RIS Implementation issues

Transcription

1 Discussion note on the current status of RIS implementation in Europe For PLATINA SWP 5.2 Rotterdam, 7 June 2011 Serendipity UnLtd, Veerkade 15, Rotterdam

2

3 Contents Chapter page Preface 1. Introduction RIS and its implementation Some questions and answers River Information Services: the original concept How it all started INDRIS RIS Guidelines Summary: the original idea RIS: the score What was overlooked The scope of RIS Data exchange National versus European What has been achieved What went wrong RIS: an entity or a means? Bureaucracy Participation Expert groups Single window Reinventing the wheel Fuel optimisation software Planning: exchange of ETA s VTMIS/logistical services Type approval RIS as it is today RIS: how will we proceed? Annex INDRIS Serendipity/PK/07/06/11

4

5 PREFACE Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying Faster! Faster! but Alice felt she could not go faster, though she had not breath left to say so. The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything. I wonder if all the things move along with us? thought poor puzzled Alice. And the Queen seemed to guess her thoughts, for she cried, Faster! Don t try to talk! Not that Alice had any idea of doing that. She felt as if she would never be able to talk again, she was getting so much out of breath: and still the Queen cried Faster! Faster! and dragged her along. Are we nearly there? Alice managed to pant out at last. Nearly there! the Queen repeated. Why, we passed it ten minutes ago! Faster! And they ran on for a time in silence, with the wind whistling in Alice s ears, and almost blowing her hair off her head, she fancied. Now! Now! cried the Queen. Faster! Faster! From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll Serendipity/PK/07/06/11

6 Serendipity/PK/07/06/11

7 Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1

8 1. INTRODUCTION The RIS Directive 1 requires the EU Member States with waterways linked to the navigable network of another Member State to supply RIS users with all relevant data concerning navigation and voyage planning on inland waterways. These data shall be provided at least in an accessible electronic format. Additionally, the Member States must make electronic navigational charts (IENCs) suitable for navigational purposes available to RIS users for all their inland waterways of Class Va and above. The Directive also states that EU 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 the Directive. The EC RIS Directive serves as a major EU legal foundation for RIS implementation, since This Discussion paper is a first to attempt to evaluate the success of RIS implementation written from an expert s point of view. Assumption: RIS implementation seems to be very difficult, costly and takes a lot of time. Many experts are working on it for years and still it appears very difficult: to effectively measure progress and describe the state of play in a transparent way get sufficient political attention in all EC Member States involved. Therefore, PLATINA SWP 5.2 decided it would be an interesting option to describe the various issues at stake and try to define what a common nominator between the countries involved on possible problems and roads to take. PLATINA SWP 5.2 requested Pieta Kluytenaar to dig into this issue and come up with this Discussion Note. It tries to establish tangibility in the discussion to what extent RIS implementation on EU waterways is well underway and feasible. This Discussion Note aims to provide food for thought and discussion and create some tangibility in the discussion. It does not represent the opinion of the PLATINA partners. Chapter 2 covers the major questions and tries to answer these questions. Chapter 3 covers the original concept and ideas relating RIS. Chapter 4 elaborates on what was achieved and chapter 5 provides some roads to take. The annex elaborates on the INDRIS project, which was very important to the development of RIS in Europe. 1 Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 2

