InCom-WG-210-SMART SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERWAYS

PIANC
The World Association for Waterborne

Transport Infrastructure
SMART SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERWAYS
InCom Working Group Report N° 210 – 2022
PIANC INCOM WG 210 1

PIANC REPORT N° 210
INLAND NAVIGATION COMMISSION
SMART SHIPPING
ON INLAND WATERWAYS
March 2022

PIANC has Technical Commissions concerned with inland waterways and ports (InCom),
coastal and ocean waterways (including ports and harbours) (MarCom), environmental
aspects (EnviCom) and sport and pleasure navigation (RecCom).
This report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the Inland
Navigation Commission (InCom). Members of the Working Group represent severalcountries
and are acknowledged experts in their profession.
The objective of this report is to provide information and recommendations on good practice.
Conformity is not obligatory and engineering judgement should be used in its application,
especially in special circumstances. This report should be seen as an expert guidance and
state-of-the-art on this particular subject. PIANC disclaims all responsibility in the event that
this report should be presented as an official standard.
PIANC HQ
Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20 B. 3
1000 Brussels | Belgium
http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945
ISBN 978-2-87223-015-0
© All rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. 6
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... 6
GENERAL ASPECTS .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................................... 7
Structure of Report........................................................................................................................ 8
Related PIANC Reports ................................................................................................................ 8
Members of the Working Group .................................................................................................... 9
Meetings ....................................................................................................................................... 9
INVENTORY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Approach..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 INVENTORY ANALYSIS PROJECTS ............................................................................................................. 10
Overview of Projects ................................................................................................................... 10
Project Scope.............................................................................................................................. 11
Interactions with Other Ships and Infrastructure During Testing ................................................. 11
Fallback Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 12
Levels of Automation................................................................................................................... 12
Data & Information ...................................................................................................................... 12
Technology ................................................................................................................................. 13
Partners and Stakeholders.......................................................................................................... 13
Project Results ............................................................................................................................ 14
Impact and Influence................................................................................................................... 14
Regulations ................................................................................................................................. 14
2.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 14
INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................. 16

3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 EUROPE ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Policy Area 1: Definitions ............................................................................................................ 17
Policy Area 2: Competences and Crew Qualification .................................................................. 17
Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels ....................................... 18
Policy Area 4: Presence of the Boatmaster and Crew Members on board ................................. 18
Policy Area 5: Responsibility and Liability ................................................................................... 18
Policy Area 6: Communication between the Vessel and a Competent Authority and Vessel-to-
Vessel Communication................................................................................................................................. 18
Policy Area 7: Emergency Situations .......................................................................................... 19
Policy Area 8: Cybersecurity ....................................................................................................... 19
Policy Area 9: Inland Waterway Infrastructure ............................................................................ 19
3.3 CHINA ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Intelligent Navigation Vessels.................................. 21
Policy Area 4: Presence of the Boatmaster and Crew Members on Board ................................. 21
Policy Area 5: Responsibility and Liability ................................................................................... 21
Policy Area 6: Communication between a Vessel and a Competent Authority, and Vessel-To-
3.4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ................................................................................................................... 23
Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Intelligent Navigation Vessels.................................. 23
Policy Area 4: Presence of the Boatmaster and Crew Members on board ................................. 24
Policy Area 5: Policy area 5: Responsibility and Liability ............................................................ 24
Policy Area 6: Communication between a Vessel and a Competent Authority, and Vessel-to-

24
3.5 ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN, CHINESE AND U.S. FRAMEWORKS ................................................................ 25
3.6 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 26
USE CASES SMART SHIPPING ................................................................................................................. 27

4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 SMART SHIPPING EVOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................. 27
4.3 DEFINITION OF THE USE CASES ............................................................................................................... 27
4.4 APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................ 28
4.5 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE USE CASES ............................................................................................. 28
Remote Controlled Shipping ....................................................................................................... 28
Fully Autonomous Shipping ........................................................................................................ 29
4.6 QUALITY OF DATA ................................................................................................................................... 30
4.7 DATA GATHERING/DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................................... 30
Information Provided by the Authority ......................................................................................... 31
4.8 DATA EXCHANGE AND FORMAT ................................................................................................................ 31
4.9 ATTENTION POINTS ................................................................................................................................. 32
Transition Period and Roadmap towards Unmanned Vessels .................................................... 32
Communication between Ships and between Ship and Shore.................................................... 32
Privacy and Cybersecurity .......................................................................................................... 32
FUNCTIONAL AREA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 33

5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Approach..................................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 FUNCTIONAL NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 34
Why is Automated Shipping Important? ...................................................................................... 34
5.2.2 Why is it Impossible to Meet the Objectives Today, What Is Holding Us Back? ......................... 35
5.2.3 What is the impact if those objectives are not met? .................................................................... 37
5.3 FUNCTIONAL SOLUTIONS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 38
Information Exchange ................................................................................................................. 38
Maturity of Technology................................................................................................................ 39
Lack of Suitable Rules ................................................................................................................ 39
Political Importance or Awareness .............................................................................................. 39
Not a Lot of Ongoing Smart Shipping Developments .................................................................. 39
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................................................ 41

6.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 41
6.2 SWITCH FROM H UMAN TO MACHINE .......................................................................................................... 41
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 41
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 42
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 42
External Stakeholder Involvement .............................................................................................. 42
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 42
6.3 TESTING ................................................................................................................................................ 43
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 43
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 43
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 43
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 44
6.4 CREATE AWARENESS .............................................................................................................................. 44
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 44
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 44
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 44
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 45
6.5 LEARN FROM OTHER SECTORS ................................................................................................................ 45
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 45
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 45
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 45

Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 46
6.6 COLLABORATE WITH PRIVATE PARTIES ..................................................................................................... 46
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 46
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 46
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 46
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 47
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 47
6.7 COLLABORATE WITH KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTES AND STANDARDISATION ORGANISATIONS ................................ 47
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 47
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 47
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 47
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 48
6.8 DEVELOP SAILING SIMULATORS ............................................................................................................... 48
Priority......................................................................................................................................... 48
Responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 48
Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Cost............................................................................................................................................. 48
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 48
6.9 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 48
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................................. 51

A.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 51
A.1.1 What is Meant by Smart Shipping? ............................................................................................ 51
A.1.2 Why is there the Need for Establishing a PIANC Working Group on this Topic at this Specific
Moment?....................................................................................................................................................... 51
A.2 THE EXPECTED IMPACT OF SMART SHIPPING ............................................................................................. 52
A.3 TASK OF THE WORKING GROUP ............................................................................................................... 52
A.3.1 Scope.......................................................................................................................................... 52
A.3.2 Tasks .......................................................................................................................................... 53
A.3.3 Suggested Final Products ........................................................................................................... 53
A.4 RECOMMENDED MEMBERS ...................................................................................................................... 53
A.5 RELEVANCE FOR COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION ............................................................................................. 54
A.6 WORKING WITH NATURE .......................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ....................................................................... 55

B.1 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................. 55
B.2 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX C INVENTORY ANALYSIS: CONSIDERED PROJECTS ................................................................. 59
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overview of the levels of automation as envisaged by the investigated projects ................ 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Smart Shipping Projects reviewed by WG 210 .................................................................................. 12
Table 2: Overview with summarising properties of the recommendations for the future ................................. 52

GENERAL ASPECTS
Smart shipping (automated navigation according to CCNR) is a widely used term, with several
definitions available. In our view, from the perspective of infrastructure providers and traffic managers,
smart shipping is broader than just an autonomous vessel. Smart shipping is understood as consisting
of the following four components:
• Smart Vessel: Smart vessels are vessels that are highly automated and are therefore equipped
with automated systems using (external) data to optimise the key functions of the vessel.
(navigation, real-time planning, fuel consumption management, etc.)
• Smart Traffic Management and Infrastructure: The management of the inland waterways takes
into account real-time (external) data coming from ships, infrastructure and third parties. Also the
existing operational tasks of bridge/lock operators, traffic planners, vessel traffic service/traffic
guidance are expected to change.
• Smart Travel and Transport: The interaction between ships and third logistic parties are evolved
into a smart, smooth and flexible process. This consists of two parts. First is the simplification and
international integration of procedures that users of the waterways need to follow. Second, next to
smart navigation, smart cargo handling should be developed too.
• Smart Regulation and Facilitation: This is regulation that supports innovation and future-oriented
initiatives, and this always with an eye for safety.
1.1 Scope
As digitisation broadens the possibilities for new business developments, smart shipping solutions are
finding their way into the market. Developments are broad: ranging from the development of inland
waterway vessel trains, remote controlled ships to small(er) drone-like platforms for transportation of
goods and people.
In this report, however, the scope is narrowed to researching the impact of smart shipping developments
on the physical and digital infrastructure and on traffic management, with focus on inland waterways.
Smart shipping developments were viewed from the perspective of infrastructure providers and traffic
managers of inland waterways to stimulate and maximise the deployment of smart shipping. The report
includes an analysis of the current (until 2019) smart shipping developments, what is currently lacking
to stimulate smart shipping developments, as well as recommendations for the future that can be picked
up in other PIANC Working Groups or research groups. Note that the development of automation in
inland waterways progresses very fast; some of the findings could be already outdated when this report
is published or the findings have become less universal/general.
1.2 Introduction
Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference set by the Inland Navigation Commission of PIANC (InCom) for Working Group
210 (WG 210) are given in Appendix A of this report, and are summarised below.
1.2.1.1 Objective
The objective of WG 210 was to research the interactions between autonomous vessels and the
infrastructure, the role of the authorities (e.g. ports and infrastructure providers) and regulations with
regard to Smart Shipping. This WG focused on inland waterway transport including fairways in ports
from the perspective of the infrastructure providers and traffic managers in the logistic sector and the
individual skipper. The main task of this Working Group was to come to a common understanding of
smart shipping on inland waterways, its possibilities, and its influence on tasks of the waterway authority
like lock operation and vessel traffic management and roles.

1.2.1.2 Matters Investigated
The focus of this Working Group was on the interaction between a ship with autonomous capability and
infrastructure (both physical and digital) as well as between ships with autonomous capabilities.
Questions answered included the following:
• What information is necessary on board of a ship and ashore (authority tasks)?

• What information is already available on board, on shore and what needs to be exchanged?
• What should be the quality1 of the data (accuracy, completeness, availability, etc.)?
• What is the impact of smart shipping on the infrastructure, both physical and digital (ICT, sensors
on the infrastructure)?
• In what way will the services of fairway authorities change in case of a hybrid situation (where both
man-steered and autonomous vessels are present) and full autonomous navigation?
• What is the impact of smart shipping on regulations (crew, equipment on board, etc.), liability, the
environment?
• What should a fairway authority do in case of smart shipping to maintain the safe, efficient and
sustainable use of the waterway?
Structure of Report
Chapter 1 gives and introduction and describes the general aspects of the report.
In Chapter 2 the result of the inventory analysis is discussed. The inventory analysis exists of
information on different smart shipping projects. This information was gathered in order to have a better
view on the gaps in current (2019) research.
Chapter 3 gives an overview of regulations in Europe, China and the USA. Similarities and differences
are discussed.
In Chapter 4 two use cases, for which all necessary information to navigate safely is listed, are
described. Based on these use cases and the information gathered in Chapters 2 and 3, an analysis
was made of the difficulties that smart shipping projects can face (Chapter 5).
Chapter 6 lists recommendations for the future.
Related PIANC Reports
The following PIANC reports are also relevant to the design and operation of approach channels:
PIANC Report No. InCom TG 204 Awareness Paper on Cybersecurity in Inland Navigation 2019
Guidelines and Recommendations for River Information

PIANC Report No. InCom WG 125/I 2019
Services
PIANC Report No. InCom WG 125/II Technical Report on the Status of River Information Services 2019
PIANC Report No. InCom WG 125/III RIS-Related Definitions 2019
Report on the Developments in the Automation and Remote

PIANC Report No. InCom WG 192 2019
Operation of Locks and Bridges
1
Data quality is the extent to which data is suitable for the purpose for which it is used.

Members of the Working Group
WG 210 comprised experts from the inland waterway transport sector, infrastructure providers, traffic
managers of inland waterways, research institutes, universities, consultants, a skipper, and other
international organisations that have i.a. technical expertise on inland waterways. WG 210 consisted of
the following members:
• Lea Kuiters, WG 210 Chairperson, Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

• Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn, WG 210 Vice-Chairperson, De Vlaamse Waterweg nv, Belgium
• Joseph Celano, Trabus Technologies, USA
• Benjamin Boyer, CCNR, International Organisation
• Xinping Yan, Wuhan University of Technology, China
• Jialun Liu, Wuhan University of Technology, China
• Akula Nidarshan, Université de Liège, Belgium
• Karine Gressens, Servie Public de Wallonie, Belgium
• Alicja Maria Bilinska, Sweco, the Netherlands
• Michael Schreuder, Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands
• Jürgen Trögl, via donau, Austria
• Katrin Haselbauer, via donau, Austria
• Tommy Mikkelsen, Trelleborg, Singapore
• Pierre-Jean Pompée, Voies Navigables de France, France
• Jan Bukovsky, Waterways Directorate of The Czech Republic, Czech Republic
• Vaclav Straka, Waterways Directorate of The Czech Republic, Czech Republic
• Mitko Toshev, Vessel Traffic Services Authority - River Danube, Bulgaria
• Nils Braunroth, Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, Germany
• Dierik Vermeir, Alsic, Belgium
• Piet Creemers, De Vlaamse Waterweg nv, Belgium
• Sim Turf, Flemish Department of Mobility and Public Works, Belgium
• Jean-Pierre Dubbelman, Aquater, the Netherlands
• Rolien van der Mark, Deltares, the Netherlands
• Dick ten Hove, Marin, the Netherlands
• Leny van Toorenburg, BLN Schttevaer, the Netherlands
• Hauke Stachel, Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Germany
• Alexander Bernath, Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Germany
• Michael Schröder, Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Germany
• Mitko Toshev, Bulgarian Ports infrastructure Company, Bulgaria
• Ilse Briers, BDO, Belgium
• Sarra Hedhili, BDO, Belgium
Meetings
A total of seven meetings of the WG were held during the course of the project. During the first year,
the meetings were held physically on different locations: Belgium (Brussels), the Netherlands
(Wageningen), France (Lyon) and Austria (Vienna). The other meetings were done online, as the
COVID-19 pandemic prohibited us from organising physical meetings.
The Working Group worked together from January 2019 (first meeting) until December 2021 (approval
of final report).

INVENTORY ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
Objective
To get a view on what is already happening in the world around smart shipping on inland waterways,
an inventory of existing developments, pilots, projects and research has been developed. The goal of
this inventory phase was twofold:
• Find similarities and differences between past and ongoing projects on smart shipping on the inland
waterways;
• Identify strengths, challenges and lessons learnt.
The information was gathered mainly through desk research, but also via discussions with suppliers or
parties that are working on smart shipping developments.
Approach
To structure all the gathered information about past and ongoing projects, developments, pilots and
research on smart shipping on inland waterways, an inventory template was made. The content of this
inventory template is spread over eight tabs, where questions are grouped around a certain topic. Each
tab focuses on a specific group of questions:
1) General information, such as project title, organisation, duration, etc.

2) Project description, such as project objective and scope, location, focus points, level of autonomy,
fallback scenarios, etc.
3) Data and information that the project used and/or that was lacking for the project to be successful
4) Technology used and the technological issues encountered
5) Partners and stakeholders and their responsibilities within the project
6) Project results with success factors, next steps and gaps to be addressed
7) Impact and influence of the project on safety, cost, human interaction, etc.
8) Regulations and the impact of their existence or absence on the project
The inventory was filled in through literature and best practices research, but also via discussions with
several parties that are involved in smart shipping. Each WG-member collected, analysed and
consolidated the available information on known projects of his/her own country/region. Information on
sixteen projects was collected between June 2019 and September 2019. Although technology on smart
shipping is developing rapidly and the inventory mainly shows the current state of the projects, the
results provide a certain insight in order to be able to meet the objective. Several parties were contacted
again in 2021 to collect information for the development of use cases (see Chapter 4).
2.2 Inventory Analysis Projects
Overview of Projects
The goal was to get an as complete view on smart shipping on inland waterways as possible. That is
why a wide mix of projects was included in the inventory analysis. The majority of the considered
projects are about technology development, but also projects on policy development and functional
testing are included in the inventory phase. Table 1 is a list of projects reviewed by WG 210. A short
description of each projected is included in Appendix C. Some of the projects were already finished,
some of them were still ongoing and resulted only in preliminary conclusions. The most important
takeaways are summarised in the next chapters.

