EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.1.2024

SWD(2024) 15 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community

{COM(2024) 33 final} - {SEC(2024) 38 final} - {SWD(2024) 16 final}

Table of contents

1Introduction

1.1Context

1.2What are River Information Services (RIS)

1.3Political and legal context

1.4Evaluation of the RIS Directive

1.5Sustainable Development Goals

2Problem definition

2.1What is the problem?

2.2What are the problem drivers?

2.3How likely is the problem to persist?

3Why should the EU act?

3.1Legal basis

3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

4Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1General objectives

4.2Specific objectives

5What are the available policy options?

5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.2Policy measures and policy options

6What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1Economic impacts

6.2Social impacts

6.3Environmental impacts

7How do the options compare?

7.1Effectiveness

7.2Efficiency

7.3Coherence

7.4Subsidiarity and proportionality

7.5Summary of the comparison of policy options

7.6Sensitivity analysis

8Preferred option

8.1Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholders views

8.2REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

8.3Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach

9How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Annex 1: Procedural information

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

Annex 4: Analytical methods

Annex 5: Competitiveness Check

Annex 6: SME Test

Annex 7: Conclusions of the evaluation

Annex 8: Effectiveness of the different policy options

Annex 9: Overview of RIS

Glossary

1Introduction

1.1Context

This Impact Assessment accompanies a legislative proposal for a revision of Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services 1 (hereinafter “the RIS Directive” or “the Directive”).

The EU’s inland waterways stretch over 42,286 kilometres (km) and are a key means of connecting seaports, cities and industrial centres 2 . The interconnected waterway network of 13,000 km covers 13 Member States 3  serving over 250 TEN-T inland ports in the TEN-T network. A map of the main waterways in the EU is provided below.

Figure 1: Main waterways in the EU

Source: European Commission

Inland Waterway Transport (IWT) plays an important role in the overall European transport system despite its relatively small size. In 2020, 131.7 billion tonne-kilometres (tkm) were transported through inland waters, making up 4.1% of the total freight transport volumes (with road accounting for 54.9%, sea 29.1% and rail 11.9%) 4 . Dry cargo (in particular agricultural products, ore and metals, building materials, coal, etc.) accounted for 59.8% of IWT volume in 2020, liquid cargo (chemicals and petroleum products) for 28.1% and containers for 12.1% 5 .

IWT handles 0.9% of the total imports and exports in terms of weight in the EU. Despite its geographically limited and focused network, it offers an important alternative to transport via road or rail for the European hinterland regions closest to inland waterways. Therefore, IWT is mainly in competition and often classified along with land transport modes 6 , covering 6% of inland freight traffic and 0.01% of passenger inland traffic.

The development of inland waterway activity is highly dependent on geography (location of rivers), on the types of goods that are or can be transported, on the location of production and consumption sites in relation to the inland waterway network and on the availability of transhipment infrastructure. In this context, the sector faces limitations in terms of its structural market accessibility and growth potential related to two factors 7 :

·Geography. Contrary to road and rail, building new waterways is generally not an option. Therefore, the development of Inland Waterway Transport depends essentially on the respective locations of production and consumption sites in relation to the existing inland waterway network. Indeed, depending on each territorial context and the geographical distribution of each site the total cost of Inland Waterway Transport, including handling and last miles, may turn out to be very high.

·Logistics. Inland Waterway Transport is not always an option as IWT vessels cannot carry all kind of goods due to packaging issues (for instance pallets) or size of shipments.

Besides constraints due to geography and logistics, IWT faces some challenges to achieve its growth potential 8 . The growth of IWT can be ensured by meeting the objective of NAIADES III Communication 9 , which suggests investing in the infrastructure and research, further digitalisation of the sector and improvements in the attractiveness for the crew. Some new and growing markets might trigger modal shift towards IWT, for example, waste/biomass transport, circular economy/new materials, urban logistics and passenger transport.

Connected to the geographical distribution of inland waterways, IWT traffic volumes concentrate in a few Member States, with Germany and the Netherlands accounting for 69% of overall EU IWT transport in 2020 10 . In terms of modal shares, IWT plays a significant role in the land freight transport activity 11  within the Netherlands (39.7%), Bulgaria and Romania (28% each) and a lower role in Belgium (10.9%), Luxemburg (8.2%), Germany (7.3%), Croatia (6.0%) and Hungary (4.7%). Furthermore, (freight) IWT tends to be rather limited in the land freight transport activity in Slovakia (2.9%), Austria and France (2.1% each) 12 . 

According to Eurostat, around 5,500 IWT freight transport companies are active in Europe (EU plus Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Switzerland), employing more than 23,000 persons. In addition, there are around 4,000 passenger companies which employ around 14,000 persons. Thus, it is a small sector when considering the overall number of transport companies. The sector is also small in terms of turnover, reporting a turnover of EUR 7 billion in 2020 (1% of the turnover of the transport sector) 13 .

While no detailed data is available at EU level, one characteristic of the IWT sector is the high number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). According to the CCNR, the majority of IWT companies in Western Europe are small family owned operating one or two vessels, while companies in the Danube region are bigger as they derive from previously state-owned enterprises 14 .

1.2What are River Information Services (RIS) 

Currently, RIS concern the provision of a range of services to support traffic and transport management in inland navigation 15 . The development of these services is based on four technologies 16 , whose technical specifications govern how the relevant information is shared and presented among the RIS users.

Member States have set up RIS authorities, who are responsible for the implementation and maintenance of RIS. National RIS authorities inform vessel operators (skippers) about the situation on the rivers (current parameters of waterways like fairway depth, clearance under the bridges, closure of waterways due to accidents/works, lock closures, etc.). This helps operators in safe and efficient navigation. In managing traffic, authorities may request vessels to adapt their navigation (e.g. speed) to avoid bottlenecks. On the other hand, vessel operators report important elements to the national RIS authorities, such as their position, carriage of dangerous goods, etc.

Vessel operators need to (re)submit reports at various instances during their voyage, and when crossing a border. The exchange of information can take place by electronic means or radio and may vary depending on the situation and the country of navigation. Basic information on RIS (such as geographical positioning of bridges) is included in databases (e.g. RIS Index in ERDMS) which are updated by the Member States. Vessel operators communicate with inland ports (e.g. to announce their expected time of arrival) individually, often via radio, and there is almost no direct exchange of information with other modes of transport.

Technical specifications for the provision of RIS are adopted by the Commission, with the assistance of RIS experts from the Member States. The Commission is also responsible for monitoring the overall implementation of RIS by Member States. Further technical information on RIS is included in Annex 9. The current setting of RIS in the EU is also illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Current setting of RIS in the EU

Source: European Commission

1.3Political and legal context

International, national and regional context

A range of institutional actors play a role in the development and implementation of RIS activities in Europe. These include, at international level: the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC 17 ), which have developed non-binding standards and guidelines for RIS. At EU level the European Committee for drawing up Common Standards in the field of Inland Navigation (CESNI) was created by the European Commission and the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR) to develop technical specifications and requirements for vessels, personal qualifications and digitalisation for IWT. Finally at regional area level, river commissions such as (CCNR), the Danube Commission, the Sava Commission and the Moselle Commission should play a role by facilitating the harmonisation of rules in IWT in the respective rivers. Of these the CCNR is developing and applying mandatory requirements and regulations for their Member States in line with the EU legislation. 

In addition, the Member States are involved in different platform and expert groups. These include the four temporary working groups of CESNI/TI (working group on information technologies) tasked with the development and updating of the technical specifications for the different RIS technologies 18 .

EU policy context

The Commission’s Communication on a Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS) 19 sets out the EU vision for the transport system of the future. The SSMS recognises that significant steps have been taken to support the deployment of harmonised RIS to enable seamless transport and traffic management on the European inland waterways. The evolution of RIS needs however to take into consideration new requirements stemming from the digital transformation happening in the transport sector (e.g. smart shipping applications that increase performance of IWT operations, port information systems, autonomous ships for inland waterways, etc.). The revision of the RIS Directive has been announced under Flagship 6 of SSMS (Making connected and automated multimodal mobility a reality). 

In 2018, the Council, in its conclusions on Inland Waterway Transport 20 , invited the Commission to develop an implementation strategy for digitalisation, including River Information Services (RIS). Following the Council conclusions and the SSMS, the 2021 NAIADES III Communication 21  set out an action plan to boost the role of inland waterway transport in the EU mobility and logistics systems. The core objectives were to shift more cargo to Europe's rivers and canals, and to facilitate the transition to zero-emission barges by 2050. The importance for IWT to keep up with digital developments to improve the sector’s competitiveness and ensure that it becomes an active part of broader multimodal chains was recognised. Besides the revision of the Directive, the Communication calls on Member States to implement smart traffic and management solutions based on RIS. It also considers that a permanent operational structure to provide a single point of access for RIS-based corridor information services developed by the Member States could be supported financially by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The Communication confirms that the Commission will continue supporting CESNI through the Connecting Europe Facility, with the mandate of developing harmonised EU technical specifications for inland waterway transport.

The 2021 European Parliament report “Towards future-proof inland waterway transport in Europe” 22 stressed the need to further harmonise river information services. This should simplify procedures in regulating inland navigation, reduce problems arising from different interpretations of technical standards and the lack of comparable data, and allow for the speedy development and deployment of innovative solutions. In its 2022 conclusions on NAIADES III 23 , the Council encouraged the Member States to continue and intensify their cooperation in the harmonised implementation of RIS. It invited the Commission to present a proposal for reviewing the RIS Directive, to establish the Directive as an effective tool supporting multimodal freight operations, with a particular focus on seamless cross-border connections and interoperability.

RIS is not the only digital element for IWT. In accordance with the Directive on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels 24 , the Commission maintains the European Hull Database (EHDB), containing selected information regarding inland waterway craft, including each vessel’s unique European vessel identification number, its name, its dimensions and other data identifying the vessel. The Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation 25  also facilitates the electronic exchange of information about crew members by setting up a system of national registers and a database, kept by the Commission (European Crew Database - ECDB).

RIS has benefited from EU funding support, in particular EUR 29.6 million TEN-T funding for 19 actions during the period 2007-2013 (for projects of total cost of almost EUR 85 million) and some EUR 33 million CEF1 funding for 11 actions (of total cost of EUR 58 million) for the period 2014-2020 26 . Under CEF2 (2021-2027), so far, the EU has supported 1 RIS project with EUR 18.2 million (out of a total cost of EUR 36.4 million).

The RIS Directive

The legislative process to regulate RIS at EU level started in 2005 with the adoption of the RIS Directive. The Directive establishes a framework for the deployment and use of harmonised, interoperable and open RIS aiming to enhance safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of inland waterway transport in the EU. It intended to facilitate interfaces with other transport modes, thus considering the multimodal potential of IWT. At the same time, however, the definition (Article 3) makes it clear that RIS is aimed at the exchange of information between authorities and between authorities and IWT companies, and not between one or more involved companies (no business-to-business exchange). It specifies though that RIS should be open for interfacing with commercial activities.

One of the objectives of RIS is to enhance the safety of inland navigation by optimizing the waterway and traffic related information exchange between vessels, locks and bridges, terminals, and ports. It does not deal with other traffic safety aspects, which are under the responsibility of the Member States through the European Code for Inland Waterways (CEVNI) 27 , or national Police Regulations.

Within the EU framework established by the Directive, the Directive itself provides the general requirements of how RIS should be set up by the Member States, as well as the areas for which technical specifications need to be developed and the principles to be followed. The actual technical guidelines and specifications are developed by the Commission and are then adopted through secondary legislation. Five implementing acts have been adopted to provide the technical aspects of the RIS Directive’s requirements to make up the RIS framework 28 . Member States are then responsible for implementing the Directive and applying the technical specifications in an efficient, expandable and interoperable way (e.g. establishing RIS centres and designating authorities to oversee its application and the exchange of cross-border data). 

The RIS Directive applies to Member States with cross-border inland waterways of Classification of European Inland Waterways (CEMT) class IV 29 and above (Article 2). In practice, these are 13 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, which have all had transposed the Directive by 2011. Several other countries apply the Directive voluntarily (i.e. Spain, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Serbia, Moldova and Ukraine).

Synergies with other EU policy instruments

The TEN-T Regulation 30 establishes guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, which also consists of the infrastructure for inland waterway transport. Some of the Regulation’s priorities deal with information and communication technology, such as implementing telematics applications (including RIS), while others deal with multimodal aspects, such as connecting inland port infrastructure to rail freight and road transport infrastructure. As regards IWT, the TEN-T network is based on a minimum classification (CEMT class IV and above), but unlike the RIS Directive, it is not limited to interconnected waterways (for example the Po in Italy, or the Douro in Portugal are part of TEN-T even if not within the scope of the RIS Directive). Therefore, the scope of these two acts is not identical. The European Commission adopted a legislative proposal 31  amending the TEN-T Regulation, where RIS is a requirement for the core network. Under the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation, RIS requirements will not be linked any more to the CEMT classification (which are based on parameters for the vessels), but will follow requirements based on the infrastructure (e.g. depth).

The RIS Directive requires continuity with systems of other modes and, in particular, with maritime transport (Article 1). In this regard, the regulation establishing a European Maritime Single Window environment 32 provides for a legal and technical framework for the electronic transmission of information about reporting obligations for ships calling at EU ports. Certain types of this information may be relevant to be further exchanged with IWTs.

The eFTI Regulation 33 , established a legal framework that allows economic operators to share information in an electronic format (i.e. for the transport of goods by road, rail, inland waterways and air in the European Union) with enforcement authorities. Operators are not obliged to make regulatory information available electronically to a competent authority. However, when they choose to make this information available electronically, they must follow a set of requirements. Currently, there is limited interaction between RIS and eFTI, however, there are potential synergies, in terms of use of eFTI platforms for the exchange of cargo information required by RIS.

The new Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) 34  introduces targets for shore-side electricity supply in inland waterway ports, and requires Member States to prepare national policy frameworks, which among others will contain planned initiatives for deployment of infrastructure for alternative fuels in inland waterway transport, such as for hydrogen and electricity. RIS can complement AFIR, by facilitating the exchange of information between inland vessels and ports equipped for such alternative fuels and, in particular, on the (real-time) availability of infrastructure. This in turn can support the uptake of these fuels by the IWT sector.

The RIS Directive enables the exchange of data, and certain elements (such as data relating to the position of the vessel) can be considered as falling under personal data. Two cross-cutting legislative instruments are relevant in the context of digital inland navigation: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR) and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 on processing of personal data by the Union institutions 35 . The GDPR sets forth a single set of rules across the EU to protect and empower all EU individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data, and to hold organisations processing personal data of individuals in the EU accountable for their processing activities. It gives powers to the competent data protection supervisory authorities to impose corrective measures, fines and penalties on companies that do not comply with these rules. Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, mentioned in the RIS Directive, was replaced by Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. A requirement of data protection acquis is to lay down a clear legal framework identifying personal data, which must be shared in situations where the sharing is necessary for an objective of public interest. However, it needs to be taken into consideration that the RIS Directive itself is not obliging the exchange or disclosure of personal data. The RIS Directive is a legal framework providing for the technical requirements, specifications and conditions which ensure the electronic exchange of this data if national or international regulations foresee such exchange. It can therefore only lay down requirements for organisational and technical data protection measures, should RIS be used to exchange also personal data to ensure protection of those data.

Synergies with other non-legislative tools

·At European level, the following central systems include IWT elements: The European reference data management system (ERDMS) is a publicly accessible database kept by the Commission, containing regularly updated data provided by the Member States necessary for the provision of RIS. It contains detailed information about the inland waterway infrastructure (e.g. bridges, locks, terminals), including geolocation (RIS Index), formats of Notices to Skippers in all languages, and unified UNECE coding for cargo and vessels necessary for reporting requirements. In addition, it includes reference data for the European Crew Database (ECDB), and information on the competent RIS authorities. This use of standardised lists and data makes the ERDMS an enabler of interoperability.

·The CEF-funded project RIS COMEX (2016-2022) is a partnership of 13 European countries 36 to develop selected RIS Corridor Services along 7 European inland waterway corridors. This project resulted in a common European RIS system called EuRIS providing reliable fairway, infrastructure, traffic and transport information services, including route and transport planning, for the waterways of the partner countries. In addition, within RIS COMEX another system was developed to tackle administrative barriers and reporting burden for 8 IWT European countries 37  through a common electronic reporting system called CEERIS. CEERIS enables vessel operators to easily fulfil all their reporting duties to the different authorities along their route within the participating countries by reporting-only-once with single-entering-of-data and digital-by-default. The 13 participating Member States and their authorities continue with the use of this system under a separate European Corridor Management Agreement 38 . The project has recently entered a second stage (RIS COMEX 2) with additional CEF funding 39 , with Poland joining the partnership. It shall continue the work of the first stage by extending the quantity and quality of the related services and provided data, by extending the geographical scope to additional waterways and even to additional countries (Poland), as well as by focusing on interconnections and integrations of existing systems and services 40 .

