Evaluation of the relevant directives related to the initiative on recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the relevant directives related to the initiative on recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation (Directives 91/672/EEC and 95/50/EC).

2 European Union, 2014 The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the report lies entirely with the authors. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

3 Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 ABBREVIATIONS 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 INTRODUCTION Rationale for and timeframe of this evaluation Key actors involved Structure of the report 3 2 GENERAL CONTEXT Relevant EU policy and overview of legislation in the EU CCNR and agreements on mutual recognition 7 3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Evaluation questions and criteria Data collection Data analysis 22 4 EVALUATION FINDINGS Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Utility 41 5 CONCLUSIONS 47 ANNEX 1 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS THAT RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 49 ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES 51 ANNEX 3 EXPERT GROUP STATEMENT ON LKR 69 ANNEX 4 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 71

4

5 Abbreviations Please find below an overview of abbreviations that are used in the text. Abbreviation AT BE CCNR CH CZ DC DE EBU EC EDINNA ESO EU ETF FR HINT HR HU ISRBC IWT LK LKR NA NAIADES NL RO SB SK SME SRB UK UNECE Description Austria Belgium Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine Switzerland Czech Republic Danube Commission Germany European Barge Union European Commission Education in Inland Navigation European Skippers Organisation European Union European Transport Workers Federation France Harmonized Inland Navigation Transport through education and information technology Croatia Hungary International Sava River Basin Commission Inland Waterway Transport Local Knowledge Local Knowledge Requirement Not Available Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe Netherlands Romania Serbia Slovak Republic Small and medium-sized enterprises Service Record Book United Kingdom United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

6

7 Executive Summary Context and evaluation methodology The subject of the evaluation are Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway and Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn from the experience of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC; and to improve the quality of the Commission s future interventions, notably the preparation of a possible new EU legal instrument on the recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation 1. Evaluation questions have been developed in line with the European Commission evaluation guidelines, in order to conclude on the following evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and utility. Findings are to a large extent based on the input received from a questionnaire sent to the members of the Expert Group E Recognition and modernisation of professional qualifications in inland navigation. The results from the questionnaire were complemented by other sources, i.e. desk research, results from a public consultation conducted by the Commission services and a series of meetings with the Expert Group E Evaluation findings Relevance Scope of the directives The directives are limited in scope, in respect to both coverage of professional workers (only boatmasters) and types of vessels (Directive 96/50/EC include vessels intended for goods transport which are over 20 metres in length and vessels intended for passenger transport, which carry more than 12 people) 2. Feedback from the questionnaire and the public consultation indicates a preference for extending the coverage of professional workers to all crew members. Extending the coverage of professionals would imply a trade-off. Care should be taken when extending the coverage to all crew members for the benefit of labour mobility and safety to design measures in such a way that administrative burden does not increase unduly. 1 As referred to in the NAIADES II Communication. See: communication NAIADES II: Notably on skilled workforce and quality jobs. 2 The scope of the directives is focused on staff and vessels covered, notably by Directive 96/50/EC. Related aspects, such as geographical scope, including the Rhine exemption, are dealt with separately. i

8 The trade-off is also relevant for considerations on the types of vessels to be included. The evaluator considers the scope of Directive 96/50/EC on vessels adequate. Provisions of the directives The provisions on requirements for issuing boatmasters certificates are mostly necessary and sufficient. The provisions in Directive 96/50/EC 3 are to a large extent aligned with the Rhine Patent Regulation. However, the Rhine Patent Regulation is in certain cases more stringent on requirements than Directive 96/50/EC. Article 5 of Directive 96/50/EC includes the provision of a minimum age of 21 years. The evaluator is of the opinion that the provision of minimum age, as included in Directive 96/50/EC, is necessary and sufficient. The provision of mental and physical health, as defined in Article 6 of Directive 96/50/EC, calls for additional medical examination starting at the age of 65 (50 in the Rhine Regulation). Some Member States applying the Rhine Regulation consider the Rhine requirements as too stringent, and would be in favour of only conducting additional medical examinations at a later age4. In this respect, the standards of the Directive could be further analysed and if necessary revised. This in order to make sure that the benefits of additional medical examinations outweigh its costs, with due respect of safety requirements. Article 7 defines the requirement of four years of professional experience. However, there is no requirement on how that time is spent. It is the evaluator s opinion that Directive 96/50/EC is not sufficient on this aspect. The requirement of four year of professional experience should be accompanied by specific elements or aspects to be carried out in this period, for example as done in the Rhine patent. In addition, skills should be demonstrated by a practical examination. Article 8 on the requirement to have passed an examination of professional knowledge is necessary and sufficient, according to the evaluator. The same applies for Articles 9 and 10 on respectively navigation with aid of radar and a special certificate as proof of professional knowledge of safety issues on board a passenger ship. Effectiveness Reciprocal recognition and harmonisation of conditions for obtaining boatmasters certificates Both directives have been partly effective in responding to their respective objectives related to reciprocal recognition of boatmasters certificates (91/672/EEC) and harmonisation of conditions for obtaining boatmasters' certificates (96/50/EC). Although reciprocal recognition and harmonisation have taken place, some barriers remain, preventing further or full harmonisation: The exemption of the waterways to which the Rhine Navigation Licenses apply. 3 No common provisions are included in Directive 91/672/EEC. 4 Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport (2013), «Analyse leeftijdsgebonden medische keuringen beroepsmatige binnenvaart ii

