EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT. Minutes Stakeholder meeting on NAIADES II Action Programme Brussels 5 July 2011

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT Directorate B European mobility network B.3 Ports & inland navigation Minutes Stakeholder meeting on NAIADES II Action Programme Brussels 5 July 2011 Brussels, I. Introduction by DG MOVE Director Mr. Jean-Eric Paquet Mr. Paquet (DG MOVE) opened the stakeholder meeting and explained its purpose, which is to consult the key stakeholders involved in inland navigation on the future of the NAIADES programme. The current programme expires in The results of the midterm progress report on NAIADES, the conclusions of the Hungarian presidency meeting on 7th April in Esztergom, as well as the Council Conclusions of 16 May made clear that a follow up of NAIADES needs to be put in place. The Commission is therefore preparing a proposal for a second phase of NAIADES after For that purpose, the Commission is preparing an Impact Assessment. An online public consultation on this topic is running in parallel until 1 September Both the public consultation and today s input will feed into the Impact Assessment analysis. The stakeholder inputs will be processed until the beginning of September The Commission will in the course of September decide on the precise scope of NAIADES II. The formal proposal is then expected for the end of This would enable NAIADES II to enter into force as of Mr. Paquet sketched the broader policy context. The White Paper on Transport was recently discussed in the Council. It provides a strong statement for more innovation, market-based measures and multimodal integration as well as co-modality. The White Paper seeks to promote more sustainable modes and let them play their full part. Based on that, IWT is required to grow strongly until 2030 and Ambitious targets have been set. NAIADES II should have the same level of ambition, also from the side of the Member States and the IWT sector. Mr. Paquet is aware of criticism regarding on the 300 km threshold within the modal shift target: IWT can also capture significant shares on distances below 300 km and NAIADES policy initiatives should also contribute to developing these markets. Recently the Commission came forward with a proposal for its future budget framework. Of course NAIADES is also about money, but Mr. Paquet stressed that today s discussion should show that NAIADES is a substantial programme. Budgetary resources within the multi-annual financial framework will have to come from the instruments set out therein. Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) Office: DM28 03/005. Telephone: direct line (32-2) maximilian.bauernfeind@ec.europa.eu

2 The Commission will support technology innovation research and policy innovation; out of the 80 bn EUR innovation budget a significant share is expected to go to transport. Within that share, IWT should be prioritised as a sustainable mode. In conclusion, budget for NAIADES innovation measures will need to come from the Horizon 2020 instrument. In addition, infrastructure funding will be available through the Connecting Europe facility. The Commission proposal earmarks 50 bn EUR, of which 3/5 is allocated to transport. Within the next three years both the Council and Parliament will need to support the financial proposal of the Commission. Mr. Paquet is confident that there is a strong argument for allocating significant budgets to transport: the EU added value of action in the transport field is evident. It should be clear that budgets will not be made available without a difficult debate, but an intensive exchange with Member States will need to take place, on the basis of concrete projects. The estimated budget requires a serious analysis of real European projects. For today, Mr. Paquet expects to learn more about the priorities that are identified at the Member State level. Member States also need to ensure that IWT remains a priority for their national ministers of Finance. Member States are co-responsible for the ultimate outcome of the discussion on the policy instruments. The mid-term progress report on NAIADES also identified a third area of actions (next to innovation and infrastructure): those which are related to soft measures, marketrelated measures, awareness activities, etc. that are neither related to innovation, nor to infrastructure. It should be clear that there will be no other separate financial instrument (like the existing Marco Polo programme) to cover these measures in the future: all policy support has to be included into either innovation or infrastructure broadly defined. Many of these instruments could for instance be allocated to the service layer in the future TEN-T programme. Mr. Paquet would like to hear from the participating stakeholders, where their real priorities are and where they see the highest European added value. It should be clear that not everything can be financed from Europe. The rationale for European funding cannot be to compensate the failure of Member States to act at their level. The European added