1.4Evaluation of the RIS Directive

An evaluation of the Directive was carried out in 2021 41 . It found that overall, the Directive has been one of the main drivers of digitalisation in IWT, facilitating the introduction of information and communication technologies. 

In terms of effectiveness the evaluation found that standardisation of RIS has been the strongest benefit brought about by the Directive. However, the degree of harmonisation differs across RIS technologies and services (e.g. most harmonisation was achieved in type approval and the least in electronic ship reporting). Moreover, RIS technologies are not utilised to the same extent in all countries and river corridors, which has led to a fragmented development of RIS. Therefore, higher benefits of digitalisation and data exchange are hindered by the lack of full harmonisation of data provided across the Member States.

The evaluation also pointed to a slow development of RIS. Public and private stakeholders reported on major inefficiencies in the adoption speed of the RIS implementing acts, resulting in permanently outdated technical specifications for the sector. In terms of efficiency, potential for simplification was thus identified for the adoption process of technical specifications. Stakeholders also suggested that an improved monitoring of the application of the Directive is required to speed up the development of RIS.

As regards the general objectives of the RIS Directive, the available data did not indicate that RIS had an impact on the growth of the inland navigation sector, on modal shift or on safety. There were some indications that RIS has reduced fuel consumption by 1.9%. Lack of evidence did not however allow to draw conclusions on the optimised use of existing infrastructure. Feedback from stakeholders showed that RIS may have a limited or even indirect impact on competitiveness, a potential for more efficient use of infrastructure (locks), and a positive impact on safety.

Although the evaluation assessed that the Directive is still relevant, it pointed to the fact that its primary focus on safety of navigation is no longer sufficiently aligned with sector’s needs. More specifically, it does not support the need for improving the efficiency of inland waterway transport and its integration into the multimodal supply chains. In addition, it does not sufficiently address new technological challenges, such as automation of vessels, and the further digitalisation of the sector.

The rationale for public intervention at EU level through the RIS Directive is rooted in the cross-border character of the inland waterway transport sector and contributes to avoiding fragmentation between different national or regional (e.g. between the River Commissions) RIS implementation approaches. Stakeholders considered that the same benefits could not have been achieved by comparable interventions at the international, regional or national level. However, higher benefits of digitalisation and data exchange are hindered by the lack of full harmonisation of data provided across the Member States.

Last but not least, it should be noted that the evaluation identified a considerable lack of reliable, sufficiently granular and comparable data (in particular for costs and benefits of implementation), which in turn limited the quantitative evidence supporting the findings. Thus, the findings had to rely primarily on qualitative analysis and input from stakeholders. The links between the conclusions of the evaluation and the impact assessment are summarised in Annex 7.

1.5Sustainable Development Goals

The initiative contributes towards the objectives of the European Green Deal (EGD) 42 (in particular by supporting the shift away from road transport). The revision of the RIS Directive contributes towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 (“Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation”) and SDG 13 (“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”).

2Problem definition

The key problem, corresponding drivers and consequences that are relevant for the revision of the Directive are presented in Figure 3  and further detailed below.

Figure 3: Problem tree

Source: European Commission

2.1What is the problem?

Problem: slow and fragmented deployment of River Information Services that hamper the competitiveness and safety of the sector, and its contribution towards the European Green Deal objectives

Description of the problem

The main challenge that RIS faces today is the slow speed and the fragmentation in its deployment. The TEN-T corridor studies 43  report that the deployment of RIS infrastructure along the Core Network Corridors cover: 100% of the North Sea, Mediterranean and Rhine-Danube Corridors, 95% of the Atlantic Corridor, 90% of the East Mediterranean Corridor and 75% of the Mediterranean Corridor. Thus, despite 17 years since its introduction, it still has not reached 100% level of implementation. The identified differences in implementation relate to prioritisation by Member States of the most important waterways in their territories. 

While the RIS evaluation 44 indicated a positive impact of the Directive in terms of harmonising RIS, it found that there is still room for improvement. This is because, when considering the implementation of the Directive, not all RIS technologies have reached the same level of implementation and maturity and not all RIS technologies have been fully utilised to the same extent in all countries and river corridors. For example, differences in deployment across Member States have been identified for the four key RIS technologies (inland ECDIS, Electronic Ship Reporting, Notices to Skippers, Vessel Tracking and Tracing). This is because Member States have not always followed the same timeline for implementation and/or because technical specifications have not always been applied or interpreted the same way. The evaluation identified that RIS equipment has reached a high level of type approval, which ensures equipment compatibility. Similarly, electronic charts are highly harmonised, which assists in navigation. On the other hand, the low harmonisation in electronic ship reporting and different national reporting requirements 45 result in resubmissions of electronic reports, with time and cost implications for operators. The impact assessment support study estimates that a resubmission of information is required in one out of three times that a vessel crossed a border during its voyage 46 . Therefore, the problem is not so much in relation to the situation within a certain Member State, but in how their heterogeneity affects the international nature of inland waterways.

The slow update of technical specifications has played an important role in the slow development of RIS. In the current setting of adopting implementing acts, it takes between 5 and 12 years until the technical specifications are prepared and introduced in the sector. This in turn reduces the efficiency of IWT operators due to the use of old technical specifications and technology (for example when radio is still used instead of electronic communication for reports between the ship and the authorities) 47 . This contrasts with the approach followed in Directive (EU) 2016/1629 providing for technical requirements for inland vessels, which includes a direct reference to technical specifications developed by CESNI, leading to a regular update of technical specifications every two years. As technological development keeps accelerating, the slow update of technical specifications in the RIS domain becomes a more acute hindrance.

The DINA report (2017) 48 examined factors relating to digitalisation and their impact on the competitiveness of the sector compared to other transport modes. RIS was identified as playing an important role in IWT. Thus, if not properly deployed, RIS can hinder the competitiveness potential of the sector. The DINA report also found IWT to be falling behind other modes of transport in terms of digitalisation and development of intelligent systems for reasons ranging from legal, technical and commercial bottlenecks to sharing of data, the IT set-up of barge operators, and the limited size of the sector (making it difficult to achieve economies of scale for new solutions). So far, the modal split of IWT has remained fairly stable over the past 20 years and the evaluation was not able to conclude if RIS had any impact in this development.

In terms of increased environmental protection, the evaluation pointed to a very modest reduction in fuel consumption by vessels through the use of RIS. However, it can be argued that better planning of trips and increased awareness of the traffic situation, could lead to more efficient navigation (e.g. by slower steaming when anticipating a long wait at a lock, thus improving fuel consumption 49 ). 

The lack of quantitative data, also identified by the evaluation, does not allow for a more detailed and quantitative illustration of the evidence supporting the problem. As the evaluation noted, there is considerable lack of reliable, sufficiently granular and comparable data, which does not allow quantification of the magnitude of the problem. Due to the nature of inland waterway transport being concentrated in navigable waterways, and the scope of application of RIS, the problem is materialising only in those waterways where RIS is introduced and applied. It is thus highly geographically focused and specialised. When considering the size of the sector, the magnitude of the problem will be necessarily limited in any comparison with the rest of the transport sector.

Still, the immediately affected stakeholders consider this to be an important problem. The Members States that participated in the open public consultation (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania) supported the need for revising the Directive. This view was also supported during the first stakeholder survey 50 , where 9 out of 13 administrations indicated that no EU action would lead to negative developments in terms of RIS deployment. This position was reiterated at the first DINA/NAIADES expert groups meetings. It should also be noted, as explained in section 1, that there has been a clear request from both the European Parliament and the Council to revise the RIS Directive.

The respondents to the stakeholder consultation, as explained in Annex 2, acknowledged the problem identified, mentioning clearly that full harmonisation and interoperability of RIS has not yet been achieved due to fragmented implementation. According to the open public consultation, stakeholders find that the identified problem (and the drivers) relate to actual challenges of the IWT, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Importance of challenges in the implementation of River Information Services (RIS) in Europe

Source: Open Public Consultation

Who is affected and how?

The problem identified affects different actors (vessel operators, navigation software service providers, national public administrations and society at large) in different ways:

·Vessel operators are confronted with time consuming notification processes to authorities, as e.g. repeated notifications are required when crossing borders. They are also faced with extra efforts and time spent to obtain accurate information for planning their voyage. Non-accurate information, in particular regarding the navigation conditions on the river, can have negative impacts on the actual voyage of the vessel in terms of timing (e.g. due to congestion at locks) or in rare situations contribute to accidents. Sub-optimal operation can translate into reliability issues for the services (e.g. vessel arriving later than planned), which, in turn, reduce the attractiveness of the sector for the freight shippers. Non-efficient navigation also translates into higher cruising speeds than necessary, which lead to increased fuel consumption and thus increased costs for the sector. Differences in standards between countries and the additional complications in terms of operations that these may require are hindering the provision of services and creating market distortions. An example is the closure of locks not linked to real-time information or the predictions on water level in some countries. This in turn reduces the reliability of IWT and its competitive position with respect to other modes, thus leading to market distortion at multimodal level.

·Navigation software service providers are dependent for the development of their IT solutions on access to accurate basic data. To ensure the accuracy of the data under the current framework, they need to allocate extra efforts to collect the data due to wrong or outdated information.

·National public administrations also face challenges, in particular when handling cargo reports in paper format, which require efforts to process them. Efforts are also required to process repeated reporting, including those required when a vessel is crossing the border. In addition, incomplete information regarding the traffic in the waterways does not allow national authorities to efficiently manage traffic and may hinder their ability to react to emergency situations (e.g. in case of an accident if the dangerous cargo information has been submitted with errors).

·For the society at large, the overall challenges translate into external costs stemming from freight being transported on road.

A number of Member States, without navigable waterways or with waterways out of the scope of the Directive, are not affected by the problem. The Member States withing the scope of the Directive show significant differences driven by the size of their network, the number of ports and the level of traffic. For example, as explained in section 1, Germany and the Netherlands accounted for 69% of overall EU IWT transport in 2020 51 . In terms of national modal split, IWT plays a significant role in the land freight transport activity 52 within the Netherlands (39.7%), Bulgaria and Romania (28% each) and a lower role in Belgium (10.9%), Luxemburg (8.2%), Germany (7.3%), Croatia (6.0%) and Hungary (4.7%).

An important element of IWT is its cross-border dimension. Thus, the challenges are more important when a difference in a technical specification appears between two Member States with high volumes of traffic. Beyond this, there are no specific problems for regions, local authorities, private entities or individual EU areas.

What are the consequences of the problem?

The slow and fragmented deployment of RIS technologies has a number of consequences. The first one relates to the geographical dimension. For example, for the Notices to Skippers (NtS) the coverage has not reached 100% in all countries. This means that there are areas with gaps, where skippers do not receive the same level of information regarding the rivers and their condition. This, in turn, impacts the navigation efficiency of the vessel and may lead to safety risks for those areas. The second consequence has to do with missing technical specifications, where these have not been developed for Vessel Traffic and Tracing (VTT). In the absence of these technical specifications, Member States are making use of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) for their needs, but there is not harmonised way on how, when and for which systems it should be used. And while its use within a specific Member State may not be problematic, this can lead to challenges when the vessel is crossing a border.

Regarding the slow update of technical specifications and what does this mean in view of technological developments, this can be illustrated by the reporting of cargo information. This is often done through VHF, which can lead to mistakes in the information provided. More up to date technical specifications could require the use of electronic exchange. Another illustrative example can be when the technical specification refers to specific software characteristics. When a new and improved version of the software is available, correcting possible challenges and introducing new functionalities, vessel operators are not able to benefit from this new version until the technical specifications have been updated.

IWT is considered generally a safe mode of transport, but accidents can range from minimal incidents (e.g. a ship goes off course and collides with a bank or quay) to more serious collisions with bridges (where ships might completely destroy their wheelhouses).

Statistics on accidents in inland waterways transport are limited. Eurostat collects accident statistics from national statistical offices on a voluntary basis. Not many countries in the EU provide data on accidents and there is no clear evidence on a common methodology used among the countries (see Figure 5). In addition, the current Eurostat data does not provide information about the type or the causes of the accidents.

Figure 5: Accidents in IWT in selected Member States

Source: Scheepsongevallenregistratie Rijkswaterstaat and Eurostat

The German 53 statistics for 1995-2017 provide an indication of the main causes for accidents: grounding, ship gets stuck, collision between ships, collision with infrastructure and bridges, pounding of waves and other accidents. The most frequent types of accidents were the collision with infrastructure and bridges (38-40% of all accidents) and the collision between ships (18-19%). It should also be mentioned that a significant share of total accidents (15-20%) involve small pleasure boats. No information has been obtained from insurance companies.

Due to unavailability and unreliability of data on accidents, the RIS Directive evaluation was not able to identify a direct link between RIS and improved safety on waterways. However, the stakeholders had a positive view on its impact in this regard 54 . An example is the fragmented implementation (i.e. data is available in different national systems), which means that there is currently no harmonised system providing information on dynamic parameters for waterways. If the information is not up-to-date or the technical specifications applied between different Member States are not compatible, this creates workload for skippers (who need to anticipate and account for possible mistakes) and may lead to accidents (if for example skippers do not know exactly the height between the river and the bridge).

One could think that slow speed would have an impact on safety. However, as explained above, the risk to safety comes rather from the lack of accurate information and awareness of the situation on the river. In terms of the causes of accidents, groundings are linked with inaccurate knowledge of the depth of the river at a certain point and time. Likewise, collisions with bridges are caused when the distance between the river and the bridge is not well estimated and the wheel of the barge collides with the bottom of the bridge. Collisions between vessels can happen when vessels operators are not aware of each other when rounding river bends.

As regards environmental concerns, the EGD and the SSMS aim to reduce the environmental impact of the transport sector. IWT is expected to play its role. To this aim, the SSMS set a milestone for transport activity by inland waterways and short sea shipping to increase by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050. Improving the environmental performance of the sector is also one of the aims of the Directive. As this is primarily a digital initiative, its environmental contribution is not expected to be high; however, it can still play a role. On the one hand, improved technology should lead to more efficient navigation resulting in reduced energy use, with clear impacts on emissions. On the other hand, improved reliability of the sector and better integration into the multimodal logistic chains is expected to shift freight from road to inland waterways. The evaluation pointed to a small reduction in fuel consumption (1.9%) through the use of RIS. There is nevertheless further potential for improvement, so that IWT increases its contribution towards greening the transport sector.

2.2What are the problem drivers?

Problem driver 1 (PD1): Missing and non-harmonised RIS information hampers efficient and safe navigation

Users continue to receive fragmented or low-quality information from Member States via RIS, hampering efficient and safe navigation. This is manifested in terms of differences in the data quality of the underlying RIS. According to a stocktaking exercise of the situation in the Member States 55 , the basic requirements of the Directive were implemented (in terms of setting up of RIS centres and introducing legislation regarding the four basic RIS key technologies). However, certain elements (like the ERDMS data), despite their importance, are not mandatory, which introduces gaps and reduces the quality of RIS. Furthermore, the Directive is not prescriptive in the technical aspects but sets the higher-level principles and relies on the implementing acts to define the details. The implementing acts, despite their level of detail, appear to leave a room for manoeuvre in their implementation by the Member States in practice. For example, blockages of locks may be reported in the Notices to Skippers (NtS) as a complete blockage in one country but only as partial in others. This leads ships operators to spend time to properly interpret and confirm the data, in order to avoid surprises when arriving at the lock. These discrepancies impact inland waterways in two ways. On the one hand efficient navigation is hindered, if the skippers require more time to plan their navigation or encounter unexpected delays due to the infrastructure not being available. It was estimated that in 2020 14,800 hours were “wasted” due to these discrepancies 56 . On the other hand, these differences can lead to accidents if they are not identified on time.

Figure 6 illustrates the status of electronic reporting system implementation and related international exchange of ERI messages among neighbouring countries. This is the area where the lowest harmonisation was found, especially due to different reporting requirements in the Member States resulting in resubmissions of electronic reports. It shows that in the Rhine catchment for example, the electronic transmission of reports is generally positive, while in Eastern Europe (i.e. borders between Germany and Poland as well as Germany-Czech Republic) and on the Danube, it is comparatively less harmonised. Thus, the problem is more concentrated in the geographical areas where less IWT freight volumes are moved.

Figure 6: Landscape of electronic reporting systems and services in Europe in November 2020

Source: DIWA Masterplan 57

This problem driver was indicated as very important by 12 out of 13 respondents in the Open Public Consultation (OPC). Furthermore, this was confirmed by the respondents to the first stakeholders’ survey 58 , who considered this driver as relevant to the problem (42 out of 65 respondents). The difference in data formats across countries, together with the unreliability of the RIS Index, as Member States update the information on a voluntary basis, were specifically mentioned as issues in the first survey. For example, 3 stakeholders representing international public bodies indicated that the RIS Index is not sufficiently reliable or clearly defined. 

