National investments in IWT infrastructure

• Infrastructure represents a basic need for reliable inland waterway transport. Yearly data for infrastructure maintenance spending, as well as infrastructure investments, are reported for Rhine and Danube countries.
• In Rhine countries, given their dense waterway networks, the highest level of investment spending can be observed in Germany and the Netherlands. In Danube and Central European countries, maintenance spendings have steadily increased over time in Serbia, Austria, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic. The country with the highest IWT modal share in the Danube region is Romania, which can explain the high level of investment spendings over time.
• 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 per waterway.

 
This webpage is only available in English.
 

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. The performance of each country in ensuring such a good navigation status is not considered in the scope of this chapter.
  • 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-running activities, part of an investment life cycle approach.1
  • 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, is 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 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 output 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. Maintenance measures taken by waterway authorities might, however, require environmental permits. Investments in port infrastructure are not within the scope of this chapter.

 

SHORTCOMINGS RELATING TO DATA COLLECTION ON INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

  • It is not possible to compare data between countries, as 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. On the other hand, rivers which count numerous locks require high investment and lock maintenance spending.
  • Regarding differing methodologies, infrastructure maintenance equipment can be included in one country under infrastructure maintenance spending, but might not be included as such in another country. 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. 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 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 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 that are 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.
  • These observations call for improving the data collection process, perhaps through the development of harmonised criteria for reporting such infrastructure spending investments at European level.

 

OVERVIEW PER COUNTRY

    RHINE COUNTRIES

    • For the Rhine countries, relevant data regarding infrastructure maintenance and investment spending can be retrieved from the OECD. 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 (maintenance and investments spendings). It should be noted that data for Switzerland overall and for infrastructure maintenance spending in Germany, is not available in the OECD database.
    • The OECD 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”.2
    • 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.
    • Overall, it can be observed that investment spending, as well as maintenance spending in Rhine countries, have increased over time, with the highest level of investment spendings being in Germany and the Netherlands. This can certainly be explained by the dense waterway networks and important inland waterway transport activity observed in both countries.

      •  

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

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024
      Belgium65.058.071.066.027.082.0103.087.560.061.055.094.066.091.088.8
      France60.061.0224.83226.9224.5226.5220.8232.0233.4252.6291.4332.6354.9359.1386.1
      Germanyn.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Luxembourg0.30.20.30.20.20.10.20.20.20.30.1n.an.an.an.a
      Netherlands544.0438.4352.7272.0297.4323.3402.6427.1417.8472.0488.4586.2642.5592.1707.2
      Switzerlandn.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a

      Source: OECD
       

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

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024
      Belgium154.0152.0152.0167.0103.0291.0225.0237.5197.0197.0249.0562.0394.0382.0305.3
      France253.2264.3236.0224.4180.0164.1192.335.1226.3163.0306.6349.5381.0667.4486.5
      Germany1,100.01,070.0885.0865.0865.0830.0880.0815.0860.01,100.01,315.01,180.01,370.01,220.01,490.0
      Luxembourg1.01.30.70.10.30.00.10.00.10.10.1n.an.an.an.a
      Netherlands252.0567.1597.9484.5509.5490.9296.1401.3331.4409.1444.6700.5701.5603.0551.2
      Switzerlandn.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a

      Source: OECD
       

    DANUBE COUNTRIES, CZECH REPUBLIC AND POLAND

    • For the Danube countries, Czech Republic and Poland, relevant data regarding infrastructure maintenance and investment spending in general can also be retrieved from the OECD database.
    • According to the available data, maintenance spending is highest in Serbia and shows an upward trend over the observed period. Maintenance expenditure has also increased steadily in Austria and the Czech Republic. In Poland, maintenance spending rose until 2019 before declining in 2024, while in the remaining Danube countries it remained broadly stable.
    • Investment spending has been highest in Romania, although levels have declined over time and no data are available after 2019. This development is partly explained by a shift in recent years from large scale river engineering projects towards investments in maintenance related equipment. In Serbia, investment spending increased from 2010, decreased in 2023 following the completion of a major hydraulic engineering project, and reached its highest level since 2010 in 2024. In the Czech Republic, investment levels fluctuated, peaking in 2019–2020 before declining thereafter. In Poland, investment spending increased from 2020 and declined again in 2024.

