Table of contents 1.Introduction 2.Background to the River Information Services Directive 3.Implementation / state of Play 4.Method 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 6.Conclusions Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AIS Automatic Identification System BICS Barge Information and Communication System BICS Barge Information and Communication System CCNR Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine CEF Connecting Europe Facility CEMT class Inland waterway classification according to CEMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) Resolution No 92/2. CESNI / TI European committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation; TI is the working group on information technology EDI Electronic Data Interchange ELWIS Elektronisches Wasserstraßen Informations System ERDMS European Reference Data Management System ERI Electronic Reporting International ERINOT Electronic Reporting International Notification (message) EU European Union Fairway authority Competent authority for safety of inland navigation FTM Fairway and traffic related message (Notices to Skippers) GDP Gross domestic product GDPR General Data Protection Regulation ICEM Ice message (Notices to Skippers) ICT Information and communication technologies IEHG Inland Electronic Navigational Charts Harmonization Group IENC Inland Electronic Navigational Charts Inland ECDIS Inland Electronic Chart Display and Information System ISSG Inter Service Steering Group IWT Inland waterway transport MS EU Member State(s) NTS Notices to Skippers PIANC World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure RIS River information services RIS authority The authority with the responsibility for the management, operation and co-ordination of the RIS, the interaction with participating vessels and the safe and effective provision of the service. RIS Index A library of geographical entities for the purpose of electronic exchange of information for river information services. It contains a unique identification for each entity and several characteristics (attributes) assigned to this entity. The RIS Index is the de-facto implementation of Annex I of Directive 2005/44/EC. RIS provider The organisation or organisational unit assigned (typically by a RIS authority) to operate the RIS-System and to provide RIS-Services Skipper Boat master, shipmaster, master, master in charge and captain TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe VTS Vessel Traffic Services VTT Vessel Tracking and Tracing WERM Weather related message (Notices to Skippers) WRM Water level related message (Notices to Skippers) Fairway authority Competent authority for safety of inland navigation 1.Introduction This report presents the findings of the ex-post evaluation of the Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services on inland waterways in the Union (“RIS Directive”). Inland waterway transport (IWT) plays an important role for the transport of goods in Europe. More than 37,000 kilometres of waterways connect hundreds of cities and industrial regions. Thirteen out of twenty-seven Member States have interconnected waterway networks. Inland waterway transport makes a considerable contribution to the EU's transport system, despite its relative small size compared to other modes, while at the same time being an energy efficient mode contributing to the goal of a low carbon economy and to the European Green Deal. Initially, fairway authorities of Member States had been the main drivers of digitalisation in the IWT sector through the introduction of information and communication technologies (ICT). The aim of fairway authorities had been to improve the flow of relevant fairway related information to skippers or barge operators, in order to provide services for traffic management and improve accident prevention within their respective territories. National stand-alone telematics services had been developed since the late 1980s. Over time, as Member States deployed their applications, this led to a patchwork of national ICT systems in IWT across the EU. The lack of coordination between Member States generated avoidable (ICT and administrative) costs for European IWT companies and hindered the functioning of the single market in the sector. To reduce these inefficiencies - through improving the interoperability of national RIS systems, including its data exchange and communication - many different technical aspects needed to be harmonised across the European Union. This eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Union in 2005. The Directive established the first European framework of minimum requirements and technical specifications for the provision and use of RIS. It defined the general obligation of the Member States to ensure the development and implementation of river information services in an efficient, expandable and interoperable way. It applies to Member States that are part of the European interconnected network of waterways. Purpose and scope of this evaluation The purpose of this evaluation is to generate an evidence base to support any further decisions related to the development of the legislative framework in this policy area, including a possible revision of the current Directive. As fifteen years have passed since the Directive entered into force in 2005, it was considered time to assess how well the RIS Directive has performed relative to original expectations.

The evaluation is also part of the Commission’s efforts to simplify EU laws and reduce unnecessary burden through its regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT). It does this through assessing the Directive’s actual effectiveness in reducing inefficiencies from national RIS systems and through looking into potential areas for simplification of the process through which updates to the union-wide specifications are being conceived. In addition, it should be noted that Article 4(7) of the Directive states that "the Commission shall take appropriate measures to verify the interoperability, reliability and safety of RIS" and article 12(6) of the Directive requires that “The Commission shall monitor the setting up of RIS in the Community...”. In addition, the European Parliament called for “a swift review of Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services (RIS) …” in its 2015 resolution on the implementation of the 2011 White Paper on Transport. Scope of the evaluation - The evaluation covers all provisions of Directive 2005/44/EC. Exclusion: The Directive also defines a number of obligations of the European Commission for the introduction of technical guidelines and specifications in the form of Implementing Acts. The evaluation of these Implementing Acts is not in scope. However, the evaluation does assess the process through which the Implementing Acts are produced and how they have contributed as a whole to the overall achievement of the objectives of the Directive. The evaluation period spans from January 2005 to December 2018. Evidence for the evaluation has been collected only for this time period. Developments from 2019 have not been considered, as there has been a change in the institutional framework for RIS through the introduction of the CESNI/TI working group. In addition, revised implementing regulations for RIS entered into force from end of December 2018. Geographical scope - The evaluation covers the full geographical scope of Directive 2005/44/EC. It assesses all 13 EU Member States which have inland waterways falling within the scope of the Directive, namely Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, France, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. In addition, it covers Serbia and the Ukraine which have inland waterways of international importance and have applied the RIS Directive on basis of international agreements concluded with the EU. The evaluation follows the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox. The analysis is structured around the evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. •Under effectiveness, the evaluation assesses the actual changes the Directive has generated, particularly in view of its original objectives. In this context, the evaluation also examines how Member States have implemented the Directive and how the situation has evolved since the adoption of the Directive (including a mapping of the current RIS governance setup); •Under efficiency, it assesses the actual costs and changes relative to the actual benefits the Directive has generated. Any potential for simplification and reduction of unnecessary regulatory costs is identified; •Under relevance, the evaluation assesses whether the objectives of the Directive are still in line with the current needs or problems; how the situation/context as regards the provision of RIS in the EU has evolved and whether the Directive still matches current needs; whether its scope is still fit for purpose; whether the four key areas currently covered under the technical guidelines and specifications are sufficient to respond to the changed needs, given technological developments; •Under coherence, it assesses whether the Directive and related Implementing Acts are internally consistent and whether the legislation is consistent with other EU interventions (including maritime policy and multimodal transport policy, as well as e-governance initiatives); •Under EU added value, the evaluation assesses the added value delivered by or associated with the implementation of the Directive, over and above what reasonably could have been expected from national and regional policies and their implementation.



2.Background to the River Information Services Directive Description of the initiative and its objectives Directive 2005/44/EC establishes a framework for the deployment and use of harmonised, interoperable and open river information services. It applies to the Member States which have inland waterways falling within the scope of the Directive. There are currently 13 Member States that are part of the European network of waterways of class IV or above. The Directive defines the general obligation of the Member States in ensuring the development and implementation of river information services in an efficient, expandable and interoperable way, providing interfaces to transport management systems and commercial activities. Member States shall provide the data necessary for the planning of voyages, shall provide electronic charts (for waterways of class Va and above), shall provide notices to skippers in standardised, coded and downloadable messages and Member States shall enable competent authorities to receive standardised electronic ship reports from ships. The RIS Directive stipulates that equipment and application need to be type-approved in order to ensure safety of navigation. Furthermore, it requires MS to designate competent authorities for the application of RIS and for the international exchange of data. The Directive also includes references to rules on the data protection, security and the re-use of information – applicable at the time of adoption. In addition, in line with the RIS Directive, the Commission is required to adopt technical guidelines and specifications for five key areas of application. As a result, five implementing acts have been adopted in the timeframe covered by the evaluation. These Regulations supplement the RIS Directive and form with it the RIS framework: 1.Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/2007 concerning the technical guidelines for the planning, implementation and operational use of RIS (RIS Guidelines)

2.Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2013 on the technical specifications for the electronic chart display and information system for inland navigation (Inland ECDIS), 3.Commission Regulation (EU) No 415/2007 concerning the technical specifications for vessel tracking and tracing systems (as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2012), 4.Commission Regulation (EU) No 164/2010 on the technical specifications for electronic ship reporting in inland navigation, and 5.Commission Regulation (EC) No 416/2007 concerning the technical specifications for notices to skippers The regulations referred to in points 2 to 5 have been amended in 2018 and 2019. The RIS Directive contributes to four general objectives: •increase competitiveness of the sector across Europe; •optimise use of existing inland waterway infrastructures; •improve safety and security in waterway transport; •reduce the sector's negative impacts on the environment. The Directive was expected to deliver on two specific objectives, namely: •to achieve a harmonised exchange of information between different actors that provide RIS; and •to improve the interaction with other traffic management systems of other transport modes, in particular maritime vessel traffic management and information services. and two operational objectives: •to ensure interoperable systems for inland waterway transport services; and •to set up a European legislative framework to establish and further develop guidelines and specifications for Member States. The intervention logic in Annex 4 describes the links and causal relationships between the problems and needs, external factors such as technological and policy developments, the general, specific and operational objectives that the legislative framework was designed to address, and the specific actions for addressing those problems and needs. No formal impact assessment had been carried out before the adoption of the Directive. The intervention logic has been derived from the Directive for the purpose of this evaluation. The key inputs elements of the Directive are a number of requirements for both the Commission and the Member States. The Commission has to take measures to verify interoperability, reliability and safety of RIS (Article 4(7)) and to define technical guidelines and specifications (Article 5(1)). Member States have to implement RIS according to the specific provisions of Article 4 of the Directive, and have to ensure data protection rules and security measures (Article 9(2)). Institutional framework Technical specifications for RIS are based on the technical principles set out in Annex II of the RIS Directive and shall take account of the work carried out in this field by relevant international organisations. Besides the EU, a range of other institutional actors play a role in the development and implementation of RIS in Europe, at international level (UNECE, PIANC), regional level (River Commissions - CCNR, Danube Commission, Sava Commission, and Mosel Commission), and local level (national competent authorities and RIS providers).