9 2. RIS AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION 2.1. Some questions and answers As a guidance to write this note on RIS and it s implementation PLATINA SWP 5.2 provided the following questions. The answers that are provided are the author s personal opinion. It is clear that these answers require further explanation, which will be given in the following chapters. Q1. What was the original RIS concept? According to the PIANC RIS Guidelines RIS is a concept for harmonised information services to support traffic and transport management in inland navigation including interfaces to other transport modes. RIS aim at contributing to a safe and efficient transport process and they aim to utilise the inland waterways to their fullest extent. The original concept consisted of the following elements: Enhanced VTMIS using transponder technology and electronic reporting. Enhanced voyage planning using vessel tracking and tracing (VTT), Notices to Skippers and electronic reporting. Logistical services using VTT. Standardised electronic navigation charts (IENCs) as a basis of all georelated RIS data. Machine readable and easy to translate Notices to Skippers. Note that the original concept did not address the need for a European single window to exchange all RIS related data. It was successful in seeing the need for harmonised river information services. It failed to see the advantages of jointly developing the needed supporting systems, on a EU wide basis. Q2. What was the expectancy of RIS implementation of the original concept? This very much depends on whom you ask. RIS being implemented fully would have been ideal including among others: closed VTT for logistical purposes and enhancement of fuel saving, voyage planning and IENC coverage with depth and current information where relevant) throughout Europe and covering at least all waterways that are open to inland waterway transport. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 3

10 Q3. Does the outcome so far concur with the original concept? Hardly. Although I had no specific idea on how much time it would take, I had hoped for a much faster implementation at least in the Rhine region than has been realised. Very disappointing and rendering RIS almost useless if not for the activities of some software providers is the limitation to Class IV for all RIS aspects and Class V and above for IENC coverage, the fact that generally only the national waterway authorities participate and the absence of a European single window. Q4. What parties have to participate? All(!) waterway authorities including local and regional waterway administrators, users (i.e. skippers and interested other e.g. logistical parties), software providers. Q4. Do all countries participate? Most do, but the extent and status of completeness varies greatly. (NB the status reports of countries are in a number of occasions suggest way more than really is realized. For example the status reports for the Netherlands suggest full coverage for IENCs, where in reality only a small part of the Dutch IENCs fulfils the requirements of the standard and most of the non- Rijkswaterstaat waterways are not covered.) Q5. What can one expect of countries in terms of implementation? A very pragmatic answer given among others all political issues would be not more than they have realised so far Q6. How does one judge RIS implementation? See above. If one takes into account all the political hurdles that showed up in the process, the bureaucracy that took over from idealism, one could say that implementation isn t too bad Q7. What RIS features are easy to implement? It would seem that only the obligations that are imposed on the users are easy to implement. Q8. What RIS features are difficult to implement? All other features apparently. Q9. Are there structural and non structural obstacles in RIS implementation? Bureaucracy and political issues. The latter resulting in budgetary limitations being a result of everyone involved in inland waterway transport being insuf- Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 4

11 ficiently able to convene the societal importance of IWT to the politicians (and the government accountants). Q9. What obstacles can be easily solved? None it would seem. Q10 What obstacles cannot be easily solved? All? Q11 Is the original RIS concept still valid? Yes. However some aspects were overlooked in the original concept, as explained in the chapter What was overlooked Q12 Is it time to readjust? Certainly with regard to what was overlooked and what went wrong. Most important is to learn the lesson that is enclosed in the preface of this report and to readjust the focus to see RIS as a means to promote inland waterway transport and not as a goal itself. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 5