value needs to be justified at all times. Finally, Mr. Paquet explained during his introduction the recent reorganisation within DG MOVE. IWT is again placed under Directorate B, which is called European Mobility Network: this includes TEN-T and investment strategies, the single European rail area, as well as maritime and inland ports & IWT. Through this, the Commission hopes to create a more integrated and ambitious IWT policy. Then Mr. Paquet introduced the agenda of the meeting. First, NEA will give substantial overview on current status of IWT in Europe, based on a study commissioned by the European Commission. After that Mr. Vanderhaegen will explain some of the possible policy instruments: the planned Communication, Regulation and the Impact Assessment. After that the Commission invites the stakeholders to share their views on main problems that play a role on the EU level, key objectives, possible policy measures (incl. funding), and last but not least implementation. Mr. Paquet is eager to hear the stakeholder comments on the current way of implementation. II. Presentation by NEA on the medium- and long-term perspectives, trends and developments 2

3 Mr. Quispel of NEA then presented preliminary results of the study on medium and long term perspectives of IWT in Europe, which is currently carried out together with CE Delft, Planco, MDS Transmodal and via donau. [Slides of NEA presentation attached] Mr. Paquet thanked NEA and noted that only the high scenario will allow the modal share for IWT to grow. Mrs Tournaye (CCNR) remarked that transport is expected to grow faster on the Danube than on the Rhine, albeit starting from a low base. Mrs Tournaye noted that the Rhine is by far the largest IWT corridor in Europe. Even if there are different growth levels in the future, the core of IWT traffic will remain to be concentrated on the Rhine. Mrs Hacksteiner (EBU) noted that the core question will be how to turn the current decrease of IWT modal share into a growing figure. IWT still has much free capacity on the network; better use of the existing potential should be made. The Danube could indeed grow significantly, but also the Rhine still has growth capacities. NAIADES II should turn this potential into success. For this we need an appropriate policy and financial framework, the latter being the main lack in the current programme. The lack of financial support turned out to be a disadvantage. Mr. Mensink (Netherlands): The presentation of NEA underlined the Council Conclusions: if a policy instrument is to be created, a clear policy focus will be needed to mobilise the policy efforts. The modal split should be in the centre of attention. NAIADES II should set a clear target of where we want to be in the coming 20 years. All actions should be derived from and be aimed at these targets. Concrete targets should be defined, to be able to monitor success in a few years. A clear focus and target-oriented approach would clearly help NAIADES II. The Italian delegation asked whether NAIADES II should also pay attention to tourism and dangerous goods. Mr. Quispel (NEA) replied that tourism is not part of the current study, but dangerous goods transport is included. Dangerous goods are included in petrochemical and container segments. Mr. Paquet agreed that thinking of tourism and passenger transport in the framework of NAIADES II is a good point. Passenger transport on inland waterways could especially be relevant for urban transport. III. Follow-up to the NAIADES Action Programme for the promotion of inland waterway transport Mr. Vanderhaegen (DG MOVE) explained that a Communication on NAIADES II is planned for the end of 2011 and the need for an accompanying Regulation is being evaluated. Both the Communication and possible Regulation are subject to an impact assessment. The core objective of NAIADES should be to turn around the current development of the modal share of IWT. Actions should be initiated in order to live up to the targets of the White Paper. 3

4 Mr. Vanderhaegen presented the main problems and drivers. Generally, IWT is considered not to be competitive enough to gain substantial market shares by taking share back from other modes, notably road transport. The main causes identified for the current problems are: Infrastructure partly inadequate Market and transport prices do not reflect all costs for society Slow take up of innovations Incomplete internal market (e.g. administrative barriers, standards, integration into intermodal chains, etc.) There is a clear need to prioritise and focus: if we see the statistics and modal share, we need to focus on those policy measures which will enable us to achieve the targets most effectively. The Commission is examining also the possibility of a legal instrument, on which further reflection is required. Stakeholders are invited to provide their views on policy areas which would require a legal instrument. Mr. Paquet added that the original rationale for creating a Regulation (in order to secure structural funds for IWT policy tasks) is irrelevant at this stage: funding for actions related to infrastructure