This chapter provides an overview of some of the most important sports and recreational services in Tunisia, identifies the main restrictions to competition, and provides recommendations. The regulatory framework for some activities, such as operating marinas, is incomplete, with implementing texts missing. For other activities, frameworks are fragmented and various pieces of legislation are not well harmonised. Most of the activities analysed are subject to cumbersome licensing procedures at the local level, conferring significant discretionary power on authorities and deterring market entry. Because of the complex regulatory framework and a lack of co‑ordination between central and local authorities, investment in sports and recreational services is relatively weak, having not exceeded 10% of total tourism investment over the past decade.
OECD Competition Assessment Reviews: Tunisia 2023
8. Sports and recreational services
Abstract
8.1. Introduction
Global tourism demand trends show that an exponentially growing number of tourists are interested in active holidays.1 Demand for adventure tourism is on the rise as consumer interest in customised and transformative experiences grows (UNWTO, 2014[1]). As one of the fastest-growing segments of the industry, the global adventure tourism market is forecast to reach a value of USD 1.1 trillion by 2028.2 As in many Mediterranean countries, Tunisia’s tourist industry has followed a “sun and sea” model over the past decades, generating problems of seasonality and a concentration of tourism activity in coastal areas. ONTT statistics for 2019 show that tourism investment was mainly captured by the accommodation sector (see Chapter 2). Investment in recreational services didn’t exceed 12% of the total tourism investment and was mainly concentrated in the Tunis governorate (Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1. Investment in recreational services by region
Source: OECD based on ONTT (2019[2]), Rapport Annuel, https://www.ontt.tn/sites/default/files/inline-files/rapport2019.pdf
Sports and recreational activities have the potential to foster adventure tourism, extend the season, increase accommodation occupancy levels, and open new markets by using existing resources. This chapter analyses the barriers affecting a selection of important tourist sports and recreational activities in Tunisia, including golf, yachting and scuba diving, and makes policy recommendations to encourage competition in these markets and help improve the competitiveness of the tourism sector. Other activities such as hunting, recreational aviation and hot-air ballooning are analysed in detail in a spreadsheet published as a standalone document on our dedicated webpage, https://oe.cd/ca-tunisia.
8.2. Golf courses
8.2.1. Background
Unlike most sporting and adventure activities, which are regulated at the municipal level in Tunisia, golf is regulated at the national level. This is due mainly to its capital-intensive nature and extensive land and equipment requirements. Tunisia’s first golf course, Golf de Kantaoui, was established in 1979. Currently, there are ten golf courses in the country,3 including three in the areas of Hammamet, Monastir and Carthage, which are managed by the Société Tunisienne de Développement du Golf (STDG) or the Tunisian Golf Development Company, a state‑owned enterprise supervised by the Ministry of Tourism.4
According to stakeholders, no golf course currently offers accommodation. Presidential Decree No. 2022‑579 sets out the conditions and criteria required for the construction of golf courses and their activities, and for the first time allows golf courses to use a portion of their land for building accommodation and entertainment facilities.
8.2.2. Description of the obstacles and policy makers’ objectives
A golf course is defined as “any space designed for the game of golf and considered a tourist establishment within the meaning of Article 3 of Law No. 90‑21 on tourism investments, remaining in force by Law No. 2016‑71”. This means that golf courses must comply with the requirements for tourist establishments (see Section 3.2.2). The legislation requires that golf courses fulfil minimum technical criteria (see Table 8.1). Courses with more than 18 holes on the same land (27, 36 or 45 holes) are also subject to the criteria in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1. Technical criteria for golf courses
Source: Presidential Decree No. 2022‑579, Article 4.
Land use: Articles 4 and 5 of Decree No. 2022‑579 set out what proportion of golf course land can be used for tourist hotels, apart-hotels, tourist residences, spaces linked to golf, and shopping and entertainment centres. The floor occupation coefficient for tourist accommodation establishments is set at 2%.5 The land use coefficient is set at 6% of the course’s total area.6
This decree allows golf course owners to build accommodation facilities on their courses despite the land’s classification as recreational or agricultural and the associated use restrictions. The provision of accommodation around golf courses helps to finance the provision of golf course services and thus impacts the quality of services provided. Limitations may be in place in order to preserve the course environment, such as open green space, to limit additional infrastructure costs associated with such developments, such as roads, sewerage pipes and water, and to prevent real estate speculation. Prior to the issuance of the decree, OECD’s online survey indicated that real estate projects have been allowed on some golf courses but not others, so such development has been uneven (see Annex A).
Maximum building height: Tourist hotels and apart-hotels on golf courses must not exceed three floors, including a ground floor, and other buildings are restricted to a height of two floors, including a ground floor. The OECD understands these limits are in place to ensure compliance with building safety regulations and standards and with planning regulations.
State presence: three out of ten golf courses in Tunisia are controlled by STDG, a state‑owned enterprise established in 2015 following a merger between the managing entities of these three resorts.7 The OECD understands that the involvement of the state in the sector is meant to enhance its development given its capital intense nature. According to the authorities, the merger between the three SOEs was a move to increase efficiency and improve performance and service quality for golf players.
8.2.3. Harm to competition
Land use: Limitations on land use may prevent innovation and the optimal use of resources. Building accommodation facilities may improve courses’ profitability and help course owners to finance the provision of services, without which they may be forced to exit the market. These limitations also hamper the emergence of integrated golf courses (see Box 8.1) and may reduce the attractiveness of Tunisia as a golf destination in a very competitive regional context.
Stakeholders informed the OECD that authorisations to build accommodation facilities were granted to some golf courses prior to the adoption of Decree No. 2022‑579. However, this was made conditional on the reclassification of land, which in most cases is still agricultural land, and on the adoption of updated urban development plans. The latter is undertaken by local authorities and adopted jointly with the minister of urban planning, but in most cases it has not been carried out since 2010.
Maximum building height: These requirements may limit the ability of golf course owners to innovate, and may limit the ability of suppliers to compete, by reducing the intensity and dimensions of competition, leading to higher prices for consumers and less product variety.
State presence: the heavy involvement of the state in the industry raises competitive neutrality concerns as it may hinder the incentives of the state‑controlled courses to compete and innovate and create an unlevel playing field if STDG benefits from differential treatment and privileged access to public services such as water or more favourable financing conditions though state‑owned banks. In addition, the efficiency argument underpinning the merger doesn’t seem to hold. Stakeholders told the OECD that STDG is facing several problems affecting its performance, including a disproportionate wage bill and a deteriorating service.
