COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Directive 2005/44/EC on Harmonised River Information Services (RIS)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: exchange of information, information system, inland waterway shipping, network of navigable waterways, pollution control, technical specification, transport infrastructure, transport safety, water protection, waterway transport

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.2.2021  SWD(2021) 50 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the Directive 2005/44/EC on Harmonised River Information Services (RIS) {SWD(2021) 51 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

BACKGROUND TO THE RIVER INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTIVE ................................ 7 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 14 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 27 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 31 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 63 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AIS 

BICS 

BICS 

CCNR 

CEF 

CEMT class 

CESNI / TI 

EDI 

ELWIS 

ERDMS 

ERI 

ERINOT 

EU 

Automatic Identification System 

Barge Information and Communication System 

Barge Information and Communication System 

Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Inland waterway classification according to CEMT (European 
Conference of Ministers of Transport) Resolution No 92/2. 

European committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland 
navigation; TI is the working group on information technology 

Electronic Data Interchange 

Elektronisches Wasserstraßen Informations System 

European Reference Data Management System 

Electronic Reporting International 

Electronic Reporting International Notification (message) 

European Union 

Fairway authority 

Competent authority for safety of inland navigation 

FTM 

GDP 

GDPR 

ICEM 

ICT 

IEHG 

IENC 

Fairway and traffic related message (Notices to Skippers) 

Gross domestic product 

General Data Protection Regulation 

Ice message (Notices to Skippers) 

Information and communication technologies 

Inland Electronic Navigational Charts Harmonization Group 

Inland Electronic Navigational Charts 

Inland ECDIS 

Inland Electronic Chart Display and Information System 

ISSG 

IWT 

Inter Service Steering Group 

Inland waterway transport 

2 

 
 
 
MS 

NTS 

PIANC 

RIS 

RIS authority 

RIS Index 

RIS provider 

Skipper 

TEN-T 

UNECE 

VTS 

VTT 

WERM 

WRM 

EU Member State(s) 

Notices to Skippers 

World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure 

River information services 

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. 

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. 

The organisation or organisational unit assigned (typically by a 
RIS authority) to operate the RIS-System and to provide RIS-
Services 

Boat master, shipmaster, master, master in charge and captain 

Trans-European Transport Network 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

Vessel Traffic Services 

Vessel Tracking and Tracing 

Weather related message (Notices to Skippers) 

Water level related message (Notices to Skippers) 

Fairway authority 

Competent authority for safety of inland navigation 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the findings of the ex-post evaluation1 of the Directive 2005/44/EC2 
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 Deal3. 

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 expectations4.  

1  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1171-River-information-services-

on-inland-waterways 

2 Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 152–159 
3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf 
4 Although the original  initiative had  not been accompanied by an  impact assessment at the time and no 
precise predictions were made on its performance, the Directive’s objectives are clear enough to assess 
how well different aspects of the initiative have worked relative to expectations. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
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 
(REFIT5). 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) …”6  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/EC7. 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  importance8  and  have  applied  the  RIS  Directive  on  basis  of  international 
agreements concluded with the EU9.  

The evaluation follows the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox10. 
The  analysis  is  structured  around  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value. 

5   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-

eu-law-simpler-less-costly-and-future-proof_en#about-refit  

6  European Parliament resolution of 9 September 2015 on the implementation of the 2011 White Paper on 
Transport: taking stock and the way forward towards sustainable mobility (2015/2005(INI)), OJ C 316, 
22.9.2017, p. 155–172 

7  It applies to the implementation and operation of RIS on all inland waterways of the Member States of 
class IV and above which are linked by a waterway of class IV or above to a waterway of class IV or 
above of another Member State, including the ports on such waterways.  

8  European  Agreement  on  Main  Inland  Waterways  of  International  Importance  (AGN),  UNECE,  19 

January 1996 

9  Transport Community Treaty concluded by Serbia and EU-Ukraine Association Agreement 
10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox.pdf  

5 

 
                                                           
•  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 
technical  guidelines  and 
specifications are sufficient to respond to the changed needs, given technological 
developments; 

the 

•  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. 

6 

 
 
 
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 IV11 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 

technical 
specifications  for  vessel  tracking  and  tracing  systems  (as  amended  by 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2012),  

(EU)  No  415/2007  concerning 

the 

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; 

11 Classification of European Inland Waterways, UNECE Resolution No 30 of 12 November 1992 

7 

 
                                                           
• 

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  (UNECE12,  PIANC13),  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  technologies14.  The  RIS 
Expert Groups produced the standards including updates, but also technical clarification 
documents and other relevant documentation. The developed standards were delivered to 

12 The UNECE adopts resolutions for international standards for vessel tracking and tracing, electronic ship 
reporting, notices to skippers, electronic chart display and information systems and guidelines for RIS in 
general. RIS are on the agenda of the SC.3/WP.3 and inland Transport Committee of the UNECE. 

13 PIANC has published the RIS guidelines, which are also enshrined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 

414/2007. The RIS Guidelines are currently undergoing a major revision. 

14 The four RIS Expert Groups are as follows: Expert Group on Electronic Chart Display and Information 
Systems (Inland ECDIS); Expert Group on Electronic Reporting International (ERI); Expert Group on 
Notices to Skippers (NtS); and Expert Group on Vessel Tracking and Tracing (VTT). 

8 

 
                                                           
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)15. 

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 ESO16 and 
EBU17. 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. 

15  CESNI/TI  was  established  in  June  2019  and  its  activities  thus  fall  outside  of  the  scope  of  the  present 

evaluation. 

16 European Skippers Organisation: branch organisation that  represents the  interest of independent vessel 

owner / operators and national organisations 

17  European  Barge  Union:  branch  organisation  that  represents  the  interests  of  freight  brokers  and  some 

larger IWT companies with multiple vessels 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
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  output18  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 
introduced  additional 
administrative burden in cross-border operation. 

transport  operations  and  would  have 

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 

technological 
there  have  been  substantive  policy,  economic  and 
Since  2005, 
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 

18 In this context, outputs are the actions that contribute to achieving an outcome 

10 

 
                                                           
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-TRIN19)  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 
technological 
improvements, projects and systems is likely to have occurred. 

investments 

in 

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. 

19 European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation vessels 

11 

 
                                                           
Figure 1: Monthly goods transport on the traditional Rhine (in million tonnes, 01/2003 - 12/2018), 
financial crisis and low-water periods20 

•  High  fuel  prices  during  the  evaluation  period,  leading  vessel  owners  to  lower 
to  have  had  positive 

speed 
to  reduce  fuel  consumption,  are 
environmental effect unrelated to RIS technologies.  

likely 

Figure 2: Consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes - EU weighted average21 

20 Source: CCNR, Annual Report 2019, Inland Navigation in Europe, Market Observation 
21 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/data-analysis/weekly-oil-bulletin_en (DG ENER, oil bulletin) 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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. 

13 

 
 
 
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. 

14 

 
 
 
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”22 concluded that all countries had transposed 
the Directive into national legislation. According to this report, only four out of twelve23 
Member States achieved the transposition within the required timeframe of the Directive. 
The  transposition  section24  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 force25. 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)26 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. 

22 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/inland/studies/doc/2014-07-evaluation-of-ris-

implementation-main-report.pdf  

23 Excluding Croatia, which became a Member State in 2013 
24 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex:32005L0044  
25 In  June  2010  the  voluntary RIS Expert Groups on Notices  to  Skippers  and  Electronic  Reporting  

established  the  Joint  Task  Force  on  the RIS  Index, based  on  the input of the PLATINA project 

26 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/RIS/EUERDMS_WEB  

15 

 
                                                           
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 Slovakia27.  

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. 

27 The study listed Luxembourg as “not applicable” because they indicated that their charts are provided via 
the German ELWIS portal. As their stretch of the Mosel river which is applicable to the RIS Directive is 
shared  with  Germany,  there  is  no  need  for  both  authorities  to  provide  charts  separately.  As  a  result, 
coverage in Luxembourg is 100% as well. 

16 

 
                                                           
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  Website28  (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 

Rhine 

France 

Rhin 

MOSELLE CANALISEE - de 
Neuves-Maisons à Apach 

Germany 

Rhein-Herne-Kanal,  

Switzerland 

The Netherlands 

Danube 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Rhein 

Neckar 

Mosel 

Rhine 

Ijsel, Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal, 
Eemskanaal, Boven-Rijn, Waal 

Danube 

Donaukanal 

Danube 

Danube 

Sava 

Drava 

Germany 

Main-Donau-Kanal 

Hungary 

Romania 

Serbia 

Slovakia 

Ukraine 

Donau 

Donau 

Danube + branches 

Danube 

Sava 

Tisza 

Danube 

Danube 

Dnipro 

North-
South 

Flanders 

Schelde, Leie, Dender, Rupel, 
Ijzer, canals, ports 

East-
West 

Wallonia 

France 

Canal, Maas, Samber, Leie, 
Haute Escaut, others 

Garonne, Grande Saone, 
Escaut, Oise, Seine, Rhone, 
Canal du Rhone au Rhin 

The Netherlands 

Czech Republic 

Elbe 

Germany 

Poland 

Vltava 

Oder 

Elbe 

Others 

Lake Dabie 

Odra 

West Oder 

Minimum 
content 

updates 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

104,5 km 
planned 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no information 

depends on region 

yes 

last update 2018 

no 

yes 

2018 

Macin+Sfantu  

minimum once a 
year 

planned 

minimum once a 
year 

no information 

yes (once a year if 
necessary) 

no 

yes 

depends on region 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

km 

142 

150 

45,5 

555,4 

202,9 

242 

20,9 

1743,4 

329 

17 

235 

139 

382 

23 

171 

213 

379 

1487 

588 

210,8 

164 

172 

171 

983 

978,54 
km/ 
987,5 
29

km² 

365,1 

766 

730,4 

223 

91,6 

162,5 

619,2 

2236,62 

9,5 

44,6 

36,6 

28 https://ienc.openecdis.org/links  
29 978,54 km waterways and 987,5 km² port area / estuarial navigation 

17 

Available for 
free 

Version of 
standard 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

under 
discussion 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

2.3 

2.1 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3.6 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3 

mostly 2.3 

2.3 

2.3 

2.0 

2.0 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3 
(Garonne 
2.1) 

2.3.6 

2.0 

2.3 

2.3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Corridor   Country 

Waterway 

Canal Przekop Klucz-Ustowo 

Parnica and canal Przekop 
Parnick 

Minimum 
content 

updates 

Available for 
free 

Version of 
standard 

km 

2,7 

6,9 

Table 1: IENC implementation status according to IEHG (February 2019) 

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 message30, 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 (BICS31) 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 

30 for reporting of information on voyages, goods and number of persons on board 
31 https://www.bics.nl/ 

18 

 
                                                           
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 two32 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 operations33. 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. 

How is electronic reporting facilitated from user-perspective? 

n
i
d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
S

?
y
r
t
n
u
o
c

]
o
N

/

s
e
Y

[

e
t
i
s
b
e
W

EU  
Member 
State 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Czech 
Republic 

France 

Germany 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Hungary 
Luxembourg  Yes 
Netherlands  Yes 
Yes 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l
p
p
a

d
e
t
a
c
i
d
e
D

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

  Remarks  
r
e
h
t
O

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. 
Electronic submission through BICS (Flanders) 
for Wallonia the GINA application is mentioned, reporting through 
BICS is indicated as ‘non-operational’ 
BULRIS (http://eri.bulris.bg). In addition, R2D2 web services are 
supported.  

x 

Desktop application SPS Dispatching 
Web application https://plavba.lavdis.cz/  
Import of ERINOT messages received by e-mail (pilot operation) 
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) 
BICS 

Reporting is in pilot operation through PannonRIS.  

x 

Through BICS and the reporting system of Germany 

BICS 

Currently in test phase  
(https://eridgw.ris-odra.pl/eridgw/login)  
Through the RoRIS system and BICS 

Reporting is possible through SlovRIS. Interfaces are available to 
use BICS as well. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Table 2: Overview of electronic reporting systems in each relevant Member State (2018) 

32 Austria and Slovakia (2018) 
33 see https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/studies/2017-10-dina.pdf  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
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. 

20 

 
 
 
Coverage of NtS messages (in %) per Member State for class IV waterways and above and for smaller waterways 

Fairway  & 
Traffic 
Message 
(FTM) 

Water 
Related 
Message 
(WRM) 

Ice 
Messages 
(ICEM) 

Weather 
related 
messages 
(WERM) 
(optional) 

Inter-
national 
NtS 
exchange 

data 

e
v
o
b
a
d
n
a
V
I

s
s
a
l
C
%

e
v
o
b
a
d
n
a
V
I

s
s
a
l
C
%

e
v
o
b
a
d
n
a
V
I

s
s
a
l
C
%

e
v
o
b
a
d
n
a
V
I

s
s
a
l
C
%

V
I

s
s
a
l
C
w
o
l
e
B
%

V
I

s
s
a
l
C
w
o
l
e
B
%

V
I

s
s
a
l
C
w
o
l
e
B
%

V
I

s
s
a
l
C
w
o
l
e
B
%

e
v
o
b
a
d
n
a
V
I

s
s
a
l
C
%

V
I

s
s
a
l
C
w
o
l
e
B
%

100 

n/a 

100 

n/a 

100 

n/a 

Not 
published 

100 

n/a 

100 

-  

100 

-  

100 

- 

100 

- 

100 

- 

100 

100 

100 

n/a 

60 

0 

100 

100 

100 

n/a 

60 

0 

100 

100 

100 

n/a 

60 

0 

100 

100 

0 

n/a 

60 

0 

100 

0 

0 

n/a 

60 

0 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

70 

100 

100 

48,3 

100 

69 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

0 

70 

0 

70 

0 

n/a 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

100 

48,3 

100 

69 

n/a 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

100 

48,3 

100 

69 

n/a 

100 

0 

0 

0 

n/a 

70 

No 

100 

48,3 

100 

69 

n/a 

0 

n/a 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

70 

No 

100 

0 

100 

69 

-- 

0 

n/a 

100 

0 

0 

0 

EU  
Member State 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 
Czech 
Republic 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Austrian 

Remarks 
NtS 
All 
are  made 
messages 
available 
via 
standardised  NtS  Web 
Service Interface 
 No  Exchange  of  NtS. 
Data  can  be  accessed 
through 
standardised 
‘web  services.  Flanders 
refers 
to  VisuRIS. 
Wallonia  sends  NtS  to 
The Netherlands. 

ICEM in pilot operation 

e-mail 

International  exchange 
a 
by 
webservice  is  planned 
for 2019. 

only; 

Only  on  RIS  covered 
areas 

Only for the Danube  

Not 
Maritime 
apply.  

applicable; 
messages 

Table 3: Coverage of Notices to Skippers per Member State – self reported data (2018) 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 Regulation34 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”. 

34 Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2007 of 13 March 2007 concerning the technical specifications for 
vessel  tracking  and  tracing  systems  referred  to  in  Article  5  of  Directive  2005/44/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the  Council on harmonised river information services (RIS)  on inland  waterways in 
the Community 

22 

 
 
                                                           
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 owners35 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. 

35 sample n=1203 

23 

 
 
                                                           
OVERVIEW OF RIS AUTHORITIES 

EU 
Member State 

legally  responsible  for  RIS 

Body 
implementation 

RIS provider(s) 

Other authorities / main stakeholders   Remarks 

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. 

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and 
Technology  -  Supreme  Navigation  Authority 
(Department  navigation  – 
technical  and 
nautical affairs 

-  Department  Mobiliteit  en  Openbare 
Werken (Department of Mobility and Public 
Works) of the Flemish government 

Government  of  the  Brussels-Capital  Region 
– department mobility and public works 

 

of 

Austria 

Belgium 
Flanders 

Belgium  
Port 
Brussels 

Belgium  
Wallonia 

Bulgaria 

 

 

 

 

 

-  De  Vlaamse  Waterweg  nv  for  inland 
waterways 
-  Maritieme  Dienstverlening  en  Kust 
is 
responsible  for  the  RIS  activities  in  the 
Scheldt.  
Port  of  Brussels  is  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  RIS  in  the  port  area  (and 
subsequently thereby the Brussels’ region) 

 

are 

 
The  ports  of  Antwerp,  Ghent,  Oostende  and 
for  RIS 
Zeebrugge 
implementation  in  the  ports.  RIS  activities 
for  inland  navigation  are  coordinated  with 
and complementary to maritime navigation. 

responsible 

 

 

Walloon 
Wallon) 

Government 

(Gouvernement 

 

Direction de la Gestion des Voies Navigables 
(Waterways  management  department)  of  the 
Public Service of Wallonia 

 

of 

Transport, 

Ministry 
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) 

In  the  Scheldt  area  actions  are  coordinated 
through  a  Common  Nautical  Management 
authority  with 
infrastructure 
the  Dutch 
manager Rijkswaterstaat. 

The  Port  of  Brussels  is  connected  to  the 
VisuRIS 
the  Flemish  RIS 
authorities. 

system  of 

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. 
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 

Ministry  of  Transport,  on  behalf  of  the 
ministry  the Czech  Waterways  Directorate  is 
responsible  for  technological  solutions  and 
implementations 
the  RIS 
such 
infrastructure and its adjustments 

as 

Czech 
Republic 

According  to  the  Inland  Navigation  Act  the 
State  Navigation  Authority 
the  RIS 
provider. 

is 

-  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 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW OF RIS AUTHORITIES 

EU 
Member State 

legally  responsible  for  RIS 

Body 
implementation 

RIS provider(s) 

The Ministry of Transport  

Voies Navigable de France (VNF)  

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital 
Infrastructure 

- The Ministry of Innovation and Technology 
is legally responsible for the implementation 
of RIS, represented by: 

the  Waterways 

-  The  Federal  Waterways  and  Shipping 
Agency is responsible for standardisation and 
implementation  of  RIS  applications  along 
waterways. 
- The Department Traffic Engineering Inland 
of 
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. 
The  National  Association  of  Radio  Distress-
Signalling & Info Communications (RSOE) 

and 

  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. 

Luxembourg 

Ministry  of  Sustainable  Development  and 
Infrastructure 

Le service de la navigation 

25 

Other authorities / main stakeholders   Remarks 

discharge information. 

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 
French 
government, is in charge of the validation of 
RIS  technology  in  France  before  making 
improvements operational. 

department 

the 

of 

in 

terms  of 

RIS  operation 
information 
provision  on  ELWIS  is  organised  decentral 
by  Waterways  and  Shipping  Offices  and 
River Information Services Centres. 

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 
is  a  private 
French  government.  CNR 
company 
the 
for 
and 
implementation  of  RIS  in  their  area.  CNR 
also manages the port of Lyon. 

responsible 

is 

-  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 

-  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 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
EU 
Member State 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

OVERVIEW OF RIS AUTHORITIES 

legally  responsible  for  RIS 

Body 
implementation 

RIS provider(s) 

Other authorities / main stakeholders   Remarks 

Ministry 
Watermanagement 

of 

Infrastructure 

and 

of 

Infrastructure 

and 
The  Minister 
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  

a 

to 

sees 

coordinated 
The  NRA 
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. 

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 
required 
information.  

to  gather 

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) 

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 

26 

-  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. 
Institute 
-  Slovak  Hydro-meteorological 
ústav, 
(Slovenský 
SHMÚ) 
specialized  organization 
providing  hydrological  and  meteorological 
services  at  the  national  and  international 
level. 

hydro-meteorologický 
a 

is 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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  implementation36  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 roadmap37 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” website38) 
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, 

36 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/inland/studies/doc/2014-07-evaluation-of-ris-

implementation-main-report.pdf 

37 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1171-River-information-

services-on-inland-waterways 

38 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say 

27 

 
 
                                                           
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 study39). 

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 

39 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e3752fc7-7ec0-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

28 

 
                                                           
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 

29 

 
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. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
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 
the 
requirement  “at  least  in  an  accessible  electronic  format”40.  According  to  the  RIS  fact-
finding  study41,  all  relevant  Member  States  reported  to  comply  with  the  Directive’s 
requirements for making the data available.  

inland  waterways”  adding 

Although the Directive’s Annex clearly states minimum data requirements42, 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  consultation43 
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  authorities44  and  one  RIS  developer  specifically  stressed 
the extent of the data to be measured which made the collection of accurate and up-to-
date 
total  of  seven  RIS  authorities  overall 
acknowledged limitations due to human and financial resource constraints45.  

information  burdensome,  while  a 

This was further confirmed by seven other RIS authorities46, 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. 

40 Article 4(3a), Directive 2005/44/EC   
41 Fact-finding study on the practical and operational measures in application of the RIS Directive, 2018 
42 Annex I, “Minimum Data Requirements”, Directive 2005/44/EC 
43 Table 7, page 54 
44 All three authorities are located in Western Europe, though we expect that this issue also exists in other 

Member States. 

45 Seven RIS authorities from all parts of Europe mentioned the lack of resources as a hindering factor in 
making data for navigation and planning available. Although not all of them specifically stated this to be 
an issue, two of the three who did are Western European countries with Gross Domestic Products above 
the EU average. 

46  RIS  authorities  from  different  parts  of  Europe  share  this  opinion  –  no  pattern  emerges  in  terms  of 

geographical location. 

31 

 
 
                                                           
(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 them47. 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 interviews48, 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 interviewees49 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 future50. 

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  users51.  As  per  the  self-
reported  data  contained  in  the  RIS  fact-finding  study  from  2018,  all  relevant  Member 
States  provide  ENC52.  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 

47  See  Question  53  of  the  RIS  user  questionnaire,  in  section  5.3.5.,  Annex  1  “Findings  from  the  survey 

questionnaires” of the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

48  See  section  6.1  on  benefits  (EQ  1.4),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

49  See  section  6.1  on  benefits  (EQ  1.4),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

50 A total of five interviewees, including three RIS authorities, a RIS developer and a skipper see potential 
in this regard. Two of them mentioned the expected progress of the RIS COMEX project in this regard: 
further  harmonisation  and  provision  of  e.g.  traffic  information  will  have  benefits  for  the  sector  as  a 
whole in the future. 

51 Article 4(3b), Directive 2005/44/EC 
52 See Table 1, page 15 

32 

 
                                                           
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  websites53.  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  201854.  Four  RIS 
authorities,  two  RIS  developers,  a  user  representative  organisation  and  an  international 
organisation  pointed  to  complaints  about  charts  not  being  sufficiently  updated55. 
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 
issue56. 

(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 sector57. In the public consultation, 37 out  of 44 respondents listed ENC as very 
useful  or  mostly  useful58.  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 skippers59. 

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 

53 https://ienc.openecdis.org/links 
54 https://ienc.openecdis.org/links#overview-availability-of-inland-encs  
55  See  section  6.1  on  benefits  (EQ  1.4),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

56 From Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia. 
57  See  Question  7  in  section  8.1.,  Annex  4  “Findings  from  the  events  attended”  to  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 
58 See Figure 8, page 57 
59  See  section  6.1  on  benefits  (EQ  1.5),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

33 

 
                                                           
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”60. 

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  navigation61.  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 questionnaire62, 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  messages63.  According  to  the 
RIS  fact-finding  study64,  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%  yet65.  In  addition,  three  private  sector 
interviewees stated that Hungary stopped providing notices to skippers digitally, and that 
the  service  level  in  Romania  is  limited66.  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 portals67. 

60 See Question 23 in section 5.3.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

61 CCNR, 2017, Inland AIS devices and  electronic chart display systems on the river Rhine, Analysis of 
the  online  survey  conducted    in  the  context  of  evaluating  the  implementation  of  the  mandatory 
installation 

62 See Question 28 in section 5.3.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

63 Article 4(3d), Directive 2005/44/EC   
64 Fact-finding study on the practical and operational measures in application of the RIS Directive, 2018 
65 See Table 3, page 19 
66 One skipper active in Romania explained that until recently, notices to skippers were printed, signed, and 
photographed, and the resulting pdf file uploaded to the Romanian RIS portal (RoRIS). Their quality has 
improved,  but  a  quick  scan  of  the  portal  shows  that  there  is  no  automatic  translation  of  all  notices, 
indicating a lack of adequate encoding. 

