Good Navigation Status Regional GNS workshop Berlin, 17 October 2016
Agenda for today 9:30 Welcome and introduction 9:45 Presentation of EMMA project and link to GNS study 10:00 Presentation of Good Navigation Status study 10:20 Questions & answers 10:30 Coffee break 10:45 Navigation standards along the East ‐ West IWT corridor on view on GNS concept 11:30 Questions & answers 11:45 Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS 12:15 Questions, answers and discussion 12:45 Lunch 13:30 Discussion on selected GNS aspects and indicators for East ‐ West IWT corridor 14:00 Discussion on possible exemption criteria for non ‐ compliance with Art. 15 § 3.(a) of the TEN ‐ T guidelines 14:30 Contributions and discussion on Good Practice Guidelines based on initial overview of topics 15:00 Discussion on implications of GNS assessment: Bottlenecks / Projects 15:20 Conclusions and actions, further cooperation 2 15:30 Closing
Presentation of Good Navigation Status study Martin Quispel, GNS Consortium/STC-NESTRA 3
Background and purpose of GNS study To substantiate Article 15 §3.(b) of TEN ‐ T Guidelines (Reg.1315/2013) as regards Good Navigation Status : Member States shall ensure that on the Comprehensive Network “ Rivers, canals and lakes are maintained so as to preserve Good Navigation Status while respecting the applicable environmental law ” Article 38: “For inland navigation infrastructure within the TEN ‐ T core network , Good Navigation Status has to be achieved (and thereafter preserved) by 31 December 2030 .” 4
Background and purpose of GNS study Entire TEN ‐ T inland waterway network – Not only core network corridors – All CEMT ≥ IV waterways – Including (isolated) inland waterways in Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Italy, Portugal and Spain – Good Practice also of interest for CEMT <IV waterways and non ‐ EU countries 5
Implications and possible outcome Use of result is “open”: Technical background for the legal interpretation of Article 15 §3.(b): e.g. Input for a Staff Working Document by DG MOVE Basis for project selection criteria by INEA (CEF funding..) No new targets will be set by the study Proposals, oriented on existing agreements Focus on „how to implement targets“ and „monitor performance“ 6
Planned Deliverables Study 1/2016 – 10/2017: Agreed GNS components and requirements (quant./qual.) Monitoring and reporting options and requirements Input to TENtec Database IWW Glossary Specification of exemption criteria to Art. 15 § 3.(a) GNS network assessment ‐ GNS parameters and KPIs Roadmaps for critical GNS sections Good Practice Guidelines for implementation of GNS 7
Status Ongoing bilateral expert contacts and discussions Survey on GNS elements among European Working Group Input to updated draft TENtec glossary Draft discussion papers on GNS concept Presentation, discussion of concept: EFIP Executive Committee , 7 – 8 April 2016, Vukovar CCNR Roundtable 2 March 2016, Strasbourg Pan ‐ European meeting on 20June 2016, Rotterdam Regional workshops Klaipeda, Budapest, Strasbourg, Berlin 8
The GNS Working Group Purpose: to keep track of work and exchange feedback, discuss intermediate results Members: o Experts from river commissions: CCNR, DC, MC, SC o Experts from national and regional waterway managers and ministries of transport o Experts from the European Commission o Experts from IWT industry o Experts representing other uses/users of rivers, lakes and canals Method : 3 pan European meetings (2016 – 2017), regional workshops, dedicated meetings and/or surveys 9
Today’s session Specific focus of discussion with you: • Overall GNS concept and approach GNS components and key performance indicators • • First discussion on exemption criteria: interpretation of TEN ‐ T minimum requirements for draught and height under bridges and stocktaking on possible criteria • Focus topics and possible contributions as regards good practices and needed guidelines for achieving GNS 10
Basic outline of GNS concept 11
1st Pan ‐ European Working Group 20/6/2016 Main outcome: Broad range of views – varying between broad and extensive GNS approaches to a very narrow and focused scope. Outcome of 20 June: GNS concept shall be flexible and take regional conditions and different user segments into account The focus needs to be laid on how to achieve and maintain GNS rather than setting quantitative targets GNS elements shall not duplicate relevant existing legal regulations Good practices for supranational cooperation exist, but need to be extended GNS shall foster the exchange of good practices and benchmarks GNS activities should contribute to the achievement of agreed standards and implementation of regulations/plans Monitoring shall be a major topic in work on GNS 12
Background of GNS concept What is important for Good Navigation Status? – Maximising payload on board, economies of scale – Minimising waiting times – Reliability and predictability of transport – Safety – Sustainability (o.a. fuel consumption, working with nature) Article 15 b: “Rivers, canals and lakes are maintained so as to preserve good navigation status” key focus physical waterway infrastructure 13
Proposed definition of “Good Navigation Status” “Good Navigation Status (GNS) means the state of the inland navigation transport network, which enables efficient , reliable and safe navigation for users by ensuring minimum waterway parameter values and levels of service .” Moreover, GNS is to be achieved considering the wider socioeconomic and environmental sustainability of waterway management. 14
Proposed elements of the GNS concept 1. Quantitative measureable “hard” components related to the output of waterway management addressing the navigability standards for users Dimensions of navigation channels, locks and bridges and their availability over time 2. Process related and/or qualitative “soft” components Waterway infrastructure management process (e.g. maintenance), traffic management process (e.g. information to users) and wider scope (e.g. facilities along waterways) 3. Minimum standards of a process to define GNS objectives , implementation , monitoring, application of exemptions and revision of the GNS concept 15
Outline of GNS concept
Main findings Klaipeda workshop Klaipeda: • Fairway marking regarded as important issue to improve fairway conditions, in particular as regards lakes • Mixed traffic waterways: Focus of GNS on inland navigation transport networks, reference could be made to waterways belonging to zones 3 and 4 in regulation on technical requirements of inland navigation vessels (EC 2006/87/EC) • Approaches on ice handling: Ice class requirements for vessels and either continuity of traffic (SE) or seasonal closure (FI) • Coordination with third countries is challenge and is seen as barrier for EU funding (e.g. Saimaa canal on land rented from Russia) • Focus on “soft” components, e.g. traffic management and regulation in SE/FI • Lock construction required to improve fairway conditions in LT, but legal restrictions prevent such construction • Question as regards the consideration of river currents 17
Main findings Budapest workshop Budapest: • A wide stakeholder integration is very important (e.g. environment) • Don’t forget requirements for passenger cruise vessels • Hint for the GNS process: similarities and lessons to be learned from WFD • Current targets according international agreements already challenging! • Need for clear reference water levels • Make use of existing data(bases) and link/integrate them • Waiting times at borders (KPI) to be addressed, but to be treated seperately • We are only at the beginning…focus first on ‘need to haves’ (e.g. in guidelines) 18
Main findings Strasbourg workshop Strasbourg: • Legal basis and good practices by CCNR (waterway profile, procedures, additional parameters etc.) • CEMT ‐ classification based on horizontal dimensions • Strong need for distinction between types of waterways • All ‐ year availability of draught not realistic for free ‐ flowing rivers; no general rules apply because of geography and water supply (e.g. GlW for Rhine) • KPI on seamless transport needs to address complete journey and reliability of estimated time of arrival (ETA) • High relevance of RIS for Good Navigation and need for service requirements • Exemptions only for a limited number of sections and issues; deviations related to local conditions without approval; exogenous vs. endogenous factors • Adminsitrative burden of (TENtec) monitoring; focus on critical sections • Consideration of sustainability (“working with nature”, economic feasibility etc.) important • Objectives of WFD and TEN ‐ T are not per se contradictory 19
Recommend
More recommend