The Member States are engaged through different platforms and expert groups, including the four independent RIS Expert Groups that were tasked with the development and updating of the technical specifications for the different RIS technologies. The RIS Expert Groups produced the standards including updates, but also technical clarification documents and other relevant documentation. The developed standards were delivered to the European Commission, CCNR or other international bodies in order to make the standards legally binding. Participants of the RIS Expert Groups were representatives of governmental bodies, branch organisations, research institutes, consultants and the industry. All expert groups operated as independent bodies without a formal legal status. Since 2019, the work of the RIS Expert Groups has been gradually integrated into the work programme of the recently established CESNI working group on information technology (CESNI/TI). Besides the public institutions, there are also expert groups within branch organisations working on RIS such as the IWT platform, with member organisations such as ESO and EBU. Since 2018, ESO and EBU are cooperating in a more structured way within the Inland Waterway Transport Platform. The institutional framework has changed since the publication of the RIS Directive, as Member States seek more cooperation with neighbouring countries to comply with the RIS standards and to allow for cross-border data exchange. Also, between the supranational and intergovernmental institutions such as the River Commissions, a stronger collaboration with the European Commission is realised through the CESNI.



Baseline and points of comparison When evaluating the RIS Directive, it is important to consider a baseline scenario in which the Directive had not existed over the evaluation period (and the likely relevant outcomes in that case), to help isolate the effects of the RIS Directive itself on the inland navigation sector. This section briefly describes the situation before the RIS Directive was adopted in 2005, as well as relevant technological, policy and economic developments that shaped the sector during the evaluation period which affected the same output and outcome variables as the RIS Directive. The situation prior to the adoption of the RIS Directive In the early 2000s, the development of RIS technologies was spearheaded by a small number of countries, located primarily along the Rhine corridor (Germany and the Netherlands, but also Austria, Belgium and France). Examples of RIS developments prior to 2005 included The Barge Information and Communication System (BICS), Advanced River Navigation (ARGO), the German Electronic Waterway Information System (ELWIS) and IVS90, a ship reporting system used in the Netherlands, to name just a few. The challenge to enable interfacing and communication among the various services and systems in different EU Countries into a single common operational concept triggered the adoption of the RIS Directive. Without the RIS Directive, a patchwork of ICT systems in IWT with limited to no interoperability across the EU would have persisted. This patchwork would have led to a fragmented implementation and provision of modern information services on the waterways and would have been a hindering factor for investments into the digitalisation of the sector. This fragmentation would have negatively impacted the user acceptance of information services, safety of navigation, and efficiency of transport operations and would have introduced additional administrative burden in cross-border operation. To this extent, the RIS Directive aims at the harmonised implementation of various types of information services on waterways and transport activities on those waterways. RIS aim to support traffic and transport management in inland waterway transport, including interfaces with other transport modes. The implementation of RIS should not only improve safety and efficiency on the inland waterways but also enhance the efficiency of transport operations in general. Developments that have shaped the sector since 2005 Since 2005, there have been substantive policy, economic and technological developments that may have helped or hindered developments in the use of RIS directly and that had an effect on the relevant outcomes of the inland navigation sector that were also targeted by the RIS Directive. Policy developments •The institutional framework (i.e. governance structure) has changed. Since 2015, the EU and the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) started collaborating more closely on technical standards and requirements in inland navigation, through CESNI (European Committee for Standards in Inland Navigation) working groups and committees. As the CCNR governs inland navigation on the Rhine, which is a river corridor with high traffic, its influence in standard setting is considerable. One standard for all (e.g. ES-TRIN) replaces the dual regime based on mutual recognition in this area between the EU and the CCNR through CESNI. Following such a consolidation of standards is likely to increase the interoperability of RIS across borders, independent of the RIS Directive. However, as CESNI does not have regulatory powers and the consolidation of standards has only started recently, the magnitude of this effect will only become visible in the future. •Internationally, organisations such as PIANC and the UNECE have also developed their own sets of resolutions, guidelines and recommendations on RIS during the evaluation period. These international organisations do not exist in a vacuum and collaborate with other institutional actors and expert groups within the RIS environment. As some organisations, like the Danube Commission, refer to RIS resolutions of UNECE, at least a low level of harmonisation in the implementation of RIS could have been achieved. •At EU level, the general transport agenda has been focused on achieving a modal shift away from road to more sustainable transport modes. Legislation and actions taken in other transport areas are likely to have increased modal shift in favour of inland navigation, independent of any effect the RIS Directive had. Economic developments •The global economic crisis of 2008-2010 had a negative effect on the inland navigation sector. The macroeconomic context is very likely to have been a hindering factor for the deployment of RIS. Because of the economic downturn, a reduction or elimination of envisaged investments in technological improvements, projects and systems is likely to have occurred. The following figure shows the monthly goods transport on the Rhine between January 2003 and December 2018 together with a 6-month moving average. Low-water periods are shaded in blue and are recognisable as V-shaped reductions of cargo traffic. The major part of the financial crisis (in 2008, 2009 and 2010) is marked in yellow.

The crisis also reduced Member State GDP and diverted national funding aimed at developing and implementing RIS technologies away from the sector. •High fuel prices during the evaluation period, leading vessel owners to lower speed to reduce fuel consumption, are likely to have had positive environmental effect unrelated to RIS technologies. Technological developments •Improvements in technology greatly influence the use of RIS. Influencing factors are for example the availability of a variety of digital (handheld and other) devices, digitalisation of information and increasing availability of a variety of real time information and static data, developments in cellular data capacity and reduced prices. One of the results of these technological developments is a shift in focus for IWT - away from safety aspects towards increased modal share of inland waterway transport in multimodal supply chains as well as more efficient voyage and lock planning. •Similarly, improvements in Automatic Identification System (AIS) technology might positively affect the level of safety in inland navigation and might become yet another impetus for the creation of solutions enabling (semi)-autonomous sailing. AIS is a ship borne radio data system, exchanging static, dynamic and voyage related vessel data between equipped vessels and between equipped vessels and shore stations. It is difficult to assess the impact the RIS Directive itself had on the development of the inland waterway sector in Europe, to isolate its effect from the use of RIS technologies as such, and to estimate the likely state of affairs had the RIS Directive not been adopted. The impacts on the specific and general objectives were expected to be indirect, and it would be difficult to separate them from other influences in the field. However, it can be plausibly assumed that the Directive contributed to the levelling of the playing field in inland navigation between the Rhine riparian states and the Danube riparian states. Chapter 5 provides further details on the progress made since 2005, and the degree to which this can or cannot be attributed to the RIS Directive.



3.Implementation / state of Play Relevant requirements of the RIS Directive The RIS Directive lays down the requirements for the implementation of RIS towards the Member States in the scope of the Directive. The following Articles of the RIS Directive are of relevance for the analysis of the implementation status and the state of play. Article 4(1): Member States shall take the necessary measures to implement RIS on inland waterways falling within the scope of the Directive (see also chapter 2). Article 4(2): Member States shall develop RIS in such a way that the RIS application is efficient, expandable and interoperable so as to interact with other RIS applications and, if possible, with systems for other modes of transport. It shall also provide interfaces to transport management systems and commercial activities. Article 4(3): In order to set up RIS, Member States shall: (a) supply to RIS users all relevant data concerning navigation and voyage planning on inland waterways. These data shall be provided at least in an accessible electronic format;

(b) ensure that for all their inland waterways of class Va and above in accordance with the Classification of European Inland Waterways, in addition to the data referred to in point (a), electronic navigational charts suitable for navigational purposes are available to RIS users; (c) enable, as far as ship reporting is required by national or international regulations, the competent authorities to receive electronic ship reports of the required data from ships. In cross-border transport, this information shall be transmitted to the competent authorities of the neighbouring State and any such transmission shall be completed before arrival of the vessels at the border; (d) ensure that notices to skippers, including water level (or maximum allowable draught) and ice reports of their inland waterways, are provided as standardised, encoded and downloadable messages. The standardised message shall contain at least the information necessary for safe navigation. The notices to skippers shall be provided at least in an accessible electronic format. Article 4(4): The competent authorities of the Member States shall establish RIS centres according to regional needs (see also Article 8). Article 4(6): Member States, if appropriate in cooperation with the Community, shall encourage boat masters, operators, agents or owners of vessels navigating on their inland waterways and shippers or owners of goods carried on board such vessels to fully profit from the services, which are made available under this Directive. This is especially relevant for the implementation of Vessel Tracking and Tracing Systems (Inland AIS), not specifically required by the RIS Directive. Article 8: Member States shall designate competent authorities for the RIS application and for the international exchange of data.