and innovation is now in place. The question is therefore, why is a regulation necessary? Possibly there are good arguments for a legal instrument, but the Commission awaits inputs from the Member States on this point. IV. Presentation and discussion of major issues 1. General objectives Mr. Vanderhaegen proposed that the general objective is to raise competitiveness of IWT in terms of improved transport services and logistics efficiency, safety performance and environmental performance. Specific objectives include creating appropriate framework conditions (solving internal market failures) and modernising inland waterway transport (speeding up innovation deployment). Mr. Vanderhaegen invited the participants to provide feedback as regards these core objectives. Mrs De Schepper (INE) explained that the core objective should indeed be to attract more cargo to the water and turn around the decreasing modal share. For this we indeed need an integrated system of high-quality infrastructure (linked to other modes via quality interfaces) and promoting services on such a network. The objective should be facilitating a modal shift on the one hand, and increasing the competitiveness of the sector by improving the performance of IWT itself and to enable more fundamental innovations on the other. With regard to innovation, there is a package of low hanging fruit. Enhancing the deployment would considerably improve the IWT performance in line with the EU policy goals. INE is like the Dutch delegation in favour of a clear and focused policy programme. Mrs Hacksteiner (EBU) proposes to link up with the main objectives of the EU2020 strategy. IWT is a major contributor towards achieving the goals mentioned in this EU strategy, as also shown in the White Paper. EBU fully supports the Dutch position to set an obtainable target in order to raise the modal share of IWT. For this it is necessary to improve the framework conditions, be it in the areas of infrastructure, market take up of 4

5 innovations (research as such is not the problem) or better integration of IWT in logistic chain. Mr. Vorderwinkler (Austria) thanked the Commission for taking the initiative on NAIADES II. Austria was involved in the set up of the first NAIADES action programme. There are enough tasks left over, which require systematic and permanent European coordination and support. It is not only about technical innovation in the sector, also more awareness on the opportunities of IWT in the transport sector is needed. IWT still needs to be integrated better in education curricula and it needs to be recognised as full partner in the logistics chain. Currently, a significant number of European coordination tasks, as initiated under the current NAIADES programme, are left over, for which still no structural funding is available. The European Hull Database is an example: it is required by the Directive on Technical Requirements, but a structural solution has not been found yet. These types of tasks should be picked up by the NAIADES II programme. It would not be feasible to allocate all of these tasks to either the infrastructure or innovation initiatives. Mr. Mensink (Netherlands) would like to raise the issue to a more abstract level: for the implementation of NAIADES a permanent policy instrument is needed since that will ensure enduring policy attention for IWT. Even in an IWT country like the Netherlands it is hard to keep IWT and financial means for the sector on the political agenda. If there is a clear signal from the European Union, by means of a permanent policy instrument, it will be easier to keep the political pressure on a national level. Mr. Van Reem (EDINNA) stressed the importance of the human factor. NAIADES I and the PLATINA platform worked on a strategy to harmonise education and training (STCIN). Currently there is a lack of a standard in the education field and sufficient qualified personnel are scarce. The attractiveness of the sector as a whole and as an employer needs to be improved, as does the competitiveness of IWT in terms of entrepreneurship. Mr. Van Reem s institute STC developed an advanced study programme (minor grade) on sustainable inland shipping management (aimed at shore personnel). With such efforts, IWT should get higher visibility to future logistics decision makers. The NAIADES II programme should support such initiatives. There is sufficient justification for further standardisation process in the field of human resources (like STCIN). NAIADES gave the first incentive. NAIADES II should aim more at implementation. The Italian delegation sees NAIADES as a container in which various topics can be included. Attention should be paid not only to the big but also to the smaller waterways. In Italy there are plans to invest in the Po corridor, which goes as far as Venice. Until now the TEN-T programme proved to be the wrong programme for waterways below class IV. In the view of the Italian delegation, NAIADES should cover all various types of navigation, including cruise vessels and other forms of passenger transport. Mr. Paquet answered that infrastructure support measures will be identified in the new TEN-T Guidelines. When Member States have identified smaller waterways or lakes therein, it will not be a problem to support them. Isolated lakes can however not be part of TEN-T as a matter of principle. Regarding innovation, the issues are more open: this could include new fuels, traffic management, new materials for vessel hulls, propulsion techniques, etc. If there is a clear European added value and impact, these types of 5