During the second stakeholder workshop 59 with skippers, it emerged that information on water levels is also crucial for skippers to plan a voyage. They also flagged that missing and non-harmonised RIS information is one of the main drivers hampering efficient voyage planning. Experts participating in the meetings of the DINA and NAIADES Expert Groups 60  mentioned that the RIS Directive is in principle helpful but it should have been implemented better. On the other hand, the Commission did not receive formal complaints regarding its implementation that could have led to infringements. Experts also mentioned that the newly developed EuRIS portal should positively affect the missing and non-harmonised RIS information 61 .

Problem driver 2 (PD2): Inefficient processes for creation and implementation of technical specifications for River Information Services

The current system of updating RIS technical specifications is based on implementing acts adopted by the Commission. With the current setting of working with sectoral experts to support the Commission, this process takes around 10 years, which is very lengthy, particularly in view of the pace of technological developments. For instance, the technical specifications for Notices to Skippers and for Vessel tracking and tracing systems, introduced in 2007, were updated in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The technical specifications for electronic reporting of 2010 were revised in 2019, while those on the electronic chart display and information system for inland navigation (Inland ECDIS) adopted in 2013, were revised in 2018. Moreover, the RIS Guidelines have not been revised since 2007.

Currently, the basic work on the preparation of technical specifications is undertaken by Member State experts who meet and discuss under different groups. These are then used as a basis for the Commission to prepare the relevant implementing acts. The self-organisation of the work by MS experts (with contributions from CCNR) seems to constitute an important bottleneck leading to a lengthy process (sometimes between 7-8 years) which has accordingly been criticised by stakeholders. In the stakeholders’ consultation process accompanying the RIS evaluation, stakeholders expressed the view that the time between updates is too long, which may cause problems in terms of their relevance for the future. This is because outdated technical specifications do not ensure maintaining the highest level of efficiency and do not follow the developments in digital technology. An illustrative example relates to the technical specifications for Inland ECDIS (on points such as the resolution of digital maps, elements to be presented on maps, the way how they should be presented, etc.), where the efficiency of digital maps is linked directly with the technology used (graphic programmes).

In the OPC, 10 out of 13 respondents expressed the view that this a very important problem driver and 3 out of 13 respondents see it as a somewhat important driver. The first stakeholders’ survey showed a similar picture, where 40 out of 65 stakeholders perceived problem driver 2 as important.

Besides the late introduction of technical specifications, the number of relevant implementing acts creates a challenge for the sector. Technical specifications are spread across various legislative measures, with negative consequences on their clarity and consequent uptake. This does not enable the timely uptake of RIS in line with evolving technical innovations for two reasons: a) even minor updates need to “wait” for the appropriate technical specification’s turn and b) it multiplies the efforts and time required to prepare and adopt the implementing acts. Participants in the two stakeholder workshops organised during the stakeholders’ consultation flagged the existence of a wide variety of technical specifications and technical specifications which need to be implemented to allow RIS to remain up to date with current technical developments. New developments and challenges (e.g. digital and green transitions, which were not in focus in 2005) may require additional data to be reported through RIS. To deal with these developments, the sector needs to adapt, for instance, through smart shipping approaches in the context of smart logistics framework. In this context, accurate information on waterway profiles, water levels and dimensions of structures form an absolute necessity. This could be provided through RIS services; however, the current inefficient processes for RIS technical specifications and delayed uptake of evolving technical innovation hinders the adoption of such technologies and makes IWT less competitive compared to other transport modes.

This problem driver is also linked to problem driver 1. The lack of a frequent and regular update of technical specifications does not allow for corrective action to be taken on time.

Problem driver 3 (PD3): River Information Services do not sufficiently support the integration of inland waterways transport into multimodal supply chains (modal shift)

The European Green Deal requires all transport modes, including inland waterway transport, to address the greening and digitalisation transition. This includes a better integration between different modes of transport into a seamless intermodal logistic chain. The RIS Directive anticipates the possibility or need for connecting RIS with systems of other modes, in particular with maritime transport. These links, however, have not been specified by the Directive or the implementing acts and no indication was identified that such connectivity exists at Member State level.

At the same time, the transport sector saw developments in other modes. For example, legal provisions for other cargo tools were introduced (2019 for EMSWe and 2020 for eFTI). The Directive lacks the framework to make the necessary links with these systems, and therefore cannot support the integration of IWT in the logistic chain.

The RIS evaluation concluded that the RIS Directive so far has focused on safety of navigation, while not enabling the integration of inland waterway transport into multimodal supply chains. In the OPC, 11 out of 13 respondents considered this as a very or somewhat important problem driver. This view was further supported by the respondents to the first stakeholders’ survey, where 33 out of 65 respondents found problem driver 3 to be relevant.

The EU transport policy aims to promote less polluting and more energy efficient modes of transport, including for freight, and actions are taken to support intermodal transport. In addition, since the adoption of the RIS Directive, further developments have taken place in relation to synchro-modality, and tools have been developed to improve the efficiency of logistics supply chains. Initiatives such as EMSWe and eFTI, that offer opportunities to integrate IWT in the logistics chain, were developed after the adoption of the RIS Directive. Thus, the Directive does not provide the proper framework to make the necessary links. On the other hand, experts (representing Member State authorities and vessel operators) participating in the DINA and NAIADES expert group meetings, pointed to the different aims and scopes of the initiatives (e.g. eFTI has a clear role for logistic and cargo related information, while RIS is viewed more as a tool for safety and traffic management related information), and cautioned against mixing their purposes. Stakeholders participating at the dedicated workshops also expressed opposing views, with some seeing eFTI as unrelated to RIS, while others considering that eFTI could be used by all modes (creating a one stop-shop solution).

The stakeholders participating in the first stakeholder workshop also shed some light on the need to find a common denominator between different navigation transport modes. In this context, ports play a crucial role as they provide the link between IWT and other modes such as road and rail. However, participants pointed out that technology standards in delivering information are heterogeneous across inland ports as they are developed individually. The smooth integration of IWT in intermodal transport requires efficient and accurate information exchange with inland ports. As an illustration, a vessel operators representative indicated during the workshop that skippers on tanker vessels need to know that ports have available capacity, as they often transport dangerous goods that can only be kept on board for a specific period of time. As this information is not foreseen in RIS, it increases the burden on skippers to plan their voyages. This view is confirmed by the network coverage of the EuRIS portal in Germany. For example, in ports such as Duisburg, Dusseldorf, Neuss, Mannheim and Karlsruhe, information on the dimensions of bridges over port basins and operating times is lacking. This causes the need for extra time when making voyage preparations as skippers need to look up the required information on individual port websites.

This lack of exchange of information with other modes is thus hindering the potential of IWT to perform in a multimodal chain and thus deliver on the objectives defined by the SSMS.

Problem driver 4 (PD4): Inefficient exchange of information (including cross-border) and reporting

An efficient exchange of information across borders between authorities is important for an efficient transport system. Despite improved Member State cooperation over time, not all reports are digitalised and, even when they are, Member States use different reporting applications that are not compatible with each other 62 . According to the evaluation, despite the adoption of the RIS Directive, there has been no substantial reduction in the number of resubmissions of electronic ship reports at borders due to differences in national reporting obligations. The number of resubmissions of electronic reports was estimated at 30% of total number of border crossings (i.e. 106,622 resubmissions in 2020). Each resubmission is estimated to require 15 minutes for vessel operators. Thus, vessel operators are estimated to have spent 25,841 hours for the resubmissions of electronic reports in 2020, equivalent to EUR 689,759 63 . 

In addition, based on the survey and the interviews with inland skippers it is estimated that inland skippers spend on average 10 minutes on reporting obligations in inland ports, with an estimated annual total cost of EUR 1.3 million in 2020 64 . A significant part of these costs stem from duplications that could be reduced or eliminated if a proper exchange of information between RIS and ports were in place.

All 13 respondents to the OPC found problem driver 4 to be very or somewhat important. In the context of the first stakeholders’ survey, 43 out of 65 respondents considered problem driver 4 to be relevant. In addition, 7 out of 25 respondents to a question on efforts spent on reporting (specifically inland waterway operators) indicated resubmission as a high burden. On the other hand, only 3 out of 13 national authorities that responded indicated high or medium costs for processing the electronic reports, 2 out of 13 indicated low costs and 1 authority indicated no costs at all. 7 out of 13 national authorities were not able to answer or indicated that it was not applicable to them.

The DINA (2017) 65 report outlined that during a journey on the Danube, more than 20 different forms have to be filled in different languages. The study estimated that filling in each form was taking ten to twenty minutes per border-crossing, depending on the type of trip.

There are some attempts to solve this problem on the ground through various reporting applications 66  or through elements of the RIS COMEX. However, their application is not harmonised as indicated in the first DINA/NAIADES expert group meeting due to, for example, challenges in having up-to-date information. 

Problem driver 5 (PD5): Lack of legal certainty about processing of personal data by the inland waterway stakeholders

Several studies suggest that data protection concerns from the side of RIS stakeholders hinder the degree to which data from electronic ship reporting is shared between competent authorities. In fact, the RIS Directive currently only requires setting up national RIS that enables sharing of personal data if national or international law requires it (Article 4(3)c). It further refers to the data protection requirements of Data Protection Directive that is replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). RIS is basically a platform for data exchange providing harmonised technical specifications for data, but not the legal basis on which some personal data is actually collected and has to be submitted (e.g. border regulations, police regulations, etc.).

As it emerged during a targeted stakeholders’ workshop, barge owners often live inside their barge. For family-owned companies, the vessel is the home of the skipper and the information about its position is often considered by vessel operators as personal data. In these cases, as explained during the specific workshop held for skippers, the exchange of information and identification of the position of the vessel is often restricted for fear of privacy rule violations. On the other hand, Member States or other authorities are reluctant to share RIS information to avoid potentially breaching privacy rules. This example indicates that both Member States and stakeholders seem to be unaware how far and for which purposes personal data is or could be lawfully exchanged via RIS. Currently there is no personal information exchanged through RIS and there are no actual concerns regarding Data Protection. The issue is therefore only the perceived risk, due to the lack of clarity, which leads stakeholders and Member States to be reserved in the context of exchange of information.

According to the evaluation, to address this issue Member States may conclude additional data exchange agreements for RIS purposes. In addition, to ensure legal certainty Member States should review their national laws and international commitments and ensure that personal data requests are always based on valid legal basis provided by law in line with the GDPR. The incomplete data on the position of surrounding vessels impairs the efficient voyage planning for skippers and may limit the situational awareness of national authorities who have a valid reason for having this information, for reasons of safety. Therefore, an update of the RIS Directive is needed to clarify what are the obligations under the RIS Directive and also clearly make transparent what is the legal basis for personal data exchange in the context of operating RIS.

In the OPC, 11 out of 13 respondents indicated that this problem driver is very or somewhat important. In the context of the first stakeholders’ survey 38 out of 65 respondents found this problem driver to be definitely or somewhat relevant.

Views of stakeholders on the problem drivers

Stakeholders agree with the problem drivers as identified. As shown in Figure 7, the majority of stakeholders responding to the first stakeholders’ survey considered all problem drivers to currently be an issue for the sector.

Figure 7: “In your view, are the problem drivers listed below problems which the IWT/ RIS sector currently faces?” (n=65)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024) impact assessment support study, First survey to stakeholders

Regarding the importance of the problem drivers, the stakeholders clearly consider the efficient exchange of information as the most important element to tackle (see Figure 7). This is followed by the need to operate with more harmonised and updated standards. Data protection concerns were raised in particular by vessel operators, while integration with other modes was given the least importance among the problem drivers.

2.3How likely is the problem to persist?

Considering the influence of the megatrends identified in the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report 67 and especially the megatrend 68 of “Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity”, the evolution of the problem has to been seen from the perspective of an increasingly connected world, with high levels of access to digital services. Without EU level intervention, the problem of slow and fragmented deployment of River Information Services is likely to persist over time and potentially to worsen. As technological development keeps accelerating, the fragmented deployment of RIS and the low and slow update of technical specifications can impact the competitiveness and safety of the sector, and its contribution towards the EGD objectives. 

In the first stakeholders’ survey, 20 out of 59 respondents considered that the problem will get considerably worse (15 of which were representatives of the IWT/RIS users or national public bodies) and 20 out of 59 that it will get somewhat worsen. Only 4 respondents argued that the problem will be partially or completely solved over time. The views are similar for each one of the problem drivers as summarised in Figure 8.

Figure 8: If the current RIS Directive is not revised, how do you expect the following problem drivers to develop in the future? (n=59)

Source: First stakeholder survey

The views expressed during the DINA/NAIADES Expert Group meeting of July 2022 were slightly more nuanced. Experts expected the problems and problem drivers to persist, or slightly worsen in case of no changes to the RIS Directive 69 .

In the OPC, stakeholders expressed the view that without EU level intervention there will be a negative impact on the integration of IWT in the supply chain (11 out of 13 respondents indicated that they expect somewhat or strong negative developments), on the efficient use of RIS (10 out of 13 respondents), and on the digital transformation (10 out of 13 stakeholders). The views related to the impact on safety were roughly split as 7 out of 13 respondents considered this to lead to strong or somewhat negative developments. In terms of the environment, 8 out of 13 respondents considered that the impacts will either remain unchanged or somewhat improve, while internal market issues appeared to have been of least concern (10 out of 13 respondents indicated no or somewhat positive developments).

The issue of the better implementation of RIS, in particular for ensuring a better harmonisation of the technical specifications, was brought up by stakeholders (particularly vessel operators) during the consultation process. However, the practical tools for ensuring better implementation (i.e. a monitoring and feedback mechanism given that during this period no formal complaints were notified to the Commission) are missing from the current Directive.

In addition, the issue related to implementation is only relevant for problem driver 1 and only as regards the non-harmonised application of the standards by the Member States. The other four problem drivers cannot be addressed through better implementation. The inefficient processes for the creation and implementation of technical specifications for RIS (problem driver 2) increase the risk related to the implementation and enforcement. It is worth noting that of 59 respondents to the first stakeholder’s survey only 4 indicated that the problem would be resolved without a revision of the Directive (i.e. through better implementation) 70 . Similarly, among the RIS experts consulted during the DINA/NAIADES expert group meeting only 2 indicated the need for better implementation.

Furthermore, focusing solely on better implementation means that only the challenges and issues identified almost 20 years ago are considered. The sector is now confronted with a number of new issues that did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Directive and thus were not properly taken into account. These include: developments in technology and digitalisation (e.g. the shift from radio communication to an almost digital exchange of data), developments in other modes of transport (e.g. including systems like eFTI and EMSWe, and the whole digital structure that is developed under the SSMS), and overall developments in the policy framework (i.e. the European Green Deal). The evaluation found that the Directive is not sufficiently aligned to the sector’s needs for improving efficiency, integrating the sector into the logistics chains and addressing new technological challenges.

3Why should the EU act?

3.1Legal basis

Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes the EU’s prerogative to make provisions for the Common Transport Policy. Article 91(1) of the TFEU provides that the Union has competence in the field of transport to common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States.

Within this legal framework, the EU provides for a coordinated and harmonised deployment of information and communication technologies on inland waterways that help to increase the safety and efficiency of transport by inland waterway, instead of relying on the uncoordinated action of individual Member States only.

3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. The necessity of EU action was recognised at the time of adoption of the RIS Directive 71 , when RIS was being developed at different rates, with different technologies and applications throughout Europe, creating barriers to cross-border voyages. The aim of the Directive was to harmonise technologies across Europe to enhance cross-border transport, and to minimise coordination costs.

The rationale for EU action, in terms of harmonisation of technologies across Europe to enhance cross-border transport and to minimise coordination costs, has largely been unchanged since the adoption of the RIS Directive, with inland waterway transport continuing to have a strong cross border dimension. Thus, in the absence of EU action, differences in the level and nature of the provision of RIS between Member States, or in the approaches of the different River Commissions, can lead to barriers for the efficient and seamless operation of inland waterways and hinder their development in comparison with other transport modes.

Since the entry into force of Directive 2005/44/EC, the inland waterway sector has benefited from the provision of harmonised RIS. However, the level of harmonisation between Member States varies and the introduction of the necessary specifications has proved to be lengthy. In addition, the EGD calls for a further development of an automated and connected multimodal mobility. RIS should be more fit to address these new challenges, also in line with the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, which promotes the creation of a truly smart transport system, efficient capacity allocation and traffic management. The NAIADES III action plan indicated that, to support the objective of inland waterways being part of a seamless system of harmonised RIS by 2030, a revision of the legal framework on RIS would be necessary to close these harmonisation and interoperability gaps, and to contribute to improved data availability, and the reuse and interoperability of data, in line with the European Data Strategy.