67  See  section  6.1  on  availability  (EQ  1.3),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

34 

 
                                                           
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 coding68, 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 countries69 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  authorities70  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 
consultation71.  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 

68  See  section  6.1  on  availability  (EQ  1.3),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 
69 France, Slovakia, Serbia 
70 Austria, Belgium (Flanders) 
71 See Figure 17, page 73 

35 

 
                                                           
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 consultation72. 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  activities73.  23  interviewees74 
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 planning75, 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”76. 

72 See Figure 8, page 60 
73 See Question 35 in section 5.3.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

74  Including  two  European-level  user  associations,  three  national-level  user  associations  and  six  RIS 

developers, as well as 11 public bodies. 

75 See Question 46 in section 5.3.4., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

76 Article 4(3c), Directive 2005/44/EC 

36 

 
  
                                                           
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 change77, the majority of interviewed stakeholders78 
believe that there has not been a decrease. The five interviewees79, 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 Danube80. 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 examples81 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)82,  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 about83. 
There  is  a  strong  indication  that  cost  savings,  among  other  (indirect)  benefits  such  as 
efficient  calamity  abatement84,  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.  

77 It should be noted that there were more respondents from the Danube region to the questionnaire, so this 
can  skew  the  results.  See  Question  74  in  section  5.3.6.,  Annex  1  “Findings  from  the  survey 
questionnaires” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

78 This was stated by interviewees from all different stakeholder groups and different regions. A total of 28 

out of the 33 who discussed electronic ship reporting voiced this opinion. 

79 Four RIS authorities (1 non-EU) and one RIS developer 
80 See section 6.1. on electronic ship reporting, Annex 2 “Findings from the interviews” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

81 According to one skipper, on a trip between Constanța and Budapest, he needs to report on his voyage 
and  cargo  around  five  times.  Representative  associations  listed  similar  examples:  several  reports  from 
Flushing  to  Liège;  from  Basel  to  Rotterdam;  from  Constanța  to  Rotterdam;  and  even  within  the  same 
country, e.g. Romania and Bulgaria. 
82 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj 
83 See Question 62 in section 5.2.7., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

84  Six  national  and  international  level  interviewees  mentioned  that  electronic  reporting  aids  calamity 

abatement 

37 

 
 
                                                           
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 others85. 

in  navigation  mode86  and  Inland  AIS 
Currently,  only  Inland  ECDIS  viewers 
transponders87 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)88. 

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 
board89.  Four  RIS  authorities90  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  stakeholders91  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 

85 Article 7(3), Directive 2005/44/EC 
86  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1973  of  7  December  2018  amending  Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  No  909/2013  on  the  technical  specifications  for  the  electronic  chart  display  and 
information  system  for  inland  navigation  (Inland  ECDIS)  referred  to  in  Directive  2005/44/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council. 

87 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/838 of 20 February 2019 on technical specifications 

for vessel tracking and tracing systems and repealing Regulation (EC) No 415/2007. 

88 https://www.cesni.eu/en/types/technical-requirements/ 
89 See https://listes.cesni.eu/2030-en.html and https://listes.cesni.eu/2050-en.html 
90 Czechia, France, Slovakia, Serbia 
91  This  includes  RIS  authorities  from  Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  the  Netherlands,  Romania,  Serbia, 
Slovakia  and  Switzerland,  highlighting  that  mutual  recognition  works  throughout  the  EU,  and  even 
beyond. 

38 

 
                                                           
themselves92.  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”93.  

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  extent94.  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  valued95.  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 

92 This was mentioned by RIS authorities in Czechia, France and Slovakia 
93 Preamble (12), Directive 2005/44/EC 
94  13  people  believe  it  had  “to  a  large  extent”,  30  people  “to  some  extent”  and  10  people  “to  a  limited 
extent”. Only 1 person believes the RIS Directive had not been successful in this at all. See Question 2 in 
section 8.1, Annex 4 “Findings from the events attended” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

95 See section 6.5 on EU added value (EQ 20), Annex 2, “Findings from the interviews” of the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                           
Galați  with  representatives  of  diverse  stakeholder  groups,  the  audience  poll 
confirmed that the Directive created “new and interesting opportunities”96. 

•  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 modelling97 as part of the evaluation support study98 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  interviewees99  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 

96  See  Question  8  in  section  8.1,  Annex  4  “Findings  from  the  events  attended”  to  the  Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

97 The model was based on the total tonne.km transport quantity in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany 
for the dry cargo sector. Although this does not allow for generalisation at the EU level, these countries 
constitute a large share of the market. 

98 See Annex 5, Final Report – Technical Annexes 
99  Including  three  RIS  Expert  Group  chairpersons,  two  RIS  authorities,  two  River  Commissions,  two 

international organisations and two RIS developers. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
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 Commissions100. 

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 
Europe101. 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 data102. 

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 States103. 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 future104. 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 project105, 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.  

100  See  section  6.5  on  EU  added  value  (EQ  20),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the 

Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

101  See  more  details  in  section  6.2.2.1  “Modal  share”  in  Annex  6  “Ex-post  social  cost-benefit  analysis”, 

Final Report – Technical Annexes 

102 See section 5.2.9, Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder Consultation 

Report 

103 See section 6.1 on optimised use of infrastructures (EQ 6), Annex 2, “Findings from the interviews” of 

the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

104 Idem 
105 RIS COMEX (until 2021) is a CEF funded multi-Beneficiary project of 13 European countries for the 
implementation and sustainable operation of Corridor RIS  Services.  RIS  COMEX  will realise a single 
point of access to RIS for private and governmental users. (https://www.riscomex.eu) 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
(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 this106. 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 level107. 

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 safety108. 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  navigation109.  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 authorities110 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 
not111.  A  main  point  of  concern  relates  to  websites112  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 context of Question 2 (i.e. the lack of international data 
exchange because of data protection concerns) this indicates that there is room to further 
streamline  approaches  to  data  security  and  protection  and  to  improve  GDPR 
enforcement113.  

106  See  section  6.2.2.3  “Accidents”  in  Annex  6  “Ex-post  social  cost-benefit  analysis”,  Final  Report  – 

Technical Annexes 

107  Kriedel,  N.  (2019),  Accidents  and  accidentology  in  inland  navigation  -  existing  and  future  data 
collection and analysis, Statistics and Market Observation, Central Commission for the Navigation of the 
Rhine (CCNR), findings presented on IVR congress in 2019, 21 p. 

108  See  section  6.1  on  improved  river  safety  (EQ  6),  Annex  2,  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  of  the 

Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

109 See Figure 7, page 64 
110 Austria, Bulgaria, the Netherlands 
111 See Figure 14, page 69 
112 E.g. vesselfinder.com, marinetraffic.com and others 
113 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Data protection as a 
pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition - two years of application 
of the General Data Protection Regulation (COM/2020/264 final) 

42 

 
 
 
                                                           
(d) Increased environmental protection 

Although not directly attributable to a single RIS technology alone, there are quantitative 
and  qualitative  indications  that  the  use  of  RIS  has  reduced  fuel  consumption,  and 
thereby reduced emissions and pollution114. Thirteen interviewed stakeholders from the 
public and private sector acknowledged that RIS might lead to reduced fuel consumption 
through improved lock management and planning115. However, it is unclear whether this 
is directly attributable to the RIS Directive.  

Interviewed stakeholders also  acknowledged  environmental protection  through more 
efficient  calamity  abatement  as  a  potential  way  for  the  RIS  Directive  to  bring  about 
positive change116.  If information  about  a ship  (i.e. through electronic ship  reporting) is 
known, calamity abatement will be faster and more efficient, which can also reduce the 
impact  an  accident  has  on  the  environment.  According  to  29  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation,  calamity  abatement  has  indeed  improved  since  the  introduction  of  the 
Directive117. 

Nevertheless, the lack of solid evidence of a decrease in accidents resulting from the RIS 
Directive,  and  the  lack  of  international  exchange  of  electronic  ship  reports  makes  it 
unlikely that the RIS Directive had any significant impact in this regard. 

114  See  section  6.2.2.5  “Energy  consumption”  in  Annex  6  “Ex-post  social  cost-benefit  analysis”,  Final 

Report – Technical Annexes 

115 See section 6.1 (EQ 6), Annex 2, “Findings from the interviews” of the Stakeholder Consultation Report 
116 Idem 
117 See Figure 9, page 67 

43 

 
 
                                                           
5.2.  Efficiency 

5.2.1.  Question  7:  What  costs/negative  impacts  have  been  associated  with  the 
preparation  of  the  relevant  Regulations  and  how  are  they  distributed  amongst  those 
involved? (excluding the comitology process for adopting Implementing Acts). Are there 
areas, including organisational aspects, with potential for efficiency gains? 

The  European  Commission  incurred  costs  associated  with  the  preparation  of  the  RIS 
Directive and associated Implementing Acts. The preparation of the RIS Directive itself 
reportedly  involved  one  full  time  employee  (FTE),  and  the  preparation  of  the  original 
Implementing  Acts  involved  1.5  FTE.  It  is  difficult  to  establish  whether  the  costs 
incurred  were  proportionate  or  disproportionate  to  the  achieved  overall  benefits  of  the 
Directive, as it is hard to determine what proportion of the benefits accrues to this step of 
the process. There is no evidence, however, that there had been potential for efficiency 
gains specifically in this early part of the process.  

The  preparation  of  the  Implementing  Acts  was  done  in  cooperation  with  four 
independent  technical  RIS  expert  groups118.  Costs  for  the  products  of  these  expert 
groups largely incurred for the members of the groups, comprising mainly public sector 
organisations.  From  2015  until  2019,  the  Commission  provided  technical  and 
administrative support to the RIS expert groups through an external contractor. Since the 
beginning  of  2020,  these  expert  groups  work  under  the  umbrella  of  CESNI,  where  the 
European  Commission  bears  the  majority  of  costs.  Most  interviewees,  when  asked  this 
question, discussed the costs and inefficiencies associated with the implementation of the 
RIS Directive  and  Implementing Acts,  rather than the preparation thereof. However, in 
conjunction  with  Question  13,  six  public  sector  interviewees  commented  on  the  slow 
speed of the European Commission  in adopting and revising the Implementing Acts 
under the Directive119.  

The Member States incurred costs associated with the preparation of the Implementing 
Acts, though it is unclear how much time and money was exactly spent on this. EU and 
non-EU Member States120 respondents estimate an average of 4.5 FTE for the preparation 
of the implementing acts. Only three countries121 provided an indication of the monetary 
costs associated with  this  process,  ranging from  EUR 9,000 to  EUR 40,000. This  is  an 
insufficient  data  sample  to  extrapolate  to  the  European  Union  and  over  the  evaluation 
period.  However,  there  are  indications  that  their  costs  were  not  disproportionately 
high: All six RIS authorities that provided input via the questionnaire indicated that there 
were no disproportionate costs. 

Possible efficiency  gains (relevant  for the Commission’s REFIT programme) through a 
simplification of the process through which updates to the union-wide specifications are 
being conceived are discussed further in Question 13. 

118 Inland ECDIS expert group, ERI expert group, NtS expert group and VTT expert group 
119 See section 6.2 on costs compared to benefits (EQ 13), Annex 2, “Findings from the interviews” of the 

Stakeholder Consultation Report 

120 Belgium, Austria, Slovakia, Czechia and Serbia 
121 Czechia, Romania and Serbia 

44 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.2.2.  Question 8: What costs/negative impacts has the Directive given rise to in order 
to advance resource planning of users of the inland waterways through improved (a) data 
for  navigation  and  planning,  (b)  electronic  navigational  charts  and  (c)  notices  to 
skippers? How do these compare to the benefits established? 

(a) costs/negative impacts related to data for navigation and planning 

RIS  authorities  incur  substantial  one-time  implementation  costs  associated  with 
making data for navigation and voyage planning available to waterway users. Five RIS 
authorities122  provided information on  one-off costs for making data  for navigation and 
planning  available  to  comply  with  the  RIS  Directive.  There  is  no  consensus  on  the 
change in costs; two authorities reported a “significant” increase in costs, one a “small” 
increase,  and  two  believe  costs  “remained  stable”.  Interviews  further  clarified  that  the 
one-off  investment  costs  were  relatively  high  due  to  the  need  to  invest  in  human 
resources  and  software,  as  well  as  in  new  measurement  systems  in  some  cases123. 
Reported one-off costs range from EUR 600,000 to EUR 2.9 million. As cost estimations 
were only provided by five authorities and vary considerably, it is not possible to reliably 
extrapolate this to estimate the total costs associated with making data for navigation and 
planning available across all Member States. Despite a lack of comprehensive cost data, 
the above indicates the RIS Directive has likely led to increased costs in this regard in the 
magnitude of several hundred thousand euros. 

RIS authorities also incur annual, ongoing costs associated with keeping data up-to-date 
and accessible to users. Three out of the four RIS authorities who provided input through 
the  questionnaire  indicated  that  they  incurred  annual  ongoing  costs124.  Reported  annual 
recurring costs range from EUR 17,000 to EUR 179,000. It is unclear, however, based on 
the  limited  evidence  available,  whether  these  costs  increased  or  decreased  over  time. 
External  factors,  such  as  the  costs  of  individual  service  providers  and  software  in 
different  Member  States,  are  likely  to  influence  this,  making  an  EU-wide  comparison 
difficult.  Users of the waterways do not  incur any one-time or annual  ongoing  costs in 
relation to data for navigation and planning, because the data is made available to them 
free of charge. 

Four RIS authorities125 believe that the costs are proportionate to the overall benefits but 
did  not  provide  any  additional  evidence.  Paired  with  the  benefits  accrued  to  them  (i.e. 
better  voyage  planning  resulting  from  more  accurate  and  timely  information),  this 
implies that  benefits outweigh costs. 11 out  of the 13 public authorities  who provided 
input to the public consultation believe the provision of data for navigation and planning 
requires “medium effort” to “high effort”, but that compared to the benefits this “effort 
is adequate”126. There is no indication of social or environmental costs or resulting from 
the provision of data for navigation and planning. 

122 From Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia, Romania and Slovakia 
123 See Question 46 and Question 47 in section 5.2.6., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” 

to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

124 Idem 
125 Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia, Romania 
126 See Figure 10 and Figure 11, page 67 

45 

 
 
 
                                                           
(b) costs/negative impacts related to electronic navigational charts 

Although not required by the RIS Directive, all RIS authorities make the charts available 
free  of  charge.  RIS  authorities  incur  substantial  one-time  investment  costs  associated 
with  making  electronic  navigational  charts  available.  Five  out  of  six  participants 
responded  to  this  question  through  the  questionnaires.  Public  sector  respondents  from 
five Member States127 indicated that they incurred one-time costs associated with making 
electronic  navigational  charts  available,  notably 
through  costs  associated  with 
investments  in  additional software tools or application development.  Limited details  on 
actual magnitude of the costs incurred were provided128. Reported costs range from EUR 
6,000 to EUR 1.5 Million129. Although limited quantitative evidence is available, and the 
available data cannot be generalised across investment cases, it is reasonable to assume 
that these costs are substantial in all Member States.  

After  the  initial  investment,  RIS  authorities  incur  annual  ongoing  costs  associated 
primarily with the updating of electronic navigational charts. This also implies that staff 
needs  to  be  trained  to  create  the  charts,  which  costs  time  and  money.  Four  out  of  six 
public sector organisations responded to this question130: Three RIS authorities indicated 
they incurred ongoing costs related to electronic navigational charts as a result of the RIS 
Directive, ranging from EUR 4,200 to EUR 11,000 on average per year. According to the 
authorities  in  Austria,  Czechia  and  Slovakia,  costs  for  making  electronic  navigational 
charts available have increased somewhat over time. Austria specified, however, that this 
is not the result of the Directive, but rather technological evolutions in the production of 
the  charts.  In  fact,  they  believe  the  standardisation  of  the  charts  through  the  RIS 
Directive  has  lowered  costs  throughout  Europe  due  to  harmonisation.  Authorities  in 
Belgium and Romania agree that costs decreased over time, as the initial production of 
charts is much more costly than keeping them up-to-date. The evidence obtained cannot 
be  generalised  across  countries,  because  costs  vary  substantially,  depending  on  the 
density of the national waterway network and the update rate of electronic navigational 
charts. 

In  summary,  despite  the  substantial  costs  incurred  by  RIS  authorities  in  making 
electronic navigational charts available, there are strong indications that the costs are 
outweighed by the benefits accrued to the sector as a whole, when considered together 
with  the  benefits  reported  in  Question  1  (b2).  None  of  the  RIS  authorities  consulted 
through  the  interviews  and  targeted  questionnaire  believe  costs  associated  with  making 
charts  available  are  disproportionately  high.  In  the  public  consultation,  three  of  them 
indicated  that  their  provision  required  a  “high  effort  overall,  considering  benefits”, 
although  they  did  not  specify  whether  this  effort  is  disproportionately  high.  RIS 
authorities from ten countries131 specifically indicated, through the questionnaire, public 
consultation and interviews, that the benefits outweigh the costs. This was confirmed at 
the  DINA  Expert  Group  meeting,  where  all  15  participants  agreed  with  this  finding132. 

127 Primarily from the Danube region, except Belgium (Flanders) 
128 See Question 23 and Question 24 in section 5.2.4., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” 

to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

129 Based on an interview with the RIS authority in the Netherlands 
130 Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia and Slovakia 
131 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Romania, Serbia, and Slovakia 
132  11  participants  agree  with  the  preliminary  finding  that  the  benefits  of  electronic  navigational  charts 
outweigh  their  costs,  and  4  strongly  agree.  None  of  the  participants  disagreed  with  this  finding.  See 
Figure 217 in section 8.2, Annex 4 “Findings from the events attended” to the Stakeholder Consultation 
Report 

46 

 
                                                           
This  is  substantiated  by  the  fact  that  the  costs  incurred  by  waterway  users  are 
marginal. Through the questionnaire, a total of four user associations and two skippers 
indicated not having incurred any costs additional to what they would have spent in the 
absence of the RIS Directive133. They need to invest in the necessary hard- and software 
to  be able to use the charts for navigation,  but  those costs are low.  All  consulted users 
and their associations believe the benefits outweigh these costs.  

No  evidence  of  unintended  social  or  environmental  costs  or  negative  impacts 
produced by the RIS Directive in the context of electronic navigational charts has been 
uncovered. None had been expected. 

(c) costs/negative impacts related to notices to skippers 

RIS authorities incurred one-off compliance costs for the software necessary to encode 
notices  to  skippers,  or  setting  up  a  website  for  dissemination.  Although  there  are 
countries  where  notices  to  skippers  were  already  being  provided  digitally  prior  to  the 
adoption of the RIS Directive (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands), changes needed to be made to 
bring the notices  fully in  line with  the requirements  of the Directive. As only four RIS 
authorities134  provided  one-off  costs  data,  ranging  from  EUR  70,000  to  EUR  422,000 
from  2005  until  2019,  a  reliable  generalisation  of  costs  across  all  countries  is  not 
possible135. 

RIS  authorities  incurred  limited  implementation  costs  on  an  annual  basis,  ranging 
from  EUR  1,000  to  EUR  10,200.  This  includes  software  updates,  as  well  as  time  and 
money  spent  making  notices  to  skippers  available.  The  former  is  considered  negligible 
because most Member States were already providing them (albeit in paper format) prior 
to  the  adoption  of  the  Directive.  Such  costs  are  incurred  occasionally,  when  technical 
standards  are  updated.  Although  all  Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  such  data, 
limited  year-on-year  data  was  provided136.  The  provided  data  is  not  comparable  across 
countries and can therefore not be generalised across all relevant Member States. This is 
reportedly because RIS authorities do not distinguish between the time and money spent 
specifically on the provision of standardised notices to skippers compared to other RIS-
related  activities.  Even  if  this  data  was  adequately  collected  and  made  available,  it  is 
unlikely that it could be attributed to the RIS Directive as such, as that would require a 
comparison to costs incurred before its implementation. 

Despite  the  lack  of  concrete  quantitative  data,  some  indications  on  changes  in  costs 
were  provided.  Among  the  six  authorities  that  returned  the  questionnaire  with  an 
indication  of  costs  for  notices  to  skippers,  three137  believed  the  overall  costs  associated 
with the provision of notices to skippers had “increased somewhat” as a result of the RIS 
Directive,  one  believed  they  had  “increased  significantly”138,  and  one  believed  they 
“remained  stable”139.  They  indicated  that  administrative  costs  decreased  (due  to 
digitalisation),  while  operational  costs  (e.g.  software  to  publish  notices  online,  keeping 

133 See Question 29 in section 5.3.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

134 Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia, Romania 
135 See Question 35 in section 5.2.5., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

136 See Question 35 and Question 36 in section 5.2.5., Annex 1 "Findings from the survey questionnaires" 

to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

137 Romania, Slovakia, Czechia 
138 Belgium (Flanders) 
139 Austria 

47 

 
                                                           
up with changing standards) increased. RIS users did not incur any additional costs as a 
result  of  the  RIS  Directive,  as  notices  to  skippers  are  made  available  to  them  free  of 
charge. 

Although  there  are  costs  for  RIS  authorities,  all  of  them  believe  the  benefits  of 
standardised  notices 
to  skippers  outweigh  their  costs.  All  six  questionnaire 
respondents140 believe that the costs for providing notices to skippers are proportionate to 
the  benefits  they  bring  to  the  inland  navigation  sector.  In  interviews,  three  of  them141 
further explained that this is because the costs are marginal, and yet notices to skippers 
are widely used by skippers. Although this is a limited number of interviewees, nobody 
indicated that costs are disproportionate to benefits. Of the 34 respondents to the public 
consultation,  27  ranked  notices  to  skippers  as  the  RIS  technology  for  which  the  effort 
needed is most appropriate considering its benefits, with only two of them indicating the 
effort is high in comparison to the benefits142. This, combined with the evidence outlined 
under Question 1(c) makes it safe to assume that authorities and users highly value the 
standardised notices to skippers and believe their implementation is cost-effective. 

No  evidence  of  unintended  negative  social  or  environmental  impacts  or  costs 
resulting from standardised notices to skippers in the context of the RIS Directive were 
identified. None had been expected. 

5.2.3.  Question 9: What costs / negative impacts has the Directive given rise to in order 
to  advance  cost  savings  through  the  reduction  in  re-submission  of  electronic  ship 
reports when crossing a border? How do these compare to the benefits established? 

RIS  authorities  incurred  one-time  investment  costs  related  to  setting  up  the  necessary 
systems  for  receiving  and  processing  electronic  ship  reports143.  Although  none  of  the 
consulted authorities could provide a breakdown of the costs associated with receiving, 
processing and passing on electronic ship reports, there are some indications of the total 
costs associated with this process in four of the relevant Member States144, ranging from 
EUR 260,000 to EUR 480,000 from 2005 until 2019. There seems to be no clear pattern 
across Member States in terms of the magnitude of these costs.  

There  seem  to  be  no  significant  recurring  annual  costs  that  result  specifically  from 
provisions  on  electronic  ship  reporting,  ranging  from  EUR  1,500  to  EUR  2,000  in  the 
year 2017 for the two RIS authorities145 that provided input to  this  question. Three RIS 
authorities  believe  their  costs  “remained  stable”  over  time,  while  one  experienced  a 
“small increase” and one a “significant increase”146. A RIS authority in Flanders, who 
believes costs remained stable over time, detailed that recent investments in digitalisation 
will lead to cost savings in the future. This trend seems to be in line with the general view 
held  by  authorities  –  considering  the  limited  data  exchange  between  countries  and  the 

140 Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia 
141 Czechia, Slovakia, Serbia 
142 See Figure 11, page 67 
143  This  was  highlighted  by  authorities  in  Austria,  Czechia,  France,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands, 

Romania, and Slovakia 

144 Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia and Romania; see Question 57 and Question 58 in section 5.2.7., 

Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

145 Reported by Belgium and Romania 
146 Stated by Austria and Slovakia 

48 

 
 
                                                           
inefficiencies  brought  about  as  a  result,  there  is  considerable  room  to  further  reduce 
resubmissions and thereby save time and costs for public authorities. 