6 measures could principally be supported. We will need to formulate infrastructure and innovation as broadly as possible. Mrs Tournaye (CCNR) mentioned that the difference between drivers and problems is not so clear. Lacking personnel requires a long term strategy and the involvement of public stakeholders. Development of human capital requires a long term programme, including social/labour law and qualifications. The CCNR offers to share their ideas on this with the Commission. Mr. Paquet confirmed that adequate human resources are indeed a core problem and drivers for public action, possibly also requiring a legal instrument. Mr. Vogelaar (EBU) mentioned that one of the main problems is insufficient integration of IWT into the transport chain. The transport market as a whole is growing, but IWT is relatively declining and losing market share. This is for a main part due to the SME structure of the sector: it is crucial to find ways to bring IWT in the logistics chain. Individual SMEs cannot manage that on their own, due to a lack of finance and capabilities. The main question will remain how to shift intermodal cargo to IWT. Mr. Paquet shares this analysis. The integration of IWT into co-modal chains is indeed a main driver. The interfaces with other modes need to be developed. The question to the audience is however: Why should there be European involvement? Mr. Vogelaar (EBU) replied that Europe wants to support sustainable economic growth and SMEs alone can not realise it. Europe should give incentives to the SMEs to manage better intermodal integration which often stretches beyond borders. For this we need public support. Mrs De Schepper (INE) added that - based on successful experiences in some Member States neutral logstics experts, acting as intermediaries to bring cargo to the water can be a good measure. Linking these experts into one Europe expert network would create a European added value. This network could jointly identify and generate new international and promising cargo flows. Mr. Mensink (Netherlands) added that the main issue today is that IWT is not managing to fulfil the logistics needs and requirements of the shippers. European action is needed, since the White Paper stresses the importance of multimodal integration and because the market apparently won t overcome the problems on its own. Mrs De Schepper (INE) shares the Dutch position. However there is no need to victimise IWT. IWT SMEs face the similar problems like road SMEs, with the important exception that vessels are very capital-intensive assets. If more IWT is in line with the socioeconomic policy goals, it is the task and the interest of public authorities to create good framework conditions, to address market failures and government failures, such as the removal of administrative barriers, the provision of adequate infrastructure and the creation of a positive climate for entrepreneurship and investment. Within such a setting, the market economy and IWT will flourish. IWT has already some good entrepreneurs. Public actions should facilitate and support that. Mr. Mensink (Netherlands) replied that he did not intend to paint a black picture. However, even in the Netherlands IWT has a difficulty in retaining its modal share. Individual entrepreneurs do market their products, but in total the IWT market is losing 6

7 share. The Netherlands has invested heavily in creating a good infrastructure. There is support from the provincial and community level in order to create waterside industry and logistics. Wet to-wet transport can be successful on a very local level: If both loading and unloading of cargo is wet, breakeven distance can be as low as 20 km. The fact that IWT apparently does not sufficiently enter into multimodal chains for the main part of the transport leg can be attributed to the market structure, where a direct interface between the IWT operator and the end customer is lacking: in the Netherlands, IWT is for a large part dependent on brokers that allocate traffic to different modes. The IWT operators themselves do not actively look for attracting new cargo flows. The traditional cargo groups like ores and coal will remain. We must find ways to at least retain the 5% European market share. For this we need to look for new markets and cargo flows. 