The most affected Member States were the Rhine countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France. Their views, as expressed in their response to the consultation activities for this impact assessment, showed that there is a need for EU legislative action and that there would be negative consequences if the legal system would stay the same. Furthermore, as explained in section 1, both the European Parliament and the Council, in their reaction to the NAIADES III Communication, expressly stated their interest for a revised Directive.

3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The 2021 evaluation concluded that the benefits of the Directive (in particular in terms of harmonisation) could not have been achieved at the national level, primarily due to high fragmentation of technical specifications and implementation practices. Stakeholders consulted during the evaluation indicated as areas of EU added value: the improved harmonisation, the standardisation through common technical specifications, the increased cross-border cooperation, more funding for the sector and an increase in perceived safety.

This initiative would provide additional EU added value by improving RIS efficiency (in terms of technical specifications, process of adoption, and improved exchange of information), but also in terms of integration of inland waterways in the multimodal supply chains. Furthermore, even though the problem is geographically limited, impacting Member States with connected navigable waterways, action at EU level is more likely to ensure that solutions are coherent and uniform for all Member States concerned. At the same time, it is through EU action that connectivity with other modes can be ensured. Furthermore, EU level action has an advantage over other international interventions such as the UNECE guidelines, due to its mandatory nature. Action at regional (i.e. River Commission level), in practice a form of enhanced cooperation, is also likely to lead to regional fragmentation, as each River Commission would focus on applying its own solutions, thus introducing barriers to the common market and be a step back in terms of harmonisation. The CEF funded RIS COMEX, could be considered as another form of enhanced cooperation, where the Member States on a voluntary basis decided to develop a platform for the exchange of RIS (as described in section 1). However as this is a voluntary initiative, the continuation of its membership cannot be guaranteed, which could potentially lead to differences in the level of service provided to a vessel depending on whether the country it navigates through is part of RIS COMEX or not.

Stakeholders who responded to the evaluation’s consultation activities noted that the same benefits would not have been achieved by comparable interventions at the international, regional or national level 72 . The stakeholders consulted in the context of this impact assessment expect the problem to persist in absence of EU level action. Additionally, no sources indicated that the same benefits could be achieved at the national level, as this would result in a high fragmentation of standards and implementation practices 73 .

4Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1General objectives

Based on the analysis of the problem as described in section 2, the revision of the RIS Directive is guided by one general objective, that is: to provide an effective framework for the deployment and use of RIS. With such a framework in place, IWT can operate in a safe manner, in a competitive market environment, and contribute towards the EGD objectives.

This objective is in line with the SSMS that aims to enable seamless transport and traffic management on the European inland waterways, as well as to improving the sustainability of transport. In addition, it is in line with the goals of NAIADES III Communication in terms of improving the performance of RIS along with improving and re-using applications for links with other modes, and eventually preserving the competitive position of IWT.

RIS can contribute to connecting IWT to the logistics chain and to improving its competitiveness and modal split. However, it cannot achieve this in isolation as the competitiveness of the sector is also affected by factors such as lack of infrastructure developments and maintenance, lack of qualified staff, geographic limitations of IWT network, lack of investments and innovation 74 . In addition, it is not the objective of the revision to develop into a single digital tool for IWT, as RIS form part of a family of applications like the databases for crews and vessel information. All these cover separate needs and purposes. Furthermore, in terms of links with other modes, and to improve syncro-modality, it should not duplicate or aim to replace other existing tools, like EMSWe, or eFTI, but rather ensure that the necessary information flows seamlessly among these various solutions, as needed. In this regard, RIS is just one of the many pieces of the puzzle of the digitalisation of IWT.

The initiative contributes towards the objectives of the European Green Deal (EGD) 75 (in particular by supporting the shift away from road transport). The revision of the RIS Directive contributes towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 (“Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation”) and SDG 13 (“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”). 

4.2Specific objectives

The specific objectives (SOs) are discussed below. Their correspondence with the problem drivers are presented Figure 9.

Figure 9: Correspondence between the specific objectives and the problem drivers

Source: European Commission

SO1: Ensure improved RIS data availability, and harmonised standards

For RIS to function properly, this must be based on an appropriate operating environment where the required information is available to the users. The first objective therefore aims to address the areas where the technical performance of RIS was found not to be optimal. Improving the quality, efficiency and exchange of RIS data is an important element for addressing the current identified challenges, in terms of non-harmonised technical specifications (‘standards’) and lack of basic information and to improve the process for adoption of technical specifications. Improving the RIS information available to both vessels operators and authorities can increase the efficiency of the IWT and reduce the safety risks (PD1). In this context, the technical requirements and specifications need to be updated regularly and their application across Member States needs to be fully harmonised. Technological solutions develop fast and the RIS Directive needs to ensure that the process to introduce the necessary changes to the technical specifications can follow a similar pace (PD2).

SO2: Facilitate the integration of IWT into the multimodal chain

The second objective aims to prepare RIS to address the missing elements that hinder the sector from reaching its potential, and in particular its integration into the multimodal chains. This can be attained through improved quality and better shared information. In this regard RIS users need to have access to the appropriate and up-to-date information for all necessary elements (PD1). Furthermore, this information needs to be better exchanged within the sector itself, in particular when crossing a border, or when approaching an inland port, a lock or a moving bridge and reduce reporting requirements (PD4). Moreover, better exchange with the systems of other modes is needed to avoid duplications of systems and data flows (PD3).

SO3: Ensure a higher uptake and interoperability of digital solutions, and address data protection concerns

The IWT sector is part of the international logistics chains and needs to keep up with developments in other sectors to maintain its competitiveness. This objective will aim to increase the digitalisation in the sector and ensure a smooth flow of information A digital framework is needed to enable the seamless integration of IWT in multimodal supply chains and avoid reverse modal shift. This can only be done through improved links with the digital systems developed for other modes, in order to enable the exchange of information between them, while avoiding parallel or overlapping systems (PD3). This initiative should also provide the necessary incentives and assurances to remove the bottlenecks related to the inefficient exchange of information and reporting (PD4) and objections to data exchange due to concerns on data protections (PD5). It should clarify the type of data a Member State may collect and exchange via RIS and also clarify that RIS does not create an obligation to share personal data but only facilitates the exchange if there is a legal basis for the processing of personal data under relevant national, Union or international laws.

5What are the available policy options?

5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

The EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) is the starting point for the impact assessment of this initiative. The REF2020 takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that had a significant impact on the transport sector. More detailed information about the preparation process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario publication 76 . Building on REF2020, the baseline has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package proposed by the Commission on 14 July 2021 and of the REPowerEU package proposed by the Commission on 18 May 2022. The baseline scenario assumes no further EU level intervention beyond the current RIS Directive. The effects of projects such as RIS COMEX are however expected to continue over time in the baseline scenario. In this context, the RIS COMEX 2 that recently obtained funding through the Connecting Europe Facility, is reflected in the baseline. More details on the baseline scenario assumptions and results are provided in Annex 4.

In the baseline scenario, EU transport activity is projected to grow post-2020, following the recovery from the COVID pandemic. Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU by 2050. Rail transport activity is projected to grow faster than for road, driven in particular by the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and of the comprehensive network by 2050, supported by the CEF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding, but also by measures of the ‘Fit for 55’ package that increase to some extent the competitiveness of rail relative to road and air transport. Freight inland waterways activity represented 147 billion tonne-kilometres (tkm) in 2015, going down to 132 billion tkm in 2020. Following the post-COVID recovery, the freight inland waterways activity is projected to increase to 178 billion tkm in 2030 (21% increase relative to 2015) and 212 billion tkm in 2050 (44% increase for 2015-2050). The passenger segment of IWTs is expected to increase as well, with the number of passenger-kilometres projected to increase by 36% by 2030 compared to 2015 (53% increase for 2015-2050).

Despite the increase in terms of transport volumes, the modal share of freight IWT in land transport 82 is projected to decrease from 6.8% in 2015, to 6.3% in 2030 and to remain relatively stable, at 6.2% after that. The decrease in the modal share of IWT relative to 2015 is due to the reduction in the specific types of goods transported by inland navigation (petroleum products and coal), linked to the energy transition towards greener fuel sources, and due to the higher growth in the rail transport activity. The expected growth in the container segment, is not expected to reverse the trend. As regards passenger transport, the modal share of IWT only represents around 0.01% of land transport activity and is projected to remain relatively stable over time following the post-COVID recovery.

The number of passenger vessel journeys is projected to increase from 8,867 in 2015 to 12,043 in 2030 and 13,572 in 2050. The total number of tonnes transport is projected to grow roughly in line with the transport activity in tonne kilometres (from 545 million tonnes in 2015 to 690 million tonnes in 2030 and 813 million tonnes in 2050), while the number of tonnes per journey would continue to increase but at a slower pace than in the past 83 . The number of freight vessels journeys is projected to go up from 682,120 in 2015 to 717,838 in 2030 (5% increase for 2015-2030) and 731,234 in 2050 (7% increase for 2015-2050), following the recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Around 40% of the freight vessels journeys take place within one country, with the rest crossing on average 1.3 borders per journey. The share of border crossings in the number of vessel journeys is assumed to remain constant over time (at around 60%), in line with the historical developments. Thus, the total number of freight border crossings is projected to go up from 427,947 in 2015 to 432,442 in 2030 and 440,512 in 2050. For passenger vessels journeys, the share of border crossings is much higher (around 90%) and is assumed to remain constant over time. The total number of border crossings for passenger IWT is projected to increase from 8,344 in 2015 to 10,882 in 2030 and 12,264 in 2050.

The number of cargo vessels has decreased by 23% between 2003 and 2020 84 , from 13,385 ships to 10,332. The overall downward trend in the number of cargo vessels is expected to reverse by 2030 (12,371 cargo vessels), driven by the increase in activity and the slower increase in the capacity of ships compared to the past, but then it is expected to stay relatively stable until 2050 (12,223 cargo vessels) due to the increase in the productivity per vessel 85 . On the other hand, the number of passenger vessels had increased from approximately 160 ships in 2004 to 405 ships in 2021. When the day-tour ships and smaller cycle holiday ships are counted, around 2,553 passenger ships were estimated to operate in the EU in 2015 86 . The number of passenger vessels is projected to follow the increase in the number of passengers (3,467 vessels projected in 2030 and 3,908 in 2050). It should however be noted that the majority of these vessels are small or very small. In contrast to cargo vessels, no further growth in scale or productivity is expected for passenger shipping.

Energy use in freight IWT is projected to remain relatively stable by 2030 to its 2015 levels, despite the increase in activity, and to decrease to 895 ktoe 87 by 2050 (11% decrease for 2015-2050), thanks to the uptake of more fuel-efficient technologies including electrification. For passenger vessels, energy consumption is projected to increase by 11% by 2030 (132 ktoe), driven by the strong growth in activity, and only to slightly decrease by 2050 relative to its 2015 levels (112 ktoe). Overall, considering both passenger and freight, energy use in inland waterways transport is projected to remain relatively stable by 2030 to its 2015 levels and to go down by 10% by 2050, relative to 2015.

In the baseline scenario, CO2 emissions from inland waterways transport are projected to decrease much faster than the energy use (21% decrease for 2015-2030 and 67% decrease for 2015-2050). This is because of the large-scale uptake of renewable and low carbon fuels, namely e-fuels, biofuels and electricity. In this context, it should be noted that the baseline scenario assumes the implementation of the European Climate Law to which all sectors, including the inland waterways sector, need to contribute. In terms of NOx emissions a similar trend is expected, reducing from 73 ktons in 2015 to just below 20 ktons in 2050. The amount of particulate matter emitted by inland navigation is also expected to reduce, from 3.8 ktons in 2015 to 1 kton in 2050. This is due to both electrification and the fact that the ships that continue to operate with internal combustion engines are becoming cleaner. In this context, it should also be noted that since 2020 new combustion engines are considerably cleaner, thanks to the implementation of non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) Regulation (NRMM Stage V) 88 .

There is little consistent data on safety in the inland navigation sector, with available data coming from Eurostat and national databases for Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland and Romania. In the baseline scenario, the projected evolution of the number of accidents is linked to the evolution of activity expressed in terms of vessel-kilometres. The number of accidents per vessel-kilometres is assumed to remain constant over time. Thus, the number of accidents is projected to increase to 535 in 2030 and 551 in 2050 in the baseline scenario (from 529 in 2015).

The baseline scenario reflects the projected higher energy prices driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine 89 . Beyond this aspect, it was however not possible to quantify the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as there is large uncertainty with respect to its impacts, in particular for the medium to long term. While its impact is felt in terms of trade (e.g., grain, bulk fertilizers and hydrocarbons) and in certain geographical areas, the impact on the baseline of this initiative is expected to be limited. The problem of slow and fragmented deployment of River Information Services that hamper the competitiveness and safety of the sector, and its contribution towards the EGD objectives, is likely to persist.

5.2Policy measures and policy options

As a first step, a comprehensive list of possible policy measures was established after extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research and the Commission’s own analysis. This list was subsequently screened based on the effectiveness, efficiency and proportionality of the proposed measures in relation to the given objectives, as well as their legal and technical feasibility.

5.2.1Discarded policy measures

A number of possible policy measures were considered during the impact assessment process but were discarded either because the problem was not susceptible to a solution by means of EU legislation or because proposing an action to address the issue at EU level will not yield additional results. An overview of the measures and a justification for them not being followed is presented in the Table 1.

Table 1: Overview of discarded measures

Source: European Commission

5.2.2Retained policy measures and policy options overview

The retained policy measures to address the problem and problem drivers identified in section 2 are provided in Table 2. A more detailed description of the policy measures is included in section 5.2.3.

The retained policy measures have been grouped in 3 policy options: policy option A (PO-A), policy option B (PO-B) and policy option C (PO-C). Table 2 presents the links of policy measures included in the policy options with the problem drivers and specific objectives.

Table 2: Overview of policy measures and policy options

Source: European Commission

5.2.3Description of the policy measures

A description of the policy measure is provided below:

·Increase the harmonisation of RIS through guidelines (PM1). This is a non-legislative measure. The Commission will develop interpretative guidelines for the application of the Directive and the different technical specifications 90 . The assistance of CESNI will be requested (through a study) to help identify the areas of most concerns or most frequent issues (e.g. the number of masts/radars transferring data between the vessels and RIS centres, the way the infrastructure should be placed and maintain (frequency of inspection). These guidelines will be made available to Member States, vessel operators and software providers and should remove ambiguities on technical specifications. Member States will then apply the technical specifications in line with the guidelines. No action is anticipated by the other stakeholders.

·PM2: Introduce a harmonised complaint mechanism (in Member States). Improved monitoring of the implementation of the Directive will help ensure that RIS is provided in a coherent and harmonised manner across the whole length of waterways concerned. As a way of addressing this from the “bottom-up”, this measure relies on direct feedback from RIS users to indicate the areas where problems appear. Member States will be required to designate a (existing or new) competent governmental body to directly handle complaints filed by RIS users. To properly function, this body should be independent from RIS related authorities and would have the task to verify the complaints and request corrective action (e.g. correct wrong, outdated or non-standardised data). Vessel operators and software providers will be aware of whom to refer to. National authorities will have visibility of where they need to intervene.

·PM3: Introduce a new Performance Measurement Framework. In contrast to PM2, this measure aims to improve the monitoring (and thus the overall performance of the Directive), through a “top-down” approach. The Commission with the assistance of CESNI will develop key performance indicators such as the number of shipping messages issued in accordance with standards and interpretations from the most recent RIS encoding guide, and the number of electronic cargo reports received in relation to the number of voyages. Member States and other relevant authorities will be required to report on these indicators on a regular basis (yearly). Having better information, the European Commission will be able to follow more closely the provision of RIS and identify cases where RIS implementation is fragmented. Based on this it will be requesting the responsible Member State to undertake corrective action. It will not require action from the side of vessel operators.

·PM4: Strengthen requirements for RIS technical specifications by adding new specifications on data for navigation and voyage planning (RIS Index). This measure aims to strengthen the requirements of the current RIS Directive by introducing new technical specifications (‘standards’) on data for navigation and voyage planning (‘RIS Index’). It will improve traffic management in the EU waterways. The new technical specifications will ensure that information related to the efficiency of navigation is available and shared between the different actors. Member States will be required to create systems providing adequate information for skippers - a series of data including for instance clearance heights at bridges, fairway profiles and data on vessel traffic signs will have to be collected. Moreover, the system should also include information on the real-time traffic situation, such as current and expected waiting times at locks. Obtaining and sharing these data requires investment in both digital hardware and software (to monitor and report on the information mentioned above). Member States will also need to undertake digital hardware and software updates in order to provide the required information. Vessel operators and software providers will have access to the provided information for their purposes.