12 3. RIVER INFORMATION SERVICES: the original concept 3.1. How it all started The concept of River Information Services (RIS) was first introduced in the EU project INCARNATION in 1997/1998. The initial idea behind INCARNATION was promoting inland waterway transport by improving traffic management and enhancing safety by providing skippers with a strategic traffic image. However it soon became apparent that skippers also were in need of an improved access to the information that is needed to plan and to carry out a national and especially an international voyage. At the time such information had to be retrieved from a wide variety of sources and by all sorts of communication means. Thus the INCARNATION RIS concept also became to incorporate a centralised distribution of navigation information. Based on the experience of INCARNATION it was the EU project RINAC that recognised that for RIS to become successful there was a need for standardisation of the different types of information that were to be distributed within RIS. This lead to the formation of European expert groups like the Inland ECDIS expert group, the Notices to Skippers expert group, the Electronic Reporting expert group 2 and later the Tracking and Tracing expert group and the Inland ENC Harmonisation Group 3 (IEHG) INDRIS The concept of RIS was successfully demonstrated in the EU project INDRIS that started in January 1998 and was formally completed in June Some lessons can be learned from INDRIS and conclusions drawn. INDRIS started as an ambitious project with ambitious objectives. These objectives that were set at the beginning, were not fully achieved. However, on the other hand, the project has attracted parties that were not a part of the project in the beginning. This contributes largely to the final results, since nearly all West European countries now support these results. Looking back at the INDRIS project, one could say that this project came at the right time and started up a whole series of projects in telematics for inland navigation and was the beginning of RIS. The conclusions from the INDRIS final report are given in Annex 1 since many of them are still valid today. 2 The Electronic Reporting expert group was a continuation and internationalisation of what started as a bilateral cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany on the exchange of vessel traffic data on the Rhine. 3 IEHG is a worldwide cooperation on the standardisation of Inland ENCs. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 6

13 3.3. RIS Guidelines One of the tasks that INDRIS undertook was the drafting of RIS Guidelines. These draft guidelines were the basis for the PIANC RIS Guidelines that were drafted in 2002 and later RIS Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September Note that a number of the present implementation issues originate from the political debate and resulting compromise that for a large part resulted from lack of understanding of the full scope of RIS and (short term) budgetary constraints of the member states. These resulted in the scope of RIS being limited to Class IV and for IENC coverage Class V waterways Summary: the original idea As described in the previous paragraphs, it all started with the idea that traffic management and safety could be enhance by providing the skippers on board of their vessels with a strategic traffic image. The initial idea was to transmit the radar information of the VTS centres ashore to the vessels in order to provide them with information about vessels that were still around the corner and thus could not yet be detected by the own ship s radar. Very soon however, it was realised that there might be more efficient technologies. Technology, like the transponders, that were already being used in aircraft and were being developed for maritime navigation. (Thus the VTT expert group). Very early in the process, the feed-back from skippers was Yes, would be nice to be able to look around the corner, but can t we (also) finally get all the information that we need to plan a voyage in order to know if we can make the voyage at all, and during the voyage to know if we can do it safely just in one place in stead of from the numerous sources where we have to get it now?. The next question being Can we also get the information in our own language? It was these two questions that resulted in the Notices to Skippers expert group. This expert group undertook to standardise the notices to allow: easier exchange throughout Europe, automatic translation in different languages and machine readability to allow voyage planning software to read and process the content of the notices. To display the strategic traffic image on board an electronic chart was needed. At the time most new-build inland vessels were already being fitted with electronic charts systems. The charts of these systems were however sold at a cost by the software providers. Each drafting these charts in their own propriety format and mostly based on information that each provider individually was gathering from different, usually official sources, like waterway authorities. However, charts from one system provider could not be used in the system of another provider. The choice of a system provider was therefore for a large part based on the fact if a provider had the charts for the Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 7

14 particular area of operation of a skipper and not on the functionality of the display software. Also if one s system provider would cease to exist, the investment not only in the electronic chart system, but also all the charts would be wasted. As mentioned before, most of the information that was used to draft the charts came from the waterway authorities increasingly in electronic formats. Some waterway authorities were providing paper charts for their waters and were considering if going electronic would allow them to reduce the cost of producing these official charts. At the same time, the waterway authorities were one of the larger user-groups of the electronic chart systems. Also the waterway authorities seemed to have a vested interest in the skippers availing of correct and up-to-date information to ensure safe navigation on their waterways. All this was the reason to initiate the Inland ECDIS expert group with the idea to standardise the format of the electronic charts, but also to promote waterway authorities to produce and publish standardised electronic charts, the IENCs, themselves. Experiments with electronic reporting and cross-border data exchange were already ongoing within the Netherlands respectively between the Netherlands and Germany when the first ideas of the RIS concept were conceived. Electronic reporting of the ships becoming increasingly important with the growth of the inland waterway container traffic. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 8