Focus
Name of Project Technology Policy Functional
Development Development Testing
Service Public de Wallonie (SPW) X
Seafar X
Autoship X X X
Hull2Hull X
SCIPPPER X
Digital Skipper Assistant (DSA) X
Smart Shipping Strategy Analysis RWS X
USV Perceptor X
Telemetron X
Roboat X
Navigation Brain Ferry X
Navigation Brain Container Ship X
NOVIMAR X
SINLOG X
Shipping Technology X X
FernBin X
TOTAL 10 3 6
Table 1: Smart shipping projects reviewed by WG 210 (status September 2019)
Project Scope
Even though the projects were situated in different functional areas or locations, the four pillars of smart
shipping, as illustrated in the introduction of this report (see General Aspects), were clear focus points
in all of the projects. All the different topics that were addressed in the projects can be categorised in
one of the four pillars:
• Smart vessel: navigation, maintenance

• Smart traffic management and infrastructure: loading/unloading, bridge opening, lock operation
• Smart travel and transport: communication, logistics, safety, crew, situational awareness
• Smart regulation and facilitation: traffic regulations, reporting to authorities. Inventory analysis
results
Interactions with Other Ships and Infrastructure During Testing
Some projects (such as those on technology development and functional testing) did not perform their
tests with other ships on the inland waterways. More specifically, some tests were done when there
was no other traffic, whereas other projects always included other ships during testing. Projects with a
focus on situational awareness or communication with other vessels, on the other hand, performed
tests with other ships in the area.
Since most projects performed tests without any other ships nearby, it remained challenging to learn
how smart ships behaved in a real environment. Stand-alone testing remained predominant since the
safety level needed to be guaranteed at a very high level. Moreover, legislation did not allow for real-
life testing in most regions at the moment of this analysis.
Most projects reported on the need of interaction with infrastructure. More specifically, vessels
interacted with locks, bridges, mooring and quay walls during navigation, loading and unloading. In

some cases, a remote-control centre (RCC) was needed to remotely supervise and control the ship.
Moreover, some projects acknowledged the need of shore-based sensors as a way to compensate for
the inefficiencies of ship-based sensors.
Fallback Scenarios
A fallback scenario is a back-up plan that would be activated when something goes wrong during a
normal operation. As safety is of major importance in smart shipping, fallback scenarios of all kinds
need to be implemented. That is why this was taken up as an explicit point in the inventory phase.
Fallback scenarios are critical and essential elements to maintain or improve the safety level. It is
imperative that smart vessels have different fallback scenarios to use when unexpected circumstances
negatively influence testing or operation. In addition, the few regions that allow tests with unmanned
vessels all ask for information on fallback scenarios (Flanders (region in Belgium), the Netherlands,
Norway). Legislation will not allow ships to sail autonomously if it cannot be proven that these vessels
are as safe as (or even safer than) the current vessels on inland waterways, including not hindering
other fairway users.
Most projects don’t have automatic fallback scenarios. An often-used fallback scenario is crew on board
of the vessel, that can take over and control the vessel manually. But this is not a long-term solution,
as some of the developments work toward a crewless ship.
A possible explanation for the lack of automatic fallback scenarios in this inventory analysis is that many
of these projects are still in the research phase. Therefore, tests in a real-life environment are not yet
performed. Still, fallback scenarios are a safety measure that should be taken into account already in
an early stage of research.
Levels of Automation
Figure 1 gives an overview of the levels of automation (as defined by the CCNR in 2018) each project
focuses on. For the definition of the levels of automation, we refer to Appendix B. Especially policy
development projects focus on all levels. Most projects focus on achieving level 4. Level 5, which
includes full automation without a human in the loop, is less a subject of research than level 4, where
there is still a human in the loop. This is as expected, as technology is not yet mature enough to
implement level 5. Also, as regulations still need to be made up for autonomous shipping, it is logical
that focus is currently on lower levels of automation.
Level of automation Technology development Policy development Functional testing

0
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
Unknown
Figure 1: Overview of the levels of automation as envisaged by the investigated projects
Data & Information
The data and information needs are very dependent on the type of project. Policy projects focused on
the characteristics and needs of the sector, the inland shipping fleet and its management. Functional
projects focused on RIS (AIS, ECDIS, FIS, TI, TM, FIS, logistics information) and technology projects
focused on RIS and on specific information of infrastructure.
The main limiting factors for all kinds of projects is the lack of information. For policy projects this mainly
concerns the lack of information on the effect of Smart Shipping on other IWW developments (e.g. traffic
management). This hampers law adaptations. Nonetheless, some technology projects reported the lack
of regulation on testing with smart ships as a limiting factor. Hence, a chicken-and-egg-problem exists.
On the one hand, it is a challenge to create a regulatory framework that is safe and flexible without any
test results. On the other hand, it is also a challenge to perform these tests without a regulatory
framework. Governments and standardization organizations should therefore work closely together to
develop a framework.

Although technology and functional projects use RIS, they still report a lack of data: lack of detailed
data, lack of data quality, lack of standardisation of data. Also, the European privacy regulation (GDPR)
restricts the use of certain data for research.
The information needs for smart shipping are further discussed in the use cases (see Chapter 4).
Technology
Policy projects did not focus on specific technology.
Technology and functional projects had a broad focus:
• GPS, LIDAR, RADAR, IMU, CCTV, AI, GNSS, PPP, VDES, ECDIS charts, S-100, VR, sonar beam,
high resolution 3-D cameras
• Sensor fusion
• Specific technology combinations of specific companies
• Specific services of a specific company
• Modelling, data processing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, cloud, big data,
data fusion
• Track control system, communication protocol
• Digital twin
• Wireless communication, ship-shore coordination, 4G/5G
• Interface development
Cybersecurity was reported to be an issue as soon as the ship is connected. Cybersecurity is a topic
that needs to be addressed.
Projects reported no real limiting factors on the level of technology. Contrarily, most of the identified
limiting factors were caused by issues that influence the usage of technology, instead of technology
itself, such as:
• Data
- Huge amount of data
- Adapters for data source
- Data broadband communication
- VDES infrastructure not available yet
• Others
- Availability of appropriate vessels
- Balance of the cost and technology
- Stability of the equipment and sensors
Partners and Stakeholders
All projects have a stakeholder mix of governments, research organisations and private companies.
Ports are involved as well. This part of the analysis focuses on what is needed from the different
stakeholders. The most interesting outcomes are the following:
• What is needed from ports and governments:

- Reliable data on infrastructure, water levels, fairway info, RIS info
- Derogations from regulations
• What is needed from skippers and ship owners:

- Testing vessel
- Data about ship route, speed, cargo, planning
Here, too, it becomes clear that reliable and complete data is key to the success of smart shipping
developments.

Project Results
The main success factor of the projects was the collaboration between and involvement of partners and
stakeholders. Also, learnings from autonomous vehicles (car industry) have showed to be very useful.
Potential gaps that were identified are legislation and insurance for approval of the tests and
developments, funding and investments (smart shipping research and testing will require high
investments), and acceptance of unmanned vessels.
Impact and Influence
All projects were interviewed on the expected impact of smart shipping developments on people, cost
and the environment.
All projects believe that smart shipping will increase safety, sustainability, efficiency and economic
performance. On the cost part, there is more diversity in the opinions. In general, a small increase in
total cost is expected, as the introduction of smart shipping applications will be new and needs
investment. But on the other hand, exploitation costs will decrease when ships navigate autonomously
or are steered from a remote-control centre. Naturally, not all barge operators will be impacted in the
same manner, since e.g. barges with a large crew can expect a larger decrease in exploitation costs.
Smart shipping developments will have a significant impact on the human factor:
• The remote-control centre will influence the way of working

• The human work load will be reduced
• The human acceptance (where they need to trust the decisions the vessel makes) is an important
part of the complete acceptance of smart shipping applications
• People are afraid of unemployment, which will hinder acceptance and implementation
In addition, training and education need to be revised and new skills are requested.
Regulations
The issue is that there is no regulation reflecting different levels of autonomy or related smart shipping
concepts. It seems that Flanders (region in Belgium), currently as one of the only regions, has a
temporary regulation in place that allows testing with the vessels mentioned above with less or no crew
on board. In the Netherlands, projects can apply for a temporary permit. In 2022, the Netherlands expect
to have exemption options in the existing regulation in place, to allow unmanned navigation for at least
small unmanned vessels. In Germany, testing is allowed as long as the required crew is on board and
all other regulations are adhered to.
CCNR is currently (2021-2022) working on a framework for pilot projects in automation. The objective
is to set up a procedure and to have the possibility to authorise pilot projects to deviate from CCNR
rules. It should be noted that the aim of this procedure is to enable projects at an international level on
the most used waterway of Europe.
In China, smart shipping projects are discussed and allowed on a case-by-case basis. It is a challenge
to create a regulatory framework that is safe and flexible without results of tests, but it is also a challenge
to perform these tests without a regulatory framework. Governments and standardisation organisations
should work closely together to develop a framework. For more information on regulations: see
Chapter 3.
2.3 Conclusions
Identified challenges are seen on two levels:
1) Legal
• It is a challenge to create a regulatory framework that is safe and flexible without results of
tests, but it is also a challenge to perform these tests without a regulatory framework

• GDPR makes sharing of personal data difficult
• Insurance is a gap
2) Data
• Data is available but still there are problems: the quality, level of detail/accuracy,
standardisation are often not good enough
• Sometimes there is also a lack of data or too much data
• Not only RIS related data is lacking, but also data about the vessel and the ship route
• Sometimes, it is not clear where to find data, not everybody finds their way to RIS
• Cybersecurity is an important attention point
• Shore-based sensors are needed to compensate the inefficient ability of ship-based sensors.
The inventory shows that a lot is still unclear on the topic of sensors
Furthermore there are some other uncertainties, which do not fall under the scope of this WG.
• Automatic fallback scenarios are not specified and not always in place
• It remains uncertain how maintenance should be done when there are less or no humans in
the loop
• Influence on crew (social and employment aspects and/or concerns)
• Awareness and acceptance

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS
3.1 Introduction
The coming years will see an increased development of smart vessels. Impacted by recent and future
developments in smart shipping, the tasks of both inland navigation and maritime stakeholders (e.g.
skippers, waterway authorities, shipping staff, etc.) could fundamentally change. Research and projects
have been numerous and significant in smart shipping, and facilitated a rapid development requiring
adjustments in the legal framework. Efforts must be made to ensure that the legal framework evolves
alongside technological developments.
The area of law surrounding smart shipping is both emerging and relatively untested. That is, the
development of emerging smart shipping technologies is challenging current applications of legal
regimes governing smart shipping operations. This, in turn, spurs significant debate in the domestic and
international legal communities2. Technology has outpaced the relevant regulations. More specifically,
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) (1972), Inland Navigation Rules
and United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are still associated with manned ship
operations, or at least with a ‘human-in-the-loop’. Consequently, stakeholders and scholars continue to
assess the use of smart shipping operations under the existing regulations, laws, treaties, and
conventions and they have yet to reach universal consensus. Therefore, the objective of this chapter is
to give a general overview of the main international inland water transport legislation that could be
relevant to smart shipping and that might require adaptation in the future, as the first step towards an
international regulatory basis for the commercial use of automated inland navigation vessels (smart
shipping).
The regulatory framework relevant to smart shipping for Europe, China and the United States of
America has been reviewed based on the following nine policy areas:
(1) Definitions
(2) Competences and crew qualifications
(3) Technical requirements for inland navigation vessels
(4) Presence of the boatmaster and crew members on board
(5) Responsibility and liability
(6) Communication between a vessel and a competent authority, and vessel to vessel
communication
(7) Emergency situations
(8) Cybersecurity
(9) Inland waterway infrastructure
Those policy areas were chosen as they cover the main, most relevant aspects of smart shipping 3.
It was decided to review the regulatory framework relevant to smart shipping in those three regions
because of the fact that the concept of smart shipping on inland waterways is most advanced in those
regions. In other regions of the world, like South America or South East Asia, smart shipping is not yet
in full development and therefore not included in this chapter.
In general, progress in technological development will change the role of humans, but some delay must
be taken into account. As the rules and standards of smart ships are not complete yet and the
commercial usage of such ships is not yet in function, policy areas 4 and 5 are still in discussion while
no detailed regulations are available.
2
In fact, initial IMO documents on increased automation in shipping were introduced in 1964. See IMCO Doc. MSC
VIII/11 (‘Automation in Ships’). While related, the COLREGS and UNCLOS are distinct agreements with divergent
purposes and effects.
3
Note that privacy is also an important issue that has a link with most of the identified policy areas. This topic,
however, does not fall under the scope of this report.

3.2 Europe
Inland navigation in Europe is currently regulated by a variety of rules passed by international

institutions and bodies:
• Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR)
• Danube Commission (DC)
• Moselle Commission (MC)
• Sava Commission (SC)
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
• The European Union as well as national legislations (the national legislation will not be considered
in the scope of this exercise)
A lot of inland water transport regulation generated/established by the aforementioned international

institutions and bodies is relevant to smart shipping. Those main inland water transport regulations in
Europe are evaluated with regard to the impact of smart shipping and with the aforementioned policy
areas in mind.
Policy Area 1: Definitions
None of the reviewed inland water transport legislations refer to the concept of automated inland
navigation vessels (e.g. type of vessel or the level of automation). Therefore, the European Code for
Inland Waterways, the Police Regulations for the Navigation of the Rhine, the Basic Provisions Relating
to the Navigation on the Danube, the Moselle Police regulation and the Navigation Rules of the Sava
River Basin must be evaluated in order to introduce the appropriate definitions-provisions. This
evaluation could also be done for the UNECE recommendation on the European Code for Inland
Waterways (CEVNI) as it inspires some national regulation.
The police regulations of the different international bodies must be evaluated, as well as the various
regulations concerning the technical requirements for inland navigation vessels.
In December 2018, the Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine adopted one of the first
international definitions of levels of automation in inland navigation by its resolution 2018-II-1614 (See
also Chapter 2). It was aimed at improving safety and functionality of navigation of the Rhine and
European inland navigation in whole. The CCNR has invited the European Commission, UNECE, DC,
MC, SC, CCNR observer States, CESNI and associations recognised by CCNR to apply this definition
in the context of relevant initiatives or work, in particular, in the regulatory activities.
Policy Area 2: Competences and Crew Qualification
As the role of the boatmaster and the crew members might shift from on board towards on-shore control
of the automated inland navigation vessel, the competences and the qualifications will change
accordingly. Therefore, several relevant inland water transport legislations will need to be adjusted, for
example in the various regulations of the different river commissions, such as the Regulation for the
Rhine navigation personnel, the rules on minimum requirements for the issuance of boatmaster’s
licenses on the Sava River basin and recommendations related to the professional qualifications for
crew and personnel issued by the Danube Commission. The international/national police regulations
as well as the European Code for Inland Waterways (which is not legally binding) also contain several
provisions related to the competences and the qualifications of a boatmaster or crew members that
must be evaluated. The EU Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland
navigation (EU Directive 2017/2397) (resp. Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel) and the
European standard for inland navigation qualifications (ES-QIN) of the European Committee for drawing
up standards in the field of inland navigation (CESNI5) also contain several provisions that must be
evaluated.
4
NoteAutomatisation_en.pdf (ccr-zkr.org)
5
CESNI adopts technical standards in various fields, in particular as regards vessels and crew to which the respective
regulations at the European and international level, including the European Union and the CCNR, will refer with a view
to their application.

Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels
Currently several European pilot projects (e.g. NOVIMAR project, AUTOSHIP, Shipping Technology or
Seafar) are developing their own type of automated inland navigation vessels. The development of all
those new types of automated inland navigation vessels brings along a whole new set of technical
requirements. This new set of technical requirements for automated inland navigation must be
translated accordingly into the appropriate legislation.
The core European Union technical requirements for inland vessels are based on the European
Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation vessels (ES-TRIN), that in turn
refers to the EU Directive 2016/1629 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels
and the CCNR Rhine Vessels Inspection Regulation. The ES-TRIN contains provisions on the
construction, fitting and equipment of inland navigation vessels, special provisions for particular types
of vessels, provisions on the model inland navigation vessel certificate and instructions on the
application of the technical standard. All the provisions must be evaluated from the perspective of smart
shipping. The Danube Commission decided in 2017 to recommend the ES-TRIN standard in its
international instruments and the International Sava River Basin Commission intends to create a
reference to the standard in its legal framework. All the relevant provisions in the various regulations
related to the ES-TRIN standard should be evaluated from the perspective of smart shipping.
Policy Area 4: Presence of the Boatmaster and Crew Members On Board
One of the main legislative hurdles to be taken with regard to the commercial use of automated inland
navigation vessels is the fact that the on-board presence of a boatmaster (and crew members) is
currently mandatory. In the police regulations of the various river commissions (as well as national
police regulations) as well as in recommendations like CEVNI, a lot of the provisions are related to the
presence of a boatmaster (and crew members) on board of the inland navigation vessel. Those need
to be revised with regard to unmanned vessels.
Policy Area 5: Responsibility and Liability
The aspect of responsibility must be evaluated in various provisions of the international/national police
regulations as well as the European Code for Inland Waterways, especially when the operation of a
vessel is managed by a remote-control centre or is fully automated.
Hence, a review of associated provisions in the Convention on the Limitation of Liability in Inland
Navigation and the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in
Inland Navigation is recommended.
Policy Area 6: Communication between the Vessel and a Competent

Authority and Vessel-to-Vessel Communication
Communication between the vessel and the competent authority as well as between vessels
themselves will most likely fundamentally change given a futuristic control of autonomous ships from
ashore. Therefore, several provisions in the European Code for Inland waterways, the Police
Regulations for the Navigation of the Rhine, the Basic Provisions Relating to the Navigation on the
Danube, the Moselle Police Regulation and the Navigation Rules of the Sava River Basin must be
evaluated as they currently don’t take these communication requirements into account. Indeed some
police regulations require the presence on board of a boatmaster and crew members.
• River information services (RIS) also play a crucial role in the communication between the vessel
and a competent authority and in vessel-to-vessel communication. The EU Directive 2005/44/EC
on harmonized river information services on the EU’s inland waterways and all the relevant RIS-
standards need to be evaluated with respect to their applicability for smart shipping.
• The European Code for Signs and Signals on Inland Waterways (UNECE): recommendations
related to the development of standardised signs and signals, visualization of aids to navigation on
electronic charts to the automated acknowledgment of the information related to navigation safety
need to be reviewed.