As presented under Question 2, users of the waterways are expected to experience cost 
savings because of reduced resubmissions of electronic ship reports. As resubmissions 
have not reduced in reality, these cost savings seemingly have not materialised yet. 

In principle, there are no substantial costs associated with the electronic ship reporting 
on the side of RIS users – they only need a computer with internet access, which they 
likely have on board already and do not need to invest in specifically to comply with the 
RIS  Directive.  The  costs  savings  are  supposed  to  result  from  time  saved  by  (1) 
submitting ship reports in an electronic format, and (2) this format being standardised so 
reports can be shared across relevant Member States so the originator of the report does 
not have to submit the information more than once. 

According  to  four  interviewees,  costs  for  skippers  have  decreased  as  a  result  of  the 
Directive  because  their  administrative  burden  decreased.  However,  three  of  them 
represent RIS authorities and one is a RIS developer, so they may not be well-informed. 
In reality, most consulted waterway users and their representative organisations did not 
experience  time  savings  as  a  result  of  the  RIS  Directive  in  this  regard.  Three  private 
sector associations and an interviewee from a river commission, for example, stated that 
the administrative cost  have  in  fact increased147  because skippers need to resubmit e-
ship reports more than once. An increase in costs in this respect cannot be attributed to 
the RIS Directive, as it does not make reporting mandatory for waterway users, and does 
not  stipulate the type of  information  requested from  them, which is  left  to  the Member 
States themselves. 

It  is  unclear  whether  the  RIS  Directive,  through  its  provisions  on  electronic  ship 
reporting, has created benefits that outweigh the costs. The six consulted stakeholders 
are  divided  –  three  RIS  authorities  from  the  Danube  region  believe  their  costs  are 
proportionate to the benefits, while Belgium (Flanders) and Czechia do not148. One RIS 
authority  does  not  know.  However,  there  is  an  issue  of  attributability,  as  the 
requirements  for  electronic  ship  reporting  are  largely  left  up  to  the  Member  States  and 
the River Commissions.  

There is no evidence suggesting the RIS Directive brought about any unintended social 
or  environmental  costs  or  negative  impacts  concerning  the  provisions  on  electronic 
ship  reporting.  On  the  contrary,  it  can  be  speculated  that  the  digitalisation  of  ship 
reporting  should  reduce  the  amount  of  paper  used  in  inland  navigation,  which  would 
positively affect the environment. 

147  This  is  likely  the  result  of  the  electronic  reporting  obligation  on  the  Rhine  for  container  ships  since 
2010. Hence, this is not attributable to the RIS Directive. See section 6.2., Annex 2 “Findings from the 
interviews” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

148 See Question 63 in section 5.2.7., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

49 

 
 
                                                           
5.2.4.  Question 10: What costs/negative impacts has the Directive given rise to in order 
to  advance cost  savings for users of the inland waterways brought  about  by changes in 
the  way  equipment  is  type  approved?  How  do  these  compare  to  the  benefits 
established? 

The  mutual  recognition  of  type-approved  equipment  ensures  a  RIS  related  technical 
product only needs to be certified once to be used all across Europe, which is beneficial 
for the market as a whole. 

As assessed under Question 3, there is only one body in the EU issuing type approvals 
for  RIS  equipment149.  Thus,  they  are  the  only  ones  who  incur  costs  for  issuing  type 
approvals.  Considering  the  fact  that  mutual  recognition  works  well  (see  Question  3), 
other RIS authorities should not incur any additional costs. The consulted RIS authorities 
indeed indicated not having occurred any one-time or recurring costs150, because they 
don’t  carry  out  their  own  type-approvals.  On  the  contrary,  they  benefit  with  regards  to 
the opportunity costs of not having to issue their own type-approvals themselves. 

Due to a lack of data, there is no evidence to suggest that RIS authorities have saved 
costs through the mutual recognition of type-approved RIS equipment as established by 
the  Directive.  Although  one  authority  believes  this  is  the  case,  it  is  unlikely  that  cost 
savings  have  actually  occurred,  as  these  authorities  would  never  have  carried  out  their 
own type-approvals anyway. 

Type-approval  does  imply  one-time  costs  for  the  private  sector  that  has  to  get  the 
equipment type-approved. One RIS equipment producer estimated this to cost at around 
5000  EUR  per  product.  As  no  other  interviewees  could  provide  estimations  of  these 
costs, no quantitative evidence is available for a detailed assessment. 

Given the fact that type-approvals are mutually recognised across Europe, all equipment 
only  needs  to  be  certified  once.  Developers  save  costs  otherwise  spent  ensuring  their 
product  is  approved  in  all  Member  States,  which  would  in  turn  drive  up  costs  for 
consumers. Given that RIS developers believe that mutual recognition of type-approved 
equipment  has  been  beneficial  to  the  sector  as  a  whole  (i.e.  improved  quality  of 
products  that  is  guaranteed  to  work  across  Europe,  which  safeguards  investments,  see 
Question  3),  it  can  be  assumed  that  they  believe  these  costs  are  outweighed  by  the 
benefits. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  suggest  any  unintended  social  or  environmental  costs  or 
negative impacts resulting from changes in type-approval as a result of the RIS Directive. 

5.2.5.  Question 11: What costs/negative impacts has the Directive given rise to overall 
in order to establish an inter-operable, harmonised RIS? How do these compare to the 
benefits established? 

The  establishing  of  a  harmonised,  interoperable  RIS  implies  costs  both  for  RIS 
authorities  and  users  of  the  waterways.  This  section  considers  how  the  overall  costs 
compare to the benefits achieved, at the level of the RIS Directive as a whole. Thus, it 
serves  as  a  summary  of  Questions  8-10,  with  the  addition  of  findings  that  apply  to  the 

149 Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, Fachstelle der WSV für Verkehrstechniken (FVT) in 

Germany 

150  See  Questions  75  to  91  in  section  5.2.8.,  Annex  1  “Findings  from  the  survey  questionnaires”  to  the 

Stakeholder Consultation Report 

50 

 
 
                                                           
Directive  more  generally,  rather  than  one  of  its  components.  This  question  presents  a 
qualitative assessment, and is complemented by an attempt to assess costs compared to 
benefits quantitatively at the level of general objectives in Question 14. 

It was found that the costs of RIS implementation cannot be estimated at the level of the 
RIS Directive as a whole. As detailed under Questions 8, 9 and 10, there is very limited 
evidence as to the costs associated with the implementation of the different aspects of the 
RIS  Directive.  In  many  cases,  RIS  authorities  are  unable  to  distinguish  between  the 
overall  costs  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  RIS  Directive,  let  alone  distinguish 
between costs associated with RIS as such and the RIS Directive specifically. As a result, 
the very limited quantitative evidence that was made available cannot be aggregated as it 
is too incomplete and not comparable, and neither can it be generalised to the level of the 
RIS Directive as a whole. 

A qualitative assessment of the overall efficiency (i.e. costs compared to the benefits) of 
the RIS Directive has been undertaken151. It was found that benefits appear to outweigh 
costs  incurred  by  RIS  authorities.  In  the  questionnaire,  RIS  authorities  were  asked  to 
indicate  the  main  benefits  and  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  RIS 
Directive as a whole. The most often cited benefits of the Directive as a whole were as 
follows152: 

•  harmonisation of equipment that can be used all over Europe through common 

technical standards; 

• 

improved safety in inland navigation, including through a reduction in accidents; 

•  availability of fairway information; 

• 

improved awareness and political salience of RIS; 

•  creation of a legal framework to justify costs and investments. 

In terms of negative consequences, only two of the six RIS authorities provided input. 
They highlighted a lack of harmonisation and occasionally outdated standards, as well as 
the  lacking  legal  basis  for  international  data  exchange  as  problems.  One  RIS  authority 
explicitly noted that there were no negative consequences. 

Three  out  of  six  RIS  authorities  indicated  that  the  benefits  outweigh  their  costs.  Two 
believe that costs are instead disproportionate to the benefits, and one respondent chose 
the  “do  not  know”  option153.  Considering  the  fact  that  the  individual  measures  of  the 
Directive are considered as being overall efficient (as discussed under Questions 8, 9 and 
10), it can be concluded that RIS authorities  believe the benefits of the RIS  Directive 
outweigh its costs. 

Concerning  the  inland  waterway  users,  benefits  largely  outweigh  their  costs.  In  the 
questionnaire, inland waterway users and their representative organisations were asked to 

151 A quantitative assessment of costs compared to benefits at the level of the general objectives of the RIS 
Directive is included under EQ 14 
152 See Question 15 in section 5.2.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

153 See Question 17 in section 5.2.3., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report 

51 

 
                                                           
indicate  the  main  benefits  and  costs  they  believed  to  be  brought  about  by  the  RIS 
Directive. The most often cited benefits were as follows154: 

• 

improved safety; 

•  better access to information; 

•  better communication; 

• 

improved planning and management; 

Two  of  them  also  specifically  mentioned  reduced  costs  as  one  of  the  benefits  of  the 
Directive.  However,  two  others  indicated  that  costs  had  increased  because  of  the 
Directive,  as  initial  investments  were  required.  Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  the  costs  for 
waterway  users  at  the  level  of  the  different  inputs  are  marginal,  and  their  benefits  are 
substantial,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  the  benefits  for  waterway  users  largely  outweigh 
their costs. 

In summary, there are strong indications that the  overall costs the Directive  has  given 
rise  to  in  order  to  establish  inter-operable,  harmonised  RIS  are  outweighed  by  the 
benefits accrued to the sector as a whole. 

5.2.6.  Question  12:  Has  the  Directive  had  unintended  negative  economic,  social  or 
environmental effects? 

Similar to Question 5, it is possible that additional unexpected negative effects occurred 
through the RIS Directive. This question assesses whether any such unintended effects, 
notably negative economic, social or environmental effects occurred. 

No evidence was found of unintended negative economic effects brought about by the 
RIS Directive. 

In  terms  of  unintended  negative  social  effects  by  the  RIS  Directive,  consulted 
stakeholders provided a number of examples. 

Three interviewees155 highlighted data protection issues that come with digitalisation of 
the  sector,  e.g.  illegal  online  vessel  tracking.  One  of  them  explained  that  digitalisation 
makes the sector more vulnerable to cyberattacks and blackouts. In turn, they believe this 
negatively  affects  the  reputation  of  the  sector,  though  there  is  no  concrete  evidence  to 
back up this claim. The possibility of negative effects on the privacy of skippers and the 
availability of sensitive information as a result of RIS were already identified in the 2006 
SPIN-TN assessment of RIS implementation156, though it was not quantified or estimated. 

Another negative social  effect following digitalisation in inland navigation through RIS 
mentioned by two interviewees is the  possible deskilling  of skippers and boat masters. 
They believe the RIS technologies have become unmissable in skippers’ lives, especially 
for younger people, which can lower resilience and create problems if something is not 
working or e.g. electronic charts are not up to date. According to one interviewee, this is 
intensified by the fact that the RIS Directive only applies to waterways of CEMT class 

154 See section 5.3.2., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder Consultation 

Report 

155 One RIS authority, one international organisation and one user representative organisation 
156 viadonau, Assessment of the Implementation of River Information Services in Europe. Working Paper, 

2006, p. 18. 

52 

 
 
                                                           
IV and above, which can lead to a decrease in safety and efficiency on smaller waterways 
because many people no longer can sail without technology on board. 

There  is  no  concrete  evidence  on  this  increased  risk,  however,  experiences  of  sectoral 
stakeholders  are  highly  relevant  in  this  regard  and  future  evaluations  could  revisit  the 
risk. 

No  evidence  was  found  of  any  unintended  negative  environmental  effects  brought 
about by the RIS Directive. 

5.2.7.  Question 13: Is there a potential for simplification and reduction of regulatory 
burden in the process? 

This  question  assesses  the  extent  to  which  there  are  any  unnecessary  costs  associated 
with the implementation of the RIS Directive, and identifies ways in which these can be 
minimised  or  simplified.  Although  not  directly  covered 
the 
administrative costs associated with implementing the Directive, both for RIS authorities 
and RIS users, are also covered here. 

the  question, 

in 

Most  RIS  authorities  believe  there  are  no  disproportionate  administrative  costs 
associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  RIS  Directive.  Three  authorities  believe  the 
costs have been substantial but state that they are not disproportionate to the outcomes. 
They  highlighted  costs  associated  with  changing  national  regulations,  the  need  for  RIS 
experts,  internal  coordination  and  coordination  with  other  countries  in  case  of  cross-
border voyages. One national authority from outside of the EU expects the administrative 
costs to increase further with the introduction of CESNI working groups, while another 
authority  from  an  EU  Member  State  expects  costs  to  decrease  because  of  further 
advancements in digitalisation. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  a  widespread  agreement  among  authorities  that  there  is 
administrative  burden  that  can  be  further  reduced.  The  most  notable  bottleneck  is 
found in international data exchange. As detailed under Questions 1 and 2, there is still a 
lack of cross-border data exchange, e.g. for electronic ship reporting. If this exchange is 
facilitated,  it  is  expected  to  save  the  authorities  time  currently  spent  receiving  and 
processing the information. 

A  suggested  possible  solution  to  this  may  be  to  re-use  public  sector  information  and 
improve access to private sector data for public authorities with a view to lowering 
the  administrative  burden  of  collecting  and  analysing  necessary  data157.  Four  different 
authorities  highlighted  a  need  to  work  together  across  borders  through  projects  and 
potentially a single portal to share data and information. 

A  similar  pattern  emerges  on  the  side  of  waterway  users.  They  were  divided  on  the 
degree to which the RIS Directive affected their administrative costs – four skippers did 
not  experience  any  change,  while  two  experienced  an  increase  in  costs  and  two  a 
decrease in  costs. Those  who noted a decrease in administrative costs detailed that this 
was the result of less administrative paperwork. An increase in costs was associated with 

157  See  COM(2018)  232  final  –  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Towards a 
common European Data Space” and “Good Navigation Status  – towards achieving a Good Navigation 
Status” (EU Commission – STC-Nestra) January 2018. 

53 

 
 
                                                           
spending on new equipment, training to be able to use the equipment, and time spent on 
cargo declaration. 

Although  six  interviewed  user  representative  organisations  believed  there  is  no 
disproportionate  administrative  burden, 
is  room  for 
simplification  (e.g. for  multiple reporting, booking slots at  locks, and paperwork). The 
identified  underlying  problems  are  the  existing  ‘declaration-based’  reporting  system, 
limited  cross-border  data  exchange  and  the  limited  re-use  of  data  by  authorities158. 
However,  the  issue  of  data  exchange  may  be  difficult  to  address  through  the  RIS 
Directive.  Rules  on  voyage,  cargo  and  persons-on-board  reporting  are  left  up  to  the 
Member States and River Commissions, which is why different requirements persist. 

they  mentioned 

there 

A clear potential for reduction of regulatory burden emerges from the slow update and 
adoption  process  of  technical  standards.  There  seems  to  be  agreement  among 
stakeholders  that  the  RIS  Directive  suffers  from  a  lack  of  flexibility  and  slow 
implementation159,  in  that  it  takes  a  long  time  for  technical  standards  to  be  updated, 
which  is  not  in  line  with  the  speed  of  digitalisation  and  technological  advancements. 
According  to  one  RIS  authority:  “The  procedure  for  the  updating  of  the  technical 
specifications is much too complicated and the Commission has not been able to publish 
the specifications within the timeframe defined by the Directive. A simplified and faster 
procedure  is  urgently  needed”.  As  a  consequence  of  this  slow  update  and  adoption 
process,  the  sector  permanently  works  with  outdated  standards,  which  hinder  its 
competiveness compared to other modes of transport. This imposes a cost on the sector 
that likely could be reduced through changes to the process. This finding on a potential 
for simplification is particularly relevant in the context of the European Commission’s 
effort to reduce unnecessary burden and simplify EU law (REFIT programme). 

5.2.8.  Question 14: What costs/negative impacts has the Directive given rise to in order 
to advance its general objectives and how do these compare to the benefits established 
under Question 6 (benefits-at level of general objectives)? 

The  evaluation  did  not  attempt  to  produce  a  cost  estimate  of  total  RIS  implementation 
costs at an aggregated level of its general objectives, as the underlying evidence base is 
too  incomplete  and  too  many  strong  assumptions  would  have  had  to  be  made.  As  the 
general  objectives  of  the  Directive  (i.e.  increase  competitiveness,  optimise  the  use  of 
infrastructure,  improve  safety  and  security,  and  increase  environmental  protection)  are 
long-term outcomes rather than direct results of investments, it is impossible to granulate 
the costs associated with their achievement specifically. Nevertheless, based on the total 
investment costs and the benefits established under Question 6, one can assess the overall 
cost-benefit ratio in this respect. 

In  order  to  carry  out  a  cost-benefit  analysis,  benefits  needed  to  be  quantified  and 
compared  to  the  monetary  costs  incurred.  However,  not  all  expected  benefits  were 
supported by evidence (see Question 6) or could be identified by the available data. For 
instance, accidents at EU level could not be calculated and quantified because there is no 

158  European  Commission  (2017),  Digital  Inland  Waterway  Area  -  Towards  a  Digital  Inland  Waterway 

Area and Digital Multimodal Nodes. 

159  This  was  highlighted  in  interviews  with  two  RIS  authorities,  two  River  Commissions,  and  a  RIS 
developer.  It  was  also  highlighted  in  open  text  responses  to  the  public  consultation  given  by  five 
respondents. 

54 

 
 
                                                           
EU-wide methodology to monitor and report on such data, which makes an aggregation 
of national level data (which is also not available for all relevant Member States) highly 
unreliable. 

Nevertheless,  the  benefits  accrued  by  a  reduction  in  fuel  consumption  and  resulting 
reduction  in  emissions  could  be  quantified160,  and  have  been  used  to  inform  the  cost-
benefits analysis. 

There  are  estimations  that  the  RIS  Directive  has  experienced  a  “return  on 
investment”  considering  the  benefits  to  environmental  protection,  although  attribution 
and causation are highly uncertain. With a total investment cost set at EUR 52.090.984161, 
and based on the assumptions that 40% of RIS users use their equipment for the purpose 
of fuel  reduction and that  there is  an average annual  fuel  reduction of 1.86%, the cost-
benefit  ratio  is  3.11197.  This  positive  ratio  holds  true  as  long  as  at  least  12%  of  all 
equipped  vessels  use  the  on-board  RIS  equipment  for  fuel  consumption  reduction.  As 
soon  as  less  than  12%  of  all  vessels  do  this,  the  “business  case”  becomes  negative, 
meaning that the total investment costs have not yet been outweighed by these benefits. 

Although  the  other  expected  benefits  (improved  competitiveness,  optimised  use  of 
infrastructure, and increased safety) could not be attributed to RIS or the RIS Directive, 
the  fact  that  stakeholders  believe  there  may  be  an  impact  is  nevertheless  relevant  to 
consider.  In  the  above  assessment  these  additional  possible  benefits  have  been 
disregarded.  As  such,  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  positive  “business  case”  stemming 
from the “return on investments” produced by the improved environmental protection of 
RIS is further magnified when considering additional benefits such as increased safety 
and infrastructure use. 

It should once again be noted that none of these benefits can confidently be attributed to 
the  RIS  Directive  rather  than  RIS  technologies  as  such.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
Directive has had a substantial impact on the use of RIS especially in those countries162, 
where inland navigation has played a less prominent role before the introduction of the 
Directive.  However,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  these  advancements  would  not  have 
occurred without the RIS Directive. 

160 See section 6.2.3 “Calculation of identified benefits” in Annex 6 “Ex-post social cost-benefit analysis”, 

Technical Annexes to the Evaluation Support Study. 

161 This amount covers all projects since 1996 that were finished before 2009 and are considered crucial for 
the implementation of the RIS Directive. The number is based on data from TEN-T / CEF funding for 
RIS between 1995 and 2022, in EUR (current prices). 

162 The Danube countries and Czechia and Poland 

55 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.3.  Relevance 

5.3.1.  Question 15: Do the original objectives, incorporated in the RIS Directive and in 
the  five  related  RIS  regulations,  match  the  needs  of  the  sector  today  and  in  the  near 
future? Please take into account legal, technological and market developments. 

The  overarching  objective  of  the  Directive  is  “to  establish  harmonised  RIS  in  the 
Community”163, whereas “the development of RIS should be based on objectives such as 
safety,  efficiency  and  the  environmental  friendliness  of  inland  navigation  (…)”164.  This 
should be fulfilled by implementation of tasks like  “traffic and transport management, 
environment  and  infrastructure  protection  and  the  enforcement  of  specific  rules”165. 
Additionally,  the  RIS  Directive  established  RIS  “with  a  view  to  enhancing  safety, 
efficiency,  and  environmental  friendliness  and  to  facilitating  interfaces  with  other 
transport modes”166. This would indirectly contribute to increase the competitiveness of 
inland navigation in Europe. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  needs  of  the  IWT  sector  and  the  RIS  Directive’s 
objectives  are  aligned.  This  was  not  only  confirmed  by  several  sources  in  desk 
research167, but also by all stakeholder groups. Of the 38 interviewed stakeholders from 
different  stakeholder  groups,  the  overwhelming  majority  agrees  that  the  RIS  objectives 
are still relevant (37), and will remain relevant in the future (19). It appears that not all 
objectives  are  regarded  as  being  equally  important.  Respondents168  to  the  user 
questionnaire consider increased safety as  being the most salient and relevant  objective 
of  the  RIS  Directive,  followed  by  enhanced  efficiency  of  inland  navigation,  optimised 
use of infrastructure and environmental protection. While safety is the primary need for 
skippers,  efficiency  is  fundamental  for  port  authorities  and  RIS  operators.  Several 
interviewees  reported  that  the  better  integration  of  inland  waterway  transport  into 
multimodal supply chains  is  a key objective, which  will become more important  in  the 
future.  Only  three  of  the  six  questionnaire  respondents  considered  this  objective  to  be 
relevant169. 

The objectives remain relevant, notably because they have not been fully achieved. A 
considerable number of the stakeholders consulted believe that the objectives of the RIS 
Directive  not  only  remain  relevant  for  the  future,  but  also  require  a  shift  in  focus  in 
order to be  fully  achieved. 13 out  of 27 interviewees, both  from  the public and private 
sectors, mentioned this.  Notable in  this  regard are the need  for  further harmonisation 
(12) and standardisation (4), as reported by both, interviewed RIS authorities and RIS 
users. 

According  to  28  out  of  44  interviewees,  new  needs  have  emerged  as  a  result  of 
technological  developments.  Most  notable  are  technological  changes,  such  as  the 

163 Preamble (12), Directive 2005/44/EC 
164 Preamble (6), Directive 2005/44/EC 
165 Idem 
166 Article 1 (1), Directive 2005/44/EC 
167 The complete list of documentary sources can be found in in Annex 3 of the Technical Annexes to the 

Evaluation Support Study 

168 The respondents include three vessel owners, a ship design and consulting company, a member of a port 

business association, and a skipper 

169 A vessel owner, a ship design and consulting company and a member of a port business association. See 
section  6.3,  Annex  2  “Findings  from  the  interviews”  and  question  98  in  section  5.3.8.,  Annex  1 
“Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

56 

 
                                                           
automation of vessels (12), the further digitalisation in the IWT sector including the need 
for  more  and  better  data  (17),  and  technical  innovation  of  RIS  related  software  and 
hardware  (13).  These  technological  advances  require  further  cross-border  cooperation 
and  data  exchange  (5).  In  relation  to  the  emergence  of  these  new  needs,  several 
documentary  sources  and  consulted  stakeholders  from  the  relevant  Member  States 
pointed to a key issue in the legal framework of the Directive: the RIS Directive leaves 
too  much  room  for  interpretation,  and  it  is  too  slow  to  adapt  to  technological 
advancements. This in turn, is thought to prevent the Directive to fully achieve its current 
and future objectives, and therefore, to potentially lose relevance because of it170. As also 
highlighted  in  Question  13,  stakeholders  consider  the  process  for  updating  technical 
RIS standards too heavy and slow. 