15 4. RIS: THE SCORE 4.1. What was overlooked The scope of RIS A major flaw in the RIS Guidelines is the limitation of the scope: for RIS to Class IV and for IENC coverage Class V waterways. A joke that can be heard is: With RIS one can neither depart nor arrive. Like in many jokes, there is a lot of truth in it: Although in some countries the ports are also covered by the waterway authorities even though the ports do not belong to their responsibility. In other countries however they are not covered by RIS since they are not considered to be Class IV or V waterways. Quite a few ports that are open to Class IV vessels can only be reached via Class III waterways, where Class IV vessels are allowed to navigate by special permissions. There are countries that do include those waterways in their RIS implementation. However, not all countries do so. Quite embarrassing is the situation with regard to IENC coverage. While the call for an Inland ECDIS carriage requirement together with AIS for vessels over 20 meters length is already popping up in some regulatory bodies, there is a long way to go before there will be official IENC coverage of all of the waterways in Europe that are navigable for vessels of Class IV and lower. This also affects the Class V vessels. Quite a few of the ports that open to Class V vessels can only be reached via Class IV waterways, where Class V vessels are allowed to navigate by special permissions and again many of the ports have no official IENC coverage. The question emerging is: How can one justify the investment in Inland ECDIS when there is no coverage with IENCs? In the past, it has been seriously suggested that vessels that have a navigation mode Inland ECDIS installation should switch off navigation mode when entering a port without official IENC coverage! This jeopardizes the RIS goal of contributing to safety. The outcome of the negotiation on the coverage of the RIS Directive was to at least include information needed for voyage planning to be provided electronically for Class IV waterways failing IENC coverage, the RIS Index. Nevertheless, the RIS Directive does not mention thjs RIS Index and fails: to give further guidance with regard to the data to refer to any standardisation and the exchange of the data. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 9

16 Data exchange A major achievement of RIS and the RIS Directive has been the standardisation of all sorts of information relevant in RIS. So far, the effect of these standardisation efforts is severely hampered by the fact that the data exchange and the way of communication itself have not or only partially been standardised National versus European The RIS Directive and most activities of the Commission seem to lack the idea that RIS should have no borders. Therefore, an emphasis has been given on allowing and even promoting and supporting a whole lot of national RIS implementations, national and regional RIS Portals and so on. Given the international character of inland waterway transportation this seriously hampering the success of RIS. It is a major achievement: all European Notices to Skippers can be read in one s own language, all IENCs have the same format and (in theory) can be loaded into one s Inland ECDIS application. However, to get these data for a cross-european voyage one has to go to a great many of national web sites. Web sites that all have a different organisation and most certainly do not all offer a version in one s own language. Or one has to rely on one s private software provider and his server. This comes without any guarantee on reliability with regard to availability, up-todatedness and quality of data What has been achieved Perhaps the most important achievement has been the fact that through RIS waterway authorities in Europe are now in regular contact with each other, exchanging experiences, exchanging data and thinking about common goals. Actually, many countries have some sort of RIS in place. Standards have been developed and are improved all the time. IENCs have been produced, are to a certain extent being updated and are (mostly) available free of charge. More and more Notices to Skippers are being provided according to the standard and can be read in one s own language or understood by voyage planning software. Electronic data exchange is increasingly being used for vessel, voyage and cargo information and being exchanged across borders. AIS has found its way on inland vessels and into traffic centres What went wrong RIS: an entity or a means? This report started with a quote from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll. Looking at discussions, projects and policy development, it sometimes Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 0

