
– from 2010 for cars.
By 2010, technological progress will have made it possible to fit all four-wheeled vehicles with
equipment communicating with the outside world via microwave, GSM and satellite interfaces supporting
a range of telematic services, including electronic tolls. This technological leap, which has already
started, will bring the cost of equipping a vehicle down to about 100 euros.
The European service will enable all the HGV-charging and urban congestion-charging policies the
European Union or the Member States want to introduce to be fully implemented.
A Regulatory Committee: the Directive

As well as being better suited to "zone tolls", satellite provides for the creation of a Regulatory
positioning in conjunction with mobile telephony Committee to assist the Commission in the
precludes the need to retrofit road networks which were implementation of the European electronic
toll system. The Committee will be
not built with space for toll plazas. composed of representatives of the Member
States with practical experience in the fields
By 2010, interoperability between national electronic toll of electronic tolls and road management. It
systems will have been achieved through the will base its work on the results of research
deployment of a "European service" offered to all types projects conducted under the research and
development framework programme and in
of customer.
the context of the trans-European networks.
Preparatory work has already been carried
The technical and contractual arrangements for full out under the auspices of the Commission,
deployment of the European service on the technical involving national authorities, infrastructure
bases described above will be examined by a managers and equipment manufacturers.
Regulatory Committee set up under the Directive.
The effects of a uniform European electronic toll service
The Commission believes that, by 2010, a uniform system will enable almost 80% of toll
transactions to be carried out using electronic toll equipment, thus putting an end to the
interminable queues which obstruct toll stations during peak periods.
People employed in toll stations could easily be employed by motorway operating companies to
improve the quality of motorway services, and many jobs (about 200 000, highly skilled) should be
created in the industrial and service sectors.
All developed and emerging countries are having to address the same overriding policy issues and
are working towards the same solutions. This Directive will give European industry, which is already
well placed in the world market, a considerable boost in promoting effective and innovative
products.
Photos courtesy: GIF, HST on page 1
8
10
Section
Contents
TEN-T Quick Start Program – “Motorways of the

Sea”
European Commission “Quick Start
Map”
EU Quick Start Projects Charts –
“Motorways of the Sea”
E.S.P.O (European Sea Ports
Organization) Newsletter regarding
TEN-T priority to “Motorways to the
Sea”
World Environment News article – “EU

Ministers back “European Motorways of
the Sea”
QUICK START PROGRAMME
© EuroGeographics 2001 for the administrative boundaries

Trans-European transport network
Cartography: DG TREN, 11/2003
priority projects
15
REYKJAVIK
Lahti
12
HELSINKI
TURKU
VANTAA
TALLINN
OSLO
STOCKHOLM
Karlstad
12 Tartu
MOSKVA
Goteborg RIGA
GLASGOW
Londonderry 12
Belfast MALMO Kaunas VILNIUS
KOEBENHAVN 21 MINSK
GDANSK
26 LIVERPOOL
Limerick
DUBLIN 26 HAMBURG
CORK
BREMEN
WARSZAWA
13 AMSTERDAM
HANNOVER
BERLIN
KYIV
LONDON
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL
18 24 HALLE (SAALE)
Leipzig
Dresden
ERFURT
LILLE KATOWICE
KOELN KRAKOW
2 FRANKFURT AM MAIN
PRAHA 23
Ostrava
PARIS
REIMS LUXEMBOURG Nuernberg 23
METZ
STUTTGART 25 KISHINEV
4 LINZ
BRATISLAVA
21 Nantes TOURS
MUENCHEN
17 SALZBURG WIEN 171822 BUDAPEST
DIJON
BESANCON
24 24
BERN 1 6 SIBIU
BRASOV
Geneve LJUBLJANA
ZAGREB
Lyon BUCURESTI
Chambery MILANO
BORDEAUX
BEOGRAD
GRENOBLE TORINO
LA CORUNA
GIJON
6
VIGO SARAJEVO
Bilbao
Toulouse NIMES
VITORIA-GASTEIZ MONTPELLIER SOFIA

19 BURGOS
MARSEILLE
PORTO Valladolid
3 SKOPJE
7
ANKARA
ZARAGOZA
COIMBRA ROMA TIRANA
BARCELONA THESSALONIKI
MADRID
NAPOLI
LISBOA 7
3 VALENCIA
ATHINAI
PATRAI
SEVILLA
21 PALERMO LEFKOSIA
MALAGA
VALLETTA
21
0 250 500 1.000

1:23.000.000 Kilometers
Priority projects of COM (2003) 564 Important cities Sections included in the Quick start programme
<50.000 inhabitants Numbers correspond to priority projects of COM (2003) 564
Rail
Railway
Road 50000 - 99999 inhabitants
Inland waterway 100000 - 249999 inhabitants

Road Galileo
250000 - 499999 inhabitants
High-speed rail
Motorways of the sea Inland waterway
interoperability >500.000 inhabitants
Press Release from European Parliament
March 12, 2004
Transport
Parliament set to back "motorways of the sea"

Philip Charles BRADBOURN (EPP-ED, West Midlands)
Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision
amending the amended proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network
(COM(2003) 564 – C5-0485/2003 – 2001/0229(COD))
Doc.: A5-0110/2004
Procedure : Codecision (1st reading)
Debate : 10.03.2004
Vote : 11.03.2004
Vote
Parliament adopted a legislative resolution on Community guidelines for the

development of the trans-European transport network. Following the report last year
on these guidelines by the High Level Group under Karel Van Miert, the Commission
submitted to Parliament an amended proposal, adding nine new projects to those
already adopted by the European Parliament at its initial first reading. MEPs warmly
back the introduction of "motorways of the sea" to launch new regular trans-national
cargo shipping lines. These routes are intended to improve links with islands and
enable goods traffic to avoid natural barriers such as the Alps and the Pyrenees.
Member States will, with Community assistance, support packages involving
infrastructure, logistic systems and start-up aid. The "motorways of the sea" will
thus acquire the same importance as road motorways and railways in the trans-
European network.
In their amendments to the Commission's text, MEPs are demanding a clear list of
priority programmes in the context of enlargement and the future Financial
Perspective. Other amendments proposed seek to modify some of the 29 projects in
Annex III of the proposal. In addition, the Parliament insists that it should be
consulted on a number of points under the codecision procedure. One of these is the
appointment of a European co-ordinator, whose role will be to assist with certain
projects of European interest. Another is the Quick Start Programme, adopted by the
Transport Council, in December 2003, which identified a number of component
projects chosen from within the TENs 29 corridors (cross-border projects) on which
Community funding is to be focused over the next three years. Although Commission
TREN Director-General Lamoureux had earlier tried to convince MEPs that the Quick
Start Programme was not legally binding, several of them complained that the EP
had not been formally consulted under the codecision procedure. Committee
chairman Paolo COSTA (ELDR, I) put an oral question to Council at the Brussels
plenary session of Wednesday 25 February on the failure to consult Parliament on
the Quick Start projects.
Excerpt from "Revison of Community Guidelines - Quick-Start Projects"
See next page for "Motorways of the Sea" Projects
Annex 1: Quick-start Projects : Tranport Networks, Broadband Networks, Research, Innovation and Development
Transport Networks
Mature trans-frontier segments National Synergies with

7 8 9 Synergies with EIB
of TEN-T Priority projects Country Start End Cost Stage financing Community Funding 12
10 11 until 2010
(projects underlined completed by Dec. 2007) until 2006
1. Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-Napoli-

Messina-Palermo EUR 3 billion
already signed for
- Brenner Tunnel A-I 2004 2015 4312 P/S t.b.c EUR 28.15 mio from the whole priority
TEN 2003-2006 project.
On-going & in
preparation on
Italian components.
Greater involvement
in whole project
possible.
Involvement in
access to tunnel
and the tunnel as
and when it starts.
7
As defined in COM (2003) 564. For Brenner and Mont-Cenis tunnel, maturity refers to heavy drilling works (geological studies).
8
Total cost of segment mentioned, including studies. In EUR mio, 2003 price level.
9
O = on-going; P= Start before Dec. 2006; S= heavy technical studies; W= works
10
National funding matching Community funding and other national funding must be distinguished
11
The Commission has proposed to increase the TEN budget contribution up to 30% of the grant intensity rate for cross-border sections. For projects involving EU15, TEN grants
are those planned within the current Multiannual Indicative Programme (MIP) framework (decision 19/09/2001) or those allocated in 2003 outside the MIP. CF= Cohesion Fund;
ERDF= European Regional Development Fund.
12
The EIB Group contributions identified in this as well as in the other tables below refer to support via loans, in contrast to the Community funding in the form of grants. Moreover,
the EIB Group estimates relate to the whole of each identified TENs-Priority corridor, whereas the Commission estimates refer to Community funding to the specific segments
identified as Quick-start projects.
22
"Motorways of the Sea" Quick Start Projects
20. Fehmarn Belt railway axis No involvement yet
EUR 1.8 billion

14
21. Motorways of the sea
signed for EU port
- Motorway of the Baltic Sea EU 2004 2010 t.b.c P/W projects in the four
regions.
- Motorway of the sea of western Europe EU 2004 2010 t.b.c P/W Dependin Further involvement
g on final possible.
- Motorway of the sea of south-east Europe EU 2004 2010 t.b.c P/W EC
Decision
- Motorway of the sea of south-west Europe EU 2004 2010 t.b.c P/W
22. Railway axis Athina-Sofia-Budapest-Wien-Praha- EUR 90 million

Nürnberg/Dresden signed for the whole
priority project.
- Budapest-Sopron-Wien- Rail upgrade A-HU 2004 2010 1318 P/W t.b.c On-going & in
preparation for
Danube bridge.
Possible on Czech,
Hungarian and
Romanian sections.
23. Railway axis Gdansk-Warszawa-Brno/Bratislava- EUR 240 million

Wien signed for the whole
priority project.
- Katowice-Breclav – Rail upgrade PL-CZ 2004 2010 731 P/W t.b.c Possible CF or ERDF On-going & in
preparation for
- Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n. V. – Rail upgrade PL-SK 2002 2010 1331 O/W t.b.c Possible EUR 49 mio small sections.
from CF 2004-2006 Others possible.
14
The Commission may provide facilities for Member States that are willing to organize their cooperation (e.g. seminars)
"Motorways of the Sea" Quick Start Projects

27
3 October 2003 Volume 9.21
E SPO N
ESPO EWS PPLUS
NEWS LU S +
MOTORWAYS OF THE SEA - Motorway of the sea of south-west

PRIORITY UNDER Europe.
NEW TEN-T PACKAGE
Aim is to concentrate flows of freight on a
few sea routes in order to establish new
The Commission adopted last Wednesday
viable, regular and frequent maritime links
its proposals regarding the revision of the
for the transport of goods between Member
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-
States (short sea shipping) in order to
T). These have to be seen in the context of
reduce road congestion and improve access
the upcoming enlargement of the EU.
to peripheral and island countries.
The package, which was issued following
The trans-European network of motorways
the recommendations made by the High
of the sea will consist of facilities and
Level Group chaired by Karel Van Miert,
infrastructure concerning at least two ports
consists of a proposal for new guidelines
in two different Member States. These
and a proposal for financial rules.
facilities and infrastructure will include the
port facilities, electronic logistics
Both proposals complement the interim
management systems and administrative
revision made in 2001. It is recalled that
and customs procedures, as well as
Council and Parliament have not yet
infrastructure for direct land and sea access,
formally adopted this interim revision, but
including winter access, to the ports used by
the Commission decided to proceed with
the maritime links envisaged by the
the more profound revision anyhow.
network.
Of particular interest to the port sector is the
Projects of common interest (eligible for
proposed creation of a network of
national or TEN-T funding) in this context
“Motorways of the Sea” which is fully
must be proposed by at least two Member
recognised as a priority project under the
States. Projects proposed must combine
new guidelines. Concretely, four motorways
public and private sectors in accordance
(maritime regions) are identified :
with a tendering process in one of the
following forms :
- Motorway of the Baltic Sea;
- Motorway of the sea of western
- either a public call for proposals,
Europe;
organised jointly by the Member
- Motorway of the sea of south-east
States concerned from the
Europe;
international seaports (so-called
“category A” ports handling min.
1
Treurenberg 6 – B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles
Tel. : + 32 2 736.34.63 – Fax : + 32 2 736.63.25 – E-mail : mail@espo.be - URL : http://www.espo.be
EU ministers back "European motorways of the sea"
GIJON, Spain - European Union transport ministers on the weekend backed proposals to
encourage Europeans to use ships to travel and transport their goods.
They hope this will ease pressure on noisy, overcrowded roads and help the environment.
At the end of a two-day meeting hosted by EU president Spain, ministers threw their
support behind plans to make maritime transport faster and easier in Europe by cutting
customs bureaucracy and opening port services to competition.
"Europe is dying of its own success," Spanish Development Minister Alvarez-Cascos

said, noting that a boom in usage threatened to choke the road network.
The final declaration from the conference pledged to create "European motorways of the
sea", which officials said would link the Baltic Sea with Europe's Atlantic coast, the
western Mediterranean and the Adriatic.
With improvements in shipping making it faster in many cases to travel by sea than by
road or rail - particularly given Europe's curved coastline - the principal obstacle to
growth in shipping freight remained lengthy customs procedures.
The meeting's conclusions called for EU members to study the harmonisation of customs
procedures and the reduction of red-tape, without sacrificing security on Europe's
borders.
EU Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio noted that modern tracking systems made
it possible to monitor a ship's course, and could open the door to abandoning custom
checks altogether for journeys within the European Union.
But, she said, several countries had expressed concerns over border security, particularly
ahead of the planned expansion of the Union in 2004, given rising public awareness over
illegal immigration to the bloc and fears of terrorist attacks.
"The next step here will be to fight for an improvement in port security in the countries
bordering the European Union," de Palacio said.
The informal meeting in the northern Spanish port of Gijon did not produce any definite
agreement but officials said it had helped to define a single European Union policy on
short sea shipping.
"We need to increase competition in port services, and that will mean more shipping
activity and more jobs for everyone," de Palacio said.
Host Spain pushed for the Union to promote a combination of shipping and rail to
transport goods in the EU, but the final declaration simply stressed the need to improve
infrastructure links between ports and road and rail networks.
EU officials were enthusiastic about the environmental advantages of shipping.
"From an environmental point of view, shipping is far more fuel efficient than other
forms of transport," de Palacio said.
Story by Daniel Flynn
Story Date: 3/6/2002
Back to Top
Back to Headlines
See yesterday's headlines
All Contents
© Reuters News Service 2003
Check out Planet Ark on the web at www.planetark.com

11
Section
Contents
EU Financing Instruments
EU Commission Revised overview of

“Instruments that have been and could
be used to provide financing for Shortsea
Shipping and its intermodal integration
EU Commission Detail on State aid to

maritime transport
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) “scheme

(Capital Grants) overview by Department for
Transport, London
EU Framework on State Aid to Ship Building

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT
DIRECTORATE G - Maritime Transport

6KRUWVHDVKLSSLQJDQGSRUWSROLF\
Brussels, 13 June 2002

SSS-Team/IK D(2001) rev.2
5(9,6('
38%/,&127(3529,',1*$121(;+$867,9(%5,()29(59,(:2),167580(1767+$7
+$9(%((1$1'&28/'%(86('723529,'(&20081,7<),1$1&,1*)25352-(&76
:,7+$',5(&725,1',5(&7,03$&7216+2576($6+,33,1*$1',76,17(502'$/
1
,17(*5$7,21
%DFNJURXQG3ROLF\
The European Commission has an established policy to promote Short Sea Shipping as a
complement and alternative to congested land transport. The latest Commission
Communication on the subject is available in all Community languages on the Internet
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/maritime/english/sss/index_sss.html). It
advocates a way forward to make Short Sea Shipping a viable and feasible door-to-door
concept with one-stop shops. It also refers to bottlenecks that impede the development of
Short Sea Shipping and which the Commission - in co-operation with the Member States
and industry - has started to identify and solve. Also the Commission White Paper of
2001 on European Transport Policy for 2010 emphasises the role of Short Sea Shipping
in helping curb the forecasted substantial increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic,
rebalance the modal shares and bypass land bottlenecks. The White Paper is available in
all Community languages on http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html.
Further information on the Short Sea Shipping policy can be obtained from the Short Sea
Shipping Team in the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (e-mail:
mailto:SSS@cec.eu.int).
0DUFR3ROR3URJUDPPH
The Community programme PACT (Pilot Actions for Combined Transport) came to an
end at the end of 2001. While in force, it was able to give incentives to innovative
solutions in the field of combined transport. Considerable part of Short Sea Shipping fell
1
The merits of any application for financing and eligibility of specific projects for funding are examined
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with applicable procedures. This note does not prejudge in any
way separate decisions on Community financing, nor does it prejudge the application of other relevant
rules, such as those on competition and State aid.
Mail: Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium - Office: DM28 3/53.
Telephone: direct line (+32-2)2968297, switchboard 299.11.11. Fax: 2960421.
Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html
E-mail: SSS@cec.eu.int
under this programme. The Commission made a proposal in February 2002 for a
successor to PACT. This new programme would be called Marco Polo. It would extend
the scope of PACT beyond combined transport to all intermodal freight services.
According to the Commission proposal, the new programme could grant support to
starting up new services (maximum contribution 30 % of the eligible costs), catalyst
actions (such as the Motorways of the Sea, up to 35 % of the eligible costs) and common
learning (up to 50 % of the eligible costs). Projects involving Short Sea Shipping can fall
under this programme which is planned to be operational as of 2003.
More information on the Marco Polo programme and the results of the PACT programme
can be found on http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/land/english/lt_28_en.html -
polo. You can also contact PACT and Marco Polo by e-mail: mailto:tren-marco-
polo@cec.eu.int.
7UDQV(XURSHDQ7UDQVSRUW1HWZRUNV7(17
The Community policy on the Trans-European Transport Networks aims to develop an

efficient transport system and related infrastructures in the Community. Certain financing
is available under this policy. It can cover up to 50% of infrastructure-related studies of
common interest (including port infrastructure studies and multimodal network studies
involving short-sea legs). As to infrastructure projects, the financing cannot exceed 10%
of the total costs. Constructing or upgrading port-hinterland connections can be eligible
under the TEN-T.
More information on the TEN-T can be obtained from