2. Problems and drivers Mr. Paquet proposed to reformulate the general problem definition as follows: Inland waterway transport is not sufficiently integrated and competitive to take over significant traffic volumes from less sustainable modes. The main drivers and root causes would be: Partly inadequate infrastructure (fairway conditions, locks, port network) Market prices in transport do not reflect all costs (particularly external costs) Relatively slow market take-up of innovations in IWT (due to SME structure, high investment sums involved, long economic lifetime of equipment, missing links between R&D and deployment). At the moment the CO2 performance is good, but road transport is catching up fast. The pole position of IWT is eroding quite fast. Incomplete internal market o Administrative, technical and regulatory barriers o Lack of standards (e.g. educational requirement for personnel) o Insufficient integration into multimodal transport chains o Insufficient exchange of know-how/best practices o Insufficient market and supply chain orientation of IWT sector o Availability of qualified staff Mr. Paquet asked the audience if this overview of problems is complete or if important issues would be missing. Mrs Hacksteiner (EBU) agreed on the reformulated general problem. EBU agrees with the proposed list of key problems and drivers: Infrastructure is a conditio sine qua non and the problems must be tackled at highest Member States and EU level. The Commission can play a crucial role here. Infrastructure is however not pertaining to new waterways, maintenance is becoming an increasing problem. This should also be part of TEN-T financial support. Regarding the slow take-up of innovations, the sector indeed needs public help to facilitate private investments. Investing in an eco-efficient vessel in comparison to the investment costs for trucks requires huge amounts of money. With public help, the environmental and congestion impacts could be very positive. EBU fully agrees with the identified problems regarding the incomplete internal market: there is a lack of personnel and standards in this field. In the social 7

8 dialogue we are also working on professional profiles. We need to offer better career perspectives. EBU requests to add this aspect to the problem description. Mr. Paquet fully shared the view that waterway maintenance is the starting point, but disagreed that it is a European issue. The maintenance component in infrastructure is part of the TEN-T policy, but as an obligation of Member States. Maintenance cannot be part of EC funding, since this would overburden the EU budget. The EU added value is in concentrating on critical network parts. Mr. Paquet stressed furthermore that the employment issue is already mentioned but wondered if it is a real driver behind the current problems. The Italian delegation stressed that Italy is a developing market and not yet a mature IWT market. Today only 400 km of inland waterways are really used for navigation. IWT in Italy can become a major player again, provided that infrastructure (maintenance and bottlenecks) is improved. Without proper infrastructure it will be difficult to provide good services. That should be of European concern. We intend to undertake infrastructural works and modernise them. We hope that in NAIADES II the Commission also looks more into South as a possible new IWT market. Mr. Paquet replied that the Po river system as a main axis is going to be part of TEN-T network. The European added value of congesting this transport corridor is obvious. Mrs Ryckbost (EFIP) found that the main internal market barriers lie in infrastructure and fairway conditions. The priorities among Member States are not always equal in this respect. It is very important that the EC through the TEN-T Policy keeps Member States under pressure. If you want to attract investors along the waterside, one needs a long term strategy, commitment and proper maintenance. The EU can support this process. Knowledge of IWT and intermodality is another important point. In most cases 100% door-to-door IWT transport is not possible. IWT will therefore always depend on logistics integration. In this respect infrastructure development and innovation are crucial elements. Furthermore, space for transhipment sites is sometimes a problem in Europe. EFIP would therefore like to see an instrument at EU level - in line with the principle of subsidiarity to solve this issue. Mr. Paquet answered that he is not sure if this can be dealt within the context of NAIADES, but Commission is working on a proposal for urban mobility plans. These types of issues could be used in this context. Regarding fairway conditions, he mentioned that in practice there is a fine line between waterway maintenance and upgrading. It must be clear however that EU action will not enter into waterway maintenance. The delegation from the United Kingdom expressed a general concern and observation. When developing transport policy we need to bear in mind that what works in one place does not necessarily work in others. In the UK most canals will never be used for freight transport. Mr. Paquet agreed that this is a fair point. There is quite a range of different situations across Europe, which has to be kept in mind when formulating the NAIADES II policy. 8