Policy Area 7: Emergency Situations
One of the critical issues of automated inland navigation is how to react in case of emergency situations.
With respect to the occurrence of an emergency situation, a wide range of inland water transport
legislations need to be reviewed and amended. Not only police regulations need to be reviewed, but
also provisions related to the technical requirements of inland navigation vessels or legislation related
to the crew members on board of the automated inland navigation vessel. Note that emergencies
concerning only the automated vessel itself, like fire on board, seem to be much less complex than
emergencies, where vessels are expected to assist other vessels that have an emergency, like a person
going overboard.
Policy Area 8: Cybersecurity
Legal instruments and resolutions must be evaluated and possibly complemented to ensure the
appropriate level of cybersecurity for smart shipping. The aspect of liability raises crucial questions as
to who will be liable in case, for example, a collision occurs after the system got hacked. The advent of
increased digital innovation to automate inland navigation vessels raises concerns on cybersecurity
defense and liability in case of an incident resulting from a cyberattack. Questions such as who is liable
or to what extent stakeholders must take proactive measures remain unanswered.
Policy Area 9: Inland Waterway Infrastructure
The following provision related to the inland waterway infrastructure must be evaluated with respect to
its applicability for smart shipping:
• European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance (UNECE): the existing
classification and parameters of inland waterways may require additional clauses to ensure the
accommodation of smart vessels and the necessary infrastructure.
3.3 China
The top-level plan for the development of China’s intelligent ships and the standard system has been
initially established after several years of efforts, under the guidance of Chinas ‘Outline of the National
Medium- and Long-Term Scientific and Technological Development Plan (2006-2020)’, ‘Scientific and
Technological Innovation in the Transportation Field during the 13th Five-Year Plan’, ‘Guidance on the
Development of Intelligent Shipping’ and other policies. In China, the China Classification Society (CCS)
leads the regulations for ship building while the Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) leads the rules
and regulations for crew-related training and management.
Due to the differences between inland vessels and seagoing ships, some items of the existing rules and
guidance may not be applicable for inland vessels. In China, most of the maritime regulations follow the
basis of IMO standards. But even by the IMO, this distinction is not clearly stated (e.g. in ‘IMO-2002-
Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability’, ‘IMO-2002-Explanatory Notes to the Standards for Ship
Manoeuvrability’, etc.). Furthermore, there is no clear distinction between inland waterway vessels and
seagoing ships in the current ‘Rules of Intelligent Ships’, formulated by the CCS which in general defines
the functions of all intelligent ships. Experts from administrations, universities and research institutes
are working together to specify detailed standards for inland and maritime ships considering the ship
specificities and navigation environment, so as to clarify the requirements of different levels of functions
for various ship types in inland waterways and sea.
With the development of intelligent ships all over the world, Chinas series of regulations and policies on
intelligent ships have gradually emerged.
3.3.1.1 Rules for Intelligent Ships
• The ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ [CCS, 2020] apply to ships for which CCS Intelligent Ship class
notation is requested, such as i-Ship (Ai, Ri, Nx, Hx, Mx, Ex, Cx, I), where the letters in the

parentheses stand for functional notations of intelligent ships, which may be assigned in
accordance with the functions possessed by the ship. Functional notations can be added based on
the development of technology.
• The ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ point out: Smartening means applications specific to a certain object
which is integrated using modern communication and information technology, computer network
technology, and intelligent control technology. Such applications generally include, but are not
limited to, assessment, diagnosis, prediction and decision making.
3.3.1.2 Guidelines for Statutory Inspection of Inland Vessels
• The ‘Guidelines for the Statutory Inspection of Inland Vessels’, formulated by CCS in 2020, are
applicable to the following situations:
（1）The competent authority recognises these guidelines and authorises the Society to issue
corresponding statutory certificates in accordance with these guidelines; or
（2）The shipowner, design unit or construction plant accepts this guideline and entrusts the
Society to issue corresponding inspection certificates in accordance with the guideline.
3.3.1.3 Guidelines for Intelligent Machinery
• Under the guidance of this specification, in November 2017, CCS issued the ‘Guidelines for
Intelligent Machinery’, which is an integral part of ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’, with supplementary
instructions and detailed provisions for the contents of Chapter 4: Intelligent engine room.
3.3.1.4 Guidelines for Survey of Intelligent Integral Platform
• In May 2018, CCS issued ‘Guidelines for Survey of Intelligent Integrated Platform’, which
stipulates applicable technical requirements, inspection and test requirements for ship classification
equipment inspection. It is a supplement to Chapter 7 of ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’.
3.3.1.5 Guidelines for Intelligent Energy Efficiency Management
• In September 2018, CCS issued the ‘Guidelines for Intelligent Energy Efficiency Management’.
Similarly, this guide is an integral part of ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’, which provides supplementary
instructions and detailed provisions for the specification content of intelligent energy efficiency
management.
3.3.1.6 Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships
• CCS issued ‘Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships’ in October 2018. This guide is based on
the principle of not less than the overall safety and environmental protection level of SOLAS,
MARPOL, SOLREG 72 and STCW international conventions, based on the risk analysis method,
and by the goal-based standards method, to regulate the structure of the self-cargo transport ship,
the objectives and functional requirements of each system of the ship, inspection, and test, to
provide the basis for the design and construction of the self-cargo transport ship and promote the
design and construction of the self-cargo transport ship test and development of self-propelled
ships.
3.3.1.7 Rules for the Classification of Inland Vessels
• The ‘Rules for the Classification of Inland Vessels’ [CCS, 2018] are applicable to the classified
ships navigating inland waters, rivers and seas in China. Classification means that according to its
specifications, the CCS considers that the structural strength and integrity of the main parts of the
hull and its appendages, the reliability and function of the propulsion system, steering system,
power generation system, and other features or auxiliary systems assembled on board can maintain
the basic services on board, and identify them with different symbols and marks.

3.3.1.8 Rules for Intelligent Ships
• In March 2020, CCS issued ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ (2020). Based on the functions of
intelligent ships stipulated in the 2015 norms (intelligent navigation, intelligent hull, intelligent
machinery, intelligent energy efficiency management, intelligent cargo management and intelligent
integration platform) the ‘remote control’ and ‘autonomous operation’ are added.
The 2015 and 2020, editions of the ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ stipulate that relevant personnel needs
to be trained to be familiar with the operation of intelligent systems. The ‘Guidelines for Intelligent
Machinery’ stipulate the training qualifications required for operators and supervisors engaged in
machinery condition monitoring and health assessment. The ‘Guidelines for Survey of Intelligent
Integrated Platform’ stipulate the principles of human-centred design and the consideration of human-
machine efficiency. The ‘Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships’ stipulate the types, numbers and
requirements of operators for remote control centres.
Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Intelligent Navigation Vessels
Intelligent navigation means to obtain and perceive the status information necessary for ship navigation,
utilising advanced perception technology and sensor information fusion technology, and makes use of
computer technology and control technology to carry out analyses and processing, and to provide
decision-making suggestions to optimise the ship’s route and speed. If feasible, the ship can realise
autonomous navigation in open water, narrow channels, when entering and leaving ports, berthing and
unberthing, and various navigation scenarios and complex environmental conditions. The basic function
of intelligent navigation is route and speed design and optimisation. In addition to the basic function
specified, intelligent navigation may also have the following advanced functions: (1) Autonomous
navigation in open water; (2) Autonomous navigation during the entire voyage.
Intelligent hull: System software related to hull maintenance meets the requirements for category I
computer software. System software related to hull monitoring and assistant decision making meet the
requirements for category II computer software.
On-board presence of crew members is mandatory in China for both inland and maritime ships. Rules
and regulations are issued to maintain the minimum number of crew members and their responsibility
are stated. There is a heated discussion on how to use intelligent technology to replace human effort in
ship handling. However, how many humans can be removed or replaced in operation is still unclear.
Rules and regulations have to be revised and adapted for future intelligent, remote-control, and/or
autonomous ships.
The responsibility and liability of crew members and humans in the logistics chain of shipping go hand
in hand with insurance and laws. For now, the technology of intelligent shipping or ships is still immature.
Policy suggestions and solution proposals are still being discussed, therefore any suggestions are
welcome. However, it is hard to make a fundamental change until the relevant techniques, systems,
and equipment get further developed.
Policy Area 6: Communication Between a Vessel and a Competent Authority,

and Vessel-To-Vessel Communication
The legal documents and resolutions need to be evaluated to ensure that appropriate communication
requirements are provided for intelligent transportation, and possibly complemented with the relevant
provisions.

• The 2020 edition of the ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ stipulates that the communication system on
the ship and the remote-control centre should have the ability to keep the ship's security
communications, information and equipment unblocked at all times, and can save the security
communication records.
• The ‘Guidelines for Intelligent Machinery’ stipulates that the communication system should ensure
the validity, reliability, adaptability, safety, standardisation and maintainability of digital transmission
between the ship and the shore control stations. In order to integrate modules across different
platforms and different vendors and implemented in different programming languages into a whole
to realise the function of health assessment, a set of communication standards need to be
developed to realise the interaction between modules. The communication standard architecture
can be divided into three levels: data exchange interface, hierarchical interface, communication
protocol.
• The ‘Guidelines for Survey of Intelligent Integrated Platform’ stipulates network communication
requirements, including wireless data links and remote communication.
• The ‘Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships’ stipulates external communication equipment and
signal equipment applicable to autonomous ships and signal equipment that meet the requirements
of the IMO ‘International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea’ (1972).
- The setting of the ship’s communication equipment should enable the ship to automatically
communicate with the terminal, other nearby ships, VTS centre, search and rescue centre,
shipowner, etc. through the remote-control centre for effective voice and data information
communication during the entire voyage with enough bandwidth.
- When a control station is installed on the ship, the communication equipment should be able to
realise the voice communication between the remote-control centre and the steering control
station. At the same time, it can realise the voice communication between the control station
and the surrounding ship docks, VTS centres, etc.
- The signal equipment of autonomous ships should be able to operate automatically or remotely
at the remote-control centre, and emit sound, light and number signals in accordance with the
requirements of the IMO ‘International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea’ (1972).
Policy Area 7: Emergency situations
The legal documents and resolutions need to be evaluated to ensure that security is provided for
intelligent transportation, and possibly complemented with the relevant provisions.
• According to the ‘Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships’, the ships applying for additional marks
of independent cargo transport ships should carry out risk analysis on the ships and various
systems in the design stage according to the actual operation requirements of the ships, and design
in combination with the requirements of this guide.
The legal documents and resolutions need to be evaluated to ensure that cybersecurity is provided for
intelligent transportation, and possibly complemented with the relevant provisions.
• The 2020 version of the ‘Rules for Intelligent Ships’ stipulates that measures should be taken in the
design and operation of ships to reduce the ship's cyber security risks to a minimum, and meet the
requirements of the CCS ‘Guidelines for Ship Network System Requirements and Security
Assessment’.
• The ‘Guidelines for Autonomous Cargo Ships’ stipulates the network system for autonomous ships.
Through the network system identification, protection, detection, response and recovery and other
security configuration and measures, the security threats faced by the network of autonomous ships
are minimised.
The relevant provisions on inland waterway infrastructure should be supplemented and then evaluated
through legal instruments and resolutions.

3.4 United States of America
Before there was a consensus on vessel navigational rules, there was a hodgepodge of different
practices, varying conventions and informal procedures between international and U.S. inland
waterways. Mariners were faced with inconsistencies and even contradictions that gave rise to
confusion between vessels at risk of colliding. The signing of the Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972) (COLREGS) and enactment of the Inland
Navigation Rules Act of 1980 by the U.S. Government provides a uniform framework for guidance for
mariners operating in and transiting between international and U.S. inland waterways.
The USA uses the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the global regulatory body for
international shipping. The IMO defines a Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) (vice Smart Ship)
as a ship with decision support system(s) that, to various degrees, can operate independently of human
interactions. The IMO defined four degrees of autonomy for MASS. The framework recognises,
however, that MASS could operate at one or more of these levels within the duration of a single voyage.
The four degrees are as follows:
1. Ship with automated processes and decision support: seafarers are on board to operate and control
shipboard systems and functions. Some operations may be automated.
2. Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board: the ship is controlled and operated from another
location, but seafarers are on board.
3. Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board: the ship is controlled and operated from
another location. There are no seafarers on board.
4. Fully autonomous ship: the operating system of the ship is able to make decisions and determine
actions by itself.
Note that these definitions diverge from the definitions published by the CCNR.
The release of Subchapter M regulations in the United States establishes vessel safety regulations
overseeing inspections, standards and options for safety management systems. Operators are required
to have a Certificate of Inspection from the US Coast Guard to maintain fleet operations. This includes
capturing of crew member qualifications and training.
Policy Area 3: Technical Requirements for Intelligent Navigation Vessels
Autonomous technologies (e.g. decision aids, sensors, cybersecurity, and communications) are not yet
mature to field neither semi-autonomous nor autonomous vessels for operation. The business rules
associated with COLREGS and US Inland Rules of the Road need to be integrated and thoroughly
tested in such vessels prior to operation. To assess existing IMO instruments to see how they might
apply to ships with varying degrees of automation, the IMO along with the U.S Coast Guard (USCG)
and representatives of other nations completed a regulatory scoping exercise in May 2021 that was
finalised at the 103rd Session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and for treaties under the
purview of the IMO Legal Committee in July 2021. The exercise involved assessing a substantial
number of IMO treaty instruments under the remit of the MSC and identifying provisions which applied
to MASS and prevented MASS operations; or applied to MASS and do not prevent MASS operations
and require no actions; or applied to MASS and do not prevent MASS operations but may need to be
amended or clarified, and/or may contain gaps; or have no application to MASS operations. The US
Coast Guard (USCG) is working with the IMO to complete MASS testing by 2020 with the results to be
used to help (1) identify current provisions of IMO instruments and assess whether and how they could
be applicable to ships with varying degrees of autonomy and (2) conduct an analysis to determine the
most appropriate way to address MASS operations, considering the human interactions, state of
technology, and operational factors.

This policy has not yet been established by the U.S. Government for U.S. inland waterways.
In conjunction with the IMO Legal Committee, a review is being conducted of various provisions of the
COLREGS and U.S. Inland Rules of the Road in regard to interaction of manned, semi-autonomous,
and autonomous vessels. In general, the RSE concluded that MASS could be accommodated within
the existing regulatory framework of the Legal Committee conventions without the need for major
adjustments or a new instrument. While some conventions can accommodate MASS as drafted, others
may require additional interpretations or amendments to address potential gaps and themes that were
revealed through the RSE.
Policy Area 6: Communication Between a Vessel and a Competent Authority,

and Vessel-To-Vessel Communication
Communication redundancy and intelligent decision aids are not yet mature for safe interaction with
manned nor other autonomous vessels. Research and development is being conducted to assess the
use of 5G, other protocols, and IoT technologies to improve communications between vessels.
Challenges associated with RF interference due to terrain and high-density RF metropolitan areas need
to be addressed.
Policy Area 7: Emergency Situations
USA is taking a slow, but deliberate approach to introducing autonomous vessel operation to the US
inland waterways that will take about 10-15 years to be accepted. Given this timeframe, little is known
about emergency situations so far. Updating COLREGs and US Inland Rules of the Road are the US
Coast Guard’s top priority. This will be done concurrently with selected experimentation; first with ocean
transit followed by testing on the rivers. In the meantime, semi-autonomous vessels will be used for
auxiliary roles such as environmental monitoring and clean-up. Oil platforms and windmill farms will
most likely be the first autonomous vessels to be used off the coast of USA. The use of commercial
autonomous vessels will most likely be seen for ocean transits initially.
As highlighted by PIANC Inland Navigation Commission (InCom) Task Group 204 – ‘Awareness Paper
on Cybersecurity in Inland Navigation’ (January 2019”6), increased interoperability exposes systems,
networks, and remote users to increased security risks. “Consultants and marine insurance brokers
evaluate cybersecurity awareness in the maritime industry as low with automation so far not
accompanied by corresponding security protection.” This was validated by the inaugural maritime
cybersecurity survey published by Jones Walker LLP in which 64 % of those surveyed acknowledged
that their company was unprepared to handle the consequences of a data breach. In order to minimise
such a risk, a common cybersecurity framework should be considered to build reciprocal trust
throughout the marine transportation supply chain. This will require systematic and repeatable
processes for persistent data confidentiality, integrity and availability. Not much has changed since
then, due to challenges to conduct on-site cybersecurity assessments of networks due to the COVID-
19 pandemic travel restrictions.
Inland waterways involve many different stakeholders for regulation, management, operation, and
movement of cargo. The result is a mix of standards and regulations that hinders the exchange of
supply‐chain data among those using the rivers. In the European Union (EU), there is a clear structure
for the provision of RIS. The EU RIS Directive provides high-level guidance for EU member states to
follow in implementing RIS in their areas of responsibility. In addition, most EU member states have a
6
https://www.pianc.org/publications/inland-navigation-commission/tg204

single organisation whose primary responsibility is managing its waterways. In contrast, U.S. inland
waterways are managed by a collection of federal, state, and local agencies. This disjointed governance
structure in the U.S. makes exchanges of supply‐chain data among river stakeholders difficult, and the
coherent provision of RIS nearly non‐existent on U.S. inland waterways.
The provision of waterways services on U.S. inland waterways is currently managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the USCG. Though the U.S. has an overarching e-navigation strategy issued
by the Committee of the Marine Transportation System (CMTS), clear guidance describing the aim,
tasks, and responsibilities with respect to development and operation of RIS is absent. For example,
within the USACE, not one single authority provides overall direction on RIS-related activities within the
Corps of Engineers. As a result, different districts, institutes, and laboratories act through generally
informal cooperation sometimes influenced by local needs rather than a national strategy. As a result,
many of the tools that could provide more efficient waterways operations are missing. In parallel, a
growing need exists to improve the environmental monitoring and data collection capabilities of
oversight agencies and research institutions. This lack of a standardised information infrastructure
between Government agencies and inefficient information-sharing capabilities makes real-time decision
making difficult. This disjointed governance structure is further exacerbated by cumbersome data
interchange requirements between government agencies. As a result, many of the tools that other
transportation industries (e.g., rail and trucking) otherwise take for granted, are missing on the rivers.
3.5 Analysis of the European, Chinese and U.S. Frameworks