Box 8.1. Coastal integrated golf resorts in the European Mediterranean region
According to the 2015 KPMG report Golf Resorts in the European Mediterranean Region, there were 1 400 golf facilities in European Mediterranean countries. Around 30% (382) were located within 20km of the coast and included 212 standalone facilities (courses not directly associated with a hospitality facility or a residential real estate development) and 170 coastal integrated golf resorts.
According to KPMG, residential real estate and accommodation facilities are key components of coastal integrated golf resorts, alongside other sports and leisure facilities. Among the resorts KPMG examined, more than half offered only onsite hotel accommodation and only 10% were based solely on residential real estate. The remaining third were focused on a combination of accommodation and residential real estate. In terms of hotels and rental units, the average number of beds varied between countries. Greece and Türkiye had the highest average capacity, exceeding 500 rooms, while France had the lowest average of 120 rooms. In addition to accommodation, nearly half of coastal golf resorts featured extensive spa and wellness facilities.
Source: KPMG (2015[3]), Golf Resorts in the European Mediterranean Region, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/04/golf-resorts-european-mediterranean-region.pdf
8.2.4. Recommendations
In light of the harm to competition described above, the OECD recommends:
Revising the provisions that restrict the emergence of integrated golf resorts and facilities. More specifically, the authorities should consider revising all restrictions on land use and transferring specific size and layout details into an investor guide if the purpose is to help investors comply with standards.
Streamlining land reclassification procedures and ensuring that urban development plans are updated and adopted according to the provisions of articles 16 and 17 of Law No. 1994‑122, which promulgates a code for land use and town planning.
Defining the rationale for the state to own and manage golf courses in line with OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State‑Owned Enterprises (OECD, 2015[4]). In case the authorities decide to divest the state’s participation, the OECD reiterates the guidelines set out in the OECD’s “A Policy Maker’s Guide to Privatisation” which provides guidance and best practices in privatisations of SOEs (OECD, 2019[5]).
8.3. Marinas
8.3.1. Background
Marinas are large leisure ports specially constructed to receive leisure craft. They offer moorings, catering, security services and numerous auxiliary services such as car-parking facilities, shipbuilding and repair units for the repair and maintenance of leisure craft. Beyond developments in the leisure craft market, the demand for marina services is determined mainly by: the cost of services provided by organised marinas and port dues; and the quantity and quality of marine services provided per mooring. Demand for marinas is also seasonal, with peak demand for berthing during the summer months while during the winter period the demand for dry-docking increases so that vessels can be repaired and maintained. In Tunisia, marinas are regulated by the Code des Ports Maritimes, or Maritime Ports Code, promulgated by Law No. 2009‑48. This code sets out the conditions to which the establishment of maritime ports are subject and requirements for the management of public areas of ports, their use, protection, conservation, and general rules to ensure safety, security, health, cleanliness and the preservation of the environment. The code applies to all maritime ports, with the exception of military ports.
The Maritime Ports Code classifies ports into three main types: commercial ports; fishing ports; and leisure ports (marinas). Article 6 of Law No. 2009‑48 stipulates that marinas are under the authority and supervision of the Ministry of Tourism. Tunisia currently has seven leisure ports (see Table 8.2). The ports of La Goulette, Tabarka, Mahdia and Kelibia are sometimes mentioned among marinas, but they are only partly used as such and have limited capacity for yachts. In terms of management, the marinas of Sidi Bou Saïd and El Kantaoui are under the authority of the Ministry of Tourism, and the remainder are managed by private investors.
Table 8.2. Occupation rates at Tunisian marinas, March 2022
Source: National Trade Union Chamber of Marina Managers.
8.3.2. Description of the obstacles and policy makers’ objectives
According to Article 2 of the Maritime Ports Code,8 ports are created by the state or under construction and operating concessions granted by the state according to a contract and specifications approved by a decree from the minister in charge of port activity. Maritime ports are classified based on the type of activities for which they are used, which is set by decree. The conditions and procedures for the establishment and extension of maritime ports are set by decree.9
Port authorities: According to the Maritime Ports Code, each of the three types of ports should be subject to application decrees. However, unlike commercial and fishing ports, there are currently no application texts or executive regulations for marinas. This means, for example, that there is no institutional framework for port authorities such as the Office de la Marine Marchande et des Ports (OMMP), or the Office of the Merchant Marine and Ports, for commercial ports, or for the Agence des Ports et des Installations de Pêche, or Fishing Ports and Installations Agency, for fishing ports. There is no clear allocation of tasks between the different parties at ports, such as the Ministry of Tourism, concession holders, customs, the Garde Nationale Maritime, or National Maritime Guard, and the border police. This also means that clear and transparent conditions and procedures for the award of concessions and to ensure proper monitoring are lacking, which causes problems when it comes to the management and maintenance of marinas.10
The OECD understands that the absence of application decrees related to marinas causes significant difficulties for both authorities and investors. However, it has not been possible to obtain any explanation of the reasons for the regulatory gap.
Port concessions: According to Article 18 of the Maritime Ports Code, the use of public areas of ports, works, facilities and equipment are ensured either by the port authority, in the context of temporary occupation, or within the framework of a concession with or without a public service obligation.
In line with Article 23 of the Maritime Ports Code, if the occupation of public areas of ports involves the creation of structures, works or fixed equipment, it should be granted only by virtue of a concession contract. Occupation of the public areas of ports may be also granted under a concession contract concluded with individuals or legal representatives of businesses, or with establishments whose activities are linked to port activity, even if it does not involve the construction of structures or fixed equipment.11 Concessions are granted for a maximum period of 30 years, extendable for an additional period not exceeding 20 years. However, stakeholders noted that some concession contracts currently in force stipulate that the extension period is set for only two years with a termination notice of one year. The OECD found the legal basis for this contradiction in Article 26 of Law No. 1995‑73, which relates to maritime public areas, and stipulates that concessions are extendable for two‑year periods each time. There are no predefined conditions for extensions of concession contracts, and so the approval or rejection of any request is at the discretion of the decision maker.
The OECD understands that the provisions in place, including the 30‑year concession duration, seek to facilitate investment by operators and take into consideration the high setup costs. The short, two‑year extension periods seek to ensure contestability and enable new operators to compete for concessions at the end of the agreed period.
Operating requirements: The organisation of nautical activities, events and sports competitions in marinas is subject to pre‑approval by the Ministry of Tourism as per Circular of the Minister of Tourism No. 01/2019 of 29 October 2019. According to the circular, port managers must present a request for each activity or event with one month of advance notice and firm dates.
The authorities said this requirement is intended to overcome the absence of clearly defined port management and has the objective of facilitating co‑ordination between organisers and the various public bodies involved at the local and central levels.