9 Mr. Van Cappellen (Belgium) questioned if IWT is really not competitive enough. In fact the big volumes will be retained for IWT. However, the White Paper clearly requires to shift cargo from the road to rail or waterborne transport. This could be achieved by consolidation of freight flows, which is complicated in practice. The crucial issue will be to create trust between supply chain partners. Whereas the main trend goes towards economies of scale, small vessels will also be important in order to compete in new markets. Smaller shippers could transport smaller consignments economically. Another aspect is that small vessels are often used as entrance to the sector for new entrepreneurs. They start with a small and economic vessel and gradually grow towards bigger vessels. Giving up smaller vessels would eliminate this entrance function. It is therefore important to retain smaller vessels in the market. Responding to Mr. Paquet's question, whether smaller vessels make sense on Class IV waterways, Mr. Van Cappelen confirmed that it can work on certain relations. Smaller vessels may not be evident on the big axes, but for the underlying network they are important in terms of feeder transport. The Italian delegation fully supported the plea of the Belgian delegation in favour of small vessels. Mr. Van Reem (EDINNA) mentioned another aspect: waterside development is usually a local issue. Preference is often given to housing over transhipment terminals. Problems start when access to the waterway for logistics purposes is complicated. He repeated that the human factor is important. Skippers are running the ships as a business. Furthermore, the qualification of boatmasters should be renewed, so that they learn more about the way logistics chains work. This proves to be a barrier in practice. Individual operators therefore do not provide integrated transport solutions. At the STC institute in Rotterdam a logistics chain simulator was installed for this education purpose. 3. Possible policy measures Mr. Paquet proposed the main fields for policy action: Market, multimodality and logistics Fleet Human resources Infrastructure River information services Safety & calamity abatement Climate change adaptation and environment Governance Mr. Mensink (Netherlands) underlined that climate change adaptation and carbon footprint are among the priorities in the Netherlands. There are still possibilities to further reduce CO2 emissions of IWT. For particulate matter and NOx IWT is in danger of losing its pole position. Regarding the creation of new norms for 2016 Member States and the Commission agree. The Commission should prioritise and amend the existing directive so new engines will have a new standard. This is only possible on the EU level. The second related problem is to try to raise the emission performance of existing engines. EU-wide action and funds are 9

10 needed for that. A European add-on subsidy mechanism should be investigated, in order to reward Member States that are active in this field and that offer retrofitting programmes on a national level, because something should be done to address the environmental performance of existing engines. Mr. Paquet shares the opinion that existing engines are a key priority. Complementary EU funding is however increasingly complicated. Mr. Paquet tends to opt for innovation through pilot and demonstration activities. Wide scale deployment programmes at EU are increasingly difficult to realise. Member States could support the sector however within the limits of the state aid rules. Mrs Hacksteiner (EBU) agreed with the Dutch position regarding the importance to deal with the emissions of the existing fleet. Fleets need to comply with environmental requirements. Sustainability is one of the priorities for the sector. This would typically qualify for a new funding scheme in the field of innovation. State aid guidelines are anyway still an open issue resulting from NAIADES I. We need European action on this. Regarding infrastructure development, Member States would sometimes need help in applying for TEN-T funding and co-financing. The Commission should look for ways to reduce administrative barriers for this. Regarding human resources, EBU would plea for EU action in relation to a recruitment campaign, which is important to raise attractiveness of the sector as an employer. Mr. Paquet repeated that retrofit programmes are typically a national responsibility. Mr. Mensink added that new concepts such as LNG retrofit could be much more efficient than installing after-pipe treatment equipment. With LNG fuel the 2016 norms could be reached relatively easily and the investment could be earned back through the cheaper fuel. Mr. Van Reem (EDINNA) would place priority on further development of STCIN. The existing joint working group consisting of social partners and river commissions is working well. All professional competences are being described at this moment and will be delivered by the end of this year. After that first step, further development of the STCIN standard is needed in order to create equal qualifications for personnel. This issue has an obvious European added value. STCIN could for instance be added as an annex to the Directive 96/50/EC on harmonizing