In the context of the further development of automated inland navigation, it is important to develop a
relevant international legal framework that allows for the commercial use of automated inland navigation
vessels. Within the framework of the present PIANC report, a first important step is being taken for this
purpose by mapping international inland navigation regulations that are relevant for automated inland
navigation and which may need to be adapted or expanded in function of the commercial use of
automated inland navigation vessels. In order to be able to make as global an analysis as possible, it
has been decided to analyse the relevant regulations in Europe, China and the United States.
This analysis shows that the way in which inland navigation is regulated differs greatly between Europe,
China and the United States.
In Europe, there is a clear and strict separation between inland and maritime navigation regulations.
Not only does Europe have a separate regulatory framework for inland and maritime navigation, there
is also a strict separation between the competent institutions. Within Europe, several international
institutions each have their own authority over inland navigation, such as the European Union, the
UNECE, the CCNR, the DC, the MC and the ISRBC. At the national level, national/regional waterway
authorities are responsible for managing inland waterways and drawing up inland navigation
regulations. As a result, each Member State has some kind of national inland navigation strategy. The
IMO plays the most important role in the creation of maritime regulations. Despite the fact that the IMO
and the aforementioned inland navigation institutions exchange knowledge on certain inland
navigation/maritime aspects, the two structures are strictly separated when it comes to drawing up
regulations.
When looking at the way inland navigation is regulated in the United States and China, we find that
there is no clear separation between inland and maritime navigation in terms of the competent
institutions and the regulations themselves. Unlike in Europe, regulations are of a more hybrid nature,
with certain regulations applying to both inland and maritime navigation. In addition, the governance
structure of inland navigation differs greatly between Europe and the United States. The United States
does not really have a clear structure of governmental institutions with exclusive responsibility for inland
navigation. Instead, inland navigation is managed by a collection of federal, regional (states) and local
agencies, each of which is partially responsible for inland navigation and partially for maritime
navigation. As a result, the US doesn’t really have a national inland navigation strategy.
Apart from the difference in governance structure between Europe on the one hand and the United
States and China on the other hand, the analysis also reveals that there is not always a clear separation
between regulations for inland navigation and regulations for maritime navigation. Inland navigation
regulations in the United States are strongly grafted onto IMO and IALA regulations. This does by no
means imply that no specific inland navigation regulations are in place, but that they mainly originate

from maritime entities, such as the U.S. Committee of the Marine Transportation System, the U.S. Coast
Guard, etc. One logical consequence is that the concept of automated inland navigation in America is
to a large extent based on IMO initiatives, including MASS initiatives.
Like the United States, China does not apply a clear separation between regulations for inland
navigation and regulations for maritime navigation. Therefore, the roadmap is to gradually build up a
guidance, standards, and rules in different levels for inland and maritime navigation particularly. In the
meantime, the systems and platforms for testing and measurement of intelligent ships should be
established with detailed steps and protocols. Without functional testing regulations, practical
applications are hard to be issued by administration. All in all, China would like to establish the ability
of testing in short term and a series of standards in the long term.
Owing to the difference in governance structure and the way inland navigation is regulated in Europe,
China and the United States, the concept of automated navigation is also handled differently from a
legal/regulatory point of view. When considering the situation in Europe, we find that it is first of all
necessary to adapt existing inland navigation regulations and to subsequently consider the potential
development of new regulations for automated inland navigation.
In the United States a unified inland waterway digital infrastructure is emerging through CMTS whose
membership includes the USACE, USCG, NOAA and the Maritime Administration7. This interagency
organisation is in the process of establishing a framework to enable transfer of actionable River
Information Services (RIS) for timely and resilient use of maritime data for safer and more efficient
navigation on U.S. inland waterways. A number of key technologies have emerged including River
Information Services Enterprise (RISE), Lock Performance Management Services (LPMS), Lock
Operations Management Application (LOMA) and the Marine Safety Information Harmonisation
initiative which are now actively sharing data; as well as, used to generate data analytics to make
improvements in U.S. inland waterway management consistent with RIS Guidelines developed by
PIANC InCom Working Group 1258.
In China, several national technological innovation plans constitute the framework within which smart
shipping is developing. Within this framework, the China Classification Society is developing guidance
on the technical requirements for automated vessels, making no distinction between inland vessels and
sea-going vessels. Several of the directives are also based on international maritime regulations such
as SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.
Like in China, inland navigation regulations and maritime navigation regulations are not strictly
separated in the United States. The analysis therefore shows that it is difficult to provide an
unambiguous overview of inland navigation regulations that may need to be adapted in function of smart
shipping development. As regards the development of a legal framework for automated inland
navigation, the United States is mainly following the developments in this field within the IMO and the
subsequent adaptation of international maritime regulations.
3.6 Conclusion
The above analysis shows that there are important differences in the organisation of the regulatory and
institutional framework between the three regions studied. This does not mean, however, that synergies
regarding standardisation work should not be undertaken. For instance, in the field of River information
services (RIS), similar technology blocks and associated standards (with sometimes regional
adaptations) can be used. For smart shipping, it remains very relevant to continue the monitoring of the
evolution of the regulatory frameworks in the three regions, because rules/standards developed in one
of the regions could usefully inspire the others and then facilitate and speed up the development of
smart shipping.
7
U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Navigation Information Strategic Action Plan: 2021 -2026. March 2021,
Washington, D.C. 24 pgs.
8
https://www.pianc.org/publications/inland-navigation-commission/wg125-2

USE CASES SMART SHIPPING
4.1 Introduction
The developments on smart shipping are ongoing. Many navigational tasks are already supported or
replaced by automated systems. Research, developments and experiments regarding further
automation of navigational tasks and remote control or autonomous navigation take place. Despite
these experiments, there are many uncertainties on what the impact of smart shipping will be, especially
for fairway authorities. At the same time, the fairway authorities can stimulate smart shipping
developments or their uptake by the market by offering certain datasets and data exchange standards,
adjusted infrastructure is needed (for example mooring facilities) and come up with the changes in the
regulations.
4.2 Smart Shipping Evolutions
As already mentioned, the industry already uses several automation technologies to support the skipper
for navigation, such as steering devices with calibration software and ECDIS charts. These innovations
make navigation easier and safer. It has been observed over the last decades, that if navigation
becomes easier in a certain way, less experience is required and more people will sail. By using charts
with trails or waypoints, the route of each vessel becomes more predictable as well. It shows that little
evolutions might have large impacts.
Smart shipping developments aim at the autonomous (or fully automated) navigation of ships, with no
crew on board. This situation corresponds to CCNR level of automation 5 9, where the ship itself is
responsible for making all decisions related to navigation and its interaction with infrastructure and other
vessels. Fully automated navigation will be reached via several steps, where remote controlled shipping
is considered to be an intermediate step by some experts10. A remote-controlled vessel, on which there
is limited crew on board, is steered from a remote-control centre (RCC) on shore. Since remote
controlled vessels are often partially automated, taking over tasks from the crew, multiple vessels can
be steered simultaneously by one individual.
4.3 Definition of the Use Cases

Data and data exchange are central in smart shipping developments and services. Nowadays, the
authorities provide some of the data necessary for smart shipping applications. However, this data is
not always complete or qualitative enough for smart shipping suppliers to develop their services. They
often need to complement the data provided by the authorities with their own data (coming from
sensors, cameras, etc.). The aim is to gain insight in what is needed to support smart shipping
developments.
Therefore, the use cases are based on the following questions:
• Which smart shipping products or services will be developed in (roughly) the next 10 years?
• Which data is needed for those products or services?
• What quality should the data have?
• In which format does the data need to be exchanged?
• In which way will the data needs/data quality/data format change when the level of autonomy
increases?
Those questions are answered for the following two use cases:
• Remote controlled shipping

• Autonomous shipping
9
For more information on the CCNR levels of automation, see https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/cpresse/cp20181219en.pdf.
10
The CCNR levels of automation 1 through 4 can be considered as the steps to be taken to evolve from no automation (level 0) to full
automation/autonomy (level 5). Additionally, remote controlled navigation is possible in the CCNR levels of automation 2 thro ugh 5.

4.4 Approach
There are several companies or academic institutions working on smart shipping developments. The
members of the PIANC working group decided that those parties need to be heard if we want to gain
insight in which direction the market is evolving. As smart shipping developments may differ from region
to region, several countries organised workshops to learn which national developments are ongoing
and what those national parties expect from fairway authorities to help them in their developments.
Workshops were performed in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, China and the USA. All
workshops were organised in a previously agreed way, so that the questions mentioned above were
answered by the different parties in the different countries.
The conclusions from those workshops are consolidated in the following paragraphs.
4.5 Detailed Description of the Use Cases
For each of the two use cases, the information or data needs are described. Previous work and analysis
led to the conclusion that data needs as such don’t change much when moving from remote control to
autonomous navigation. Only the way of data exchange and the required data quality are expected to
change. For this reason, the paragraphs below first describe the data needs in the remote-control
situation in a general way. Second, the changes are described that are expected when moving to
autonomous navigation.
Remote Controlled Shipping
4.5.1.1 Information from Own and Other Vessels
Both information from the vessel itself as from other vessels is needed when navigating.
The following information is needed from both own and other vessels:
• Vessel status information: position, speed, course, angle, heading, trajectory, incl. final destination,
manoeuvrability, protection against hindering water movement (enriched AIS information)
• Vessel model information: dimensions, draft, air draft, trim, squat
• Vessel steering/propulsion engines (for anchoring/berthing or manoeuvring)
• Type of loading, especially in case of dangerous goods (and consequentially, cones)
• Enriched vessel status information: camera or radar or other sensors
• Tracking & tracing: navigation patterns of vessels
• Vessel condition monitoring and behaviour control system
• Tow configuration of barges and types of barges
• Communication via VHF radio – digitally coded and automated sending (sending message) and
machine readable (e.g. VDES)
• Intentions of other vessels to 'predict' the behaviour of other vessels and to determine how to react
• Information covered by external signs and light signals (e.g. blue sign activated during starboard
passing, or certain flags)
The following information is needed only from own vessel:
• Sensor and monitoring equipment information: image information, equipment status information
• Steering information: rotation of the vessel, rudder control information, rate of turn
4.5.1.2 Information from the Infrastructure
Ships interact with their infrastructure: information about the lay-out of the waterway, traffic lights and
signs, weather conditions, etc. are very important. This information needs to be fed to the smart shipping
solutions in order to know how to navigate the ship and to avoid collisions. In addition, the inventory
analysis (see Section 2.3.1) shows that the focus of ongoing projects is often on the interaction with

infrastructure. Therefore, the information needed from the infrastructure is investigated into more detail
here.
The following information is needed:
• Lay-out of the waterway: waterway contours, junctions, bridges/locks, etc.

- Also dynamic information: anticipated blockages of waterways due to maintenance, etc.
• Water state information: water level/depth, tide, current, riverbed, sandbanks (real-time and
forecast), river discharge, wave height/direction
• Data about AIS ATONs: outline, shape, danger zone
• Predicted traffic and capacity of the waterway
• The information that is currently shown by the traffic lights
• Piers and free spots
• Environmental information
• Fixed static obstacles: bridges, locks, etc.
• Dynamic obstacles:
- All obstacles on the water surface need to be known: pleasure crafts, water sporters,
temporary buoys
- Pattern recognition of obstacles on the water surface
- Position information of encountering traffic
• Weather and environmental conditions: wind speed and direction, storm surge, ice
• Bridges and locks:
- Bridge clearance: now and future
- Bridge profile: passage width, passage height, passage depth, number of passage lanes and
their dimensions
- Approach conditions, such as wind speed and direction
- Opening times
- Status object: open or closed
- Waiting time/lock planning
- Location of waiting places
- Lock lay-out: number of lock chambers and their dimensions, position of devices to fix your
vessel lines during levelling process, actual water level, passage width, passage height,
passage depth
- Position of vessel in lock chamber
• Berthing and anchoring:
- Dimensions berth place
- Availability of several (automated) berthing systems and facilities
- Position of bollards
- Allowable force on bollards
- Bollards equipment
- Anchoring places
- Anchoring allowed/prohibited
- Planning of other vessels already moored or to be expected
Fully Autonomous Shipping
When we move from remote controlled to autonomous shipping, the data needs as such for regular
navigation don’t change: the same data is needed. However, when there is no human in the loop
anymore, some data will need to be shared in a different way (e.g. VHF information needs to be digitally
coded, buoys don’t need to be physically in the water anymore but it’s sufficient to mark them virtually
on a map, etc.). Not only the format will have to be adapted, also the update rate, redundancy, etc.
need to be improved. This is studied in the following subchapters (4.6, 4.7 and 4.8).
Concerning regular autonomous navigation, the planned trajectory of the vessel will be known and can
be adapted to the trajectory of other vessels. As a result, traffic management can be optimised.
Autonomous berthing with no human in the loop will be a bigger challenge than regular navigation. The
evolution to autonomous berthing will happen in small steps, gradually realising independent docking.

Additionally, also locks require further attention. Today, vessels need to be attached to the lock
infrastructure. But without a human in the loop, no one is present to attach the vessel. Therefore,
research needs to be done to get a better view on if and how vessels need to be secured in the future
(e.g. with fenders, digital beacons in the lock that support the 3-D positioning of a vessel).
4.6 Quality of Data
Since remote controlled navigation already requires high data accuracy, completeness and availability,
data quality will not change much when moving to autonomous navigation. However, the reliability must
be close to 100 %, so redundancy will become very important. Thus, information will need to be
collected from different sources. As discovered in the inventory analysis (see Section 2.3.4), the
necessary data is often lacking.
Some of the mentioned datasets are already available today, but they are not updated at a frequency
sufficient for smart shipping. Some examples are:
• Update rate of ECDIS charts is too low (e.g. more frequent update of buoy positions is needed)
• Virtual AIS ATONs should be implemented faster, covering all stretches and relevant situations
- Update frequency of all AIS data needs to be increased
• Accurate forecasts of water levels on all waterways (currently, this information is sometimes missing
on small waterways)
Further research is required to determine the necessary update rate of this data, as it depends on
several parameters (such as criticality of river bed characteristics).
Information needs to be complete and available on all waterways, even if there are different authorities.
In addition, some information is not yet available but needs to be added, e.g.:
• Bridge contour lines in ECDIS map

• Water depth/depth contour lines
• Absolute heights for all objects
• 1-D/2-D/3-D flow model depending on the purpose, the respective situation and on related
reference water levels
• Information on critical cross flows (distribution of flow velocities in cross-sectional profiles, of
average flow velocities related to all relevant statistical water levels)
The required data accuracy or correctness depends on the purpose for which the data is needed.
Accuracy needs to be much higher for mooring than for other applications, for example. Data about the
water and weather conditions needs to be more accurate around locks and bridges than on a broad,
straight waterway section. It’s important to know or measure the data accuracy or correctness. On the
one hand, control mechanisms for the correctness of e.g. AIS data are required. On the other hand, it
is also important to add accuracy level information to the data (e.g. in the ECDIS map, AIS track
evaluation, etc.), to clarify to the user of the data (which also can be an application) whether the data is
usable or whether a redundant source needs to be used.
4.7 Data Gathering/Data Sources

In man-steered navigation, human sight functions as an important source of information. This will need
to be replaced by information coming from numerous sensors or cameras. Therefore, data collection
and data usage will increase tremendously when moving to higher levels of automated shipping. As an
example, vessels will acquire environmental information from sensors or cameras on board. Multiple
vessels sharing this information would enable a more accurate and complete view of the environment.
It will be necessary to combine several data sources: on board sensors and cameras, existing AIS and
ECDIS data, infrastructure sensors (e.g. laser scan information on objects, sensors on bridges), etc.
Only then will we be able to get all the necessary data for smart shipping applications.