New needs have emerged as a result of market developments. An increase in political 
salience of RIS, and hence the development of the sector, has prompted the necessity to 
provide specific training and education on the new tools and technologies used in the 
sector. This need emerged through both desk research and questionnaires171. In parallel, 
new needs involving all transport modes have emerged. Green, smart and congestion-free 
transport and logistics are the key concepts on which the whole transport sector will be 
focusing. This is  also stipulated by the  European Green Deal172 communication of the 
European Commission. It is therefore essential that the IWT sector responds and adapts 
to  these  changes.  A  few  initiatives  have  already  emerged,  calling  for  a  single  window 
enabling traffic, route, voyage and logistics planning. To summarise, in the coming years 
traffic  management  will  shift  from  safety  management  to  an  operational  service  that 
supports the logistic transport chain in a more effective and efficient way173. 

The RIS guidelines and technical standards are still relevant and necessary but need 
to  be  more  flexible  to  keep  up  with  new  needs.  Most  of  the  44  respondents  to  the 
Public  Consultation  agree  that  the  technical  specifications  for  key  RIS  technologies  (in 
order  of  magnitude:  Inland  ECDIS  (39),  Notices  to  Skippers  (39),  Inland  AIS  (37), 
Electronic Ship Reporting (37) and the RIS guidelines (34)) are still relevant and needed 
today, even in light of technological developments since 2005174.  

As outlined under Question 13, there are strong indications that the technical standards 
are not updated quickly enough, which may cause problems in terms of their continued 
relevance  in  the  future  because  the  sector  constantly  uses  outdated  standards. 
Additionally, as detailed by respondents to the public consultation, there may be scope to 
add  additional  standards,  most  notably  with  regards  to  data  for  navigation  and 
planning175. As discussed under effectiveness (EQ1a), the minimum requirements for the 
provision of this data are considered too vague, and lead to differences in interpretations 
across  Member  States.  Introducing  more  detailed  technical  requirements  (including 
provisions on the ERDMS), was suggested by stakeholders as a possible solution to this 
problem, as discussed under efficiency with reference to the REFIT programme. 

170 See section 6.3, Annex 2 “Findings from the interviews” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 
171 See Question 11 in section 5.3.2., Annex 1 “Findings from the survey questionnaires” to the Stakeholder 

Consultation Report. 

172 The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, 11.12.2019 
173 Based on input from 3 position papers submitted during public consultation 
174 See Figure 15, page 75 
175 See Table 8, page 77 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.4.  Coherence 

5.4.1.  Question 16:  To what  extent is the  RIS legislation (in scope of this  evaluation) 
internally coherent? Are there any internal inconsistencies? 

From  the  perspective  of  an  internal  legal  consistency-check,  the  RIS  Directive  and  its 
Implementing  Acts  provide  consistent  minimum  requirements  to  enable  cross-border 
compatibility  of  national  systems.  19  of  the  20  interviewees  from  different  stakeholder 
groups,  who  knew  the  Directive  and  Implementing  Acts  well  enough  to  provide  an 
opinion176, stated they had not come across any internal inconsistencies.  

The assessment shows that the Directive and its Implementing Acts form a consistent 
legal  framework  for  the  achievement  of  the  Directive’s  objectives.  The  main 
mechanisms of the Directive, namely the establishment of certain requirements for data 
communication and RIS equipment as well as the imposition of a minimum level of RIS 
services through the Implementing Regulations, are consistent and set forth in a logical 
manner. 

In summary, no conflicts were identified. 

5.4.2.  Question  17:  To  what  extent  is  the  Directive  consistent  with  the  relevant 
international obligations of the Member States? 

A careful review of the legal text of the Directive shows a strong and successful effort 
to maintain consistence and guarantee enough interaction between the RIS Directive 
and  other  pre-existing  relevant  international  obligations  of  the  Member  States.  New 
requirements introduced by the RIS Directive “should build on work carried out in this 
field  by  relevant  international  organisations  such  as  the  International  Navigation 
Organisation  (PIANC),  the  Central  Commission  for  Navigation  on  the  Rhine  (CCNR) 
and  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE)”177  and  that  “the 
Commission  shall  take  due  account  of  measures  developed  by  relevant  international 
organisations, such as PIANC, CCNR and UNECE.”178. 

17 out of 28 interviewees, belonging to a variety of stakeholder groups, believe that the 
RIS  Directive  is  consistent  with  other  relevant  obligations  of  the  Member  States. 
They specifically highlighted consistency between the Directive and the relevant UNECE 
resolutions  (4)  and  the  requirements  of  the  River  Commissions  (e.g.  CCNR,  Danube 
Commission,  Sava  Commission)  (5),  and  PIANC  Guidelines  (3)179.  The  intention  to 
maintain  consistency  between  the  Directive  and  obligations  provided  by  relevant 
international organisations is further confirmed by the Commission’s active engagement 
with  these  organisations.  One  example  includes  the  establishment  of  CESNI  together 
with the CCNR and the cooperation within CESNI, both at the level of expert groups and 
standardisation of procedures. 

Nevertheless, 
interviewees  highlighted  apparent  contradictions  or 
inconsistencies in this regard (5). Member States still have different police regulations 

few 

a 

176 10 out of the 30 stated they did not know the Directive and Implementing Acts well enough  to provide 

an opinion. 

177 Preamble (3), Directive 2005/44/EC 
178 Article 1(2), Directive 2005/44/EC 
179 See section 6.4, Annex 2 “Findings from the interviews” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 

58 

 
 
                                                           
(3), which lead to different requirement for electronic ship reporting for example. In 
this regard, one interviewee belonging to an unknown stakeholder group believes that the 
Directive  leaves  too  much  room  for  interpretation  and  implementation  highlighting  not 
an  inherent  inconsistence  of  the  Directive  with  international  obligations  of  Member 
States, but  rather  a need for more specific  guidelines to  avoid national  laws interfering 
with the proper functioning of the RIS Directive. 

5.4.3.  Question  18:  To  what  extent  is  the  Directive  consistent  with  other  EU 
legislation  in  the  areas  of  (a)  inland  waterway  transport  policy;  (b)  EU  transport 
legislation; (c) other EU legislation in areas outside transport policy? 

A careful analysis of the Directive’s legal text uncovers several interactions (see below) 
between the RIS Directive and other EU legislation in the areas of (a) inland waterway 
transport  policy;  (b)  EU  transport  legislation;  (c)  other  EU  legislation  in  areas  outside 
transport policy.  

The  RIS  Directive  took  in  due  consideration  pre-existing  legislation  in  these  fields. 
Additional legislation in these sectors came into being after the introduction of the RIS 
Directive.  Within  the  area  of  EU  inland  waterway  transport  policy,  the  clear 
interaction  between  the  RIS  Directive  and  the  Directive  on  the  recognition  of 
professional qualifications in inland navigation (EU) 2017/2397180 emerged, both through 
desk-research  and  targeted  interviews.  In  addition,  consistency  between  the  RIS 
Directive and the Directive on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (EU) 
2016/1629181 was confirmed. 

The RIS Directive is consistent with EU transport legislation as it complies with the 
goals  laid  out  in  the  White  Paper  on  Transport182.  A  key  goal  of  the  strategy  is  to 
optimise the performance of multimodal logistic chains and facilitate modal shift of road 
freight to waterborne transport. The RIS Directive responds to the necessities highlighted 
in the paper and is meant to play a key role to help achieve its goals. 

The RIS Directive is consistent with EU legislation in areas outside transport policy. The 
Directive  is  in  synergy  with  the  Commission  communication  of  26  August  2010,  “A 
Digital  Agenda  for  Europe”183.  The  communication  identifies  and  highlights  the 
fragmentation  of  the  Digital  market,  the  lack  of  interoperability  and  the  rise  in 
cybercrime as major threats to the full development of the Union’s digital economy. 

Overall,  the  RIS  Directive  has  been  found  to  be  consistent  with  the  key  priorities  of  a 
political  agenda  focusing  on  increasing  the  competitiveness  of  the  whole  transport 
sector,  whilst  reducing  its  environmental  footprint  and  increasing  its  degree  of 
digitalisation. 

180 Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the 
recognition  of  professional  qualifications  in  inland  navigation  and  repealing  Council  Directives 
91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC   

181 Directive (EU) 2016/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 laying 
down  technical  requirements  for  inland  waterway  vessels,  amending  Directive  2009/100/EC  and 
repealing Directive 2006/87/EC,   

182 White Paper on Transport: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, 28 March 2011   
183 COM(2010)245 final, A Digital Agenda for Europe, 26 August 2010  

59 

 
 
                                                           
In  summary,  no  external  inconsistencies  have  been  found  between  the  Directive  and 
the EU legislation in the areas of (a) inland waterway transport policy; (b) EU transport 
legislation; (c) other EU legislation in areas outside transport policy. 

5.5.  EU Added Value 

5.5.1.  Question 19: What are the benefits of intervening at EU level, over and above 
what  could  have  been  reasonably  expected  from  interventions  at  international  level 
(UNECE  structure),  regional  level  (river  commission)  or  local  level  alone?  In  other 
words,  what  is  the  rationale  of  public  intervention  at  EU  level  underpinning  the 
Directive? 

The rationale for public intervention at EU level through the RIS Directive is rooted in 
the  cross-border,  international  character  of  the  inland  waterway  transport  sector. 
Desk research and stakeholder consultations highlighted the same factors that justify an 
intervention  at  the  EU  level  rather  than  at  a  regional  or  national  level.  All  of  the  31 
interviewees  that  provided  answers  to  this  question  agree  that  the  RIS  Directive,  as  a 
public intervention at EU level, is justified and reasonable given its intended objectives. 
The  rationales  for  EU  intervention  highlighted  by  interviewees  are  similar:  the  inland 
navigation sector is inherently international and interconnected (18), so legislation should 
not stop at borders. In line with this, the Directive sought to avoid fragmentation between 
different  national  approaches  that  could  result  from  RIS  management  at  Member  State 
level  (8).  Interviewees  therefore  acknowledge  that  common  standards  (5)  and  central 
legislation (6) are justified, useful and necessary184. 

There  is  strong  agreement  among  interviewees  that  the  same  benefits  could  not  have 
been achieved by comparable interventions at the international, regional or national level. 
At  the  international  level,  this  is  because  the  guidelines  provided  by  international 
bodies,  such  as  UNECE,  are  not  mandatory.  Therefore,  they  would  not  necessarily 
prevent fragmentation in the sector. 

Views regarding what benefits could be achieved at the regional level are slightly more 
divided.  Six  respondents  indicated  that  interventions  by  River  Commissions  would 
potentially be able to  provide the same benefits  as the RIS Directive;  however, four of 
them reiterated that a community level response is still to be preferred185. They explained 
that  the  River  Commissions  have  a  considerable  degree  of  authority  and  could 
probably  implement  RIS  by  themselves,  although  this  would  lead  to  fragmentation  at 
corridor level – different River Commissions are unlikely to  work together in the way 
that is incentivised by the RIS Directive. 

There are no indications that the same benefits could be achieved at the national level: 
all evidence suggests that intervening at the national level would be counterproductive, as 
this  would  result  in  a  high  fragmentation  of  standards  and  implementation  practices. 
Fragmentation  would  be  particularly  likely  to  occur  in  the  areas  of  type-approval  of 
equipment,  increase  in  the  number  of  resubmissions  of  electronic  ship  reports  for 
international  voyages,  information  comparability  and  accessibility  issues.  This  would 
consequently  impose  significant  monetary  losses  and  a  decrease  in  efficiency  for  both 
users and competent authorities. 

184 See section 6.5, Annex 2 “Findings from the interviews” to the Stakeholder Consultation Report 
185 Idem 

60 

 
                                                           
Input  gathered  from  the  Public  Consultation186  confirm  the  above  findings  from  desk 
research and interviews. 

5.5.2.  Question 20: In light of the above rationale, what evidence is there on actual EU 
added  value  having  been  created,  also  in  terms  of  order  of  magnitude  of  the  added 
value? 

It is challenging to distinguish between desired, perceived and observed EU added value 
of  the  RIS  Directive.  The  desired  EU  added  value  is  what  is  intended  to  be  achieved 
through  the  introduction  of  the  RIS  Directive,  as  enshrined  in  and  operationalised 
through  the  Directive’s  key  objectives,  most  notably  to  establish  harmonised  RIS  in 
the Union (see Question 19). The perceived EU added value is that reported by different 
stakeholders based on their experience of using  RIS and regardless  of whether this EU 
added value has been measured or not. The observed EU added value is that which only 
includes measured positive impacts linked to the introduction of the RIS Directive.  

All  sources  consulted  point  to  the  same  result:  the  RIS  Directive  has  considerable 
perceived  EU  added  value,  i.e.  brought  about  benefits  that  could  not  have  been 
achieved by interventions at national, regional or international level. The main EU added 
value  resulting  from  the  RIS  Directive  can  be  summarised  as  follows:  improved 
harmonisation;  standardisation  through  common  technical  standards;  increased  cross-
border cooperation; and more funding for the sector. 

Harmonisation and standardisation quite clearly emerge as the main benefits brought 
about  by  the  RIS  Directive.  Especially  in  the  Danube  region,  there  are  indications  that 
many of the services would not  have been implemented to the extent they have been if 
the  RIS  Directive  had  not  given  certain  countries  the  necessary  impetus  to  invest  in 
inland navigation. As mentioned by a RIS Authority in a Danube country: “The EU RIS 
Directive  has  been  the  crucial  trigger  for  the  wide  implementation  of  Electronic 
Navigational  Charts, Notices  to  Skippers,  Inland  AIS  and  Electronic  Ship  Reporting  at 
European  level.  These  services  are  well  received  and  appreciated  by  the  inland 
navigation  sector”187.  Thus,  the  RIS  Directive  also  led  to  more  cohesion  in  the  inland 
navigation  sector  in  Europe.  Evidence  on  harmonisation  and  standardisation  for  other 
regions is less pronounced. There are indications that the Rhine region would have been 
able to establish harmonised RIS without the RIS Directive.  

For  all  regions,  the  Directive’s  effect  was  amplified  by  that  of  European  funding 
instruments, particularly by the TEN-T and CEF programmes. For the period 1995-2018 
(all funding instrument, including still ongoing projects), the EU co-financed with EUR 
113  Million188  (current  prices)  or  45%  of  the  actual  total  costs  of  all  RIS  related 
initiatives. The evaluation has not attempted to separate the effect of the Directive from 
that of the funding. It seems safe to say that the Directive was necessary to bring forward 
the  EU  added  value  in  this  area,  which  then  materialised  in  close  interaction  with  the 
funding  instruments.  All  stakeholder  groups  of  all  regions  agree  that  there  has  been 
progress  towards  the  achievement  of  a  harmonised  interoperable  RIS,  as  described 
under Question 4. 

186 See Figure 16, page 80 and Table 10, page 81 
187 Results from the Public Consultation, see Table 10, page 81 
188  See  section  6.2.1  “Investment  costs”  in  Annex  6  “Ex-post  social  cost-benefit  analysis”,  Technical 

Annexes to the Evaluation Support Study 

61 

 
                                                           
Cross-border  collaboration  between  RIS  authorities  (incl.  fairway  authorities),  RIS 
providers and stakeholders in the inland waterway transport chain can be identified as an 
EU  added  value,  especially  in  terms  of  the  increased  possibility  for  public-private 
collaboration. Acting at the EU level rather than at the regional or local level is seen by 
all  stakeholders  as  beneficial  in  terms  of  higher  availability  of  funding  to  support 
implementation  and  development  activities.  It  emerged  that  the  inland  waterway 
transport  sector  has  benefited  from  increased  market  and  political  awareness  since  the 
introduction of the RIS Directive. This, in turn, guaranteed a place for the sector in the 
EU  political  agenda  among  its  key  priorities.  This  resulted  in  higher  funding, 
materialised  and  operationalised  through  several  projects189  (e.g.  IRIS  Europe,  RIS 
COMEX) that allow for the continuous development of the sector. 

The  RIS  Directive  is  perceived  to  have  brought  about  other  benefits,  although  it  is 
unclear  whether they  constitute an EU added value of the EU intervention specifically. 
Interviewees  and  questionnaire  respondents  also  perceive  that  the  IWT  sector  has 
benefitted  from  increased  competitiveness;  optimised  use  of  infrastructure;  improved 
safety during cross-border voyages. However, these perceptions can neither be supported 
nor discarded by the available evidence (see Question 14).  

Increased safety, for instance, is considered a key EU added value of the RIS Directive. 
Most respondents mentioned safety as a key benefit for the IWT sector resulting from the 
introduction of the RIS Directive. No analytic evidence has been found, which suggests 
that the increase in safety is a perceived benefit rather than an actual one (see Question 6 
and  Question  14).  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  although  it  was  most  frequently 
mentioned as the EU added value of the RIS Directive, there is  no proof that the same 
perception of increased safety would not have been established in the absence of the RIS 
Directive,  i.e.  if  RIS  was  implemented  by  Member  States  or  River  Commissions 
themselves. 

To conclude, the  findings on the EU added value of the RIS Directive are  uncertain 
and somewhat limited by the difficulty of attributing actual (observed) EU added value 
on  the  basis  of  evidence  on  perceived  EU  added  value  reported  by  stakeholders. 
Nonetheless, the findings confirm the non-negligible positive perception that RIS users 
have of the Directive’s EU-wide effects on the IWT sector. The most notable finding is 
the strongly perceived impulse provided towards standardisation and harmonisation of 
river information services across Europe, as a result of the common EU-wide technical 
standards introduced by the RIS Directive, and an increase in perceived safety. 

189 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-horizontal-

priority/river-information-services-%28ris%29 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Effectiveness 

The  Directive’s  expected  core  benefits  originate  in  cost  savings  for  the  IWT  sector 
(relative  to  the  baseline)  from  a  reduction  in  avoidable  costs  due  to  non-harmonised 
national RIS systems. The effectiveness findings therefore provide evidence on the extent 
of the actual regulatory fitness of the Directive and are relevant for future policy making 
and in the context of the European Commission’s REFIT programme. 

Data concerning navigation and voyage planning 

Evidence  on  the  availability  of  data  concerning  navigation  and  voyage  planning 
suggests that all relevant Member States comply  with  the RIS Directive’s requirements 
for  making  this  data  available  in  an  electronic  format,  whereas  the  Directive  does  not 
specify  this  format.  Therefore,  Member  States  make  this  data  available  in  different 
formats such as the RIS Index, Electronic Navigational Charts, electronic (dynamic and 
static)  information  on  national  websites,  etc.  There  is  clear  evidence  for  a  lack  of 
standardisation  of  this  data  and  a  lack  of  precision  in  the  Directive,  as  it  does  not 
provide technical specifications for a harmonised provision of data concerning navigation 
and  voyage  planning.  As  regards  to  benefits,  collected  evidence  indicates  that  data  for 
navigation and voyage planning is beneficial for resource planning in inland waterway 
transport and has led to  moderate improvements in trip planning. There is no robust 
evidence  that  data  concerning  navigation  and  voyage  planning  has  actually  led  to  cost 
savings.  Higher benefits of data for navigation and voyage planning are hindered by the 
lack of a full harmonisation of data provided across the Member States. 

Standardised electronic navigational charts 

Evidence  on  the  availability  of  standardised  electronic  navigational  charts  (ENC) 
suggests  that  all  relevant  Member  States  provide  ENC  for  waterways  of  high 
significance. Member States have not reached full compliance with the requirements of 
the RIS Directive yet, as coverage of ENC for waterways of CEMT class Va and above is 
not  at  100%.    However,  most  Member  States  also  provide  ENC  for  smaller  waterways 
outside  of  the  requirements  of  the  RIS  Directive,  for  example  if  these  waterways  are 
considered  relevant  for  traffic  or  if  regional  authorities  in  charge  decide  to  make  them 
available.  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.  As  regards  to  quality,  the  RIS  Directive  framework  does  not  contain,  for 
example,  any  detailed  requirements  concerning  update  rates  for  charts.  Four  RIS 
authorities,  two  RIS  developers,  a  user  representative  organisation  and  an  international 
organisation  pointed  to  insufficient  update  rates  of  ENC,  with  indications  that  Rhine 
countries update their charts more frequently than the countries along the Danube. Seven 
of the thirteen relevant Member States indicated limited resources (human, financial and 
technical)  as  a  hindering  factor  for  making  ENC  available  in  higher  quality  and 
accuracy.  As  regards  to  benefits  of  ENC,  there  are  indications  that  the  availability  of 
standardised  electronic  navigational  charts  has  benefitted  the  resource  planning  of 
waterway  users  allowing  them  to  navigate  more  efficiently  and  safely.  Especially  in 
combination with position and identification information from Inland AIS, there is a clear 
perception of waterway users that safety has improved through standardised electronic 
navigational charts. Despite indications that resource planning has improved, there is no 
conclusive evidence that this has resulted in cost or time savings. 

63 

 
 
Standardised notices to skippers 

Evidence  on  the  availability  of  standardised  notices  to  skippers  suggests  that  not  all 
relevant Member States make the mandatory notices to skippers available electronically 
on  waterways  of  CEMT  class  IV.  In  three  Member  States,  coverage  of  the  relevant 
waterways  has  not  reached  100%  yet.  Stakeholder  consultations  further  unveiled  that 
Hungary  stopped  providing  notices  to  skippers  digitally,  that  the  service  level  in 
Romania  is  limited  and  that  ports  do  not  adequately  provide  notices  to  skippers.  There 
are indications that 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. The reported variance in their distribution makes notices to skippers difficult 
to access from a skipper’s perspective. Without the proper on-board application, skippers 
need  to  visit  several  websites  to  collect  the  necessary  information  for  an  international 
trip. As a result, there is a lack of consistency across the 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.  As  regards  to  benefits,  stakeholder  consultations  indicate  better  voyage 
planning,  improved  safety  and  improved  communication  as  the  main  benefits  of 
standardised  notices  to  skippers.  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 fragmentation in accessibility of 
notices. 

Electronic Ship Reporting 

There is a lack of robust quantitative evidence indicating a change in resubmissions of 
electronic  ship  reports  in  cross-border  transport.  Qualitative  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.  Only  on  the  Rhine,  there  are  some  observations  that  a  limited 
reduction  in  resubmissions  of  electronic  ship  reports  has  occurred.  This  is  directly 
attributable to the electronic reporting obligation for container and tanker vessels by the 
CCNR.  The  main  hindering  factor  for  an  effective  reduction  of  resubmissions  of 
electronic  ship  reports  attributable  to  the  RIS  Directive  is  the  lack  of  harmonised 
reporting  requirements  across  countries.  The  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. There is no evidence of cost savings for users of the waterways 
and  competent  authorities,  notably  because  there  has  not  been  a  reduction  in 
resubmissions. 

Type approval of equipment and mutual recognition of type approvals 

The evaluation found that a single entity carries out all type-approvals, the “Wasser- 
und  Schifffahrtsverwaltung  des  Bundes,  Fachstelle  der  WSV  für  Verkehrstechniken 
(FVT)” in Germany. Type-approved equipment includes 6 Inland ECDIS viewers and 46 
Inland  AIS  devices,  24  of  which  conform  to  Inland  AIS  Test  Standard  2.0  (CCNR). 
Based on the collected evidence it can be concluded that type-approved RIS equipment 
is mutually recognised across the Member States as foreseen in Article 7 of the RIS 
Directive.    There  is  a  clear  benefit  of  mutual  recognition  of  type-approved  RIS 
equipment across the Member States. There are indications that this mutual recognition 

64 

 
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 quantitative evidence collected for a reduction in costs or time during 
this evaluation. 