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/tn_en.html. You can also contact TEN-T
by e-mail: mailto:TREN-TENT@cec.eu.int.
5HVHDUFKDQG7HFKQRORJLFDO'HYHORSPHQW57'
The European Union carries out a considerable number of activities in the field of
research, technological development and demonstration. These activities include
Transport RTD and, in particular, intermodal and waterborne transport.
Available results of the 4th Framework Programme can be found on

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/home.html. Further information is available on
http://www.cordis.lu/transport/home.html.
The 5th Framework Programme (1998-2002) is currently in place but the calls for
proposals relating to it are drawing to a close (see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/ and http://www.cordis.lu/growth/ and
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/pfs_5_en.html and
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp5.html).
The 6th Framework Programme is under preparation. The first calls of proposals can be
expected towards the end of 2002 or beginning of 2003. The Programme is intended to
cover, LQWHUDOLD, the theme of sustainable surface transport (theme 1.1.6.2) that comprises
both land and waterborne modes. For further information, see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html and http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/.
2
(XUR0HGLWHUUDQHDQ3DUWQHUVKLS
The MEDA programme is the principal financial instrument of the European Union for
the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. It also provides budgetary
resources for financial co-operation between the EU and its Mediterranean partners.
Further information is available on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/euromed/meda.htm.
*UDQWVLQWKH)LHOGRI7UDQVSRUW
Official Journal of the European Communities No. C202, 18 July 2001, p. 20 contains a
call for proposals with a view to obtaining grants in all fields of transport (see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/aides/forms/tren01_en.htm and
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/subv_en.html). That call provides a
framework that can be used to apply for co-financing up to 50% of relevant studies and
feasibility studies. It has been occasionally used for projects relating to Short Sea
Shipping.
2WKHU6RXUFHVRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
The information above does not in any way exclude the possibility of projects or studies
relating to Short Sea Shipping being eligible for financing under other Community
policies2, such as regional development (e.g. Interreg III programme).
Further information on the European Regional Development Fund, Structural Funds and
Cohesion Fund can be found on http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/.
Information on the Pre-Accession Strategy with its specific programmes, such as ISPA
(Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) and Phare can be found on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index.htm.
Information on the Tacis Programme for the Eastern European and Central Asian
countries can be found on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ceeca/tacis/index.htm.
Under certain circumstances, the European Investment Bank (see http://eib.eu.int/) and its
European Investment Fund (see http://www.eif.org/) might be able to grant loans relating
to Short Sea Shipping.
*****
2
For a comprehensive overview of EU financing, please visit
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/index_en.htm.
3
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport
EN 1 EN
1. INTRODUCTION
The White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide" stresses the
vital importance of maritime transport services for the EU economy. 90% of all trade
between the Community and the rest of the world is transported by sea. Short sea
shipping accounts for 69% of the volume of goods transported between the Member
States (this percentage is 41% if domestic transport is included). Community
maritime transport and its related activities remains one of the most important in the
world.
The shipping companies of the Member States still manage about a third of the world
fleet today. The accession of Cyprus and Malta1 in 2004 will increase still further the
Union's share of shipping, as the shipping registers of these two countries currently
account for about 10% of world tonnage.
oOo
Since the 1970s the European fleet has been faced with competition from vessels
registered in third countries which do not take much care to observe social and safety
rules in force at international level.
The lack of competitiveness of EU-flagged vessels was recognised at the end of the
1980s and, in the absence of European harmonised measures, several Member States
adopted different formulas for aiding maritime transport. The strategies adopted and
the budgets allocated to support measures differ from one Member State to the other
in reflection of the attitude of these States concerning public aid or the importance
they attach to the maritime sector.
In addition, to encourage the re-registering of vessels, Member States have relaxed

rules concerning crews, notably through the creation of second registers.
Second registers comprise, firstly, "offshore registers" belonging to territories which

have a greater or lesser autonomy in relation to the Member State, and secondly,
"international registers", attached directly to the State which created them.
In spite of the efforts made, a large part of the EU fleet continues to be registered
under the flags of third countries. This is because the registers of third countries
which apply open registration policies - some of which are called "flags of
convenience" - have continued and are still continuing to enjoy a significant
competitive edge with regard to the registers of EU Member States.
Aid to the shipping industry since 1989
In the light of the differences between the aid systems adopted by Member States
faced with more intense competition from non-EU flagged vessels, in 1989 the
Commission defined its first guidelines on this subject to ensure a certain
convergence between the actions of the Member States. This method nevertheless
proved to be ineffective and the decline of Community fleets continued. The
1
The sixth and the fifth world registers of ships in terms of tonnage respectively (vessels of more than 300
gt. Source: ISL 2001).
2
guidelines were accordingly reviewed, leading to a 1997 communication defining
new guidelines on State aid to maritime transport.
The major development in recent years concerning support measures from the
Member States for maritime transport is the widespread extension in Europe of flat-
rate tonnage taxation systems ("tonnage tax"). Tonnage tax entered into force very
early in Greece and was progressively extended to the Netherlands (1996), to
Norway (1996), to Germany (1999), to the United Kingdom (2000), to Denmark, to
Spain and to Finland (2002) and to Ireland (2002). Belgium and France also decided
to adopt it in 2002, while the Italian Government is envisaging this possibility.
Results of measures proposed by Member States and approved by the

Commission compared with the general objectives of the 1997 revised guidelines
(a) Evolution of the EU-flagged fleet (competitiveness of the fleet)
According to the replies provided by the Member States mid-2002 to the

Commission's questionnaire and to the most recent statistical data2, Member States
which have introduced aid measures, particularly in the form of fiscal alleviation,
have obtained re-registration under the national flag of a significant volume of
tonnage in all the registers taken together. In percentage terms, the fleet as entered in
the registers of the Member States increased as follows: the number of vessels by
0.4% on average per year, tonnage by 1.5% and container ships by 12.4%. Even if, in
the case of the first registers, the number of units entered declined practically
everywhere in the period 1989-2001, these figures can be considered as a reversal of
the trend, observed up to 1997, of abandoning Community flags.
During the same period, however, the share of Member State registers in total world
tonnage fell slightly. While world shipping increased, the growth of the
Community-managed fleet registered under third-country flags was faster than that
of the fleet registered under the flags of the Member States.
(b) Employment trends
According to the most recent estimations, the number of seafarers on board EU-
flagged vessels fell from 188 000 in 1996 to approximately 180 000 in 20013. The
total number of EU nationals employed on board vessels flying Community flags is
currently about 120 000, a figure which is 40% lower than that of 1985, while the
number of nationals of third countries employed on board EU vessels has gone up
from 29 000 in 1983 to approximately 60 000 nowadays. When assessing the drop in
the total number of seafarers, the following factors must be taken into account:
– firstly, productivity per vessel has continued to increase. Accordingly, a smaller

crew makes it possible to transport an equal if not higher volume than that carried
in the past;
– secondly, the EU-flagged fleet was renewed in the period 1997-2001. The average
age of vessels went down from 22.9 years to 17.2 years. 35% of the fleet in
2
ISL, Shipping Statistics 2001.
3
Total combined number of EU and non-EU seafarers.
3
service on 1 January 2001 had been built in the period 1996-2000. New vessels, of
more advanced technology, need better trained but smaller crews.
Notable differences between the Member States in the employment rate of

Community seafarers are nevertheless apparent. However, nothing in these figures
indicates a reversal of the trend whereby the EU-flagged fleet depends more and
more on third-country seafarers. This trend was already stressed by the Commission
in 2001 in its Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers4.
(c) Contribution to economic activity as a whole
Maritime industries are inextricably linked with maritime transport. This association
is a strong argument in favour of positive measures whose aim is to maintain a fleet
dependent on Community shipping. Since maritime transport is one of the links in
the chain of transport in general and in the chain of the maritime industries in
particular, measures seeking to maintain the competitiveness of the European fleet
also have repercussions on investments on land in maritime-related industries5 and
on the contribution of maritime transport to the economy of the EU as a whole and to
jobs in general.
The significance of shipping and the whole maritime cluster varies considerably with
the considered countries. However, the importance of the European maritime cluster
and its direct economic impact can be clearly illustrated by the following figures:
1.550 million direct employees, a turnover of €160 billion in 1997 (about 2% of GDP
in the EU)6. Data about Denmark (3% of the GDP generated by the maritime
cluster), Greece (2.3%) and the Netherlands (2%) can be taken as a valid example.
In this context, therefore, it is not insignificant to note that the fleet managed by
European operators based in the Union has stayed at a level of around 34% of world
tonnage, while the latter increased by 10% during the period. Given the mobility of
the maritime industry and the facilities offered by third countries, one may conclude
that support measures for maritime transport may contribute to avoiding widespread
delocalisation of allied industries.
To sum up, it can be affirmed that, where measures in line with the 1997 guidelines
have been adopted, the structural decline of the Community registers and the Union's
fleet has been halted and the objectives set by the Commission have been attained, at
least in part.
The share of open registers in world tonnage continued however to increase during
the period, rising from 43% in 1996 to 54% in 2001 and nothing indicates a
significant reversal of the trend whereby the fleet had, and is continuing to have,
increasing recourse to seafarers from third countries. The campaign undertaken in
recent years must be pursued but it must be better targeted. Measures to promote
Community seafarers must in particular be the subject of more active monitoring.
4
Communication from the Commission on the training and recruitment of seafarers of 6 April 2001,
COM/2001/188 final.
5
These activities include port services, logistics, the construction, repair, maintenance, inspection and
classification of vessels, ship management and brokerage, banking activities and international financial
services, insurance, advice and professional services.
6
Study undertaken by the European Commission, DG Enterprise (published in the Europa internet site).
4
The results of the measures taken by the Member States and authorised by the
Commission will have to be systematically analysed.
As a consequence, and even though as a matter of principle operating aid should be

exceptional, temporary, and degressive, the Commission estimates that State aid to
the European shipping industry is still justified and that the approach followed by the
1997 guidelines was correct. The present communication is therefore based on the
same basic approach.
2. SCOPE AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE REVISED STATE AID

GUIDELINES
The present communication – replacing the 1997 guidelines7- aims at setting the
parameters within which State aid to maritime transport will be approved, pursuant to
EC State aid rules and procedures, by the Commission under Article 87(3)(c) and/or
Art. 86(2) of the Treaty.
Aid schemes should not be at the expense of other Member States' economies and
must be shown not to risk distortion of competition between Member States to an
extent contrary to the common interest. State aid must always be restricted to what is
necessary to achieve its purpose and be granted in a transparent manner. The
cumulative effect of all aid granted by State authorities (including national, regional
and local levels) must always be taken into account.
The present guidelines are applicable to “maritime transport” activities as defined in

Regulation 4055/868 and in Regulation 3577/929, that is “transport of goods and
persons by sea”. They also, in specific parts, relate to towage and dredging.
2.1. Scope of revised State aid guidelines
These guidelines cover any aid granted by EC Member States or through State
resources in favour of maritime transport. This includes any financial advantage
conferred in any form whatsoever funded by public authorities (whether at national,
regional, provincial, departmental or local level). For these purposes, 'public
authorities' may also include public undertakings and State-controlled banks.
Arrangements whereby the State guarantees loans or other funding by commercial
banks may also fall within the definition of aid. The guidelines draw no distinction
between types of beneficiary in terms of their legal structure (e.g. companies,
partnerships or individuals), nor between public or private ownership, and any
reference to companies shall be taken to include all other types of legal entity.
These guidelines do not cover aid to shipbuilding (within the meaning of Council
Regulation n° 1540/98 or any subsequent instrument). Investments in infrastructure
are not normally considered to involve State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1)
of the Treaty, if the State provides free and equal access to the infrastructure for the
benefit of all interested operators. However, the Commission may examine such
7
Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, (97/ C 205/05), OJEC n° C 205 of 5 July
1997, Page 5.
8
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
9
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide
services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).
5
investments if they could directly or indirectly benefit particular shipowners. Finally,
the Commission has established the principle that no State aid is involved where
public authorities contribute to a company on a basis that would be acceptable to a
private investor operating under normal market economy conditions.
2.2. General objectives of revised State aid guidelines
The Commission has stressed that increased transparency of State aid is necessary so
that not only national authorities in the broad sense but also companies and
individuals are aware of their rights and obligations. These guidelines are intended to
contribute to this and to clarify what State aid schemes may be introduced in order to
support the Community maritime interest, with the aim to:
– improve a safe, efficient, secure and environment friendly maritime transport,
– encourage the flagging or re-flagging to Member States’ registers,
– contribute to the consolidation of the maritime cluster established in the Member

States while maintaining an overall competitive fleet on world markets,
– maintain and improve maritime know-how and protect and promote employment
for European seafarers, and
– contribute to the promotion of new services in the field of short sea shipping
following the White Paper on EU transport policy.
State aid may generally be granted only in respect of ships entered in Member States'
registers. In certain exceptional cases, however, aid may be granted in respect of
ships entered in registers under point (3) of the Annex, provided that:
– they comply with the international standards and Community law, also in respect
of security, safety, environmental performance and on board working conditions ;
– they are operated from the Community ;
– their shipowner is established in the Community and the Member State concerned
demonstrates that the register contributes directly to the objectives mentioned
above.
Additionally, flag-neutral aid measures may be approved in certain exceptional cases

where a benefit to the Community is clearly demonstrated.
3. FISCAL AND SOCIAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE COMPETITIVENESS
3.1. Fiscal treatment of shipowning companies
Many third countries have developed significant shipping registers, sometimes

supported by an efficient international services infrastructure, attracting shipowners
with a fiscal climate which is considerably milder than within EC Member States.
The low tax environment has resulted in there being an incentive for companies not
only to flag out their vessels but also to consider corporate relocation. It should be
emphasized that there are no effective international rules at present to curb such tax
competition and few administrative, legal or technical barriers to moving a ship's
6
registration from a Member State's register. In this context, the creation of conditions
allowing fairer competition with flags of convenience seems the best way forward.
The question of fiscal competition between Member States should be addressed. At

this stage, there is no evidence of schemes distorting competition in trade between
Member States to an extent contrary to the common interest. In fact, there appears to
be an increasing degree of convergence in Member States' approaches to shipping
aid. Flagging out between Member States is a rare phenomenon. Fiscal competition
is mainly an issue between EC Member States on the one hand and third countries on
the other, since the cost savings available to shipowners through third country
registers are considerable, in comparison to the options available within the
Community.
For this reason, many Member States have taken special measures to improve the
fiscal climate for shipowning companies, including, for instance, accelerated
depreciation on investment in ships or the right to reserve profits made on the sale of
ships for a number of years on a tax-free basis, provided that these profits are
reinvested in ships.
These fiscal alleviation measures which apply in a special way to shipping are
considered to be State aid. Equally, the system of replacing the normal corporate tax
system by a tonnage tax is a State aid. Tonnage tax means that the shipowner pays an
amount of tax linked directly to the tonnage operated. The tonnage tax will be
payable irrespective of the company's actual profits or losses.
Such measures have been shown to safeguard high quality employment in the on-
shore maritime sector, such as management directly related to shipping and also in
associated activities (insurance, brokerage and finance). In view of the importance of
such activities to the economy of the Community and in support of the earlier stated
objectives, these types of fiscal incentive can generally be endorsed. Further,
safeguarding quality employment and stimulating a competitive shipping industry
established in a Member State through fiscal incentives taken together with other
initiatives on training and enhancement of safety will facilitate the development of
Community shipping in the global market.
The Commission is aware that the income of shipowners is nowadays often obtained
from the operation of ships under different flags, for instance, when making use of
chartered vessels under foreign flag or by making use of partner vessels within
alliances. It is also recognized that the incentive for expatriation of management and
ancillary activities would continue if the shipowner obtained a significant financial
benefit from maintaining different establishments and accounting separately for
Community flag earnings and other earnings. This would be the case, for example, if
the non-Community flag earnings were liable either to the full rate or corporate
taxation in a Member State or to a low rate of tax overseas if overseas management
could be demonstrated.
The objective of State aid within the common maritime transport policy is to promote
the competitiveness of the EC fleets in the global shipping market. Consequently,
fiscal alleviation schemes should, as a rule, require a link with a Community flag.
However, the may also, exceptionally, be approved where they apply to the entire
fleet operated by a shipowner established within a Member State's territory liable to
corporate tax, provided that it is demonstrated that the strategic and commercial
7
management of all ships concerned is effectively carried out from within the territory
and that this activity contributes substantially to economic activity and employment
within the Community. The evidence furnished by the Member State concerned to
demonstrate this economic link should include details of vessels owned and operated
under Community registers, EC nationals employed on ships and in land-based
activities and investments in fixed assets. It must be stressed that the aid must be
necessary to promote the repatriation of the strategic and commercial management of
all ships concerned in the EU and, in addition, that the beneficiaries of the schemes
must be liable to corporate tax in the Community. Also the Commission would
request any available evidence to show, that all vessels operated by companies
benefiting from these measures comply with the relevant international and
Community safety standards, including those relating to onboard working conditions.
As specified in the above paragraph, it should not be forgotten that, as a matter of