8.3.3. Harm to competition
Port authorities: The absence of an adequate regulatory framework and clear enforcement regulations for marinas creates legal uncertainty and deters market entry, especially foreign investment. According to Article 4 of Decree No. 2013‑1808, the Conseil National des Ports de Plaisance, or National Council of Marinas, should convene its members to meet at least twice a year. However, stakeholders informed the OECD that the council had met only twice over the past nine years. The lack of adequate regulatory and institutional frameworks has led to a deterioration in the quality of services provided at marinas and the inefficient use of resources.
Stakeholders informed the OECD that the unclear allocation of responsibilities has seriously affected service quality, hampered the efficient planning and introduction of new services, and led to conflicts of competences on many occasions between port authorities and concession holders.
Port concessions: The absence of an institutional framework has affected concessions. The conditions for granting, extending or revoking concessions are not transparent. The lack of clear criteria may lead to discrimination between concession holders, given the degree of discretion of the authorities enjoy. This leads to uncertainty and likely reduces incentives for investing in the sector. Renewals of concessions for successive periods of two years, as specified in Law No. 1995‑73, is inconsistent with the Maritime Ports Code, which stipulates that concessions can be extended for a period of up to 20 years. Although concessions with long durations may substantially harm competitive processes by reducing the frequency with which private operators can compete, two‑year extensions might considerably limit concession holders’ appetite to invest in improving or even maintaining infrastructure. The one‑year notice period for decisions on concession contract extension or termination does not allow investors to plan or make properly considered decisions on further investment or on timely liquidations of their assets.
Stakeholders emphasised that the marinas of Sidi Bou Saïd and Gammarth were operating without concessions. It is worth mentioning that the marina of Sidi Bou Saïd is run by Société des loisirs touristiques or the Tourist leisure company, a SOE under the supervision of the Ministry of Tourism. This distortion raises competitive neutrality concerns and puts concession holders that operate legally at a disadvantage, given their higher compliance costs, including concession fees. The OECD was informed that a new framework for estimating concession fees adopted by authorities does not take into consideration marinas’ profitability, which affects the financial viability of projects and will likely disincentivise investors.
Operating requirements: The requirement for ministerial pre‑approval of nautical activities, events and sports competitions in marinas represents an undue administrative burden and limits the flexibility of marina managers to innovate and host public events. The OECD was informed that this provision does not encourage port managers to develop new leisure, culture and sports offerings within marinas and attract new business.
8.3.4. Recommendations
In light of the harm to competition posed by the provisions above, as well as their limitations when it comes to achieving policy goals, the OECD recommends:
Accelerating the publication of the implementing regulations for the Maritime Ports Code related to marinas to:
Clarify the institutional setup for marinas and define the roles and powers of the various authorities involved in their supervision to limit any ambiguity or conflicts in the management of ports and concessions.
Ensure compliance with Article 4 of Decree No. 2013‑1808 and convene the National Council of Marinas to meet more regularly, which could serve as a good opportunity to discuss draft implementing texts and issues affecting the industry.
Defining the conditions and criteria for approvals or rejections of authorisation requests for temporary occupation of public areas of ports and setting out a transparent evaluation grid to avoid legal uncertainty. Rejection decisions should be justified and subject to an appeal process.
Setting out clear conditions and establishing a transparent evaluation grid for concession extension requests and clarifying related procedures.
Introducing clear and publicly available conditions under which temporary occupation of public areas can be revoked and developing associated procedures to limit the discretionary powers of the authorities.
Revising the concession framework by:
Defining the conditions and criteria for approvals and rejections of concession extension requests and setting out a transparent evaluation grid to avoid legal uncertainty.
Reconsidering the one‑year notice period for the extension or termination of concession contracts to allow concession holders to make appropriate decisions in a timely manner.
Considering aligning the extension duration of concessions with Article 25 of the Maritime Ports Code, which allows for extensions of up to 20 years. Authorities should also establish clear, objective and transparent criteria to determine the length of any extension, based on a business plan and related investment.
Levelling the playing field among all marinas by ensuring compliance by the marinas of Sidi Bou Saïd and Gammarth and defining the rationale for the state to manage marinas in line with OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State‑Owned Enterprises (OECD, 2015[4]).
Abolishing the Circular of the Ministry of Tourism No. 01/2019 of 29 October 2019 on the organisation of events within marinas.
8.4. Yachting and recreational vessels
8.4.1. Background
Recreational vessel traffic is an important determinant of demand for marinas. As defined in Decree No. 90‑942, a yacht or recreational vessel is “any ship or craft used without profit in maritime navigation for sporting or leisure activities”. The use of recreational vessels is subject to authorisation by the Commission Centrale de Sécurité Maritime (CCSM), or Central Maritime Safety Commission, whereas the use of foreign-flagged boats is subject to specific customs rules.
Recreational maritime transport involves paid maritime passenger transport between ports and coastal sites. In Tunisia, yachting and paid maritime passenger transport is regulated mainly by Law No. 1990‑80.12 According to figures from the Ministry of Tourism, there are currently 60 pleasure boats with licences to transport paying passengers. Foreign-flagged boats can also be used for recreational passenger transport under specific conditions.
8.4.2. Description of the obstacles and policy makers’ objectives
Authorisation to use recreational vessels: According Article 6 of Decree No. 90‑942, prior to the construction, manufacture or importation of any boat or recreational vessel, “the constructor or importer who wants to use the vessel for commercial activities, or to market their vessels, must submit plans and documents to the [CCSM]”.13
The CCSM rules on: 1) the approval or rejection of these plans and documents; 2) the category of navigation likely to be practised; and 3) the maximum number of people that can be on board the vessel.14 The conditions under which the CCSM decides to approve or reject authorisation requests to use recreational vessels are not clearly defined in the decree or its application texts.
Following exchanges with the authorities, the OECD understands that the objective of authorisation requests for the use of locally manufactured or imported recreational vessels is to preserve port safety, and the security of customers and tourists. Monitoring the quality of recreational vessels and whether they comply with all safety and quality standards also serves the objective of environment protection.
The use of foreign-flagged boats is subject to specific customs regulations. When it comes to the duration of vessels’ immobilisation and release for free circulation, official customs note No. 89 047 of 10 August 198915 stipulates that foreign boats are admitted to Tunisia with a suspension of customs duties and taxes and benefit from free navigation for six months a year. They must not remain immobilised for more than two years continuously without having been released periodically for free circulation. In addition, official customs note No. 026/2014 of 2 August 2014 specifies that immobilisation or release for free circulation can be renewed without limitation. However, stakeholders said that in practice, customs officers consider that foreign yachts should not stay in Tunisia longer than 12 months, which can in exceptional circumstances be extended by another 12 months, at the end of which they must leave Tunisian waters for a foreign port.