Several attention points regarding data gathering and data provisioning arise:
• Data gathering/provisioning by means of a data platform allows everybody to use the same data.
• Crowd sourcing, in which a two-way data exchange is set-up, is another instrument for data
gathering/provisioning. As ships gather a lot of information, they are a data source themselves (e.g.
a vessel making radar or camera images). A two-way web portal for RIS can be envisioned, where
vessel owners don’t only take information but also feed information to the system.
• Who will provide the data? The authority can act as a data qualifier or data broker, who decides
which data is shared via the platform and which data is not.
Further, the following remarks arise regarding the use of existing data sources:
• Historic data (e.g. traffic data) can be used as a source for calculations in models.
• RIS COMEX11 will enable the cross-border usage of national RIS data in Europe.
• Environmental information could be shared by adding it to ECDIS maps in the required accuracy
level.
Information Provided by the Authority
Some information needs to be provided by the authority. The authority is responsible for:
• Rules and regulations:

- A regulatory basis is needed for autonomous vessels and their interaction with conventional
vessels
- These rules and regulations need to be implemented non-ambiguously in order to allow for
autonomous navigation. Currently, there are too many exceptions.
• VTS messaging
• Regulation of traffic (when position and route of all vessels are known, a central system can manage
traffic and hence avoid bottlenecks)
• Lock and bridge planning
• Non-ambiguous and clear traffic rules are often not available. Lanes to be used vary. Currently
there are too many exceptions for non-ambiguous decision making for autonomous vessels. A
regulatory basis for autonomous vessel and their interaction with conventional vessels is missing.
4.8 Data Exchange and Format

In higher levels of automated navigation, data needs to be exchanged without delays (e.g. a change in
water current needs to be known by all vessels immediately). VTS and voice radio communication (via
VHS) need to be digitised. Further, the data format should be machine readable and highly unified. The
data format should also allow convenient processing, transmission and interaction. In this context, a
data bus or ‘data highway’ could be envisioned where all data is gathered and other parties can access
the data that is relevant for them.
• Data bus can be provided by a 3 rd party

• Parties will require the raw data to perform their own interpretations
Uniform data exchange requires the standardisation of communication protocols: open standard for
real-time, secure data exchange. But, standards can vary from region to region. The development of
regional standards (e.g. European) would therefore be of aid in this matter.
Privacy issues need to be addressed.
11
RIS COMEX (RIS enabled corridor management execution) is European project involving 13 countries and 14 partners.
The project aims for the implementation and operation of cross-border River Information Services based on operational
exchange of RIS data. These RIS-based Corridor (information) services shall allow for traffic management by the
authorities and transport management by the logistics sector. They make use of available national infrastructure and
services.

The authority might need to impose certain data exchange and format requirements on skippers for the
data they need to share.
4.9 Attention Points
Transition Period and Roadmap Towards Unmanned Vessels
The transition from the current situation to a situation with only unmanned vessels will not happen
overnight. A complete roadmap needs to be made up, as evolutions on different fronts are needed
(technical, legal, etc.). Also, the transition period in which manned and unmanned vessels will sail the
inland waterways together, needs to be addressed.
Some of the questions that arise when we think of this transition period are:
• What are the data exchange needs (e.g. speech to text and the other way around)?
• Is it needed to (visually) recognise autonomous ships?
• Will there be a plan to actively phase out non-autonomous ships?
• What will the RIS infrastructure look like when there are both manned and unmanned vessels?
• Will skippers need to be trained for this transition situation?
• Who will be responsible in case there is an accident between a manned and an unmanned vessel?
• Etc.
The answers to those kind of questions will help us to construct a roadmap towards autonomous
navigation.
RIS, communication and cybersecurity infrastructure need to be advanced before unmanned vessels
can safely transit rivers. Of note: the marine industry is far behind many other industries in establishing
cybersecurity controls.
Acceptance of autonomous vessel operation to the inland waterways will take several years (maybe
10-15 years). It remains unclear what the first applications of autonomous shipping systems will be.
Specifically for the USA, however, semi-autonomous vessels will be used for auxiliary roles such as
environmental monitoring and clean-up in the meantime. The first autonomous vessels will most likely
be used for work on oil platforms and windmill farms along the coast. The use of commercial
autonomous vessels will most likely be for ocean transits initially.
Communication Between Ships and Between Ship and Shore
A network communication and security system will be needed to facilitate ship-shore, ship-ship and ship
internal network communication. Several security protection functions must be included to ensure the
safety of autonomous navigation: data link anti-interference, anti-blocking, anti-eavesdropping, data
encryption, anti-tampering, data recovery, hardware reinforcement, etc.
In areas with a poor mobile network coverage (due to mountains or inside locks with a large fall) there
could be a loss of 4G and 5G communication (with the remote control centre). A local network may
need to be set-up by the authority.
Privacy and Cybersecurity
As smart shipping is highly data driven, the aspects of privacy and cyber security become very
important.
• Privacy: some skippers, countries, etc. seem to consider their AIS data as private. This needs to
be addressed in regulations.
• Cybersecurity: both the RCC and the vessel rely on correct data. Both must be protected against
security breaches.

FUNCTIONAL AREA ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Objective
After analysis of ongoing projects (Chapter 2), international regulations (Chapter 3) and an investigation
into the use cases (Chapter 4), a functional area analysis of smart shipping will be carried out. A
Functional Area Analysis (FAA) identifies the operational tasks, conditions and standards needed to
achieve the objectives. It exists of a Functional Needs Analysis (FNA) and a Functional Solutions
Analysis (FSA).
Approach
For this report, the objectives are the two use cases identified in Chapter 4:
• a vessel that is steered from a Remote Control Centre (RCC)

• a vessel that sails completely autonomously (CCNR level 5)
1. The FNA assesses current and future capabilities needed to meet the objectives. The FNA
assesses whether or not an inability to achieve a desired effect exists to determine if there is a
capability gap. Based on the outcome of the inventory analysis and the stakeholder workshops that
have been conducted in the framework of the use cases, the WG 210 organised several sessions
in Q1-2 2021 with the goal to identify further gaps and functional needs for the above-mentioned
objectives. These sessions were centred around the following questions:
• Why is smart shipping important for inland waterways?

• What is the impact of smart shipping on the infrastructure, both physical and digital (ICT,
sensors on the infrastructure)?
• In what way will the services of fairway authorities change in case of a hybrid situation (where
both man-steered and autonomous vessels are present) and full autonomous navigation?
2. The FSA assesses potential approaches to solve or mitigate the gaps that were identified in the
FNA. The FSA was organised in several internal PIANC WG 210 meetings during Q2 2021 and
stakeholder meetings. Each of these meetings focused on a specific aspect of the FSA, such as
the impact of smart shipping on infrastructure or changes in the service offering of the fairway
authority. The approach of each of these meetings was tailored to its purpose.
• The meeting on changes in the service offering of the fairway authority, which was attended
by members of PIANC WG 210, followed a two-step approach. First, the current services
of the fairway authority were listed. Second, it was investigated in detail how these services
must change to make smart shipping possible12.
• The meeting on smart shipping itself and on the impact of smart shipping on the physical
and digital infrastructure followed the ‘why tree’ methodology. First, the group discussed
why smart shipping and updates on infrastructure are important and what is currently
holding us back in the case of smart shipping and needed updates on the infrastructure, to
identify the gaps. Finally, a brainstorm was done about possible solutions for the most
important gaps.
12
This second step was executed following the 5W1H methodology: for each service, changes in the ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘who’,
‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ were examined.

5.2 Functional Needs Analysis
Why is Automated Shipping Important?
Over the years, an international consensus has grown that the automation of vessels can contribute to
solving a large part of the problems inland waterway transport is dealing with. If we want to make inland
waterway transport more attractive and more competitive, those problems need to be addressed.
Automated navigation might potentially i.a.:
• Increase the efficiency of transport on inland waterways, reducing fuel consumption/emissions and
costs
• Deliver a higher safety level by assisting the crew and reducing human interaction, leading to less
human errors
• Increase the usage of small waterways, because labour costs will reduce and smaller vessels will
become relatively more competitive
• Cope with the shortage of employees and bring new profiles to the sector
• Enable new business cases and flow of goods
• Create new digital services
• Allow the use of smaller vessels, which creates flexibility and makes inland waterway transport
more competitive (against road transport)
• Allow vessels to be grouped in a vessel train
• Green the sector (contributing to the realisation of the European Green Deal and inspiring other
regions to do the same)
• Support the modal shift
• Simplify the vessel as less facilities are needed on board
• Allow better traffic management and planning
• Attract a new kind of (digital) profile to the sector, as currently, the profession of skipper is not
attractive anymore and there is a lack of qualified personnel
Automated navigation requires specific updates on the infrastructure:
• Updates are necessary to install mooring and lock measures, as there will be no human in the loop
to fix the vessel
• Safety measures need to be built into the infrastructure, also for recreational shipping, to guarantee
the safety of every user of the waterway
• Mobile network coverage along the waterway is necessary to support digital infrastructure
• Building and operating vessel trains requires a lot of space
• Updates on the infrastructure are necessary to facilitate developments of smart shipping, which
helps our goal to make IWT more attractive
• The infrastructure needs to be upgraded with several kinds of sensors. Real-time info needs to be
fed to users of the inland waterways (people get notified or limitations are imposed on ships).
Automated navigation further requires a thorough update on the service offering of the fairway authority:
• Vessel traffic/density needs to be monitored

• Hydrodynamic information and other information related to the state of the waterway needs to be
offered in real-time
• Human-centred services (such as NtS, ERI, Inland ECDIS, shore power, waste collection, drinking
water, etc.) need to be transformed into machine-centred services
• The fairway authority needs to offer algorithm training services
• The fairway authority needs to enable updates on the infrastructure (both physical and digital) as
mentioned above
• Advisory services (such as route or trip planning) might become imperative when there is no human
in the loop anymore

5.2.2 Why is it Impossible to Meet the Objectives Today, What is Holding Us Back?
A complex web of aspects and conditions must be taken into account when engaging in the smart
shipping evolution. For example, substantial differences between sailing at sea and sailing in inland
waterways exist. Navigation, for instance, is more complicated in inland waterways than open ocean
navigation. Generally, the complexity of the shipping sector and industry is higher than in other modes.
Further, the stakeholder workshops concerning the use cases and the PIANC WG 210 sessions on the
FNA identified several topics in which the root causes can be grouped:
• Economics
Responsibility of the authority Responsibility of the sector
• There is a lack of investments from the • Also in the private sector, investments in
government side. Small, fragmented automated shipping are much lower compared
markets find it hard to find resources for to other modes of transport.
R&D. Smart shipping is not high on the • The shipping sector consists mainly of small
political agenda in all countries. businesses who lack the financial capacity to
• The authorities need to make the necessary invest in automated ships.
investments to modify the infrastructure
(e.g. in locks).
Responsibility of both
• There is a lack of competition.

• There is a lack of standardisation and mass production.
• Since only test projects are currently ongoing, the implementation of rather large developments
remains unnecessary. Indeed, few companies are working on smart shipping developments. This
causes the investments in automated shipping to be high and the revenues to be quite low.
• Legal
Responsibility of the authority
• Currently, the law prohibits the usage of ships without crew on board. There are many legal gaps
that make commercial use of smart ships impossible.
• There are also many legal gaps that make testing with smart ships impossible.
• The law is fragmented over regions.
• It is unclear how liability will work in case of accidents with smart ships.
• Companies are held back to take risks.

• Data
• On the strategic level there is a lack of data, • Also on the tactical level, accuracy, quality
accuracy of data is not always good enough and a lack of data are problems.
and the overall quality of data is not high
enough.
• It is not clear how the responsibilities of the
sharing of data (on the strategic and tactical
level) should be organised.
• There is a lack of standardisation.
• There is a lack of harmonisation.
• Data sources are fragmented.

• Data sources are not ubiquitous enough to support enhanced automation.
• Data is often presented in human-readable format only.
• There is a lack of information on existing data (e.g. quality parameters on existing data are
limited).
• There is a lack of cybersecurity.
• Currently, data cannot be provided in real-time.
• Technology
• The lack of standardisation makes it difficult • Recognising the environment (situational

for countries or regions to work together for awareness) is complex.
cross-boundary transportation. • Technology is human-centred.
• Technological solutions that offer services to
the skipper are stand-alone instead of
offering a holistic service to the automated
vessel.
• Technology is not mature enough yet. There is no proven (autonomous) technology yet (e.g. no
real solution for mooring in locks).
• Communication infrastructure and technology needs to be updated (e.g. broadband is not
everywhere in place).

• Infrastructure (Digital and Physical)
Responsibility of the authority
• Lock passage remains impossible due to legal restrictions, but also because no information is
available on the impact of solutions on the infrastructure itself and on other vessels in the lock.
• The infrastructure needs to be digitised.
• Measurements of infrastructure data are insufficiently automated.
• Regional or country-related differences in infrastructural development exist.
• The lower CCNR levels of automation might not need a lot of infrastructural modifications,
whereas updates on the infrastructure will certainly be necessary in order to achieve remote
controlled or autonomous navigation.
• There is some uncertainty about which developments are necessary. Implementing modifications
now is risky if they might prove to be unnecessary in the future. Also, is a smart vessel smart, if
it needs updated infrastructure?
• Some modifications are quick wins, but some are expensive or take a long time.
• Societal
Responsibility of the sector
• A lack of skills in the labour force exists.
• The shipping sector is not known to the broader public.

• There will be resistance to change with regards to human interaction with autonomous shipping.
• Sector Characteristics
• Rules are solution-oriented instead of • The sector is quite conservative. It is not

functionally oriented, which leads to little always clear which concerns are real.
flexibility in suppliers. • There is a lack of business rules associated
to waterway transport.
• Patience is expected but also courage.

• There is not enough cooperation between different stakeholders (cf. automotive industry).
5.2.3 What is the Impact If Those Objectives Are Not Met?
Waterway transport will become less attractive and less competitive. Insufficient competitiveness
causes road transport to keep on increasing, which contributes to more pollution and congestion.
Without meeting the objectives, the interesting potential of smart shipping won't be fully utilised, by
means of economic benefits, more sustainable transport, increased safety levels, modal shift, smaller
vessels, new logistic opportunities, etc. The evolution to automated transport will take place by other

entities, so if we don’t take matter into our own hands, we risk being subjected by rules that we do not
agree with.
5.3 Functional Solutions Analysis
Now that it is identified why smart shipping is important and what the gaps are with the current situation,
possible solutions to those gaps can be identified. During the working group sessions, th e group
brainstormed on possible solutions or next steps for the most important gaps.
Information Exchange
5.3.1.1 Lack of Data Standardisation
Standardisation is needed to make sure that all parties are able to work with the data provided. Also,
as inland waterways is a cross-border business, agreements need to be made between different
countries.
Possible ways to proceed with data standardisation are:
• Collaborate with standardisation organisations

• Learn from other sectors (e.g. automotive sector)
• Work together with AUVSI
• Parameters on the quality of data should be made transparent
• Human-targeting standards must be transformed into machine-optimised standards (e.g. a more
machine-friendly data format for Inland ECDIS, creation of new codes for ERI or NtS)
5.3.1.2 Provision and Distribution of Data
Real-time provision and distribution of data are necessary to achieve autonomous navigation.
• For the provision of semi-dynamic information, private-public collaborations could be set up. Tasks
such as performing measurements, uploading data to a server, checking correctness of data, etc.
could then be divided among private and public parties.
• For the provision of dynamic information, autonomous underwater drones perform measurements.
- This measurement data is distributed collectively, locally and in real-time, instead of individual
entries being uploaded to a server.
- In the near future, the fairway authority is the responsible party. In the later future the
responsibility of data provision might shift to private parties since they are the owners of
autonomous vessels. The fairway authority remains responsible for standardisation.
• For scheduling purposes, components of route planning (lock, voyage, port and terminal planning)
are sent through standardized electronic messages following international standards such as ERI.
- This will ensure reliable planning, since every chain needs to be scheduled in the plan to avoid
mismatches. Instead of offering fragmented services, a holistic voyage plan should be offered
which includes all aspects of the voyage and which involves all partners.
5.3.1.3 System Interoperability
When operating in a fully autonomous situation, there must be a close interaction between autonomous
systems, being smart ships and smart infrastructure. These systems communicate with each other, so
ships can gather data and share it with each other. The objective is to achieve swarm intelligence.
Further, autonomous vessels need automation in infrastructure.
• The Inland ECDIS system is transformed into a machine-centred (instead of a human-centred)

system. It contains more information with a bigger mix between static and dynamic information.
• The role of NtS might change, since probably al lot of data can be shared via Inland ECDIS or
follow-up technologies.
• Updates can be done by users of the system, instead of providers/authorities.
• Currently, services are provided in a fragmented way and information is already interpreted.