principle, fiscal alleviation schemes require a link with the flag of one of the Member
States. Before aid is exceptionally granted (or confirmed) to fleets which also
comprise vessels flying other flags, Member States should ensure that beneficiary
companies commit themselves to increase or at least maintain under the flag of one
of the Member States the share of tonnage that they will be operating under such
flags when the present communication enters into force. Whenever a company
controls ship operating companies within the meaning of Directive 83/349 (Art. 1),
the above mentioned tonnage share requirement will have to apply to the parent
company and subsidiary companies taken together on a consolidated basis. Should a
company (or group) fail to respect the described requirement, the relevant Member
State should not grant further fiscal alleviation with respect to additional non-EU
flagged vessels operated by that company, unless the EU-flagged share of the global
tonnage eligible for tax alleviation in that Member State did not decrease in average
during the reporting period referred to in the next paragraph. The Member State shall
inform the Commission about the application of the above mentioned derogation.
The EU-tonnage share requirement set out in the present paragraph will not apply to
undertakings operating at least 60% of their tonnage under an EU flag.
In all cases, where fiscal schemes have been approved on the above exceptional basis
and in order to allow the Member State concerned to prepare, every three years, the
report requested in Chapter 12 ("Final Remarks") below, recipients must provide the
Member State concerned with proof that all the conditions for the derogation from
the flag link have been fulfilled during the period. Furthermore, evidence must be
provided that, in the case of the beneficiary fleet, the tonnage share requirement laid
down in the above paragraph has been respected and that each vessel of that fleet
complies with the relevant international and Community standards, including those
relating to security, safety, environmental performance and on board working
conditions. Should recipients fail to provide such evidence, they will not be allowed
to continue to benefit from the tax scheme.
It is also of interest to precise that whereas EU based shipping companies are the
natural recipients of the above tax schemes, certain ship management companies
established in the Community may also qualify, with the same provisions. Ship
management companies are entities providing different kind of services to
shipowners, such as technical survey, crew recruiting and training, crew
management, vessel operation. In some cases ship managers are entrusted both
technical and crewing management of vessels. In this case they act as classic
“shipowners” as far as transport operations are concerned. Moreover, like in case of
8
shipping industry, this sector is experiencing a strong and increasing competition at
an international level. For these reasons, it seems appropriate to extend the
possibility of fiscal alleviation to the mentioned kind of ship managers.
Ship management companies may qualify for aid only in respect of vessels for which
they have been entrusted the entire crew and technical management. In particular, in
order to be eligible, ship managers have to assume from the owner the full
responsibility for the vessel's operation, as well as take over from the owner all the
duties and responsibilities imposed by the ISM Code10. Should ship managers also
provide other specialised services, even related to vessel operation, separate
accounting for such activities, which do not qualify for the tax alleviation schemes,
should be ensured. The requirement regarding Member States' flag share described
above also applies to ship management companies11
The present guidelines only apply to maritime transport. The Commission can accept
that the towing at sea of other vessels, oil platforms, etc. falls under that definition.
The Commission has, however, become aware that in certain cases Member States
allow tugboats which are designed for work at sea to benefit from aid even though
they are not or hardly active at sea. Therefore, it is useful to state in these guidelines
which line the Commission has taken and will take on this point.
‘Towage’ is covered by the scope of the guidelines only if more than 50% of the
towage activity effectively carried out by a tug during a given year constitutes
“maritime transport”. Waiting time may be proportionally assimilated to that part of
total activity effectively carried out by a tug which constitutes “maritime transport”.
It should be emphasised that towage activities carried out, i.a. in ports, or consisting
in assisting a self-propelled vessel to arrive at a port do not constitute “maritime
transport” for the purposes of the present communication. No derogation from the
flag link is possible in the case of towage.
Also in case of dredging, the experience gained during the last years suggests that
some points be made.
‘Dredging’ activities are, as a matter of principle, not eligible for aid to maritime
transport. However, fiscal arrangements for companies (such as tonnage tax) may be
applied to those dredgers whose activity consists in "maritime transport" – that is
transport at deep sea of extracted materials – for more than 50% of their annual
operational time and only with respect to such transport activities. Eligible dredgers
are only those registered in a Member State (no derogation from the flag link
possible). In such cases, separate accounting for maritime transport activities is
required12.
Finally, the method of assessing tonnage tax systems notified up to now has
consisted of the following steps: a virtual profit for shipowners has been calculated
by applying a notional profit rate to their tonnage; national corporate tax has been
10
“ISM Code”, International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution
Prevention, adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) by resolution A.741(18)
11
The Commission will examine the effects of these provisions on ship management after three years of
implementation of the present communication.
12
The ships used by these operators also extract or dredge materials which they carry afterwards.
Extraction or dredging as such do not qualify for State aid to maritime transport.
9
applied to the amount so determined. The resulting amount is the "tonnage tax" to be
paid.
The notional profit rates provided for by Member States have been homogenous up
to now. However, since corporate tax rates may vary significantly across the
Community, the tonnage taxes to be paid for the same tonnage might be very uneven
in the different Member States. In order to keep the present level playing field, the
Commission will only approve schemes giving rise to a tax-load for the same
tonnage fairly in line with the schemes already approved.
In all cases, the benefits of schemes must facilitate the development of the shipping
sector and employment in support of the Community interest. Consequently, the
fiscal advantages mentioned above must be restricted to shipping activities; hence, in
cases where a shipowning company is also engaged in other commercial activities,
transparent accounting would be required in order to prevent 'spill over' to non-
shipping related activities. This approach would help EC shipping to be competitive,
with tax liabilities comparable to levels applying elsewhere in the world, but would
preserve a Member State's normal tax levels for other activities and personal
remuneration of shareholders and directors.
3.2. Labour-related costs
As already mentioned, maritime transport is a sector experiencing fierce international

competition. Support measures for the maritime sector should, therefore, aim
primarily at reducing fiscal and other costs and burdens borne by EC shipowners and
EC seafarers towards levels in line with world norms. They should directly stimulate
the development of the sector and employment, rather than provide general financial
assistance.
In line with these objectives, the following action on employment costs should be
allowed for EC shipping:
– reduced rates of contributions for the social protection of EC seafarers employed

on board ships registered in a Member State,
– reduced rates of income tax for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a

Member State.
For the purposes of this point 3.2, EC seafarers are defined as:
– EU/EEA citizens, in case of seafarers working on board vessels (including ro-ro

ferries13), providing scheduled passenger services between ports of the
Community;
– All seafarers liable to taxation and/or social security contributions in a Member

State, in all other cases.
The previous 1997 guidelines allowed such reductions for all seafarers working on
board vessels registered in a Member State and subject to tax and or social security
13
See Article 2, (a) of Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys
for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services
10
contributions in a Member State. However, meanwhile it has become clear that
pressure by international competition on European shipowners is very strong in the
case of international freight transport, while it is lighter in the case of intra-
Community scheduled passenger transport. Boosting the competitiveness of
European shipping industry is therefore a prior objective of aid in the former case.
Preventing Member States from granting fiscal alleviation to all seafarers in this case
would have very negative effects on the competitiveness of European shipowners,
which could be encouraged to flag-out. At the same time it has been noticed that
employment of European citizens is significant in percentage and in number in intra-
Community scheduled passenger transport. Protection of employment in the
Community is therefore a prior objective of aid in this case. For internal fiscal
reasons some Member States prefer not to apply reduced rates as mentioned above,
but instead may reimburse shipowners - partially or wholly - for the costs resulting
from these levies. Such an approach may generally be considered as equivalent to the
reduced rate system as described above, provided that there is a clear link to these
levies, no element of overcompensation, and that the system is transparent and is not
open to abuse.
For the maritime part of towage and dredging activities (maritime transport of
materials), aid in favour of employment of EC seafarers may be granted by analogy
to the rules of this point 3.2, only if related to EC seafarers working on board
seagoing, self propelled tugs and dredgers, registered in a Member State, carrying out
maritime transport at sea for at least 50% of their operational time14.
Finally, it should be recalled that aid to employment is covered by the block

exemption provided for by Commission Regulation 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002
on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for
employment, which also applies to maritime transport.
4. CREW RELIEF
Aid for crew relief tends to reduce the costs of employing EC seafarers, especially
those on ships operating in distant waters. Aid, which is subject to the ceiling (as set
out in Chapter 11), may, therefore, be granted in the form of payment or
reimbursement of the costs of repatriation of EC seafarers working on board ships
entered in Member States' registers.
5. INVESTMENT AID
Subsidies for fleet renewal are not common in other transport modes (road haulage,
aviation). Since they tend to distort competition, the Commission has been reluctant
to approve such schemes, except where part of a structural reform leading to
reductions in overall fleet capacity.
Investment must comply with Council Regulation 1540/98 or any other Community
legislation that may replace it.
Within the framework of the present Guidelines, other investment aid may however
be permitted, in line with the Community safe seas policy, in certain restricted
14
Thus dredging activities carried out i.a. mainly in ports may not qualify for aid in favour of employment
of EC seafarers.
11
circumstances to improve equipment on board vessels entered in a Member State's
registers or to promote the use of safe and clean ships, such as providing incentives
to upgrade Community-registered ships to standards which exceed the mandatory
safety and environmental standards laid down in international conventions and
anticipating agreed higher standards, thus enhancing safety and environmental
controls. Such aid must comply with the applicable Community provisions on
shipbuilding.
Since shipping is essentially very mobile, regional aid for maritime companies in
disadvantaged regions, which often take the form of investment aid to companies
investing in the regions, may only be permitted where it is clear that the benefits will
accrue to the region over a reasonable time period. This would, for example, be the
case of investment related to the construction of dedicated warehouses or purchase of
fixed transhipment equipment. Investment aid for maritime companies in
disadvantaged regions may then only be permitted where is also complies with the
regional aid rules (see Chapter 6, below).
6. REGIONAL AID ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 87 (3) (a) AND (c)
In the context of regional aid schemes, the Commission will apply the general rules
set out in its communications or other provisions on national regional aid or future
amendments thereto.
7. TRAINING
It should be recalled, firstly, that aid to training is covered by the block exemption
provided for by Commission Regulation 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid, which also applies
to maritime transport.
Moreover, many training schemes followed by seafarers and supported by the State
are not considered to be State aid because they are of a general nature (whether
vocational or academic). These are, therefore, not subject to notification and
examination by the Commission.
If a scheme is to be considered as including State aid, notification is, however,

required. This may be the case if, for example, a particular scheme is specifically
related to on-board training and the benefit of State financial support is received by
the training organisation, the cadet, seafarer or the shipowner. The Commission takes
a favourable attitude towards aid granted on a non-discriminatory basis, to training
carried out on board ships registered in a Member State. Exceptionally, training on
board other vessels may be supported where justified by objective criteria, such as
the lack of available places on vessels in a Member State's register.
Where financial contributions are paid for on-board training, the trainee may not, in
principle, be an active member of the crew but must be supernumerary. This
provision is to ensure that net wage subsidies cannot be paid for seafarers occupied
in normal crewing activities.
Similarly, to safeguard and develop maritime expertise in the EC and the competitive
edge of the EC maritime industries, further extensive research and development
efforts are necessary, with a focus on quality, productivity, safety and environmental
12
protection. For such projects, State support may also be authorized within the limits
set by the Treaty.
Aid aimed at enhancing and updating EC officers’ skills may be allowed during their
whole career. The aid may consist of a contribution to the cost of the training and/or
compensation for the wage paid to the officer during the training period. The
schemes must however be conceived in a way which prevents the aid for training
from being directly or indirectly diverted into a subsidy to officers' wages.
Aid aimed at professional retraining of high sea fishermen willing to work as

seafarers may be also allowed.
8. RESTRUCTURING AID
Although the guidelines on restructuring and rescuing firms in difficulty15 apply to

transport only to the extent that the specific nature of the sector is taken into account,
the Commission will apply those guidelines or any other Community instrument
replacing them in considering restructuring aid for maritime companies.
9. PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
In the field of maritime cabotage, public service obligations (PSOs) may be imposed
or public service contracts (PSCs) may be concluded for the services indicated in
Article 4 of Council Regulation No 3577/92. For those services, PSOs and PSCs as
well as their compensation must fulfil the conditions of that provision and EC Treaty
State aids rules and procedures as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
The Commission accepts that if an international transport service is necessary to

meet imperative public transport needs, PSOs may be imposed or PSCs may be
concluded, provided that any compensation is subject to the above-mentioned EC
Treaty State aids rules and procedures.
The duration of public service contracts should be limited to a reasonable and not
overlong period, normally in the order of six years, since contracts for significantly
longer periods could entail the danger of creating a (private) monopoly.
10. AID TO SHORT SEA SHIPPING
There is no legal definition of “Short Sea Shipping”. However, the communication

from the Commission on the development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe of 199916
has provided a working definition of Short Sea Shipping, to be meant as “the
movement of cargo and passenger by sea between ports situated in geographical
Europe or between those ports and ports situated in non European countries having a
coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe”17. In this Communication the
Commission underscored the role of this transport mode to promote sustainable and
safe mobility, to strengthen cohesion within the Community and to improve transport
15 OJEC N° C 368 of 23 December 1994, Page 12. See also OJEC N° C 288 of 9 October 1999, Page 2.
16 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, « The development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe :
a dynamic alternative in a sustainable transport chain – Second two-yearly report », Doc COM (1999)
317 final of 29 June 1999.
17 Above mentioned Communication, Page 2.
13
efficiency as part of an intermodal approach. The Commission also recognises that
the promotion of short-sea shipping must be carried out at all levels, whether
Community, national or regional.
Since aid to this Short Sea Shipping aims to improve the intermodal chain and to
decongestion roads in the Member States, the definition of Short Sea Shipping such
as provided by the 1999 communication should be restricted to transport between
ports in the territory of the Member States for the purposes of the present
communication.
The Commission recognises that launching short-sea shipping services may be

accompanied by substantial financial difficulties which the Member States may wish
to attenuate in order to ensure the promotion of such services.
When such is the case, the Commission will be able to approve aid of this kind, on
condition that it is intended for shipowners indicated in Article 1 of Regulation
4055/86 in respect of ships flying the flag of one of the Member States. Aid of this
kind will have to be notified and to fulfil the following conditions:
– the aid must not exceed three years in duration and its purpose must be to finance
a shipping service connecting ports situated in the territory of the Member States ;
– the service must be of a kind to permit transport (of cargo essentially) by road to
be carried out wholly or partly by sea, without diverting maritime transport in a
way which is contrary to the common interest;
– the aid must be directed at implementing a detailed project with a pre-established

environmental impact, concerning a new route or the up-grading of services on an
existing one, associating several shipowners if necessary, with no more than one
project financed per line and with no renewal, extension or repetition of the
project in question;
– that the purpose of the aid be to cover, either up to 30% of the operational costs of
the service in question18, or to finance the purchase of trans-shipment equipment
to supply the planned service, up to a level of 10% in such investment;
– that the aid to implement a project be granted on the basis of transparent criteria
applied in a non-discriminatory way to shipowners established in the Community.
The aid should normally be granted for a project selected by the authorities of the
Member State through a tender procedure in compliance with applicable EC rules;
– that the service which is the subject of the project must be of a kind to be
commercially viable after the period in which it is eligible for public funding;
– that such aid is not cumulated with public service compensation (obligations or
contracts).
18
In case of Community financing or eligibility under different aid schemes, the ceiling of 30 % applies to the
combined total of aid/financial support. It should be noticed that the aid intensity is the same as that provided for modal shift
actions within the Marco Polo Community initiative (Article 5 (2) of Regulation 1382/2003).
14
11. CEILING
As was explained above, certain Member States support their maritime sectors
through tax reduction whilst other Member States prefer to make direct payments -
for instance, by providing reimbursement of seafarers' income tax. In view of the
current lack of harmonization between the fiscal systems of the Member States, it is
felt that the two alternatives should remain possible. Obviously, those two
approaches may, in some instances, be combined. However, this risks cumulation of
aid to levels which are disproportionate with the objectives of the Community
common interest and could lead to a subsidy race between Member States.
A reduction to zero of taxation and social charges for seafarers and a reduction of
corporate taxation of shipping activities such as described in point 3.1 (second-last
paragraph) is the maximum level of aid which may be permitted. To avoid distortion
of competition, other systems of aid may not provide greater benefit than this.
Moreover, although each aid scheme notified by a Member State will be examined
on its own merits, it is considered that the total amount of aid granted under Chapters
3, 4, 5 and 6 should not exceed the total amount of taxes and social contributions
collected from shipping activities and seafarers.
12. FINAL REMARKS
The Commission will continue to monitor regularly and closely market conditions
for shipping. Should the latter change, and should consequently the need for State aid
be reduced or overcome, the Commission will take the necessary measures in good
time .
All new proposals for measures notified to the Commission must include a calendar
indicating, for the next six years, the expected quantified effects for each objective of
point 2.2. In particular, the expected macro-economic return on the corresponding
maritime cluster, together with an estimation of the number of jobs saved or created
is to be presented in such proposals.
For all the aid schemes (existing or new) falling within the scope of application of
the present communication, Member States are to communicate to the Commission
an assessment of their effects during their sixth year of implementation.
When aid has been approved and granted to a beneficiary, under the derogation from
the flag link referred to in point 3.1, the relevant Member State must report to the
Commission every three years starting from the date when the grant was granted. In
its report, the Member State will quantify the effects produced and compare the
results with the expected effects. The reporting requirements set out in the present
communication enter into force upon its publication.
Furthermore, should it be required, such as following a justified complaint, the