Description of the current situation Transposition of the RIS Directive (Article 12) The transposition deadline of the Directive was 20 October 2007. An “Evaluation on RIS implementation for the period 2006 – 2011” concluded that all countries had transposed the Directive into national legislation. According to this report, only four out of twelve Member States achieved the transposition within the required timeframe of the Directive. The transposition section for the RIS Directive on the EUR-Lex Portal provides a detailed overview of the national transposition measures communicated by the Member States. Supply of data for navigation and voyage planning (Article 4(3a)) The minimum data requirements to be provided to RIS users as referred to in article 4(3a) are listed in Annex I of the RIS Directive, but no detailed technical specifications are provided. In order to harmonise the type of information and the format of data for navigation and voyage planning, a coding mechanism to capture the location and the characteristics of the objects has been elaborated by a joint task force. Since then, data for navigation and voyage planning is provided by national authorities through the RIS Index, which is also kept in the European Reference Data Management System (ERDMS) that is operated by the European Commission. All relevant Member States comply with the RIS Directive’s requirements for the provision of data for navigation and planning. Strictly speaking, there is no legal obligation for the Member States to supply this data in the form of the RIS Index. Nevertheless, the EC has been systematically monitoring the data supplied by Member States through the RIS Index to the ERDMS since 2015. In June 2020, the ERDMS contained data of more than 251.000 objects on the European waterways that are relevant for navigation and voyage planning (e.g. water level gauge stations, waterway axis indicators, lock chambers, bridges, harbours, berths, terminals). The 2018 fact-finding study could establish (based on self-reported information) that all relevant Member States had provided their respective RIS Indices, though only 9 out of 13 were in line with the latest version (version 2.0) and the remaining 4 countries had not yet updated their RIS Indices to the most recent version. In terms of the coverage of objects, self-reported data suggests that the 8 of the 13 Member States that provided answers to this question cover close to 100% of the priority objects on their waterways. It has to be assumed that Member States that did not answer the question or did not contribute to the survey cover objects to a lesser degree, as countries generally have an incentive to report their compliance rather than their non- compliance. It would have been disproportionate for the evaluation to systematically check the accuracy of this information for each Member State, however, some triangulation was possible using information collected through other targeted stakeholder consultation activities. It did not substantially change the findings. As there is no European legislation for the RIS Index and its provision to the ERDMS, Member States are not legally obligated to update theirs in line with the agreed informal standards (i.e. the RIS Index Encoding Guide). Therefore, as long as data listed in Annex I of the Directive (i.e. in terms of the coverage of objects) is provided in an easily accessible electronic format by the Member States, either within the ERDMS or outside, they legally comply with the RIS Directive. Making available of Electronic Navigational Charts (Article 4(3b)) The RIS Directive stipulates that in addition to the data concerning navigation and voyage planning, Member States are to ensure “electronic navigational charts suitable for navigational purposes are available to RIS users”. In its Annex, the Directive further specifies that the technical requirements for electronic navigational charts (ENC) are to include all kinds of geographical objects necessary for safe navigation; integrate fairway water depth information; and integrating additional information from parties other than the competent authorities, provided it does not affect the minimum information required for safe navigation. It also stipulates that the charts are to be made available to RIS users, as well as to all relevant manufacturers of applications, against a reasonable cost-related charge. All relevant Member States make electronic navigational charts available in line with the RIS Directive.

The information collected in the context of this evaluation suggests that electronic navigational charts are provided for all major European Inland Waterways. In June 2016, a total of 13,042 km of waterways had already been covered, with an additional 1,733 km planned at the time. In all cases, the minimum content is provided, only a few countries go beyond the minimum requirements. As per self-reported data of RIS authorities in the 2018 fact-finding study, the coverage of electronic navigational charts on waterways of CEMT class Va and above is 100% in all relevant Member States, except the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia. Slovakia indicated 69% coverage because they make charts available only for the Danube and not for the stretch of the river Vah falling under CEMT class Va and VIa. The Netherlands indicated 90% of ENC coverage. It has the densest waterway network in Europe containing a variety of small and large waterways, therefore requiring more resources from its fairway authorities to comply with the requirements of the RIS Directive concerning electronic charts. Charts are provided for the majority of the main waterways in the Netherlands, while some shorter stretches are missing. As of 2018, these were planned for production. Although a detailed fact-checking of the self-reported findings was not possible in the context of this evaluation (due to the disproportionate costs involved), the findings have been triangulated to a large extent by means of the targeted consultation activities. As none of the consulted stakeholders, including RIS authorities in any of the relevant Member States mentioned any missing charts for the relevant waterways, it is assumed that the self-reported information largely correctly reflects the state of implementation. All relevant Member States make the electronic charts available for download free of charge on their respective websites. Links to all of these websites containing downloadable charts are also provided on the IEHG Website (Inland Electronic Navigational Charts Harmonization Group). All of these downloadable charts are compatible with free ECDIS Viewers (e.g. SevenCs) and can be viewed for informational purposes. To be able to use the charts for navigational purposes, a professional ECDIS viewer is needed on board. The table below provides details on the IENC implementation status. Corridor Country Waterway km Minimum content updates Available for free Version of standard Rhine France Rhin 142 yes yes yes 2.3 MOSELLE CANALISEE - de Neuves-Maisons à Apach 150 2.1 Germany Rhein-Herne-Kanal, 45,5 yes yes yes 2.3 Rhein 555,4 Neckar 202,9 Mosel 242 Switzerland Rhine 20,9 no information yes 2.3 The Netherlands Ijsel, Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal, Eemskanaal, Boven-Rijn, Waal 1743,4 104,5 km planned depends on region yes 2.3.6 Danube Austria Danube 329 yes yes yes 2.3 Donaukanal 17 Bulgaria Danube 235 yes last update 2018 yes 2.3 Croatia Danube 139 yes no yes 2.3 Sava 382 Drava 23 Germany Main-Donau-Kanal 171 yes yes yes 2.3 Donau 213 Hungary Donau 379 no 2018 yes 2.3 Romania Danube + branches 1487 yes Macin+Sfantu yes mostly 2.3 Serbia Danube 588 yes minimum once a year yes 2.3 Sava 210,8 Tisza 164 Slovakia Danube 172 yes planned yes 2.3 Ukraine Danube 171 yes minimum once a year yes 2.0 Dnipro 983 yes no information under discussion 2.0 North-South Flanders Schelde, Leie, Dender, Rupel, Ijzer, canals, ports 978,54 km/ 987,5 km² yes yes (once a year if

necessary) yes 2.3 Wallonia Canal, Maas, Samber, Leie, Haute Escaut, others 365,1 yes no yes 2.3 France Garonne, Grande Saone, Escaut, Oise, Seine, Rhone, Canal du Rhone au Rhin 766 yes yes yes 2.3 (Garonne 2.1) The Netherlands 730,4 depends on region yes 2.3.6 East-West Czech Republic Elbe 223 yes yes yes 2.0 Vltava 91,6 Germany Oder 162,5 yes yes yes 2.3 Elbe 619,2 Others 2236,62 Poland Lake Dabie 9,5 yes yes yes 2.3 Odra 44,6 West Oder 36,6 Canal Przekop Klucz-Ustowo 2,7 Parnica and canal Przekop Parnick 6,9 Implementation of Electronic Ship Reporting (Article 4(3c)) The provisions in the RIS Directive together with the Implementing Regulation on technical specifications for electronic ship reporting in inland navigation aim to facilitate electronic data exchange and should eliminate (or at least reduce) the number of resubmissions of vessel reports during an international voyage. The Implementing Regulation, for instance, specifies a set of codes for electronic reporting that allow for translation of information concerning cargo, origin and destination in any given language, which facilitates the electronic reporting and transmission process. The RIS Directive mandates that Member States should “enable, as far as ship reporting is required by national or international regulations, the competent authorities to receive electronic ship reports of the required data from ships. In cross-border transport, this information shall be transmitted to the competent authorities of the neighbouring State and any such transmission shall be completed before arrival of the vessels at the border”. As such, it does not make the submission of electronic ship reports mandatory, but merely regulates their processing when they are submitted. The main change brought about by the RIS Directive in this context, therefore, is that it outlines the need for competent authorities to be able to receive the ship reports and to share them with the relevant neighbouring states. In its Annex, the Directive further specifies that the technical specifications for electronic ship reporting in inland navigation should “(a) facilitate the electronic data exchange between competent authorities, between participants in inland as well as maritime navigation and in multi-modal transport where inland navigation is involved; (b) be standardised to ensure compatibility with maritime navigation; (c) be based on internationally accepted code lists and classifications, and (d) make use of a unique European vessel identification number”. The technical specifications for electronic ship reporting define four standard message formats through which the requirements of the Directive shall be implemented. Based on self-reported information (see table below), 12 out of 13 Member States have implemented national systems for receiving electronic reports. All relevant countries support the ERINOT message, but there is limited to no support for the other messages, because of differing ship reporting requirements on national or international level. On international level, the use of the ERINOT message is compulsory since January 2010 on the Rhine for container ships with more than 20 containers on board or ships transporting containers with dangerous substances, regardless the number of containers. For submitting electronic reports to the competent authorities, particularly on the Rhine and the Mosel the Barge Information and Communication System (BICS) is supported by Member States. BICS is a dedicated reporting software application provided and maintained by Rijkswaterstaat, the fairway authority in the Netherlands. There is no wide spread use of BICS on the Danube. Instead, reporting parties submit their electronic reports to the authorities via dedicated web-interfaces. Regarding cross-border exchange of electronic reports, data exchange of ERINOT messages has been implemented on the Rhine and the Mosel, although the full dataset is not always exchanged and skippers need to report a part of the information again when crossing a border. On the Danube the implementation of a cross-border exchange of electronic reports is even more limited to only two out of ten countries. In conclusion, partly due to the fragmented technical, procedural, organisational and regulatory environment in the IWT sector, barge operators stated that they still need to file the same data multiple times to comply with different aspects of legislation and dealing with different jurisdictions in cross-border operations. However, the provisions of the RIS Directive for competent authorities to be able to receive electronic ship reports (in case ship reporting is required by national or international regulations) have been largely implemented. Along the Rhine and the Mosel, electronic reports are also shared with the relevant neighbouring states. EU Member State Supported in country? [Yes / No] How is electronic reporting facilitated from user-perspective? Website Dedicated application Other Remarks Austria Yes x x DoRIS portal https://portal.doris-info.at . In addition, it is possible to use a client application (e.g. BICS) that communicates through web services. Belgium Yes x x Electronic submission through BICS (Flanders)

