Third report on implementation of Council Regulation 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime cabotage (1997-1998). Report from the Commission.
![Thumbnail](/xmlui/bitstream/handle/ket/2254/COM_%282000%29_99_final.pdf.jpg?sequence=3&isAllowed=y)
COM Document
Author
EU Commission
Date
2000-02-24View/ Open
Subject headings
Transportation policyAbstract
This is the third two-yearly report by the Commission on the implementation of CouncilRegulation 3577/92 relating to the freedom to provide maritime cabotage services in the EUand covers the period 1997-1998. As in the previous reports, the present report deals with thelegal and market developments in the EU Member States and in the EFTA States, with theextension of Regulation 3577/92 to the EEA and with the comparative manning costs forcargo vessels.Concerning thelegal developmentsin the different Member States, it can be pointed out thatunder the regulation, all of the Member States first registers have access to EU cabotage. Ofthe second registers, the Spanish Special Register of ships and shipping companies of theCanary Islands (REC) and the Portuguese Madeira (MAR) registers have unrestricted access.MAR vessels had until recently (August 1999) access to mainland cabotage only. The DanishInternational Ship Register (DIS) cargo vessels but not passenger vessels have access. Vesselsregistered in the German International Ship Register (ISR) and in the Finnish List of cargovessels in foreign traffic should have access on a case by case basis and not have access toregular/year round cabotage. Several Member States adopted new texts concerning access tocabotage trades or adapted existing legislation to the regulation. In addition the five SouthernMember States have recently adopted regulations imposing their host state conditionsconcerning all matters relating to manning to be applied by EU vessels carrying out islandcabotage services in their waters and for services with vessels smaller than 650 gt. The Northern Member States already had fully liberalised cabotage when the regulationentered into force or have fully liberalised them in the meantime. The Southern MemberStates traditionally reserved domestic cabotage trades to the national flag. Therefore theregulation provides for a gradual opening of the Southern Member States’ cabotage markets.During the reference period of this report, two cabotage segments were liberalised in theSouthern Member States: services involving the transport of strategic goods (oil, oil products,drinking water) and services by ships smaller than 650 gt. It should be noted in this contextthat the Commission has relied for the data in this, as in previous reports, upon work carriedout by a consultant. It appears that when the consultant has collected material for this reportfrom the Member States, the necessary data has not always been available. For this reason,some of the data used has involved estimates. In particular, since only estimates wereavailable for the year 1998 in which the services by ships smaller than 650 gt were liberalised,the report presents data only for 1997 concerning liberalised cabotage volumes.The liberalisation of the strategic cargoes led to a substantial increase in the volume ofliberalised cargoes (from 18.1 mln tonnes in 1995 to 43.15 mln tonnes in 1997) which morethan doubled from 13% of the total South European trade volume in 1993 to 31% in 1997.However, this increase has not, during the reference period of this report, been followed by asimilar increase in the market penetration of non-domestic flags.Theforeign flag share(including non-national EU carriers and third country carriers) in thetotal cabotage trades of the South European Member States developed from 8.35 mln tonnesin 1995 to 9.05 mln tonnes in 1997.The participation of non-national EU carriers in theliberalised sector of the southernEuropean cabotageon the basis of the Regulation decreased in relative terms from 9.4% of
5the liberalised cargoes during 1995 to 8.1% in 1997 but increased in terms of volume carriedfrom 3 mln tonnes to 5.75 mln tonnes. There was an increased participation of other EUvessels in the French cabotage in liquid products, of Spanish owned MAR vessels in Spanishcabotage and of other EU vessels in the Italian specialised cargo cabotage sector. Thesedevelopments did not substantially affect the national markets since the same vessels operatedbefore in French and Spanish cabotage under waivers and the Italian fleet has never hadspecialised vessels in its own fleet. The participation of non-EU carriers through waivers inthe liberalised sector decreased as well in relative terms from 7% in 1995 to 5.2% in 1997 ofthe total liberalised cargoes but increased in terms of volumes carried from 1.3 to 2.25 mlntonnes, particularly in Spain.In thenon-liberalised southern European cabotage, the carriage by waivers by non-national vessels decreased from 5.35 mln tonnes in 1995 (of which 0.5 mln tonnes was carriedby non-EU carriers and 4.85 mln tonnes by EU carriers ) to 3.3 mln tonnes in 1997 (of which2.0 mln tonnes were carried by non-EU carriers and 1.3 mln tonnes by EU carriers). However,the participation of non-EU flags in the protected trades through waivers increased nearlyfourfold during this period, particularly in Spain also.A total of 4.25 mln tonnes were carried by non-EU carriers underwaiversin 1997 ascompared to 1.8 mln tonnes in 1995 in the South European cabotage trades.As far as theinvolvement of the DIS and MAR vesselsis concerned, MAR vessels areactive in Portuguese and Spanish cabotage trades. DIS vessels operate in other EU countriesmainly in container feeder trades and with specialised vessels. No increase in MARinvolvement in other EU trades since 1995 has been recorded. There was no involvement ofnon-national flag vessels in passenger cabotage trades.It is to be expected that the liberalisation of island cabotage from 1 January 1999, and inparticular of the roll-on/roll-off ferry segment, may have a more significant impact on themarket in terms of non-domestic flag share. There are two reasons for this: it is a relativelyimportant segment and a number of current public service contracts, at present benefitingdomestic companies, are expected to attract interest from companies in other Member Stateswhen they come to be tendered. The first results of liberalisation of island cabotage and theferry segment will be the subject of the next report covering the years 1999-2000.The liberalisation of the strategic products and of services by vessels less than 650 gt had nonoticeable impact oncabotage related employment in the South European Member Statessince it had no effect on the number of vessels on these trades nor on the numbers of EUseafarers employed.During the reference periodRegulation 3577/92 was finally extended to the EEAbyDecision of the EEA Joint Committee of 4 October 1997, which entered into force on 1August 1998. It grants full access to EU cabotage trades for Norwegian and Icelandic flagvessels and full access to Norwegian and Icelandic cabotage trades for EU vessels. However,the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS) vessels do not have access to EU cabotageunder Regulation 3577/92 and, as a consequence, these vessels will not be able to carry outcabotage in the EU on the basis of the Regulation. On that occasion, Norway made astatement by which it declares that it does not have the intention of amending its lawconcerning the Norwegian International Ship (NIS) Register in respect of access of NISregistered vessels to the Norwegian cabotage. Fleet developments were only significant forthe NIS fleet which increased by 4% from 1995 to 1997. Apart from the NIS vessels, EFTA
vessels continue to have only a minor involvement in the cabotage trades of the EU MemberStates.With regard tocrew costs for cargo vesselsfor 1998 the report shows that the secondregisters continue to have the lowest crew costs. The MAR flag would seem to be thecheapest flag to operate together with the DIS followed closely by the Dutch flag, the NIS andthe REC. The French, Swedish, and Belgian registers are the most expensive. The Icelandicand Norwegian registers are slightly less expensive than the latter. Changes in the state aidregimes for the different registers during the reference period have only minimally affectedtheir relative position among the EU and EEA registers.