Yachts, under the temporary import regime for foreign boats belonging to foreigners or Tunisians residing abroad, can be used only privately for the personal needs of their owners or users, according to official customs note No. 89047. The note further stipulates that lending a vessel to a person resident inside the customs jurisdiction is prohibited. The note, however, does not identify the type of users mentioned in Paragraph 17, the type of use (sailing or undertaking maintenance and repair operations), or whether it is possible to obtain a proxy or a power of attorney to be able to use a boat. However, the OECD was informed that in practice, the use of these boats differs from port to port, and that customs offices at some marinas accept signed proxies while others do not.
The OECD understands that customs regulation on immobilisation and release for free circulation and the use of yachts under the temporary import regime aims to ensure compliance by owners and operators of foreign-flagged boats with the rules and procedures in place and to offer a predictable framework for customs duties.
Permit to transport passengers: Paid maritime passenger transport between ports and coastal sites is subject to authorisation by the OMMP. Law No 1990‑80 sets out the conditions and rules for recreational vessels to operate in this capacity. The permit is valid for one year and is renewable. The vessel must be recognised as appropriate for maritime passenger transport by the OMMP, although no clear criteria exist upon which to base such recognition. The permit specifies the maximum number of passengers that can be carried, the safety equipment that the vessel is required to have on board, and the routes, services and conditions under which the permit is issued. No guidelines or criteria exist in relation to these matters. The vessel must be Tunisia-flagged, and its owner must have an insurance contract with a Tunisian company covering civil liability in the event of an accident that affects passengers or third parties, a provision that is one of the conditions set by the Code de Commerce Maritime, or Maritime Commercial Code.
Specific provisions exist for foreign-flagged vessels providing paid maritime transport between ports and coastal sites.16 According to Law No 1990‑80, the OMMP may in exceptional circumstances grant permits to foreign-flagged vessels if certain conditions are met. These permits can be granted for a maximum period of one year and may be renewed. The conditions and criteria for renewals are not defined in the law. The use of foreign-flagged boats for passenger transport is subject to a fee set by Decree No. 91‑164.17 On each excursion, the boarding of any passenger from a port or site on Tunisia’s coast is subject to the payment of a stamp duty, the amount and terms for collection of which are set by Decree No 1991‑164. In addition, non-resident individuals or legal representatives of businesses operating boats must pay an annual lump-sum fee of TND 100 multiplied by the maximum number of passengers, as specified in the permit.
Preserving the safety and security of passengers are the main objectives mentioned by the authorities regarding authorisations for permits for paid maritime transport between ports and coastal sites. The authorities emphasised that it is essential to ensure that vessels have the necessary equipment and facilities to transport people. In addition, the OECD understands that to preserve the safety and security of maritime navigation and passenger transport, the permit sets a capacity limit for the number of passengers and assesses thoroughly the safety equipment on board. The OECD understands that the one‑year validity period is to enable closer technical checks and to ensure the safety and security of passengers through annual checks on whether operators and vessels respect and comply with all rules and safety measures.
According to the authorities, the nationality criteria were adopted to encourage the creation of legal entities and jobs for Tunisians. The authorisation fee associated with the use of foreign-flagged vessels aims to favour the use of Tunisian vessels and potentially encourage foreign vessels to adopt the Tunisian flag.
Operating requirements: According to the Maritime Ports Code, to enter, move within, or exit a port, recreational vessels must file a declaration commonly known as a sailing notice with port authorities or operators. In most cases, the port authority or operator may request an inspection of the vessel before granting authorisation for its movement.18 This declaration is not digitalised and requires in-person submission.
The sailing notice requirement for recreational vessels is a common practice. The OECD understands that the objective is to preserve safety and security, and also to preserve the environment by monitoring the entry and exit of vessels into ports and their movements within ports.
8.4.3. Harm to competition
Authorisation to use recreational vessels: Although authorisations for the use or marketing of recreational vessels seems justified, the absence of clear, pre‑defined conditions and criteria for approvals or rejections of authorisation requests could lead to discrimination, given the discretion enjoyed by the authorities, and increases uncertainty, potentially deterring market entry. It may also reduce the availability of vessels for service providers to supply recreational services and could subsequently affect demand for marinas. Stakeholders informed the OECD that the development of a local yachting market was further hampered by the lack of a conducive tax scheme for boat acquisitions and lengthy police enquiries preceding purchases of yachts by Tunisian nationals. The OECD was informed that these enquiries can take up to six months. Stakeholders also mentioned the absence of a legal framework for obtaining navigation licences and for establishing private navigation schools as being among the issues affecting Tunisia’s yachting industry.
The customs rules regarding vessels’ immobilisation and release for free circulation and the use of yachts under the temporary import regime are confusing and confer significant discretionary powers on authorities. Allowing users other than owners to use foreign boats against a signed proxy, without specifying who they may be (for example, family members, crewmembers or machinists), in some ports but not others puts the latter ports at a disadvantage. The ambiguity around the immobilisation and release of foreign boats is a source of concern among port users and concession holders alike. The OECD was informed that customs officials are currently asking the owners of foreign boats that have exceeded a dwell time of 24 months to pay customs duties and taxes from their date of first entry into Tunisia, amounting to large sums and prompting a wave of departures from Tunisian marinas.
Licence to transport passengers: The practice of issuing permits for paid maritime transport between ports and coastal sites follows the same logic as for the use of recreational vessels and seems therefore to be justified. However, the one‑year duration of the permit, which can be much shorter, according to stakeholders, particularly if renewal conditions are not transparent, represents an administrative burden for market participants as they are required to undertake the same procedures with different authorities and apply for a renewal every year. Vague, non-transparent conditions may increase legal uncertainty and lead to discrimination between applicants, given the discretion enjoyed by the authorities. This could deter market entry, increase the price of services, and limit quality and choice for customers.
The authorisation fees related to foreign boats seem to be justified. However, the additional cumbersome administrative procedures amount to discrimination, increase the cost of entry, and restrict potential foreign investment. According to stakeholders, foreign vessels can operate in other jurisdictions without such restrictions. The restrictions could limit the number of players in the market and ultimately affect yachting activity in Tunisia and limit productivity growth.