·PM5: Require electronic voyage plan reporting. This measure aims to improve traffic management and navigation efficiency in the waterways. Vessel operators already prepare and submit to the authorities their plan for the voyage at the start of the journey. However, with this measure the reporting will need to be made through electronic means, and be adapted for any changes, which will increase the reporting requirements. As a trade-off vessel operators will receive directions from national authorities to adapt their navigation to take into account of the situation in the waterways thus improving the voyage efficiency (e.g., through reduced speed of ships and less manoeuvring movements like, mooring at waiting jetties, leaving and entering the lock, etc.). National authorities will have to invest in software to receive, process and act upon the information transmitted by the vessels, but this will allow them to have greater visibility on the navigation situation, plan and manage traffic, and account for changes (e.g. instruct vessels navigate slower in case of bottlenecks). 

·PM6: Introduce provisions for supplying data to the ERDMS and its operation. The ERDMS contains basic information that is important for the provision of RIS. Currently though the level of accuracy of the information provided by Member States varies. This measure will require Member States to provide accurate and up-to-date data to the ERDMS so as to improve the quality of the contained information. This will create costs for the Member States as the frequency and/or content of their reporting will need to be increased. Vessel operators will make use of the provided information for navigation planning purposes and software providers for the development of their products. This information will also be made available to the RIS platform (PM9).

·PM7: Encourage cargo-related information exchange through the eFTI mechanism. This measure will require that standards are developed so that RIS cargo related information (i.e. electronic ship reports as specified in Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/1744) can be shared on a voluntary basis through the electronic freight transport information (eFTI) platforms. Before starting the voyage, vessel operators will upload the required information to eFTI, and will transmit through ERI to the relevant authorities the link to the eFTI with their information. Member State authorities will, as appropriate, use the link to access the cargo information for their purposes. Member States will also have the option to transmit the eFTI links to their counterparts in other Member States. In PM7, the digital applications will be developed but not made obligatory for use. The Member States will need to develop the capacity to receive and process information through eFTI, and replace the processing of paper cargo reports with the electronic reports. Vessel operators will only need to upload the information once on eFTI, and then report to the authorities through ERI only the relevant link.

·PM8: Mandate cargo-related information to be exchanged through the eFTI mechanism. The difference of this measure with PM7 is that it will be now obligatory for vessel operators to use an eFTI platform for the transmission of the cargo information.

·PM9: Require information exchange through a RIS platform. A single digital platform that would act as the main exchange node for RIS information and basis for development of digital applications would help to streamline and improve the provision of RIS in the EU. As explained in section 1, 13 Member States 91  through an agreement and CEF funding have already developed the project RIS COMEX which in effect is a one stop shop platform for the exchange of RIS information and can fulfil the role of a RIS platform. Building on the success of this project, and in order to not duplicate efforts, this measure proposes to designate this platform as the main and central platform for RIS, where all functionalities will be built upon, and work in combination with other measures (e.g. PM4, PM6, PM8, PM12, PM14). Therefore, this impact assessment will make reference to and be based on information of RIS COMEX. By mandating the use of RIS COMEX, efficient use of EU funds is ensured, as the development was already supported under CEF, and any costs for the Member States (including for those like Spain, Italy and Portugal) will be limited to development and update of the necessary digital applications. It will be an important change for vessel operators, who will use a single platform of interaction instead of several portals and systems. Software providers will also have access to information from RIS COMEX platform for their product development.

·PM10: Involve CESNI in the development and adoption of technical specifications. This measure aims to tackle the long period that has so far been required to introduce new technical specifications for the sector. In this case, CESNI will be involved in the preparation of the technical specifications and provide regular updates as required. CESNI already has a working group dealing with RIS (CESNI/TI).

·PM11: Link the RIS requirements with those of the TEN-T Regulation. Currently, all interconnected waterways of CEMT class IV and higher (which refers to the size of the vessel they can accommodate) are within the scope of the RIS Directive. Member States may decide to include further waterways in this scope (for example Italy, Spain and Portugal). This scope does not match the TEN-T network, which with its current proposed revision will not refer any more to CEMT classification but will be based on the characteristics of the waterways themselves. As the TEN-T network covers the most important waterways it is therefore considered that an alignment of scope between the two is required.

·PM12: Develop new technical specifications for the exchange of information relating to IWT ports. Data related to ports is not easily available to vessel operators (for example, the dimensions of bridges over port basins and operating times), or the ports do not always have the vessels' cargo and voyage information and this information has to be reported again at the ports. The aim of this measure is to develop new technical specifications for the exchange of information to and from IWT ports. Overall, PM12 would lead to better data quality for all, leading to simpler travel planning. National authorities and the ports will need to develop and maintain the necessary systems to share and process this information (exchange can be made through PM9). Under this measure, while inland ports will need to have developed the necessary digital infrastructure, vessel operators will only make use of it on a voluntary basis. Vessel operators will have access to improved and updated information regarding the situation in their inland port of destination (e.g. access constraints on opening of bridges, the availability of berths, the availability of clean fuels at the time of arrival).

·PM13: Require the exchange of information with IWT ports according to new technical specifications. The difference of this measure with PM12 is that it will be now obligatory for vessel operators to exchange information with inland ports through the provided systems.

·PM14: Improve the harmonisation between RIS and the information services for other modes of transport (e.g. maritime). Currently the RIS Directive envisages continuity with other modal traffic management services, in particular with maritime. However, no further details are included, and no technical standard has been developed along these lines. Therefore, this measure aims to strengthen the interoperability of RIS with other modes of transport, but not create new or duplicate existing systems. The Directive will provide a clear reference to the European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe) and introduce requirements for the exchange of information with RIS (e.g. regarding the ETA of a vessel to the port), along with the main principles and technical requirements for the links between the two systems. Similarly, a provision will also be included for links of RIS with systems of other modes (to be indicated by Member States). As identified in the PLATINA III project 92 such connections are important for the coordination of shipments and increasing the supply chain visibility for shippers and logistic providers. The technical specifications will be developed by CESNI (in collaboration with the standard setting entities for the other systems) and introduced through secondary legislation. A common data exchange mechanism (such as application programming interfaces) will be developed to enable both systems to access the data of one another. An important principle in their development will be to anticipate the possibility for links with other systems in the future. 

·PM15: Require sharing of all necessary cross-border data for traffic and transport management by the Member States. Currently not all information provided by vessel operators to authorities is shared with the authorities of other Member States, which creates a challenge when crossing borders as in many cases the information needs to be retransmitted. This measure would require Member States to share cross-border all necessary data that is required for traffic and transport management. This includes for example information provided by vessel operators regarding the cargo, the position of the vessel, ERI information, but also the exchange of information between authorities such as changes in the navigation parameters, limitations of traffic, speed, etc. Member States will need to invest in digital tools, which will now be used to process reports. Vessel operators will only be required to report once (e.g. for the cargo report), as when a border is crossed the information will be exchanged between the authorities and not resubmitted by the vessel operator.

·PM16: Specify more clearly the cases for exchange of personal data. Due to concerns express by stakeholders on handling of personal data, and as it is not always clear on which basis the data is being processed and whether this is allowed, authorities are reluctant to process and transmit positioning information to other authorities. This in turn leads to resubmission of the information by the vessel operators to different national authorities or refusal to share information. Under this measure, the RIS Directive would provide more clarity on the specific cases and legal basis where exchange of personal data would be justified (e.g. for reasons of safety, to streamline the process, etc.). This measure is designed to work in complementarity with PM12, PM13 and PM15 as it covers a specific case (personal data) that they do not. Member States would therefore need to assess if personal data and accordingly consider how best to apply the provisions of GDPR to ensure that RIS information is shared efficiently. They would have to develop and maintain an application where the position of the vessel through AIS can be used for port-related matters, such as berth management and collection of port fees, and benefit from a simpler procedure of handing this information. Vessel operators will not be required to resubmit information (unless there is a change).

·PM17: Develop templates and standards for the exchange of personal data. The difference of this measure with PM16 is that it goes beyond in that it will develop and mandate new standards and technical specifications for the exchange of personal information when this is required by national or international legislation. It will thus provide a further step of harmonisation. The roles of all stakeholders is similar to that of PM16.

Expected importance of measures

The importance of the measures is linked to the importance of the problem driver they address, as well as their expected impact in addressing the driver. In this regard, ERDMS (PM6) and CESNI (PM10) are the most important measures. As they are both supported by the stakeholders, they are included in all policy options. The first is important as it will be the basis of accurate and up-to-date basic information on the rivers and in a sense the “IT library” for the functioning of RIS. It will contribute to addressing the lack of coherence of technical specifications and provide a basis for links with the multimodal system. In addition, further developments in digitalisation and information cannot take place unless this information is available (for example, an automated vessel will require accurate information on the gap between river and a bridge in order to navigate safely). PM10 is likewise of high importance as it will change the currently inefficient technical specifications setting and adoption procedure and ensure that they updated more regularly. It is a tried and tested measure as reference to CESNI technical specifications has already been introduced by Directive (EU) 2016/1629 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and by Directive (EU) 2017/2397 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation. CESNI has been able to provide the necessary updates to these technical specifications on average every two years, which is a significant improvement compared to the current process for adoption of RIS technical specifications. Both these measures were considered to have high potential to address the respective problem drivers by the sector experts in the DINA/NAIADES expert group meeting.

Among the other measures, the introduction of a RIS platform (PM9) is very important. It is an existing EU funded project, providing reliable fairway, infrastructure, traffic and transport information services, including route and transport planning, for the waterways of the partner countries, as well as a common electronic reporting system. The system was developed voluntarily by 13 Member States with inland waterways, with EU funding, and in 2023 it has entered its second development stage. This measure will mandate the use application of RIS COMEX in all waterways covered by the Directive. It will thus develop into the IT backbone for the provision of RIS and one upon which the other measures introducing new requirements (e.g. the links with inland ports) will be built. Vessel operators, national authorities and software providers will use this platform for all RIS interactions in the daily operations. Vessel operators will have to interact with one single system instead of each national one. By monitoring the flow and usage of RIS COMEX the Commission will benefit of a set of indicators to monitor the performance of RIS (as explained also in section 9). An important element is that by mandating the system, its operation and usage, a high standard of harmonisation is ensured and coverage of the whole relevant network.

The complaint handling mechanism (PM2) is also an important measure in that it will provide a path to identify and rectify problems in the implementation of the Directive and the secondary acts. This will be done based on a bottom-up approach, at a Member State level, thus enhancing subsidiarity. The Commission will benefit of an overview of the state of implementation.

Finally, the need to support the integration of inland waterways into the multimodal supply chains was identified as an important problem driver by the stakeholders. Two measures (i.e. adding new technical specifications for navigation and voyage planning (PM4), as well as with the systems of other modes (PM14)) address this problem driver. These measures aim to cover different aspects, and in particular the exchange of cargo information, the smooth operation with the inland ports (which are the transhipment centres for IWT cargo), and the direct links with other modes which can help streamline operations in the supply chain as a whole.

5.2.4Description of the policy options

As explained in section 5.2.2, the measures were combined in three policy packages, which have been designed to address all policy drivers and contribute to all policy objectives. They differ in the level of ambition and obligations that they introduce. No alternative policy options or packages of measures were suggested by stakeholders.

Policy option A (PO-A)

Policy option A proposes a basic update of the Directive addressing the basic identified shortcomings but without changing the scope. The overall structure of RIS, as regards the technology elements, and the way information is exchanged between stakeholders remains mainly the same (such as described in section 1). Interpretative guidelines on the technical specifications and their application by the Member States (PM1) play a central role, as a non-regulatory measure in this policy option. An important new element is also the introduction of CESNI with a role in the development of technical specifications (PM10). Member States will be required to increase the frequency by which they provide updates to the ERDMS (PM6), as well as to set up a complaint handling mechanism (PM2) for RIS users to report issues with the implementation to RIS (and will need to report in turn to the European Commission on an annual basis). Cargo-related information exchange will be encouraged through the eFTI mechanism (PM7). Finally, Member States will have to assess (based on provided clarifications under PM16) the extent to which personal data are concerned and ensure that they are processed in the appropriate way.

In terms of addressing the different specific objectives, for SO1 (Ensure improved RIS data availability, and harmonised standards), the harmonisation aspect will be tackled by the interpretative guidelines (PM1), combined with the complaint handling mechanism (PM2) and the development of technical specifications by CESNI (PM10), whose updates should also correct possible issues (including unclarity) with existing technical specifications that affect harmonisation. Data availability will be tackled by the requirement to Member States to provide frequent updates to the ERDMS database (PM6). For SO2 (Facilitate the integration of IWT into the multimodal chain), an up-to-date ERDMS database (PM6) is important to ensure that the latest information required for the performance of IWT is available. Providing the cargo information through an eFTI platform, even on voluntary basis by the vessel operators (PM7), sets the basis for this information to be re-used by authorities and other RIS users, as appropriate, in planning and organising logistic operations. As regards SO3 (Ensure a higher uptake and interoperability of digital solutions, and address data protection concerns), the option to exchange the cargo-required data through eFTI (PM7) would be an important step towards an interoperability of digital systems in a multimodal environment. Finally, PM16, as explained in section 5.2.3, is specifically designed to address the data protection concerns, by guiding Member States to take appropriate action.

Figure 10: RIS structure under PO-A

Source: European Commission

Policy option B (PO-B)

Policy option B, retains several measures from PO-A like the complaint mechanism (PM2), ERDMS requirement (PM6), CESNI (PM10) and the clarification regarding personal data (PM16). However, it goes beyond PO-A by adding elements on key areas of the Directive. It introduces an important change in the architecture of RIS, as it brings RIS COMEX (PM9) as the central node for the exchange of information and the provision of services. Unlike the baseline and PO-A, information now is not exchanged directly between the different users (like the vessel operator with inland ports) but it is done through the platforms and functionalities of RIS COMEX. New technical specifications on navigation and voyage planning (PM4), that are currently missing, are introduced and will provide additional information to vessel operators. The exchange of information takes also a more prominent role. The reporting of cargo information through eFTI becomes mandatory for vessel operators (PM8), who will now also have the option to exchange operational information electronically with inland ports (PM12). The exchange of operational information will also be possible with other modes of transport (PM14). RIS will focus on the most important waterways as its scope will match that of the TEN-T waterways (PM11).

In terms of addressing the different specific objectives, for SO1 (Ensure improved RIS data availability, and harmonised standards), on top of PM2, PM6 and PM10 (discussed under PO-A), vessel operators will have access to more information regarding the situation in the waterways (PM4), while RIS COMEX (PM9) will provide a single platform for information, replacing the need to refer to several national ones. For SO2 (Facilitate the integration of IWT into the multimodal chain), measures PM4, PM6 and PM9 also contribute (in addition to addressing SO1). The voluntary exchange of information with inland ports (PM12) will allow those vessel operators that chose this option to exchange information necessary for logistic operations. This is also the case of standards and links with other modes in PM14. The mandatory reporting of cargo information through eFTI for vessel operators (PM8) will also contribute towards ensuring improved RIS data availability. Furthermore, by ensuring that the scope is the same as for the TEN-T, focus is put on multimodal operations. Finally, for SO3 (Ensure a higher uptake and interoperability of digital solutions, and address data protection concerns) in addition to PM8 (as the mandatory version of PM7), and PM16 (already included in PO-A), the use of RIS COMEX (PM9) will create a single platform simplifying the interaction with digital systems. The links with inland ports (PM12) and other modes (PM14), as described in section 5.2.3, are specifically designed to increase interoperability.

Figure 11: RIS structure under PO-B

Source: European Commission. Note: RIS COMEX includes also RIS COMEX 2 and all applications such as EuRIS and CEERIS

Policy option C (PO-C)

Policy option C adds two mandatory measures to PO-B, namely the electronic voyage planning (PM5) and the exchange of data with inland ports (PM13), which introduce a new framework for traffic management and for technical developments such as digitalisation and automation. It also introduces a new Performance Measurement Framework (PM13).

In terms of addressing the specific objectives, for SO1 (Ensure improved RIS data availability, and harmonised standards), PO-C includes several policy measures as in PO-B (PM4, PM6, PM9 and PM10). In addition, the introduction of a performance measurement framework (PM3), to control the performance of RIS in a top-down approach, is proposed instead of the bottom-up approach used in the complaint handling mechanism (PM2 under PO-A and PO-B). A new requirement on electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5) will provide additional information on the current and expected traffic in the waterways and allow national authorities to plan waterway traffic. For SO2 (Facilitate the integration of IWT into the multimodal chain), measures PM4, PM6, PM8, PM9, PM11 and PM14 will perform the same way as for PO-B. A significant change is that now vessel operators will be required to electronically exchange operational information with inland ports (PM13); this was voluntary under PM12 in PO-B. Moreover, the requirement for Member States to share cross border data for traffic and transport management purposes (PM15) would directly facilitate the exchange of data not only within IWT, but also unlock potential for other modes. The electronic voyage planning (PM5) will also contribute towards SO2. Finally, for SO3 (Ensure a higher uptake and interoperability of digital solutions, and address data protection concerns), on top of the measures discussed under PO-B (PM8, PM9 and PM14), by moving from a voluntary to a mandatory exchange of information with inland ports (PM13) will force, by design, vessel operators to take up this application. Mandating the cross-border sharing of data for traffic and transport management purposes (PM15) will force Member States to use electronic applications for this exchange. In addition, in relation to data protection PO-C would introduce specific templates and standards for the exchange of personal information (PM17) within RIS (compared to simple clarifications as in PM16 under PO-A and PO-B).