9 Different rules and regulations at national level and the existence of local knowledge requirements. Exemption of waterways on which Rhine navigation licenses apply By exempting the waterways on which Rhine navigation licenses apply from Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC a dual system was created, one for the Rhine and one for the other European waterways. Although understood from a historic perspective, the dual system has negatively affected free navigation on European waterways, as access to the Rhine was restricted. This dual system has led to a process of mutual recognition initiated by CCNR which has been partly effective in recognising boatmasters certificates and Service Record Books on the Rhine and therefore has improved partly access to the Rhine and led to a more harmonised system, obviously also with its limits. Local Knowledge Requirements (LKR) LKRs are intended to increase safety in inland navigation. At the same time, the implementation of LKR regimes negatively affects labour mobility. If a trade-off is considered between labour mobility and safety, the safety aspect generally prevails. There are three specific aspects related to LKRs which affect labour mobility to consider further: (i) difficulties related to examination of LKR (in particular the issue of language); (ii) the grounds on which LKR situations are defined; and (iii) professional knowledge and experience required to obtain a LKR certificate. Exemption for boatmasters operating exclusively on national waterways Member States make use of the exemption for boatmasters that operate exclusively on national waterways. The evaluator is of the opinion that the exemption does not affect free navigation in the European Union. Education and training standards Countries have made their own translation of minimum professional requirements into education and training standards, all based on national insights. This results in differences in the way training and education is organised at a national level. EDINNA has worked together with several parties in a Joint Working Group on the development of the Standards of Training and Certification in Inland Navigation (STCIN). Such standards are needed, as standardised training will improve the quality of workers in inland navigation, facilitate labour mobility and improve safety. Efficiency Administrative costs of implementing the directives The size of the administrative costs of implementing the directives is unknown. The evaluator would assume that harmonisation of conditions for obtaining the boatmasters certificate has resulted in a reduction of administrative costs as a result of efficiency gains. Utility Contribution to EU inland navigation policy Both directives have contributed to free navigation on inland waterways in Europe. To a lesser extent, as the relationship is less direct, the two directives have also contributed to the policy of integrating inland waterways into the iii

10 transport system in Europe. However, certain restrictions on free navigation on inland waterways in the EU remain, such as the exemption for the waterways on which Rhine navigation licenses apply and the limited scope of the Directives in terms of professions covered. Contribution to improved safety To a large extent the minimum requirements and the topics on professional knowledge required to obtain a boatmaster certificate, listed in Annex II of Directive 96/50/EC, contribute to improved safety. Directive 96/50/EC does not differentiate between the types of vessels that are covered by the boatmasters certificate (within the scope as defined in the directive). The fact that boatmasters may operate a large convoy without proven experience or specific qualification may come with risks (though not quantitatively assessed under the present evaluation due to a lack of available data). From a safety perspective there is room to extend the topics listed in Annex II of Directive 96/50/EC, e.g. by including river speak as a measure to address problems related to language. Contribution to improved labour market The directives have contributed to improved labour mobility. The process of reciprocal recognition of the boatmasters certificates has facilitated access to European waterways, thus leading to better labour mobility. The harmonisation process, initiated by Directive 96/50/EC has further lowered labour mobility barriers. Nevertheless, there are still remaining barriers: differences in regimes of the Rhine patent and the EU directive, limitation of professional coverage to boatmasters, different rules and regulations related to professional qualifications and difficulties related to examination of LKRs and lack of common criteria for establishing LKRs. Conclusions The study has shown that the two directives have been partly effective in responding to their respective objectives related to reciprocal recognition of boatmasters certificates and harmonisation of conditions for obtaining boatmasters' certificates. Drafted almost two decades ago, the scope and contents of the directives are not fully adapted to the current context of the inland navigation sector. With EU enlargement and the development of a Trans-European Transport Network, the inland navigation policy is increasingly requiring operation at an integrated European scale. The limitation of the scope of the Directives has created an environment in which the CCNR has initiated the process of establishing mutual recognition through bilateral and multilateral agreements. This process of mutual recognition has been partly effective in recognising boatmasters certificates and Service Record Books on the Rhine. The process has led to a more harmonised system and improved access to the Rhine. However, barriers remain for those who did not sign the mutual recognition agreements. From a European perspective, the system of mutual recognition has also its limitations as it provides only partial geographical coverage of Europe. In other words, this results in a dual system, comprised of a system for the Rhine (and countries participating in the iv

