• Infrastructure represents a basic need for reliable inland waterway transport. Yearly data for infrastructure maintenance, as well as infrastructure investments, are reported for Rhine and Danube countries.
 
• Shortfalls in data arise due to varying methodologies in data collection.
 
• The data presented allow for an analysis per country but do not allow the comparison of trends in maintenance and investment spendings between different countries. For instance, maintenance spending can vary greatly between countries due to the length and nature of the waterway as well as the number of constructions on this waterway.

 

INTRODUCTION

  • In order to ensure a year-round navigability, the state of the inland navigation transport network must enable efficient, reliable and safe navigation for users by ensuring minimum waterway parameters and levels of service (Good Navigation Status). To achieve this goal, IWT infrastructure needs to be constructed, maintained, and upgraded through investments within a coherent corridor vision. It must also consider the growing demand for fast, reliable, high-quality, seamless movement of goods and persons. In this regard, monitoring national investments in IWT infrastructure is essential.
  • Maintenance, rehabilitation, and regeneration are key actions towards inland navigation reliability and performance. Any financial support ensuring more efficient maintenance, rehabilitation and regeneration activities positively impact infrastructure. However, it should be borne in mind that these are long-run activities, part of an investment life cycle approach.12
  • Infrastructure spending can be broken down into two main categories: investment and maintenance spending.
  • Maintenance spending focuses on already existing infrastructure and its upkeep. Maintenance spending, such as that related to dredging campaigns to maintain guaranteed navigable channel depth, are however, as of today, not eligible for EU co-funding in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility II programme (CEF II). Today, it is the responsibility of Member States to maintain their inland navigation networks, core and comprehensive, which is crucial for the development of the sector. Nevertheless, it is important to note that maintenance spending can vary greatly from one country to another, depending on:
    – the length of the navigable waterway,
    – its nature (free-flowing or not) and,
    – the number of constructions on this waterway (locks and dams generally represent the most important expenditure items).
  • Investment spending embraces a new spending in new projects such as the enlargement or upgrading of waterways. Such investments are eligible for co-funding at EU level, for instance via CEF II. In legal understanding, an investment must undergo an environmental impact assessment whereas maintenance spending is usually not tied to such legal requirements.
  • Investments in port infrastructure are not within the scope of this chapter.

 

SHORTCOMINGS RELATING TO DATA COLLECTION ON INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDINGS

  • It might be tempting to compare data between countries, but there are some important shortcomings to be discussed to allow for reasonable conclusions. Such shortcomings arise from differing methodologies of data collection and the definitions behind these, but also from differences regarding the types of waterways present in the countries. For example, countries with a high share of free-flowing rivers need a higher amount of maintenance activities than countries with a lower share in this regard.
  • Regarding differing methodologies, infrastructure maintenance equipment is included for one country under infrastructure maintenance spending but might not be included in another. This could also partly explain possible discrepancies that may exist between one data source and another. Due to these different methodologies and different types of waterways, it is more advantageous to shed light on the trend for each country. In addition, the differentiation between investment spending and maintenance spending is sometimes not available.
  • Another important aspect lies in the competent authorities for data collection. For instance, whereas in Croatia the hydrological institute is responsible for the data collection, in most parts of the Rhine and Danube countries it is the waterway administrations that are responsible.
  • Last but not least, it should be mentioned that depending on the inland water CEMT,13 class, the entity responsible for managing infrastructure investment might vary, for instance, it could either be the national authority or the regional authorities. The infrastructure spending related to inland waterways falling under the responsibility of regional authorities, generally regional waterways of CEMT class III or below, might therefore not be reported in the national infrastructure spending data. For those countries that count numerous regional navigable waterways of CEMT class III or below, it is likely that the total amount of infrastructure spending reported in this chapter is underestimated. This would be the case for the Netherlands and Poland.

 