- Either, information is provided as pure data to autonomous vessels such that the vessel can
make all decisions completely by itself,
- Or the complete final service is offered to the vessel, such that the vessel focuses on specific
tasks. An example is a complete plan of voyage between start and end point, such that the
vessel only focuses on navigation on the planned route.
- In this context, responsibility for making decisions may shift from on board to ashore. If
enhanced automation is present, the responsibility may remain on board.
Maturity of Technology
The current maturity of technology does not allow for full autonomous shipping, as a lot of use cases
still need to have a human in the loop (e.g. mooring, lock operations, requests on paper for inland
navigation services such as shore power, waste collection and drinking water).
• Do a lot of testing, for all different kinds of cases

• Create test areas
• Not only individual technologies, but also the interoperability between technologies needs to be
thoroughly tested in order to reach a sufficient level of maturity
• IoT environments such as sensors are still evolving and will get better
• Develop sailing simulators to train both crew and sailing algorithms
Lack of Suitable Rules
Despite important differences in the organisation of the regulatory and institutional frameworks between
Europe, the USA and China, synergies regarding the standardisation work should not be excluded. For
automation/smart shipping, it remains very relevant to continue the monitoring of the evolution of the
regulatory frameworks in the three regions, because rules/standards developed in one of the regions
could usefully inspire the others and then facilitate and speed up the development of smart shipping.
• Authorities must allow exceptions to test

• Collaborate with government agencies to ensure inland rules accommodate autonomous or remote
controlled vessels
Political Importance or Awareness
Smart shipping is not high on the political agenda in a lot of countries. Mitigation strategies are, e.g.:
• Set-up a global task force to create a roadmap towards autonomous shipping

• Focus on possibilities such as the untapped potential of smaller waterways or reducing empty ships.
These need to be introduced to economic partners.
• Results and achievements should be communicated to the outside world to create awareness on
smart shipping
• Create awareness about the fact that smart shipping can help to reach policy goals
• Explain the objectives of smart shipping (e.g. not enough personnel)
• Create business cases
• Encourage cooperation between the government and third parties
Not a Lot of Ongoing Smart Shipping Developments
Suppliers in the sector need to be motivated to work on Smart shipping solutions. Possible approaches
to be followed are:
• Test areas should be created to allow testing and to convince suppliers to develop further on smart
shipping. Also, authorities must allow exceptions to test.
• Make small investments to stimulate the development of smart shipping solutions
• Organise workshops on smart shipping to be attended by skippers, ship owners and/or participants
from different countries to create awareness and share knowledge

• Encourage partnerships between government, industry and professional organisations (such as
PIANC, AUVSI, INAS, IALA, AWO, IRPT, TRB, branch organisations and others) to leverage
resources and lessons learnt
• Establish an inland waterway test bed to evaluate and assess interrelationships between RIS and
autonomous related technologies. Collaborate with INAS test areas.
• Encourage smart shipping suppliers to start their developments in situations with little complexity.
Completely autonomous sailing can be attained more easily under the following conditions:
- The vessel is small compared to the waterway (the waterway is wide, deep and has little flow).
Hydrodynamic effects cause bank suction with the shore and increase complexity of navigation.
- The vessel doesn’t need to manoeuvre
- The vessel can navigate in a straight line
- The vessel doesn’t encounter other traffic. Hydrodynamic effects cause suction between
vessels and increase complexity of navigation.
- Automation works best when operating in an easily modellable environment. Adjusting the rules
for interaction between manned and unmanned ships to make it more deterministic what the
other ship will do, would make the situation much better for both the human crew and
automation systems. Another similar approach is to make it clear what the autonomous ship
will do, with the help of visual or radio signals.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
6.1 Introduction
The Functional Area Analysis first determined which (current and future) capabilities are needed to
achieve remote controlled and autonomous shipping. These capabilities were validated against current
possibilities and developments to determine which obstacles and capability gaps exist. Then, to solve
these capability gaps, possible approaches to mitigate or circumvent them were sought. These
mitigating approaches form the basis of the recommendations for the future.
In a next phase, the list of mitigating approaches was ranked by the Working Group according to the
extent to which the approaches offer short-term opportunities for the further development of smart
shipping solutions. The members of the Working Group scored the approaches based on what they
thought was most important to achieve smart shipping. These scores were accumulated and the most
important approaches were then further developed and refined to form the recommendations for the
future. More specifically, for each approach, multiple aspects were investigated. First, the priority was
refined. Second, it was determined whether the responsibility is carried by the authorities or the private
sector. Third, the amount of effort and cost was qualitatively estimated and described. Fourth, it was
examined whether external stakeholder involvement is necessary and if so, which stakeholders need
to be involved. Last, the next steps were defined.
The following subchapters describe the analysis of these aspects for each recommendation. The
subchapters are ranked according to their importance, meaning that the first recommendation in
Subchapter 6.2 is the most important according to WG 210. Although geographic differences exist, all
recommendations are globally relevant. Since the same conclusion applies to all, geographic relevance
isn’t described into detail. Subchapter 6.9 contains a summary.
6.2 Switch from Human to Machine

When implementing remote controlled or autonomous shipping, many human tasks will be replaced by
tasks executed by machines (hardware, software or a combination). In order to facilitate this switch from
human to machine, human-targeting standards must be transformed into machine-optimised standards,
with attention for cybersecurity. More specifically, the Inland ECDIS system should be transformed into
a machine-centred system. This system should contain more information with a bigger mix between
static and dynamic information. As a second example, although not all experts agreed to this, the
importance of NtS might shift, since a lot of data could be shared via Inland ECDIS or a comparable
chart system (visualisation system). In any case, parameters on the quality of data should be made
transparent.
For scheduling purposes, components of route planning can be sent through standardised electronic
messages following international standards such as ERI. Alternatively, information is provided as pure
data to autonomous vessels such that the vessel can make all decisions completely by itself.
Furthermore, research is required to determine the necessary update rate of data needed for automated
shipping, as this depends on several parameters (such as criticality of river bed characteristics).
Additionally, the presence of humans on board of a vessel is necessary for manual tasks, such as
mooring or securing a vessel in a lock, maintenance and reparation. The physical aspect also needs to
be covered.
Priority
The switch from human to machine is considered to have medium to high priority. Notably,
commitment is needed from both the sector and authorities to make this a priority, since automation is
low hanging fruit in greening the transport sector. On the one hand, the priority for optimising data
sources and data acquisition is rather high. Further, AI will increase efficiency (reducing fuel
consumption, increasing safety, reducing personnel resources, etc.). Since the transition towards no
steerman at all will take a while, making the switch from human to machine should be seen on the long
run.

Responsibility
Responsibility is divided between the authorities and the sector:
• Interaction is necessary between the authorities and private companies in providing the data and
constructing the maps. Authorities are responsible for providing the data according to the
requirements. The sector has to make it machine readable.
• Authorities should rate the waterways according to their ease of navigation. The autonomous vessel
should be able to perform this rating as well.
• The sector is responsible for transforming the user interface of the Inland ECDIS system. The use
by a human will become limited, as machines are capable of interpreting more data.
• The authorities of the USA specifically should engage CMTS, USACE, USCG, DHS and NOAA to
foster the funding of the development of RIS Digital Infrastructure.
Effort
Switching from human to machine for inland navigation applications such as Inland ECDIS will require
a rather large effort, since both the preparation and the implementation of the system will require
considerable amounts of work. The authorities’ main efforts consist of making the data available and
precise. The precise amount of effort will depend on the level of detail and on the application. Scaling
up over time is possible. Further, efforts also depend on funding availability. Collaboration with WG 125
(‘Guidelines and Recommendations for RIS’) is needed to leverage activities.
Cost
A high cost is expected to make the switch from human to machine, since it requires full commitment
– don’t do it halfway. The cost depends on the amount of data needed and the cost related to data
acquisition. It also depends on funding needs for future developments (e.g. autonomous measuring
vessels). Notably, the use of the human interface becomes less relevant, so the development of this
part of the system will be less costly.
External Stakeholder Involvement
Involvement from the following external stakeholders is required:
• Stakeholders from the marine transportation industry need to be involved. Work is being done to
align inland navigation with marine transportation. Alignment should be done on automated
shipping as well. Region-specific relationships between marine transportation agencies and
government agencies should be built.
• Collaborate with surveying service providers taking measurements.
Next Steps
• Obtain commitment from the industry and governments to make this a priority. Greening the sector
can be used as an argument.
• Make greening the sector more prevalent in government-issued documents. We need to raise
awareness.
• Identify suitable data needs and sources. This will define the amount of data that's needed (e.g.
greening the sector requires the correct data to input into algorithms).
• Define a roadmap
• Enable more efficient interaction with authorities and third parties, such as fairway management
• For the USA specifically: collaborate with PIANC WG 125, USACE, USCG and others to justify
funding to fully develop a comprehensive digital infrastructure for the US inland waterways
• Be aware of the limited durability of the current state of development, as new developments will
follow up rapidly and the current state will be outdated soon
• Conduct a gap analysis of European Standard for River Information services (ES-RIS), especially
the part dedicated to Inland ECDIS

6.3 Testing
When implementing new technologies, such as those necessary for smart shipping, testing is crucial to
assess their functionality, performance, reliability, safety, etc. Therefore, authorities should allow
exceptions to perform tests or create test areas. This contributes to convincing suppliers to develop
further on smart shipping. Test beds also help to evaluate and assess interrelationships between RIS
and autonomous related technologies. Collaboration with the INAS test areas could be helpful. Not only
individual technologies, but also the interoperability between technologies needs to be thoroughly
tested in order to reach a sufficient level of maturity.
Priority
Testing has a medium to high priority. On the one hand, full scale ship testing has some difficulties
(risks, uncertainties, it remains unclear what should be tested, boundary conditions need to be tested
as well). Therefore, medium priority is given to testing on a full scale. Simulations, on the other hand,
should be used for testing on a higher priority.
Responsibility
Testing is mainly a responsibility for the authorities:
• It should not be allowed to do testing unless the government provides a framework

• Tests need to be approved in advance by the authorities. Test results need to be checked
afterwards by the authorities.
• A partnership between the government and industry should be set up, similar to which was done
with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
• When testing with simulators, the responsibility is shared between private parties and the
authorities. Private parties are responsible for the development and supply of the simulators,
whereas the authorities are responsible for the simulated area.
Effort
In general, the effort to perform tests is rather high.
• Many elements need to be taken into account to keep things safe. Risk analyses should be
performed.
• Uncertainty exists since it remains unclear exactly what should be tested. Simulation testing has a
higher priority than physical testing, which should be performed as a last check.
• Artificial Intelligence software needs to be trained and validated against Navigational Rules of Road.
Integrated development and testing with River Information Services and communications
infrastructure should be performed.
• Once the training simulators have been developed, the effort is rather low. Developing the
simulators takes the most effort and has the highest cost.
Cost
Costs depend on the kind of testing:
• Physical testing has rather low costs if everything goes as planned. In that case, the costs only
consist out of working hours. If the government decides not to update infrastructure, costs remain
low. If updates are required or if something goes wrong, costs are high.
• R&D is more expensive than performing physical tests. Risks should be covered as much as
possible by risk analyses.
• Simulation testing has a low cost
• However, developing simulators is costly and requires a lot of effort

Lessons learnt should be shared with academia, research organizations, entrepreneurs, nautical
experts from the field, the drone community.
Next Steps
• Evaluate the procedures in organisations such as INAS, etc.

• Develop guidance on what should be tested (e.g. remote control: shore-based facilities). Standards
should be developed. Then, a test system should be developed.
• First, run simulations. Then, perform physical testing in well specified areas. Lastly, perform real
physical tests.
• For the USA specifically: work with USCG and USACE to identify candidate areas within US inland
waterways to conduct MASS experiments and testing
• Set up test areas which fit certain itineraries, to increase the benefits for the developer
• Find a way to optimise investment and reduce the risk of failure
6.4 Create Awareness

If no one knows about IWT in general or smart shipping and the advantages it brings, no developments
will happen. Awareness is necessary to drive innovation and R&D. Therefore, the objectives of smart
shipping (e.g. to cope with the lack of personnel) should be explained to the broad public. The creation
of business cases can contribute to this goal. Awareness should be created about the fact that smart
shipping can help to reach policy goals. Results and achievements should be communicated to the
outside world. Another method for creating awareness is to focus on the possibilities, such as the
untapped potential of smaller waterways or reducing empty ships. These need to be introduced to
economic partners. The organisation of workshops on smart shipping to be attended by participants
from different countries is another approach to create awareness and share knowledge.
Priority
Creating awareness about IWT and smart shipping has a high priority, since nothing will happen if
nobody realises that smart shipping can help to realise policy goals. Awareness needs to be created
within the government, by putting smart shipping high on the political agenda of policy makers in
different countries. Alternatively, awareness also needs to be created in the sector.
Responsibility
Both the sector and government agencies carry some responsibility in creating awareness about
smart shipping. If smart shipping helps to reach policy goals, authorities should emphasise this in the
business cases (e.g. business case that proves that the crew can be reduced). On the other hand, it’s
the sector’s responsibility to prove viability of business cases.
Effort
Creating awareness requires a lot of effort, since the message that one wants to bring should be
repeated many times in order to achieve more awareness.
Cost
Creating awareness, especially through the development of business cases, carries a high cost.
Creating awareness is a long process which requires several campaigns on different levels.
Both developers and users of smart shipping should be involved.

Next Steps
• Communicate as much as possible: write the PIANC WG 210 report, attend conferences, etc.
6.5 Learn from Other Sectors
Other modes of transport, and especially road transport, are further along in their development in terms
of automation. Already in 1986, a German engineer, inspired by aerospace technology, developed a
system that successfully allowed cars to drive autonomously13. Remotely controlled underwater drones
are being used for a wide variety of industry use cases, such as marine research, performing
underwater inspections or assisting search and rescue operations. These examples illustrate that there
is a lot to learn from other sectors. Therefore, sharing knowledge and hook up to these technologies is
a must and accelerates R&D.
Priority
Learning from other sectors has a very high priority. Collaboration is necessary, because some
sectors are ahead in autonomous technologies (e.g. automotive). Learning from other sectors enables
using smart technologies in real life. Further, smart shipping is far away from people's daily lives, while
automated cars are becoming a daily reality.
Responsibility
The responsibility in learning from other sectors is divided between the authorities and private
parties:
• The authorities should act as a facilitator to bring different parties together. The knowledge is held
by researchers and developers within the private sectors, however.
• Standardization is important. Re-using standards from other sectors could enable re-using
technologies.
Effort
The amount of effort it takes to learn from other sectors is considered to be of intermediate extent.
• Other sectors can show their technologies and provide information to establish a business-to-
business flow of information and knowhow.
• Learning which problems are being dealt with in other sectors can be difficult.
• Leveraging what already has been done by e.g. AUVSI and INAS can lower the amount of effort
necessary to develop certain technologies.
Cost
Learning from other sectors is expected to save costs.
• By using technologies that were already developed in other sectors as much as possible, R&D
expenses will be lower.
• Participating in meetings, interviews or research doesn’t bear high costs, but brings high benefits.
• Stakeholders from the targeted sectors (e.g. automotive and maritime navigation) should be
involved.
• Stakeholders from within inland shipping should be involved in order to learn how other sectors run
their businesses. A lot could be learnt from how automotive businesses are minimising costs.
13
https://www.politico.eu/article/delf-driving-car-born-1986-ernst-dickmanns-mercedes/

• Inland navigation and air transport have certain similarities: both are highly controlled and must fulfil
reporting obligations, whereas road transport can move around more freely in open space.
• Coordinate with AUVSI and INAS.
Next Steps
• Get in touch with leading companies in autonomous technology. Engage in negotiations with
authorities in the lead.
• Contact AUVSI and INAS and set up memoranda of agreements to formalise the collaboration
going forward.
6.6 Collaborate with Private Parties

Whereas public efforts are necessary to guide the evolution towards highly automated shipping, the
public sector cannot develop the technology itself. Private parties, on the other hand, have the freedom
to specialise and build in-depth expertise in specific topics. These private companies are incentivised
to innovate by the functioning of the economic market: the better products they offer, the higher their
profits will be. Striking the middle ground, in which the public sector relies on the knowledge of private
companies, can be highly fruitful. Therefore, cooperation between authorities and third parties should
be encouraged. An example is the set-up of public-private partnerships for the provision of semi-
dynamic information. Tasks such as performing measurements, uploading data to a server, checking
correctness of data, etc. could then be divided among private and public parties.
Priority
It follows from the paragraph above that collaborating with private parties has a relatively high priority.
Responsibility
Both the authorities and private parties are responsible for successful collaboration. It is the
government’s responsibility to create a framework which covers legal aspects, the creation of test areas,
funding, etc. The government needs to give the tools, but it is the private sector’s responsibility to act
on them. Even though the industry is interested in developing autonomous technologies, funds are
missing nonetheless. Subsidies from the government should be involved.
The government can choose between several types of funding:
• Private parties take the initiative to submit projects, after which an investigation by the government
follows prior to approval. Since private parties are closer to the market, the probability that the
developments can be used in practice are relatively high.
• The government calls for developmental projects, which must meet strict criteria in order to receive
funding. These criteria might hinder the optimal development path to provide practical proof.
• The project starts with seed funding. If the project turns out to be successful, the government has
data rights (which have been agreed upon upfront in a data right sharing agreement). The
entrepreneurs remain responsible for commercialising the project, however. In this type of funding,
the government takes the role of a venture capitalist. This has the advantage that the entrepreneur
doesn’t have to worry about an actual venture capitalist being on the board of directors.
Effort
Given the innovative and experimental context of smart shipping, it is sometimes unclear what needs
to be done for both private and public parties. Because of this reason, collaboration with private parties
is expected to require quite some effort.

Cost
Since smart shipping is mainly still in the research and development phase, first mover costs can be
high and the return on investment unsure. It is therefore expected that collaborating with private parties
has relatively high costs.
• Involvement of private parties reduces the gap to the market.