11 agreements with CCNR) on the one hand and a system for other European Member States on the other hand. The evaluation findings suggest several courses for actions for modernising and streamlining the professional qualifications in IWT: Considering the process of mutual recognition through multilateral and bilateral agreements initiated by the CCNR as a first transitional step which could facilitate the process towards the introduction of unique minimum requirements valid in all Member states. Such requirements would also overcome some of the limitations of the current dual system. Extending the coverage of professional workers to all crew members in order to extend the benefits of improved labour mobility and safety beyond the profession of boatmaster. Providing insight in genuine professional qualifications by basing the process of mutual recognition on an assessment of competences of boatmasters and crew members. Modernising professional qualifications by introducing the use of electronic tools. Keeping a degree of flexibility for the Member States to deviate at a national level in certain areas from common provisions, as foreseen in Directive 96/50/EC. v

12

13 1 Introduction 1.1 Rationale for and timeframe of this evaluation On 10 September 2013 the European Commission adopted the NAIADES II package "Towards quality inland waterway transport" 5. This package includes the NAIADES II Communication 6, from which the following text is quoted. Too many barriers still exist for access to the profession and for the recognition of qualifications of inland waterway transport workers. Procedures to prove experience and qualifications are burdensome and/or are easy to circumvent. The fragmented legal framework governing skills and qualifications in the sector needs to be revised. The Commission is currently reviewing the Council Directive 96/50/EC on the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community, with a view to modernising and streamlining the regulatory framework for workers professional qualifications. Source: NAIADES II Communication "Towards quality inland waterway transport" Rationale for this evaluation The rationale for this evaluation is to report on the achievements of the EU interventions through Directives 91/672/EEC and Directive 96/50/EC, and to define lessons learned. This is done against the background of modernising and streamlining the regulatory framework for workers professional qualifications, as described in the box above. Time period considered The evaluation considers the period to the present. During the period from 1991 to 2013 many major changes have occurred in the EU, in particular the successive EU accessions and the succession of periods of economic prosperity with periods of economic downturn, as illustrated in the box on the next page. These events have had a major impact on the labour market in the IWT sector in the European Union. It may therefore be difficult to recognise and isolate the effects of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC. This issue of attribution is addressed in Section NAIADES II Communication"Towards quality inland waterway transport", COM (213)623 final, September 10 th, December 16, 1991 Council Directive 91/672/EEC was signed. 1