17 seems that RIS has become a goal. An entity by itself, the fact that RIS is nothing more than one of the means to promote inland navigation forgotten. The why we are running forgotten. Of course such is likely to happen when a group of specialists goes at work. Nevertheless this loss of focus can and does result in wrong decisions being taken, difficulties in finding the budgets needed for improvements, bureaucracy taking over resulting in lengthy procedures, obligations for the industry without proper evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio being put in place, technology being pushed upon the fleet without proper testing and practical experience Bureaucracy The implementation of RIS has been and still is seriously hampered by the extremely lengthy and cumbersome process of getting standards being accepted by the Commission and coming into force. It has already seriously delayed implementation and has a negative influence on finding implementation budgets on a national and regional level. It is causing money being wasted in order to live with or circumvent the lack of an officially accepted standard. Or to live the lengthy regulatory process of updating an accepted standard even though all involved and/or affected parties are urging for these updates. It is also harming the interests and profitability of the industry and the positive effects for the environment. On a lower level both the loss of focus and the bureaucracy taking over at times result in tunnel vision technical discussions, tunnel visions with regard to short term, supposedly national interests and last but not least obligations for the industry disregarding practical aspects, cost/benefits and so on. The result is that after years of discussions solutions for e.g. the hull database and the RIS Index still have not been found Participation RIS will only be successful if all stakeholders, i.e. authorities including the Commission, software developers and providers and the industry, participate willingly. Where this was the case in the beginning of RIS the result of the aforementioned bureaucracy and slow implementation is that software developers being very supportive at the start of RIS now tend to turn their back on RIS. Similarly there now is a serious risk that skippers will start to see RIS as a threat instead of RIS being beneficial. Also there is a huge difference in participation in the discussions about the development of RIS. Some countries, some authorities or private parties being very active while others lean back and only start making noise when (they think) their own/ short-term interest is at stake. Some are kind of excused being overwhelmed by a lag in knowledge and experience. These however should be actively be stimulated to participate nevertheless under the principle that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. The former participants, those leaning back, on the other hand should be made aware of the broader picture and the fact that RIS is a democracy that can not exist if it is ruled by action groups that only look at their part interest. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 1

18 Clearly RIS is only successful if all European countries that have connected waterways are participating. However, within these countries the participation of everyone who is responsible for navigable water is required and not like is now the case in many countries only the national waterway authorities. Also regions, states, provinces, cities that are responsible for navigable water or ports and harbours should (be required to) participate in RIS. Likewise it is unacceptable that in some countries maritime inland waterways are excluded from RIS even though these waterways are frequented also by inland vessels and many of the ports on those waterways would not exist but for the inland waterway connection and inland waterway shipping. On the other hand it is good to see that international and supra-national bodies like the EU, CCNR and Danube Commission are making good progress in solving their issues with regard to competences and responsibilities Expert groups The implementation of the RIS Directive heavily leans on the work of the expert groups for the standardisation of RIS data. Yet these expert groups entirely depend on the charity of national governments or haphazard European research projects for the funding of the work that is involved in the process. Even though the independence of the expert groups is a necessity for different reasons, missing is a structured coordination of the work of the expert groups Single window Perhaps one of the best examples of the previously mentioned loss of focus is that the desire for a single window seems almost forgotten. Even though one of the most important reasons for, goals of the original RIS concept was to offer skippers and especially those who are operating internationally or their voyage planning and monitoring software with a single window where the skippers or their software can find all information that is needed for a voyage can be retrieved. Failing such a European single window but very importantly also as a result of the slow implementation and the accompanying lack of quality of data software providers have, had to started their own proprietary single windows. CD s with IENC s that are typically being distributed not more than four times a year. Servers, where their software on board of the vessels can connect to in order to retrieve the latest data. Data that in its turn has been enhanced by the software providers to correct mistakes in the data, aberrations of the standards in the data, and so on. The software providers were however more or less forced to do so since complaints about the data from their clients, the skippers, typically ended up at their desks and passing these complaints on to the responsible authorities had little effect. The result is that even in those few instances where countries do provide high quality data fully up to the standards and have implemented current RIS portals the data still is finding its way to the on board users via the servers and/or Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 2