the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates. Financial support will be needed to support that development and cooperation process between IWT schools, river commissions and social partners. If travel costs to joint meetings are not refunded, many schools are often not in a position to contribute. Mrs Tournaye (CCNR) stressed that human resources should be a priority as already in the NAIADES I programme. Mutual recognition of qualifications should be promoted. The main work will be completed by the end of the year. Shortage of human resources could also be solved via harmonisation of rules or by using new resources like simulators in training. In order to modernise the rules cooperation between CCNR and EC is necessary. She referred to the joint working group on technical requirements as an example for a tool. The Commission should provide funding for its set up and operation. With such backing we could move on in the direction of harmonisation. The CCNR however wants to avoid that Community rules block further innovation in the field of education. The revision of the directive should therefore either leave room for updates or the revision should be postponed a little. 10

11 Mr. Paquet agreed that rules must have a clear purpose. He underlined that European legislation is usually quite flexible to cope with changing circumstances. Mrs De Schepper (INE) agreed that the objective is to increase the market share of IWT. Big shippers see IWT as an excellent means to reduce costs and environmental impact of their transport operations. They need the possibility to ship from north to south and from east to west: European funding for full RIS deployment is part of adequate waterway and port infrastructure (regulation and funding with EU added value). Market competitiveness and environmental issues go well together. Shippers need neutral orchestrators who can get the partners together for cross border flows (EU funding with EU added value). For the environmental aspects pilots and demonstrators are needed to test low hanging innovation fruit for the existing fleet (EU funding with EU added value). Furthermore, some current rules are outdated, especially in the field of emission standards, considering only new engines (regulation with EU added value). Mr. Paquet reverted to the infrastructure topic. IWT will be well presented in the future TEN-T core network (see e.g. the Seine-Schelde corridor). He liked the idea of neutral orchestrators or a platform that helps the sector to integrate into logistics chains. This could work in the TEN-T approach, maybe linked to specific corridors. We should also consider taking up certain actions earlier, since otherwise in the next three years up to 2014 precious time will be lost. 4. Implementation Mr. Paquet summarised the current situation: Many policy tasks related to IWT that require European policy coordination No structural financial resources for current NAIADES Action Programme Dispersed administrative and policy resources and responsibilities Limited available resources are not efficiently used Effective, structural and strategic European policy management in the field of IWT is currently lacking The strategic advantage compared to the situation in the year 2005 is that core funding instruments are currently still being shaped. Implementation can therefore be settled through either infrastructure or innovation funding mechanisms. Mr. Paquet summarised that available resources at Member State and EU level are not being efficiently used. EU policy coordination in the field of IWT is therefore not as efficient as it could be. The PLATINA platform proved to be a creative solution to support implementation and a new project call is coming up. It should be clear that the creation of a new agency is not an option. Instead the existing agencies should be used better and better cooperation between the existing bodies should be at the forefront. Mrs Hacksteiner welcomed the clear statement and recognised that the Commission has understood the importance of IWT. Indeed structure follows strategy, but if you have the strategy of boosting IWT, she asks what would in the opinion of the Commission be the most adequate structure, apart from closer cooperation with river commissions? 11

12 Mr. Paquet cannot draw final conclusions yet. What is clear however is that the scope of NAIADES II must be narrower than the NAIADES I programme. The Commission can t do everything. The NAIADES I programme included many actions that are outside the sphere of influence of the Commission. The Commission will identify those measures, where the EU has most leverage. One example is the work on core corridors, which will have a big impact. The Commission identified about ten core corridors. All of these corridors are multimodal and start in a maritime port. IWT is often a part of these corridors. Under the new TEN-T policy the Commission will propose the creation of multi-annual development plans which cover key infrastructure but also small scale but strategic infrastructure. The multi-annual development plans will also identify multimodal