Figure 12: RIS structure under PO-C

Source: European Commission. Note: RIS COMEX includes also RIS COMEX 2 and all applications such as EuRIS and CEERIS.

6What are the impacts of the policy options?

This section summarizes the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts of each policy option (PO) 93 . The proposed measures included in the policy options are assumed to be implemented from 2025 onwards, so that the assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period, and it refers to EU27. Costs and benefits are expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, using a 3% discount rate. All costs and benefits are expressed in 2022 prices. Further details on the methodological approach are provided in Annex 4.

6.1Economic impacts

This section provides the economic impacts of the policy options on the national public authorities, the European Commission and the private sector (vessel operators and RIS software services providers). It also provides an assessment of impacts on small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the functioning of the internal market and competition, competitiveness, digital by default, congestion and territorial impacts. The assessment of economic impacts draws on multiple data sources, including the targeted stakeholders’ consultation (interviews and survey) and public consultation, and findings from desk research in the context of the impact assessment support study 94 .

6.1.1Impact on national public authorities

National public authorities include all Member States’ bodies responsible for ensuring the implementation of RIS. All policy options are expected to lead to adjustment costs, administrative costs and administrative cost savings for national authorities (see Table 3 and Table 4). Each category of costs/costs savings is discussed below, while a detailed analysis including the estimates and the assumptions used for deriving the costs and costs savings for each policy measure included in the policy options is provided in Annex 4. Summary tables by policy option and policy measure, for 2030, 2040 and 2050 and expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline are also provided in section 3 of Annex 4.

One-off adjustment costs for national public authorities. All policy options are expected to lead to one-off adjustment costs for the national administrations (see Table 3 ). In PO-A these cover investment costs for setting up the complaint mechanism (PM2), investment costs for adapting existing data flows so that RIS cargo-related information is linked with eFTI (PM7) and costs for developing applications that would handle personal data (PM16), with a total cost estimated at EUR 5.6 million in 2025 relative to the baseline. More specifically, the costs for setting up the complaint mechanism (PM2) would amount to EUR 2.76 million in 2025, which is three times the recurrent annual costs for running the mechanism, based on the experience of European Maritime Safety Agency for setting up the e-certificate registry. Regarding investment costs for adapting existing data flows so that RIS cargo-related information is linked with eFTI (PM7), there are currently five systems in place: BICS (the Netherlands), eRIBa (Belgium), VELI (France), NAMIB (Germany), and CEERIS (Rest of Europe). Based on feedback from RIS authorities during the stakeholders’ consultation process, the investment costs for adjusting each of these systems are estimated at around EUR 250,000 per system. Thus, the total one-off adjustment costs for PM7 would amount to EUR 1.25 million in 2025, relative to the baseline. The investment costs for developing applications that would handle personal data (PM16) are estimated at EUR 5,839 per port (in 2022 prices) 95 . For the 265 ports, the total one-off costs due to PM16 would amount to EUR 1.55 million in 2025 relative to the baseline.

In addition, PO-B would require investments in hardware and software to gather and share information for navigation and voyage planning (PM4), to implement new technical specifications for the exchange of information with ports (PM12), and to integrate RIS information systems with information systems of other modes (PM14). For PM4, based on interviews with the Dutch Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat), the costs for the Netherlands are estimated at EUR 500,000. Extrapolating to the other twelve Member States, based on each country’s share of the network in terms of length and infrastructure elements such as locks and bridges, the total one-off costs for PM4 are estimated at EUR 4.55 million relative to the baseline. To implement new technical specifications for the exchange of information with ports (PM12), investment costs per port are estimated at EUR 29,197 in 2022 prices, based on the DINA study 96 . Assuming that all 54 core ports of the European TEN-T network for which no RIS data is available would implement the new technical specifications, the total one-off costs due to PM12 would amount to EUR 1.58 million in 2025. For PM14, the IT investment costs are based on the CoRISma project and are estimated at EUR 3.14 million relative to the baseline 97 .

The compulsory connection with eFTI (PM8) is assumed to have the same cost as the optional connection in PO-A (EUR 1.25 million), as the same digital requirements will apply. The inclusion of new Member States in RIS COMEX (PM9) will also require some investment costs, estimated at EUR 3.5 million. As a result, in PO-B the total one-off adjustment costs for national authorities are estimated at EUR 18.3 million in 2025 relative to the baseline.

PO-C has few common measures with PO-B (PM4, PM8, PM9 and PM14) that lead to the same adjustment costs. In addition, in PO-C investment costs are needed for developing the software that can process and convert the voyage plan notification messages from inland waterway operators into accurate lock predictions (PM5) and for software to exchange information with the authorities of other Member States (PM15). For PM5, building on estimates for the Netherlands from the Dutch Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat), the costs for the other Member States have been derived based on the network usage and the size of the network in each Member State, relative to that of the Netherlands. The one-off costs due to PM5 are estimated at EUR 3.07 million in 2025 relative to the baseline. For PM15, investment costs are estimated at EUR 5 million, based on comparable projects in the rail freight sector (ELETA and EDICT). Compared to PO-B, mandating the exchange of information with ports (PM13) 98 increases the total costs compared to PM12, and similarly for the costs of development of personal data exchange templates (PM17 99 in PO-C, compared to PM16 in PO-A and PO-B). 

Thus, the one-off adjustment costs in PO-C are estimated to be the highest, at EUR 28.2 million in 2025 compared to the baseline, followed by PO-B (EUR 18.3 million) and PO-A (EUR 5.6 million).

Table 3: One-off adjustment costs for national public authorities by policy option and measure in 2025, relative to the baseline (in million EUR, in 2022 prices)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024), impact assessment support study

Recurrent administrative costs for national public authorities. Under all policy options (see Table 4), Member States will need to provide the information required by the RIS Directive to the ERDMS (PM6). For the Netherlands, PM6 is estimated to require additional 1.5 full time equivalents (FTE) relative to the baseline, based on the feedback received during the stakeholders’ consultation. This has been extrapolated to the other Member States based on the size of their network in relation to that of the Netherlands. Assuming 240 working days per year and 7.3 hours of work per day on average and using the tariff per hour for non-manual workers (ISCO 8 – Plant and machine operators and assemblers) from Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, the recurrent administrative costs for national public authorities due to PM6 are estimated at EUR 0.66 million per year relative to the baseline from 2025 onwards.

Moreover, the complaint mechanism introduced by PO-A and PO-B is expected to generate administrative costs for handling the RIS related complaints (PM2). The recurrent administrative costs for PM2, totalling EUR 0.92 million per year from 2025 onwards, are estimated based on the costs for the Netherlands (EUR 150,000) provided by Rijkswaterstaat, and the network usage and the size of the network in each Member State relative to that of the Netherlands. Furthermore, PO-A and PO-B entail administrative costs of EUR 0.39 million per year for managing and maintaining the system of exchange of personal data (PM16) 100 . PO-B is additionally expected to result in recurrent administrative costs for maintaining and updating the system for the collection and update of data for voyage planning and navigation (RIS Index) on a regular basis (PM4), for managing the exchange with the ports (PM12), as well as with the systems of other modes (PM14). The recurrent administrative costs for PM4, PM12 and PM14 are assumed to be 25% of the investment costs in PM4, PM12 and PM14, respectively, based on the DINA study.

In PO-C, the common measures with PO-B (PM4, PM6 and PM14) would result in the same costs. In addition, PO-C would also lead to recurrent administrative costs for the collection and processing of data for the new Performance Measurement Framework (PM3) 101 , higher costs for maintaining the information exchange systems with ports (PM13) and the systems for exchange of personal data (PM17), as well as the maintenance of the system for the electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5) 102 .

Overall, PO-C is estimated to lead to the highest recurrent administrative costs, estimated at EUR 5.9 million per year relative to the baseline (see Table 4), followed by PO-B (EUR 4.3 million per year), and PO-A (EUR 2 million per year). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, they are estimated at EUR 104.3 million in PO-C, EUR 75.3 million in PO-B and EUR 34.9 million in PO-A relative to the baseline (see Table 67 in section 3 of Annex 4).

Recurrent administrative cost savings for national public authorities. In PO-A, by introducing the information exchange of cargo data through eFTI (PM7), national public authorities are expected to benefit of reduced efforts as all cargo reports would be reported in an electronic manner (see Table 4). According to the estimates provided by the Dutch authorities, a total elimination of the paper reports would lead to a reduction in the effort required equivalent to 8 full time equivalents (FTE) relative to the baseline. Considering the voluntary system in PM7, a 50% reduction in the paper cargo reports is assumed, equivalent to 4 FTEs saved relative to the baseline in 2026. This is extrapolated to the other Member States based on their respective transport activity relative to that of the Netherlands. In addition, the growth in the number of paper cargo reports over time is also taken into account. The costs savings have been estimated assuming 240 working days per year and 7.3 hours of work per day on average and using the tariff per hour for non-manual workers (ISCO 8 – Plant and machine operators and assemblers) from Eurostat Structure of earnings survey. They are projected at EUR 0.62 million in 2030 and EUR 0.74 million in 2050, relative to the baseline.

In PO-B and PO-C, mandating cargo-related information to be exchanged through the eFTI mechanism (PM8) is expected to lead to higher costs savings (EUR 1.25 million in 2030 and EUR 1.47 million in 2050, relative to the baseline) than for PM7, due to the full elimination of the paper reports 103 . The use of RIS COMEX (PM9) in PO-B and PO-C will bring further costs savings of EUR 0.5 million per year, relative to the baseline, by gradually replacing the national platforms. PO-C will result in additional costs savings relative to PO-B through reduced efforts for controls at borders (PM15). Based on interviews during the stakeholders’ consultation, border officers spend on average 5 minutes for these controls on each side of the border. Considering the labour cost per hour (EUR 26.7 per hour) and the number of vessels that cross borders where a control is established (87,420 on average), the administrative costs savings for national public authorities due to PM15 are estimated at EUR 0.39 million per year from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline.

Overall, PO-C is estimated to lead to the highest recurrent administrative costs savings, estimated at EUR 2.1 million in 2030 and EUR 2.4 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 4), followed by PO-B (EUR 1.8 million costs savings in 2030 and EUR 2 million in 2050), and PO-A (EUR 0.6 million costs savings in 2030 and EUR 0.7 million in 2050). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, they are estimated at EUR 37.4 million in PO-C, EUR 30.6 million in PO-B and EUR 11.4 million in PO-A relative to the baseline (see Table 67 in section 3 of Annex 4).

Table 4: Recurrent costs and costs savings for national public authorities by policy option and measure in 2030, 2040 and 2050, relative to the baseline (in million EUR, in 2022 prices)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024), impact assessment support study

Net costs for national public authorities. All policy options result in net costs for national public authorities. Net recurrent costs are estimated to be the highest in PO-C (EUR 3.8 million in 2030 and EUR 3.6 million in 2050 relative to the baseline), followed by PO-B (EUR 2.5 million in 2030 and EUR 2.3 million in 2050) and PO-A (EUR 1.3 million in 2030 and EUR 1.2 million in 2050). These come in addition to the one-off costs of EUR 28.2 million in PO-C, EUR 18.3 million in PO-B and EUR 5.6 million in PO-A. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 67 in section 3 of Annex 4), PO-C results in the highest net one-off and recurrent costs for national public authorities of EUR 95 million, followed by PO-B (EUR 63 million) and PO-A (EUR 29.1 million).

6.1.2Impact on the European Commission

Adjustment costs for the European Commission. PO-A is expected to lead to one-off adjustment costs for the Commission, for the development of guidelines (PM1). The development of the guidelines is assumed to proceed in two steps. A study will be carried out to compile the required elements and propose several options for the establishment of the technical specifications. In a second stage, an expert group will use the findings of the study to draft the guidelines. The one-off costs of the study are estimated at EUR 400,000. The average cost for a two-day workshop hosted by European Commission (EC), where participants are reimbursed by the EC, is around EUR 30,000. Two of such in-person workshops may be required as well as two online meetings. Compensation for the experts contributing to the online meetings is estimated at EUR 5,000 for each meeting. Therefore, the one-off adjustment costs for the European Commission are estimated at EUR 0.47 million in 2025. No additional costs for the Commission are foreseen in PO-B and PO-C relative to the baseline.

6.1.3Impact on businesses 

The two categories of businesses expected to be affected by this initiative are the vessel operators and the RIS software service providers 104 (see Table 5 and Table 6). Detailed explanations on the estimates and assumptions used for deriving the costs and costs savings for each policy measure included in the options and each stakeholder group are provided in Annex 4. Summary tables by policy option, policy measure, and stakeholder group for 2030, 2040 and 2050 and expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline are also provided in section 3 of Annex 4.

Vessel operators

Administrative costs for vessel operators. Only PO-C is expected to lead to administrative costs for vessel operators (see Table 5). In PO-C, the recurrent administrative costs for vessel operators are due to the mandatory electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5), as vessel operators will need to spend more time in preparing these reports (estimated at around 1 hour per voyage). Based on replies by inland skippers in the context of stakeholders’ consultation, preparing and communicating a voyage plan will take 34 minutes for the first notification and 14 minutes for follow-up notifications. The total number of vessel voyages (passenger and freight) is projected at 729,880 in 2030 and 744,806 in 2050 in the baseline. It is estimated that for these voyages 729,880 first notifications would be required in 2030 and 744,806 in 2050, as well as 1,416,312 follow-up notifications in 2030 and 1,518,409 in 2050 105 . Thus, the additional administrative costs due to PM5 are estimated at EUR 19.7 million in 2030 and EUR 20.6 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 they are estimated at EUR 367.5 million relative to the baseline. For the purpose of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the average annual administrative costs per vessel voyage are estimated at EUR 27.1, while the average number of vessel voyages during 2025-2035 at EUR 727,100. The annual average administrative costs for 2025-2035 due to PM5 are thus estimated at EUR 19.7 million in PO-C.

As explained in section 1, the turnover of the sector was EUR 7 billion in 2020 106 , and this is expected to grow over time in line with the projected transport activity. Therefore, the costs of PO-C are estimated to represent a very small share of the turnover, while PO-A and PO-B result in no additional costs for vessel operators.

Adjustment costs savings for vessel operators. PO-A is expected to bring adjustment cost savings to vessel operators in the form of reduced effort to plan their journey due to the guidelines (PM1) and due to the better RIS data as problems get resolved through the complaint mechanism (PM2). In the baseline scenario, the time required for preparing an international trip is estimated at 15 minutes and that for a domestic trip at 10 minutes. Based on discussions with training institutes in inland navigation (and validated by the sector in the targeted workshop), trip preparation time for international trips is expected to decrease by 2.5 minutes relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards due to PM1 and by 8% for international and domestic trips due to PM2 (1.2 minutes for international trips and 0.8 minutes for domestic trips). PM1 is expected to lead to adjustment costs savings of EUR 0.49 million in 2030 and EUR 0.5 million in 2050 relative to the baseline, while PM2 at costs savings of EUR 0.35 million in 2030 and EUR 0.36 million in 2050. Furthermore, improved quality of RIS data in the ERDMS (PM6) will reduce the time needed for voyage planning. Based on feedback from vessel operators, the time needed for voyage planning can be reduced by 20% due to PM6 (2 minutes saved for each domestic voyage and 3 minutes saved for each international trip) relative to the baseline, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.85 million in 2030 and EUR 0.86 million in 2050. Thus, total adjustment cost savings in PO-A are estimated at around EUR 1.7 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 5), equivalent to EUR 29.6 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050.

PO-B includes the same benefits as PO-A for PM2 and PM6, with additional adjustment costs savings coming from reduced efforts for voyage planning due to better navigation information (PM4). The time needed for voyage planning can be reduced by 15% due to PM4 (1.5 minutes saved for each domestic voyage and 2.25 minutes saved for each international trip), based on feedback from vessel operators, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.63 million in 2030 and EUR 0.65 million in 2050. Savings for voyage planning will also materialise for skippers thanks to the centralisation of information in the RIS platform (PM9) and the better exchange with ports for planning their voyage (PM12). In PM9, a 50% reduction in the time required for preparing an international voyage is assumed (7.5 minutes) from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline, based on stakeholders’ feedback, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 1.48 million in 2030 and EUR 1.51 million in 2050. With regard to PM12, an average of 5 minutes per port call is assumed for trip preparation for the ports’ section in the baseline. In the process, important information should be retrieved, such as how deep the port is in relation to the depth of the channel, as well as where berths are and where loading/unloading can take place, etc. This information is difficult to obtain now. The new technical specification for ports will facilitate the voyage preparation for the ports’ section. Based on stakeholders’ input, PM12 could reduce the time for voyage planning by 21% per port call (1 minute saved), equivalent to costs savings of around EUR 0.17 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline. Total adjustment costs savings in PO-B are estimated at EUR 3.5 million in 2030 and EUR 3.6 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 5), equivalent to EUR 72.1 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050.