      •  

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

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024
      Austrian.a11.012.017.019.014.012.013.012.013.013.014.014.016.023.0
      Serbia13.323.017.616.517.329.828.732.935.343.332.630.540.654.866.6
      Slovakia2.02.03.04.09.03.70.37.11.8n.a2.02.03.03.04.0
      Republic of Moldova0.0n.an.an.an.a0.10.10.10.1n.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Hungary3.21.60.80.81.31.42.72.22.12.22.01.82.52.12.0
      Bulgaria1.01.51.01.01.01.01.31.43.43.63.63.12.64.63.6
      Croatia0.70.81.21.22.11.61.42.02.11.93.02.01.02.02.0
      Czech Republic1.51.82.94.64.57.56.26.57.512.25.33.96.27.39.3
      Poland7.816.57.621.05.5n.an.an.an.a9.89.59.610.913.96.7

      Source: OECD
       

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

      Country/Year201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024
      Austria11.02.03.011.010.02.02.03.03.05.04.04.07.06.010.0
      Serbia21.225.824.715.517.722.340.734.345.949.147.250.655.239.478.1
      Slovakia3.01.01.01.00.00.10.11.11.5n.a1.10.01.01.02.0
      Republic of Moldova0.00.70.20.10.10.10.10.10.1n.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Hungary0.80.20.010.10.020.010.30.21.10.93.11.10.00.232.1
      Bulgaria0.00.00.00.00.51.30.00.20.00.01.00.00.00.01.0
      Croatia2.63.53.31.74.16.03.02.03.03.07.03.010.010.010.0
      Romania423.5519.0279.5268.1314.1505.9236.9105.1189.7n.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Czech Republic57.822.317.27.29.615.19.87.22.851.155.530.224.120.727.5
      Poland24.829.10.2n.a61.2n.an.an.an.a56.139.264.486.783.239.0

      Source: OECD
       

    • In addition to the OECD data, more detailed data stemming from the FRMMP monitoring/GNS reporting4 is also available. The FRMMP/GNS reporting is solely focused on waterway-related infrastructure; expenditures for land-side infrastructure such as mooring places, tow paths, etc. are not included. The reporting concerns the following spending types: maintenance dredging, fairway surveying and marking, water level gauges, maintenance of locks (in Romania), water level information and forecasts, information on fairway depths, marking plans, meteorological information and other needs. Structural infrastructure investments (e.g. river engineering) are not reported in the framework of the FRMMP/GNS monitoring, as the focus is on rehabilitation and maintenance activities only. Yet, investments in rehabilitation and maintenance equipment such as dredging vessels are monitored as they increase the technical capacities of the waterway authorities. Discrepancies between the OECD and the FRMMP/GNS reporting data arise mainly from differences in scope and definitions, especially with regard to whether the reporting refers to waterway-related infrastructure in a broad sense or solely to fairway infrastructure, and to which activities are classified as maintenance. The FRMMP/GNS reporting data provides a more detailed distribution according to need areas and a more complete picture of the amount of money dedicated to different rehabilitation and maintenance tasks. For Austria, for example, there is a large discrepancy between the values reported in the two different databases, as OECD data includes also expenditures for the maintenance of tow paths, etc. This example confirms that data regarding infrastructure spending should be interpreted with caution.
    • Table 5 captures the operational infrastructure maintenance expenditures in a given year in inland waterways for the period 2017 to 2025 for Danube countries.
      Maintenance spending differs widely among the Danube Riparian states. This variation can partly be attributed to river characteristics, such as whether sections are free-flowing or impounded, as well as to their length. Free-flowing stretches, characterized by a dynamic riverbed, generally require more intensive maintenance and thus higher expenditures. However, differences in reported spending also reflect national differences in administrative responsibilities and budgeting practices. Depending on the country, some services may be financed by entities other than the waterway administration (e.g. hydrological services), and maintenance-related costs are not always recorded as distinct budget lines, which can make expenditure figures difficult to isolate and compare. For this reason, a direct comparison between administrations is of limited value. More important is whether maintenance funding remains stable over time within each administration and does not decline.

      •  

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

      Year201720182019202020212022202320242025Change 2024/2025
      Country
      Austria4.55.24.64.8n.an.a5.47.17.0-1.4%
      Bulgaria0.42.42.92.9n.an.a3.33.02.5-16.4%
      Romania15.313.513.216.0n.an.a13.622.022.8+1.4%
      Hungaryn.a0.90.2n.an.an.a0.50.40.8+100%
      Croatia0.51.11.11.1n.an.a5.92.61.4-46.2%
      Slovakia2.62.31.82.6n.an.a4.03.13.9+25.8%
      Serbian.a0.4n.an.an.an.an.a13.5n.an.a
      Bosnia and Herzegovinan.an.an.an.an.an.an.a0.1n.an.a
      Moldovan.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      Ukrainen.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.an.a
      German Danube1.71.93.3n.an.an.an.a3.9n.an.a

      Source: National Action Plans and Reports on GNS, last update spring 2025
      Missing values are tied to absence of reporting by the countries.

Privacy Overzicht

Deze website maakt gebruik van cookies om u de best mogelijke gebruikerservaring te bieden. Cookie-informatie wordt opgeslagen in uw browser en voert functies uit zoals herkenning op uw site, zodat ons team weet welke gebieden van de site voor u het meest interessant en nuttig zijn.