nodes. The Commission will seek for a dialogue with operators about how they plan to use the corridors. The Commission will start preparations by the end of this year in order to settle the governance of the corridors. IWT should be represented properly there. The multi-annual development plans until 2030 are also a basis for funding, also for those actions in the corridors for which there is no EU funding. That is the core of the TEN-T proposal which will come out after summer. Again, the Commission does not choose a one size fits all approach, but develops corridor-specific approach. IWT is wellrepresented in the core corridors. Mr. Mensink (Netherlands) summarised that one of the main lessons learnt from the implementation of NAIADES I is that without dedicated resources and with only a small IWT unit in the Commission, cooperation and involvement of the Member States is needed for effective implementation. Member States should be given the opportunity in any way to steer or to take care of specific actions. Some form of implementation or coordination unit will be needed to steer this process. Coming back to the question if a regulation would be needed, the answer is yes, in particular if it were for the creation of a legal basis for external financing or mandating of European tasks to third parties. Some tasks such as market observation or the joint working group on technical requirements, etc. need to be structurally settled. It is not about large sums, but a legal basis is needed for these types of actions. A practical problem of the joint working group is that travel costs are only reimbursed if the meeting takes place in Brussels. This could be solved via a regulation. The decision process concerning Directive 2006/87/EC is not optimal, as Member States could not really provide input into the process. At this moment chapter 6 of NAIADES on institutional framework is as good as dead. More cooperation between international organisations should be initiated by the Commission. A regulation would be a key tool for that. Mr. Paquet replied that a regulation could be necessary and useful to solve a range of practical issues, but not to create a separate funding mechanism for IWT. It is generally difficult to financially support businesses directly, given the competition rules. All of this does not mean that green services and supply chain integration cannot be supported in one or the other way. Support in the form of direct subsidies to business is however increasingly problematic. 12

13 Mr. Paquet further replied that the challenges are big. He stressed again that a regulation that would provide the financial room for a dedicated NAIADES programme of say 20 or 50 million will not be feasible. All the measures that were identified today could principally be allocated either to the future innovation or infrastructural funds. A standalone IWT programme is not possible under the current circumstances, since the impact will not be big enough. Therefore there is no chance whatsoever for a small and separate IWT funding programme. Mr. Kreuer (Germany) mentioned the example of an automobile manufacturer who recently opted for rail transport instead of IWT because of a price difference of 20 per unit. The German administration started action with their SPC to address logistics dispatchers. Another problem is that IWT is often simply not known by logistics decision makers. Germany therefore started action to address logistics dispatchers of the future. The knowledge level on IWT should generally be raised. Mr. Kreuer underlined that serious action from the Commission, for instance through a regulation, would also help to retain political attention and commitment for IWT on a national level. The Belgian delegation expressed the fear that a more limited scope of the NAIADES II programme could be a step backwards. Mr. Paquet stressed that, once the Commission proposal is there, this opinion may turn around. For instance in the area of transport infrastructure, funds according to the Commission proposal on TEN-T - will rise by a factor of four. Of course the institutional discussion could result in smaller final budgets but for infrastructure the prospects has never been better than now. Concerning NAIADES II, the programme will be more focused, but also more ambitious. Mr. Vanicek (Slovak Republic) underlined that RIS is an excellent example of how European action can be successful. A dedicated European directive combined with cofunding instruments very much helped to find support at the national level. This could be a model for other measures as well. Mr. Paquet confirmed that RIS is indeed a good model. Within the current TEN-T programme a call for projects has just been opened. This opportunity should not be missed. V. Closing Mr. Paquet thanked the participants and closed the meeting. He reminded the participants that the public and online consultation will be open until 1 September. He encouraged the participants to contribute and take part. Mr. Paquet invited the participants to also seek bilateral and direct interaction with the Commission if desired. 13