Member State concerned will have to provide the Commission with evidence that the
assistance granted to the respective beneficiary under an agreed scheme has been
limited to the strict definition therein and has also produced the effects expected.
13. APPROPRIATE MEASURES
The present guidelines apply from the date of their publication in the Official Journal
of the European Communities. In accordance with Article 88(1) of the Treaty, the
15
Commission proposes to Member States to amend their existing aid schemes relating
to State aid covered by these guidelines to conform to these guidelines by 30 June
2005 at the latest. Member States are invited to confirm that they accept these
proposals for appropriate measures in writing by 30 June 2004 at the latest.
In the event that a Member State fails to confirm its acceptance in writing before that
date, the Commission will apply Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and,
if necessary, initiate the proceedings referred to in that provision.
These amended guidelines will be reviewed at the latest after seven years of
application.
16
ANNEX
DEFINITION OF MEMBER STATES' REGISTERS
'Member States' registers' should be understood as meaning registers governed by the law of a
Member State applying to their territories forming part of the European Community.
(1) ALL THE FIRST REGISTERS OF MEMBER STATES ARE MEMBER STATES' REGISTERS.
(2) IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING REGISTERS, LOCATED IN MEMBER STATES AND SUBJECT
TO THEIR LAWS, ARE MEMBER STATES' REGISTERS :
– the Danish International Register of Shipping (DIS),
– the German International Shipping Register (ISR),
– the Italian International Shipping Register,
– the Madeira International Ship Register (MAR),
– the Canary Islands register.
(3) OTHER REGISTERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE MEMBER STATES' REGISTERS EVEN IF
THEY SERVE IN PRACTICE AS A FIRST ALTERNATIVE FOR SHIPOWNERS BASED IN THAT
MEMBER STATE. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCATED IN AND SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF
TERRITORIES WHERE THE TREATY DOES NOT, IN WHOLE OR IN SUBSTANTIAL PART, APPLY.
HENCE, THE FOLLOWING REGISTERS ARE NOT MEMBER STATES' REGISTERS :
– the Kerguelen register (the Treaty does not apply to this territory),
– the Dutch Antilles' register (this territory is associated to the Community; only Part IV of
the Treaty applies to it. It is responsible for its own fiscal regime),
– the registers of :
– Isle of Man (only specific parts of the Treaty apply to the Isle - see Article 227 (5)
(c) of the Treaty. The Isle of Man parliament has sole right to legislate on fiscal
matters),
– Bermuda and Cayman (they are part of the territories associated to the
Community; only Part IV of the Treaty applies to them. They have a fiscal
autonomy).
(4) In the case of Gibraltar, the Treaty applies fully and the Gibraltar register is, for the
purposes of these guidelines, considered to be a Member State's register.
17
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
June 27, 2003
Moving freight from road to inland waterway and maritime transport
Introduction
1. Government assistance towards the capital cost of providing freight handling facilities[1] to
move goods by inland waterway rather than road has been available for many years through the
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) scheme. FFG is available in recognition of the environmental and
other benefits which can arise by removing lorry journeys from the road. Annex 1 sets out in
broad terms how the scheme works.
2. FFG is currently administered territorially by the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly
Government and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. This paper is
issued on behalf of all three authorities. FFG is not available in respect of lorry journeys saved
within Northern Ireland.
[1] Facilities can be wharves, loading/unloading equipment, civil/electrical works, lighting,

environmental impact mitigation measures etc required specifically for the handling of freight by
water.
Part 1
The extended FFG scheme (Capital grants)
3. Recent domestic legislation gave us powers to make grants or other payments for the purpose
of securing or encouraging the carriage of goods by inland waterway or sea rather than by road.
So, for the first time, FFG is not restricted to just inland water way movements: we can now
consider a grant application for any water movement which reduces lorry journeys in Great
Britain. Lorry mileage saved elsewhere does not reckon for FFG purposes.
4. Any public monies paid to the private sector must of course be fully accountable. Awards must
accord with the principle of additionality. [2] They must also be consistent with European Union
provisions on the granting of State aid.
Inland waterway transport
5. The existing inland waterway FFG arrangements continue. We propose to define an inland
waterway movement as one which takes place within the outer limits of UK Waterways Category
D (UN/EU Zone 1)[3].
1
Maritime transport
6. The European Commission has now approved a general extension of the existing FFG scheme to
include maritime transport (coastal and short sea movements, the latter being broadly defined as
intra-European shipping), with the following restrictions:
(a) grant will be restricted to the lower of:
(i) the amount needed to secure modal shift from road (as determined by our financial analysis);
or
(ii) 50% of the capital costs which are eligible for grant (operating and other one-off costs are
excluded);
and in all cases will not exceed the value of the environmental benefits.
(b) grant will not be made available for the acquisition or modification of ships (i.e. self propelled
vessels which require certification to operate outside UK categorised waters). Grant may however
still be made available for vessels which operate within domestic smooth water limits.
7. Accordingly, it is now possible for a company wishing to move freight by maritime transport (i.e.
coastal or short sea routes) rather than by road, to seek FFG towards the capital cost of facilities
specifically required for such a movement. Guidelines for applicants on the extended FFG
scheme have now been published and we will be pleased to discuss specific proposals for
maritime grants.
Assessment criteria
Departmental objectives
8. The Governments objectives for transport were set out in A New Deal for Transport(DETR
July1998). In the same document we detailed our new approach to appraisal for all transport
developments. Guidance on Methodologies for Multi Modal Studies (GOMMMS)or Scottish
Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) in Scotland, require that developments should be
assessed against five main criteria:
• Environment to protect the built and natural environment

• Safety to improve safety
• Economy to support sustainable economic activity and secure good value for money
• Accessibility to maintain or improve access to transport facilities and to reduce
severance
• Integration to ensure that all decisions are consistent with local, regional and national
policies.
9. For FFG, the primary criteria will be environmental benefit and value for money, but
accessibility and integration will also be relevant factors in deciding whether to support an
application.
Formal assessment of grant applications
2
10. To minimise the turnaround time on grant applications we propose to introduce a tiered
approach to formal assessment which takes into account the type of proposal, the requirement for
planning consent and the estimated capital cost. This is set out in the following Diagram. This
should be viewed as providing broad guidance only. We would reserve the right to assess any
grant application in the light of relevant circumstances, including the appraisal guidance that will
be issued following the recent consultation document A Project Appraisal Framework for Ports[4].
Tiered approach to formal assessment of grant applications

Example of type of Estimated Type of assessment
proposal capital
cost
Purchase of handling Any Standard FFG environmental and financial
equipment, refurbishment assessment
of facilities
Any development works Up to Standard FFG environmental and financial
not requiring planning £2,500,000 assessment
consent
requiring planning £2,500,000 assessment + simplified NATA assessment
consent
£2,500,000 assessment + full NATA assessment as
detailed in Guidanceon Methodologies for
Multi ModalStudies (GOMMMS)[5]
Non dedicated (speculative) traffic
11. We propose to extend the scope of the FFG scheme from the present basis of supporting
only specific projects where the traffic flows are clearly defined and we may be confident that the
environmental benefits will be delivered, to include more general ventures which may draw on
various existing and/or potential traffic flows in which grant would be paid in relation to the traffic
actually secured.
12. Projects with specific, dedicated traffic flow(s) offer greater certainty that the environmental
benefits sought will indeed materialise. Nevertheless we remain prepared to consider more
general and speculative applications on the basis already in place under the existing inland
waterway grant scheme to deal with dedicated flows for which total tonnage is uncertain. Here, a
portion of the grant may be paid as the facilities are built/purchased, with the remainder paid in
annual instalments in direct relation to volumes which actually move through the grant aided
facility.
13. The achievement of environmental benefits will remain the fundamental justification for
awarding grants to enable the carriage of freight by water. General/speculative applications must
therefore still be able to quantify the lorry mileage expected to be saved from the proposal to
enable us to value those benefits.
3
Assessing ffg applications relative to one another
14. The FFG programme has to operate within a budget agreed by the Secretary of State and in
Scotland by Scottish Ministers. We expect that demand for grant under the widened scope
described in this paper may exceed the funds available.
15. If we receive more applications than can be financed within our budget, value for money
considerations dictate that we assign funds to projects that will deliver the greatest environmental
benefit in relation to the grant required. This means that we may need to rank proposals relative
to each other, taking into account the likelihood that this benefit will be delivered as projected, in
order to decide which should be supported. Irrespective of the ratio between benefits and the
grant cost, we will also need to consider affordability in relation to the overall budget.
The balance between environmental benefit and competitive impact
16. Expansion of the FFG scheme to maritime transport inevitably raises the issue of distortion of
competition. Competitive impacts as well as the environmental benefits of intervention need to be
assessed in considering whether to make a grant.
Grant applications from ports
17. Under the extended capital grant system, we will be able to consider grant applications from
ports. A port situated near to the origin or destination of traffic flow(s) could apply on the premise
that grant assistance would enable use of a local sea freight service, instead of the traffic
transiting more distant port(s), thereby producing a net saving in lorry miles. However, this would
imply some business loss to existing port(s) and perhaps to other service operators.
18. Clearly, we would not make a grant award where this would result in significant distortion of
competition, contrary to the Governments own ports policy or to European Community
competition rules. Nevertheless we believe that there is a balance to be struck between
environmental and competition objectives and therefore propose to consider grant applications on
their individual merits. In broad terms, where we consider that the environmental advantages of a
proposal outweigh any competitive impact, we may be prepared to offer grant.
19. A precedent has already been created by the European Commissions formal approval in
December 2001 of a FFG in respect of the development of a Scottish port in order to handle a
new direct Scotland-Continent ferry service. (No grant was payable to the ferry operator.) It was
estimated that this new service would result in the loss of up to 5% of existing traffic from some
English ports (in a growing market). However, theenvironmental benefit and benefit-to-grant ratio
were considered sufficiently high tojustify the competitive impact arising from the award.
Lorry mile values
20. The values attributed to lorry miles saved are being reviewed in conjunction with the Strategic
Rail Authority, the body responsible for financial assistance to the rail sector, and in liaison with
the Highways Agency and the Scottish Executive. Any variation of the values subsequently
proposed will need to be notified to and cleared by the European Commission.
Administration
21. Grants for inland waterway schemes will continue to be administered on the present
basis(see paragraph 2), but responsibilities for maritime grants are a little different.
4
22. FFG for coastal movements involving Welsh ports will be administered by the Department for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
23. The Scottish Executive will administer FFG for coastal movements which start and end in
Scotland but at present DTLR will be responsible for movements which only start or end in
Scotland. However, proposals are currently being considered which would enable the Scottish
Executive to handle all types of maritime grant, in liaison with DTLR.
24. Any maritime scheme which requires grant intensity in excess of 50% of eligible costs will
require notification by DTLR to the European Commission for specific State aid clearance.
[2] Additionality a public sector contribution which will bring about additional developments and
not simply replace private sector investment which would have happened anyway.
[3] as defined in Merchant Shipping Notice 1758(M), issued under the Merchant Shipping
Categorisation of Waters Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2356).
[4] http://www.shipping.dtlr.gov.uk/conindex.htm
[5] http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/mms/index.htm
Part 2
Future Options: Grant Assistance Towards Non-Capital Costs (Operating Aid)
The legal context
25. Environmental protection and transport (especially maritime transport) are particularly noticed
in guidelines developed by the European Commission under State aid rules. In particular,
operating aid, which tends to foster inefficiencies, distort competition and stifle innovation, has
generally been regarded, both by the Commission and by the UK Government, as being an
unacceptable form of State aid.
26. However, in line with the EU Transport White Paper objective of encouraging modal shift from
road to rail and water, the European Commission has recently made an exception to its general
State aid policy and authorised a short sea shipping aid scheme put forward by the French
Government. The specific approval, which may be regarded as setting a precedent in terms of the
nature and intensity of State aid which the Commission might now be minded to allow, is for a
30% operating cost subsidy payable over a period of three years in order to support the start-up
of the service. Similarly, the Commissions recent proposal for the Marco Polo programme of
Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport
system envisages assistance at this sort of level for actions leading to modal shift away from
road[6].
27. The Transport Act 2000 provided powers for the Secretary of State to make grants or other
payments for the purpose of securing or encouraging the carriage of goods by inland waterway or
sea rather than by road. In Scotland these powers are conferred on Scottish Ministers by the
Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Subject to obtaining specific State aid approval from the European
Commission, in principle we could further extend the FFG scheme to provide operating aid
subsidy.
5
The policy context
28. We would need to treat such discretion with care. We remain cautious about operating aid on
the grounds of economic efficiency and the potential to distort competition. In consequence, we
would require a convincing case to be put forward in support of any application for operating aid,
which would have to be justified in terms of achieving a significant environmental benefit which
could not otherwise be secured. At the same time it would have to be demonstrated that such
assistance would offer no significant competitive advantage to the recipient.
Financial support for the leasing of equipment
29. We recognise that there may be occasions where it is preferable to lease rather than
purchase equipment. In principle, extension of the scheme to include operating costs would mean
that we would be able to consider supporting leasing costs. Such grant aid necessarily would be
restricted to leasing costs incurred in connection with qualifying and quantifiable water
movements. In all cases, we would require evidence (e.g. through competitive tendering) that
such costs were competitive and would, if necessary, seek independent advice.
Vessel charters
30. On the same basis that we might support leasing costs, we would be able, in principle, to
support the cost of chartering a vessel (or vessels) required to move the traffic which is the
subject of the grant application.
Variable operating costs
31. Variable operating costs could also attract grant aid. For example, in the case of a bare boat
charter (i.e. charter of the vessel only) the additional costs of crew, fuel etc might also be
supported. Similarly, port dues and navigation authority tolls incurred in carrying the relevant
traffic flows could be eligible for operating grant aid.
Arrangements for paying operating aid
32. Following authorisation of grant, we envisage that payment of operating aid would be made
quarterly in arrears on receipt of claims backed by supporting evidence of costs incurred and
traffic moved.
Capital and non-capital grant for the same traffic
33. In principle, both capital and non-capital grant could be awarded for a given scheme, where
financial analysis of the proposed scheme demonstrated the requirement for this. The total
amount of grant paid would be capped by:
• the overriding limit of the value of the environmental benefits of the proposal;
• European Community rules on cumulation (i.e. the requirement that the total amount of
aid payable from all sources should not exceed allowable maxima under State aid rules); and
• in the case of maritime transport, the specific aid ceiling of 50% of eligible costs.
6
Summary
Views on the following would be welcomed:
(i) that an inland waterway is defined as being within the outer limits of MCA Waterways Category
D (UN/EU Zone1) (paragraph 5)
(ii) that there should be a tiered approach to appraisal based upon the type of proposal, the need
for planning consent and estimated capital cost (paragraph 10)
(iii) that grant for common user or speculative schemes be made on the basis of split payment
with annual instalments in relation to actual traffic volume (paragraphs11 13)
(iv) that competing schemes are ranked relative to the environmental benefit they would bring
with due regard to their cost (paragraphs 14 15)
(v) that where projects have a competitive impact, the scale of the competitive effect, together
with the size of the environmental benefits, will be taken into account when deciding on the case
for grant (paragraphs 16 19)
(vi) that we should formulate and seek EC State aid clearance for a further extension of the FFG
scheme which would enable non-capital (operating) aid to be paid(paragraphs 25 28)
(vii) that such operating aid should include leased asset costs, vessel charters and variable
operating costs such as port dues or navigation authority tolls for specific traffic(paragraphs 29
31)
(viii) that in principle both capital and non-capital grant may be made available for the same traffic
(paragraph 33).
Responses, preferably by E Mail, should be made to John Lilley, Head of Water Freight Grants,
DTLR at:
john.lilley@dft.gsi.gov.uk
or by post at:
Zone 2/24
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
by no later than Friday 26 July 2002.
Respondees should clearly explain who they are and, where relevant, whom they represent.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/library/en.pdf
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_shipping/documents/page/dft_shipping_50525
5-02.hcsp
(From UK Department for transport website)
7
30.12.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/11
FRAMEWORK ON STATE AID TO SHIPBUILDING
(2003/C 317/06)
1. INTRODUCTION force. This Framework is in no way intended to prejudice the

outcome of that work and may be reviewed in the light of an
1. Since the early 1970s, State aid to shipbuilding has been agreement within the OECD.
subject to a series of specific Community regimes. Compared
to industrial sectors that have not been subject to specific rules,
the regimes applicable to the shipbuilding sector have 5. In the light of these special characteristics, the objectives
contained a mixture of both stricter and more lenient of this Framework, in addition to simplifying the applicable
provisions. This Framework provides for new rules for the rules, are to:
assessment of State aid to shipbuilding following the expiry
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 (a) encourage greater efficiency and competitiveness of
establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (1) on 31 Community yards, in particular through the promotion of
December 2003. innovation;
(b) facilitate the reduction of economically non-viable capacity