Operating requirements: The lack of digitalised procedures for the entry and exit of vessels and the requirement for in-person filing of authorisations for short excursions, or even to move from one port to another within Tunisia, is an administrative burden and may increase costs for market participants. The lengthy, complicated, cumbersome port entry and exit procedures, combined with constraining legislation, seriously affect the yachting industry and the attractiveness of Tunisian marinas in a very competitive regional context. Indeed, unlike several neighbouring countries, the regulatory framework does not allow charter activity, which involves renting boats, local or foreign, with or without crew.
8.4.4. Recommendations
In light of the harm to competition posed by the provisions governing yachting and recreational vessels, and their limitations when it comes to achieving policy goals, the OECD recommends:
Setting clear and transparent conditions for authorisations for the use of recreational vessels and establishing a transparent evaluation grid for authorisation requests, as well as clarifying related procedures to limit the discretionary powers of the authorities.
Revising customs rules and procedures on vessels’ immobilisation and release for free circulation, and on the use of yachts under the temporary import regime, to avoid ambiguity and limit the discretionary power of the authorities. Considering displaying the regulations and related sanctions at port authority and customs offices at each marina.
Box 8.2. Regulation of foreign-flagged vessels in the EU
Article 217(e) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (UCC-DA) permits the private use of vessels in the EU’s seas and waterways for 18 months. Non-EU-flagged vessels used temporarily for private purposes only in the EU’s customs territory and intended for re‑export operate under a temporary admission procedure with customs and are exempted from the payment of any customs duties or value‑added tax (VAT) during those 18 months. However, if a vessel does not leave the EU’s customs territory before the expiration of the permitted period, its owner must pay customs duty and VAT. During the 18 months, the vessel is free to move from one EU member state to another with no further customs formalities.
According to Article 251(3) of the Union Customs Code, the 18 months is extendable only in exceptional circumstances.1 Section 5 of the Customs Temporary Admission Manual states: “Means of transport temporarily imported without payment of import charges may not be lent, hired, pledged, transferred or put at the disposal of any person established in the EU for any purpose other than for immediate re‑exportation”, except in the event of occasional use of the vessel by a person established in the EU but acting on behalf of and on the instructions of the person who temporarily imported the means of transport, while the person who imported the vessel is in the EU, or in case they are hired under a written contract to return to their home in the EU or to leave the EU.2
Notes:
1. The rules for private boats, available at: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-04/rules_for_private_boats-faq_en.pdf
2. Paragraph 5.3 of Section 5, relating to importation for private use (Article 215 of DA), Customs Temporary Admission Manual, updated in 2021.
Source: European Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
In relation to authorisations for permits for paid maritime transport between ports and coastal sites:
Clearly defining and making publicly available the conditions and criteria for the granting of authorisations.
Reviewing the duration of permits or, alternatively, streamlining related procedures to reduce the cost of renewals in terms of both time and money.
Revising the existing framework on the use of foreign-flagged vessels for passenger transport by reconsidering the period of six months a year as the total duration of use of these boats, as well as related fees and the way they are collected.
Developing a clear and transparent evaluation grid and clearly setting out conditions for renewals of permits for foreign-flagged vessels.
In relation to authorisations for the movement of recreational vessels, digitalising procedures for entry and exit to reduce waiting times and the administrative burden.
8.5. Dive centres
8.5.1. Background
Diving refers to “all activities and operations exposing people to a pressure higher than the local atmospheric pressure by breathing”.19 In Tunisia, diving activities include coral and sponge fishing, archaeological excavations, scientific research, rescue, underwater work such as the removal of wrecks and their preservation, the repair and maintenance of marine installations and equipment, and oil, economic, and sporting and recreational activities related to diving at sea, in lakes and dams, or related to caving, among other things.20 Two categories of divers are recognised: professional divers who dive as part of their profession or for remuneration; and amateur divers who dive as a sport or leisure activity.
According to the Fédération Tunisienne des Activités Subaquatiques et de Sauvetage Aquatique (FAST), or Tunisian Federation of Underwater Activities and Aquatic Lifesaving, around 15 clubs and five associations currently operate in the dive sector, mostly in Tunisia’s north and Sahel regions. The industry started to develop in Tunisia in the late 1980s but remains heavily dependent on tourism.
8.5.2. Description of the obstacles and policy makers’ objectives
Despite legislative texts regulating Tunisia’s dive industry, the sector lacks application texts and a cahier des charges or set of specifications. As a result, no clear conditions exist for approvals of training organisations and tourism centres providing diving activities. The FAST has its own cahier des charges that serves as a reference for its adherents, but it has no official standing.
Authorisation process: Authorisations to operate dive clubs are granted by the territorially competent governor, based on the opinion of the Commission Nationale de Plongée, or National Diving Commission. The commission must be consulted on all matters related to amateur and professional diving activities,21 including on authorisations for carrying out diving activities, qualification requirements, and the recognition of foreign diplomas. The qualifications required to serve as a dive club director are also approved by the commission, and for professional diving are set by an order of the minister of national defence, while for diving on an amateur basis they are set by an order of the minister of youth and sports.22
According to Article 4 of Law No. 2005‑89, which governs diving in Tunisia, diving activities outside of a structured framework, defined as a public or private body or establishment authorised to practice diving activities, are forbidden. The conditions for approvals of training organisations and tourism activity centres and the granting of authorisations for diving are set by decree. Only training organisations and tourism activity centres are approved and regulated by the law. The law does not cover sports associations, which are regulated by the Ministry of Youth and Sports, and which in practice provide a significant amount of diving activity in Tunisia.
Following exchanges with the authorities, the OECD understands that a cahier des charges is being considered by the National Diving Commission, and that the aim of intervention by the commission, which is chaired by the Ministry of National Defence, in the regulation of the dive sector is to protect national security and underwater heritage. The OECD understands that by consulting with the commission, the sector benefits from the technical and political expertise of the minister of national defence and that of other experts. Further, the objective of consulting the commission on the authorisation process for diving activities in Tunisia, and its intervention to specify the qualifications required for diving directors, is to ensure that divers possess certain medical and technical aptitudes and meet certain requirements, and to preserve their safety and security. In addition, consulting the commission on requests for the recognition of foreign diplomas is necessary to ensure that divers have the necessary qualifications to engage in diving while preserving their safety and the safety of other divers.