for Wallonia the GINA application is mentioned, reporting through BICS is indicated as ‘non-operational’ Bulgaria Yes x BULRIS (http://eri.bulris.bg). In addition, R2D2 web services are supported. Croatia No Czech Republic Yes x x x Desktop application SPS Dispatching Web application https://plavba.lavdis.cz/ Import of ERINOT messages received by e-mail (pilot operation) France Yes x x BICS is currently available along the Rhine and will become available along the Mosel from December 2019. In the rest of France, the VELI website and mobile app should be used, although ERINOT is not yet supported (planned for the end of 2019) Germany Yes x BICS Hungary Yes x Reporting is in pilot operation through PannonRIS. Luxembourg Yes x Through BICS and the reporting system of Germany Netherlands Yes x BICS Poland Yes x Currently in test phase

(https://eridgw.ris-odra.pl/eridgw/login) Romania Yes x x Through the RoRIS system and BICS Slovakia Yes x x Reporting is possible through SlovRIS. Interfaces are available to use BICS as well.



Provision of standardised Notices to Skippers (Article 4(3d))

The RIS Directive stipulates that Member States shall ensure that “notices to skippers, including water level (or maximum allowable draught) and ice reports of their inland waterways, are provided as standardised, encoded and downloadable messages”. According to the Directive, these standardised messages should contain “at least the information necessary for safe navigation” and be provided at least in an “accessible electronic format”. In its Annex, the Directive further specifies that notices to skippers shall respect “a standardised data structure using predefined text modules and encoded to a high extent in order to enable automatic translation of the most important content into other languages and to facilitate the integration of notices to skippers into voyage planning systems”; and “the compatibility of the standardised data structure with the data structure of inland ECDIS to facilitate integration of notices to skippers in Inland ECDIS” The following messages need to be provided by all RIS authorities on all waterways to which the Directive applies: •fairway conditions and traffic (FTM), containing information on any limitations relating to a fairway or a specific location; •water levels (WRM), containing the water level measurement at a specific location; •ice (ICEM), containing information about the ice conditions for a fairway. •weather-related messages (WERM), containing information about (dangerous) weather conditions on a fairway, may be provided but are optional. All information important for the safety of inland navigation (e.g. obstacles that can post safety risks) or voyage planning (e.g. unforeseen closure of locks) must be encoded. Additional information not relevant for safety or voyage planning (e.g. the cause of such a closure) can be provided using free text. The use of free text should be restricted to a minimum. In 2018, the fact-finding study on the practical and operational measures in application of the RIS Directive recorded - based on self-reported data - that all but three relevant Member States fully complied with the requirements of the Directive on mandatory notices to skippers (containing information on FTM, WRM, ICEM) on the relevant waterways of CEMT class IV and above. The remaining three Member States reported that they made notices to skippers available, however they did not reach full coverage but only covered between 50% and 70% of the relevant waterways.



Coverage of NtS messages (in %) per Member State for class IV waterways and above and for smaller waterways EU Member State Fairway & Traffic Message (FTM) Water Related Message (WRM) Ice Messages (ICEM) Weather related messages (WERM) (optional) Inter-national NtS data exchange Remarks % Class IV and above % Below Class IV % Class IV and above % Below Class IV % Class IV and above % Below Class IV % Class IV and above % Below Class IV % Class IV and above % Below Class IV Austria 100 n/a 100 n/a 100 n/a Not published 100 n/a All Austrian NtS messages are made available via standardised NtS Web Service Interface Belgium 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - No Exchange of NtS. Data can be accessed through standardised ‘web services. Flanders refers to VisuRIS. Wallonia sends NtS to The Netherlands. Bulgaria 100 n/a 100 n/a 100 n/a 100 n/a 100 n/a Croatia 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 0 60 Czech Republic 100 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 ICEM in pilot operation France 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 International exchange by e-mail only; a webservice is planned for 2019. Germany 100 100 100 100 100 100 n/a n/a 100 -- Hungary 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 Only on RIS covered areas Luxembourg 100 n/a 100 n/a 100 n/a No n/a No n/a Netherlands 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Poland 48,3 0 48,3 0 48,3 0 48,3 0 0 0 Romania 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 Slovakia 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 Only for the Danube Spain Not applicable; Maritime messages apply.



However, additional evidence collected in the context of this evaluation points to some gaps in actual availability of the notices and therefore contradicts some of the self-reported data presented in the fact-finding study. Although all eleven Member State authorities interviewed indicated that the mandatory notices to skippers have, in general, been adequately made available in the relevant countries, three private sector interviewees stated that Hungary stopped providing notices to skippers digitally, and that the service level in Romania is limited. Two interviewees also mentioned that ports do not provide notices to skippers, or that their notices are not integrated in national-level portals. Even in countries that provide notices to skippers on waterways as required by the Directive, there are a number of limits to the availability of those messages. Seven interviewees pointed out that some countries use too much free text rather than applying the XML coding, which in turn hinders the automatic translation and interoperability with ECDIS systems envisaged by the RIS Directive. Romania and Bulgaria were listed as examples, although the authorities in those countries did not comment on those concerns. Vessel Tracking and Tracing Systems The RIS Directive does not contain any specific obligations for the Member States to implement vessel tracking and tracing systems (VTT). However, in line with Article 4(6) Member States have decided to implement vessel tracking and tracing systems in order to encourage boat masters, operators, agents or owners of vessels navigating on their inland waterways to fully profit from the services, which are made available under the RIS Directive. All relevant governmental actors, i.e. fairway authorities and competent authorities for traffic management and safety of navigation have recognised the need for automatically exchanging navigation data between vessels and between vessels and shore. Article 5 of the RIS Directive mentions that VTT plays an important role in the improvement of safety and efficiency in the inland navigation sector, for example by supporting on-board navigation, shore-based traffic monitoring as part of Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and other tasks such as calamity abatement.