14 The progressive enlargements of the EU In the four enlargement sessions that took place in the period between 1991 and 2013, the greatest impact on the IWT sector followed after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements, which expanded the territory of the EU with twelve countries. These enlargements contributed to the acceleration of foreign trade on inland waterways (especially in Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Romania) 8, the opening of labour markets, and the removal of obstacles to a competitive and sustainable IWT sector. 9 Furthermore, the level of safety and social conditions of the IWT workers were also improved in the accession countries. As a further impact, the enlargement of the EU has increased the importance of the Danube, since together with the Rhine, they form a connection between the Black Sea and the North Sea. Economic factors The global financial crisis of 2008 affected primarily the volume of traffic on inland waterways. In the years leading up to the crisis, the labour market in the IWT sector showed a gradually increasing amount of cargo transported. In 2008, just before the financial crisis commenced, a total of 145 billion ton-kilometres were transported on the inland waterways in the EU. 10 Compared to data from 1995, this represents an increase of 27.2%. 11 In 2009, the amount of cargo transported on European inland waterways decreased with 16% as a result of the crisis. 12 Prior to 2008, fleet capacity on the Rhine increased progressively as new vessels were put into service to cope with the increasing service demand. In 2008, the sharp decrease in the amount of cargo transported rapidly resulted in a difference between supply and demand. 13 As a result, the labour market was faced with labour overcapacity, increased competition, and lowering of wages. Inevitably, the book profits of vessels dropped substantially as well. For the labour market this translated into workers being forced to leave the sector, and those who remained, were required to cope with lower wages. After the financial crisis of 2008, a slow recovery began. Nonetheless, according to the CCNR, the recovery in the IWT sector stopped at the beginning of Moreover, there is no growth foreseen for , while the economic risks remain high, as the crisis is not entirely over yet Key actors involved Key actors involved in this evaluation are the EU Member States, through relevant ministries and agencies, and the inland navigation companies and workers. In addition, specialized educational and training institutions contributed 8 CCNR, Inland Navigation in Europe: Market observation No. 12, 2010, vol. 2., p European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Strengthening Inland Waterway Transport: Pan-European Co-Operation for Progress, (2006). See also, PINE, Prospects of Inland Navigation within the Enlarged Europe: Final Concise Report, (March 2004). 10 Empirical data is based on statistics available through Eurostat. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Hans van der Werf, Economic Outlook of the Market of Inland Water Transport (Presentation by the Secretary-General of CCNR 24 April 2013) < 14 Hans van der Werf, Economic Outlook of the Market of Inland Water Transport (Presentation by the Secretary-General of CCNR 24 April 2013) < 15 Ibid. 2

15 to the work, as well as relevant river commissions, i.e. Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), the Danube Commission and the International Sava River Basin Commission. 1.3 Structure of the report The second chapter describes the general context of professional qualifications in inland navigation, including relevant EU policy and legislation and the role of CCNR in the process of mutual recognition. The third chapter presents the evaluation methodology, i.e. the evaluation questions and criteria, as well as the process of data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 describes the evaluation findings, mainly based on feedback from Member States on both directives. Findings are presented per evaluation criteria. Chapter 5 presents conclusions. 3

16

17 2 General Context 2.1 Relevant EU policy and overview of legislation in the EU Relevant EU Policy Inland waterways in Europe, according to the White Paper on Transport 16, have to play an increasing role in moving goods to the hinterland and in linking the European seas. To create the conditions for inland navigation transport to become a quality mode of transport, the European Commission adopted an action programme on the promotion of inland waterway transport called NAIADES (Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe) 17. As mentioned in Section 1.2, NAIADES II was recently published, setting out the programme for policy action in the field of inland waterway transport for the period Actions are taken in the following key areas of intervention: 1 Quality infrastructure 2 Quality through innovation 3 Smooth functioning of the market 4 Environmental quality through low emissions 5 Skilled workforce and quality jobs 6 Integration of inland navigation into the multimodal logistics chain Overview of relevant legislation within the EU The purpose of the present section is to present a comprehensive overview of the various legislative frameworks that are relevant for labour mobility in European inland navigation. In order to achieve this, the structure of this section will be delineated along the lines of the main regulatory actors in the inland navigation sector, namely the European Union (EU), the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR), the Danube Commission (DC), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and to a limited extent the Sava River Basin Commission, which each have a different (but to an extent overlapping) regulatory and geographical scope. EU principle of free movement and sectoral laws First, on the EU level, two sets of rules are relevant for labour mobility in inland navigation. The first set emanates from the fundamental principle of free movement of workers, inherent in the nature of the EU, 18 which envisages that EU citizens may freely take up employment in another Member State without the need for a work permit 19. This is especially relevant for crew members, other 16 COM(2011) 144 final Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. See also, Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, OJ L. 257, , p The exception from these rule are the citizens of Croatia. 5