Overall effectiveness of the RIS Directive in establishing interoperable, harmonised RIS 

Based  on  the  findings  from  the  previous  paragraphs,  the  degree  of  harmonisation 
differs  depending  on  the  RIS  technologies.  According  to  the  evidence,  most 
harmonisation  was  achieved  in  type-approval  of  RIS  equipment  and  electronic 
navigational  charts,  slightly  less  in  data  for  navigation  and  planning  and  notices  to 
skippers.  The  least  harmonisation  was  achieved  in  electronic  ship  reporting,  especially 
due to different reporting requirements in the Member States resulting in resubmissions 
of  electronic  reports.  A  highly  positive  harmonisation  effect  of  the  Directive  was 
achieved through the implementation of tracking and tracing systems, even though this 
is not mandated by the Directive. The evidence showed as well that RIS technologies are 
not utilised to the same extent in all countries and river corridors. Despite the lack of full 
harmonisation and differences in use of RIS in countries, consulted stakeholders agreed, 
that  standardisation  of  RIS  has  been  the  strongest  benefit  brought  about  by  the 
Directive.  Not  a  single  respondent  from  the  public  consultation  believed  that  the  EU 
properly implemented the monitoring of the setting up of RIS, thus the application of the 
Directive.  

There  is  no  robust  evidence  that  the  RIS  Directive  has  brought  about  unintended 
positive  effects,  although  there  are  indications  that  it  led  to  the  creation  of  new 
opportunities in the context of market developments (e.g. autonomous sailing), as well as 
the creation of new workplaces, amongst others in informatics.  

About  the  achievement  of  its  general  objectives,  the  evidence  is  mixed.  There  is  no 
robust  evidence  that  the  RIS  Directive  had  an  impact  on  the  growth  of  the  inland 
navigation  sector  or  led  to  the  optimised  use  of  existing  infrastructure.  There  are 
indications  that  it  has  promoted  environmental  protection  through  a  decrease  in  fuel 
consumption, although the degree to which this is fully attributable to the RIS Directive 
is difficult to measure. Despite the absence of consistent accident data across the Member 
States, there is a clear perception among all stakeholder groups that the RIS Directive 
has contributed to improved safety in inland navigation. 

Efficiency 

The  Member  States  and  the  EU  incurred  costs  for  the  preparation  of  the  RIS 
Directive  and  its  implementing  acts,  but  there  is  no  robust  evidence  that  costs  were 
proportionate  or  disproportionate  to  the  achieved  outcome.  The  preparation  of  the 
Implementing Acts was done in cooperation with four independent technical RIS expert 
groups, comprising mainly public sector organisations of EU and non-EU Member States 
alike.  Costs  largely  incurred  for  the  members  of  these  groups.  Consulted  public  and 
private sector stakeholders reported on major inefficiencies in the adoption speed of the 
implementing  acts  and  their  revision  under  the  RIS  Directive,  resulting  in  permanently 
outdated standards for the sector. 

Evidence  suggests  that  RIS  authorities  incurred  substantial  one-time  implementation 
costs  associated  with  making  data  for  navigation  and  voyage  planning  available  to 
waterway users, ranging from  EUR 600,000 to  EUR 2.9 million  per country  (based on 
limited  samples).  RIS  authorities  also  incur  annual,  ongoing  costs  associated  with 
keeping  data  up-to-date  and  accessible  to  users,  ranging  from  EUR  17,000  to  EUR 
179,000 per country (based on limited samples). Paired with the benefits accrued to data 

65 

 
for navigation and voyage planning, public and private stakeholders believe that benefits 
outweigh costs. 

investment  costs.  Based  on 

incurred  substantial  one-time 

To  make  electronic  navigational  charts  (ENC)  available,  evidence  confirms  that  RIS 
authorities 
limited 
quantitative evidence, reported one-off costs range from EUR 6,000 to EUR 1.5 Million 
per country. RIS authorities also  incur  annual  ongoing costs  associated  primarily  with 
the  updating  of  electronic  navigational  charts.  Limited  quantitative  evidence  indicates 
ongoing costs ranging from EUR 4,200 to EUR 11,000 on average per year per country. 
The  evidence  obtained  cannot  be  generalised  across  countries,  because  costs  vary 
substantially, depending on the density of the national waterway network and the update 
rate  of  electronic  navigational  charts.  Paired  with  the  benefits  accrued  to  standardised 
electronic  navigational  charts,  public  and  private  stakeholders  believe  that  benefits 
outweigh costs. 

Concerning  standardised  notices  to  skippers  (NTS),  evidence  confirms  that  RIS 
authorities  incurred  one-off  costs  for  making  NTS  available  electronically.  Limited 
quantitative evidence indicates one-off costs ranging from EUR 70,000 to EUR 422,000 
from  2005  until  2019  per  country.  Based  on  limited  samples,  RIS  authorities  incurred 
costs on an annual basis, ranging from EUR 1,000 to EUR 10,200 per country. Due to 
the limited quantitative evidence, a reliable generalisation of costs across all countries is 
not  possible.  Costs  also  vary  substantially,  depending  on  the  density  of  the  national 
waterway network. Paired with the benefits accrued to standardised notices to skippers, 
public and private stakeholders believe that benefits outweigh costs. 

Evidence suggests that RIS authorities incurred one-off costs for setting up the necessary 
systems for receiving and processing of standardised electronic ship reports. Limited 
quantitative evidence indicates one-off costs ranging from EUR 260,000 to EUR 480,000 
from 2005 until 2019 per country. Based on limited quantitative evidence collected from 
two RIS authorities, recurring annual costs range from EUR 1,500 to EUR 2,000 (year 
2017). There seems to be no clear pattern across countries in terms of the magnitude of 
these costs. It is unclear whether the RIS Directive, through its provisions on electronic 
ship reporting, has created benefits that outweigh the costs. Considering the limited data 
exchange  between  countries  and  the  inefficiencies  brought  about  as  a  result,  there  is 
considerable room to further reduce resubmissions and thereby save time and costs for 
public and private stakeholders. 

Concerning  type  approval  of  RIS  equipment,  evidence  confirms  that  RIS  authorities 
have  not  incurred  any  one-time  or  recurring  costs.  Type-approval  does  imply  one-
time  costs  for  the  private  sector  to  get  the  equipment  type-approved,  with  one  RIS 
equipment manufacturer estimating EUR 5,000 per product. Evidence suggests that type-
approvals  of  RIS  equipment  are  mutually  recognised  across  Europe,  and  that  benefits 
outweigh costs. 

As  explained  in  the  previous  paragraphs  and  as  detailed  under  Questions  8,  9  and  10, 
there  is  very  limited  evidence  concerning  the  overall  costs  the  Directive  caused  to 
establish  interoperable,  harmonised  RIS.  Most  RIS  authorities  are  unable  to 
differentiate between the overall costs related to the implementation of the RIS Directive, 
let  alone  distinguish  between  costs  associated  with  RIS  as  such.  As  a  result,  the  very 
limited quantitative evidence cannot be aggregated and generalised to the level of the 
RIS  Directive.  A  qualitative  assessment  of  the  overall  efficiency,  based  on  evidence 
from the stakeholder consultations, indicates that  overall costs of the RIS Directive are 
outweighed by the benefits accrued to the sector as a whole. 

66 

 
No  evidence  was  found  of  unintended  negative  economic  and  environmental  effects 
caused  by  the  RIS  Directive.  Two  interviewees  mentioned  a  potential  reduction  in 
navigation  skills  of  skippers  as  a  negative  social  effect  of  digitalisation  in  inland 
navigation through RIS. 

Evidence  shows  a  clear  potential  for  simplification  and  reduction  of  regulatory 
burden emerging from the slow update and adoption process of technical standards. 
There  is  an  agreement  among  public  and  private  stakeholders  that  the  RIS  Directive 
suffers from a lack of monitoring and a slow implementation, as it takes too long for 
technical  standards  to  be  updated.  Consequently,  the  sector  permanently  works  with 
outdated standards. This finding on a potential for simplification is particularly relevant 
in the context of the European Commission’s effort to enhance the regulatory fitness of 
EU law (REFIT programme). 

The evaluation did not attempt to produce a cost estimate of total RIS implementation 
costs at an aggregated level of the general objectives of the Directive, as the underlying 
evidence base is incomplete and many strong assumptions would have had to be made. 
Concerning  a  cost-benefit  ratio  of  the  RIS  Directive,  estimations  were  made  of  the 
benefits  accrued  by  a  reduction  in  fuel  consumption  and  a  resulting  reduction  in 
emissions.  With  a  total  investment  cost  set  at  EUR  52  Million,  a  positive  cost-benefit 
ratio  prevails  as  long  as  at  least  12%  of  all  equipped  vessels  use  the  on-board  RIS 
equipment for fuel consumption reduction. Details can be found under Question 14. 

Relevance 

Evidence  suggests  that  there  has  been  a  high  degree  of  alignment  between  the 
objectives  laid  out  in  the  Directive  and  the  needs  of  the  inland waterway  transport 
sector  over  the  assessment  period.  However,  stakeholder  consultations  unveiled  a 
paradigm  shift  of  digitalisation  in  inland  navigation.  While  the  Directive  primarily 
focuses on the safety of navigation, the sector now has a stronger need for improving its 
efficiency and establishing stronger links with other modes of transport.  

New  needs  have  emerged  in  the  IWT  sector  since  2005.  These  needs  arise  from 
technological changes, such as the automation of vessels and infrastructure, the further 
digitalisation in the sector including the need for more interoperable services  and better 
data,  and  technological  innovation  for  RIS  related  software  and  hardware.  New  needs 
have emerged from market developments. Evidence suggests a necessity for providing 
specific training and education on the new tools and technologies used in the sector. 

Overarching  new  needs  for  all  transport  modes  have  emerged.  Green,  smart  and 
congestion-free  transport  and  logistics  are  the  key  concepts  for  the  whole  transport 
sector,  stipulated  by  the  European  Green  Deal  communication190  of  the  European 
Commission. The relevance of the RIS Directive is further illustrated by the fact that the 
Commission  may  consider  to  include  data  collected  and  published  under  the  RIS 
Directive  in  the  mobility  category  of  the  list  of  high-value  datasets  under  the  Open 
Data Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1024). 

Evidence from the stakeholder consultations confirms that the guidelines and technical 
standards in the framework of the RIS Directive are still relevant and necessary. There 
are strong indications that the technical  standards are  not updated fast enough, which 
will  reduce  their  relevance  in  the  future  because  the  sector  constantly  uses  outdated 

190 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/communication-european-green-deal_en 

67 

 
                                                           
standards.  However,  outdated  standards  do  not  lead  to  a  lack  of  harmonisation,  if  the 
implementation of existing standards is sufficiently monitored. 

Coherence 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  main  mechanisms  of  the  Directive,  namely  the 
technical  requirements,  specifications  and  conditions  for  data 
establishment  of 
communication and RIS equipment as well as the imposition of a minimum level of RIS 
services through the Implementing Regulations, are consistent and set forth logically. 

The review of the legal text of the RIS Directive shows a strong and successful effort to 
maintain  consistency  and  guarantee  adequate  interaction  between  the  Directive  and 
other  international  legal  requirements  applicable  to  inland  waterway  transport.  
Collected evidence suggests that the Directive is consistent with other international legal 
requirements applicable to inland waterway transport. Stakeholder consultations unveiled 
that  different  inland  navigation  regulations  (for  example  concerning  reporting 
requirements)  in  the  Member  States  could  lead  to  different  interpretations  of  the 
provisions  in  the  RIS  Directive.  This  shows  a  need  to  ensure  that  national  law  and 
Member States’ international obligations do not interfere with the proper functioning of 
the RIS Directive. 

EU added value 

The rationale for public intervention at EU level through the RIS Directive is rooted in 
the  cross-border,  international  character  of  the  inland  waterway  transport  sector. 
Evidence from the stakeholder consultations confirms that the RIS Directive is justified 
and  relevant  as  a  public  intervention  at  EU  level,  to  avoid  fragmentation  between 
different  national  RIS  implementation  approaches.  There  is  strong  agreement  among 
stakeholders  that  the  same  benefits  could  not  have  been  achieved  by  comparable 
interventions at the international, regional or national level. Although they prefer an 
EU level approach, a limited number of stakeholders from the Rhine region indicated that 
interventions at the regional level by River Commissions could provide similar benefits 
as the RIS Directive. There are no indications that the same benefits could be achieved at 
the national level. 

Harmonisation and standardisation quite clearly emerge as the main benefits brought 
about  by  the  RIS  Directive.  Especially  in  the  Danube  region,  there  are  indications  that 
many of the services would not have been implemented to the extent they have been, if 
the  RIS  Directive  had  not  given  certain  countries  the  necessary  impetus  to  invest  in 
inland navigation. Thus, the RIS Directive also led to stronger cohesion in the inland 
navigation sector in Europe. 

For all regions, the Directive’s effect was amplified by that of EU funding instruments, 
particularly by the TEN-T and CEF programmes. For the period 1995-2018 (all funding 
instrument, including still ongoing projects), the EU co-financed with EUR 113 Million 
(current  prices)  or  45%  of  the  actual  total  costs  of  all  RIS  related  initiatives.  The 
evaluation  has  not  attempted  to  separate  the  effect  of  the  Directive  from  this  EU  co-
financing.  It  seems  safe to  say that the  Directive was necessary  to  bring forward the 
EU added value in standardisation and harmonisation of RIS across Europe, which then 
materialised in close interaction with the funding instruments. 

To conclude, the RIS Directive has a clear EU added value, even though it is difficult 
to  quantify  the  findings  on  the  EU  added  value  of  the  RIS  Directive  because  of  the 
difficulty  of  attributing  actual  (observed)  EU  added  value  based  on  evidence  on 
perceived EU added value reported by stakeholders. Nonetheless, the findings confirm 

68 

 
the  non-negligible  positive  perception  that  RIS  users  have  of  the  Directive’s  EU-wide 
effects  on  the  IWT  sector.  The  most  notable  finding  is  the  strongly  perceived  impulse 
provided  towards  standardisation  and  harmonisation  of  river  information  services 
across Europe, as a result of the common EU-wide technical standards introduced by the 
RIS Directive, and an increase in perceived safety. 

69 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

•  The lead Directorate-General is DG MOVE. 

•  The evaluation was validated in Decide under reference PLAN/2017/1955. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

•  The evaluation roadmap was published on 31 October 2017. 

•  The evaluation was launched on 8 November 2017 with the first meeting of the 
Interservice  Steering  Group,  consisting  of  the  following  Commission  Services 
and  Agencies:  MOVE,  SG,  SJ,  JRC,  JUST,  REGIO,  ENV,  RTD,  CNECT, 
DIGIT and INEA. The group discussed the outline of the evaluation, including 
the  evaluation  roadmap  and  the  drafts  of  the  intervention  logic,  evaluation 
questions, consultation strategy and the terms of reference for an external study 
to support the evaluation. 

•  The  Commission  contracted  an  external  consultant  to  carry  out  the  study  to 
support  the  evaluation.  This  work  started  in  January  2019  and  concluded  in 
January  2020.  The  kick-off  meeting  for  the  support  study  was  held  on  1 
February 2019 

•  The  Interservice  Steering  Group  discussed  the  inception  report  for  the  support 
study on 20 March 2019. The revised inception report was accepted on 25 April 
2019. The review process for the data collection tools continued afterwards and 
was concluded on 27 May 2019. 

•  On  5  June  2019,  a  stakeholder  workshop  was  held  at  the  Common  Issues 
Meeting  during  the  RIS  Week  in  Romania  to  present  the  evaluation  and  to 
consult  with  the  more  than  90  participants  from  the  inland  waterway  transport 
sector. The results from  the workshop were reflected in  the  evaluation  and the 
support study. 

•  The  Interservice  Steering  Group  discussed  the  interim  report  for  the  support 
study on 13 July 2019 and approved a revised version on 25 September 2019. 

•  The  Commission  conducted  a  public  consultation  on  the  evaluation  from  8 

August to 13 November 2019. 

•  The  preliminary  findings  of  the  support  study  were  presented  and  discussed  at 
the  DINA  Expert  Group  on  11  October  2019.  The  feedback  from  the  expert 
group was reflected in the evaluation and the support study. 

•  The Interservice Steering Group discussed the draft final report for the support 
study  on  14  November  2019.  All  final  deliverables  of  the  support  study, 
including the final report, the executive summary, all technical annexes and the 
stakeholder consultation report were approved on 4 March 2020. 

70 

 
 
3.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

•  The  evaluation  relies  mostly  on  the  support  study191  on  the  ex  post  evaluation 

conducted by an external contractor. 

•  Additional evidence was gathered from the Member States through an external 
fact-finding study on the practical and operational measures in application of the 
RIS  Directive.  This  study  is  not  publicly  available,  as  it  primarily  served  as 
input to the support study and the evaluation. 

191 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/inland/studies/inland_waterways_en 

71 

 
 
                                                           
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Introduction 

The  evaluation  included  various  stakeholder  consultation  activities  to  gather  both 
qualitative  (opinions,  views,  suggestions)  and  quantitative  information  (data,  statistics). 
Most  of  the  activities  were  part  of  the  evaluation  support  study,  which  concluded  in 
January 2020. 

This annex provides an overview of the consulted stakeholder groups and a summary and 
analysis of their responses. The consultation covered all aspects of the evaluation192 and 
addressed key target groups using different methods, such as: 

• 

the evaluation roadmap; 

•  a public consultation ; 

• 

targeted  consultations,  including  in-depth  interviews  for  EU  and  international 
case studies, group discussions with experts and a study visit to a RIS Centre; 

• 

stakeholder workshops; and 

•  meeting with the DINA Commission Expert Group. 

The  Commission  held  additional  meetings  with  several  stakeholders  in  the  course  of 
preparing the evaluation, e.g. during the RIS Week in autumn 2017. 

Consultation methods 

Publication of the evaluation roadmap 

The evaluation roadmap193 was published on 31 October 2017 and was open for feedback 
until 28 November 2017. No responses were received through the feedback mechanism. 

Public Consultation 

A public consultation was launched on the Commission’s website on 8 August 2019 and 
was open for responses until 13 November 2019 (14 weeks)194. Together with the steering 
group,  DG  MOVE  prepared  a  general  questionnaire  asking  stakeholders  for  their 
opinions on the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and EU added value of the Directive. 

The external contractor summarised the results of the consultation in a detailed report195. 

192 More detail can be found in the stakeholder consultation report as part of the support study 
193 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1171-River-information-

services-on-inland-waterways  

194 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1171-River-information-

services-on-inland-waterways/public-consultation  

195 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e3752fc7-7ec0-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  

72 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
N=44 

Figure 3: Public Consultation  participants by main country of operation/residence 

Responses  were  gathered  from  thirteen  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 three countries, with one respondent each, are Italy, Ukraine (both 
voluntary implementers) and Suriname196.  

Respondents indicated the type of stakeholder group they represent. The largest group of 
responses  was  collected  from  public  authorities  (15  of  44),  followed  by  “others”  (8  of 
44), companies/business organisations (7 of 44), business associations (5 of 44), NGOs 
(4  of  44)  and  EU  citizens  (4  of  44).  No  responses  were  received  from  academia  or 
research  organisations,  consumer  organisations,  environmental  organisations,  trade 
unions, or non-EU citizens. 

The  eight  respondents  who  chose  the  option  “other”  clarified  their  role  within  inland 
navigation further. In fact, two of them fit into the category of public authorities, two are 
skippers, three are advisors/consultants, and one is an Inland ENC producer. 

196 There  are reason to believe this person is not actually  from Suriname and that this  was an error. The 

organisation they represented in their answers is based in Spain. 

73 

 
 
                                                           
N=44 

Figure 4: Classification of questionnaire respondents 

In  terms  of  the  scope  of  the  organisations  that  responded  to  the  questionnaire,  the 
majority operate at international or national level. No responses were received from local 
level organisations. 

N=15 

Figure 5: Geographical scope of organisations 

Of the 44 respondents, 20 chose their publication privacy settings as public, meaning that 
they agreed to publication of the size of their organisation. Out of those 20 organisations, 
18 indicated their size. Seven of them (39%) were micro enterprises, three (17%) were 
small and medium and five organisations (28%) were large. 

74 

 
 
 
N=18 

Figure 6: Size of organisations 

In  addition  to  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire,  three  separate  position  papers  were 
submitted and these have also been analysed. 

Targeted questionnaires 

Targeted  questionnaires  aimed  to  fill  factual  gaps  as  identified  in  earlier  stages  of  the 
evaluation,  and  primarily  gather  quantitative  data.  Two  types  of  questionnaires  were 
developed: 

• 

• 

for national administrations / competent authorities, and 

for users of waterways 

To  disseminate  the  questionnaires  to  relevant  stakeholders,  i.e.  national  authorities  and 
private  sector  representative  bodies/users,  a  combination  was  applied  of  DG  MOVE’s 
contacts in the area, the contacts of the experts at the University of Antwerp, and national 
authorities’  and  national  associations’  member  contacts.  National  associations 
disseminated the questionnaire to their members and provided a consolidated response to 
the users’ questionnaire. 

Category of stakeholder  

Type of stakeholder 

Name of 
stakeholder/representative 
association 

Questionnaires received  

Public body: national level  

Competent Authority  

De Vlaamse Waterweg nv (BE) 

(Austria, Belgium 
(Flanders), Czechia, 
Romania, Serbia, 
Slovakia)197 

National Administration 

Federal Ministry of Transport, 
Innovation and Technology (AT) 

Competent Authority 

Romanian Naval Authority (RO) 

National Administration 

National Administration  

National Administration 

Ministry of Transport and 
Construction (SK)198 Questionnaire 
was filled by the competent 
Authorities that operates RIS in the 
Slovak Republic 

Ministry of Transport/ Czech 
Waterways Directorate (CZ) 

MCTI – Directorate for Inland 
Waterways (Plovput) (RS) 

Private body: national 

Vessel owner 

Member of Reederei Jaegers 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

197  Many  RIS  authorities  and  competent  authorities  filled  the  questionnaire  together.  Six  questionnaires 

were returned, but in reality, they cover nine authorities.  

198 The competent authorities that operate in the Slovak Republic filled the questionnaire.  

75 

 
 
                                                           
Category of stakeholder  

Type of stakeholder 

Name of 
stakeholder/representative 
association 

Questionnaires received  

association, skippers  

Ship design and consulting 
company  

Member of Pro Danube 
International  

Member of a port business 
association 

Member of Constanta Port Business 
Association 

Vessel Owner  

Vessel owner & shipper  

Member of the association of 
shipowners and river operators in 
Romania (AAOFPR) 

Member of Slovak Shipping and 
Ports JSC 

Skipper & Vessel Owner  

N/A  

Skipper  

N/A 

Port Authority 

Hamburg Port Authority  

Skipper and Vessel owner   

Comité des Armateurs Fluviaux (Fr) 

Table 4: Overview of responses to the targeted questionnaire 

Total 

Interviews 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

15 

The  interviews  aimed  to  gather  evidence  in  relation  to  evaluation  criteria/questions  for 
which qualitative data was an important source. The external contractors carried out 50 
interviews in total, as presented in the table below. 