• Learn from organisations such as SMASH! from the Netherlands.
• Provide platforms for knowledge and funding.
Next Steps
• Set up standards to comply with.
6.7 Collaborate with Knowledge Institutes and Standardisation

Organisations
As was explained in Subchapter 6.6, collaboration with private parties can create synergies by
leveraging the strengths of both the public and the private sector. Nevertheless, that picture is
incomplete. Since private companies are focused on building and optimising their own products and
services, standardisation is necessary. Without standardisation, a jumble of incompatible technologies
would emerge, making it impossible to manage a network such as that of inland shipping. In addition,
collaboration with knowledge institutes allows to foster and speed up innovation. Therefore,
partnerships between government, industry and professional organisations (such as PIANC, AUVSI,
INAS, IAIA, AWO, IRPT, TRB and others) should be encouraged to leverage resources and lessons
learnt.
Priority
Collaboration with knowledge institutes and standardisation organisations has a high priority, since
efforts to make technologies compatible cannot be postponed.
Responsibility
It is the responsibility of both the sector and the government to collaborate with knowledge institutes
and standardisation organisations.
Effort
The amount of effort is expected to be rather high. Knowledge institutes and standardisation
organisations consist of many departments with their own specific expertise. Whereas knowledge
transfer requires time, time in meetings may be limited. Therefore, many meetings over many months
or years may be required before final documents and standards can be delivered.
Cost
Costs are expected to be rather low, since costs are only incurred by attending conferences or
workshops with other organisations. Initially, meetings can be conducted virtually to keep costs down.
The following stakeholders should be involved (non-exhaustive list):
• AUVSI
• INAS
• IAIA

• IHO
• AWO
• IRPT
• TRB
• CESNI
• Selected government agencies
Next Steps
• Invite knowledge institutes and standardisation organisations to attend PIANC conferences.
6.8 Develop Sailing Simulators

In the development of new technologies, errors are inevitable. The impacts of those errors can be
minimised in multiple ways by ensuring they happen in a safe environment. Sailing simulators can
consequently be used to train both crew and sailing algorithms.
Priority
Developing sailing simulators has a low priority, since crew must still be trained for sailing manually
anyway. When sailing is performed by algorithms, the crew will take the role of an operator, demanding
different skills.
Responsibility
Developing sailing simulators is mainly the responsibility of the sector.
Effort
The effort required to develop sailing simulators is rather low, since existing simulators might well be
applicable for this purpose. The market has to change, the software slightly so.
Cost
Costs are expected to be rather low.
No external stakeholders need to be involved.
Next Steps
• Develop and test sailing simulators.
6.9 Summary
The table below provides a summary of the recommendations for the future described above. The
recommendations are ranked according to their importance, meaning that the switch from human to
machine is the most important according to the Working Group, whereas developing sailing simulators
is less important. The Table indicates which entity is responsible for the execution of the
recommendations: the authorities or the sector (private companies). Furthermore, a qualitative estimate
of the amount of effort and cost is given for each recommendation. Lastly, the Table shows whether
external stakeholder involvement is necessary. Despite geographic differences in smart shipping, all
recommendations are globally relevant.

Responsibility
External
Priority (Authorities Effort Cost
stakeholders
and/or sector)
Rather Rather
Switch from human to machine Both High Yes
high large
Rather Rather Hard to

Testing Authorities Yes
high high predict
Create awareness High Both High High Yes
Very
Learn from other sectors Both Medium Low Yes
high
Rather Rather Rather

Collaborate with private parties Both Yes
high high high
Collaborate with knowledge institutes Rather

High Both Rather low Yes
and standardisation organisations high
Develop sailing simulators Low Sector Low Rather low No
Table 2: Overview with summarising properties of the recommendations for the future
Smart Shipping offers a lot of opportunities for the future and this for big as well as small ships. The
inland waterway sector is however a very diverse sector and different stakeholders have different
requirements. This report only focused on two use cases, but, as the inventory analysis showed,
projects and tests can be very different from each other. Also from a regulatory point of view there are
many differences between countries in the world. Out of the analysis a few things are very clear: there
is a need of more cooperation between different stakeholders, more and more detailed information and
more possibilities to test.

REFERENCES
Chapter 2 (Inventory Analysis)
CCNR (2018): “First International Definition of Levels of Automation in Inland Navigation, [Online Press
Release], Available: https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/cpresse/cp20181219en.pdf [18
December 2018].
Chapter 3 (Legal Analysis)
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine (2020): “Leveraging Unmanned Systems
for Coast Guard Missions: A Strategic Imperative”. For further information, contact the Transportation
Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-
3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Appendix B (Glossary)
CCNR. (2018): “First International Definition of Levels of Automation in Inland Navigation”, [Online
Press Release], Available: https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/cpresse/cp20181219en.pdf [18
December 2018].
Classification society (n.d.) (2021): In: Cambridge Business English Dictionary, [Online], Available:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/classification-society [16 November 2021].

APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE
By Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn, Belgium, De Vlaamse Waterweg
Lea Kuiters and Michael Schreuder, the Netherlands, Rijkswaterstaat
Final version 30 May 2018
A.1 Introduction
When thinking about tomorrow’s mobility, one cannot ignore the innovations in the field of autonomous
transportation. Autonomous driving and truck platooning are expected to reduce the costs of road
transport and to increase its flexibility, while new rail corridors and the next generation of freight trains
are expected to lower the technical and organizational barriers for rail freight. It is therefore of
paramount importance that technologically innovative initiatives like smart shipping are in the focus of
the IWT sector to improve efficiency, safety and sustainability. These improvements will also counter
the potentially competitive advantage provided by technological evolutions in the other transport modes.
When smart shipping is actually used, this will have an impact. Therefore we need to establish a
framework that allows the deployment of smart shipping in a safe and reliable way.
PIANC is aware that Smart developments in other transport modes have been reaching a mature status
(as train and automobile). So this WG will refer the methodologies implemented in these modes and
will focus on smart shipping with a specific interest on the waterborne infrastructure.
A.1.1 What is Meant by Smart Shipping?
Smart shipping is a widely used term, with several definitions available. In our view, from the perspective
of infrastructure providers and traffic managers, smart shipping is broader than just an autonomous
vessel. We propose a definition which contains four components:
• Smart Vessel: Smart vessels are vessels that are highly automated and are therefore equipped
with automated systems using (external) data to optimise the key functions of the vessel.
(Navigation, real-time planning, fuel consumption management, etc.)
• Smart Traffic Management and Infrastructure: The management of the inland waterways takes into
account real-time (external) data coming from ships, infrastructure and third parties. Also, the
existing operational tasks of bridge/lock operators, traffic planners, vessel traffic service/traffic
guidance are expected to change.
• Smart Travel and Transport: The interaction between ships and third logistic parties are evolved
into a smart, smooth and flexible process. This consists of two parts. First is the simplification and
international integration of procedures that users of the waterways need to follow. Second, next to
smart navigation, smart cargo handling should be developed too.
• Smart Regulation and Facilitation: interaction between the ship and third (government) parties for
regulation or inspection.
A.1.2 Why is There the Need for Establishing a PIANC Working Group on this
Topic at this Specific Moment?
The development of smart vessels and other smart solutions within the inland shipping sector will be of
increasing importance in the upcoming years. The technology has reached a point that it can enable
vessels to perform more tasks than before. Besides that, smart shipping will lead to a fundamental
change in the tasks of the different stakeholders, like skippers and waterway authorities. It may seem
early to start the discussions on smart shipping. There aren’t any autonomous vessel sailing the
waterways yet, and it could be a while before they do. On the other hand, the first experience with
drones and automated small vessels are executed and commercial use of inland cargo vessels is
planned for 2020 by some stakeholders. One thing is sure, there is a lot of development coming our
way which will impact the sector. That is the reason why it is a good idea to establish a PIANC Working
Group now. By being at the foreground from the beginning on, the whole sector will be able to give
direction to the developments. For example, the current technological evolution needs to include much
more than only the automation of the vessels itself. While the concept of smart shipping technology has

been researched and undergone a rapid development, research regarding the impact of this
developments on the physical infrastructure and on traffic management seem to be receiving less
attention. They are, however, as important. Also of great importance is to view the developments of
smart shipping as part of the supply chain (e.g. cargo handling at ports).
Infrastructure providers, traffic managers and the IW-transport sector should be pro-active and have to
invest in knowledge development and to follow the developments regarding the smart infrastructure and
be prepared for what is to come, especially in the context of the current developments regarding smart
shipping.
Local based developments are ongoing on this subject. It is the right time to start sharing experience
and knowledge with all parties that take part in these developments, and use this experience and
knowledge to develop a cross-border conceptual framework. The PIANC community is the platform to
bring all involved parties (infrastructure providers, traffic managers, fleet owners, skippers, logistic
parties, research institutes, system providers, governments, etc.) together.
The PIANC Working Group will focus on smart shipping at inland waterways and look at the
developments from the perspective of infrastructure providers and traffic managers of inland waterways
to stimulate and maximise the deployment of smart shipping.
We are aware of the fact that Smart Shipping is on the agenda of several other organisations. As far as
we know, the focus of these working groups is mainly on maritime and coastal vessels, with the main
focus on the smart ship itself, and less focus on interaction of the vessels with the infrastructure and
the roles and task of the stakeholders. A PIANC Working Group focusing on the impact of smart
shipping on the users, processes and infrastructure of the inland waterways will be of added value.
Sharing knowledge should lead to common understanding of products already available on the market
and the current state of developments. Based on results from best practices, the working group can be
used to determine which factors are essential to further development of smart shipping, with attention
being paid to aspects that are important to waterway managers and authorities (for example,
developments should not have a negative impact on safety or sustainability). As a result, it should be
possible to determine if there are factors which are important to the development of smart shipping,
which are not picked up by individual parties. This could lead to research areas where further research
questions can be formulated. As a result, the PIANC community should also consider which roles
different parties can have within the development of smart shipping. For example, one can think about
which parties could become data suppliers.
Furthermore, smart shipping is an excellent subject to try to broaden the PIANC network with research
institutions, ship owners and others involved in the smart shipping field.
A.2 The Expected Impact of Smart Shipping

Developments on smart ships and smart shipping are widespread and diffused. Therefore, the possible
impact of smart shipping on for example safety, sustainability and competitiveness of the sector are still
under discussion. Nevertheless, some recent studies on the general impact of smart shipping (see
Annex A) show that smart shipping has a potential positive influence on the efficiency, safety,
sustainability and competitiveness of inland shipping. Although these effects are strongly depending
on, for example, the level of automation that is reached.
A.3 Task of the Working Group
A.3.1 Scope
This WG will focus on inland waterway transport.
Related to the definition given in this document, this WG will focus on:
• Smart traffic: specifically focusing on the developments which interact with infrastructure or
influence the role of the waterway manager related to infrastructure and traffic management. By

following these developments it becomes possible to have a discussion within the sector about the
roles each stakeholder could take within the development of smart ships, for example, related to
data provision.
• Smart regulations and facilitation: the related regulations concerning smart traffic and ships will be
analysed. The WG will review the various regulations that exist, and identify ‘severe constraints’
that may act against the implementation of Smart (autonomous) navigation. WG should refer to the
initiatives with ‘Testing areas’ where Smart vessels can be used and are allowed.
Thereby looking at the developments from the perspective of the infrastructure providers and traffic
managers taking into account the view of the logistic sector and the individual skipper.
Developments in other transport modes, like road, coastal and maritime transport will be used to learn
from.
This Working Group will build upon the knowledge and experiences that are gained in earlier Working
Groups on for example RIS and e-Navigation. The results from the working group could be input for
other Working Groups within InCom.
A.3.2 Tasks
The main task of this Working Group is to come to common understanding of smart shipping, its
possibilities, and its influence on tasks of the waterway authority like lock operation and vessel traffic
management and roles.
The approach used by the members of the workgroup will consist of several steps:
1. Set up of a detailed work programme, further detailing of scope, task and responsibilities, planning
and deliverables and milestones, taken into account the work fulfilled by existing PIANC Working
Groups and other international initiatives.
2. Inventory of existing developments, pilots, projects, communities and research. A first brief
overview of known initiatives is given in appendix A.
3. Desk Research and Study, during which team members collect, analyse and consolidate the current
available information through literature research and best practices (including communities).
4. Based on the results of step 1 an overall agreement on the following topics will be made:
a. common understanding of terms and definitions
b. first conclusions on for example benefits, legal issues, roles and tasks, information needs, no
regret solutions, etc.
c. identification of (research) gaps/questions
5. Proposals for a follow-up, also considering the need of this working group and in case it is decided
to go on in what way the Working Group should continue. This could be setting up a permanent
Working Group, a new Working Group of leaving additional work to other players or organisations.
These proposals are based on the results of this Working Group.
A.3.3 Suggested Final Products
Proposed results:
1. A report on the conclusions of the desk research

2. An overview of terms and definitions
3. An overview of the first conclusions
4. An overview of the identified research gaps
5. An overview of the relevant scenarios including agreed research questions for the next phase
(and if applicable indication of other Working Groups which have to deal with the questions.)
A.4 Recommended Members
International cooperation is required to support smart shipping development and implementation.
Recommended members are experts from the IW transport sector, infrastructure providers, traffic
managers of inland waterways, research institutes, universities, consultants and other international

organisations that have i.a. technical expertise on Inland Waterways, such as CCNR. Experience is
needed on the following topics:
• Inland Waterways transport sector

• Infrastructure management
• Traffic management
• Logistics
• Information technology (the use of computers to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data, or
information)
• Operational technology (the application of computers to monitor or alter the physical state of a
system, navigation support systems)
• Emerging technologies (Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data)
• Sensor technology
• Telecommunication (developments, capacity, reliability, availability, etc.)
There is a risk that not all the desired experts are able to contribute to this working group. Although
several countries have already build up a broad coalition of parties working together on this topic, parties
within these coalitions are expected to be easier convinced of the added value of a contribution to this
Working Group.
If this is not the case, stakeholders can be contacted via already existing national or international
already existing platforms and communities. In this way, there input can be used without actively
contributing to the Working Group.
A.5 Relevance for Countries in Transition
As stated before, smart shipping is a new development on Inland waters. There aren’t any autonomous
vessel sailing the waterways yet, and it could be a while before they do. On the other hand, the first
experience with drones and automated small vessels are executed and commercial use of inland cargo
vessels is planned for 2020 by some stakeholders. So all countries seems to be in transition. A lot of
developments are coming our way. To come to a common understanding of smart shipping, to share
experiences within countries and to discuss the possible impact on the infrastructure and traffic
management tasks is of interest of all countries in transition.
A.6 Working with Nature

The Working Group will raise the potential impacts of Smart Technologies on the environment, safety
and specifically on the sustainability of the proposed development (with links to the 17 SDG EU targets).

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
B.1 Glossary
Several terms, expressions and abbreviations have been used in this report which may not be familiar
to all users. A glossary of such terms is given below:
Device external to a vessel designed to assist in the determination of its position

and its safe course or to warn of changes or obstructions. In the case of channels
Aids to Navigation (AtoN)
such devices include buoys, piled beacons, leading lights, sector lights, radar
reflectors, etc.
0. No automation: the full-time performance by the human boatmaster of all

aspects of the dynamic navigation tasks, even when supported by warning or
intervention systems.
1. Steering assistance: the context-specific performance by a steering
automation system using certain information about the navigational
environment and with the expectation that the human boatmaster performs
all remaining aspects of the dynamic navigation tasks.
2. Partial automation: the context-specific performance by a navigation
automation system of both steering and propulsion using certain information
about the navigational environment and with the expectation that the human
boatmaster performs all remaining aspects of the dynamic navigation tasks.
Levels of automation 3. Conditional automation: the sustained context-specific performance by a
[CCNR, 2018] navigation automation system of all dynamic navigation tasks, including
collision avoidance, with the expectation that the human boatmaster will be
receptive to requests to intervene and to system failures and will respond
appropriately.
4. High automation: the sustained context-specific performance by a
navigation automation system of all dynamic navigation tasks and fallback
performance, without expecting a human boatmaster responding to a request
to intervene. (This level introduces two different functionalities: the ability of
“normal” operation without expecting human intervention and the exhaustive
fallback performance. Two sublevels could be envisaged.)
5. Autonomous = full automation: the sustained and unconditional
performance by a navigation automation system of all dynamic navigation
tasks and fallback performance, without expecting a human boatmaster
responding to a request to intervene.
An organisation that develops official standards for the shipping industry and
Classification society checks the condition of ships and their equipment to make certain they are safe and
meet the official standards of the shipping industry (‘Classification society’, n.d.)
A place where all the needed navigation and other tasks related to the safe voyage
Remote-control centre of a ship are executed. This place is not located on the ship itself but can for
example be on shore or on another vessel.