In PO-C, savings for vessel operators for PM4, PM6 and PM9 are the same as in PO-B. In addition, the new performance measurement framework (PM3) is expected to bring savings in the time needed to plan the voyage due to more accurate information, while the electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5) will lead to operation costs savings (i.e. fuel costs savings) due to more efficient voyages. For PM3, the vessel operators that responded to the survey estimated that the time spent on planning trips will decrease by 4% on average relative to the baseline (0.6 minutes for each international trip and 0.4 minutes for each domestic trip) from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of around EUR 0.18 million in 2030 and in 2050. For PM5, operation costs savings for vessel operators are expected through reduced speed of ships and less manoeuvring movements (e.g. braking the ship, mooring at waiting jetties, leaving and entering the lock). These savings are mainly related to the crossing of locks and adaptation of the speed in the proximity of a lock (i.e. the last hour). The adjustment of speed in the proximity of a lock (i.e. during the last hour) is estimated to lead to 5% savings in fuel consumption. Based on statistics for the Netherlands, vessels cross on average 4 locks per trip. Also considering the total number of voyages and a consumption of 60 litres per hour of sailing, savings are estimated at around 0.9% of the energy consumption (9.3 kilo tonnes of oil equivalent in 2030 and 8.3 kilo tonnes of oil equivalent in 2050), equivalent to costs savings of EUR 15.04 million in 2030 and EUR 15.24 million in 2050 relative to the baseline 107 .

Better managing of cargo information and exchanges with ports for planning the voyage (PM13) is also expected to lead to adjustment costs savings. Based on stakeholders’ input, PM13 could reduce the time for voyage planning per port call by 65% (3.2 minutes saved) relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.52 million in 2030 and EUR 0.53 million in 2050. Thus, the total adjustment cost savings for vessel operators in PO-C are estimated at EUR 18.7 million in 2030 and EUR 19 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 5), equivalent to EUR 324 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050.

Administrative cost savings for vessel operators. All policy options result in administrative costs savings for vessel operators (see Table 5). In PO-A, skippers will spend less time in re-registering cargo information as reporting will be possible through eFTI (PM7). Around 30% of all cross-border trips are estimated to require repeated notifications. Based on the interviews and stakeholders’ survey, repeated notifications take around 15 minutes per vessel operator. PM7 is expected to reduce the share of repeated notifications by 10 percentage points relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to administrative costs savings of around EUR 0.29 million in 2030 and in 2050.

Legal clarity for private data exchanges (PM16) will reduce re-reporting efforts in PO-A and PO-B. It is estimated that PM16 would lead to a decrease by 20% in the number of resubmitted reports to ports relative to the baseline (72,988 reduction in 2030 and 74,481 in 2050). The resubmission of electronic cargo reports to ports takes around 10 minutes per port call. Thus, the costs savings due to PM16 are estimated at EUR 0.32 million in 2030 and EUR 0.33 million in 2050 relative to the baseline 108 . For the purpose of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the average reduction in the number of resubmitted cargo reports over 2026-2035 due to PM16 has been estimated at 72,799 per year relative to the baseline and the average costs saved per resubmission at EUR 4.4. Thus, the average annual administrative costs savings for vessel operators due to PM16 are estimated at EUR 0.32 million relative to the baseline.

Both PO-B and PO-C will bring administrative cost savings to vessel operators (savings in PO-C being higher) due to the reduction in the number of cargo reports resubmitted to inland ports (PM12 in PO-B and PM13 in PO-C, see Table 5). The time for preparing and re-submitting the reports is estimated at 10 minutes in the baseline. For PM12, administrative costs savings are expected for all 83 core TEN-T network ports. PM12 could reduce the number of resubmitted cargo reports by 31% relative to the baseline, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.51 million in 2030 and EUR 0.52 million in 2050. In PM13, all 262 inland ports of the core and comprehensive TEN-T network will be automatically receiving the (electronic) cargo reports and therefore, vessel operators will not have to resubmit them. Thus, the costs savings for PM13 are estimated at EUR 1.62 million in 2030 and EUR 1.66 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. For the purpose of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the average reduction in the number of resubmitted cargo reports due to PM12 over 2026-2035 is estimated at 114,006 per year relative to the baseline and the average costs saved per resubmission at EUR 4.4. Thus, the average annual administrative costs savings for vessel operators due to PM12 during 2026-2035 are estimated at EUR 0.5 million relative to the baseline. For PM13, the average reduction in the number of resubmitted cargo reports over 2026-2035 is estimated at 363,996 per year relative to the baseline and the average annual administrative costs savings at EUR 1.6 million.

In PO-B and PO-C, administrative costs savings for vessel operators are also expected due to the use of eFTI for the cargo reporting that reduces resubmissions (PM8), as well as through the use of RIS COMEX as the single platform (PM9) (see Table 5). Around 30% of all cross-border trips are estimated to require repeated notifications. Based on the interviews and stakeholders’ survey, repeated notifications take around 15 minutes per vessel operator. PM8 is expected to reduce the share of repeated notifications by 20 percentage points relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.57 million in 2030 and EUR 0.59 million in 2050. In addition, when the use of RIS COMEX, including the CEERIS tool, becomes mandatory, vessel operators on the Danube will benefit from a single electronic notification of cargo data. Thus, PM9 is expected to reduce the share of repeated notifications by 8 percentage points relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.22 million in 2030 and EUR 0.23 million in 2050. For the purpose of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, in PM8 the average reduction in the number of repeated notifications over 2026-2035 is estimated at 88,397 per year relative to the baseline and the average costs saved per repeated notification at EUR 6.5. Thus, the average annual administrative costs savings for vessel operators due to PM8 during 2026-2035 are estimated at EUR 0.6 million relative to the baseline. For PM9, the average reduction in the number of repeated notifications over 2026-2035 is estimated at 34,448 per year relative to the baseline and the average annual administrative costs savings at EUR 0.2 million.

In addition, in PO-C vessel operators will also benefit from costs savings due to the reduction in the number of resubmissions of cargo reports when crossing borders (PM15) and to ports, driven by the improved clarity on the exchanges of information which may contain personal data (PM17). Considering the synergies with PM8 and PM9 (both included in PO-C), PM15 is expected to reduce the share of repeated notifications by 2 percentage points relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.06 million in 2030 and EUR 0.07 million in 2050. In PM17, by clarifying instances when Automatic Identification System (AIS) data can and cannot be shared, it is estimated that the number of resubmitted reports to ports would decrease by 30% relative to the baseline from 2026 onwards, equivalent to costs savings of EUR 0.49 million in 2030 and EUR 0.50 million in 2050.

Total administrative costs savings for vessel operators (see Table 5) are estimated to be the highest in PO-C (around EUR 3 million in 2030 and in 2050) relative to the baseline, followed by PO-B (EUR 1.6 million in 2030 and EUR 1.7 million in 2050) and PO-A (around EUR 0.6 million in 2030 and in 2050). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 they are estimated at EUR 51.9 in PO-C, EUR 28.5 million in PO-B and EUR 10.7 million in PO-A relative to the baseline scenario.

Table 5: Recurrent costs and costs savings for vessels operators by policy option and measure in 2030, 2040 and 2050, relative to the baseline (in million EUR, in 2022 prices)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024), impact assessment support study

Net costs savings for vessel operators. Overall, all policy options are estimated to result in net costs savings for vessel operators. The costs savings are expected to be the highest in PO-B (EUR 5.1 million in 2030 and EUR 5.2 million in 2050) relative to the baseline, followed by PO-A (EUR 2.3 million in 2030 and EUR 2.4 million in 2050) and PO-C (EUR 1.9 million in 2030 and EUR 1.4 million in 2050). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, they are estimated at EUR 100.6 million in PO-B, EUR 40.2 million in PO-A and EUR 8.4 million in PO-C relative to the baseline (see Table 62  in section 3 of Annex 4). 

RIS software services providers

Adjustment costs savings for software services providers. Providers of RIS software services are expected to benefit of costs savings thanks to access to more and better quality data. More specifically, PO-A will lead to adjustment costs savings as the guidelines (PM1) and the provision of data to the ERDMS by the Member States (PM6) will reduce the efforts of introducing data in their systems and correcting mistakes. The complaint mechanism will also streamline the procedure of contacting authorities to report incorrect data (PM2). The average cost for software service providers for introducing the data into their systems is estimated at EUR 452 per year, per vessel (in 2022 prices) in the baseline. Considering the evolution of the fleet in the baseline scenario the total costs for navigation software service providers for introducing the data into their systems are estimated at EUR 7.2 million in 2030 and EUR 7.3 million in 2050. According to feedback provided by the RIS software service providers (i.e. by the two navigation software service providers that serve around 90% of the market) during the second stakeholder survey, PM1 would allow to reduce the average cost per vessel by 1% relative to the baseline (i.e. EUR 4.52 saved per vessel) from 2026 onwards. PM6 is estimated to reduce the average cost per vessel by 2% relative to the baseline (i.e. EUR 9.04 saved per vessel), while PM2 by 0.5% (i.e. EUR 2.26 saved per vessel). The total adjustment costs savings for software services providers in PO-A are thus estimated at around EUR 0.3 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 6).

In PO-B, the costs savings due to PM2 and PM6 are the same as in PO-A. In addition, adjustment costs savings for software services providers are expected because of obtaining easier and better-quality data through the RIS Index (PM4), from RIS COMEX (PM9), from ports (PM12) and from better links with the systems of other modes (PM14). For PM4, based on stakeholders’ feedback, the average cost reduction per vessel is estimated at 2% relative to the baseline (i.e. EUR 9.04 saved per vessel), equivalent to total costs savings of EUR 0.14 million in 2030 and EUR 0.15 million in 2050 (see Table 6). For PM9, the average cost reduction per vessel is estimated at 1% relative to the baseline (i.e. EUR 4.52 saved per vessel), while for PM12 at 0.75% (i.e. EUR 3.39 saved per vessel) and for PM14 at 0.25% (i.e. EUR 1.13 saved per vessel). Thus, total costs savings due to PO-B are estimated at around EUR 0.5 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 6).

In PO-C, besides the costs savings due to PM4, PM6, PM9 and PM14 that are the same as in PO-B, software services providers will benefit from access to more and better-quality data thanks to the new performance measurement framework (PM3) and the link with the inland ports (PM13). For PM3, the reduction in the average cost per vessel is estimated at 0.25% (i.e. EUR 1.13 saved per vessel), based on stakeholders’ feedback, equivalent to total costs savings of EUR 0.02 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline. For PM13, the reduction in the average cost per vessel is estimated at 1.25% (i.e. EUR 5.65 saved per vessel), equivalent to total costs savings of EUR 0.09 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline. Thus, total adjustment costs savings for software services providers in PO-C are estimated at around EUR 0.5 million in 2030 and in 2050 relative to the baseline.

Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 64 in section 3 of Annex 4), the highest costs savings for RIS software services providers are estimated for PO-C (EUR 8.4 million), followed by PO-B (EUR 8.1 million) and PO-A (EUR 4.4 million).

Table 6: Adjustment costs savings for navigation software services providers by policy option and measure in 2030, 2040 and 2050, relative to the baseline (in million EUR, in 2022 prices)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024), impact assessment support study

6.1.4Impact on new reporting obligations

For national public administrations, in all policy options Member States would need to provide all information required by the RIS Directive to the European Reference Data Management System (due to PM6), which contains regularly updated data necessary for the provision of RIS and is owned and operated by the European Commission. As explained in section 6.1.1, PM6 would lead to recurrent administrative costs for national public administrations estimated at EUR 0.66 million per year from 2025 onwards, equivalent to EUR 12.2 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. It should however be noted that thanks to PM6 the time needed for voyage planning can be reduced by 20%, leading to adjustment costs savings for vessel operators of EUR 0.85 million in 2030 and EUR 0.86 million in 2050, or EUR 14.8 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. In addition, for software services providers the adjustment costs savings due to PM6 are estimated at EUR 0.14 million in 2030 and EUR 0.15 million in 2050, equivalent to EUR 2.5 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline 109 . Thus, the costs related to reporting obligations for national public authorities due to PM6 are outweighed by the costs savings for businesses (vessel operators and software services providers). In addition, PO-C requires Member States (measure PM3) to report to the Commission, on a regular basis, on key performance indicators (e.g. the number of shipping messages issued in accordance with standards and interpretations from the most recent RIS encoding guide, and the number of electronic cargo reports received in relation to the number of voyages). The recurrent administrative costs for national public administrations due to PM3 are estimated at EUR 0.65 million per year from 2025 onwards, or EUR 12 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. At the same time, PM3 is estimated to lead to adjustment costs savings for vessel operators (around EUR 0.18 million in 2030 and in 2050, equivalent to EUR 3.1 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline) and software providers (around EUR 0.02 million in 2030 and in 2050, equivalent to EUR 0.3 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline).

For businesses, no reporting obligations arise in PO-A and PO-B. PO-C includes a requirement on electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5) for vessel operators. As explained in section 6.1.3, this requirement would lead to recurrent administrative costs for vessel operators estimated at EUR 19.7 million in 2030 and EUR 20.6 million in 2050, equivalent to EUR 367.5 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. At the same time, PM5 is expected to result in energy savings for vessel operators estimated at EUR 15 million in 2030 and EUR 15.2 million in 2050, or EUR 248.7 million expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. 

6.1.5Impacts on SMEs

According to Eurostat, around 5,500 IWT freight transport companies are active in Europe (EU plus Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Switzerland), employing more than 23,000 persons. In addition, there are around 4,000 passenger companies which employ around 14,000 persons. While no data is available at EU level for the number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) within the IWT sector, one characteristic of the IWT sector is the high number of SMEs. According to the CCNR, the majority of companies in Western Europe are small family owned operating one or two vessels, while companies in the Danube region are bigger as they derive from previously state-owned enterprises. For the software providers CESNI provides a list of around 20 companies as providers for ECDIS and inland AIS 110 , while a Member State expert estimated the potential number to be up to 50 companies. A review of the information related to these companies, based on their public websites, indicates that the majority of them are SMEs, employing less than 250 employees. At the same time, it should be noted that two navigation software service providers serve around 90% of the market. Therefore, the initiative is considered “relevant” for the SMEs due to the high share of SME vessel operators and software companies within the IWT sector. It is not however considered as “highly relevant” due to the small size of the IWT sector. The SME test has been therefore performed (see Annex 6). 

As explained in section 6.1.3, all policy options are expected to result in net costs savings for vessel operators and navigation software services providers. More specifically, for vessel operators PO-B would result in net costs savings estimated at EUR 100.6 million, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, followed by PO-A (EUR 40.2 million) and PO-C (EUR 8.4 million). It should however be noted that PO-C would also result in additional administrative costs, relate to the obligation of reporting the electronic voyage plan (PM5), estimated at EUR 27.1 per vessel journey. However, even PO-C results in overall net costs savings for vessel operators due to the significant energy savings entailed by PM5 and costs savings entailed by other measures included in this option. When considering the impact of each measure, as explained in section 3 of Annex 4, for vessel operators this will primarily materialise in time saved for planning voyages and improvements in navigation efficiency (as they will be warned of bottlenecks and thus adapt their speed), and administrative costs in case of PM5 (included in PO-C) as their reporting obligations will increase. Software services providers would benefit of costs savings, as a result of higher quality data to be used in their software which will reduce their efforts to collect this information, of EUR 8.4 million in PO-C, EUR 8.1 million in PO-B and EUR 4.4 million in PO-A, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. Considering the very large share of SMEs among vessel operators and software services providers, most of these net costs savings are expected to be attributed to them although the available data did not allow a split of these costs savings between the two groups of operators (i.e. SME and others).

6.1.6Impact on the functioning of the internal market and competition

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market. Improving the information exchange between the different actors in the IWT sector allows to deliver better inland transport services. By harmonising the provision of RIS between Member States, an important step is taken towards the completion of the single market as vessel operating in different parts of the EU will not be confronted with different operational requirements. Vessel operators that cross borders will also benefit from more standardised reporting requirements and high-quality of information. Thus, an important barrier is removed. PO-A would lead to limited impacts on harmonisation, and thus on internal market, while PO-B and PO-C will benefit vessel operators to a larger extent as they contain more detailed harmonisation provisions. Software services providers will also benefit from higher quality of underlying data which will help them in developing and offering competitive products. The better integration of IWT sector in the internal market will in turn increase its ability to compete for cross border carriage of goods.