2. The objectives of this Framework are, to the largest extent
where necessary;
possible, to remove the differences between the rules applicable
to the shipbuilding industry and to other industrial sectors and,
thereby, to simplify and make more transparent the (c) respect applicable international obligations in the field of
Commission's policy in this area, by extending general hori- export credits and development aid.
zontal provisions to the shipbuilding sector.
6. In order to achieve these objectives, this Framework
provides for specific measures in relation to aid for innovation,
3. Nevertheless, the Commission recognises that certain closure aid, export credits and development aid and regional
specific factors affecting the shipbuilding sector should be aid.
reflected in the Commission's policy of State aid control.
These factors include:
7. Certain features make shipbuilding unique and distinguish
it from other industries such as short production series, the
(a) over-capacity, depressed prices and trade distortions in the size, value and complexity of the units produced as well as the
world shipbuilding market; fact that prototypes are generally used commercially. As a
consequence, shipbuilding is the only sector eligible for inno-
vation aid. Investment aid for innovation was introduced by
(b) the nature of ships as very large, capital goods, which raises Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 and was intended to be authorised
the potential of State-supported credit facilities to distort only in duly justified cases, as an incentive to technological
competition; risk-taking. However, the implementation of this provision
was not satisfactory. It is considered that the unique charac-
teristics of the shipbuilding industry justify maintaining a
(c) the fact that World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) unfair trade sector-specific innovation aid. Therefore, this Framework aims
disciplines are difficult to apply in the shipbuilding sector; at improving support to innovation, by taking into account
notably the difficulties of application of the previous provision.
(d) the existence of agreements within the Organisation for 8. The Commission may only consider aid to shipbuilding,
Economic Cooperation and Development (‘OECD’) in the ship repair and ship conversion to be compatible with the
shipbuilding sector, namely the 1998 OECD Arrangement common market if it complies with the provisions of this
on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits with Framework.
its Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Ships, which
applies in the Community pursuant to Council Decision
2001/76/EC of 22 December 2000 replacing the 9. This Framework is without prejudice to the temporary
Decision of 4 April 1978 on the application of certain measures established by Council Regulation (EC) No
guidelines in the field of officially supported export 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary
credits (2). defensive mechanism to shipbuilding (4).
4. The Commission acknowledges that work is being 2. DEFINITIONS

undertaken within the OECD framework to replace the 1994
Agreement on respecting normal competitive conditions in the 10. For the purposes of this Framework, the following defi-
shipbuilding and repair industry (3), which has not entered into nitions shall apply:
(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1. (a) ‘shipbuilding’ means the building, in the Community, of
self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels;
(2) OJ L 32, 2.2.2001, p. 1. Decision as amended by Decision
2002/634/EC (OJ L 206, 3.8.2002, p. 16).
(3) OJ C 375, 30.12.1994, p. 1. (4) OJ L 172, 2.7.2002, p. 1.
C 317/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2003
(b) ‘ship repair’ means the repair or reconditioning in the Control shall be presumed to arise once a person or under-
Community of self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels; taking engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair or ship
conversion owns or controls an interest of more than
25 % in the other or vice versa.
(c) ‘ship conversion’ means the conversion, in the Community,
of self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels of not less (f) ‘aid’ means aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
than 1 000 gt, on condition that conversion operations Treaty establishing the European Community, including
entail radical alterations to the cargo plan, the shell, the measures such as credit facilities, guarantees and tax
propulsion system or the passenger accommodation; concessions.
(d) ‘self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels’ means: 3. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
(i) vessels of not less than 100 gt used for the transpor- 3.1. Scope
tation of passengers and/or goods,
11. Aid to shipbuilding shall include aid to any shipyard,
related entity, shipowner and third party which is granted,
(ii) vessels of not less than 100 gt for the performance of a whether directly or indirectly, for building, repair or conversion
specialised service (for example, dredgers and ice of ships.
breakers),
3.2. Application of Horizontal Provisions

(iii) tugs of not less than 365 kW,
12. The general principle is that aid to shipbuilding may be
granted in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty
(iv) fishing vessels of not less than 100 gt, with regards to and all legislation and measures adopted on those bases,
export credits and development aid if in compliance including the following provisions:
with the 1998 OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for
Officially Supported Export Credits and with its Sector (a) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999
Understanding on Export Credits for Ships, or with any laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93
agreement amending or replacing either of them, as of the EC Treaty (1);
well as with the Community rules governing State
aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector, (b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January
2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty to training aid (2);
(v) unfinished shells of the vessels referred to in points (i)
to (iv) that are afloat and mobile.
(c) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January
2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
For the purposes of the above, ‘self-propelled seagoing Treaty to de minimis aid (3);
vessel’ shall mean a vessel that, by means of its
permanent propulsion and steering, has all the charac- (d) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January
teristics of self-navigability on the high seas. Military 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
vessels (i.e. vessels which according to their basic structural Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enter-
characteristics and capability are specifically intended to be prises (4);
used exclusively for military purposes, such as warships
and other vessels for offensive or defensive action) and (e) Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002;
modifications made or features added to other vessels
exclusively for military purposes shall be excluded, (f) Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
provided that any measures or practices applied in restructuring firms in difficulties (5);
respect of such vessels, modifications or features are not
disguised actions taken in favour of commercial ship-
(g) Community guidelines on State aid for environmental
building inconsistent with State aid rules;
protection (6); and
(e) ‘related entity’ means any natural or legal person who: (h) Community framework for State aid for research and devel-
opment (7).
(i) owns or controls an undertaking engaged in ship- (1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

building, ship repair or ship conversion, or (2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20.
(3) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.
(ii) is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, whether (4) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33.
through stock ownership or otherwise, by an under- (5) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2.
taking engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair or ship (6) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3.
conversion. (7) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5.
30.12.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/13
3.3. Specific Provisions (d) expenditure incurred for the redevelopment of the yard(s),
its buildings, installations and infrastructure for use other
13. The general principle outlined in Section 3.2 is subject than shipbuilding.
to the following exceptions, which are justified by the specific
factors presented in Section 1.
18. In addition, in the case of undertakings which totally

cease shipbuilding, ship repair and ship conversion, the
3.3.1. Aid to research, development and innovation following measures may also be deemed compatible with the
common market:
14. Aid granted to defray expenditure by shipbuilding, ship
repair or ship conversion undertakings on research and devel-
opment projects may be considered compatible with the
common market if it is in compliance with the rules laid (a) aid of an amount not exceeding the higher of the following
down in the Community framework for State aid for two values, as determined by an independent consultant's
research and development, or any successor arrangement. report: the residual book value of the installations, or the
discounted operational profits obtainable over a projected
three-year period, less any advantages the aided under-
15. Aid granted for innovation in existing shipbuilding, ship taking derives from the closure of the installations;
repair or ship conversion yards may be deemed compatible
with the common market up to a maximum aid intensity of
20 % gross, provided that:
(b) aid such as loans or loan guarantees for working capital
needed to enable the undertaking to complete unfinished
(a) it relates to the industrial application of innovative works provided that this is kept to the minimum necessary
products and processes, i.e. technologically new or and a significant proportion of the work has already been
substantially improved products and processes compared done.
to the state of the art existing in this industry in the
Community, which carry a risk of technological or
industrial failure;
19. Undertakings receiving partial closure aid must not have
benefited from rescue or restructuring aid in the past 10 years.
(b) the aid is limited to supporting expenditure on investments, Where less than 10 years have elapsed since the rescue or
design, engineering and testing activities directly and restructuring aid was granted, the Commission will allow
exclusively related to the innovative part of the project. partial closure aid only in exceptional and unforeseeable
Exceptionally, additional production costs that are strictly circumstances for which the company is not responsible.
necessary to validate the technological innovation can be
eligible to the extent they are limited to the minimum
necessary amount.
20. The amount and intensity of aid must be justified by the
extent of the closures involved, account being taken of the
structural problems of the region concerned and, in the case
3.3.2. Closure aid of conversion to other industrial activities, of the Community
legislation and rules applicable to those new activities.
16. Aid to defray the normal costs resulting from the total
or partial closure of shipbuilding, ship repair or ship
conversion yards may be considered compatible with the
common market provided that the resulting capacity 21. In order to establish the irreversible nature of aided
reduction is of a genuine and irreversible nature. closures, the Member State concerned shall ensure that the
closed shipbuilding facilities remain closed for a period of
not less than 10 years.
17. The costs eligible for the aid referred to in paragraph 16
are:
(a) payments to workers made redundant or retired before 3.3.3. Employment aid
legal retirement age; 22. Aid granted for the creation of employment as well as
for the recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers or
to cover the additional costs of employing disadvantaged and
(b) the costs of counselling services to workers made or to be
disabled workers in shipbuilding, ship repair or ship conversion
made redundant or retired before legal retirement age,
undertakings may be considered compatible with the common
including payments made by shipyards to facilitate the
market if it is in compliance with the substantive rules laid
creation of small enterprises which are independent of
down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12
the shipyards in question and whose activities are not
December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of
principally shipbuilding;
the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1).
(c) payments to workers for vocational retraining; (1) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 3.

C 317/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2003
3.3.4. Export credits (c) in regions referred to in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and
complying with the map approved by the Commission for
23. Aid to shipbuilding in the form of State-supported each Member State for the grant of regional aid, the
credit facilities granted to national and non-national intensity of the aid must not exceed 12,5 % or the
shipowners or third parties for the building or conversion of applicable regional aid ceiling, whichever is the lower;
vessels may be deemed compatible with the common market if
it complies with the terms of the 1998 OECD Arrangement on (d) the aid must be limited to support eligible expenditure as
Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits and with its defined in the applicable Community guidelines on regional
Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Ships or any aid.
successive terms laid down in such an arrangement or
replacing the Arrangement.
4. NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION
3.3.5. Development aid 27. All plans to grant new aid to shipbuilding, ship repair
or ship conversion, either in the form of a scheme or as
24. Aid related to shipbuilding and ship conversion granted individual aid not covered by a scheme, shall be notified to
as development assistance to a developing country may be the Commission except if they fulfil the conditions set forth in
deemed compatible with the common market if it complies one of the Regulations exempting certain categories of State aid
with the terms laid down for that purpose by the 1998 from the requirement of prior notification.
OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported
Export Credits and its Sector Understanding on Export
Credits or any successive terms laid down in such an 5. MONITORING
arrangement or replacing the Arrangement.
28. Member States shall submit to the Commission annual
25. The Commission will verify the particular development reports on all existing aid schemes pursuant to the rules set
content of the proposed aid, that the aid is necessary and that forth in Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and in its implementing
it falls within the scope of the 1998 OECD Arrangement on provisions.
Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits and its
Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Ships or any 6. OVERLAPPING AID FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
successive terms laid down in such an arrangement or
replacing the Arrangement. The offer of development 29. The aid ceilings stipulated in this Framework are
assistance must be open to bids from different yards. To the applicable irrespective of whether the aid in question is
extent that Community public procurement rules are financed wholly or in part from State resources or from
applicable, bidding procedures have to comply with them. Community resources. Aid authorised under this Framework
may not be combined with other forms of State aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty or with other
3.3.6. Regional aid forms of Community financing, the cumulation of which
26. Regional aid to shipbuilding, ship repair or ship produces an aid intensity higher than that laid down in these
conversion may be deemed compatible with the common guidelines.
market only if it fulfils the following conditions:
30. In the case of aid serving different purposes and
involving the same eligible costs, the most favourable aid
(a) the aid must be granted for investment in upgrading or
ceiling will apply.
modernising existing yards, not linked to a financial
restructuring of the yard(s) concerned, with the objective
of improving the productivity of existing installations; 7. APPLICATION OF THIS FRAMEWORK
(b) in regions referred to in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty and 31. This Framework will be applicable from 1 January 2004
complying with the map approved by the Commission for until 31 December 2006 at the latest. It may be reviewed by
each Member State for the grant of regional aid, the the Commission during this period, in particular in the light of
intensity of the aid must not exceed 22,5 %; the Community's international obligations.
12
Section
Contents
The Marco Polo Program – EU Commission freight

transport project
EU Commission Introduction to the “Marco Polo

Programme”
EU Commission Marco Polo Programme Executive
Summary
EU Commission Marco Polo Programme
“Frequently Asked Questions)
EU Commission 2002 Mini-Call Catalyst Action
Projects List
EU Commission PowerPoint presentation – the
Marco Polo Programme
Marco Polo Program - Introduction
Introduction
In its White Paper - European Transport Policy for 2010: time to

decide, the Commission proposed to take measures which should make
the market shares of the modes of transport return, by 2010, to their
1998 levels. This will prepare the ground for a shift of balance from
2010 onwards.
One measure to achieve this objective is the establisment of the Marco

Polo Programme with its adoption on 22 July 2003. The Programme's
objective is to reduce road congestion and to improve the
environmental performance of the freight transport system within the
Community and to enhance intermodality, thereby contributing to an
efficient and sustainable transport system. To achieve this objective,
the Programme supports actions in the freight transport, logistics and
other relevant markets. These actions should contribute to maintain the
distribution of freight between the various modes of transport at 1998
levels by helping to shift the expected aggregate increase in
international road freight traffic of 12 billion tkm per year to short sea
shipping, rail and inland waterways or to a combination of modes of
transport in which road journeys are as short as possible.
All segments of the international freight transport market are within the
scope of the Programme.
The Programme runs from 2003 to 2010, with a budget of 75 € million

for the EU 15 for the period of 2003 to 2006. Each additionnal fully
participating country will add to the budget The budget for the
remaining period will be discussed in 2006.
The following indicative timetable applies at present to the start of the

Marco Polo programme and also shows the legislative procedure:
04/02/2002 Commission’s Proposal

15/05/2002 Committee of the Regions’ opinion
17/06/2002 Council’s debate
17/07/2002 Economic and Social Committee’s
opinion
24-25/09/2002 European Parliament’s first reading
03/10/2002 Council’s debate
27/11/2002 Informal trilog (Council, EP & EC)
05-06/12/2002 Political agreement at Council
25/04/2003 Council’s common position
08/05/2003 Commission communication on
common position
02 July 2003 Second reading of Parliament
22 July 2003 Adoption of Programme
02 August 2003 Publication of the Marco Polo
programme
in the Official Journal of the EC
(O.J. (2003) L 196/1)
03 August 2003 Programme enters into force
Project Selection
2003:
11 October 2003 First call for proposals
10 December 2003 Deadline for proposal submission
From 23 April 2004 Commission Decision on selection of
onwards * projects
From 26 May 2004 Estimated date for signature of EC
onwards* subsidy contracts +
* = Indicative
+ = Costs chargeable since proposal submission date.
Project proposals may officially only be submitted when a call has been
published. The call will appear in the EC's Official Journal and on the
Marco Polo homepage, and will specify all details.

Marco Polo Program – Executive Overview
(from e-service on EUROPA)
Executive Summary
The Commission proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation setting up the
Marco Polo programme was announced in the Commission White Paper "European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide" of 12 September 2001.
Taking into account the positive experiences with the PACT programme, the
Community should dispose of a practical and market-oriented instrument, which
supports its fight against congestion in the road freight sector and its ambitious goals
to improve the environmental performance of the transport system as a whole. The
Commission proposal of 30 January 2002 intends to set up such an instrument.
The main goal of Marco Polo is to reduce road congestion and improve the
environmental performance of the whole transport system by shifting freight from
road transport to short sea, rail and inland waterway transport. The programme thus
aims to support one essential transport policy direction outlined in the Commission
White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide."
Marco Polo intends to support commercial actions in the market for freight transport
services. It is therefore different from the support given through research and
development programmes and the Trans-European Network programme. Marco Polo
will foster modal shift projects in all segments of the freight market, not only in
combined transport. The programme will also be able to fund actions involving
countries, which are candidates to accession to the European Union. However, taking
into account the principle of subsidiary, it will focus in international, rather than
national, projects.
Commercial enterprises in accession states, which are scheduled to be joining the EU

in 2004, such as Poland, are welcome to participate in the Marco Polo programme.
However, according to financial arrangements during 2003 it is unlikely that project
costs occurring on the territory of an accession state will be eligible for funding under
Marco Polo in the 2003 selection round. Once being inside the EU standard EU
Member States rules will apply.
Commercial enterprises in accession states, which are not joining the EU in 2004 and
those from EFTA and EEA may also participate in Marco Polo, however cost arising on
their territory can only be supported if Memoranda of Understanding between those
countries and the EC are concluded for Marco Polo, which most likely will not be in
time for the first selection round in 2003. For future selection rounds, e.g. in 2004 ,
depends mainly on the political will and the initiative of each of those countries.
Three main orientations are foreseen:
• Start-up support for new non-road freight transport services, which should be
viable in the mid-term ("modal shift actions");
• Support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European
interest ("catalyst actions");
• Stimulating co-operative behavior in the freight logistics market ("common
learning actions").
The main objective of Marco Polo is to help shift an amount of cargo corresponding
to the anticipated growth of international road haulage, to other modes. The
programme will support the major policy initiatives in the freight sector foreseen for
the horizon 2010, and should therefore be in place until that date. Mechanisms for
flexibility will be introduced, which should allow reaction to changing market trends
not foreseen today.
The MARCO POLO Programme
(2003-2010)
Frequently Asked Questions (Selected)
In what aspects does the Marco Polo programme differ from its predecessor
PACT?
Marco Polo is broader in scope, it intends to foster modal shift projects in all
segments of the freight market, not only in combined transport as it was the
case under its predecessor PACT. Also, Marco Polo adds two additional new
types of actions: Catalyst and Common Learning Actions. Finally, the number
of participating countries has been doubled.
What are the main changes included in the common position by Council on
25 April 2003 in comparison to the original proposal of the Commission of 4
February 2002?
• Halving of the subvention thresholds in each type of action, now 0.5 Mio€ for
modal shift, 1.5 Mio€ for catalyst and 0.25 Mio€ for common learning actions;
• Total budget reduced from 115 Mio Euros for 5 years to 75 Mio Euros for 4
years;
• Management committee instead of advisory committee, assisting the

Commission in administrating the programme.
What are the main changes between the Marco Polo Regulation finally
adopted on 22 July 2003 and the Council's Common Postion of 25 April
2003?
There are no changes at all. The texts are identical, because the European
Parliament did not request any modification in its Second reading
What type of projects can be supported by Marco Polo?
Only projects concerning freight transport services may be supported by the Marco
Polo programme, no infrastructure project, no RTD nor study projects are eligible for
support.
May projects carried-out by a single commercial undertakings receive

support?
No, only consortia of at least 2 commercial undertakings, which are independent

from each other and which are established legal entities in different eligible
countries, may receive support. At least one of these countries must be an EU
Member State.
Is there any restriction on eligible modal shifts?