18 than the boatmaster (e.g. helmsmen or boatmen), who operate on the vessel. For this category of IWT workers, Directive 2005/36/EC is also an important legislative act. 20 The scope of this Directive is to facilitate the temporary mobility of certain categories of professionals through a simplified and expedited recognition process of the applicant s professional qualifications. Activities allied to IWT explicitly fall within the scope of the Directive. 21 However, as the IWT professions under the level of boatmaster are not described in this Directive, these professions do not fall under the system of automatic recognition foreseen under 2005/36/EC. The second set of EU rules are characterized by separate sectoral laws, where the EU has adopted a comprehensive set of sector specific legislative instruments that has a direct impact on IWT labour mobility. This is especially relevant for the two directives that are subject of evaluation, i.e. Council Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC 22. Both Council Directives are introduced in the box below. Directive 91/672/EEC Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway provides for the mutual recognition by the Member States of each other s boat masters certificates, and establishes a committee to facilitate the process by delivering its opinion on the draft amendments of Annex I, i.e. the list of national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway. Directive 96/50/EC Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community laid down harmonised basic conditions for obtaining national boat masters' certificates for inland waterway navigation between the EU member States. The Directive distinguishes between an A type certificate which is valid for all inland waterways not falling under Rhine regulations 23, and the B type which is similar but not valid on inland waterways with a maritime character, such as estuaries. The Council Directives jointly form a legislative framework. In this report sometimes reference is made to the two directives as the "EU legal framework". Please note that in the text, where relevant, reference is made to the individual 20 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L. 255, , p Ibid., see List II of Annex IV in conjunction with Article 18. The range of IWT activities are relatively broad, and include, inter alia, operation and maintenance of waterways, ports and other installations for inland water transport; tug and piloting services in ports, setting of buoys, etc. 22 The text of Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC can be found on the following web addresses: Directive 91/672/EEC: doc=391l0672&lg=en and Directive 96/50/EC: 23 Waterways to which the Regulation on the issue of Rhine navigation licences applies are not covered by Directive 96/50/EC. 6

19 Directives. In most cases the evaluation focuses on Directive 96/50/EC as being the most recent directive that builds on the initial Directive 91/672/EEC. CCNR - Regulations for the Rhine Navigation Personnel With respect to the CCNR, labour mobility is impacted by the Regulations for the Rhine Navigation Personnel 24. As currently the system put in place by the CCNR has reached the highest level of harmonisation, it is described in a separate Section 2.2, together with the role of CCNR and the process of mutual recognition. UNECE and other river commissions With respect to the remaining legislative actors, the lowest level of harmonization on labour mobility laws is under the UNECE mechanism. The main instrument that aims to adopt measures in this respect is Resolution 31 - Minimum Requirements for the Issuance of Boatmasters Licenses in Inland Navigation with a view to their Reciprocal Recognition for International Traffic 25. The Recommendations of the Danube Commission on boatmasters licenses is built substantively on the provisions of Resolution 31 of the UNECE and Directive 96/50/EC, and entered into force as of 1 January Similarly to the Danube Commission s Recommendations, the Sava River Basin Commission s Rules on Minimum Requirements for the Issuance of Boatmasters Licenses rely on the already established frameworks of Directive 96/50/EC and Resolution 31 of the UNECE 27. It should be noted that the provisions as included in Resolution 31 of UNECE and Directive 96/50/EC are to a large extent based on CCNR s Rhine Patent Regulation. 2.2 CCNR and agreements on mutual recognition Role of CCNR Background The Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR) has its legal foundation in the Revised Convention for Navigation on the Rhine - referred to as the Mannheim Convention - of 17 October In application of this Convention, the CCNR s role is to warrant freedom of navigation on the Rhine and promote navigation on the Rhine 28. CCNR has five Member States, i.e. Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. In addition, 11 states currently have observer status: Austria, 24 CCNR, Reglement Betreffende het Scheepvaartpersoneel [Regulations for the Rhine Navigation Personnel] (June 2010). 25 UNECE, Resolution No. 31 Minimum Requirements for the Issuance of Boatmasters Licenses in Inland Navigation with a view to their Reciprocal Recognition for International Traffic, Doc ECE/TRANS/SC.3/WP.3/2009/8/Rev.1 (18 May 2009). 26 Danube Commission, Recommendations of the Danube Commission on Boatmasters Licenses, Doc. CD/SES/77/7. See also, Danube Commission, Press Release, 77 th Session, 15 December 2011, available at: < se_77%20session_en.pdf>. 27 International Sava River Basin Commission, Rules on Minimum Requirements for the Issuance of Boatmaster s Licenses on the Sava River Basin (Zagreb, 2009). 28 CCNR website: 7