19 CDs of the software providers. Simply because it is too much of an effort for the users to search all the national and regional RIS Portals to find the data Reinventing the wheel Not only is a European single window, a comprehensive and interactive European RIS Portal failing, equally bad is the lack of coordination of the national implementations. We allowed the wheel, the RIS portal to be invented over and over again in every single country and even region, in most cases being supported with European money. Possibly, a promising road to take is to start Europe-wide co-operation to develop a European nightly build, an open source development of RIS implementations. This would involve all stakeholders to jointly share, develop, and enhance RIS implementations Fuel optimisation software The development of very effective fuel optimisation software that existed for inland shipping seemed to have died a silent death. For a large part this is due to lack of support within the company that developed the software. Nevertheless, the RIS community has let this to happen in times where environment and CO2 reduction are even more an issue than RIS developments. It would be worthwhile to make a formal comparison between the reductions of the ever higher demands on propulsion and auxiliary engines with regard to emission and the proven fuel savings and thus emission reduction of the Tempomaat Planning: exchange of ETA s After many years of experimenting projects there are only a few local initiatives to enhance the planning of voyages and waterway infrastructure. Some of these initiatives not even make use of RIS. Since the start of RIS the only provider of voyage planning software for inland shipping is fighting to survive in the RIS environment. The company actually is seriously considering to turn its back on RIS and inland shipping due to lack of data or lack of quality of data as well as the limited scope and slow implementation of RIS VTMIS/logistical services The decision for AIS as the tracking and tracing device for inland shipping resulted in the positions and voyages being open to anybody. Many skippers have no problems with that. Some see it as advantageous. However, various skippers very much oppose the open character for reasons related to freight negotiations, security and privacy (mainly family operated vessels). As a result there are now vessels with an AIS that deliberately do not transmit the own ship s position or do not transmit data or only faulty data. The radio communications legislation in Europe seems to provide possibilities to discourage publication of vessel positions on the Internet. So far, neither the Commission nor individual countries have pursued to do so. On the contrary there is a tendency to confront the latter skippers with fines. It appears that the combination of failing legal action against misuse of the AIS data and fines for skippers is not the best way to promote the VTMIS part of RIS. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 3

20 The AIS performance on accuracy and reliability was greatly exaggerated during its introduction, although doubts based on experiences with maritime AIS were expressed. Potentially, these fallacies could lead to accidents. Also this might distract from the great value of AIS as a means to provide safety and a strategic traffic image. Finally perhaps also due to the privacy issues of AIS, tracking and tracing in RIS has not been able to reach a similar stage as tracking and tracing does in road transport or it would be by illegal use of Internet sites like MarineTraffic. Except for some local initiatives, tracking and tracing has not yet resulted in enhanced voyage planning and planning of infrastructure like bridges and locks Type approval One of the results of the earlier mentioned bureaucracy taking over has been that against European policy type approval has been required for some of the RIS technology. The effect of this has been that the cost of the relevant equipment has increased unnecessarily. The development of equipment has been slowed. At the same time, the type approval has failed to guarantee the suggested quality. It appears there is type-approved equipment on the market that is not fulfilling the requirements of the standards. In a system of self-certification, as is being promoted by the EU, the relevant authority would have been able to point it s finger to the producer. However, in the current practice the authority is also partly to blame and depends on the voluntary willingness of producers to address the situation. In the mean time the buyer of the equipment, the skipper, has nowhere to go when the equipment fails to deliver as the producer can hide himself easily behind his type approval certificate. The end result is that safety, which was the excuse for requiring type approval, has not been served at all. On the contrary! At the same time the call for more obligations, more technical regulations continues 4.4. RIS as it is today The score of RIS as it is today is that much was achieved. At the same time much is still missing or isn t yet functioning as it should. That much that generally speaking one could say that presently a European wide RIS only exists thanks to the efforts of three software providers to improve the data that is provided by the various national RIS portals, fill in the gaps in coverage and take care of the lack of a European single window. For those users, those skippers that do not avail of the software of these providers or that are still struggling with (international) mobile internet connections not much has changed compared to pre-ris times. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 4