Qualifications requirements: In order to engage in diving activities in Tunisia, professional and amateur divers must comply with the qualification conditions set out in Decree No. 2008‑2568.23 Professional and amateur divers are classified in one of four qualification levels according to the qualifications they have obtained at the end of training.24 For professional divers, the conditions for the issuance of diving aptitude diplomas and the definition of the different levels of qualification are set by the Order of the Minister of Employment and Vocational Training.25 For amateur divers, the definition of different levels of qualification is set by the Order of the Minister of Youth and Sports.26
Non-Tunisian nationals are allowed to engage in diving activities according to their specialities and qualifications, respecting conventions, on the condition that they obtain an authorisation from the authorities. 27 However, the OECD understands that even though foreigners are permitted to engage in diving activities in Tunisia, many cannot do so in practice as there is no framework for recognising foreign aptitude certificates. In Tunisia, the diving certification process follows the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques (CMAS), or World Underwater Federation, system, and there is no official equivalence framework for Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) or Scuba Schools International (SSI) certificates (see Box 8.3).
Box 8.3. Recreational scuba diving certifications
Many recognised international training centres award diving certification. Most are interchangeable, despite slight differences in the definitions of the levels in their certification systems and teaching methods. The oldest and best-known training organisations are PADI and CMAS.
Established in 1966, PADI is considered the world’s largest diving organisation, operating in 186 countries with a network of more than 6 600 dive centres and resorts. It has more than 128 000 professional members worldwide and has awarded more than 29 million certifications.1 Around 70% of all dive certifications in the world are issued by PADI.
CMAS was established in 1959 and today operates on all five continents through more than 130 federations and by co‑ordinating with national federations in various countries.2.
Other recognised diving organisations include SSI, which was founded in 1970 and is recognised by most countries, Scuba Diving International (SDI), founded the late 1990s and represented in more than 100 countries, and the National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI), founded in 1959. Most of the certifications obtained from these organisations are valid worldwide and are part of an equivalence system for compatibility with one another. The best-known equivalence agreement is the CMAS-PADI convention, which dates back to 1998.3.
Notes:
1. PADI official website, available at: https://www.padi.com/about/who-we-are.
2. CMAS official website, available at: https://www.cmas.org/cmas/about
3. PADI Qualification Comparison Table: C0067%20-%20PADI%20Qualification%20Comparison_8QujxLmcRguaSNwnZolT.pdf (website-editor.net)
The provision limiting diving activities to training organisations and tourism activity centres aims to preserve divers’ safety and security by ensuring that they dive within a structured framework in which the necessary expertise exists. In terms of qualification conditions, the OECD understands that the provision aims to preserve the safety and security of divers by ensuring that they have a minimum level of training and a certified diploma allowing them to dive safely. Thus, it prevents the entry of unqualified divers. The objective behind the recognition of foreign diplomas is to allow foreigners and Tunisians who have received diplomas abroad to enter the Tunisian market easily and practice diving activities, either on a professional or amateur basis.
8.5.3. Harm to competition
The absence of implementing legislation and an official cahier des charges for the provision of diving activities in Tunisia is problematic in many respects. The lack of transparent conditions for approvals of training organisations and tourism activity centres increases the risk of discrimination and legal uncertainty among investors, discouraging market entry, especially among foreign operators and smaller market players.
The lack of clarity in terms of regulation and supervisory responsibilities between the National Diving Commission, governors and the Ministry of Youth and Sports is also a major source of uncertainty. The legislative framework allows only training organisations and tourist activity centres to be granted authorisations to carry out diving activities and to be issued with aptitude diplomas, and does not mention associations. Yet there are five associations28 involved in diving in Tunisia. This could be a source of distortions since dive clubs that have to go through a more complicated process are competing with sports associations that need only to comply with the general rules for their sector and obtain permissions by order of the minister of youth and sports. The role of the FAST is unclear and its cahier des charges’s lack of legal standing adds more ambiguity.
The involvement of the Ministry of National Defence and its leading role within the National Diving Commission to regulate a leisure and tourism activity has been described by several stakeholders as potentially inappropriate. Although final decisions on granting authorisations are in the hands of governors, the commission’s opinion has always been followed. The discretion and decision-making power of the commission on all matters related to the dive sector in Tunisia, and specifically in relation to the authorisation process, qualification requirements and recognition of foreign diplomas, could potentially increase the level of bureaucracy and prevent or delay market entry.
Requiring a qualification or specialised training for diving activities may increase entry costs, but it is likely justified by safety objectives. However, the lack of a framework in Tunisia to recognise equivalent foreign diplomas may increase uncertainty among foreign divers and Tunisian divers who have received diplomas abroad. The absence of transparent conditions for recognising equivalent PADI, SSI or any other foreign diplomas also increases the risk of discrimination. This may reduce market entry and the overall attractiveness of the industry in a very competitive regional context. Stakeholders noted that the situation is exacerbated by structural issues such as a lack of hyperbaric chambers used for the treatment of decompression sickness and submerged shipwrecks that are often designated as dive sites.
Box 8.4. The diving industry
The Maldives
In the Maldives, according to Tourism Act No. 2/991 and its recreational diving regulations2, issued in 2003, all dive centres must register with the Ministry of Tourism and obtain licences to provide diving services. Operating licences are valid for five years and are renewed upon the expiration of their validity. Diving in restricted areas requires special approval by other authorities, such as the Maldives Ports Authority in areas close to commercial harbours, or the Ministry of Defence in areas close to ships or domains under its supervision.
Malta
Recreational diving services in Malta are regulated by the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA), which falls under the responsibility of the Ministry for Tourism, and which is formally governed by the Malta Travel and Tourism Service Act of 1999. According to Maltese recreational diving services regulations, any person seeking to provide or organise recreational diving services must hold a valid licence issued by the MTA after being interviewed or following an inspection of the location and facilities allocated for the provision of services, and payment of a non-refundable fee of EUR 50. The process of licence issuance takes around 45 days.
Egypt
Egypt is home to more than 293 dive centres operating in compliance with international standards such as EN 14 467 or ISO 24 803 for recreational diving providers and according to European Underwater Federation standards. These centres are monitored by the Chamber of Diving and Water Sports (CDWS), the sole inspection and auditing body in Egypt and the official representative of the dive sector at both the national and international levels. Founded in 2007 by Ministry of Tourism Decree No. 266‑20073, the CDWS is responsible for issuing ID cards for dive instructors and guides to provide and practice diving activities.
Notes:
1. Maldives Tourism Act No. 2/99, issued in May 1999, Ministry of Tourism, available at: https://www.tourism.gov.mv/en/legislation/tourism_act
2. Maldives Recreational Diving Regulation (2003), Ministry of Tourism, available at: https://www.tourism.gov.mv/en/legislation/regulations; an unofficial translation is available at: https://www.maldives-divesafari.com/images/pdf/maldives_recreational_diving_regulation.pdf
3. Modified by Ministry of Tourism Decree No. 532/2007.
8.5.4. Recommendations
In light of the restrictions above, and the limitations of the provisions when it comes to achieving policy objectives, the OECD recommends:
Streamlining the authorisation and licensing process for dive clubs according to the best international practices for permitting and licensing (see Section 9.2).