20 Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Romania, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Poland and the Republic of Serbia. Rhine Regulations One of the elements of the Mannheim Convention is the possibility for the CCNR Member States to adopt common regulations. These regulations are designed to: Ensure uniform regulations for the entire navigable length of the Rhine; Stimulate the safety of navigation on the Rhine, for both people and the environment; Provide qualifications and a social framework suited to the people working in navigation on the Rhine. There are four categories of Rhine regulations, dealing with: (i) river and traffic regulations (Police Regulation); (ii) technical requirements that must be met by vessels sailing on the Rhine (Regulations on the inspection of vessels); (iii) crew and staff working on vessels on the Rhine, performing nautical functions (Regulations on navigating personnel); and (iv) transport of dangerous goods on the Rhine (ADN Regulations). It should be noted that even though these regulations are designed for the Rhine, in a number of cases, including in the case of regulations for crew and staff, the contents of the regulations were used as a basis to be applied to other river basins as well. As such, the CCNR is a pioneer in developing regulations and setting standards. CCNR has adopted the Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel (RPN) 29, which came into force on 1 July The RPN incorporates all the existing Rhine regulations for navigation personnel, based on the following three sets of regulations: (i) Regulations for issuance of patents/licences, adopted in June 2007; (ii) Chapter 23 of the Inspection regulations for vessels on the Rhine; and (iii) Regulations for safety personnel on passenger vessels, adopted in December The RPN integrates mostly existing rules in one document and as such increases the ease of reading of Rhine regulations. The box below presents the contents of the RPN. 29 RPN was adopted through Resolution 2010-I-8-Annex CCNR website, 8

21 Title I: General provisions relating to all aspects of the regulation This section sets out the definitions and general rules governing the adoption of temporary requirements or service instructions. Title II: Manning requirements This section sets out the manning requirements (qualifications, rest periods and minimum crew on board), formerly set out in Chapter 23 of the RVBR regulations. It also contains additional requirements applicable to safety personnel required on passenger vessels, previously covered by a separate regulation. Title III: Navigation licence requirements This section sets out, in un-amended form, the Rhine navigation licence regulations adopted in June These are followed by a number of annexes, mainly containing model certificates and the list of documents issued by non-member States that have been recognised by the CCNR as valid for the Rhine. The annexes are divided into four sections: A: Annexes concerning crewing This contains the model for the log-book (formerly annex E of the RVBR) and the model for the service record booklets (formerly annex F of the RVBR). It should be noted that both models have undergone minor modifications. Annex A5, a new addition, provides a list of the service record booklets issued by non-member States that have been recognised by the CCNR as valid for the Rhine. B: Annexes concerning physical and mental fitness This contains the model medical certificate (formerly annex B2 of the Rhine navigation licence regulations). C: Annexes concerning safety personnel on passenger vessels This contains the model certificates for safety personnel required on passenger vessels, formerly included as an annex to the Regulations for safety personnel on passenger vessels. These models have not been modified. D: Annexes concerning navigation licences This section contains Rhine navigation licence models (primary navigation licence and radar navigation licence), the model for the sector knowledge certificate, and the list of foreign certificates recognised as equivalents to Rhine navigation licences. These models are also identical to those currently set out in the Rhine navigation licence regulations. Source: CCNR website The RPN is an important document, not only because it applies to all staff working on the Rhine and consequently affects working conditions, but also because it is at the basis of the process of mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as presented in the section below. Modernisation of professional qualifications In the field of modernisation of professional qualifications, CCNR is cooperating with a range of stakeholders, including the European Commission (see section below), EDINNA, HINT and the social partners, i.e. EBU, ESO and ETF. CCNR has set up a STF Committee and its STF/G working group 31 to deal with issues concerning crewing and professional training. Their areas of responsibility fall into three main categories: (i) traditional function of updating 31 STF stands for Social Issues, Employment and Professional Training. 9

22 regulations; (ii) functions concerning the recognition of navigation qualifications; and (iii) function concerning the development of training and qualifications. Cooperation between CCNR and European Commission On 22 May 2013, DG MOVE and CCNR signed an Administrative Arrangement that includes three main areas of cooperation: (i) adaptation of the technical requirements for inland navigation vessels, (ii) modernisation of professional qualifications for crew members; and (iii) development of market observation for inland navigation in Europe. The modernisation of professional qualifications is obviously relevant in the light of this evaluation, defining the areas, contents and forms of cooperation, as illustrated in the Box below. Areas of cooperation Art The modernisation of the legal framework on boat master certificates governed by Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community and its extension in the area of professional qualifications for workers in the field of inland navigation, in line with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Contents of cooperation Art Professional qualifications The purpose for this area of cooperation is the following: a) to contribute to the preparation and impact assessment of new initiatives elaborated by DG MOVE for the modernisation and extension of the legal framework governed by Directive 96/50/EC in the fields of certification and professional qualifications, in line with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. b) to exchange information on the current system of mutual recognition of boatmaster certificates and of service record books, including an analysis of the prospects and limitations of the further extension of this approach. Forms of cooperation Art The activities to be pursued may take in particular the forms set out below: Exchange of information, documentation and experience; Putting in place mechanisms for overall steering and priority setting; Establishment of appropriate structures and mechanisms for streamlining cooperation and coordination, in particular by the elaboration and adoption of standards which can be referred to by both sides in their respective regulations. Art The elaboration of standards in the areas of cooperation will be performed through a Committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation to be set up by the CCNR, and involving EU Member States and CCNR Member States. The European Union, represented by the European Commission may participate in this Committee. The Committee will be assisted by expert groups it may deem necessary. Source: Administrative Arrangement concerning a Framework for Cooperation between the Secretariat of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission (2013) Steps are taken to set up the Committee for drawing up standards. To this end an initiative is proposed to be launched in 2014 under the name CESTE. CESTE would focus on adopting standards in various fields, in particular vessels and crew to which the respective regulations apply at European and international 10