21 5. RIS: HOW WILL WE PROCEED? In the previous chapter we have discussed the score of RIS as it is today and the issues that plague it s functioning. In order to find solutions to improve the present situation the following questions need to be answered: Do you recognise the statement that at times we seem to be running having forgotten why (See Preface and 4.3.1). If so what can we do about it? In the effects of the present limitation of the scope of RIS to Class IV and up waterways were discussed. De we agree this is undesirable? How can we get the scope, the coverage of RIS increased? Should it be increased to include all waterways that are navigable for vessels over 20 meter? If not, how are we going to deal with the fact that in that case RIS will never be a serious market for those businesses that are needed to support RIS like the software providers. That in the end RIS might fail due to for example a lack of supporting software? How are we going to explain skippers that the return on their investments expressed in terms of safety and in terms of efficiency is only limited? Do you agree that also regional and local waterway authorities/ owners of navigable waterways and maritime inland waterways should participate in RIS, be covered by RIS? If so, how are we going to achieve such? The web-services task force of the Notices to Skippers expert group has undertaken the effort to standardise the way of exchanging notices which is an important step towards a European single window. How can we ensure that a similar effort is being made for the distribution of IENC? Are we happy with the current situation where a large part of the users depend on the software providers and their infrastructure for the distribution of IENCs and to a lesser extent also Notices to Skippers? Do we agree that we should aim for a European single window, a European RIS/ FIS portal? If yes, how are we going to achieve this? So far the systems on which RIS depends have been developed nationally and even regionally. Do you agree that it would be much more effective if these developments would be done jointly? Do you agree that it would be worthwhile to compare the emission effects of fuel saving software like the Tempomaat and the newer CCR demands on propulsion engines? If these would be positive for such software would you promote such software as an alternative for example for the existing fleet? One of he major goals of RIS was to enhance voyage planning and planning of infrastructure. Do you agree that we have largely failed implementing such so far? If so what might be the reason and how could we address this? Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 5

22 Do you agree that it would be better to address the privacy issues of AIS first before fining skippers for their attempts to deal with these issues from their end? Would you be willing to reconsider the type-approval requirement as it is in place now for parts of the RIS equipment? Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 6

23 ANNEX INDRIS The concept of RIS was successfully demonstrated in the EU project INDRIS that started in January 1998 and was formally completed in June Some lessons can be learned from INDRIS and conclusions drawn. INDRIS started as an ambitious project with ambitious objectives. These objectives that were set at the beginning, were not fully achieved. However, on the other hand, the project has attracted parties that were not a part of the project in the beginning. This contributes largely to the final results, since nearly all West European countries now support these results. Looking back at the INDRIS project, one could say that this project came at the right time and started up a whole series of projects in telematics for inland navigation and was the beginning of a European network of VTMIS systems for inland navigation. The conclusions from the INDRIS final report are given below since many of them are still valid today. The conclusions from INDRIS can be divided into four categories: 1. Co-operation between EU member states and industrial partners, 2. Technical issues and feasibility, 3. Benefits for users, 4. Organisational requirements Co-operation between EU member states and industrial part- Ad 1. ners The following conclusions have been drawn: An excellent working co-operation has been achieved in INDRIS by creating common objectives and win-win situations by sharing information. Co-operation between industrial partners should be stimulated because industrial partners are inclined to look more at commercial issues and competition rather than at co-operation to achieve efficient and cost-effective transport. Co-operation between industrial partners in a project should be co-ordinated by a non-commercial management of such a project. The approval of an EU project is more important to some partners than the actual execution of the project and the exploitation of its results. Some partners are only interested in their own work and do not show much concern with the objectives of the project Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 7