Yes, only modal shifts off the road towards short sea shipping, inland waterway and
rail are eligible for Marco Polo support. This means that, for instance shifts between
the above non-road modes are not eligible, e.g. modal shift from rail to inland
waterway is not eligible for support.
What are the key Guidelines for the different actions (modal
shift, common learning & catalyst) ?
Modal Shift Actions:
• Aid to start-up services

• Robust, but not innovative: - just shift freight off
road
• Subsidy of 1 € per 500 tkm shifted
• Minimum subsidy threshold 0.5 Mio€
• at least 250 million tkm shifted per contract
• Subsidy rate up to 30% of eligible costs
• Subsidy up to 3 years
• No undue distortions of competition
• Viable after subsidy ends
Catalyst Actions:
• Overcome structural market barriers

• Highly innovative: - causing a real break through
• Ancillary infrastructure up to 20% of subsidy
• Dissemination of results
• Mid-term review of each project
• If required by a project: political support from EC
• No undue distortions of competition
• Viable after subsidy ends
Common Learning Actions:
• Improve co-operation and sharing of know-how

• Mutual training: - coping with an increasingly
complex transport and logistics market
• Dissemination of results
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/marcopolo/faq/07_en.htm
Commission decides to fund three transport actions
following the Mini-Call Catalyst Action 2002 “test call”
This year’s “mini call”, published on 7 May 2002, was launched to test
the concept of “catalyst actions” under the Marco Polo programme.
The Commission received 28 proposals, requesting 25.2 million EUR in

subsidies. A budget of 2 million EUR was available under the call.
48% of the proposals came from the short sea shipping sector, 31% from
the rail, and 7% from the inland waterway market. Projects linking short
sea shipping and rail accounted for 14% of the proposals.
10 proposals achieved all the thresholds laid down in the call and are
eligible for funding in principle. These are – in order of merit:
Merit Lead partner Description Maximum

Rank eligible
funding*
1. Société des Autoroutes “Autoroute maritime” – EUR 880.000
Short Sea Maritimes du Sud Frequent and rapid ferry
Shipping 17 A, avenue Robert services between
Schuman Marseille and Savona
F-13002 Marseille
2. Ebrex Holding B.V. Short sea shipping link EUR 370.000
Short Sea Marconistraat 16 for perishables Cadiz-
Shipping NL-3029 AK Rotterdam Rotterdam
3. Eurocombi SpA “Tulip Train” – EUR 750.000
Rail Piazzale Cadorna, 14 Intermodal rail service
I-20123 Milano Melzo-Vlissingen-
Immingham
4. Arkon Shipping GmbH & Short sea shipping link EUR 994.000
Short Sea Co. KG between
Shipping Papenwiese 5 Antwerp/Amsterdam
D-49733 Haren and Vigo
5. Duisport Rail GmbH South-Eastern Europe EUR 1.400.000

Rail Bliersheimer Strasse 83 Shuttle Train Duisburg
D-47229 Duisburg – Vienna (+ further
links)
6. DB Cargo AG “Shuttle Chain” EUR 930.000
Rail Rheinstrasse 2 Belgium – Germany –
D-55116 Mainz Austria
7. Hual Oslo Short sea shipping link EUR 600.000
Short Sea Wergelandsveien 7 Santander –
Shipping P.O. Box 2596 Solli Southampton
N-0203 Oslo
*
Subject to availability of budget.
8. Saar-Rhein Short sea shipping link EUR 630.000
Short Sea Transportgesellschaft mbH Duisburg/Rotterdam –
Shipping Rheinallee 3 Genua/Salerno
D-47119 Duisburg
9. Tarraco Line Short sea shipping link EUR 600.000
Short Sea C/O Dannebrog Rederi Tarragona - Genoa
Shipping Rungted Strandvej 113
DK-2960 Rungsted Kyst
10. Contship Italia S.p.A. Munich – La Spezia EUR 850.000
Rail Via XII Ottobre, 2/63 Intermodal Connection
I-16121 Genoa
The Commission is now starting contract negotiations with the project

leaders of the first three projects to conclude contracts using up the whole
available budget of 2 million EUR. The contracts under the “test call”
should be finalised before the end of this year
10 further proposals did not reach the necessary thresholds to be

considered for funding. 8 proposals were not eligible.
In summary, this exercise was useful in testing the concept of “catalyst

actions”. However, it also shows the need to further elaborate and explain
this central concept of the Marco Polo programme.
European Commission
Unit G4 - Intermodality and Logistics
The Marco Polo Programme

- Update: Programme Adoption -
Helmut Morsi
DG TREN
Intermodality and Logistics
August 2003
European Commission
Outline
¾ History of Policies
¾ PACT - The Lab for Marco Polo
¾ The Marco Polo Programme
Introduction & Overview
Programme Structure
Modal Shift Actions
Catalyst Actions
Common Learning Actions
Formal & Procedural Aspects
Timetable
¾ Mini-Call Catalyst Actions

¾ Further Info & Contacts
European Commission
HISTORY OF POLICIES
Combined Transport, Intermodality and
Modal Shift
¾ Combined transport policy (1975): modal shift in a
tea cup
Deals only with sector covering 7% of the freight market:
containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers
¾ Intermodality I: a system’s approach to efficient
transport (1997)
Recognises the interdependence and complementarity of
the modes, but is not focussed on relieving road
congestion and improving the environmental balance
¾ Intermodality II: joining-up the modes (2001)
White Paper of 2001 gives finality to intermodality
concept: a tool to reduce road congestion
European Commission
PACT 1997-2001: The Lab for MARCO POLO

¾ +: flexible programme, tailored to industry’s
needs - 60% of beneficiaries were small and
medium enterprises;
¾ +: most actions funded under PACT were cost-
effective for society at large in terms of
environmental benefits produced;
¾ -: no quantifiable programme objectives, arbitrary
budget;
¾ -: accepted market structure as given;
¾ -: no adequate dissemination of results and best
practices.
European Commission

- Introduction & Overview -
¾ Policy context
Modal shift policy since 1975
End of the PACT programme in 2001
Road freight traffic: prediction of +60 billion tkm/year
¾ Objective: Shift international increase off road (12 bill. tkm/year)
¾ Duration: 2003 - 2010
¾ Budget: 75 Mio€ for 2003 - 2006 and current 15 EU Mem.States
¾ Mid-term review of programme in 2006 as basis of budget
decisions for 2007 - 2010
¾ Scope
All
segments of the international freight market
Services only, i.e. no RTD, no studies, no (core) infrastructure
European Commission

- Introduction & Overview (continued) -
¾ Eligible type of legal entity
Commercial undertakings only
¾ Eligible to participate in a project consortium, if entity situated in
EU Member States
“Close third country”, e.g. Cand.Countries, EEA&EFTA, Mediterr. Countries
¾ Eligible for EC-funding if costs arise only on territory of

EU Member State
Candidate State prior to accession after Memoranda of Understanding
Candidate State after accession is a EU Member State
EFTA* & EEA States after conclusion of specific agreement(s)
¾ European dimension
International trajectories, involving the territories of EU Member States and
“Close third countries”
At least 2 independent undertakings situated in 2 different eligible countries,
of which at least 1 must be in EU
European Commission
Programme Structure
¾ Three instruments
Modal shift actions
Catalyst actions
Common learning actions

European Commission
Modal Shift Actions

¾ Guidelines
Aid to start-up services
Robust, but not innovative: - just shift freight off road
Subsidy of 1 € per 500 tkm shifted
Minimum subsidy threshold 0.5 Mio€
=> at least 250 million tkm shifted per contract
Subsidy rate up to 30% of eligible costs
Ancillary infrastructure up to 20% of subsidy
Subsidy up to 3 years
No distortions of competition in the relevant markets to
an extend which damages the common interest
Viable after subsidy ends
European Commission
Catalyst Actions
¾ Guidelines
Overcome structural market barriers
Highly innovative: - causing a real break through
Ancillary infrastructure up to 20% of subsidy
Dissemination of results
Mid-term review of each project
If required by a project: political support from EC
No distortions of competition in the relevant markets to an
extend which damages the common interest
Viable after subsidy ends
European Commission
Catalyst Actions
¾ Examples
International non-stop railway services
High speed freight trains on international routes
High quality well integrated inland waterway services
Improving the inland waterway sector
Pools for tri-modally-compatible intermodal loading units
Reliable transport and logistics information systems.
European Commission

¾ Guidelines
Improve co-operation and sharing of know-how
Mutual training: - coping with an increasingly complex
transport and logistics market
Dissemination of results
European Commission

¾ Examples
Improving procedures and methods in sea and inland ports
Co-operation between railways and inland waterway
New co-operation and capacity management models in rail
Adapting procedures and methods in transport systems to meet
today’s logistics requirements
Improving pricing, procedures and methods in the terminal
European training centres
Actions to increase the demand for non-road transport
Actions aiming to improve shippers’ understanding of
intermodal freight transport.
European Commission
Formal & Procedural Aspects
Parliament and Council Regulation:

Objectives
Scope
Intensity
Types of support.
Monitoring.
In-depth mid-term review.
Internal evaluations.
From time to time external evaluations.
Management Committee.
European Commission
Timetable
Unit G4 - Intermodality and Logistics - Marco Polo’s Legislative Process -
¾ 04 Feb 2002 Commission’s proposal
¾ 15 May 2002 Committee of the Regions’ opinion
¾ 17 June 2002 Council’s debate
¾ 17 July 2002 Economic and Social Committee’s opinion
¾ 24/25 Sept 2002 European Parliament’s first reading
¾ 03 Oct 2002 Council’s debate
¾ 27 Nov 2002 Informal trilog (Council, EP & EC)
¾ 05/06 Dec 2002 Political agreement at Council
¾ 25 April 2003 Council’s common position
¾ 08 May 2003 Commission’s communication on common position
¾ 03 July 2003 Second reading of Parliament
¾ 22 July 2003 Adoption of programme
¾ 02 August 2003 Publication of programme in Official Journal
of the EU (OJ (2003) L 196/1)
¾ 03 August 2003 Programme enters into force
European Commission
Timetable
Unit G4 - Intermodality and Logistics - First Marco Polo Selection Round -
¾ 29 September 2003 * First call for proposals

¾ 01 December 2003 * Deadline for proposal submission
¾ April/ May 2004 * Commission decision on selection
¾ May 2004 * Applicants informed of results
¾ Summer 2004 * Conclusion of contracts +
* Indicative.
+ Costs
chargeable since date of proposal
submission.
European Commission
Mini-Call Catalyst Actions

¾ Objectives
Bridge time gap between PACT and Marco Polo
Gain experience with new instrument
¾ Call: 07 May 2002 (OJ C110/11 and Marco Polo homepage)

¾ Optional Pre-checking of Project Abstracts
¾ Deadline: 08 July 2002
¾ Selection: Sep/Oct 2002
¾ Member State Information Meeting: 30 Oct 2002
¾ Applicant Information Letters: Mid Nov 2002
¾ Contracts: Dec 2002
¾ Budget: 2 Mio€, sufficient for 2-3 Projects
¾ Restricted Scope:
EU Member States only, Selected themes, Up to 2 year duration
¾ Results: 28 projects received, 10 short-listed, 3 funded (2 SSS, 1 Rail)*
• *For further details see press release on MP homepage.
European Commission
Further Info & Contacts
MARCO POLO Help Desk:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm
Email: tren-marco-polo@cec.eu.int
Fax: +32 (02) 29-63765
13
Section
Contents
PACT – Pilot Actions for Combined Transport –

predecessor to Marco Polo
EU Commission Introduction to PACT
EU Commission Staff Working Paper –

Results of PACT 1997-2001
AEA Technology Executive Summary –

report to European Commission – mid-
term evaluation of PACT
PACT - Pilot Actions for Combined Transport
(Closed since 31/12/2001)
Introduction
The Marco Polo program is formally the successor of the PACT program, although it
is broader in scope, budget and more ambitious. PACT came to an end on
31 December 2001.
The European Commission Pilot Action for Combined Transport (PACT) was originally launched in 1992
with the aim of encouraging traffic to move from road to other modes of transport and enabling transport
operators to be creative in international intermodal co-operation.
The program makes available a facility to fund 30% of the operational cost of an investment measure or
50% of the cost of a feasibility study to any company participating in the project.
The program focuses on four types of expenditure:
• investment in intermodal equipment and trans-shipment facilities;

• commercial operation of new techniques and technologies;
• support towards infrastructure access costs; and
• measures relating to logistics, staff training and advertising of the program.
Pilot projects, which must include international traffic, may include countries from outside the Community,
but at one least Member State must be covered.
Between 1992 and 1999, 146 projects had benefited from PACT facilities.
The Pact Program is being replaced with the Marco Polo Program.
Main Points
• aim is to encourage creative new services
• must include international traffic
• Marco Polo is the proposed successor to the PACT Program
From the European Commission website

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
Results of the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport

(PACT Programme)
1997 - 2001
Status: 30 September 2001
N° Lead partner Project Objectives Evaluation Time Budget
Commit- Payments
1997 ments
1 * UIRR (INT) Setting up high quality Unsuccessful 1997 – 835.000 835.000
RAIL regular block train service Lack of rail quality, price decreases in competing road modes and price 1999
Germany – Austria – increases by the railways led to the abandonment of this project, despite
Hungary – Romania strong interest from the shippers
2 * Port de Lille (F) Setting up new regular Successful 1997 265.850 238.753
INLAND barge container services Despite longer transit time than road, this reliable service attracted
between the Lille region interest from large retailers in the Lille region for im- and export cargo
WATERWAY and Rotterdam via the port of Rotterdam; contributed to mentality change in the barge-
owner community
3 CP (P) Increasing terminal Unsuccessful 1997 110.190 0
RAIL efficiency in the Project encountered severe delays in the delivery of informatics
Leixoes/Babadela equipment; because of management problems on the side of the
terminals beneficiary, it was terminated by the Commission
4 * ICF (INT) Introduction of refrigerated Partially successful 1997 – 150.700 146.885
RAIL swap-bodies Project aimed to introduce road-competitive intermodal equipment on 1998
several European long-distance routes. While the equipment worked
without fault, the underlying rail quality problems failed to attract
enough customers to this high-end segment of temperature-controlled
cargo
5 * Kombiverkehr (D) Introducing regular Highly successful 1997 – 1.261.600 1.261.600
RAIL-MARITIME multimodal train-ferry Reduction of transit time through better scheduling by 48 hours; better 2000
service Sweden – Italy integration of maritime and rail transport schedules; close transport
information
6 * Rodofer (P) Setting up a combined Unsuccessful 1997 – 122.820 77.021
RAIL transport service for steel Despite production of swap bodies adapted to the specific needs of steel 1999
coils Belgium – Portugal coils, project had to be closed down, because bad rail quality was
leading to unacceptable transit times (up to 11 days from Liège to
Lisbon).
(*): A summary final report for the project is available on the PACT website http/europa/eu/int/comm/transport/themes/land/english/pact.
(PAY): Project is operationally terminated, but will still receive a final payment. Project marked as “ongoing” will also still receive further payments.
(REC): The Commission will seek to recover part or the full subsidy from the beneficiary.
2
7 CNC (F) Installing a hub and spoke Successful 1997 – 301.507 273.979
RAIL system Northern European CNC and its partners have successfully developed a system of 1998
Network integrated shuttle trains through the hub in Muizen (B), with
corresponding information and tracking and tracing systems.
8 * Shortlines (NL) Setting up a new combined Successful 1997 – 692.713 692.713

RAIL transport service Cologne This was is first international rail freight service being set up by a new 2000
– Rotterdam independent rail operator. It produced great improvements in transit
time and other efficiency gains, but also showed the lack of a
functioning framework for international rail freight services.
9 * RENFE, Setting up a joint Successful 1997 – 27.030 27.030
SNCF(E/F) management of Through relatively simple means, the two involved railway companies 1998
Irun/Hendaye border created a joint scheduling and management structure for dispatch of
RAIL station international freight trains, which improved border crossing efficiency
by 30%.
10 RENFE (E) Improving terminal Successful 1997 60.000 57.542
RAIL efficiency This small-scale improvement of its terminal in Irun allowed RENFE to
increase its handling and marshalling performance and contributed to
the success of action N° 9.
11 Port du Havre (F) Development of a shuttle Partially successful 1997 33.210 8.500
RAIL train service Le Havre- The initiative of the port to set up regular and frequent train services to
Vienna his hinterland failed due to restructuring in the combined transport
market and the consequential break up of the consortium; however, the
port set up useful information systems within its terminals with
corresponding efficiency gains.
12 Cargo Docks (I) Setting up new combined Partially successful 1997 – 265.695 265.695
RAIL transport services Modena Due to the impossibility to receive a competitive offer for this train 1999
– Antwerp from the railways involved, the trains were not set up; however, the
terminal Modena was modernized in terms of equipment and
informatics systems.
13 * Ökombi (A) Offering high quality Partially successful 1997 – 497.490 452.509
RAIL combined transport This project, involving five different railway companies, could not 1999
shuttles Austria – achieve the expected quantum leap in quality to attract more customers
Greece/Turkey from road; however, the setting up of a real-time tracking and tracing
system proved very successful.
3
14 DUK (D) Enabling new small-scale Successful 1997 – 290.000 231.088
INLAND barge service Dörpen – The installation of innovative transshipment equipment allowed this 1998
Rotterdam freight center to lower its transshipment prices considerably and thus to
WATERWAY set up regular barge services to Rotterdam.
15 * DBR (D) Installing information Successful 1997 60.104 60.104
INLAND technology for container This project explored ways to render barge traffic on the Elbe between 1999
services on the Elbe river Hamburg and Prague more reliable by successfully implementing
WATERWAY satellite technology in the transport chain
16 * Port de Lille (F) Setting up new regular Successful 1997 242.458 242.458
INLAND barge container services In a similar way to project Lille – Rotterdam (N° 2), regular and
between the Lille region reliable barge services were set up to link the Lille region with the sea
WATERWAY and Antwerp port of Antwerp and thus improve the transport options offered by this
mode
17 * European Feeder Setting up an intermodal Successful 1997 – 936.600 923.261
Lines (F) maritime service La By offering a good service quality at competitive prices, this maritime 2000
Rochelle – Le Havre – feeder service convinced the local industry of the advantage to ship its
SHORT SEA Rotterdam im- and exports to and from sea ports by short sea shipping, rather than
SHIPPING road.
18 * Czar Peter Lines Setting up an intermodal Partially successful 1997 – 500.000 500.000
(NL) maritime service This service worked well from an operational point of view, and could 1999
Vlaardingen (NL) – St. attract, through its reliability, safety and price features, cargo for Russia
SHORT SEA Petersburg (Russia) from road. However, due to the intervening economic crisis in Russia,
SHIPPING the market for consumer goods collapsed, and the service had to be
cancelled.
19 * P&O Trans- Introducing a maritime and Unsuccessful 1997 – 265.560 151.559
continental (UK) rail service Ireland – While this service could have brought important time and price gains 1999
France – Italy for trailer traffic on the route Ireland – Italy, it had to be cancelled due
to persistingly bad rail quality in France and Italy.
SHORT SEA
SHIPPING – RAIL
20 * Senior Logistics Introducing an intermodal Partially successful 1997 – 807.000 441.817
Consultants/ART rail-barge service Novara – This ambitious project aimed simultaneously to integrate rail and barge 1999
Upper Rhine ports transport better through new intermodal loading units and take
(F) advantage of open access on the Italian rail infrastructure. However,
INLAND while the use of the intermodal loading units proved technically
WATERWAY – feasible, road prices decreased more than 20% during the project time;
RAIL the offer became uncompetitive.
4
21 Paris Terminal (F) Setting up an intermodal Unsuccessful 1997 – 114.531 45.812
INLAND barge-rail service Le Havre This project trying to use the competitive advantages of barge and rail 1999
– Paris – Milan had to be abandoned, because the envisaged rail service Paris – Milan
WATERWAY – could not be set up.
RAIL
22 Port de Bruxelles Installing a quadri-modal Successful 1997 – 300.000 120.000