23 level. CESTE would be managed by the CCNR Secretariat and would involve a broad range of participants, including EU and CCNR Member States, representatives of concerned international organisations, representatives of approved non-governmental organisations and external qualified experts Process of mutual recognition Forms of mutual recognition So far, CCNR has established seven bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of boatmaster certificates and one multilateral agreement on the mutual recognition of Service Record Books, as described below. The forms of mutual recognition are described below. 1) Bilateral agreements - mutual recognition of boatmasters certificates Based on information provided by CCNR 32, the adoption of Additional Protocol No. 7 on 27 November 2002 amended the Mannheim Convention to permit the recognition of non-rhine qualifications. This means that holders of recognised boatmaster certificates or radar certificates can operate on the Rhine, simplifying professional obligations and contributing to the development of a large European inland navigation market. The first decisions on the recognition of non-rhine boatmasters certificates were taken by CCNR in Since then, the following actions have taken place: CCNR has recognised by bilateral administrative arrangements the national boatmasters certificates of seven European States that are not CCNR members, i.e. Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. CCNR also recognised the national boatmasters certificates of three out of the five CCNR member States, i.e. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The decision to join the agreements is made on a voluntary basis and can only be made by states with national regulation close and/or inspired from the Rhine regulation. It should be emphasised that not all CCNR member and observer states have signed the agreements. This can be explained by the fact that member of observer states would need to base their national regulations on the Rhine regulations and balance the effects of this against the benefits of joining the agreements. For a country like the United Kingdom, being distant from the Rhine, the effort of adjusting the national regulations is probably not justified by the benefits of joining the agreements. France has provided specific feedback and stated that not participating is based on a set of differences between the French and CCNR system. Differences include: (i) definition of one year of navigation (France: 100 effective days, Rhine: 180 effective days); (ii) in France, a SRB is not mandatory and is only used to record experience time for justification of becoming a boatmaster, whereas a SRB on the Rhine is mandatory; (iii) there are limited number of ranks in France, only boatmaster if you have a certificate and a boatman or deckhand otherwise. On the Rhine, there are seven sailing ranks and one technical rank; and (iv) in France, logbooks are not mandatory, whereas logbooks are mandatory on the Rhine. The reason why 32 See CCNR website: 11

24 Switzerland is not included is that, apart from Rhine patent, there are only boatmaster certificates with a local validity. Regarding the national certificates of fitness for navigating using radar recognised as valid for navigation on the Rhine, possibly subject to additional conditions, it can be noted that the CCNR has recognised four certificates as being equivalent to the Rhine Patent, i.e. those issued by Romania, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic and Hungary 33. 2) Multilateral agreement mutual recognition of Service Record Books As presented by CCNR 34, in order to be able to work on the Rhine, all crew members were required to hold a Rhine SRB up to 1 July Because the Czech Republic, Poland and many of the Danube States issued SRBs in a format similar to that of the Rhine SRB, it was considered recognising the validity of the non-rhine SRBs on the Rhine. This has resulted in a multilateral Administrative Arrangement, signed on 8 December 2010 by the CCNR and the competent ministries of seven central European States, i.e. Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The signatories agreed to mutually recognise the SRB issued by their respective competent authorities. This means that for example the Austrian or Romanian SRB is not only recognised on the Rhine, but in all countries that signed the multilateral agreement. As a result, crew members no longer have to obtain a new SRB each time they change country. They are able to present their original SRB. 33 See CCNR website See CCNR website: 12