24 Ad 2 Technical Issues and Feasibility The following conclusions have been drawn: The technical realisation of RIS and many of its elements has been demonstrated successfully on several locations in Europe. Interconnectivity within RIS and between RIS and other systems can be realised by setting and maintaining open data and communication standards. Inland ECDIS is a very strong platform as a reference for geographic information and applications using this information. The Tactical Traffic Images and Strategic Traffic Images on board and on shore for Vessel Traffic Management, Planning purposes and safe navigation exemplify this. Inland ECDIS charts are available for the Rhine and the Danube. On the basis of Inland ECDIS standards such as S52 and S57 as well as the performance standards, commercial suppliers of all kinds of systems can design, develop, build and sell their own applications. EDI reporting as used in BICS is already a success and avoids extensive confusing communication, especially about dangerous goods transports AIS transponders according to the IMO standards can be applied in inland navigation, thus contributing to safe navigation. They are particularly useful in areas of mixed traffic with maritime and inland navigation as well in areas with high shipping densities and areas with special navigational difficulties such as rivers in mountainous stretches like the Danube. Standard IMO AIS transponders are still non-existent: every supplier has its own specific peculiarities; these should be changed to the actual standards as agreed in IMO. A test bed such as the German test bed will help identifying loopholes in the standards and contribute to a general application of AIS transponders. 4 INDRIS contributed to the standardisation committee of AIS transponders by upgrading the standard for inland navigation use. A standard for data and communication in inland navigation has been designed. Ad 3 Benefits for users The following conclusions have been drawn: 4 In the mean time a European Inland AIS standard has been adopted. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 8

25 Voyage planning can be improved and rationalised using the INDRIS applications. Fuel consumption can be reduced with some INDRIS voyage applications because the skipper will have exact information about the RTA s (Requested Times of Arrival) at locks and terminals. This in turn will help to determine speeds at the various stretches of the voyage. Just-in-time transport can be implemented because of the excellent planning tools in RIS. Waiting times near terminals can be reduced because of better information exchange between terminals, barge operators and skippers. Safety can be enhanced at RIS Vessel Traffic Management centres because they receive: o o improved and more reliable information less VHF communication on safety channels Safety of ships can be enhanced because they have improved and more reliable information The use of EDI leads to automatic reporting procedures resulting in reducing workload of the navigator of an inland vessel. Ad 4 Organisation Requirements The following conclusions have been drawn: o o There is a large need for a permanent European structure for maintaining and updating standards. There is a need for a European committee to co-ordinate implementation of RIS and RIS features. In the meantime the first step has been undertaken to establish a European RIS Platform with representatives of the competent authorities. Ad 5 Achievements INDRIS has clearly shown that, extensions of a VTM concept with numerous added value services to improve aspects of Transport Management, to be a valuable concept and as such form an important step forward. It has shown that inland navigation should become the backbone to a pan-european transport over inland waterways. A positive and an important start are undertaken concerning the development of Public Private Partnership (PPP). The success of INDRIS can t be ac- Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 1 9

26 claimed without the actual co-operation and effort invested by all parties concerned. However, the further development of PPP requires careful and meticulous attention. The vested interests and benefits of both sectors are quite different. The public authorities are responsible for safety, environment protection and the maintenance of fairways and its proper use while transport companies require to operate and survive in a highly competitive market place. The combined RIS services are major enablers to the planning, execution and support of the associated business processes. The enhancement of maritime-based standards facilitates the compatibility, extension and linkage to maritime transport and the linkage to other transport modality (road and rail) and to commercially based systems (linking ports and short sea shipping) and thus enhancing common transport policy. The co-operation between North Sea countries (Rhine countries) and Danube countries will be a stepping-stone for the establishment of the link between the North Sea and the Black Sea. This will open new perspectives for developing transport patterns. Serendipity/PK/07/06/11 2 0