OVERVIEW PER COUNTRY

    RHINE COUNTRIES

    • For the Rhine countries, relevant data regarding infrastructure maintenance and investment spending can be retrieved from the International Transport Forum (ITF).14 Due to the shortcomings explained in the above section no country comparisons shall be made. This data serves to carry out a country trend analysis in the two given indicator variables. Note that data for the Netherlands, Switzerland and for infrastructure maintenance spending in Germany, is not available on the ITF data.
    • The ITF database encompasses both land and waterside infrastructures. Indeed, it is based on the OECD definition of inland waterway infrastructure (and related costs) which includes both landside and waterway-related components: “Infrastructure includes land, channels and permanent way constructions, buildings, navigation locks, mooring equipment, toll collection installations, as well as immovable fixtures, fittings and installations connected with them (signalisation, telecommunications, etc.) as opposed to IWT vessels”.15
    • Regarding infrastructure maintenance spending in Germany, national data on maintenance spending in waterway transport do not, in most cases, distinguish between inland and maritime waterways, which makes an analysis quite impossible.
    • Data regarding transport infrastructure spending and maintenance in the Netherlands can be derived from the mobility fund.16 This fund is part of the complete national budget for the Netherlands and, next to rail, road and main waterways, comprises three17 further categories. Since 2017, an increase in the overall mobility fund is observed. The value of the fund reached 14.4 billion euro in 2022, of which 1.3 billion euro was dedicated to IWT infrastructure. For smaller waterways in provinces, the regional authorities are responsible for the budget allocation. Hence, they are not part of these figures and the infrastructure spendings in the Netherlands are therefore higher than 1.3 billion euro.
    •  

      TABLE 1: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE SPENDING IN MILLION EURO (ITF FIGURES)

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Belgium65.058.071.066.027.082.0103.087.560.061.055.094.0
      France60.061.061.061.060.059.859.662.259.859.260.159.1
      Germanyn.an.an.an.an.a n.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Luxembourg0.30.20.30.20.20.10.20.20.20.30.1n.a
      Netherlands544.0343.0n.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Switzerlandn.an.an.an.an.a n.an.an.an.an.an.an.a

      Source: ITF
       

      TABLE 2: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN MILLION EURO (ITF FIGURES)

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Belgium154.0152.0152.0167.0103.0291.0225.0237.5197.0197.0249.0562.0
      France253.2264.3236.0224.4180.0164.1192.335.1226.3163.0306.6349.5
      Germany1,100.01,070.0780.0740.0780.0730.0780.0720.0760.01000.01220.01090.0
      Luxembourg1.01.30.70.10.30.00.100.10.10.1n.a
      Netherlands252.0263.0n.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Switzerlandn.an.an.an.an.a n.an.an.an.an.an.an.a

      Source: ITF
       

    DANUBE COUNTRIES

    • For the Danube countries, relevant data regarding infrastructure maintenance and investment spending in general can also be retrieved from the ITF.
    •  

      TABLE 3: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE SPENDING IN MILLION EURO (ITF FIGURES)

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Austrian.a11.012.017.019.014.012.013.012.013.113.414.0
      Serbia13.323.017.616.517.329.828.732.935.343.332.630.5
      Slovakia2.02.03.04.09.03.70.37.11.8n.a22.02.0
      Republic of Moldova0.0n.an.an.an.a0.10.10.10.1n.an.an.a
      Hungary3.21.60.80.81.31.42.72.22.12.22.01.8
      Bulgaria1.01.51.01.01.01.01.31.43.43.63.63.1
      Croatia0.70.81.21.2n.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Czech Republic1.51.82.94.64.57.56.26.57.512.25.33.9

      Source: ITF
       

      TABLE 4: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN MILLION EURO (ITF FIGURES)

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Austria11.02.03.011.010.02.02.03.03.04.53.74.3
      Serbia21.225.824.715.517.722.340.734.345.949.147.250.6
      Slovakia3.01.01.01.00.00.10.11.11.5n.a1.10.0
      Republic of Moldova0.00. 70.20.10.10.10.10.10.1n.an.an.a
      Hungary0.80.20.010.10.02010.30.21.10.93.11.1
      Bulgaria0.00.00.00.00.51.30.00.20.00.01.00.0
      Croatia2.63.53.31.7n.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Czech Republic57.822.317.27.29.615.19.87.22.851.155.530.2
      Romania423.5519.0279.5268.1314.1505.9236.9105.1189.7n.an.an.a

      Source: ITF
       

    • In addition to the ITF data, more detailed data stemming from the FRMMP18 are also available, covering waterside infrastructure only (no landside infrastructure). The FRMMP reporting is solely focused on waterway-related infrastructure and includes themes such as waterway dredging, fairway marking and fairway surveying. Land-side expenditures such as mooring places, tow paths, etc. are not included in the FRMMP reporting. Moreover, structural infrastructure investments are not reported in the framework of the FRMMP, as the focus is on maintenance activities only. Discrepancies between the ITF and the FRMMP data therefore exist mainly because of differences in the methodology, scope and definition.
    • For Austria, for example, there is somehow a large discrepancy between the value reported in the two different databases.
    • This example confirms that data regarding investment spending should be interpreted with caution. It also calls for improvement in the data collection process for such investment, perhaps through the development of harmonised criteria for reporting such infrastructure spending investments at European level.
    • No new update of the FRMMP figures was available for the year 2021. A new update of the FRMMP is expected in the course of 2023.
    •  