(B) crane and new combined By installing a new crane serving road, rail, inland waterway and short 2001 (PAY)
transport services, Brussels sea shipping, the port of Brussels can now develop new services in all
INLAND – Antwerp – Rotterdam these segments to its hinterland and major sea ports
WATERWAY –
RAIL – SHORT
SEA SHIPPING
23 * BIC (INT) Introducing a new Successful 1997 – 193.000 187.171
RAIL approval system for This project succeeded in introducing a new Europe-wide electronically 1999
intermodal loading units readable identification code for swap-bodies, thus lowering the barriers
to combined transport resulting from the hitherto complex and
expensive approval procedures
24 * Rail Freight Group Conducting a feasibility Successful 1997 30.000 30.000
(UK) study on freight freeway The feasibility study demonstrated the large potential for freight shuttle
London – Sopron (H) trains on this axis. Large traffic shifts could be expected if rail quality
RAIL improved.
25 * MDS Conducting a feasibility Successful 1997 – 110.000 110.000
France/APAA (F) study on maritime hub and This feasibility study demonstrated the technical, operational and 1998
spoke system commercial feasibility of introducing hub and spoke short sea shipping
SHORT SEA systems between the UK, France and Spain.
SHIPPING
26 * UIRR (INT) Conducting a feasibility Successful 1997 – 153.000 151.072
RAIL study on dangerous goods This study explored the advantages and disadvantages of combined rail 1998
transport transport for dangerous goods; it produced a concise leaflet handed to
potential customers to convince them to use combined transport for
their dangerous goods transport requirements.
5
27 * Port of Trelleborg Introduce innovative Successful 1997 95.350 95.350
(S) trailers to improve This project successfully introduced new types of terminal trailers,
interconnection between which improve the transshipment efficiency and the storage capacity in
SHORT SEA road, rail and maritime ships. It was essential for the success of project N° 5
SHIPPING transport
28 ICF (INT) Upgrade of terminal Unsuccessful 1997 – 312.000 15.890
RAIL facilities in Neuss and This project failed, because the foreseen terminal development in 1998
Warsaw to set up new Warsaw could not be implemented due to changed conditions
intermodal services
29 Port Autonome de Conducting a feasibility Successful 1997 – 75.586 75.586

Bordeaux (F) study for setting up new The study explored the conditions needed to set up new intermodal 1998
intermodal maritime maritime services between the port of Bordeaux, the UK, and Portugal.
SHORT SEA services UK – F – P
SHIPPING
30 Swedish State Implementing the “Light Partially successful 1997 – 167.500 78.118
Railways (S) Combi” concept between This project intended to introduce a new combined transport concept 2000
Malmö and Hamburg between Sweden and Germany. Due to several re-organisations within
RAIL the company, only the conceptual work, presented in a feasibility
analysis, could be terminated on time.
31 Poltrain (NL) Proposing new combined Unsuccessful 1997 95.458 89.931
RAIL transport service Almelo – This rail shuttle project failed because of the lack of suitable railway
Poznan capacity and because of re-organisation problems within the
consortium.
32 * Port de Dunkerque Introducing “Nord Successful 1997 – 450.000 450.000
(F) Container Service”, with This project involved the setting up of a new maritime feeder service, 2000
integration of inland and its further integration with inland waterway and rail to the
SHORT SEA waterway and rail hinterland of the port. Through a good co-operation between port
SHIPPING – authority, shipowners, customs and agents, this project proved a
INLAND success. The integration with inland waterway worked, the one with rail
WATERWAY – to a lesser extent.
RAIL
33 Gothia Logistics Setting up shuttle train Partially successful 1997 – 270.000 270.000
Center (S) service Eastern NL – The tentative by an independent intermodal operator to launch new 1999
Eastern Sweden services did not fully succeed because of acrimonious relationships
RAIL with the railway companies and a limited capital base of the operator.
6
1998
34 Transfesa France Setting up shuttle train Highly successful 1998 – 315.000 250.815
(F) service Paris – Ljubliana The beneficiary used the PACT grant to attract general return cargo 2001 (PAY)
(SLO) from Slovenia to France to its train, which was primarily used for
RAIL transporting automotive parts between France and Slovenia
35 * RENFE, SNCF Setting up joint terminal Successful 1998 – 33.676 33.676
(E/F) management Cerbère/Port Encouraged by the success of project N° 9, RENFE and SNCF set up a 1999
Bou similar joint management structure for the border station East of the
RAIL Pyrenees, with corresponding efficiency gains.
36 * Jan de Rijk (NL/B) Setting up intermodal rail Ongoing 1998 – 500.000 290.000
RAIL transport of air freight Given the high quality requirements of the final distribution of air
freight in Europe, this project was a challenge. It could be met largely
successfully with the introduction of new intermodal equipment and
relatively reliable rail services.
37 ICF (INT) Setting up shuttle service Partially successful 1998 – 180.000 38.048
RAIL Luxembourg – Denmark The setting up of this new shuttle did not fully succeed, given the 2001
problems of rail quality on the stretch.
38 ICF (INT) Comparing tracking Successful 1998 – 90.000 36.000
RAIL systems for combined This project consisted in a study analysing the best available techniques 2001
transport for tracking and tracing. It produced a useful analysis of different
tracking and tracing options currently in the market.
39 Cemat (I) Introducing block train Unsuccessful 1998 – 499.540 75.905
RAIL Italy – Poland This project with high market potential had to be abandoned as the 2000
railways involved could not offer a road-competitive service.
40 * UIRR (INT) Setting up a block train Partially successful 1998 – 361.274 144.510
RAIL system France – Germany UIRR aimed to introduce frequent and reliable combined transport 2000
block trains between Europe’s two largest economies. However, despite
an existing market potential, the project could not be fully implemented
as the railways involved could not offer a road- competitive service.
41 * UIRR (INT) Proposing improved Partially successful 1998 – 95.000 95.000
RAIL combined transport This project aimed to attract new customers to combined transport by a 1999
services through better better integration of the communication links between the operators.
communication links While the latter goal was achieved, the project failed to attract new
customers given the quality problems of the underlying rail services on
the stretch UK – France – Italy
7
42 SNCF, FS (F/I) Introducing joint Ongoing 1998 – 830.000 290.000
RAIL management and This project, initiated by the success of projects N° 9 and 35, involves a
interoperability of Modane large-scale successful co-operation between SNCF and FS to change
pass and terminal the Modane border crossing into a jointly managed facility. This
involves sharing of information, a common safety and despatch
procedure, and appropriate equipment to render the locomotives
interoperable between the systems.
43 Multimodal Ibérica Setting up block train Unsuccessful 1998 – 139.726 132.197

(E) system Spain – Portugal An independent operator tried to introduce new combined transport 2000
trains on the Iberian peninsula; however, its negotiations with the
RAIL railways and other combined transport operators took a very long time
without success, while costs accumulated. The company became
insolvent.
44 Grimaldi (I) Setting up maritime Successful 1998 – 515.000 496.855
SHORT SEA intermodal service Italy – This project used fast ships for car transport to introduce maritime 2000
Ireland – Denmark services for trailer traffic between areas with low density volumes. The
SHIPPING project was well accepted by the market.
45 * Port of Zeebrugge Setting up sea-river service Highly successful 1998 – 515.000 395.000
(B) Belgium – Germany Accompanied by strong marketing efforts and undergoing a change in 2001 (PAY)
strategy half-way through the project, this new sea-river service became
SEA-RIVER well accepted by the clients and showed commercial success.
46 Puerto Seco Setting up intermodal Partially successful 1998 – 696.423 451.536
Azuqueca de maritime/rail service This project tried to find a remedy against the very high road haulage 2001 (PAY)
Madrid – Bilbao – prices to and from the port of Bilbao by setting up a regular and
Henares (E) Germany frequent train service from the Madrid area to Bilbao port and further
RAIL – SHORT connections to Germany. This has worked; however, the frequency of
SEA SHIPPING the trains and ship departure turned out to be lower than expected.
47 DBR (D) Conducting feasibility Successful 1998 – 75.696 75.696
SEA-RIVER study for sea-river This feasibility study showed that there was a market for the transport 1999
transport of paper rolls UK of paper rolls in specific equipment for the printing industry, which
– Germany - Sweden could be captured by international sea-river transport.
8
48 * NPRC (NL) Introducing inland Ongoing 1998 - 348.600 168.600
INLAND waterway “Waterbox” After a feasilibity study had clearly shown the potential for short
concept NL – B – D – F distance, regular and frequent inland waterway services between
WATERWAY Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, NPRC is now setting
up such services as of summer 2000.
49 ANTRAM (P) Conducting feasibility Successful 1998 – 87.283 87.283
SHORT SEA study for a new maritime The feasibility study showed in great detail the necessary conditions for 2000
service Leixoes (P) – a commercially viable maritime service between the two destinations,
SHIPPING Rotterdam and found that such services could be viable with some start-up
assistance.
50 Napier University Conducting feasibility Successful 1998 – 134.000 134.000
of Edinburgh (UK) study for a fast intermodal This in-depth study on the commercial, operational and financial 2000
maritime service Scotland implications of setting up a new fast maritime service between Scotland
SHORT SEA – Belgium/Netherlands and the Continent showed clearly the necessary parameters for such a
SHIPPING service. Project N° 87 took up this challenge.
1999
51 CNC (F) Setting up triangular Partially successful 1999 – 300.000 256.228

RAIL shuttle service Paris – The launching of a new through shuttle service between the said 2001
London – Glasgow destinations started successfully and achieved growing load factors and
revenues. However, due to declining rail quality, some customers went
back to road.
52 Freight Track.com Setting up door-to-door Ongoing 1999 - 150.000 105.000
(UK) intermodal tracking system Despite a change of partners and strategy halfway through the project,
this ambitious project wishing to introduce open information systems
RAIL throughout Europe is on track to reach its objectives.
53 Seaconfor (D) Setting up train shuttle Unsuccessful 1999 – 400.000 0
RAIL service Hamburg – Gioia This project got severely delayed by various problems, to which the 2001
Tauro with independent partners did not find a solution. It was cancelled by the Commission.
traction
54 MIC operations Setting up fast intermodal Unsuccessful 1999 – 350.000 140.000
(NL) shuttle for maritime and air Due to problems in receiving a proper path on the German rail network 2001 (REC)
freight Frankfurt – and some lack of planning, this project did not show the expected
RAIL Amsterdam success and was cancelled by the Commission. The Commission will
recover the advance paid to the beneficiary.
9
55 Norfolk Line Setting up intermodal rail Unsuccessful 1999 - 400.000 0
(NL/DK) shuttle for refrigerated This ambitious project to enter into the totally road-dominated fruit and 2001
cargo UK – Spain vegetable trade between Spain and the UK failed, as rail could not
RAIL provide road-competitive services
56 Danzas Italy (I) Setting up intermodal Highly successful 1999 – 175.000 103.000
SHORT SEA maritime shuttle for trailers This straightforward project for trailers between Northern Italy and 2001 (PAY)
Italy – Greece Greece showed strong success in terms of traffic shift, tracking and
SHIPPING tracing and on the commercial side.
57 MDS France (F) Setting up a maritime hub Unsuccessful 1999 – 400.000 160.000
SHORT SEA and spoke system UK – F After project N° 25 had shown its feasibility, MDS France embarked in 2001
– Spain the ambitious project to realise a hub and spoke system with port
SHIPPING operators and shipowners. However, the necessary commitment from
shipowners was not received despite several attempts by MDS France,
so that this project was terminated.
58 SeaCombi (S) Introducing an intermodal Unsuccessful 1999 – 270.000 108.000

SHORT SEA maritime service Northern The commercial and financial implications of setting up a new 2000 (REC)
Sweden – Germany maritime service were too heavy for the small operator, which went
SHIPPING bankrupt before operations started.
59 Rhein-Waal Setting up an intermodal Partially successful 1999 – 300.000 0
Terminal (D) barge/rail service While the barge part of this service was installed quickly and worked 2001
Netherlands – Germany well, the setting up of a new independent rail service to be integrated
INLAND into the project failed, partly because the needed slots were not
WATERWAY – available at the terminal, partly because the consortium did not seem to
RAIL agree on a common strategy. The project was thus cancelled.
60 Navicon (E) Setting up an intermodal Unsuccessful 1999 – 300.000 217.177
SHORT SEA maritime/rail service In order to be successful, the maritime part of this service had to rely on 2000
Madrid – Murcia – rail cargo transported from Madrid to Murcia. However, the rail part
SHIPPING RAIL Livorno suffered from quality deficiencies and strikes, and this also endangered
the viability of the maritime part. The project had to be abandoned to
reduce losses.
61 * Fiege GmbH (D) Conducting a feasibility Successful 1999 – 60.000 60.000
RAIL study on co-operation This study developed some new co-operation models between the 2001
strategies between partners in the transport chain, and the findings of the study are now
logistics, transport and being implemented.
financial partners
10
62 New Thinking Conducting a feasibility Successful 1999 – 100.000 100.000
(DK) study on setting up This in-depth study showed the prospects and constraints of organising 2000
independent intermodal rail services between Sweden and Germany. It worked very closely
RAIL rail services between with the various infrastructure managers and produced a thorough
Sweden and Germany business plan for the launch of the service.
63 ANTRAM (P) Feasibility study on Successful 1999 – 85.521 85.521
RAIL optimisation of intermodal Giving the lack of road-competitive combined transport services in this 2000
train services Iberian axis, the feasibility study explored the conditions and problems in this
peninsula – Germany field.
64 * Shell Nederland Mode-neutral forwarding Ongoing 1999 – 575.000 200.000
Chemie (NL) models for intermodal A large consortium of chemical producers, their logistics service
transport of chemicals D – providers and transport companies explores further avenues for a modal
RAIL – INLAND NL – F – B – I shift in the chemical transport sector, and set up some new services
WATERWAY together.
65 * UIRR (INT) A quality strategy for Successful 1999 – 135.000 135.000

RAIL combined transport in the This project involved a co-operation between the UIRR companies and 2000
Alps their railway partners to set up and implement quality monitoring on
major combined transport routes through the Alps. It presented a
thorough analysis, established active working groups and was closed by
a workshop with all interested parties.
66 Port of Barcelona Intermodal sea-river Ongoing 1999 - 514.479 205.792
(B) service Barcelona – Lyon This project faced difficulties in attracting cargo to the service, despite
its attractive features when compared to road transport. Some cargo has
SEA-RIVER now been secured and it remains to be seen whether it will be viable.
67 Fredericia Shipping Intermodal maritime Successful 1999 – 68.325 68.325
(DK) service Fredericia – The project set up successfully a maritime feeder service between the 2001
Hamburg – Bremerhaven port of Fredericia (DK) and the German mainports. It achieved good
SHORT SEA traffic shift and commercial viability.
SHIPPING
68 OTC (I) Intermodal maritime Unsuccessful 1999 – 250.000 100.000
SHORT SEA service Portugal – Italy This maritime project with high potential actually started operations, 2000 (REC)
but had to be cancelled quickly to reduce heavy losses. The main cause
SHIPPING was lack of interest from the Portuguese road haulage market, despite
the active implication of the Portuguese road haulage association.
11
69 * VBD (D) Feasibility study on sea- Successful 1999 – 47.075 18.830
SEA-RIVER river transport Duisburg – The feasibility study demonstrated the commercial and operational 2001 (PAY)
Goole (UK) feasibility of regular sea-river services between Duisburg and Goole,
also taking into account the need for interoperable loading equipment.
2000
70 Railion Benelux “Overnight Express” Ongoing 2000 - 150.000 0

(NL) Amsterdam – Milan This project mixed passenger and freight waggons to achieve fast
transit times (overnight) between Amsterdam and Milan. Despite the
RAIL good quality and the competitive price, the project suffers from lack of
interest in the market, and may have to be abandoned.
71 BK Tag (S) Independent rail service Unsuccessful 2000 – 294.000 0
RAIL Gothenburg - Copenhagen This project wished to make use of the new fixed Öresund link for 2001
setting up new rail services between Sweden and Denmark. However, it
had to be abandoned, because of lack of suitable cargo on this route.
72 Container Logistics Optimisation of capacity Ongoing 2000 - 145.929 58.372