If a decision is made to adopt an ex-post approach based on a cahier des charges, the OECD recommends including sports associations as dive industry participants, publishing a clear and transparent grid for evaluating applications, and adopting an appropriate regulatory inspection and enforcement framework, focused particularly on the regular monitoring of safety and security standards. OECD’s Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit provides useful guidance in this respect (OECD, 2018[6]).
Revising the institutional setup and supervision of diving activities for recreational and tourist purposes in line with international best practices. The mandate and composition of the National Diving Commission and the role of the FAST, in particular, should be considered.
Defining and publishing a clear framework to recognise equivalent foreign diplomas and training certifications.
8.6. Water sports centres
8.6.1. Background
Article 16 of Decree No. 90‑942, relating to safety rules for vessels and recreational maritime transport (yachting activities) defines a recreational maritime base or a water sports centre as “any sheltered place located at the edge of the sea with appropriate equipment and which is the seat of nautical, sporting and leisure activities”.29 According to the Ministry of Tourism, in 2022 Tunisia had 200 water sports centres along its coast.
8.6.2. Description of the obstacles and policy makers’ objectives
Authorisation process: As stipulated in Decree No. 90‑942, for reasons of safety and maritime navigation, “the establishment of marinas and maritime bases is subject to prior authorisation issued by the minister of transport”.30 However, according to Decree No. 89‑457, authorisations for setting up water sports centres are the responsibility of territorially competent governors, following the opinion of the commission régionale des activités touristiques et de loisir, or regional leisure tourism committee. The Order of the Minister of Transport of 27 April 1994, related to general safety conditions and rules for marinas and water sports centres, details the information required for authorisation requests, including the number and location of water sports centres, the activities permitted, and the period of activity.
To obtain authorisation, water sports centre operators must file nine documents with the regional maritime authority closest to the location of their facilities, including an application on behalf of the governor, a copy of their national identity card or the company’s founding documents, a list of staff and equipment to be operated, and a copy of an insurance contract covering civil responsibility.31 According to Decree No. 2018‑417, the authorisation process follows four main steps:
1. preparation of a duly completed authorisation request that is filed at the headquarters of the territorially competent governorate32
2. consultation by the parties with the regional committee of leisure tourism activities, including the technical opinion of the regional maritime authorities
3. presentation and discussion of the authorisation request and related technical opinions within the regional committee
4. issuance of the decision to operate the water sports centre, a copy of which is sent to the regional office of the OMMP and the municipality.
Decree No. 2018‑417 also stipulates that the committee’s decision should be communicated to candidates within 30 days of the receipt of the complete permit file. However, stakeholders mentioned that in practice it takes much longer since there is a first phase during which the regional committee can reject the application or provide a preliminary approval following a field visit and related technical assessments. If preliminary approval is granted, operators are required to set up the water sports centre within 30 days, after which the committee undertakes an inspection visit and issues a final opinion.
Following exchanges with the authorities, the OECD understands that authorisations to establish and operate water sports centres aim to preserve sensitive shorelines and ensure the safety and the security of maritime navigation. The authorisation process is intended to guarantee appropriate supervision and control by public authorities over public maritime areas by ensuring that the licensees comply with rules and procedures.
Duration of authorisations: Authorisations to establish and operate water sports centres are granted for a one‑year period. According to the authorities, the permit can be renewed, conditional on the favourable opinion of the regional committee of leisure tourism activities. There is no limit to the number of renewals, but the duration of the permit remains unchanged and renewal requests follow the same procedure.
The OECD understands that the main objective of the short duration of authorisations is environmental protection. Authorities say that the technical opinion of the Agence de Protection et d’Aménagement du Littoral, or Coastal Protection and Planning Agency, is key in this context for both initial approvals and renewals. Other objectives mentioned include facilitating access to new investors by not granting exclusivity to incumbents for long periods and ensuring the safety and security of customers through regular checks on operators and equipment safety. By the same logic, the power to revoke or not renew authorisations in the event of non-compliance with the rules obliges operators to comply with the conditions and safety measures.
Eligibility criteria: Although the Order of the Minister of Transport of 27 April 1994 does not stipulate clearly whether authorisations to establish and operate water sports centres can be granted only to individuals, the OECD was informed that in practice this is the case. In several authorisations granted in 2022 in the governorates of Sousse and Nabeul, it was clearly stated that they were personal licences and could not be assigned or transferred to others.
It has not been possible to identify the public policy objective behind the prioritisation of individual licensees in the establishment and operation of water sports centres. However, the OECD understands from interactions with the authorities that most tourist beaches are saturated and that available locations to establish water sports centres are relatively rare, hence the tendency to accord priority to young entrepreneurs.
8.6.3. Harm to competition
Authorisation process: Despite relative clarity in terms of the documents required to file permit requests, the authorisation process to obtain a water sports centre licence is rather complicated and lacks transparency. The procedures seem to differ between governorates, and the 30‑day deadline for the issuance of final decisions is far from being standard practice. The technical opinions of the members of the regional committee of leisure tourism activities are not published, which does not allow applicants to challenge them. Moreover, stakeholders noted that onsite inspections by committee members are sometimes unfair or excessively “hostile”.
The absence of clear and transparent conditions significantly increases the discretionary power of the authorities. This can lead to arbitrary standards of decision-making, meaning that successful applicants may not be the most efficient, simply better connected or more adept at navigating the complex process. Risks of rent-seeking conduct are also pronounced, which increases uncertainty for investors and may act as a major deterrent for investment, business creation and growth.
Duration of authorisations: The one‑year validity of authorisations could be considered inappropriate, given the complicated application process for both first-time applicants and applicants for licence renewals, imposing a substantial administrative burden, increasing costs for investors, and raising actual and perceived barriers to entry.
Eligibility criteria: The fact that licences to establish and operate water sports centres are granted to individuals rather than companies may prevent economies of scale, including those achieved by pooling equipment purchases, spreading repair and maintenance costs, and diversifying service offerings. In a competitive market, cost savings arising from such efficiencies would lead to lower prices and service quality gains could also be anticipated.
8.6.4. Recommendations
The OECD recommends the following regulatory changes in order to minimise the harm to competition and productivity arising from the measures currently in place:
Streamline the authorisation and licensing process for the establishment and operation of water sports centres according to the best international practices for permitting and licensing (see Section 9.2). Application and review procedures, alongside substantive and documentary requirements, should be simplified and streamlined as much as possible by using digitalisation, reducing duplication, ensuring transparency and shortening deadlines.