River Information Services. These services help optimising the transport on inland
waterways. Services include:
FIS – Fairway Information Services
TI – Traffic Information Services
TM – Traffic Management
CAS – Calamity Abatement Support
ITL – information for logistics
ILE – Law Enforcement
RIS
ST – Statistics
CHD – Waterway Charges and Harbour Dues
Four core technologies are used to deliver the above services:

ERI – Electronic Reporting International
Nts – Notices to Skippers
iENC – Inland Electronic Navigational Chart
VTT – Vessel Tracking and Tracing
Boatmaster The person in command of vessel operation on inland waterways
B.2 Abbreviations
4G Fourth generation of broadband cellular network technology

5G Fifth generation of broadband cellular network technology
AI Artificial Intelligence
AIS Automatic Identification System
AtoN Aids to Navigation
AUVSI Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
AWO American Waterways Operators
CCNR Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine
CCS China Classification Society
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CESNI European Committee for the Development of Standards in the Field of Inland Navigation
CMTS Committee of the Marine Transportation System
COLREGS International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
DC Danube Commission
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECDIS Electronic Chart and Display Information System
ENC Electronic Navigational Chart
ERI Electronic Reporting International
ES-QIN European Standard for Inland Navigation Qualifications
ES-TRIN European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels
EU European Union
FAA Functional Area Analysis
FIS Fairway Information Services

FNA Functional Needs Analysis
FSA Functional Solutions Analysis
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System
IAIA International Association for Impact assessment
IALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation & Lighthouse Authorities
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IHO International Hydrographic Organisation
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
INAS International Network for Autonomous Ships
InCom Inland Navigation Commission of PIANC
IRPT Inland Rivers, Ports and Terminals
IWT Inland Waterway Transport
IWW Inland Waterways
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LOMA Lock Operations Management Application
LPMS Lock Performance Management Services
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MASS Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
MC Moselle Commission
MSA Maritime Safety Administration
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency
NtS Notices to Skippers
PIANC The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
PPP Precise Point Positioning
RADAR Radio Detection and Ranging
RCC Remote-Control Centre
RIS River Information Systems
RISE River Information Services Enterprise
SC Sava Commission
SMASH! Smart Shipping: Highly Automated Sailing at Sea, in Ports and on Inland Waterways
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
STCW
Seafarers
TI Traffic Information Services
TM Traffic Management Information

TRB Transportation Research Board
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
UNCLOS United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
USACE United Stated Army Corps of Engineers
USCG US Coast Guard
VDES Very High Frequency (VHF) Data Exchange System
VHF Very High Frequency; Frequency range within maritime communication is being transmitted
VR Virtual Reality
VTS Vessel Traffic Service; a marine traffic monitoring system established by local authorities
WG Working Group (PIANC)

APPENDIX C INVENTORY ANALYSIS: CONSIDERED PROJECTS
This appendix contains a short description and the objectives of the projects that were researched
during the inventory analysis.
• SPW, Testing Automated navigation on the Charleroi-Maubeuge link

- The objective is to analyse the technical feasibility of autonomous navigation adapted to a river.
At the end of this testing period, the partner company will submit a final report containing a
technical action plan to ensure partial automation of navigation on this stretch of waterway.
- This project consists of three stages.
o The first stage : 3 parts' project
▪ Connect the two poles with a skipper and a remote control on board. Empty 38m50
boat.
▪ Connect the two poles without a skipper and one remote control from the tow. Boat of
38m50 full.
▪ Connect the two poles by an operator from a control centre onshore.
o Second phase will be an economic analysis
o Third phase will be a procurement
• Seafar
- The objective is to test Seafar software on a Class II IWW ship that will sail remotely controlled
on smaller inland waterways.
- On the canal Plassendale-Oostende a ship needs to move sand. The project will try to move
the cargo with a remote-controlled ship without a skipper on board.
• De Vlaamse Waterweg, Autoship

- Objectives are testing with a Pallet Shuttle Barge, validate R&A technologies, reducing OPEX
up to 40 %, regulatory, societal, economic, (cyber)security and safety analysis, reduce fuel
consumption, evaluate social costs.
- AUTOSHIP will do an analysis of the as is situation, identify the gaps to enable remote
controlled ships on inland waterways (and also on short sea shipping trajectories). The gaps
will be discussed inside international organisations. Furthermore, a Pallet Shuttle Barge will be
adapted to sail remotely controlled. The project ends with a demonstration test of this barge
sailing on Flemish inland waterways.
• Hull2Hull
- The objective is to address the need of the maritime community to safely navigate in close
proximity of other vessels and objects, being stationary or moving. For inland waterways this
will be navigating through locks. Note that this project focusses on reduced crew and not on
unmanned shipping.
- It is essential for the maritime community to navigate safely in close proximity of other stationary
or moving vessels and objects. The Hull to Hull (H2H) project, with the help of the European
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), EGNOS and Galileo, will address this need,
helping mariners in taking correct navigation decisions, and creating the fundamental condition
for autonomous vessels. The H2H approach will allow actors to establish uncertainty zones for
own vessel as well as neighbouring objects with high precision and high integrity. The project
includes implementation of a pilot sensor package, to be demonstrated in Norway
(simultaneous operation) and Belgium (inland waterway operation and auto-mooring
operation).
• SCIPPPER: Lock assistance system based on PPP and VDES for inland navigation
- The collaborative research project aims to develop an assistance system for automated lock
entry/exit manoeuvres. The technological background for the new assistance system is the
provision of precise information about the vessels position, speed and orientation. The data will
be supplied over the new VHF Data Exchange (VDE) channel.
- The collaborative research project focuses on the following work tasks:
o Development of a VDE communication system for transfer of GNSS correction data
(PPP/SSR) and waterway information (WIS).

o Development of an offboard service to provide integrity tested GNSS correction data with
a low bitrate based on State Space Representation (SSR) correction as well as information
on waterways and locks.
o Development of algorithms and procedures for onboard measurement of position, location
and speed with high accuracy using SSR corrections.
o Development of methods for the evaluation and representation of vicinity sensors for lock
entry assistance systems.
o Development of a controller for automated lock entry.
o Experimental validation and demonstration of the developed techniques and systems.
o Validation of the driver assistance system on a ship handling simulator.
• BearingPoint GmbH, DSA (Digital Skipper Assistance)

- The project ‘Digital Skipper Assistant’ aims for a more efficient use of the federal waterways
through an intelligent linking of data on an innovative platform application.
- At the centre of the research approach are the possibilities of better water level prediction as
well as interfaces and new platform-based cooperation possibilities between the actors of inland
shipping.
- The aim of the project is a Digital Skipper Assistant (DSA), which is geared to the requirements
for route and cargo planning inland waterway transport.
- The DSA is intended to enable the practice-oriented use of current research results in order to
further improve the economy of inland shipping and thus support a sustainable modal split.
- Cooperation partners in the project are the Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Technical
University of Berlin.
• Rijkswaterstaat, Smart Shipping Strategy Analysis

- The objective of this research was to give an insight in the potential impact of Smart Shipping
on the role and task of Rijkswaterstaat (the Dutch fairway authority).
- The research project consisted of three stages.
o The first stage: preform a scenario study with potential future scenarios for society, based
on current existing trends and developments. The chosen timeframe for these scenarios:
2030. From these scenarios a picture is painted on how smart shipping could develop within
those scenarios. Ranging from limited further development of smart shipping due to less
acceptance of the public for smart solutions to implementing smart shipping on part of the
inland fleet.
o The second stage of the research consisted of the research on the potential impact of these
scenarios on the role and task of Rijkswaterstaat. Looking at for example fairway
maintenance, traffic management and the possible changes of the (digital) infrastructure.
o The third and last stage was trying to identify possible measure or moves that
Rijkswaterstaat could make on this moment based on the foreseen futures.
• MarinMinds, USV Perceptor

- The objective is to develop AI systems capable of controlling smaller and on the long term
larger ships unmanned in ports, rivers and other waters
- To ensure port authorities are continuously updated on the status and intentions of Unmanned
Ships entering the port, Groningen Seaports asked MarinMinds to develop a ‘Situational
Awareness Connectivity Module’: exchanging real-time sensor-data between the USV and the
Traffic Control Centre. Our success is built on the expertise of an international team of marine,
automotive and IT engineers, our first-class prototypes, development platforms and
autonomous shipping test areas.
• Port of Amsterdam, Telemetron: marginal ships inspections nearshore

- Gain experience with unmanned, autonomous or remote controlled, vessels with the purpose
of near-shore inspections.
- The pilot was set up based on the desire to gain more knowledge and experience with sailing
drone technology. This development goes together with autonomously sailing ships that have
a major impact on nautical processes in the future. With the experiment, the first steps are taken
to map out what that impact is, where the potential of the technology can lie for the port
company and what steps the port company must take to be ready for a more structural
commitment in the future. The pilot was set up in collaboration with Seabed. This system

integrator from Amsterdam has brought the Telemetron of Maritime Robotics from Norway to
the Netherlands for the test week. The Telemetron is the Maritime Robotics research vessel on
which they test their hardware and software. Seabed provides the measuring equipment on
board the Telemetron. Customs is also participating in this pilot. Customs is interested in
checking ship hulls of ships entering the ports, with the aim of further perfecting customs
supervision. For the pilot, the process of checking marginal ships has been chosen. These are
ships whose draft is such that they need an exemption to pass the Noordersluis. The process,
which consists of a salt measurement at Fort Island and the reading of six brands on the hull of
a ship, lends itself well to testing drone technology. During the week, sub-scenarios simulate
the steps of the draft control process with the drone. The depth location is then calculated and
in combination with the salinity it is determined whether the ship can lock in the Noordersluis or
needs to be lifted. A measurement of the salinity is important, because it is lower behind the
locks than before the locks, so that ships lie deeper in the water behind the locks. The pilot
takes place between regular shipping traffic. There is therefore a lot of attention for safety. A
permit has been requested for the pilot. During the test phase, the Telemetron will be ‘manned’,
even though it can sail (semi) autonomously. Joost Zuidema, project manager from Port of
Amsterdam: "Safety is our first priority, which is why we have chosen to put a skipper on the
Telemetron in the pilot phase. We can test unmanned sailing in the next phase. With this pilot,
we want to gain experience with the various parties and gain insight into the possibilities of
being prepared for what will happen in the future. To rule is to look into the future.”
• AMS Institute & MIT, Roboat

- Roboat is a five-year research program on autonomous vessels that helps solving urban
challenges of the city of Amsterdam. The goal is explores and tests the rich set of possibilities
for autonomous systems on water: transport people, deliver goods, collect waste, dynamic
infrastructure and environmental sensing.
- Roboat is a five-year research project and collaboration between the Amsterdam Institute for
Advanced Metropolitan Solutions and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In developing
the world's first fleet of autonomous floating vessels for the city of Amsterdam, it investigates
the potential of self-driving technology to change our cities and their waterways. Roboat is a
new kind of on-demand infrastructure: autonomous platforms will combine together to form
floating bridges and stages, collect waste, deliver goods, and transport people, all while
collecting data about the city. Depending on the assignment Roboat is given, the boat is able
to determine the optimal route from A to B in the Amsterdam canals. Roboat does not only
consider how busy it is on the water, and incorporates the characteristics of the canals and
bridges such as width and height, it also takes into account possible obstacles that it might
encounter on the canals.
• Wuhan University of Technology, Application of the Navigation Brain System to the Nanjing
Benqiao Ferry for Navigation Assistance
- The objective of this research was to study and provide a whole solution for smart ships, i.e.
the Navigation Brain System. The project itself focuses on environment perception and
navigation assistance, especially for nights and foggy weather.
- This project is a joint industry project, in which Wuhan University cooperates with the Ferry
Administration in Nanjing. The project starts from a study of the needs of the ferry, such as
environmental enhancement for navigation during nights and in foggy days. The facilities and
equipment are connected and merged into the Navigation Brain System to have a full collection
of data such as the RADAR, LiDAR, CCTV, etc. Furthermore, other ships that sail in the
waterway are precepted by such sensers on the ferry and on shore. The information is cloned
into a digital world that gives a full vision of the navigation environment. Additionally, navigation
assistance is given for decision making whether the ferry should proceed to sail across the
river. The system has been deployed on 6 ferries and a follow-up project is ongoing to install
the system on another 8 ferries. Further demonstration will be given for remote-control and
autonomous navigation within three years as part of another project.
• Wuhan University of Technology, Application of the Navigation Brain System to a 64 TEU Smart
Inland Container Ship
- The objective of this research was to study and provide a whole solution for smart ships, i.e.
the Navigation Brain System. The project itself focuses on using advanced propulsion system,

i.e. rim-driven thruster and containerised batteries, and smart technology, i.e. the NBS system,
to construct a green and smart ship.
- This project is a joint industry project, which Wuhan University cooperates with about ten
different partners The project starts from a study of the needs of the inland container ship, such
as navigation assistance, clean energy, efficient propulsion and zero emission. The system that
has been deployed for the Nanjing Banqiao Ferry will be installed for navigation assistance. A
full-directional rim driven thruster and a bow thruster are installed to improve the
manoeuvrability of the ship at different speed. Containerised batters and electrical engines are
proved to improve the propulsion efficiency with the rim-driven thruster. Emission will be zero
as full-electric system is sued. Further demonstration will be given for remote-control and
autonomous navigation within three years as part of another project.
• Netherlands Maritime Technology, NOVIMAR: NOVel Iwt and MARitime transport concepts
- Provide opportunities for increased flexibility in cargo destinations, use of waterways and crew
deployment.
- The project investigates to what extent automatisation is possible and feasible for convoys.
The vessel-train concept is based on the combination of one manned leading ship with less
manned vessels in a platooning unit. The project aims at strengthening inland navigation by
introducing more flexible transport solutions and by reducing transport costs. Additionally, the
greater automatisation should have a positive impact on the safety of navigation.
• BearingPoint GmbH, SINLOG: Standardisation Approach to connect Inland Navigation to

intermodal Logistics
- Standardisation for the digital integration of inland navigation into intermodal transport logistics.
- The aim is to achieve greater attractiveness, efficiency, reliability and credibility of inland
navigation within a trimodal logistics. The research identifies solutions and test the digital
integration including blockchain for inland navigation into intermodal logistics chains by
examining a mode-relevant standardisation and data governance.
• FernBin: Remote controlled and coordinated shipping of inland vessels

- The objective is to investigate the possibilities of coordinated, remote-controlled navigation of
inland vessels.
- The operating and display options for controlling a barge are to be implemented in a remote -
steering station on land. By equipping the ship with adequate sensors, all necessary information
about the ship and its surroundings shall be also available in the remote steering station. In
addition, the rudders, propulsion, and the other navigation devices as well as signalling and
communication equipment must be capable of remote control. Safe data transmission to the
remote-steering station on land is an important point. The skipper navigating from there is
relieved by assistance functions in his tasks. For example, automatic track guidance
significantly reduces the frequency of steering interventions. A collision warning system informs
the Skipper about dangerous situations in good time.

PIANC HQ: Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20 B. 3 | 1000 Brussels | Belgium
http://www.pianc.org | VAT BE 408-287-945 | ISBN 978-2-87223-015-0

© All rights reserved
COVER PICTURE: Lock Albertkanaal | Diepenbeek: provided by de Vlaamse Waterweg

InCom-WG-210-SMART SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERWAYS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

InCom-WG-210-SMART SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERWAYS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIANC

The World Association for Waterborne

SMART SHIPPING ON INLAND WATERWAYS

InCom Working Group Report N° 210 – 2022

PIANC INCOM WG 210 1

PIANC INCOM WG 210 2

© All rights reserved

PIANC INCOM WG 210 3

GENERAL ASPECTS .................................................................................................................................... 7

INVENTORY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 10

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................. 16

PIANC INCOM WG 210 4

USE CASES SMART SHIPPING ................................................................................................................. 27

FUNCTIONAL AREA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 33

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................................................ 41

PIANC INCOM WG 210 5

APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ....................................................................... 55

APPENDIX C INVENTORY ANALYSIS: CONSIDERED PROJECTS ................................................................. 59

PIANC INCOM WG 210 6

PIANC INCOM WG 210 7

• What information is necessary on board of a ship and ashore (authority tasks)?

Chapter 6 lists recommendations for the future.

Related PIANC Reports

Guidelines and Recommendations for River Information

PIANC Report No. InCom WG 125/III RIS-Related Definitions 2019

Report on the Developments in the Automation and Remote

PIANC INCOM WG 210 8

• Lea Kuiters, WG 210 Chairperson, Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

PIANC INCOM WG 210 9

1) General information, such as project title, organisation, duration, etc.

2.2 Inventory Analysis Projects

PIANC INCOM WG 210 10

Table 1: Smart shipping projects reviewed by WG 210 (status September 2019)

• Smart vessel: navigation, maintenance

Interactions with Other Ships and Infrastructure During Testing

PIANC INCOM WG 210 11

Level of automation Technology development Policy development Functional testing

Figure 1: Overview of the levels of automation as envisaged by the investigated projects

Data & Information

PIANC INCOM WG 210 12

Policy projects did not focus on specific technology.

Technology and functional projects had a broad focus:

Partners and Stakeholders

• What is needed from ports and governments:

• What is needed from skippers and ship owners:

PIANC INCOM WG 210 13

Impact and Influence

• The remote-control centre will influence the way of working

Identified challenges are seen on two levels:

PIANC INCOM WG 210 14

PIANC INCOM WG 210 15

PIANC INCOM WG 210 16

Inland navigation in Europe is currently regulated by a variety of rules passed by international

A lot of inland water transport regulation generated/established by the aforementioned international

Policy Area 1: Definitions

Policy Area 2: Competences and Crew Qualification

PIANC INCOM WG 210 17

Policy Area 4: Presence of the Boatmaster and Crew Members On Board

Policy Area 5: Responsibility and Liability

Policy Area 6: Communication between the Vessel and a Competent

PIANC INCOM WG 210 18

Policy Area 8: Cybersecurity

Policy Area 9: Inland Waterway Infrastructure