6.1.7Impact on competitiveness

As explained in section 1, IWT is quite active in the transport of non-time sensitive goods (e.g. bulk or liquid cargo). To increase the competitiveness of intermodal inland waterways transport, focus is needed on incentivising the transport of goods that are more time sensitive (i.e. typically the container market). For this market segment, reliability is important and IWT would need to match the higher reliability standards of road transport, which benefits from a reduced number of actors (door-to-door services, less handling) and higher flexibility (in particular compared to “network” modes, like IWT and rail).

Several policy measures are expected to have an impact on modal shift, away from road transport to intermodal inland waterway transport. In particular PM4 is expected to increase the efficiency in navigation, as improved data (e.g. on waiting times or obstacles) will improve navigation performance. PM14 will have a similar effect through improved links with the systems of other modes (e.g. the estimated time of arrival will be available, which in turn will contribute to the optimisation of the logistics chain). This will lead to increased performance, predictability and reliability of the intermodal IWT sector, increasing the potential to attract freight from other modes. The impact of PM4 and PM14 (both included in PO-B and PO-C) on modal shift has been assessed together, due to the synergies between the measures.

No study has been identified that examines the issue of reliability in the IWT sector. However, a 2019 TRT study 111 , examining the modal shift potential for rail, provides a good approximation for identifying the impact of improved reliability for intermodal IWT. Like IWT, rail is also a “network” mode (though with a wider network) and it also carries both time-sensitive and cost-sensitive goods. The study found that the lack of punctuality was the most important reason provided by the surveyed logistics operators and freight forwarders for not choosing rail instead of road. It further estimated (through a stated preference survey) the impact of an increase in reliability in shifting freight away from road (i.e. the cross elasticity). Given the similarities between rail and IWT, the fact that both compete against road, and in the absence of further specific research, the results of the rail study are used as a proxy for estimating the potential modal shift from road to IWT. In addition, sensitivity analysis has been performed and is presented in section 7.6. 

As explained above, based on the results of a stated preference survey run as part of the 2019 TRT study, a linear correlation between punctuality and modal shift potential has been identified. More specifically, the study indicates that for each 10% increase in punctuality a 6.1% increase in transport demand could be expected. To determine the impact on reliability for the inland waterway sector, information on average waiting times at locks has been collected in the context of the impact assessment support study 112 and the impact on reliability has been derived based on desk-research 113 . In the baseline scenario, the total travel time for freight inland waterways transport is estimated at 12 million hours in 2025, 12.19 million hours in 2030 and 12.42 million hours in 2050, while the waiting time at 0.54 million hours in 2025, 0.55 million hours in 2030 and 0.56 million hours in 2050. The reliability of travel time in inland shipping is thus estimated at 95.5% in the baseline scenario. Information on the position of the ship and the expected arrival time of ships can increase the reliability by a maximum of 4.5%. Drawing on the correlation between the increase in punctuality and transport demand from the TRT study, the model shift potential is estimated at 2.7% relative to the baseline. This modal shift potential is only applied to intermodal transport 114 , as not all goods transported by road may be suitable for transport by IWT, while the IWT network is much more limited compared to that of road. Drawing on the evolution of freight IWT activity in the baseline scenario, the model shift potential and the share of intermodal transport in IWT, the transport activity shifted from road to freight IWT in PO-B and PO-C is estimated at 0.35 billion tonne-kilometres (tkm) in 2026, 0.38 billion tkm in 2030 and 0.45 billion tkm in 2050. More details are provided in Annex 4 (section 4).

Vessel operators suggested that measures such as exchange of information through the eFTI mechanism (PM7 in PO-A and PM8 in PO-B and PO-C) as well as links with ports (PM12 in PO-B and PM13 in PO-C) may also have a positive impact on increasing the competitiveness of the IWT sector. However, they impacts are expected to be more limited than those of PM4 and PM14. As no quantitative input was provided by stakeholders and considering their limited expected impact, no further analysis was undertaken.

While the revision of the RIS Directive will make the EU inland waterway transport more efficient and reliable, including positive impacts on neighbouring countries such as Serbia and Ukraine which are already voluntarily applying RIS Directive, the initiative has no impact on the international competitiveness of the sector.

6.1.8Impacts on innovation

The NAIADES III Action Plan indicates the need for the inland waterway transport sector to keep up with digital developments to improve the sector’s competitiveness and ensure that it becomes an active part of a broader multimodal chain 115 . Innovation in inland navigation is both necessary to maintain its modal share and to improve its performance.

All policy options are expected to positively affect the IWT sector’s capacity to innovate. By providing better quality RIS data they will lead to the provision of more accurate services and eventually set the basis upon which further digital applications can be developed (for example for planning and optimisation of navigation, avoidance of obstacles and warning of navigation hazards, etc.). In all policy options the introduction of cargo information through eFTI will increase the quantity and quality of information available in the eFTI platforms, which then could feed the development of business-to-business applications. In addition, in PO-B and PO-C the increased links and exchange of information with other modes has the potential to improve multimodality and will allow developers of logistics and travel planning and cargo management applications to include IWT in their solutions.

In the medium to long term, the information provided by RIS regarding navigation and the digital exchange of information will become an important basis for the development and operation of automated vessels and smart shipping 116 . As the availability of high-quality data is an essential prerequisite for the use automated inland vessels, the uptake of smart shipping is related to the policy measures aiming to create high-level quality data (PM6 and PM10 in all policy options, and PM4 and PM9 in PO-B and PO-C). PO-A is expected to have a limited impact on enabling the uptake of smart shipping as it will only promote better quality RIS data through provisions for supplying data to the ERDMS (PM6) and faster development of technical specifications by CESNI (PM10). In PO-B and PO-C, the new technical specifications on data for navigation and voyage planning (PM4) and the information exchange through the RIS COMEX platform (PM9) will further enable the uptake of smart shipping. Overall, based on the analysis above PO-B and PO-C are expected to have higher positive impacts on innovation in the IWT sector than PO-A. 

6.1.9Digital by default 

All policy options will have a positive impact on the application of the ‘digital by default’ principle. PO-A is expected to have a more limited positive impact relative to the baseline, driven by the improved quality of the underlying data for RIS (PM6), faster development of technical specifications by CESNI (PM10) and by encouraging the use of eFTI for data exchange (PM7). The positive impact of PO-B is assessed to be higher due to the introduction of RIS COMEX as the main platform for exchange of RIS information (PM9), a platform that is also the basis for the development of digital applications for other measures under consideration. Furthermore, by mandating the use of eFTI (PM8) and introducing better links with ports (PM12) and other modes (PM14), PO-B improves the interoperability of IWT through digital solutions. PO-C goes a step further, with higher positive impacts on digitalisation than PO-B and PO-A, as it requires electronic voyage plan reporting (PM5) and the exchange of cross-border data (PM15), and mandates electronic exchange with ports (PM13).

6.1.10Impacts on congestion

As discussed in section 6.1.7, measures PM4 and PM14 (included in PO-B and PO-C) are expected to lead to higher use of freight IWT and a shift away from road transport, thus in turn reducing road congestion 117 . The reduction in the external costs of road congestion in PO-B and PO-C are estimated at EUR 4.7 million in 2030 and EUR 5.6 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (in 2022 prices) 118 . Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, this is equivalent to EUR 86.8 million in PO-B and PO-C. No impact on congestion is expected in PO-A. More details are provided in Annex 4 (section 4). 

6.1.11Territorial impacts

As explained in section 1, the interconnected waterway network of 13,000 km covers 13 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, France, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovakia) serving over 250 TEN-T inland ports in the TEN-T network. Thus, the initiative and the analysis is limited to the relevant Member States and their waterways.

The inland waterways transport sector is small in terms of market size (EUR 7 billion of turnover in 2020, compared to EUR 454 billion for road transport and EUR 61 billion for rail) and inland modal share (6% of freight inland traffic, compared to 77% for road transport and 17% for rail). In addition, the impacts of all policy options in terms of net costs savings for vessel operators are estimated at less than 0.1% of the annual turnover of the sector. As no significant impact is expected due to the initiative, a territorial impact assessment has not been performed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the positive impacts due to the policy options are expected to be localised around the inland ports of the 13 Member States concerned, and within the rivers themselves. The positive impacts of the modal shift in terms of congestion, safety and environment will primarily materialise in the areas from which traffic is shifted away from road. Their magnitude is however also very limited, due to the small size of the sector.

6.2Social impacts

The social impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on safety and fundamental rights.

6.2.1Impacts on safety

In PO-B and PO-C, implementing new RIS technical specifications (PM4) and improving the links with the systems of other modes (PM14), induces higher use of IWT and a shift away from road transport (see section 6.1.7) that has an indirect positive impact on road safety. More specifically, the reduction in the road freight transport activity relative to the baseline (by 0.38 billion tkm in 2030 and 0.45 billion tkm in 2050) is estimated to lead to a reduction in the external costs of accidents, estimated at EUR 6.3 million in 2030 and EUR 7.5 million in 2050 119 . Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, PO-B and PO-C are projected to result in savings in the external costs of accidents of EUR 115.8 million relative to the baseline. No significant impacts are expected in PO-A relative to the baseline.

In the baseline scenario the number of accidents in IWT is projected to increase from 529 in 2015, to 535 in 2030 and 551 in 2050, driven by the increase in the transport activity. According to Intergo (2021) 120 , accidents in inland navigation are due to human error in 70 to 80% of the cases. Statistics published by Eurostat and Rijkswaterstaat indicate that most reported accidents involve grounding, collisions with infrastructure or collisions with other ships. Measures that aim to improve the situational awareness of the vessel operators (PM4 in PO-B and PO-C, PM5 in PO-C and PM6 in PO-A, PO-B and PO-C) should have a positive impact on avoiding accidents in IWT. The evaluation indicated that water level messages concerning bridge passages can avoid collision with infrastructure, and messages related to traffic can help avoid collisions between ships. Given that up to date and accurate under keel clearance heights are only made available for a very limited number of bridges, providing such information is expected to have a positive impact on the safety in the IWT sector. However, the evaluation did not succeed in quantifying such benefits. In addition, the information provided during the stakeholder consultation on the impact assessment did not allow to identify a clear indicator that could be used to reflect the impact of these measures on avoiding accidents. While a quantitative assessment was not possible, the impacts of PO-B and PO-C on safety in the IWT sector are expected to be higher than those of PO-A.

6.2.2Impacts on fundamental rights

The policy options were assessed to determine if they have an impact on the fundamental rights and/or equal treatment of EU citizens. The starting point of the assessment of the fundamental rights is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 121 . All policy options were assessed having regard to the relevant EU instrument and it was concluded that they maintain full respect for human and fundamental rights, and none will have any negative impact thereon. Furthermore, none of the policy options mandate the exchange of personal data, but only provide more clarity (through PM16 and PM17) on the conditions under which the handling of personal information by national authorities is allowed (PM16), or define the technical aspects of how such an exchange should be done through RIS if appropriate (PM17). This is fully in line with applicable legislation, thus increasing legal clarity for users of RIS services.

6.3Environmental impacts

The environmental impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on CO2 emissions, air pollution emissions, noise reduction and effects on habitats. More detailed information is provided in section 4 of Annex 4 (see Table 71 to Table 76 ). 

CO2 emissions. As explained in section 6.1.7, in PO-B and PO-C, implementing new RIS technical specifications (PM4) and improving the links with the systems of other modes (PM14) would result in higher use of IWT and a reduction in the road freight transport activity relative to the baseline (by 0.38 billion tkm in 2030 and 0.45 billion tkm in 2050). This is expected to result in CO2 emissions savings estimated at 22.5 thousand tonnes in 2030 and 5.6 thousand tonnes in 2050 relative to the baseline. PO-C is estimated to have further impact in reducing CO2 emissions relative to PO-B through the reduced energy use of IWT vessels, as mandating electronic voyage planning (PM5) will increase the situational awareness in the fairways and thus lead to more efficient navigation. PM5 is estimated to result in 22.7 thousand tonnes of CO2 emissions saved in 2030 and 9 thousand tonnes saved in 2050. Thus, the highest reduction in CO2 emissions is estimated for PO-C (45.2 thousand tonnes saved in 2030 and 14.5 thousand tonnes saved in 2050), followed by PO-B with 22.5 thousand tonnes saved in 2030 and 5.6 thousand tonnes saved in 2050, relative to the baseline. Cumulatively, over 2025-2050, CO2 emissions savings are estimated at 832.1 thousand tonnes in PO-C and 389.1 thousand tonnes in PO-B relative to the baseline. No significant impact on CO2 emissions is expected for PO-A. Using the unit costs of CO2 emissions from the 2019 Handbook on external costs of transport, the reduction in the external costs of CO2 emissions for PO-C is estimated at EUR 5.4 million in 2030 and EUR 4.6 million in 2050, relative to the baseline, and for PO-B at EUR 2.7 million in 2030 and EUR 1.8 million in 2050 (see Table 7). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, this is equivalent to EUR 105.2 million saved in PO-C and EUR 48.6 million in PO-B.

Air pollution. The drivers for the impacts on NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions are the same as those for CO2 emissions. PO-B is however expected to result in a limited increase in the NOx and PM emissions relative to the baseline (for NOx: 19.7 tonnes in 2030 and 21.3 tonnes in 2050, and for PM: 3.2 tonnes in 2030 and 1.6 tonnes in 2050), due to the modal shift from road transport to IWT. This is because in the baseline scenario road vehicles are projected to increase their performance in terms of air pollution emissions faster than the IWT vessels, thanks to the Euro standards. Cumulatively, over 2025-2050, PO-B would result in 603.2 additional tonnes of NOx and 60.8 additional tonnes of PM emissions relative to the baseline. PO-C results in additional energy savings relative to PO-B, due to better travel information and adaptation of travel speed (PM5), which reduces air pollution. Overall, in terms of NOx emissions, PO-C results in 367.6 tonnes saved in 2030 and 129.5 tonnes saved in 2050, while in terms of PM emissions it results in 17 tonnes saved in 2030 and 6.3 tonnes saved in 2050 relative to the baseline. Cumulatively, over 2025-2050, PO-C would result in 6,552.3 tonnes of NOx saved and 338.8 tonnes of PM emissions saved.

Using the unit costs of air pollution emissions from the 2019 Handbook on external costs of transport, PO-B is estimated to result in an increase in the external costs of air pollution emissions estimated at EUR 0.7 million in 2030 and EUR 0.6 million in 2050, while PO-C would result in a reduction in external costs projected at EUR 9.4 million in 2030 and EUR 3.3 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 7). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the increase in the external costs of air pollution in PO-B is estimated at EUR 13.1 million and the reduction in PO-C at EUR 127.6 million relative to the baseline. No significant impact on air pollution emissions is expected for PO-A.

Noise reduction. Modal shift from road transport to IWT in PO-B and PO-C, driven by the implementation of PM4 and PM14, is projected to reduce noise emissions along the European road network, as less heavy goods vehicles will be circulating on the roads. Drawing on the 2019 Handbook on external costs of transport, the reduction in the external costs of noise emissions is estimated at EUR 2 million in 2030 and EUR 2.4 million in 2050, relative to the baseline (see Table 7). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the savings in external costs are estimated at EUR 36.6 million relative to the baseline in PO-B and PO-C. No significant impact on noise reduction is expected for PO-A.

Habitats. Modal shift from road transport to IWT in PO-B and PO-C would contribute to improving habitat quality along the European road network, by reducing the disturbance created by road transport crossing fragile natural areas. With an increase in waterborne transport, more disturbance of habitats is expected along the rivers. However, drawing on the 2019 Handbook on external costs of transport, the modal shift is projected to result in net gain. The external costs related to habitats are estimated to reduce by EUR 2 million in 2030 and EUR 2.3 million in 2050, relative to the baseline (see Table 7). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, this is equivalent to savings in external costs of EUR 36.2 million in PO-B and PO-C relative to the baseline. No significant impact on habitats is expected for PO-A.

Table 7: Impact on external costs of CO2 emissions, air pollution emissions, noise and habitats relative to the baseline in 2030, 2040 and 2050 (in million EUR, 2022 prices)

Source: Ramboll et al. (2024), impact assessment support study; Note: negative values refer to a reduction in external costs and positive values to an increase relative to the baseline.

PO-B and PO-C are consistent with the environmental objectives of the European Green Deal and the European Climate Law 122 , while PO-A has no significant impact in this respect. PO-B and PO-C contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal 13 (‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’). No significant harm is expected on the environment in any of the policy options. 

7How do the options compare?

7.1Effectiveness

The assessment of effectiveness looks at the extent to which the general and specific objectives (SO) of the intervention, as previously described, are met. Table 8 provides the links between policy objectives and assessment criteria.

Table 8: Links between objectives and assessment criteria