Category of 
stakeholder 

Type of Stakeholder 

f
o
e
m
a
N

r
e
d
l
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

Public bodies: 
International level 

World Association for Waterborne Transport 
Infrastructure (PIANC) 

Shipping Regulation / Technical 
Certification Authority  

European Committee for drawing up Standards in the 
field of Inland Navigation (CESNI) 

d
e
n
n
a
l
P

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
C

2 

3 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – 
SC.3 (UNECE) 

Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine 
(CCNR) 

4 

3 

Public bodies: 
European level 

River Commissions 

RIS expert groups 

Public bodies: 
National level 

Port authorities 

Danube Commission 

Sava Commission 

RIS expert groups (ECDIS) 

RIS expert groups (ERI) 

RIS expert groups (NtS) 

Port of Antwerp 

Port of Hamburg  

National RIS authorities (13 in scope of 
Directive) 

Administration of ports on Danube and maritime 

Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und 
Technologie - Oberste Schifffahrtsbehörde (AT) 

Flemish Goverment - Departement Mobiliteit en 
Openbare Werken (BE) 

2 

3 

3 

4 

13 

13199 

199  One  of  the  interviewees  in  this  category  formerly  worked  for  one  of  the  national  RIS  authorities. 
Although recently retired, he was involved in the earlier stages of implementation of the RIS Directive 
and thus had valuable insights to share. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Category of 
stakeholder 

Type of Stakeholder 

f
o
e
m
a
N

r
e
d
l
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

d
e
n
n
a
l
P

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
C

Ministry of Transport (BG) 

Ministry of Transport (CZ) 

Voies Navigables de France (FR) 

Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale 
Infrastruktur (DE)  

Ministry of Transport: Romanian Naval Authority (RO) 

Ministry of Transport (LU) 

Inland Navigation Office in Szczecin (PL) 

Rijkswaterstaat (NL) 

National Transport Authority (SK) 

Plovput Beograd - Directorate for Inland Waterways 
(Serbia) 

Basel Port Authority (CH) 

Via Donau – Österreichische Wasserstraßen-
Gesellschaft mbH (AT) 

De Vlaamse Waterweg (BE) 

National RIS authorities (voluntary 
implementers) 

Public authorities e.g. transport 
management 

Calamity abatement support / agencies 

CALRIS 

Private sector 
companies / 
representative 
organisations 

Professional Associations:  European 
level 

European Skippers Association (ESO) 

European Barge Union (EBU) 

European IWT Platform 

European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP) 

Inland Navigation Europe (INE) 

2 

2 

2 

5 

2 

2 

1 

5 

Professional Associations:  National 
level 

Developers of RIS 

Pro Danube International, including Danube Ports 
Network (AT) 

8 

7 

Central Bureau for the Rhine and IWT (NL) 

Koninklijke BLN-Schuttevaer (NL) 

Central Bureau for Inland Barging (CBRB) (NL) 

Polish Inland Shipowners Association (ZPAS) (PL) 

Asociatia Armatorilor si Operatorilor Portuari – Fluviali 
din România (RO) 

ITS Romania (RO) 

Periskal (BE) 

Tresco Engineering (BE) 

Bureau Telematica Binnevaart (NL) 

Innovative Navigation (DE) 

Nauticast GmbH (DE) 

KDU - Knowledge Design Unit (RO) 

7 

6 

0 

50 

1 

50 

Users of the waterways (skippers)  

Trading Line (RO) 

Total 

Table 5: Overview of the interview programme 

Study visit to a RIS Centre 

In  August  2019,  the  external  contractors  visited  the  RIS  Centre  in  Evergem,  Belgium. 
They  met  with  De  Vlaamse  Waterweg,  who  presented  their  work  on  VisuRIS200,  and 
plans for the future development of RIS in Flanders. They underlined the importance of 

200 https://www.visuris.be/ 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
cross-border collaboration through projects such as RIS COMEX (CEF co-financed), and 
SWINg  (Single  Window  Inland  Navigation).The  visitors  witnessed  first-hand  how  e.g. 
notices to skippers are created digitally and made available to  all users online and how 
calamity  abatement  works  in  practice.  Additionally,  the  visit  shed  light  on  the 
possibilities of RIS data use in the future, e.g. for lock planning. 

Stakeholder workshops 

Open Shipping Days (Antwerp, Belgium, March 2019) 

As the Open Shipping Days took place during the early stages of the Inception Phase of 
the project, the external contractors used this event as a networking opportunity to meet 
several  key stakeholders in  an informal setting and increase the  awareness  of the study 
among (mostly Belgian) IWT community.   

RIS Week (Galați, Romania, June 2019) 

The external contractors attended the RIS Week and conducted an interactive workshop 
during the Common Issues Day. Gathering of many RIS-stakeholders in the same place 
allowed  explaining  the  evaluation  process,  interacting  with  the  stakeholders  and 
undertaking a group-polling exercise with the more than 90 session attendees. The details 
of  the  session  and  the  analysis  of  the  polling  exercise  carried  out  at  the  event  are 
presented as Annex to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

RIS Week (Liège, Belgium, November 2019) 

The external contractors presented the preliminary results of the support study as part of 
the ‘Strategic Developments’ session during the Common Issues Meeting. More than 100 
attendees participated in this session. 

CESNI/TI meeting (Strasbourg, France, December 2019) 

The external contractors presented the final findings and conclusions of the support study 
during the CESNI/TI201 meeting in December. The event took place after the submission 
of the draft Final Report of the support study to DG MOVE. For that reason, this event 
served a purpose of disseminating the finalised study findings. 

Consultation with the Commission’ DINA Expert Group 

The DINA Expert Group meeting202 took place on 11 October 2019 after the preliminary 
findings  and  conclusions  of  the  support  study  have  been  developed.  The  external 
contractors  led  a  structured  workshop  during  this  expert  group  meeting,  in  which  the 
participants  voted  on  a  selection  of  preliminary  findings,  expressing  their  level  of 
agreement  with  them. The online voting  results  were then presented in  real-time to  the 
participants  and  each  result  was  briefly  discussed.  The  details  of  the  session  and  the 
analysis  of  the  polling  exercise  carried  out  at  the  event  are  presented  as  Annex  to  the 
Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

201 https://www.cesni.eu/  
202 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=1733

1  

78 

 
                                                           
Results of consultation activities 

The  remainder  of  the  report  presents  the  main  findings  from  the  public  consultation 
process. 

Contribution of the RIS Directive to its main goals  

Overall,  respondents  were  positive  about  the  contributions  made  by  the  RIS  Directive 
towards  the  achievements  of  its  goals.  Almost  all  respondents  acknowledge  that  the 
Directive  contributed,  at  least  to  some  extent,  to  the  achievement  of  enhanced  safety 
(42/44), enhanced efficiency (40/44), enhanced environmental friendliness of the sector 
(35/44) and enhanced interfaced with other modes of transport (31/44).  

Enhanced  safety  in  inland  waterway  transport  was  clearly  considered  to  have  been  the 
main  goal  to  which  the  RIS  Directive  contributed.  For  efficiency,  environmental 
friendliness and interfaces with other modes of transport, on the other hand, the majority 
of  the  responses  indicate  only  a  moderate  contribution.  This  implies  that  respondents 
believe the effect in these cases is less direct or requires more work.  

N=44 

Figure 7: Question 1 - To what extent has the RIS Directive contributed to the following goals? 

Two respondents provided further clarification to this question, summarised as follows:  

Answer category  

Examples203 

Need for more harmonised approach (n=2)  

“RIS  is  necessary  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  above-mentioned  goals.  The  limits 
reside  in  the  application  and  follow-up  at  EU  level.  A  harmonised  approach, 
coordination and implementation between Member States is required to reach the goals 
across borders and prevent new islands, which have now emerged.”  

“Unfortunately,  the  RIS  Directive  has  made  only  a  limited  contribution  to  the  above 
objectives,  because  there  are  still  too  many  freedoms  for  the  Member  States  … 
Consequently,  many  islands  have  emerged  …  RIS  is  indeed  necessary  to  be  able  to 
contribute  to  the  above  objective,  only  the  approach  and  follow-up  by  Europe  is 

203 The  two responses  were similar: both  made  reference to the  creation of  “islands”  within Europe, and 
both  made  reference  to  the  RIS  COMEX  project  as  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  One  of  them  was 
submitted by a RIS provider in Belgium and the other one by a European level association.  

79 

 
 
                                                           
Answer category  

Examples203 

insufficient to date.” [translated]  

Table 6: Question 1 – additional information 

Usefulness of key RIS technologies  

Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate,  on  a  four-point  scale  from  “very  useful”  to  “not 
useful at all”, the usefulness of data for navigation and planning, electronic navigational 
charts, notices to skippers, vessel tracking and tracing and electronic ship reporting. 

Overall,  all  these  RIS  technologies  are  considered  “very  useful”  or  “mostly  useful”  by 
the majority of respondents.  

In  order  of  magnitude,  when  excluding  “do  not  know”  replies,  respondents’  rate 
electronic navigational charts as most useful, followed by notices to skippers, electronic 
ship reporting, vessel tracking and tracing, and data for navigation and planning.  

N=44 

Figure 8. Question 2 - How useful are these main services in your day-to-day operation? 

Respondent were given the opportunity to clarify their response to this question. Detail 
can be found as Annex to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

Improvements to services  

Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate,  on  a  four-point  scale  ranging  from  “significant 
improvements”  to  “it  got  worse”,  the  extent  to  which  the  quality  of  river  information 
services had changed since the introduction of the RIS Directive in 2005.  

There  is  a  degree  of  variance  in  the  results.  On  the  one  hand  (in  order  of  magnitude, 
when  not  considering  “do  not  know  replies”),  fairway  information  services,  traffic 
information  service,  calamity  abatement  support,  information  for  statistics  and  vessel 
traffic services/management are considered to have improved significantly or moderately 
by the large majority of respondents who provided input.  

This is followed (in order of magnitude, when not considering “do not know” replies) by 
voyage  planning,  information  for  law  enforcement,  traffic  planning,  lock  and  bridge 

80 

 
management,  information  for  waterway  charges  and  harbour  dues,  port  and  terminal 
management,  and  cargo  and  fleet  management.    These  are  all  considered  to  have 
improved at least moderately by more than half of the respondents who provided input, 
but to a lesser degree than those mentioned above.  

A considerable number of respondents believe there have been no improvements to these 
services as a result of the RIS Directive. This is most notable for traffic planning, cargo 
and fleet management, and port and terminal management.  

N=44 

Figure 9: Question 3 - Changes in the services since the introduction of the RIS Directive in 2005? 

Respondent were given the opportunity to clarify their response to this question. Detail 
can be found as Annex to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

Benefits compared to costs  

Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  how  much  effort  the  provision  of  electronic 
navigational  charts,  notices  to  skippers,  electronic  ship  reports,  vessel  tracking  and 
tracing, and data for navigation and planning involves for them.  

In  order  of  magnitude,  when  excluding  “do  not  know”  replies,  the  most  effort  was 
required  for  the  provision  of  data  for  navigation  and  planning,  followed  by  electronic 
navigational  charts,  electronic  ship  reports  and  vessel  tracking  and  tracing  (tied),  and 
notices to skippers.  

81 

 
N=44 

Figure 10: Question 4 - How much effort does providing the information for the following services/technologies involve 
for you? 

Respondents  were  subsequently  asked  to  compare  the  effort  required  to  the  benefits 
accrued.  For  the  majority  of  respondents,  the  effort  required  for  the  provision  of  the 
abovementioned  services/technologies  is  considered  adequate  or  low  considering  the 
benefits brought about.  

In order of magnitude, when excluding “do not know” replies, notices to skippers is most 
positively rated as having an adequate benefits-effort ratio. This is followed by electronic 
navigational  charts,  electronic  ship  reporting,  vessel  tracking  and  tracing,  and  data  for 
navigation  and  planning  respectively.  In  all  five  instances,  however,  at  least  three 
quarters  of  the  respondents  who  provided  input  believes  the  effort  is  adequate  or  low 
compared to the benefits accrued.  

N=44 

Figure 11: Question 5 - Compared to the benefits, is the overall effort adequate? 

82 

 
 
 
Type approval of RIS equipment  

Respondents  who  are  using  RIS  equipment/applications  were  asked  whether  they  are 
aware  if  their  (on-board)  equipment  has  been  type-approved  according  to  the  RIS 
Directive. This resulted in 23 “does not apply” responses, i.e. from respondents who are 
not using RIS equipment/applications.  

N=21 

Figure 12: Question 7(a) - If you are using RIS equipment / applications: Do you know whether your (on-board) 
equipment has been type-approved according to the RIS Directive? 

Among  users,  almost  all  (19  of  21)  answered  “yes”,  and  only  two  answered  “no”. 
However, it is worth noting that due to the phrasing of the question, the “no” answer does 
not necessarily mean that their equipment is not  type-approved, but rather that they are 
unaware whether it is.  

Unfortunately, neither of the respondents who replied “no” to this question clarified their 
response.  Among  those  who  replied  “yes”,  two  respondents  provided  relevant 
clarifications to their answers, namely that their AIS transponders are type-approved.  

Respondents  who  are  manufacturing  RIS  equipment/applications  were  asked  whether 
they  believe  the  benefits  of  type  approval  according  to  the  RIS  Directive  outweigh  the 
costs. This resulted in 37 “does not apply” responses, i.e. from respondents whom are not 
manufacturing RIS equipment/applications.  

N=7 

83 

 
 
 
Figure 13. Question 7(b) - If you are manufacturing RIS equipment / applications: For you, do the benefits of type 
approval according to the RIS Directive outweigh the costs? 

The manufacturers who provided input to this question are split in their beliefs. Four204 
of them believe the benefits outweigh the costs, while the other three believe the benefits 
do not outweigh the costs.  

Data protection, security and privacy  

Respondents were asked to indicate their views on data protection, security and privacy 
in the context of RIS.  

Almost  all (43/44) respondents  consider data protection and data security as important. 
Respondents’  views  on  the  degree  to  which  this  is  adequately  addressed  by  the  RIS 
Directive, however, are more diverse.  

Of  the  31  people  who  provided  input,  20  believe  data  protection  and  data  security  is 
taken  seriously  enough  in  the  RIS  Directive,  while  11  believe  it  is  not.  A  total  of  16 
people  indicated  having  experienced  a  situation  where  data  protection  or  data  security 
worked well, and 12 have experienced a situation where it was inadequate.  

N=44 

Figure 14. Question 8 - Data protection, security and privacy in the context of River Information Services. 

Respondent were given the opportunity to clarify their response to this question. Detail 
can be found as Annex to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

Needs and problems  

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  experienced  any  difficulties,  inconsistencies  or 
clashes  in  the  way  RIS  are  provided  locally  or  between  countries.  They  were  asked  to 
give  concrete  examples  where  this  was  the  case.  This  resulted  in  text  responses  by  24 
different respondents, which are summarised in the table below. 

204 Note: one of them indicated being neither a user nor a manufacturer, but rather a body responsible for 

type approvals.  

84 

 
 
                                                           
Answer category 

Examples 

Interaction between different authorities / actors (n=6)  

“in  Romania,  the  River  information  services  are  concentrated  into  a 
single  portal  (which  is  fine),  but  the  information  provided  there  are 
distributed  through  links  to  other  competent  authorities  (for  example: 
waterway authorities) which is not good.” 

“Organisation  of  RIS  /  waterway  information  involving  several 
governments  is  difficult  and  various  data  models  do  not  match” 
[translated] 

“incompatibilities between systems developed by different suppliers and 
serving different RIS operators (within one country)”  

“RIS is under implementation in the Netherlands by the authorities in a 
good  way,  the  partnership  between  the  sector  (being  not  only  the 
skippers), the authorities and the private RIS/software suppliers could be 
much better”  

Differences in implementation (n=8)  

“depth  information  is  still  not  published  in  the  Inland  ENCs,  even  if 
there are isolated dangers below water” 

“In  Germany  AIS  data  are  not  used  for  infrastructure  planning  and 
management” 

“at present the development of UkrRIS is sluggish” 

“several  countries  do  not  even  fulfil  the  minimum  requirements  of  the 
EU RIS Directive, but at least basic RIS infrastructure is in operation in 
almost every country” 

 “Important  Information  on 
conditions is not available in all countries” 

the  waterway  network  and  fairway 

Differences in data standards and interpretation (n=15)  

“Many countries provide very limited FIS data, or FIS data which is of 
poor quality. Many Danube countries have very limited ERI systems.” 

“The  data  quality  and  information  provided  varies  from  country  to 
country due to the legislation in force and practices (e.g. many countries 
require different data, which are mandatory to be transmitted, only some 
countries provide actual data to the European Hull Database, data on the 
RIS Index is not always correct).” 

"Fairway  information  per  country  has  often  arisen  differently  and  that 
leads to mutual incomprehension; In Flanders waterway codes are used 
in  a  way  that  was  once  established  by  Napoleon.  In  NL  there  is  a 
waterway  code  from  waterway  descriptions  from  1922.  Methodology 
seems  the  same,  but  harmonization  requires  a  lot  of  attention.” 
[translated]  

“functions  very  badly  because  of  different  systems  and  interpretations 
between countries” [translated]  

“improve 
reference data (position data, code tables etc.)” 

interconnection  between  standards 

towards  harmonised 

though  standards  and  definitions  have  been  created 

“Even 
collaboration, we sometimes do not understand each other.” 

in 

“Various understanding of the rules for encoding RIS Index” 

“for the elaboration of electronic navigation charts (Inland ENC’s), the 
exchange of data between Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia is difficult and 
sometimes hard to provide, because the information is private and can be 
provided to the partner.” 

“Major  deficits  as  no  common  central  systems  are  in  operations; 
waterway users have to gather information from different  sources; also 
reporting  has  to  be  done  multiple  times  with  almost  the  same  data 

85 

Limited data exchange (n=12)  

 
 
Answer category 

Examples 

content” 

“The  RIS  data  exchange  between  different  countries  is  not  satisfying. 
The hope lies on RIS COMEX to improve the situation.” 

“cross-border data exchange is only applicable in limited scope, having a 
lot of problems in harmonisation and willingness for cooperation”  

Timeframe of adoption of RIS standards (n=6)  

“Due to the long period between publication of updated RIS standards, 
the technical situation is very different.” 

“unacceptable  time  spans  since  new  standards  are  adopted  and 
published” 

Other (n=3)  

“Inconsistency with regard to the import of the ERINOT 1.2 message.” 

“We have 60 pushers on the Danube constantly on the way and are able 
to see maybe 15-20 at any given time.” 

Table 7: Question 9 - If you found any difficulties, inconsistencies or clashes in the way how RIS are provided locally or 
between the countries, please let us know and give us concrete examples: 

Respondents  were  asked  to  what  extent  the  RIS  guidelines  and  technical  specifications 
remain  relevant  (on  a  scale  from  “very  relevant”  to  “not  relevant”)  in  light  of 
technological developments that have taken place since 2005.  

Overall, a very large majority of stakeholders agree that the technical guidelines and all 
four relevant technical specifications are still relevant and needed today.  

In  order  of  magnitude,  when  excluding  “do  not  know”  replies,  the  technical 
specifications for notices to skippers are considered most relevant and needed, followed 
by the specifications for Inland ECDIS, vessel tracking and tracing systems (Inland AIS), 
the RIS Guidelines and the technical specifications for electronic ship reporting.  

N=44 

Figure 15: Question 10 - Do you think the following guidelines and technical specifications of the RIS Directive are still 
relevant and needed today? (In your answer, please take technological developments since 2005 into account.) 

86 

 
Respondents  were  asked  to  specify  whether  they  believe  any  important  technical 
specifications  are  missing  from  the  RIS  Directive,  or  if  it  should  cover  any  new 
developments.  This  resulted  in  20  text  responses,  which  are  summarised  in  the  table 
below. 

Answer category  

Examples  

Need for additional/new technical specifications (n=6)   

“Annex 1 (network data) should be specified in a technical specification” 

“a technical specification for network data would be an important element. 
For the future also guidelines for the harmonised operation of RIS systems 
including  data  exchange  and  aspects  like  cyber-security  and  data 
protection would be useful.” 

“in the field of "automatic web guiding systems" we already have systems 
in  the  market  which  fall  into  the  first  stage  of  navigation  automation  in 
inland  navigation  …  it  is  urgently  necessary  to  accompany  these 
developments  both  operationally  and  on  a  technical  level  (such  as  the 
creation  of  minimum 
technical 
innovations.” [translated]  

requirements),  without 

stopping 

Need for more detail (n=1) 

Need for flexibility (n=5)  

“Guidelines  are  important,  but  often  details  are  also  important.  For 
example, when implementing the ERINOT, we see that different countries 
have interpreted the standard in different ways, which does not make it any 
easier for us as an application builder.” 

“The  current  technical  specifications  are  too  ‘coded’  and  do  not  offer 
enough  flexibility,  so  they  cannot  easily  adjust  to  changing  needs” 
[translated]  

“It is important to allow a suitable degree of flexibility in the standards in 
order to be able to adequately adapt to changing needs.” 

“Concerning standards and regulatory framework, it is important to have a 
flexible  regulatory  framework  to  enable  the  deployment  of  innovative 
solutions (without being hampered by a slow regulatory process)” 

“The  RIS  guidelines  are  very  outdated,  PIANC  already  published  RIS 
guidelines edition 4 since the RIS directive is published. Updating of the 
RIS directive and the standards should be more dynamic.” 

Need for a more harmonised approach (n=2)  

“we need to get rid of national systems, we need to realise an EU FIS” 

Other comments (n=4) 

“The  European  Union  does  not  have  a  centralized  portal  dedicated  to 
inland waterway navigation standards for all key RIS technologies.” 

“It  would  be  useful  to  allow  data  interchange  with  users  of  the  IIW 
transport  system  (e.g.  truck  drivers).  If/when  this  is  done,  it  would  be 
highly  recommended 
the  same  standard  (data  element  and 
that 
codification) used for maritime reporting is adopted.” 

“[The  RIS  Guidelines]  are  a  nice-to-have  introduction  into  RIS  …  [but 
they]  are  not  known  to  the  end-users  as  this  is  not the  main business  for 
them  …  RIS  authorities/RIS  Operators  in  cooperation  with  branch 
organisation  [should]  inform  the  stakeholders  about  the  RIS  and  their 
benefits and to support them in making use of these benefits (e.g. support 
for digitalisation of processes of vessel operators). 

Table 8: Question 10(bis) – If you think that the RIS Directive is missing important technical specifications or should 
cover new developments, please mention (optional) (n=20) 

87 

 
 
 
 
Concerning the question on any problems or needs in the inland navigation sector linked 
to RIS that are not addressed, 22 respondents answered as follows:  

Answer categories  

Examples   

Integration of the logistical chain and other transport modes (n= 
9) 

“other  logistics players  in  the  logistic  chain  are  forgotten,  such 
as  (fleet)  operators  and  inland-  and  deep-sea  terminals.  …  The 
use of RIS, and the integration in the other modes of transport, 
by  the  different  players  in  the  logistics  chain,  certainly  still 
requires a great deal of attention.” 

“Data  exchanges  with  other  modes  of  transport  (maritime,  rail, 
road) must be harmonized” [translated]  

“[need] 
the 
(DTLF/eFTI) and other modes of transports.” 

to  developments 

links 

in 

transport  sector 

Enforcement (n=3)  

Access to data (n=3)  

Automation and digitalisation (n=7) 

“the RIS Directive consists of too many loose parts ... we need 
to consider how to use traffic and transport management to put 
the inland navigation sector on the map” [translated]  

“The review and revision should also be embedded in a new EU 
smart shipping/DINA strategy, which on the one hand develops 
tools  for  waterway  transport  to  be  competitive,  safe,  efficient 
and  innovative,  and  on  the  other  hand,  fully  takes  into  account 
what  is  happening  across  the  mobility  and  supply  chain  with 
regard to synchro-modality, so inland waterway transport can be 
effectively integrated” 

“The initial aim of the RIS directive was to prevent a fragmented 
approach across borders for users when rolling out the first RIS 
services,  which  is  still  valid.  This  requires  not  only  the 
development of technical standards but also the enforcement of 
harmonised  implementation  across  borders  at  EU  level.  A 
regulation is a better legal instrument to ensure that there is no 
differing approach among Member States.” 

“AIS obligation is still missing.” 

“support of ‘mandatory ERI reporting’ in the near future in EU 
countries towards paperless navigation” 

“[access  to  AIS  data]  would  enable  to  use  generated  data  and 
work  with  it  for  internal  matters,  such  as  track  trace  to 
customers, automated messages to customers, etc.” 

“data  cannot  be  accessed  by  users  of  the  transport  system. 
Whether  this  should  be  considered  by  IIW  Port  Community 
System or taken into account in the RIS Directive is not for us to 
say.” 