A Commission Regulation sets out the technical specifications for vessel tracking and tracing systems according to Annex II of the RIS Directive. It provides the technical specifications for the Inland Automatic Identification System (AIS), which is a ship-borne radio data system, exchanging static, dynamic and voyage related vessel data between equipped vessels and between equipped vessels and shore stations. Inland AIS is fully compatible with the maritime AIS standard, therefore facilitating interfaces with other transport modes, in this case maritime transport. This is also fully in line with the specific objective of the RIS Directive: “to improve the interaction with other traffic management systems of other transport modes, in particular maritime vessel traffic management and information services”. All relevant Member States implemented vessel tracking and tracing systems in line with the RIS Directive. Amongst other national initiatives, one of the most important facilitators for the implementation of vessel tracking and tracing was the initiative of the Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) to make Inland AIS mandatory on the Rhine starting from 2014. This gave an extra incentive to the riparian states to implement the technical specifications as referred to in the aforementioned Commission Regulation. In addition, EU funding programmes under TEN-T and CEF provided financial support to the Member States to equip vessels with the necessary Inland AIS devices. According to a survey of the CCNR (2017), 94% of the of vessel owners on the Rhine has Inland AIS devices on board. This shows that the penetration in the market is almost at a maximum. Designated competent authorities for the RIS application (Art. 8) The following table provides an overview of the bodies in the Member States that are responsible for RIS implementation, i.e. the competent authorities for RIS. It furthermore gives an overview of the national RIS providers, which are providing the services to the end users. This information was extracted from the 2018 fact-finding study and is based on self-reported data from the Member States. EU Member State OVERVIEW OF RIS AUTHORITIES Body legally responsible for RIS implementation RIS provider(s) Other authorities / main stakeholders Remarks Austria Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology - Supreme Navigation Authority (Department navigation – technical and nautical affairs Viadonau is RIS provider and operates the system according to the Federal Waterways Act - Other public agencies and lock operators provide information Port related RIS applications are carried out either by viadonau or the Supreme Navigation Authority. Belgium Flanders ·- Department Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken (Department of Mobility and Public Works) of the Flemish government - De Vlaamse Waterweg nv for inland waterways - Maritieme Dienstverlening en Kust is responsible for the RIS activities in the Scheldt. ·The ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Oostende and Zeebrugge are responsible for RIS implementation in the ports. RIS activities for inland navigation are coordinated with and complementary to maritime navigation. ·In the Scheldt area actions are coordinated through a Common Nautical Management authority with the Dutch infrastructure manager Rijkswaterstaat. Belgium Port of Brussels ·Government of the Brussels-Capital Region – department mobility and public works ·Port of Brussels is responsible for the implementation of RIS in the port area (and subsequently thereby the Brussels’ region) · ·The Port of Brussels is connected to the VisuRIS system of the Flemish RIS authorities. Belgium Wallonia ·Walloon Government (Gouvernement Wallon) ·Direction de la Gestion des Voies Navigables (Waterways management department) of the Public Service of Wallonia · ·The ports of Liège, Namur, Charleroi and the ‘Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest are no RIS authorities as they do not manage the waterways in their ports. Bulgaria ·Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications – defines the policy on RIS construction and operation and has the role of main supervisor Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company - Executive Agency Maritime Administration (EAMA) - Executive Agency for Exploration and Maintenance of the Danube River (EA EMDR) The Bulgarian RIS system (BULRIS) is operated by the Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company (BPIC) cooperated by EA EMDR and under control of the EAMA. Croatia Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure Croatian National RIS Centre, unit in the Agency for inland waterways, is responsible for all RIS activities in Croatia ·Harbour Master’s Offices · RIS operational tasks are being executed through the regional RIS centres which are formed within the Harbour Master’s Offices Czech Republic Ministry of Transport, on behalf of the ministry the Czech Waterways Directorate is responsible for technological solutions and implementations such as the RIS infrastructure and its adjustments According to the Inland Navigation Act the State Navigation Authority is the RIS provider. - As regards RIS operation other parties are required for data provision as well. This refers mainly to waterway operators, Povodi Labe and Povodi Vltavy, state enterprises, which are under responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. - Czech Hydro-meteorogical Institute is responsible for provision of water level and discharge information. France The Ministry of Transport Voies Navigable de France (VNF) Compagnie Nationale du Rhône (CNR) is the infrastructure manager of the 14 locks on large parts of the Rhône and Saône for which they have received a concession from the French government. CNR is a private company and is responsible for the implementation of RIS in their area. CNR also manages the port of Lyon. The Ministry has several functions regarding RIS, for instance: managing the national database of ships, issues certificates for vessels and is therefore in charge of the connection with the European Hull Database. CETMEF (now called CEREMA), is the technical department of the French government, is in charge of the validation of RIS technology in France before making improvements operational. Germany The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure - The Federal Waterways and Shipping Agency is responsible for standardisation and implementation of RIS applications along waterways. - The Department Traffic Engineering Inland of the Waterways and Shipping Administration works on technical concept and development of RIS. - The RIS work is supported by a specialized department of the Waterways and Shipping Administration, the Traffic Technologies Centre. - River Information Services Centres in Duisburg, Oberwesel, Minden, Magdeburg and Gösselthal. - Port authorities are responsible for the provision of RIS applications related to inland ports RIS operation in terms of information provision on ELWIS is organised decentral by Waterways and Shipping Offices and River Information Services Centres. Hungary - The Ministry of Innovation and Technology is legally responsible for the implementation of RIS, represented by: ·Minister of State for Transport Policy ·Deputy State Secretary of Transport ·Department of Aviation and Watertransport ·Unit of Inland Waterway Transport. - Department for Shipping Authority (DSA), part of Deputy State Secretary of Transport Authority Affairs, is acting as RIS Authority. The National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling & Info Communications (RSOE) - Other involved parties in Hungary are the National Water Authority (OVF) responsible for the provision of water related information. - Hungarian Meteorological Service (OMSZ) - National Directorate General for Disaster Management (OKF). - Government Office of the Capital City Budapest, Department of Transport is acting as RIS and shipping authority Luxembourg Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure Le service de la navigation Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Watermanagement The Minister of Infrastructure and Watermanagement appointed the Director General of Rijkswaterstaat (executive agency for infrastructure of the Ministry) as the National RIS Authority (NRA). Over 50 fairway managers: - Port authorities - Provincial departments - municipalities The NRA sees to a coordinated implementation of RIS in the Netherlands and addresses all national waterway authorities that manages a waterway or port of ECMT class IV and above about this. There are more than 50 fairway managers that are required to implement RIS. Poland Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation is responsible for the national RIS legislation. It acts as national navigation office. Inland Navigation Office Szczecin - Water management board - meteorological institute - other inland navigation offices For RIS operation Inland Navigation Office in Szczecin established the active cooperation with regional waterway management board, meteorological institute and other inland navigation offices to gather required information. Romania Ministry of Transport/ Waterway Transport Department is responsible for the policy development of RIS in Romania. Within the Ministry/DG for Air & Waterway Transport, a dedicated Directorate for Naval Transport is dealing with all RIS related issues Ministry of Transport assigned two RIS authorities in Romania: - Romanian Naval Authority (RNA) - Administration of the Navigable Canals (ACN) Slovakia Ministry of Transport and Construction, Department of Water Transport is the main organisation with regard to the development of RIS in Slovakia The Transport Authority (Dopravný úrad) is the RIS provider - The Waterborne Transport Development Agency participates in development and implementation of new technologies and operational systems for waterways. - Slovak Water Management Enterprise (Slovenský vodohospodársky podnik, SVP) is responsible for the production of navigational charts. - Slovak Hydro-meteorological Institute (Slovenský hydro-meteorologický ústav, SHMÚ) is a specialized organization providing hydrological and meteorological services at the national and international level. 4.Method Short description of methodology As a first step, the Commission conducted, with the support of an external contractor, an initial review of the state of implementation for the period 2006-2011. This review concluded in 2014 with the publication of its results on the Inland Waterways Website of DG MOVE. In 2017, the formal evaluation process following the Commission’ Better Regulation Guidelines started with the publication of the evaluation roadmap and the establishment of the Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG). The ISSG guided the evaluation process until the finalisation and publication of this Staff Working Document (details can be found in Annex I). In 2018, in order to complement the 2014 study and to collect evidence that is more detailed on the actual state of implementation of RIS in the Member States, the Commission contracted a fact-finding study from the STC Group and TNO. This study on the practical and operational measures in application of the RIS Directive was an input for the evaluation of the Directive and is the key source of evidence of Section 3 (State of Play). The external contractors Ramboll Management Consulting and the University of Antwerp carried out the evaluation support study between January 2019 and January 2020. The study presents an analytically robust ex-post assessment of the Directive. Data collection and analysis The main research tools included: •Desk research/review of relevant documents (including legal texts, Member State reports, relevant previous support studies and deliverables from RIS deployment projects). •Targeted questionnaires aimed at address factual gaps as identified in earlier stages of the study, and primarily to gather quantitative data. Two types of questionnaires were developed, one for national administrations / competent authorities and one for users of waterways. Overall, 15 responses were provided. •Interviews to gather evidence in relation to evaluation criteria/questions for which qualitative data was judged an important source. Altogether 50 interviews were conducted. •14-week Public Consultation (on the Commission’s “Have your say” website) running from 8 August 2019 until 13 November 2019. A total of 44 responses were received, including three position papers. Responses were gathered from twelve different countries. This includes ten out of the thirteen EU Member States to which the RIS Directive applies directly (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, and Romania). The other two countries, with one respondent each, are Italy and the Ukraine (both voluntary implementers of the Directive).