Bettembourg utilisation in Bettembourg This project aims at utilising terminal capacity better and increasing
terminal viability of trains through improving their load factor, by mixing
(LUX) regional and international combined transport cargo.
RAIL
73 Kombiverkehr (D) Capacity management Ongoing 2000 - 530.000 100.000
RAIL system Germany - Italy This project aims to implement price and service differentiation
according to customer requests and to introduce more flexible time
tables and routing models in order to minimise delays. It shows
encouraging intermediate results
74 Global Container Commercial introduction Unsuccessful 2000 – 132.000 52.800
(D) of 45’ containers This project faced delays in production and approval of the new 2001
equipment and had to be abandoned.
SHORT SEA
SHIPPING
75 Grimaldi (I) Intermodal maritime Ongoing 2000 - 700.000 280.000
SHORT SEA service for trailers This project is successfully introducing a maritime alternative to
Valencia – Livorno - congested roads on the route Spain – Italy for the specific market
SHIPPING Salerno segment of trailer traffic.
12
76 Danube Combined Intermodal barge service Ongoing 2000 - 890.000 148.000
Services (A) Budapest – Deggendorf The provision of reliable and frequent barge services with 45’
(D) containers as an alternative to road is the main goal of this project. It
INLAND has achieved a good operational quality. However, it faces problems to
WATERWAY acquire return cargo from Hungary, given the predominance of the road
freight sector in this country.
77 Transportes José Bimodal rail service for Ongoing 2000 - 400.000 160.000
Carillo (E) refrigerated cargo Cadiz This project intends to use so-called “bimodal technologies” for train
(E) – Paris – Bremerhaven servies in the fruit and vegetable trade between Spain, France and
RAIL (D) Germany. It faced some delay in the beginning of the project, but is
now on track.
78 Seaport Terminals Setting up inland waterway Ongoing 2000 - 305.000 122.000
(B) services through mobile This project intends to use an innovative terminal segment to rationalise
terminal segment NL - B barge services in Beglium and Netherlands. The new pontoon is now
INLAND being introduced.
WATERWAY
79 Simssee Transport Fast intermodal train Ongoing 2000 - 250.000 100.000
(D) Munich - Verona The reduction of transit time from Munich to Verona from 12 to six
hours is the goal of the project. It is on track to reach its objectives.
RAIL
80 Exxonmobile Dedicated shuttle service Ongoing 2000 - 187.500 75.000
Chemical Notre Dame de Exxon wishes to transfer large volumes of chemicals from road to rail
Gravenchon (F) – Antwerp and is implementing this project with its transport partners as foreseen.
Polymères (F) (B)
RAIL
81 UIRR (INT) Integrating combined Ongoing 2000 - 583.030 105.212
RAIL transport into the supply This project is developed in close co-operation with fish producers in
chain for temperature- Norway and other logistics partners. Until now, it has proven that fish
controlled cargoes can well be transported between Norway and Italy by rail instead of
road, if rail quality is satisfactory. However, due to decreasing rail
quality, the main customer has switched back to road ,and it remains to
be seen whether the service quality will improve.
13
2001
82 Lokomotion (D/I) Setting up new Contract under negotiation 900.000

RAIL independent rail service
between Munich and
Verona
83 IKEA Rail (S) Intermodal rail service for Contract under negotiation 500.000
RAIL furniture Sweden –
Germany
84 EVAG (D) Short sea feeder service Contract under negotiation 310.000
SHORT SEA Emden – Hamburg –
Rotterdam - Felixstowe
SHIPPING
85 T3M (F) Intermodal shuttle train Contract under negotiation 600.000
RAIL and terminal innovations
Bonneuil (F) – Lungavilla
(I)
86 IFB (B) Intermodal rail shuttle on Contract under negotiation 380.000
RAIL the “Iron Rhine” Duisburg
– Antwerp
87 Superfast Ferries Fast maritime service for Contract under negotiation 500.000
(GR) trailers Rosyth (Scotland)
– Zeebrugge (B)
SHORT SEA
SHIPPING
88 UIRR (INT) Study on CO² reduction Contract under negotiation 110.000
RAIL through combined
transport
89 DDSG Cargo (A) Intermodal inland Contract under negotiation 430.000
INLAND waterway service Austria –
Rotterdam
WATERWAY
90 Oy Langh Ship New intermodal service for Contract under negotiation 600.000
(FIN) unitised steel products
Finland – Central Europe
SHORT SEA
SHIPPING –
14
INLAND
WATERWAY –
RAIL
91 Amsterdam Port Improving quality in Contract under negotiation 300.000
Authority (NL) logistics using short sea
shipping
SHORT SEA
SHIPPING
92 Explotaciones Intermodal waterborne Contract under negotiation 400.000
Portuarias service Salamanca (E) –
Oporto (P) - Germany
Fluviales Vegater
(E)
SEA-RIVER
Total commitments (including pre-commitment 2001): 29.986.029 EUR
(30/09/2001)
Total payments PACT projects newly started since 1997: 15.066.822 EUR
(30/09/2001)
Total payments PACT 1997 – 2001 (including projects started before 1996 under the first PACT programme) 22.403.000 EUR
(30/09/2001
15
ED21257/R03/Issue 1
Evaluation of the
Implementation of Council
Regulation 2196/98 (PACT)
Final report for the European Commission DG Energy and Transport
AEA Technology Environment
November 2000
PACT Evaluation Final Report
Title Evaluation of the Implementation of Council Regulation 2196/98

(PACT) – Final Report
Customers EC DG TREN
Customer reference B2000-B2706010-S12.190599
Confidentiality, Unclassified
copyright and
reproduction Copyright AEA Technology plc
All rights reserved.
Enquiries about copyright and reproduction should be addressed to
the Commercial Manager, AEA Technology plc.
File reference c:\hh\projects\pact\reports\final report_1.doc
Report number ED21257/R03
Report status Issue 1
AEA Technology
E6 Culham
Abingdon
Oxon OX14 3ED
United Kingdom
Telephone 01235 463962
Facsimile 01235 463574
AEA Technology is the trading name of AEA Technology plc

AEA Technology is certificated to BS EN ISO9001:(1994)
Name Signature Date
Principal Author Heather Haydock
Reviewed by Dr George Marsh
Approved by Dr George Marsh
AEA Technology Environment ii

Executive Summary
This report describes AEA Technology’s evaluation, on behalf of DG TREN, of the

implementation of Council Regulation 2196/98. This provides a mid-term evaluation of the
PACT (Pilot Actions on Combined Transport) programme, covering projects initiated
between 1997 and 1999.
This draft final report describes our evaluation methodology, evaluation results, conclusions
and recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the PACT
programme, addressing the key evaluation themes identified by the Commission: It also
presents an assessment of future options for the PACT programme.
Our key conclusions from the evaluation of the current PACT programme are as follows.
• The PACT programme is managed very efficiently and the programme team is highly
regarded for its professionalism and enthusiasm.
• Most operational measures supported by the PACT programme are cost-effective in terms
of avoided carbon dioxide emissions, even without replication.
• Commercial viability is difficult to achieve, even with the start-up support provided by
PACT, due to challenging market conditions for combined transport in Europe.
• Member State representatives have questioned the effectiveness of the PACT programme
in addressing key market barriers, but appropriate action is being undertaken elsewhere in
the Commission.
• There is good awareness of the PACT programme within the existing combined transport
community but project results are not adequately evaluated and disseminated in support of
Programme objectives such as replication and policy assessment.
• The dissemination aspects of PACT need to be strengthened. This requires a clear strategy
defining the roles of the project teams, programme management, Member States and
possibly a specialist team for dissemination based in or outside of the Commission.
Our recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the PACT programme
are as follows.
1. Retain an open, flexible approach to the selection procedure but provide some additional
time for proposal preparation and ensure consistent presentation of key data.
2. Introduce more structured project monitoring procedures but take care to avoid
unnecessary bureaucracy. For example, a system for reviewing contractor performance at
the end of each contract is recommended.
3. Allow multi-year project approvals as well as single year contracts, with continued support
dependent on meeting specific milestone targets.
4. Discontinue funding of feasibility studies as precursors to operational projects but allocate
some funding to generic studies aimed at market enablement.
iii
5. Improve dissemination by developing a targeted programme-level strategy, issuing new

guidelines on reporting to project managers and earmarking resources for independent
project analysis and dissemination within the PACT programme budget.
6. Improve monitoring of impacts, including project follow-up for a 3 year period. This
would form part of the analysis and dissemination, aimed at providing the evidence to
stimulate replication in the market.
7. Adopt better reporting protocols for future PACT projects to improve the quality of
analysis of environmental performance.
iv
14
Section
Contents
Disclaimer Notices, reproduction

permissions
Important legal notice
The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer, a copyright notice and rules related
to personal data protection.
Disclaimer
The European Commission maintains this website to enhance public access to information about
its initiatives and European Union policies in general. Our goal is to keep this information timely
and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them.
However the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the
information on this site.
This information is:
• of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any
particular individual or entity;
• not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date;
• sometimes linked to external sites over which the Commission services have no control
and for which the Commission assumes no responsibility;
• not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a
suitably qualified professional).
Please note that it cannot be guaranteed that a document available on-line exactly reproduces an
officially adopted text. Only European Union legislation published in paper editions of the Official
Journal of the European Union is deemed authentic.
It is our goal to minimize disruption caused by technical errors. However some data or information
on our site may have been created or structured in files or formats that are not error-free and we
cannot guarantee that our service will not be interrupted or otherwise affected by such problems.
The Commission accepts no responsibility with regard to such problems incurred as a result of
using this site or any linked external sites.
This disclaimer is not intended to limit the liability of the Commission in contravention of any
requirements laid down in applicable national law nor to exclude its liability for matters which may
not be excluded under that law.
Copyright notice
© European Communities, 1995-2003

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia
information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned
general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.
Personal Data Protection
The European Union is committed to user privacy.

The policy on "protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the
1
Community institutions" is based on Regulation (EC) N° 45/2001 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 December 2000.
This general policy covers the European Union's family of institutional Web Sites, within the eu.int
domain.
Although you can browse through most of these Web Sites without giving any information about
yourself, in some cases, personal information is required in order to provide the e-services you
request.
Web Sites that require such information treat it according to the policy described in the Regulation
mentioned above and provide information about the use of your data in their specific privacy
policy statements.
In this respect:
• For each specific e-service, a controller determines the purposes and means of the
processing of personal data and ensures conformity of the specific e-service with the
privacy policy;
• Within each Institution, a Data Protection Officer ensures that the provisions of the
Regulation are applied and advises controllers on fulfilling their obligations (see art. 24 of
the Regulation);
• For all the Institutions, the European Data Protection Supervisor will act as an
independent supervisory authority (see art. 41 to 45 of the Regulation).
The European Union's family of institutional Web Sites, within the eu.int domain, provides links to
third party sites. Since we do not control them, we encourage you to review their privacy policies.
What is an e-service?
An e-service on EUROPA is a service or resource made available on the Internet in order to
improve the communication between citizens and businesses on the one hand and the European
Institutions on the other hand.
Three types of e-services are or will be offered by EUROPA:
1. Information services that provide citizens, media, business, administrations and other
decision makers with easy and effective access to information, thus increasing
transparency and understanding of the policies and activities of the EU;
2. Interactive communication services that allow better contacts with citizens, business,
civil society and public actors thus facilitating policy consultations, and feedback
mechanisms, in order to contribute to the shaping of policies, the activities and the
services of the EU;
3. Transaction services that allow access to all basic forms of transactions with the EU,
e.g. procurement, financial operations, recruitment, event enrollment, acquisition or
purchase of documents etc.
Information contained in a specific privacy statement.

A specific privacy policy statement will contain the following information about the use of your
data:
• What information is collected, for what purpose and through which technical means the
EU collects personal information exclusively to the extent necessary to fulfill a specific
purpose. The information will not be re-used for an incompatible purpose;
• To whom your information is disclosed. The EU will only disclose information to third
parties if that is necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose(s) identified above and to the
mentioned (categories of) recipients. The EU will not divulge your personal data for direct
marketing purposes;
2
• How you can access your information, verify its accuracy and, if necessary, correct it. As
a data subject you also have the right to object to the processing of your personal data on
legitimate compelling grounds except when it is collected in order to comply with a legal
obligation, or is necessary for the performance of a contract to which you are a party, or
is to be used for a purpose for which you have given your unambiguous consent;
• How long your data is kept. The EU only keeps the data for the time necessary to fulfill
the purpose of collection or further processing;
• What are the security measures taken to safeguard your information against possible
misuse or unauthorised access;
• Whom to contact if you have queries or complaints.
3
From: Mark Yonge [mwy@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:28 AM
To: 'Patrick Verhoeven'
Subject: RE: Permission to use articles in Study for U.S. Maritime Administration
Dear Secretary Verhoeven
Thank you very much for your prompt response and permission.
Mark Yonge,Maritime Industry Consultant

Phone: 954-761-1718; FAX 954-763-1291
Cell: 954-873-8716
email: mwy@peoplepc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Verhoeven [mailto:Patrick.Verhoeven@espo.be]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:30 AM
To: Mark Yonge
Subject: RE: Permission to use articles in Study for U.S. Maritime Administration
Dear Mr. Yonge,
Thank you for your email. I can herewith confirm our authorisation to use the said
documents.
Kind regards,
Patrick Verhoeven
Secretary General
EUROPEAN SEA PORTS ORGANISATION - ESPO vzw/asbl

Treurenberg 6 - B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles
Tel : + 32 2 736 34 63 - Fax : + 32 2 736 63 25
Email : pverhoeven@espo.be - Web : www.espo.be
From: Mark Yonge [mailto:mwy@peoplepc.com]

Sent: 09 March 2004 22:50
To: Patrick Verhoeven
Subject: Permission to use articles in Study for U.S. Maritime Administration
To: Secretary General

Mr. Patrick Verhoeven
E.S.P.O. (European Sea Ports Organisation)
Treurenberg 6
B - 1000 Brussel/Bruxelles
Secretary Verhoeven:
I am presently about to complete a study of Short Sea Shippng and Transport

Policy in the EU for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime
Administration.
I would like to request permission to use an artical that appeared in ESPO
NEWS+, dated 3 October, 2003, Volume 9.21 - entitled: "Motorways of the Sea,
Priority under new Ten-T Package".
I would also like to use your web site "Mission Statement" for ESPO.
Both would be entered in the report without modification to the content of any kind.
Trust the above reqeuest will meet with your approval.
Please respond to this email at the address shown.
Thank You
Mark Yonge
Maritime Industry Consultant
Phone: 954-761-1718; FAX 954-763-1291
Cell: 954-873-8716
email: mwy@peoplepc.com
15
Section
Contents
EU websites, references
..
..
..
..
.
Websites
The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in Europe

http://www.amrie.org/
European Commission – Energy & Transport

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html
European Commission Transport Knowledge Research Center

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/index.htm
European Parliament –
http://www.europarl.eu.int/home/default_en.htm
European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO)

http://www.espo.be/
European Shortsea Network

http://www.shortsea.info/front/frameset.asp
European Transport Forum

http://www.transport-forum.com/
European Union Gateway home page

http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
Maritime Development Center of Europe

http://www.maritimecenter.dk/
REALISE: Regional Action for Logistical Integration of Shipping across Europe.

http://www.realise-sss.org/
UK Department for Transport

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/homepage/dft_home_i
ndex.htm
Welcome Europe.com (EU Grants & Funding assistance site)

http://www.welcomeurope.com/index.asp
............................

European SSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

European SSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

..

European Union Short Sea Shipping

European Union Transport Initiatives to

Prepared for the:

Study submitted by:

April 12, 2004

(Subsequent sections include official policy statement, details and reference)

Section Two (2) The European Union (EU) at a Glance

EU Commission Overview – “The European Union at a Glance”

EU Council and Parliament make-up

10 More Countries join EU, May 2004

European Member States & National Flags

EU & International Institutions and Organizations

Glossary of geographical abbreviations

EU Commission “White Paper” (Extracts)

EU Commission statement – “European Transport Policy Conclusions: A Time to Decide”

Section Four (4) EU Maritime Transport Policy

Overview of EU Maritime Transport Policy

Maritime Transport Sector

Plan for Shipbuilding competitiveness – EU Commission Press Release

EU Merchant Fleet Chart

World Merchant Fleet Chart

Section Six (6) Short Sea Shipping in the European Union

EU Commission Short Sea Shipping Overview

EU Commission Short Sea Shipping Policy Statement

EU Commission Statistical Evidence of Success

EU Short Sea Shipping Brochure

EU Commission Summary of Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping

“Mirmal” maritime law bulletin , Spain – Opinion “The 14 Commandments of the EU

Section Eight (8) EU Short Sea Promotion Centers

Overview of the EU Shortsea Promotion Centres

EU listing of “Operational Shortsea Promotion Centres”

Member States and EA Countries – Sea Shipping Focal Points

European Shortsea Network Organization and Objectives information

The Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in Europe (AMRIE) Information

E.S.P.O. (European Sea Ports Organization) Mission Statement

EU Commission Transport Research Knowledge Center information

EU Commission TEN-T Community Guidelines overview

EU Commission official statement re “Enlargement of the trans-European Transport Network: Commission

EU Parliament Press Release – “Parliament Set to back Motorways of the Sea”

EU Quick Start Projects Charts – “Motorways of the Sea”

Section Eleven (11) EU Financing Instruments

EU Framework on State Aid to Ship Building

EU Commission Marco Polo Programme Executive Summary

EU Commission Marco Polo Programme “Frequently Asked Questions)

EU Commission 2002 Mini-Call Catalyst Action Projects List

EU Commission PowerPoint presentation – The Marco Polo Programme

EU Commission Staff Working Paper – Results of PACT 1997-2001

AEA Technology Executive Summary – report to European Commission – mid-term evaluation of

Section Fourteen (14) Disclaimer Notices, reproduction permissions

Section Fifteen (15) EU websites, references

European Union Short Sea Shipping

A recent European Commission working paper stated “Creating a dynamic EU

In the European Union:

• 16,000 km of railways, 20% of the network, are classed as bottlenecks.”

• Demand is expected to continue to grow rapidly.

• Freight volumes in particular are expected to rise by 70% in the current EU

This report provides an overview of EU Short Sea Shipping as well as EU Transport

This report utilizes a compilation of information obtained from websites, periodicals

Study submitted by:

European Union Short Sea Shipping

Maritime transportation has historically been a major part of the

The negative impact has been significant. The number of EU

The European Union strongly supports their maritime transport