      TABLE 5: NATIONAL ACTION PLANS IN DANUBE COUNTRIES – INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE SPENDING IN MILLION EURO

      Year2017201820192020Change 2020/2019Change 2018/2017
      Country
      Austria4.55.24.64.8+4.8%-7.4%
      Bulgaria0.42.42.92.9+/-0%+21.1%
      Romania15.313.613.216.0+21.1%+17.9%
      Hungaryn.a0. 90.2n.an.an.a
      Croatia0.51.11.11.1+/-0%+/-0%
      Slovakia2.62.31.82.6+46.6%+12.7%
      Serbian.a0.4n.an.an.an.a

      Source: FAIRway, National Action Plans, May 2021
      Missing values are tied to absence of reporting by the countries.

       

    • The difference between free-flowing and not free-flowing river stretches such as in the Upper Danube region can explain why certain need areas require more investments than others. For instance, the Iron Gates located at the Serbian/ Romanian border set the border between the downstream free-flowing part of the Danube and the upstream part which counts many locks that require important investment spending while a free-flowing river would require more maintenance activities.
    • Tables 6.1 and 6.2 capture the secured infrastructure investments19 in inland waterways for the period 2014 to 2020 for Danube countries. Despite possible discrepancies in the data reported for infrastructure investment between the two databases (ITF and FAIRway), the FAIRway database provides a more detailed distribution according to need areas and a more complete picture of the amount of money dedicated to each need area.
    •  

      TABLE 6.1: NATIONAL ACTION PLANS IN DANUBE COUNTRIES – INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN INLAND WATERWAYS 2014-2020

      CountryAustriaBulgaria
      Need area Investment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financedInvestment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financed
      Minimum fairway parameters (width/depth)n.a n.a10.62085.0
      Surveying of the riverbed n.a n.a3.885.0
      Water level gauges n.a n.a0.485.0
      Marking of the fairway1.220.44.185.0
      Availability of locks/lock chambers n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Information on water levels and forecasts n.a n.a0.185.0
      Information on fairway depths n.a n.a0.385.0
      Information on marking plans n.a n.a0.0 n.a
      Meteorological informationn.a n.a0.0 n.a
      Other needs n.an.a 0.22185.0
      Total1.220.419.485.0

      CountryRomaniaHungary
      Need area Investment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financedInvestment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financed
      Minimum fairway parameters (width/depth)23.532.66.285.0
      Surveying of the riverbed0.485.01.759.0
      Water level gauges0.379.36.750.0
      Marking of the fairway3.885.08.785.0
      Availability of locks/lock chambers0.285.0 n.a n.a
      Information on water levels and forecasts0.285.00.0185.0
      Information on fairway depths0.485.00.0285.0
      Information on marking plans0.185.00.385.0
      Meteorological information0.456.10. 850.0
      Other needs0.154.40.685.0
      Total29.341.825.072.7

      Source: FAIRway, National Action Plans, May 2021
       

      TABLE 6.2: NATIONAL ACTION PLANS IN DANUBE COUNTRIES – INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN INLAND WATERWAYS 2014-2020

      CountryCroatiaSlovakiaSerbia
      Need areaInvestment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financedInvestment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financedInvestment secured 2014-2020 (in million €)% of EU co- financed
      Minimum fairway parameters (width/depth)1.0n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Surveying of the riverbed0.485.00.685.0 n.a n.a
      Water level gauges0.185.0 n.an.a n.a n.a
      Marking of the fairway1.185.01.485.00.785.0
      Availability of locks/lock chambers n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Information on water levels and forecasts0.285.0 n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Information on fairway depths0.10.00.020.0 n.a n.a
      Information on marking plans n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Meteorological information n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Other needs n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a
      Total2.853.42.084.10.785.0

      Source: FAIRway, National Action Plans, May 2021
       

    OTHER COUNTRIES

      TABLE 7: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE SPENDING IN MILLION EURO

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Italy1.01.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.04.03.0
      Lithuania60.061.061.061.060.059.859.662.259.859.260.159.1
      Poland7.816.57.621.05.5n.an.an.an.a9.89.59.6

      Source: ITF
       

      TABLE 8: INLAND WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN MILLION EURO

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
      Italy42.036.052.0136.0358.0509.0436.0239.0246.079.099.0n.a
      Lithuania1.02.00.01.03.01.00.00.00.00.07.010.0
      Poland24.829.10.2n.a61.0n.an.an.an.a56.039.264.5

      Source: ITF