•Stakeholder views gathered at five workshops and events, including the Open Shipping Days (Antwerp, Belgium, March 2019), the RIS Week (Galați, Romania, June 2019), the DINA Commission Expert Group (Brussels, Belgium, October 2019), the RIS Week (Liège, Belgium, November 2019) and the CESNI/TI meeting (Strasbourg, France, December 2019). •State of play assessment: Triangulation between publicly available statistics, information gathered in the RIS implementation review 2006-2011, the fact-finding study from 2018 (latter two were key inputs), as well as the evaluation support study 2019, to determine the Directive’s state of implementation across the EU (and relevant non-EU countries) and the state of deployment of RIS. •Detailed quantitative analysis of the Directive’s impacts, drawing on available statistics and collected quantitative evidence; including an (econometric) assessment of correlations between key sectoral variables and an indicative social cost-benefit analysis. Ex-post assessment of the Directive in response to evaluation questions, triangulating all available (quantitative and qualitative) information, while accounting for stakeholder vested interests, uncertainty and gaps of evidence and limitations to attributability of impacts to the Directive. More details on the stakeholder consultation activities can be found in Annex 2 and the stakeholder consultation report (part of the support study). Limitations and robustness of findings A number of limitations to the robustness of evidence have been identified. Despite best efforts to mitigate these limitations, they will, to some extent, have negatively affected the robustness of the evaluation findings. Key concerns identified are discussed below. Concerning the assessment of the implementation and the state of play, the assessment is primarily based on ad-hoc self-reported information from the Member States that were provided for this evaluation. This information may be influenced by interests of the Member State or inconsistent across countries. To address these shortcomings to some extent, the state of play assessment relied heavily on triangulating (cross-checking) evidence with other sources to increase the robustness of findings. Nevertheless this limitation, in combination with a general lack of data (see next point) has substantially reduced the robustness of findings. There is a considerable lack of reliable, sufficiently granular and comparable data that prevents a robust (quantitative) assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, and EU added value of the RIS Directive. Identified data gaps include the following areas: •Costs associated with the implementation of the RIS Directive at Member State level are difficult to distinguish from costs associated with the implementation of RIS as such. National authorities appear not to differentiate between the two. This makes it difficult to establish the attributable costs of the RIS Directive, i.e to tell apart the additional costs caused by the Directive from those that would have been incurred anyways as part of the baseline. Close to all findings on cost savings or additional costs due to the Directive are affected by this limitation and their robustness is reduced. The evaluation responses indicate in detail where conclusion could not be drawn. •Costs associated with the implementation of RIS are also not broken down, which makes it impossible to separate the implementation costs of different key technologies. Although investment costs (e.g. setting up a website for notices to skippers) are straightforward to identify, the actual operating costs arising from the day-to-day management of all technologies are interwoven. Costs can therefore not be reliably attributed to them. •At the level of benefits, data on effects is not measured consistently over time and across countries. Accident data, for instance, is not collected in all relevant Member States, and where it is, the type of data collected is not the same. Even within countries, e.g. Belgium, the number of accidents varied considerably over time - not because the rate of accidents changed considerably, but because the country changed its methodology. This is a further factor that hinders a reliable assessment of the efficiency of the RIS Directive as it introduces uncertainty into data used to estimate safety benefits across all countries over the evaluation period and as such affects the robustness of these estimates. •The same is true for the data relevant for navigation and planning. Although Annex I of the RIS Directive stipulates the minimum data to be provided, it leaves room for interpretation as to how this data should be measured and the required quality of data (e.g. frequency of updates). This directly impedes the assessment of whether the Directive has led to an effective provision of the relevant data but is also a finding in itself (on effectiveness with respect to harmonisation), that is discussed later. In summary, the lack of common provisions for monitoring performance towards the achievement of the RIS Directive’s objectives very substantially hampered the assessment. Adequate monitoring would not only have set out a common approach to the measurement and the continuing recording and provision of data over time, but also ensured its availability for an assessment of the RIS Directive. A robust and detailed evaluation would have required such a monitoring framework to be in place from the start. Concerning the robustness of findings from the stakeholder consultations, it was observed that the contributions are heavily skewed towards RIS authorities and user representative organisations, rather than RIS users themselves, despite concerted efforts made throughout the evaluation to achieve a balanced representation. It was very difficult to interact directly with the beneficiaries of the RIS Services, as there are hardly fora where e.g. skippers or vessel operators meet. It is unclear what impact this imbalance has had on the robustness of results but it is assumed to not have decisively reduced it. Evidence from stakeholder consultations are also always associated with the risk that the information reflects the interests of the respondents. This bias in the evidence base will carry forward and undermine the robustness of the results. While some of this risk has been reduced through triangulation between sources, it could not be removed as the overall evidence of the evaluation is too limited (as described above) and many stakeholder groups hold exclusive information. Reassuringly, however, no clear pattern or correlation between the stakeholder groups and their answers have emerged in the collected evidence. It is likely that contextual factors (geographical, economic and political aspects) dominate RIS-related experiences of stakeholders. As the RIS Directive only applies to 13 Member States, the RIS sector in Europe consists of a limited group of geographical stakeholders. Geographically, different consultation activities reached different regional groups, but an overall balance was achieved. The survey questionnaire, for instance, yielded responses primarily from stakeholders in the Danube region, whereas the Public Consultation was skewed towards respondents from the Rhine region. Geographical balance was also sought through the selection of interviewees and ensured through a balanced event participation. As a result, all countries to which the RIS Directive directly applies have been covered through at least one of the consultation activities. Through complementary consultation activities initial geographical limitations could be addressed and the resulting risk of geographically biased results is considered minimal.





5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Effectiveness 5.1.1.Question 1: Compared to what would have happened in the absence of the Directive, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to what extent have (a) data for navigation and planning, (b) electronic navigational charts, and (c) notices to skippers been made available by Member States, and benefitted the resource planning of users of the inland waterways? Data for navigation and planning (a1) Availability of data for navigation and planning: The RIS Directive requires that Member States supply RIS users with “all relevant data concerning navigation and voyage planning on inland waterways” adding the requirement “at least in an accessible electronic format”. According to the RIS fact-finding study, all relevant Member States reported to comply with the Directive’s requirements for making the data available. Although the Directive’s Annex clearly states minimum data requirements, it does not prescribe a standard the data have to adhere to. All Member States nevertheless provide most data in line with the commonly agreed RIS Index, although there are indications that the data is not fully harmonised. Fifteen respondents to the public consultation raised this issue, noting a lack of harmonised reference data because of the different interpretations by Member States and the voluntary nature and complexity of the RIS Index and associated Encoding Guide. According to seven RIS authorities, the voluntary nature of providing data, combined with tight public budgets, leads to a deprioritisation of the provision of relevant data. Three Western European RIS authorities and one RIS developer specifically stressed the extent of the data to be measured which made the collection of accurate and up-to-date information burdensome, while a total of seven RIS authorities overall acknowledged limitations due to human and financial resource constraints. This was further confirmed by seven other RIS authorities, who believe there is a lack of precision in the Directive as it does not elaborate on how, when or how often data should be provided or updated. Three of them specifically suggested that a clearer legal basis and/or stronger enforcement of minimum standards would help harmonise the provision of data throughout Europe.

(a2) Benefits of data for navigation and planning: Data for navigation and planning informs users of the waterways, who in turn can make more informed navigational decisions and better plan their voyages, provided the data is correct and up to date. Due to a lack of available cost data, there is no robust (quantitative) evidence on the fact that skippers being better informed due to the requirements has actually led to cost savings. Consultations have, however, returned some evidence: Five out of seven user questionnaire respondents (primarily vessel owners), who indicated they make use of data for navigation and planning, specified that the data had been useful to them. Three of the vessel owners specifically pointed to improved trip planning as a benefit brought about by improved availability of data. This was confirmed through interviews, where 15 out of 24 interviewees (nine private sector interviewees, four RIS authorities, and one RIS expert group chair) agreed that the data had been beneficial for resource planning. Even though this evidence base is very limited, these are indications that the correct and up-to-date information, that would not have been provided to this extent in the absence of the RIS Directive, has actually led to more efficient sailing. There is no evidence on social or environmental benefits of data for navigation and planning. However, there are indications that the data indirectly improves safety, through its pivotal role in other RIS technologies (notably AIS and ENCs). Four out of twenty-four interviewees and three out of nine user questionnaire respondents (mainly vessel owners), highlighted improved safety as a benefit resulting from data for navigation and planning. Benefits from the improved provision of data for navigation and planning in Member States appear to have materialised at least to some extent but are hindered by the lack of full harmonisation of data provided across Member States. If current efforts towards harmonisation are continued, it is likely that the benefits of data for navigation and planning would materialise in the future. Electronic navigational charts (b1) Availability of electronic navigational charts: The RIS Directive requires Member States to ensure that Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) suitable for navigational purposes are available to RIS users. As per the self-reported data contained in the RIS fact-finding study from 2018, all relevant Member States provide ENC. However, the coverage of electronic charts for waterways of CEMT class Va and above (as mandated by the RIS Directive) is not yet at 100%. Although not required by the RIS Directive, most Member States also provide ENC for some smaller waterways, e.g. if they are considered relevant for traffic or if regional authorities in charge decide to make them available. This applies to all relevant Member States except for two, according to the RIS fact-finding study from 2018. All relevant Member States, along with non-EU Member States that voluntarily implement the RIS Directive, make their charts available free of charge for download on their respective websites. There is no indication of incompatibility between the charts and the technical specifications for Inland ECDIS mandated by the relevant Implementing Acts. Despite the positive fact that all relevant Member States make electronic navigational charts available free of charge, there are differences in their quality and accuracy. This can hinder the effectiveness of electronic navigational charts in achieving the expected benefits. As neither the RIS Directive nor its Implementing Acts include requirements related to the timeliness of information to be provided, Member States themselves decide how often to update charts. In most countries, this is done at least once a year. But there are several examples, where charts have not been updated since 2018. Four RIS authorities, two RIS developers, a user representative organisation and an international organisation pointed to complaints about charts not being sufficiently updated. According to that user representative organisation, there is a notable difference between regions, with Rhine countries updating their charts more frequently than those in the Danube. Aside from the fact that updates are not mandated by the RIS Directive, limited resources are a hindering factor for competent authorities in Member States in making electronic charts available. Measuring and providing the necessary data requires significant time and money. Although limited quantitative details on the costs associated with this are available, seven of the thirteen relevant Member States highlighted it as an issue. (b2) Benefits of electronic navigational charts:

Electronic navigational charts are highly valued by users of the waterways and RIS authorities alike as being a useful and beneficial tool for inland navigation. At the Common Issues meeting with all stakeholder groups in June 2019, 30% of participants ranked electronic navigational charts as the RIS instrument with the most positive impact on the sector. In the public consultation, 37 out of 44 respondents listed ENC as very useful or mostly useful. All nine surveyed skippers believed electronic charts to be useful for their day-to-day activities, and all interviewed stakeholders who expressed an opinion on the matter believe they have been useful and beneficial to skippers. There are indications that the availability of charts has benefitted the resource planning of waterway users as their availability provides users with the fairway information necessary to efficiently and safely navigate the waterways. As such, it allows users to plan their voyages, especially if they are not familiar with a route. Six RIS authorities along with four RIS developers are of the opinion that the RIS Directive led to improvements in voyage and resource planning. Despite indications that resource planning has improved, there is no conclusive evidence that this has resulted in cost or time savings. Of the six skippers who provided input to the questionnaire, half indicate a “small increase” in costs associated with electronic navigational charts, and the other half indicate a “small decrease”. Although there is no evidence to suggest a change in safety on inland waterways, there is a clear perception that safety has improved among RIS authorities and users alike. A survey carried out by the CCNR in 2017 found that 663 out of the 933 surveyed skippers believe that the implementation of Inland AIS and Inland ECDIS following the provisions of the Directive have contributed to safer and quicker navigation. This benefit is applicable to the combination of position and identification information from Inland AIS with the Electronic Navigational Charts. There is no evidence of any environmental benefits brought about by electronic navigational charts as a result of the RIS Directive. While five of the nine waterway users identified less fuel consumption as a benefit of the charts in the questionnaire, there is little reason to believe that the availability of the charts themselves have had an impact in this regard. Again, paired with AIS technology, which inter alia includes information on traffic density, electronic charts are likely to have more of an impact in this regard. Standardised Notices to Skippers (c1) Availability of standardised notices to skippers: The RIS Directive requires Member States to ensure that notices to skippers, including water level (or maximum allowable draught) and ice reports of their inland waterways, are provided as standardised, encoded and downloadable messages. According to the RIS fact-finding study, all relevant Member States make mandatory notices to skippers (containing information on FTM, WRM, ICEM) available on waterways of CEMT class IV and above to a large extent. However, in three Member States coverage of the relevant waterways has not reached 100% yet. In addition, three private sector interviewees stated that Hungary stopped providing notices to skippers digitally, and that the service level in Romania is limited. Two interviewees (port authority in Belgium and skipper in Romania) highlighted that ports do not adequately provide notices to skippers, or that their notices are not integrated in national-level portals. There are also indications that the notices to skippers are not always in line with the requirements of the Directive in terms of being encoded, downloadable, and following the common technical standards in the relevant Implementing Acts. Seven interviewees pointed out that some countries use too much free text rather than applying the standardised coding, which in turn hinders the automatic translation and interoperability with ECDIS systems envisaged by the RIS Directive. As a result, there is a lack of consistency across Member States in the degree to which notices to skippers are made available, which in turn limits the degree of interoperability. This in turn hinders the effectiveness of standardised notices to skippers. Variance in the means of distribution makes notices difficult to access from a skipper’s perspective. Skippers need to visit several websites to collect the necessary information for an international trip. There is limited automatic exchange of notices across borders. Only Austria and the Netherlands share notices automatically via their web services in line with the NtS standard version 4.0. Although it is not required by the Directive, cross-border exchange is encouraged. The availability of notices to skippers is reportedly hindered by the complexity of the technical requirements, which require time and technological know-how. There are indications that clearer or simpler guidelines for the encoding of NtS by the competent authorities might help, although they are already extensive, and regularly improved through the expert group on Notices to Skippers (from 2020, the CESNI temporary working group on Notices to Skippers). Three authorities from different countries mentioned that the new technical specifications for Notices to Skippers regulated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2032 are a great improvement. Relatedly, two RIS authorities highlighted that the lack of enforcement of the Directive is one of the reasons for the non-harmonised approach. Although a statement by two people is not sufficient to base conclusions on, this concern was raised more broadly by other respondents in the context of the RIS Directive in the public consultation. Not a single respondent believes the EU properly implemented the monitoring of the application of the Directive, detailing that there is no visible enforcement or pressure towards the Member States to comply with its requirements. It is true that there is no formal framework in place for monitoring the implementation of the Directive and no infringement procedures have been launched against non-compliant Member States. However, the RIS implementation has been guided by a formal Committee (Article 11 in the Directive) and the Commission has launched several implementation support measures, including the platform for the implementation of the NAIADES action programme (PLATINA). In 2017 the Commission has created the DINA Expert Group that assists in the development of digital strategy for inland waterways, including RIS. (c2) Benefits of standardised notices to skippers: Findings do not allow robust conclusions on the extent to which standardised notices to skippers have brought about any economic, social, or environmental benefits. This is due to limited quantitative evidence available to support stakeholder claims. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the relevant stakeholder group, namely the skippers themselves confirm the usefulness of standardised notices to skippers, and that they are an improvement relative to the situation prior to the RIS Directive. Notices to skippers were listed as the second most useful RIS technology in the public consultation. Of the seven waterway users that replied to the questionnaire, five confirmed that notices to skippers have been useful for them in their day-to-day activities. 23 interviewees confirmed the benefits of notices to skippers, listing the automatic translation of encoded messages and the integration with Inland ECDIS software as main enabling factors in this regard. The main benefits experienced by stakeholders are as follows: •Better voyage planning resulting from the availability of real-time information on traffic, weather, water levels, etc., although this benefit only materialises when authorities provide up-to-date information in an accessible format; •Improved safety and lower accident rate resulting from better planning through traffic information, as perceived by skippers and authorities alike; •Improved communication, facilitated by the automatic translations of encoded notices to skippers, which is conditional to the messages being provided in line with the requirements of the Directive. Although expected, there is no robust evidence to suggest that standardised notices to skippers have led to time or cost savings resulting from more efficient navigation and better information. There are indications that skippers still waste time collecting notices from several websites due to the lack of cross-border exchange of notices. There is no evidence of environmental benefits of notices to skippers. Although four waterway users believe notices to skippers have led to a reduction in fuel consumption through better voyage planning, there is no further evidence to suggest this is indeed the case.