25 The Arrangement came into force on 1 July All the SRBs that fall under the Arrangement have a similar format 35, as presented in the box below. The SRBs contain a section reserved for an entry on the boatman s physical and mental fitness, which must be completed by the issuing authority, but the indications are recognised as being valid on all the waterways covered by the Arrangement. The Service Record Books also contain a section reserved for a listing of the journeys undertaken. This section is filled in by the vessel s captain and must be presented to a competent authority for initialling every year. By virtue of the Administrative Arrangement, any competent authority, whether in a CCNR member State or in one of the States signatory to the Arrangement, may stamp the document to authenticate the information on journeys carried out. In this way, the number of years of experience accumulated by the boatman is established in an unquestionable fashion. On the basis of this, the boatman may claim a particular level of qualification. The Service Record Books also contain a section reserved for the boatman s qualifications. All Service Record Books covered by mutual recognition contain a page reserved for the listing of qualifications obtained in compliance with Rhine regulations. Currently, this page may only be filled in by a competent Rhine authority and the qualification listed on this page is the only qualification valid on the Rhine. To list the qualification in compliance with Rhine regulations, the competent Rhine authority takes account of the number of years of experience the boatman has, as attested by his Service Record Book in the section described above. Source: CCNR website Concerning SRBs, the Rhine regulation is the only internationally harmonised regulation. The administrative arrangement on a multilateral basis opens the possibility to all signing countries that also apply an equivalent regulation to participate in the system. Mechanisms of implementation General approach For both the agreement on recognition of the boatmasters certificate and the SRBs the underlying legal documents provide a provision for mechanisms of administrative cooperation, e.g. the organisation of (joint) meetings and mechanisms to transfer information between the various competent authorities. The CCNR Secretariat serves as secretariat. For the mutual recognition of boatmasters certificates administrative cooperation between the Rhine authorities and the authorities of the States whose certificates are recognised, is needed to guarantee the equivalence in duration of the relevant certificates, develop common practices, and also implement reliable information exchange systems. For the recognition of SRBs the administrative cooperation focuses on the crew member s physical and mental fitness, journeys undertaken and the crew member s qualifications, as illustrated in the box above. 35 See CCNR website: 13

26 Mechanisms of implementation Feedback from some countries involved A number of countries and river commissions were asked to provide feedback on the process of mutual recognition. Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, as well as CCNR and the Danube and Sava Commission were asked to provide feedback 36. All invited parties have responded and results are presented below. Effectiveness of the system of mutual recognition: All respondents state that the agreements have been effective in recognition of boatmasters certificates and SRBs on the Rhine. The following remarks are however added, demonstrating the fact that the current system of mutual recognition still has its limitations: Although recognition works from a Rhine perspective, it is not the case from a Europe wide perspective. There are conditions which are considered by some as administrative barriers, including (i) the local knowledge of the river Rhine can only be certified by the member states of CCNR; (ii) the SRB itself is recognised, but the qualifications in the SRB are not recognised (only CCNR member states are allowed to certify a qualification for the river Rhine; (iii) the ship logbook issued by a non-ccnr member state even if based on Rhine prescriptions is not automatically recognised. For example, a vessel with an Austrian logbook needs a second logbook which has to be signed by a CCNR member state for the river Rhine. Mutual recognition is based on an administrative procedure with focus on equivalence of applicable rules and programs of exams and not (yet) on required competences and the validity of exams to measure this. As a consequence, the system does not provide insight in the (true) competences of staff on-board the vessel and does not allow setting uniform skill levels within the countries concerned. Ability to adjust regulations. The administrative arrangement 37 provides the possibility for all signatory states to prohibit navigation to boatmasters that have infringed navigation rules (principally for safety reasons). The administrative arrangement urges the signatory states to change their regulation in a coordinated fashion. In particular, the signatory states should inform each other before enacting significant changes in their regulation, as defined in Article 6. If a change is made in an uncoordinated way or not made at all, it could justify denunciation of the arrangement under Article 9. Experience is yet too short to evaluate whether this system will suffice to urge states to adjust their regulation in a coordinated way. However, mutual recognition systems have their limits in adjusting regulations. This is why mutual recognition systems are often replaced by a harmonisation system in the long run. Mutual recognition is thus often a first step towards harmonisation. Proving non-equivalent performance. Linked to the above point, the procedure makes it possible that one of the countries involved (CCNR member states and the country with which the agreement is concluded) can state that one of the parties does not fulfil the conditions of the agreement. In that case it is possible to denounce the convention and first a negotiated solution will 36 Due to time and budget restrictions, a targeted approach has been followed, with a relatively small sample of countries. 37 Administrative arrangement on the mutual recognition of service record books. 14