“the  data  are  not  available  in a  digital  way  at  the  level  of  fleet 
operators,  therefore  they  cannot  benefit  much  from  various 
services  and  data  offered;  they  see  mainly  burdens  as  for 
example (additional) electronic reporting to RIS.” 

“New  developments  popping  up: 
automation/digitalisation” 

assistance 

systems, 

“I  would  strongly  encourage  a  discussion  on  how  automation 
can be enabled on inland navigation from a legal point of view. 
Personally, I think that mandating the European Commission for 
passing a delegated or implementing act could ease the work of 
the  member  states  in  enabling/facilitating  automation  and 
avoiding a patchwork of legal frameworks.” 

“The  automation  of  inland  waterway  navigation  raises  liability 
issues,  similar  to  road  traffic.  I  think  it's  important,  as  in  the 
maritime world, to think about some sort of VDR (Voyage Data 
Recorder).  The  interfaces  to  such  a  system  would  have  to  be 

88 

 
Answer categories  

Examples   

Concrete problems to be solved (n=4)  

Other comments (n=3) 

standardized.” [translated]  

“digitalisation is in full swing and it will be important to adapt 
and update the RIS Directive and the accompanying regulations 
to this new reality.” 

“Sometimes  there  are  problems  associated  with  the  lack  of 
understanding by captains of seagoing or mixed (seagoing/river) 
vessels,  the  need  to  use  RIS.  This  is  especially  felt  when  these 
ships call from the sea to river mouth.” 

“AIS  uses  a  lot  of  power  and  sometimes  malfunctions  abroad” 
[translated]  

 “It is too much of a one-way street where a lot is expected from 
skippers  but  not  enough  is  given  back  ...  e.g.  the  ENCs  are 
outdated and take a long time to be updated”  

It  is  essential  that  national  and  EU  funded  initiatives  (DINA, 
CESNI/TI,  DTLF  etc.)  are  properly  coordinated  and  that 
Horizon  and  CEF  projects  work  in  complementarity  to  create 
added  value  as  part  of  an  overall  defined  digital  vision  and 
execution strategy. 

Table 9: Question 11 – From your experience, are there any problems or needs in the sector, linked to RIS, that are not 
addressed at all? (Please provide examples that illustrate the problem or need). (n=22) 

Added value of regulating RIS at EU level  

Respondents  indicated  that  they  believe  there  are  aspects  of  RIS  which  have  become 
easier in an EU-wide sense. Only five respondents do not believe this to be the case. A 
total of 9 respondents indicate that they do not know.  

N=44  

Figure 16. Question 12 - In your opinion, have any aspects related to RIS become easier in an EU-wide sense? (Please 
consider cross-border navigation and other aspects where EU-wide coordination plays a role.) 

Respondents  were subsequently asked to  provide more information  on their opinion on 
the EU added value of the RIS Directive. This resulted in 19 text responses, summarised 
as follows: 

89 

 
 
Answer categories  

Examples   

Yes, development of the sector (n=3)  

Yes, through harmonisation and standardisation (n=7)   

the 

the 

“without 
technical 
standardisation  based  on 
specifications  …  Many  countries  would  not  have  implemented 
RIS infrastructure in the time since 2005 without the clear will 
and obligations stated in the RIS Directive. Even though RIS has 
become standard this clear order from the EU (and of course the 
connected  funding  instruments!)  have  and  still  leverage  RIS 
development and implementation.” 

“The EU RIS Directive has been the crucial trigger for the wide 
implementation  of  Electronic  Navigational  Charts,  Notices  to 
Skippers, Inland AIS and Electronic Ship Reporting at European 
level.  These  services  are  well  received  and  appreciated  by  the 
inland navigation sector” 

“The  European  cooperation  between  European 
fairway 
authorities improved in an essential way during the last decades 
thanks  to  the  RIS  directive  and  only  through  the  EC  and  RIS 
several steps are taken to improve the position of IWT.” 

“The RIS directive ensured that the same equipment can be used 
throughout  Europe  …  Deviating  standards  like  the  CCNR 
requirements  for  comparable  chart  systems  are  only  valid  on  a 
single waterway.” 

“The  establishment  of  the  RIS  expert  groups  as  a  consequence 
of the introduction of the RIS Directive in 2005 has established 
European  standards  …  This is  extremely  welcome,  as  shipping 
does not stop at borders.” [translated]  

“[RIS] work all over Europe. It is not necessary to buy / install 
different equipment aboard the vessels in different countries.” 

“Harmonisation  of  board  technologies  for  IECDIS,  VTT  and 
partly NtS enable usage of single equipment throughout Europe. 
Single  data  standards  enable  use  of  charts,  NtS  etc.  without 
borders” 

“Without  the  pro-active  standardisation  at  European  level, 
different systems and technologies would have emerged, such as 
in other modes of transport.” 

the 

“without 
technical 
standardisation  based  on 
specifications,  the  production  of  on-board  technologies  would 
have been severely hampered.” 

the 

Yes, but there are still issues (n=6)  

No (n=2)  

“Cross-border navigation and planning is still problematic due to 
massive  administrative  burden  and  lack  or  cross-border  data 
exchange or central points of information.” 

“most ideas were very good, most pilots produced good results, 
but who is caring about sustainability of the results” 

“The  initial  idea  of  to  develop  RIS  backed  by  harmonised 
implementation  behind  the  RIS  directive  has  enormous  added 
value,  but  it  has  not  been  fulfilled  in  practice.  This  is  an 
important attention point for the review and the revision.” 

“several  essential  steps  …  have  to  be  taken  for  the  full 
deployment and full benefit of RIS and the RIS directive.” 

“Unfortunately,  there  are  still  examples  of  nation  states 
advancing their own interests” [translated]  

“It  would  be  nice  to  manage  RIS  regulation  at  EU  level” 
[translated]  

“It  is  obvious  to  skippers  that  many  countries  still  require  re-
reporting  when  crossing  a  border.  Every  Member  State  has  its 

90 

 
Answer categories  

Examples   

Do not know (n=3)  

own interests and interpretations”. [translated]  

“For  the  port  of  Rotterdam  this  added  value  can  not  be 
measured.”  

“We  have  only  been  sailing  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  last  6 
years so we have no opinion” [translated]  

“I’m not sure we are the relevant target group” [translated]  

Table 10: Question 12(bis) - Please tell us more about relevant experiences since 2005, that could help us assess the 
actual "EU-added value". (optional) (n=19) 

Respondents were asked to indicate whether the monitoring of the application of the RIS 
Directive in the Member States has been properly put in place, and by whom. 

The majority of those who provided a response (i.e. excluding “do not know” answers) 
assessed this negatively. Among those who do believe the monitoring of the application 
has been properly put in place, most believe this was done by the Member States alone 
(10), or by the EU and the Member States both (5). None of the respondents believe this 
was done only by the EU. 

N=44 

Figure 17. Question 13 - Has the monitoring of the application of the RIS Directive in Member States been properly put 
in place (by EU or Member States)? 

Eight  of  the  nine  respondents  from  Austria  indicated  that  the  monitoring  has  not  been 
properly  put  in  place.  Among  the  other  countries  there  is  no  noticeable  pattern  –  they 
include the Netherlands (4), Belgium (3), Germany (1), Romania (1), and Czechia (1). 

Respondents were given the opportunity to further clarify their responses, which resulted 
in a total of 17 text responses, which can be summarised as follows: 

Answer category  

No (n=13)  

Examples  

“There is no monitoring that ensures that all member states meet 
the requirements of the RIS directive.” 

“several countries do not even fulfil  the minimum requirements 
of the EU RIS Directive” 

91 

 
 
Answer category  

Examples  

“Unfortunately,  I  have  to  consider  the  monitoring  exercise  as 
insufficient.  Due  to  resource  reasons  at  European  Level,  only  a 
few  RIS  Committee  meetings  were  organised.  The  RIS  Expert 
Group Support certainly has helped and I assume that CESNI/TI 
will help in the standardisation.” 

“member states and companies consumed a lot of budget but did 
they  still  do  not  provide  the  services  as  required  by  the  RIS 
directive.” 

“This is insufficient … there has not been any check with regards 
to the regulations” 

“ERDMS - RIS  Index data are not available from all countries; 
EHDB  -  not  all  countries  delivered  ‘their’  data  sets.  ‘Reporting 
only  once’  does  not  yet  apply.  Not  all  countries  provide  NtS 
according  to  standard  and  in  a  machine-to-machine  readable 
way.  If data are delivered, some might not be of good quality  - 
minimum  levels  for  data  quality  need  to  be  established  and 
enforced.” 

“Not  all  Member  States  comply  with  the  RIS  Directive,  some 
lack of services and do not fulfil their duty to make data/services 
available.  There  is  no  visible  enforcement/pressure  towards  the 
Member  States  to  comply  with  the  RIS  Directive  and  it's 
implementing regulations for the technical RIS standards.” 

“Monitoring  by  EU  suffers  from  lack  of  competence  of  the 
companies  or  institutions  which  were  contracted  to  conduct 
monitoring.” 

“More  stringent  provisions  could  be  envisaged  for  situations 
when  Member  States  do  not  report  on  the  progress  of  RIS 
implementation and/or implementation of different preconditions 
defined in relation to the implementation of RIS.” 

Yes, by Member States (n=1)  

Yes, by EU and Member States (n=1) 

Table 11: Question 13(bis) – Additional input on monitoring aspects (n=17) 

Respondents were asked whether there were, in their opinion, any aspects covered by the 
RIS  Directive  that  can  be  improved  or  simplified.  They  were  given  the  opportunity  to 
freely provide their views to this question in writing. This resulted in 20 text responses, 
which are summarised in an Annex to the Stakeholder Consultation Report. 

92 

 
 
 
Submitted position papers 

Respondents were also given the opportunity to upload files in support to their responses. 
This resulted in three position papers. 

All  three  position  papers  stress  the  need  for  a  revision  of  the  RIS  Directive  and  its 
implementing  acts  in  order  to  address  digitalisation  gaps  and  to  set  the  direction  for 
future  technological  developments.  They  motivate  this  opinion  by  signalling  that  since 
the  introduction  of  the  Directive  in  2005,  the  IWT  sector  has  undergone  significant 
changes,  with  new  requirements  in  terms  of  data  formats,  exchange  and  supporting 
technologies at the core of the changes. The increasing role of digitalisation in the IWT 
sector was highlighted, resulting in the need for an integrated digitalisation strategy for 
inland  waterways.  Concerning  workforce,  the  need  for  developing  new  digital  skills  in 
the sector was mentioned, for example through training programmes and schemes. This 
applies to the providers of RIS and the consumers of RIS alike. 

Interoperability  of  the  IWT  sector  is  considered  a  key  element  to  maintain  the  sectors’ 
competitiveness  vis-a-vis  other  transport  modes,  whereas  interoperability  between  sea 
and inland waterway systems (RIS/VTS) is perceived as a priority. 

The position papers emphasise the importance of technical standards as part of the legal 
framework of the RIS Directive. They stipulate how keeping these standards as flexible 
as  possible  is  crucial,  so  to  ensure  that  the  sector  will  quickly  adapt  to  fast  changing 
needs  and  new  technological  innovations.  A  lack  of  harmonisation  in  the  way  the  RIS 
technical standards are implemented across countries and corridors is mentioned. A more 
harmonised approach is seen as fundamental to ensure future interoperability with other 
modes of transport. 

The  importance  of  multimodality  is  mentioned  frequently.  Multimodal  cooperation 
should be a guiding principle of the RIS Directive. Therefore, the increasingly important 
goal  of  realising  smart  waterways  and  ports  shall  be  taken  in  due  consideration, 
supported by the following actions:  

•  pursuing integration and standardisation across Europe;  

•  ensuring interoperability of IWT with other transport modes;  

•  making access and collection of data easier and faster. 

Another important  aspect  is  the further development  of the RIS Directive in  relation  to 
autonomous/automated navigation and smart logistics. The main principle of RIS was to 
facilitate the provision of information from authorities to the sector (A2B). In the future, 
RIS should also contribute to support the sector at the business-to-business (B2B) level. 

Limited access to, and limited availability of reliable and updated data was mentioned as 
a hindering factor for RIS to reach its full potential. For example, difficulties around data 
protection  laws  are  believed  to  have  hindered  the  success  of  AIS  for  making  available 
up-to-date position and identification information of vessels. To overcome these issues, 
the following suggestions are provided:  

• 

• 

the realisation of a single point of data access for all RIS users;  

inclusion of cybersecurity provisions in the Directive, if revised. 

93 

 
Conclusions 

The  consultation  activities  largely  achieved  their  objectives,  as  all  relevant  stakeholder 
groups across a significant number of Member States and non-EU countries were asked 
for  their  views,  suggestions  for  improving  the  legislative  framework  and  quantitative 
evidence where available. 

In general, the information collected corresponded to the objectives and expectations vis-
à-vis  each  stakeholder  group.  However,  due  to  the  limited  availability  of  quantitative 
data, certain gaps remained, particularly as regards detailed and comparable information 
on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  RIS  services.  While  the  lack  of  quantitative  data  was  not 
unexpected, it shows the need for consistent, more harmonised monitoring and reporting. 

Notwithstanding  the  remaining  information  gaps,  the  consultation  activities  can  be 
regarded as successful in terms of response rate and stakeholder engagement. 

94 

 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

The  analysis  was  based  on  an  evaluation  matrix  (see  below)  that  was  used  to  identify 
operational sub-questions, potential indicators, success criteria and relevant data sources 
for each evaluation question. The matrix was developed at the start of the support study 
and  refined  throughout  the  study  to  take  account  of  gaps  in  data  availability  and 
incorporate suitable mitigation measures. 

95 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions  

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data sources & methods 

Analytical strategy 

EFFECTIVENESS  

1.  Compared  to  what  would  have 
happened  in  absence  of  the 
Directive,  in  quantitative  and 
qualitative terms, to what extent 
have  data  for  navigation  and 
planning, 
electronic 
navigational charts, and notices 
to skippers  

1.1.  To  what  extent  have  data  for 
navigation  and  planning  been 
made available by Member States? 

a) 

b) 

been  made  available  by 
Member States; and  

the 

benefitted 
planning  of  users  of 
inland waterways? 

resource 
the 

 

 

 

Identified dissemination processes among the 
different MS, including comparison and contrast 
of any difficulties encountered in particular MS 
cases (if any) 

Identification of RIS system connectivity with 
other MS (from fact-finding survey) 

Identified factors which helped MS in making the 
data available 

  Desk research and fact-finding study  

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Workshops and events  

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research and fact-finding study  

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

 

Identified factors which hindered MS in making 
the data available 

1.2.  To  what  extent  have  electronic 
navigational  charts  been  made 
available by Member States?  

 

Identification of the dissemination processes 
among the different MS, including comparison 
and contrast of any difficulties encountered in 
particular MS cases (if any) 

  Qualitative information on how ENCs are made 
public to RIS users (from fact-finding survey) 

 

Identified factors which helped MS in making the 
electronic navigational charts available 

 

Identified factors which hindered MS in making  
electronic navigational charts available 

96 

  Workshops and events  

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Workshops and events 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research and fact-finding study  

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Workshops and events 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Data triangulation 

  Workshops and events 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 

  Data triangulation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.3.  To  what  extent  have  notices  to 
skippers  been  made  available  by 
Member States?  

 

Identification of the dissemination processes 
among the different MS, including comparison 
and contrast of any difficulties encountered in 
particular MS cases (if any) 

level  

  Workshops and events 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Workshops and events 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative information on means of NtS 
distribution (from fact-finding survey) 

 

Identified factors which helped MS in making the 
notices to skippers available 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Data triangulation 

  Workshops and events 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level  

  Workshops and events 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

1.4.  To  what  extent  have  data  for 
navigation 
planning, 
and 
benefitted  the  resource  planning 
of users of the inland waterways? 

1.5.  To  what  extent  have  electronic 
navigational  charts  benefitted  the 
resource  planning  of  users  of  the 
inland waterways? 

 

Identified factors which hindered MS in making 
the notices to skippers available 

  Extent to which the provided information is 
reported by RIS users (including end users; 
fairway authorities, waterway managers, skippers, 
terminal managers, lock managers, fleet 
operators, shippers, port operators) as actually 
having been of practical use with respect to 
resource planning 

 

Identified factors which helped or hindered the 
practical use  

  Extent to which the electronic navigational charts 
is reported by RIS users (including end users; 
fairway authorities, waterway managers, skippers, 
terminal managers, lock managers, fleet 
operators, shippers, port operators) as actually 
having been of practical use with respect to. 
resource planning 

 

Identified factors which helped or hindered the 
practical use 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.6.  Have 

notices 

skippers 
benefitted  the  resource  planning 
of users of the inland waterways? 

to 

2.1  To what extent have electronic ship 
reports  reduced  re-submissions 
when crossing a border? 

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? 

1. 

  Extent to which notices to skippers are reported 
by RIS users (including end users; fairway 
authorities, waterway managers, skippers, 
terminal managers, lock managers, fleet 
operators, shippers, port operators) as actually 
having been of practical use with respect to 
resource planning 

 

Identified factors which helped or hindered the 
practical use 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative information on how electronic 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

reporting is facilitated from a a) user b) authority 
perspective per country (from fact finding study), 
with specific focus on crossing a border 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

 

Identification of obstacles faced by skippers when 
submitting e-ship reports complying with the 
technical specifications 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

 

Identification of outcomes of processes which the 
competent authorities deploy for receiving, using, 
and passing on the e-ship reports 

 

Identification of opportunity costs (the benefits an 
individual, investor or business misses out 
on when choosing one alternative over another) 
saved (in non-monetary terms), per Competent 
Authority 

 

Identification of influencing factors to take-up / 
lack of take-up of the process 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Number of reduced resubmissions. 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Change in the activity of agents per trip (i.e. 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

electronic reports led to a reduction of workload 
for agents performing reporting duties before) 
(through interviews with skippers, fleet operators, 
etc.)  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Share of electronic data compared to other ways 
of reporting: ERINOT, PAXLST, ERIRSP, 
BERMAN, (FFS) 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Change in numbers of resubmissions when 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

crossing a border compared to what would have 
happened in absence of the Directive, in 
quantitative and qualitative terms.  

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Numbers of reduction of retransmission of 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

information contained in e-ship reports compared 
to the time before the process has been set up or 
in counterfactual scenario.  

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Cost per processing (reception + use + passing-

  Targeted questionnaire 

on) a single e-ship report 

99 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 

2.2  To what extent have electronic ship 
reports led to cost savings (through 
reduced resubmissions) for: 
- the users of the waterways 
- the Competent Authorities? 

 
 
  Costs saved by users of waterways compared to 

  Targeted questionnaire 

costs previously associated with resubmissions in 
terms of: 

 

Interviews (task 4.2) with public bodies on 
national level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Actual expenditure in monetary terms 

  Costs expressed in manhours multiplied by 
average full-time equivalent salaries 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Costs saved compared to costs previously spent 
on resource planning (to the extent possible split 
for fairway authorities, waterway managers, 
skippers, terminal managers, lock managers, fleet 
operators, shippers, port operators), expressed in 
manhours multiplied by average full-time 
equivalent salaries 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

counterfactual 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

3.  Compared  to  what  would  have  happened  in  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?  

 

Investment and maintenance expenditure in 
vessels and infrastructure (Eurostat & market 
observation reports of CCNR) 

  Share of national waterways covered by 
Electronic Navigation Charts (ENCs), 
differentiated according to the CEMT 
classification (fact-finding study) 

  Level of coverage of Notices to Skippers (NtS) 
messages in % per country (fact-finding study) 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Share of messages encoded, downloadable, and 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

machine-readable (fact-finding study) 

 

Interconnectivity of RIS systems and use of key 
RIS technology (fact-finding study) 

  Comparative qualitative assessment of the 
Member States bodies for type-approval 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

100 

 
 
  Comparative assessment of the differences in the 
processes of type-approving the RIS terminals, 
network equipment and software applications 
between the MS 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Comparative assessment of equipment that needs 

  Desk research 

to be type-approved 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Comparative assessment of equipment types that 

  Desk research 

have been certified 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

 

Identification of influencing factors to mutual 
recognition / non-recognition  

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

  Descriptive statistical 

IWT countries 

analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

101 

 
  Number of type approvals carried out (all type 
approvals, independent if they were required or 
not) 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

  Number of type approvals performed since the 

  Desk research 

Directive 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

  Number of companies that have applied for type 

  Desk research 

approvals 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Quantitative comparison of costs of type-

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

  Descriptive statistical 

approvals 

IWT countries 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Quantitative comparison of the numbers of type 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

  Descriptive statistical 

approvals since 2007 

IWT countries 

  Number of type-approvals issued by a MS which 
are mutually recognised by other MS (comparison 
since the introduction of the Directive) 

  Number of type-approvals issued by a MS which 
were refused to be mutually recognised by other 
MS 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire to MS officials of 

IWT countries 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Composite indicator comprising of findings relating to questions 1-4  

  Data triangulation 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Desk research 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

  Degree of supporting evidence from desk 

research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

102 

4.  Compared  to  what  would  have  happened  in  absence  of  the  Directive,  in 
quantitative  and  qualitative  terms,  to  what  extent,  has  the  Directive  been 
overall effective in establishing an interoperable, harmonised RIS?  

5.  Compared  to  what  would  have  happened  in  absence  of  the  Directive,  in 
quantitative  and  qualitative  terms,  to  what  extent,  has  the  Directive  had 
unintended  

  economic,  

  social, or  

  environmental effects? 

 
Horizontal question: When 
answering questions 1-5, focus on 
actual, attributable effects; also, 
determine which external factors 
have substantially helped or harmed 
positive change and whether there are 
substantial differences between 
Member States.  

What has been the role of the 
technological developments since 2005?  

 

Identified technological developments since 2005 
which are relevant for the RIS environment 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Desk research 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Data triangulation 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and representative organisations 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Degree of supporting evidence from desk 

  Desk research 

research 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

 

Identified policy developments since 2005 which 
are relevant for the RIS environment 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Desk research 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Data triangulation 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and representative organisations 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

What has been the role of the policy 
developments since 2005 (e.g. carriage 
requirements for Inland AIS 
transponders, ECDIS requirements, etc.)?  

(opinion of stakeholders) 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and representative organisations 

  Degree of supporting evidence from desk 

  Desk research 

research 

6.  At  the  level  of  its  general 
to 
objectives  and  compared 
what  would  have  happened  in 

6.1.  Has the Directive contributed to 

  High-level overview of performance and 

  Desk research 

increased competitiveness of the 
inland waterway sector across 
Europe, particularly when looking 

developments of other transport modes over the 
evaluation period 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 

103 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Econometric modelling 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
absence  of  the  Directive,  to 
what extent (in quantitative and 
qualitative terms):  

at modal shift into inland waterway 
transport away from other modes? 

6.2.  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive 
contributed  to  an  optimised  use  of 
existing 
by 
supporting 
resource 
improved 
planning  by  waterway  authorities, 
lock 
terminal  mangers 

infrastructures 

and 

representative organisations 

 

  Testing, via an econometric relation, if there 
is a structural break in the IWT tonne.km 
development with a dummy year for the full 
implementation of the RIS directive 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Testing, via an econometric relation, if there 
is a structural break in the IWT tonne.km 
development with a dummy year for the full 
implementation of the RIS directive 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research 

  Desk research 

  Testing, via an econometric relation, if there 
is a structural break in the IWT tonne.km 
development with a dummy year for the full 
implementation of the RIS directive) 

  Econometric modelling 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Econometric modelling 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Econometric modelling 

  Econometric modelling 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

 

Identification of key trends across the transport 
modes (with Directive in place) 

 

Identification of the likely state of sector’s 
competitiveness over the evaluation period in 
absence of the Directive (Baseline) 

  GDP per country 

  Used in econometric study:  

 

tonne km;  

  Dummy variable per country 

  Modal split data between freight  

  Number of users of Automatic Identification 

Systems (AIS) per country 

  Number of users of river or cabin cruises where 

applicable 

  Optimisation process of resource planning 
attributable to the RIS Directive for:  

 

fairway authorities (traffic) 

  waterway managers (infrastructure) 

 

 

terminal managers 

lock managers 

104 

 
 
 
 
managers?  