5.1.2.Question 2: Compared to what would have happened in absence of the Directive, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to what extent have electronic ship reports reduced re-submissions when crossing a border and led to cost savings for the users of the waterways and Competent Authorities? The RIS Directive mandates that Member States should “enable, as far as ship reporting is required by national or international regulations, the competent authorities to receive electronic ship reports of the required data from ships. In cross-border transport, this information shall be transmitted to the competent authorities of the neighbouring State and any such transmission shall be completed before arrival of the vessels at the border”. Despite the lack of reliable quantitative evidence indicating a change in resubmissions in cross-border transport, evidence collected from stakeholders strongly suggests that there has not been a substantial reduction in resubmissions, as vessel information still needs to be reported more than once on an international voyage. Although the questionnaire produced mixed results, with two RIS users indicating a small reduction in resubmissions and two indicating no change, the majority of interviewed stakeholders believe that there has not been a decrease. The five interviewees, who indicate that there has been a decrease, note that this differs between countries/regions – two of them stating there has been a decrease on the Rhine because of the CCNR obligation to report electronically for container and tanker vessels, but not on the Danube. The evidence that there has not been a substantial reduction in resubmission of electronic reports is considered robust, because of the large number of interviewees who share the same views, and the examples given in support thereof. The main hindering factor to electronic ship reporting is the lack of harmonisation across countries. The Directive does not mandate specific requirements or details on how electronic ship reports are to be shared. As a result, Member States have different legal reporting obligations, requiring different vessel information, which hinders the reduction of resubmission even if authorities share data across countries. Additionally, data protection concerns were said to hinder the degree to which data is shared between competent authorities. In order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Member States need to conclude additional data exchange agreements for exchanging personal data for RIS purposes. There is no evidence of cost savings for users of the waterways, notably because there has not been a reduction in resubmissions. Stakeholders are positive about the potential benefits from electronic ship reporting the RIS Directive could bring about. There is a strong indication that cost savings, among other (indirect) benefits such as efficient calamity abatement, would materialise if electronic ship reporting was implemented in a harmonised, interoperable way. Then, electronic ship reporting can also reduce the administrative burden for reporting multiple times the same information during a single voyage. 5.1.3.Question 3: Compared to what would have happened in the absence of the Directive, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to what extent, with regard to the type-approval of equipment, has the implementation of the Directive led to the mutual recognition of RIS equipment as foreseen in Art. 7.1? Article 7 of the RIS Directive details the provisions for type-approval of RIS equipment. It states that, where necessary for safe navigation and required by the relevant technical specifications, “RIS terminal and network equipment and software applications shall be type-approved for compliance with those specifications before being put into service on inland waterways”. Additionally, all type-approvals issued by the relevant bodies of the Member States are to be mutually recognised by all others. Currently, only Inland ECDIS viewers in navigation mode and Inland AIS transponders are required to be type-approved in the EU. All type-approvals need to be carried out following the test standards referred to in the European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation vessels (ES-TRIN). The evaluation found that a single entity has been carrying out all type-approvals throughout the evaluation period (and before): the “Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, Fachstelle der WSV für Verkehrstechniken (FVT)” in Germany. Type-approved equipment includes six Inland ECDIS viewers and 46 Inland AIS devices, 24 of which conform to Test Standard 2.0 (CCNR) and are permitted to be installed on board. Four RIS authorities and the CCNR specifically mentioned that this system works well, and that there is no need for other authorities to carry out their own type-approvals. This view may be representative. None of the Member States experienced difficulties with mutual recognition of RIS equipment. All twelve interviewed stakeholders consider that mutual recognition of type-approved equipment works well. As such, it can be safely concluded that type-approved RIS equipment is mutually recognised across Member States as foreseen in Article 7 of the RIS Directive. However, the extent to which this is directly attributable to the RIS Directive is unclear. The lack of evidence on the change in numbers of mutually recognised type-approvals before and after the implementation of the Directive makes it impossible to establish the size of the change in approvals. There is a clear benefit of mutual recognition of type-approved RIS equipment across Member States. There are indications that this mutual recognition of type-approved equipment, certified in Germany, saves other RIS authorities time and money that would otherwise be spent on approving equipment themselves. However, there has been no quantified evidence of costs or time saved collected during this evaluation to reliably conclude this. 5.1.4.Question 4: Compared to what would have happened in the absence of the Directive, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to what extent has the Directive been overall effective in establishing an interoperable, harmonised RIS? The overall aim of the RIS Directive is “to establish harmonised RIS in the Community”. The majority of representatives from diverse stakeholder groups at the RIS Week in Galați agreed that the RIS Directive has led to the establishment of a harmonised, interoperable RIS to some extent. As overarching indicator consisting of findings from Questions 1-4, interviewed stakeholders largely agree that progress towards the establishment of harmonised and interoperable RIS has been made, but that the RIS Directive has not yet reached its full harmonisation potential. The degree of harmonisation differs depending on the different RIS technologies, with most harmonisation in type-approval of RIS equipment and electronic navigational charts, slightly less in data for navigation and planning and notices to skippers, and the least harmonisation in electronic ship reporting. Despite the lack of full harmonisation, stakeholders agree that harmonisation of RIS has been the strongest benefit brought about by the Directive, indicating that the progress made so far is highly valued. If the Directive and its associated technical standards are fully implemented in all Member States, it is highly likely that harmonisation will further improve. 5.1.5.Question 5: Compared to what would have happened in the absence of the Directive, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to what extent, has the Directive had unintended economic, social, or environmental effects? There is no strong, reliable evidence to conclude that the RIS Directive has brought about unintended positive effects. However, there are indications derived from qualitative assessments of stakeholders that it may have led to the following:

•Unintended economic effect: creation of new opportunities in the context of market developments such as (semi)-autonomous sailing. According to four interviewees from the public and private sectors, the RIS Directive paved the way for innovation in inland navigation. At the RIS Common Issues meeting in Galați with representatives of diverse stakeholder groups, the audience poll confirmed that the Directive created “new and interesting opportunities”. •Unintended social effects: creation of high-tech working places, the expansion of educational programmes to include RIS technologies, and the political salience of the inland navigation sector, within and beyond Europe. Three public sector interviewees at national and international level stated that the Directive had indirectly (i.e. through its promotion of the use of RIS), led to the creation of new educational programmes for students, that now include training on AIS and ECDIS. Two interviewees from RIS authorities in the Danube and the Rhine region stated that the Directive also created political awareness in some countries where inland navigation was not high priority in transport policy. However, they did not indicate that this was the case in their country, rather speculating that this might have occurred elsewhere in Europe. There is no indication of unintended positive environmental effects of the RIS Directive. Consulted stakeholders did not highlight any positive environmental effects of the Directive beyond those that were intended or expected. 5.1.6.Question 6: At the level of its general objectives and compared to what would have happened in the absence of the Directive, to what extent (in quantitative and qualitative terms) has the Directive contributed to (a) increased competitiveness of the inland waterway sector across Europe; (b) an optimised use of existing infrastructures; (c) improved safety in river navigation; (d) reduction of the sector's negative impacts on the environment? (a) Competitiveness Competitiveness is expected to improve through the time and money saved by waterway users as a result of better voyage planning, efficient ship loading based on current fairway conditions, and interoperability with the full supply chain and other modes of transport in Europe. The econometric modelling as part of the evaluation support study could not prove that the RIS Directive had an impact on the performance or growth of the inland navigation sector. Although there has been a positive trend in the growth of the inland waterway transport sector since the adoption of the RIS Directive, there is no significant evidence to show that the RIS Directive influenced this trend. Despite the fact that there is no quantitative evidence, some stakeholders believe the RIS Directive has affected the competitiveness of the sector to some extent. Eleven interviewees believe the RIS Directive has influenced the competitiveness of the inland navigation sector to some extent. However, some of them think this effect is indirect, or not solely attributable to the Directive. Only two interviewees believe the RIS Directive has not had any positive impact on the competitiveness of the sector. One of them is a private sector interviewee who was particularly concerned with the limited competitiveness of IWT in his country, and one was a public sector interviewee that believes RIS would have developed at the same pace without the Directive. Five other interviewees think the harmonisation brought about by the RIS Directive has improved the sector’s competitiveness, compared to what could have been achieved by Member States or River Commissions. The intended increase in competitiveness of the sector compared to other modes of transport has not been achieved, as the modal share of the sector has remained stable since 2005, consistently accounting for not more than 6.9% of total freight transport in Europe. Stakeholders are hopeful that the Directive can have an impact on this shift in the future, when river information services are fully implemented. (b) Use of infrastructure Very limited evidence on the use of infrastructure is available, which makes it impossible to prove or disprove whether the RIS Directive optimised its use. RIS authorities were asked to provide details on lock, bridge and fairway utilisation, but no conclusive data was received. There is also no consensus in their qualitative assessments if utilisation has changed as a result of the RIS Directive, indicating that it is difficult to estimate without concrete data. Although twelve interviewees believe that the use of existing infrastructure has been optimised, it seems that RIS is not yet used for more efficient lock planning in most Member States. In many cases, locks operate on a first come - first serve basis, which simply does not allow for any advanced slot planning. Although user associations and RIS developers acknowledge a potential benefit, none of them indicated it was indeed happening in their Member State. Nevertheless, three user representative organisations and two RIS developers do acknowledge the potential for efficiency gains in the future. Although not all of them believe the Directive specifically plays a role in this, one of them explained that work on lock and bridge digitalisation will bring efficiency gains in the context of the RIS COMEX project, which would not exist without the RIS Directive. There are indications that there is a potential for RIS to achieve this, although in reality it has not promoted change in lock or terminal management in the Member States yet. The degree to which the Directive itself plays a role in this is unclear.



(c) Safety and security Safety This Directive was expected to reduce accidents and thus to increase safety through better information. There is no statistical evidence available to show that there has been a decrease in the number of accidents (and thus an increase in safety) over the 2005-2019 period, let alone that the RIS Directive played a role in this. Accident data is not measured consistently across countries and over time, so it is likely to be inaccurate. No legislation exists so far for the collection and publication of inland waterway accident statistics at EU level. There are qualitative indicators that the RIS Directive has nevertheless had a positive impact in this regard. The overwhelming majority of the stakeholders consulted, both public and private, believe the RIS Directive had a positive impact on safety. Of the fifteen waterway users and their associations consulted, eleven specifically highlighted an improvement in the degree of safety because of the RIS Directive. They explain that they feel safer because they are quickly made aware of threats to safe navigation, can use AIS to see other vessels and avoid collisions, and use electronic charts with the necessary details about the fairway to avoid collisions with infrastructure. A similar pattern emerged in the public consultation, where 42 respondents believe the RIS Directive to have contributed to enhanced safety in inland navigation. Not all stakeholders are convinced that this change is attributable to the RIS Directive rather than RIS as such.

Data Security There are indications that Member States revisited their approach to data security because of the RIS Directive. Three interviewed RIS authorities specifically mentioned that the RIS Directive had an impact on their legal approach to data safety and security. Twenty respondents to the public consultation believe that data protection and data security is taken seriously enough in the RIS Directive, while eleven believe it is not. A main point of concern relates to websites publishing vessel information originating from AIS and offering services that are in complete opposition to the Directive’s articles concerning data protection and re-use of public information. Paired with the evidence collected in the cont