Develop a clear, transparent and publicly available evaluation grid and clearly establish conditions for approvals or rejections of initial authorisation requests.
Ensure that the technical opinions of the regional committee of leisure tourism activities are accessible to applicants, and that rejection decisions are justified and subject to an appeal process.
Revise the one‑year duration of permits and consider ex-post regulatory inspections and enforcement. Alternatively, streamline the renewals process by further shortening deadlines and limiting the intervention of the regional committee of leisure tourism activities to matters in which the level of risk and risk drivers mandate this (for instance, the opinion of the Coastal Protection and Planning Agency on potential environmental impacts and the opinion of the regional office of the OMMP on the compliance of equipment with safety standards).
References
[3] KPMG (2015), Golf Resorts in the European Mediterranean Region, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/04/golf-resorts-european-mediterranean-region.pdf.
[5] OECD (2019), A Policy Maker’s Guide to Privatisation, Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea4eff68-en.
[6] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en.
[4] OECD (2015), OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, 2015 Edition,, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264244160-en.
[2] ONTT (2019), Rapport Annuel, https://www.ontt.tn/sites/default/files/inline-files/rapport2019.pdf (accessed on 8 Juin 2022).
[1] UNWTO (2014), Global Report on Adventure Tourism, UNWTTO, https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284416622.
Notes
← 1. The first global adventure tourism market size study was conducted by the Adventure Travel Trade Association, The George Washington University and Xola Consulting in 2010. It found that the global value of adventure tourism was USD 89 billion. The study was repeated in 2013 and found that 42% of travellers departed on adventure trips, making the sector worth USD 263 billion, an increase of 195% in two years.
← 2. Estimated by Allied Market Research: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/adventure-tourism-market
← 5. Not exceeding 1.6% for tourist residences and 0.6% of the total area of the building for spaces directly linked to golf course activity. This includes a clubhouse at the golf course that includes an area for administration, a reception area, changing rooms, a store for the sale of golf accessories, a classified tourist restaurant, and rooms for maintaining and operating the facility.
← 6. This translates to 4% for the construction of tourist accommodation (not exceeding 3% for tourist residences), 1% for spaces directly linked to golf course activity and 1% for shopping facilities and leisure activities.
← 7. The merging entities include: Société Promogolf Monastir, Société Promogolf Hammamet and Société Golf de Carthage: https://www.stdgolf.tn/.
← 8. Law No. 2009‑48 of 8 July 2009 promulgating the Maritime Ports Code.
← 9. On the proposal of the minister of equipment after consulting the minister of transport, the minister of fisheries and the minister of tourism.
← 10. Article 11 of the Maritime Ports Code, for example, stipulates that port authorities are responsible for the management and operation of ports, however, all or some of the services related to the management and operation of ports may be granted to third parties within the framework of a concession.
← 11. Article 24 of Law No. 2009‑48, promulgating the Maritime Ports Code.
← 12. Complemented by Decree No. 90‑942, related to safety rules for vessels and recreational maritime transport.
← 13. Article 6 of Decree No. 90‑942 states that for yachting activities and recreational vessels, the commission must consist of: members (a representative of the Ministry of Tourism and a representative of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, members with a consultative voice (a representative of the relevant water sports federation and a representative of the relevant nautical industries). The commission may be also consulted by the minister of transport on any matter relating to the application of the regulations in force for yachting.
← 14. Article 6 of Decree No 1990‑942, related to safety rules for vessels and recreational maritime transport (yachting activities).
← 15. The Official Customs Bulletin is a publication of the General Directorate of Customs intended to inform the public on many issues of interest to authorities and their relationship with users (through laws, regulations, procedures, missions and taxation).
← 16. See Law No 1990‑80, which sets out the conditions for paid maritime transport between ports and coastal sites, complemented by Decree No. 91‑164, fixing fees and stamp duties for foreign-flagged vessels, and the Order of the Minister of Planning and Finance of 17 December 1980, which establishes procedures for customs control of yachting activities and the conditions for applying the temporary importation regime to foreign-flagged pleasure cruises and recreational vessels arriving by sea.
← 17. Decree No. 91‑164, fixing the amount and the methods of collection of royalties and stamp duties on foreign ships transporting paying passengers between ports and coastal sites.
← 18. Article 27 and Article 28 of Law No. 2009‑48, promulgating the Maritime Ports Code.
← 19. Article 3 of Law No. 2005‑89, which governs diving activity.
← 20. Law No. 2005‑89, which governs diving activity.
← 21. See Article 2 of Decree No. 2006‑1017, fixing the prerogatives, composition and operating rules for the National Diving Commission.
← 22. Decree No. 2008‑2568, setting medical and technical requirements and the procedures for engaging in diving activities.
← 23. The decree details four levels of qualification for professional divers, defined according to the value of the maximum relative pressure allowed, four levels for amateur divers according to the maximum authorised depth, and three levels for monitors.
← 24. In accordance with Article 5 of Law No. 2005‑89, “any diver, amateur or professional, must hold a diploma certifying their aptitude for diving issued by an approved training establishment or a foreign diploma recognised as equivalent and authorised to practice diving in accordance with its speciality. The conditions of equivalence of foreign diplomas are fixed by decree. Conditions for the approval of training organisations and activity centre tourism, the issuance of aptitude diplomas, and the granting of authorisations for the practice of diving are fixed by decree.”
← 25. Order of the Minister for Vocational Training and Employment of 19 May 2010 defining different levels of qualification for professional divers.
← 26. Order of the Minister for Youth, Sports and Physical Education of 18 November 2008 defining different levels of qualification for amateur divers.
← 27. Article 11 of Law No. 2005‑89, which governs diving activity.
← 28. Ministry of Tourism.
← 29. Decree No. 90‑942, relating to safety rules for vessels and recreational maritime transport (yachting activities).
← 30. Article 18 of Decree No. 90‑942, relating to safety rules for vessels and recreational maritime transport (yachting activities).
← 31. The application process is set out in Decree No. 2018‑417, relating to the publication of the exclusive list of economic activities subject to authorisation and the list of administrative authorisations for the implementation of projects, the related provisions and their simplification.
← 32. This must include: an application indicating the person’s identity, the nature of the activities envisaged, the period of activity, and the number and qualifications of the personnel operating the centre. In addition, the request must include a location map of the centre on land and on the water, a diagram of the proposed centre including buoys and other signalling marks, and an inventory of safety and first-aid equipment. See Article 16 of Order of the Minister of Transport of 27 April 1994, relating to general conditions for safety and enforcement at ports and water sports centres.