 

 

 

 

port operators 

skippers 

fleet / barge operators 

shippers 

  Assessment of the likely state of existing 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis  

infrastructure use over the evaluation period in 
absence of the Directive. 

 

Identified reduction of required trips, e.g. in a 
larger port / to container terminals  

  Change in percentage of lock utilisation (relative 
to baseline) (i.e. better utilisation of infrastructure 
thanks to better information) 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

 

 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis  

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual  

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis  

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Change in percentage in bridge utilisation 

  Desk research and fact-finding study  

  Descriptive statistical 

(relative to baseline) (i.e. better utilisation of 
infrastructure thanks to better information)  

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis  

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Optimisation percentage in load factor (better 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

vessel utilisation)  

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Vessel utilisation (tonnes cargo versus tonnes) 
and according to theoretical loading capacity  

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Analysis of the 

105 

 
 
 
6.3.  To what extent has the Directive 

contributed to improved safety in 
river navigation?  

  Time trends in water way maintenance costs 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

counterfactual 

(Euro) 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Additional types of data protection rules and 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

security measures to protect RIS put in place by 
MS due to the RIS Directive, relative to 
counterfactual. 

 

Identification of differences in application of the 
safety measures between the MS   

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultation 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Changes in RIS users’ sense / feeling of safety 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

over evaluation period (in light of implementation 
history of region)  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Public Consultation 

  Coverage (in %) of the AIS network per country 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

(fact finding study) 

  Quantified levels of acceptance of vessel tracking 
& tracing systems among skippers from different 
MS 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

analysis 

  Number of inland waterway accidents per year 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

per MS (Eurostat)  

analysis 

  % change in number of waterway accidents 

  Desk research and fact-finding study 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

6.4.  Has the Directive led to a reduction 
of the sector's negative impacts on 

  Qualitative evidence from consultations (opinion 
of stakeholders) on changes of environmental 
impacts. 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 

106 

 
 
EFFICIENCY 

7.  What costs/ negative impacts 
have been associated with the 
preparation of the relevant 
Regulations and how are they 
distributed amongst those 
involved? (excluding the 
comitology process for 
adopting implementing acts). 
Are there areas, including 
organisational aspects, with 
potential for efficiency gains?  

the environment? 

  Qualitative evidence from desk research (other 
evaluations of IWW systems) on changes of 
environmental impacts. 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research 

  Comparison of electricity consumption by 

  Desk research 

transport activities between IWT and other modes 
(EUROSTAT) 

  Comparison of Final Energy Consumption (Mtoe) 

  Desk research 

per year between IWT and other modes 
(Statistical Pocketbook) 

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from 

  Desk research 

Transport by Mode, including International 
Bunkers per year - comparison between IWT and 
other modes (Statistical Pocketbook) 

  CO2 Emissions from Transport (Inland 

  Desk research 

navigation), between IWT and other modes, per 
year (Statistical Pocketbook) 

counterfactual 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

7.1.  What costs/negative impacts have 

  Number of FTE-DG staff involved in preparation 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

been associated with the 
preparation of the relevant 
Regulations?  

of each of the Directive 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis  

 

  Number of FTE-DG staff involved in preparation 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

of each of the Implementing Acts 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Number of public sector staff involved in 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

preparation of the Implementing Acts from MS 
RIS side  

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
7.2.  How are the costs under EQ 8 

  Evidence of process’ evolution over the 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

distributed among those involved?  

evaluation period 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

counterfactual 

7.3.  Are there areas, including 

organisational aspects, with 
potential for efficiency gains?  
8.1.  What costs/negative impacts has the 

Directive given rise to in order to 
advance resource planning of users 
of the inland waterways through 
improved data for navigation and 
planning?  

8.  What costs/negative impacts 

has the Directive given rise to 
in order to advance resource 
planning of users of the inland 
waterways through improved 
data for navigation and 
planning, electronic 
navigational charts and notices 
to skippers? How do these 
compare to the benefits 
established?  

  FTE salary rates  

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Descriptive statistical 

internal EC stakeholders 

analysis 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Data triangulation 

  Costs of any external contracts commissioned 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

(monetised) 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Identification of factors influencing the 
preparation process, driving costs and quality 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Administrative and Implementing costs (one-off 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

and ongoing) per stakeholders groups: 

  FTE of inland users’ additional time dedicated to 

learning the new tools and technologies relative 
to time costs incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional monetary costs associated with 
changes to the equipment relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional monetary implementing costs 

associated with creating services relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional number of FTE over the evaluation 

period in the Competent 
Authorities/implementing bodies for handling 
new processes.  

  Additional operational costs over the evaluation 

period (not covered by FTEs) 

  FTE equivalent spent by the MS authorities for 
creations/ set-up of the new data services for 
navigation and planning 

108 

 
 
 
 
8.2.  How do these costs/negative 

impacts established under EQ 8.1 
compare to the benefits established 
from the Directive’s measures on 
“data for navigation and planning”?  

8.3.  What costs/negative impacts has the 

Directive given rise to in order to 
advance resource planning of users 
of the inland waterways through 
improved electronic navigational 
charts?  

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits split by user category 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 
stakeholders) on costs relative to benefits 

  Workshops and events 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Administrative and Implementing costs (one-off 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

and ongoing) per stakeholder groups: 

  FTE of inland users’ additional time dedicated to 

learning the new tools and technologies relative 
to time costs incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional monetary costs associated with 
changes to the equipment relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional monetary implementing costs 

associated with creating services relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional number of FTE over the evaluation 

period in the Competent 
Authorities/implementing bodies for handling 
new processes.  

  Additional operational costs over the evaluation 

period (not covered by FTEs) 

  FTE equivalent spent by the MS authorities for 

creations/ set-up of the new electronic 
navigational charts 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-Benefit-Analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

8.4.  How do these costs/negative 

impacts established under EQ 8.3 
compare to the benefits established 
from the Directive’s measures on 
“electronic navigational charts”?  

8.5.  What costs/negative impacts has the 

Directive given rise to in order to 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits split by user category 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-Benefit-Analysis 

  Workshops and events 

  Administrative and Implementing costs (one-off 

  Desk research 

  Descriptive statistical 

109 

 
 
 
 
advance resource planning of users 
of the inland waterways through 
notices to skippers?  

8.6.  How do these costs/negative 

impacts established under EQ 8.5 
compare to the benefits established 
from the Directive’s measures on 
“notices to skippers”? 

9.1.  What  costs  /  negative  impacts  has 
the  Directive  given  rise  to  in  order 
to advance cost savings through the 
re-submission  of 
in 
reduction 
electronic 
reports  when 
ship 
crossing a border? 

9.  What  costs  /  negative  impacts 
has  the  Directive  given  rise  to 
in order to advance cost savings 
through  the  reduction  in  re-
submission  of  electronic  ship 
reports when crossing a border? 
How  do  these  compare  to  the 
benefits established?   

and ongoing) per stakeholder group: 

  Targeted questionnaire 

analysis 

  FTE of inland users’ additional time dedicated to 

 

learning the new tools and technologies relative 
to time costs incurred in baseline scenario. 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Additional monetary costs associated with 
changes to the equipment relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional monetary implementing costs 

associated with creating services relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional number of FTE created in the 

Competent Authorities/implementing bodies for 
handling the new processes.  

  Additional operational costs over the evaluation 

period (not covered by FTEs) 

  FTE equivalent spent by the MS authorities for 
creations/ set-up of the new NtS processes.  

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits split by user category 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-Benefit-Analysis 

  Workshops and events 

  FTE equivalent spent by the MS authorities 
for creations/ set-up of the new electronic 
reporting system.  

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Administrative and Implementing costs (one-off 

and ongoing) per stakeholder group: 

  FTE of inland users’ additional time dedicated to 

learning the new tools and technologies relative 
to time costs incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional monetary costs associated with 
changes to the equipment relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional monetary implementing costs 

associated with creating services relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional number of FTE over the evaluation 

period in the Competent 
Authorities/implementing bodies for handling 
new processes.  

  Additional operational costs over the evaluation 

110 

 
 
 
10.  What  costs/negative 

users 

impacts 
has  the  Directive  Given  rise  to 
in order to advance cost savings 
for 
inland 
of 
waterways  brought  about  by 
changes  in  the  way  equipment 
is type approved? How do these 
compare 
benefits 
established?  

the 

the 

to 

period (not covered by FTEs) 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis  

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits split by user category 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

9.2.  How  do 

these  compare 

to 

the 

benefits established?   

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 
stakeholders) on costs relative to benefits 

  Workshops and events 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

10.1. What costs/negative impacts has the 
Directive given rise to advance cost 
savings for users of the inland 
waterways brought about by 
changes in the way equipment is 
type approved?  

  Administrative and Implementing costs (one-off 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

and ongoing) per stakeholder group: 

  FTE of inland users’ additional time dedicated to 

learning the new tools and technologies relative 
to time costs incurred in baseline scenario. 

  Additional monetary costs associated with 
changes to the equipment relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional monetary implementing costs 

associated with creating services relative to costs 
incurred in baseline scenario.  

  Additional number of FTE over the evaluation 

period in implementing bodies for handling new 
type approval processes.  

  Additional operational costs over the evaluation 

period (not covered by FTEs) 

  FTE equivalent spent by the MS authorities for 
creations/ set-up of the new type-approval 
processes. 

  Additional private sector costs (if any) 

  Qualitative data analysis  

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-Benefit-Analysis 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits by split by user category  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

111 

 
 
 
 
  Workshops and events 

10.2. How do the costs/negative impacts 
established under 10.1 compare to 
the benefits established from the 
Directive’s measures on “equipment 
type approval”?  

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 
stakeholders) on costs relative to benefits 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Qualitative and 

quantitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-Benefit-Analysis 

11.1.  What costs/negative impacts has 

  Composite indicator including overall Administrative and implementing costs (one-ff and ongoing), 

  Data triangulation 

the Directive given rise to overall in 
order to establish an inter-operable, 
harmonised RIS? 

comprising of findings relating to questions 7-10 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on unmonetizable costs and 
disbenefits by split by user category  

11.  What  costs/negative 

impacts 
has  the  Directive  given  rise  to 
overall  in  order  to  establish  an 
inter-operable, 
harmonised 
RIS? How do these compare to 
the benefits established?  

11.2. How do the costs/negative impacts 
established under 12.1 compare to 
the benefits the Directive has 
brought about in pursuit of an inter-
operable, harmonised RIS? 

 

Identification of factors influencing the overall 
efficiency of the Directive (and its Implementing 
Acts) – extrapolation of the bottom-up analysis of 
the indicators of sub-questions 8.1 to 8.6, 9, 14.1, 
14.2.  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Data triangulation 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Extrapolation of costs / 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

negative effects from the 
lower levels of the 
Intervention Logic  

  Data triangulation 

12.  Has the directive had unintended negative: 

  economic 

  social, or  

  environmental effects?  

13. 

Is  there  a  potential  for  simplification  and  reduction  of  regulatory  burden in 
the process?  

  Cost-benefit analysis’ outcomes for the different 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

types of activities introduced  

internal EC stakeholders 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Desk research 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

  Degree of supporting evidence from desk 

research  

 

Identified and quantified disproportionate 
administrative costs or regulatory burden in 
activities linked to the implementation of RIS 
Directive, to the extent possible specified for each 
stakeholder group involved:  

  RIS Users (e.g. skippers, authorities (fairway 

112 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Public Consultations 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Descriptive statistical 

analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual  

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.  What  costs/negative 

impacts 
has  the  Directive  given  rise  to 
in  order  to  advance  its  general 
objectives  and  how  do  these 
benefits 
compare 
established  under  TOR  EQ6 
(benefits-at 
level  of  general 
objectives)?  

the 

to 

RELEVANCE  

15.  Do 

the  original  objectives, 
incorporated 
the  RIS 
in 
Directive and in the five related 
the 
regulations,  match 
RIS 
needs of the sector today and in 
the  foreseeable  future?  Please 
take 
legal, 
technological 
and  market 
developments.  

account 

into 

authorities, police authorities, lock managers), 
freight charterers and brokers (track and trace, 
planning)) 

  Public Consultation 

  Competent Authorities  

  Member States 

14.1. What costs/negative impacts has the 

 

Directive given rise to in order to 
advance its general objectives?  

Identification of factors influencing the general 
efficiency of the Directive (and its Implementing 
Acts) with regards to: 

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Competitiveness  

  Optimised use of existing infrastructures 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

 

Improved safety 

  Workshops and events 

  Reduction of negative impact on the environment 

  Public Consultation 

14.2. How do the costs established 

compare to the benefits established 
at the general objectives level?  

 

Identification of all contributing factors 
influencing the efficiency of the Directive?  

  Desk research 

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Extrapolation of costs / 

negative effects from the 
lower levels of the 
Intervention Logic 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Extrapolation of costs / 

negative effects from the 
lower levels of the 
Intervention Logic 

  Data triangulation 

15.1. To what extent and in what ways 
have the needs of the IWT sector 
changed since 2005, considering 
legal, technological and market 
aspects, what are they today, how 
are they expected to change in the 
foreseeable future?  

  Evidence from existing research on current and 
future legal, technological and market needs, 
including needs of sector in a wider sense from a 
societal point of view 

  Desk research: A detailed inventory of 
existing/ ongoing policy developments/ 
legislations, evaluations, impact assessments, 
and studies in this area 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

stakeholders) on legal, technological and market 
needs, including needs of sector in a wider sense 
from a societal point of view  

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

15.2. Do the original objectives, 

  Evidence from consultations (opinion of 

  Targeted questionnaire 

incorporated in the RIS Directive 
and in the five related RIS 
regulations, match the needs of the 

stakeholders) on the perceived alignment between 
identified needs and objectives set. 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sector today and in the foreseeable 
future, taking into account legal, 
technological and market 
developments?  

  Alignment between identified needs and 

objectives set in Directive and the identified 
needs of the sector. 

  Alignment between identified needs and 

objectives pursued by RIS Implementing Acts 
and the identified needs of the sector. 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research: A detailed inventory of 
existing/ ongoing policy developments/ 
legislations, evaluations, impact assessments, 
and studies in this area  

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk research: A detailed inventory of 
existing/ ongoing policy developments/ 
legislations, evaluations, impact assessments, 
and studies in this area  

  Targeted questionnaire 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Workshops and events 

  Public Consultation 

COHERENCE  

Internal Coherence  

16.  To what extent is the RIS legislation (in scope of this evaluation)  internally 

coherent? Are there any internal inconsistencies? 

 

Identified incoherencies within the Directive 

  Desk research 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

External Coherence  

17.  To what extent is the Directive coherent with the relevant international 

obligations of the Member States? 

 

 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Qualitative data analysis 

Identification of overlaps between the Directive 
and international obligations of the MS 

  Desk research 

Identification of incoherence with MS’ 
international obligations. 

  Targeted questionnaire 

  Qualitative data analysis 

 

Interviews with public bodies on national 
level and private sector companies / 
representative organisations 

  Data triangulation 

114 

 
 
 
18.  To what extent is the 

Directive coherent with other 
EU legislation in the areas of:  

a) inland waterway 
transport policy  

b) EU transport legislation 

c) other EU legislation in 
areas outside transport 
policy 

16.1. Are there any inconsistencies or is 
there any duplication, particularly 
regarding the scope of application, 
between the RIS Directive and other 
EU inland waterway transport 
legislation? (e.g. the Professional 
Qualifications Directive and the 
Directive on Technical 
Requirements for Inland Waterway 
Vessels)? 

  Evidence on areas of interactions, overlaps or 
duplications between the scope of the RIS 
Directive and other EU inland waterway transport 
policies  

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Evidence of contradictory or adverse effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

across the instruments 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation  

16.2. Are there any inconsistencies, 

complementarities or synergies or 
instances of duplication of the RIS 
Directive and EU legislation in 
other EU transport policy areas, in 
particular in the fields of maritime, 
multimodal logistics, data exchange, 
cyber security and IT policy (e.g. 
Reporting Formalities Directive, the 
Vessel Traffic Management 
Information System or the 
Cooperative, connected and 
automated mobility or the Digital 
Transport)? 

  Evidence on areas of interactions, overlaps or 
duplications between the scope of the RIS 
Directive and other EU legislation for  

  maritime & multimodal logistics,  

 

 

 

data exchange,  

cyber security and 

IT policy 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Data triangulation 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Evidence of contradictory or adverse effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

across the instruments 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

115 

 
 
 
  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

16.3. . Are there any inconsistencies or is 

there any duplication between the 
RIS Directive and other EU 
legislation in areas outside 
transport, such as the Digital Single 
Market, e-Government initiatives in 
relation to digitalisation, exchange 
of information and interoperability, 
and initiatives in the area of private 
data protection? 

  Evidence of overlaps or duplications between the 
scope of the RIS Directive and policies on: 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  The Digital Single Market 

  Desk research: An overview of 

  E-Government initiatives at EU level relating to 
digitalisation, exchange of information and 
interoperability 

  The General Data Protection Regulation 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Evidence of contradictory or adverse effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

across the instruments 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Degree of supporting evidence from consultations 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

(opinion of stakeholders) 

internal EC stakeholders 

  Data triangulation 

  Desk research: An overview of 

existing/ongoing policy 
developments/legislations, evaluations, 
impact assessments, and studies in this area 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

EU ADDED VALUE 

116 

 
 
 
19.  What are the benefits of 

19.1.  What are the benefits of 

 

Identification of rationale for the intervention 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

intervening at EU level, over 
and above what could have 
been reasonably expected 
from interventions at 
international level (UNECE 
structure), regional level (river 
commission) or local level 
alone? In other words, what is 
the rationale of public 
intervention at EU level 
underpinning the Directive?  
In light of the above rationale, 
what evidence is there on 
actual EU added value having 
been created, also in terms of 
order of magnitude of the 
added value?  

20. 

intervening at EU level, over and 
above what could have been 
reasonably expected from 
interventions at international level 
(UNECE structure), regional level 
(river commission) or local level 
alone? 

  Differences in the identified rationale as 
expressed by different stakeholders 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Data triangulation 

20.1.   What have been the actual 

  Objectives of comparable interventions at: 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

benefits of intervening at EU level 
against what could have been 
achieved by interventions at: 
- international level (UNECE 
structure),  
- regional level (river commission) 
and  
- local level 

 

 

 

 

international level (UNECE structure) 

regional level (river commission) 

local level (MS) 

compared to objectives on EU-level 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Data triangulation 

  Existence of international / national / local 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

national funds available for policy 
implementation in the scope of RIS 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Relation and balance between different types of 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

effects 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

 

Indications of strongest types of added value by 
MS 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Evaluation of added value per instrument 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

established by the Directive 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 

117 

 
 
 
 
  Reasons for absence of added value 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

  Public Consultation 

counterfactual 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

20.2.  What evidence is there on actual 

  Established volume effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

EU added value having been 
created in terms of order of 
magnitude of the added value? 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Established scope effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Established role effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

  Established process effects 

  Exploratory and follow-up interviews with 

  Qualitative data analysis 

internal EC stakeholders 

 

Interviews with public bodies on 
International, European and national level 

  Public Consultation 

  Cost-benefit analysis 

  Data triangulation 

  Analysis of the 
counterfactual 

118 

 
 
 
Annex 4: Intervention Logic 

A detailed overview of the intervention logic for the evaluation  of the RIS Directive is 
provided on the next page.  

119 

 
 
 
120 

 
 
 
I. Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative  Quantitative / 

Qualitative 

monetary  

Quantitative 
/ monetary 

Benefits 

Indirect social benefits 

limited qualitative and quantitative 
evidence of improvements in perceived  
safety of waterways with weak 
attribution 

Economic benefits (of 
electronic ship reports) 

Economic benefits (of 
data for navigation and 
planning) 

Economic benefits (of 
electronic navigational 
charts) 

Economic benefits (of 
notices to skippers) 

Benefits due to type-
approval of RIS 
equipment 

Environmental benefits 

insufficient  evidence found  on expected 
environmental benefits 

No positive economic impact on 
private sector RIS users 
Clear qualitative evidence that 
expected cost-savings did not 
materialise. 

No positive direct economic 
impact 
Clear qualitative evidence that 
expected cost-savings for MS 
Authorities did not 
materialise." 

Limited qualitative and quantitative 
evidence of time  savings and 
resource cost savings 

Limited qualitative and quantitative 
evidence on time savings and 
resource cost savings (excluding 
skippers). 

Insufficient evidence found on 
expected time and cost savings for 
private sector RIS Users. 

Insufficient evidence on expected 
economic benefits for technology 
companies. 

121 

Sufficiently robust qualitative 
evidence on administrative 
cost savings, but attribution to 
RIS Directive uncertain. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Competition benefit for 
sector 

Unintended benefits 
(economic/social) 

Indirect positive impact 
on economy 

Indirect social benefit 
on safety 

Weak qualitative evidence of unintended 
indirect economic/social benefits for 
society through agenda setting: 
deepening market for (semi)-autonomous 
sailing technology and improving 
education on RIS technologies. 
" 

No evidence found on expected indirect 
positive economy impact that RIS 
Directive led to optimised use of existing 
infrastructure. 

No quantitative evidence of expected 
indirect positive social impact that RIS 
Directive led to improved safety; Some 
limited qualitative  evidence of 
improvements in perceived  safety of 
waterways with very weak attribution; 

Indirect environmental 
benefit 

No evidence found on expected indirect 
positive environmental impact of RIS 
Directive. 

Costs 

Implementing Acts -
costs/negative impacts 
have been associated 
with the preparation of 
the relevant Regulations 

Expected indirect economic benefit 
for sector through improved 
competitiveness of sector unlikely to 
have materialised. (Modal share of 
sector stayed unchanged but 
baseline uncertain.) 

Time cost: Consistent and strong 
qualitative evidence on considerable 
"cost" on private sector from 
slow/delayed technical standards 
due to time of development and 
updating of Implementing Acts. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data for navigation and 
planning 

No additional costs incurred by 
private sector RIS Users (qualitative 
evidence). 

Electronic Navigation 
Charts 

Initial investment costs in Inland 
ECDIS application. No additional 
costs incurred by private sector RIS 
Users (qualitative evidence). 

Notices to Skippers 

No additional costs incurred by 
private sector RIS Users (qualitative 
evidence). 

Very limited evidence 
available, which cannot be 
generalised across all 
countries: 
Reported one-off costs range 
from EUR 600,000 to EUR 
2.9 million per country 
Reported ongoing costs range 
from EUR 17,000 to EUR 
179,000 per year per country 

Very limited evidence 
available, which cannot be 
generalised across all 
countries: 
Reported one-off costs range 
from EUR 6,000 to EUR 1.5 
Million per country. 
Reported ongoing costs range 
from EUR 4,200 to EUR 
11,000 on average per year per 
country. 

Very limited evidence 
available, which cannot be 
generalised across all 
countries: 
Reported one-off costs range 
from EUR 70,000 to EUR 
422,000 from 2005 until 2019 
per country 
Reported ongoing costs range 
from EUR 1,000 to EUR 
10,200 per year per country 

Electronic Ship Reports 

No additional costs incurred by 
private sector RIS Users (qualitative 

Very limited evidence 
available, which cannot be 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
evidence). 

Mutual recognition of 
type-approval of RIS 
equipment 

Measure was expected to generate 
cost savings (see benefits) but 
additional attributable costs are 
likely close to zero. 

generalised across all 
countries: 
Reported one-off costs range 
from EUR 260,000 to EUR 
480,000 from 2005 until 2019 
per country. 
Reported ongoing costs range 
from EUR 1,500 to EUR 
2,000 (year 2017) per country 

Measure was expected to 
generate cost savings (see 
benefits) but additional 
attributable costs are likely 
close to zero. 

124