Good Navigation Status Regional GNS workshop Berlin, 17 October 2016 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Good Navigation Status

Regional GNS workshop

Berlin, 17 October 2016

2

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

• f topics

15:00 Discussion on implications of GNS assessment: Bottlenecks / Projects 15:20 Conclusions and actions, further cooperation 15:30 Closing

3

Presentation of Good Navigation Status study

Martin Quispel, GNS Consortium/STC-NESTRA

• 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

Background and purpose of GNS study

• 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

Implications and possible outcome

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

Planned Deliverables

• 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

Status

• Purpose:

 to keep track of work and exchange feedback, discuss intermediate results

• Members:
• Experts from river commissions: CCNR, DC, MC, SC
• Experts from national and regional waterway managers and

ministries of transport

• Experts from the European Commission
• Experts from IWT industry
• 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

The GNS Working Group

10

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

11

Basic outline of GNS concept

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

1st Pan‐European Working Group 20/6/2016

13

• 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

Background of GNS concept

14

“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.

Proposed definition of “Good Navigation Status”

15

• 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

Proposed elements of the GNS concept

Outline of GNS concept

17

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

Main findings Klaipeda workshop

18

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)

Main findings Budapest workshop

19

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

Main findings Strasbourg workshop

20

Users:

• Objective: seamless navigation 24/7 – reliability & predictability
• Key focus on hard components and CBA as tool
• Differentiation according to characteristics of waterways
• In‐advance information and consultation on closures for maintenance and repair

– Replicate good practice 1 year in advance (e.g. Mosel) – Replicate good practice consultation COV – Ideally cross‐border corridor linked to exemption procedure

• Swift communication for incidents through the entire corridor via traffic centres
• Forecasting
• Climate change impacts to be taken into consideration

– Low Water: forecasting – High Water: anticipate with retention areas

• Lock: problem analysis preceeds corridor mgmt
• Mooring places and car‐lift facilities to be included in concept

Main findings user workshop

21

Navigation standards along the East-West IWT corridor on view on GNS concept

MS experts

22

Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS; part a) the draft GNS Concept

Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium/Planco

23

Implementation of:

• 1. Article 15.3 a)

CEMT IV minimum requirements or an exemption in a duly justified case (key issues: 2.5m draught; 5.25m height under bridges)

• 2. Article 16 b)

In promotion of projects of common interests, giving priority to reaching higher standards than class IV where appropriate when modernising existing or creating new waterways

• 3. Articles 15.3 c) and article 39.2 b)

RIS implementation and availability of clean fuels

Legal Requirements

24

Implementation of:

• 3. Article 15.3 b)

“Rivers, canals and lakes shall be maintained so as to preserve good navigation status”  proposed hard and soft GNS components

• 4. Exemptions as defined in article 15.3 a)

 Elaborated definition, proposed criteria and process  5. Minimum standards of a process for the development, implementation and monitoring of “Good Navigation Status”

Legal Requirements

Outline of GNS concept

26

• Focus physical waterway infrastructure: navigability

standards for users (fairway, locks, bridges)

• Applies to the entire TEN‐T waterway network
• Subject to TEN‐T or AGN
• Experts in the GNS working group confirm high priority
• SMART criteria apply: quantitative European parameter

values to measure Good Navigation Status on EU level is possible via KPIs

• Possible to be monitored via the TENtec database of the

European Commission ( session 3b)

GNS “hard” components

27

• 2 proposed KPIs for GNS: Navigation Reliability and Waiting

times

• KPI on Navigation Reliability
• Link to articles 15.3 (a) and 16.(b) (class IV or higher)
• Daily availability of draught, height, width and length per year
• TEN – T objective: 365 d/year or reference to local conditions

according to ECMT Resolution 92/2 on classification of waterways?

• KPI on Waiting times
• Waiting time at locks

KPIs for GNS “hard” components

28

• Process‐related components which contribute to score of “hard”

components

– infrastructure management (e.g. maintenance, marking) – traffic management (e.g. information to users)

• Wider scope of inland navigation infrastructure (e.g. facilities

along waterways)

• Specific EU regulations already apply (e.g. RIS, clean fuels)
• Relevance may be limited to specific regions
• No need for quantitative measurable parameters across Europe
• n section level
• Experts in the GNS working group confirm their relevance

GNS “soft” components

29

• Process ‐ oriented “How to reach GNS”?
• Identifying objectives for “soft” components:

 Selected benchmarks and guidelines described in Good Practice Manual on GNS ( session 5)  To be defined according to minimum standards of process for development of GNS (tbd)  Monitoring and reporting based on minimum requirements (checklists)

• GNS Concept as regards guidance and checklists for soft

components shall focus first on the key topics and can be expanded and further elaborated in future

GNS “soft” components

30

Purpose:

• Not only focus on the output of GNS, but on how to reach it
• To reach agreements on exemptions for GNS hard components
• To reach agreements on „soft“ GNS objectives/benchmarks, if

applicable

• To foster implementation and maintenance of GNS
• To monitor GNS process
• Study defines minimum standards of the process in order to keep it

flexible and applicable to existing, well‐functioning mechanisms

Process to develop GNS

31

Draft minimum standards I:

• Objectives/Measures are developed in a coordinated way between

waterway managers (if applicable – (trans‐)nationally/regionally coordinated)

• Systematic consideration of:
• TEN‐T minimum requirements
• The transport potential demand and user requirements of a waterway

section (domestic and foreign)

• The applicable environmental law. Where possible, synergies are

created (“working with nature”)

• Further uses of a river, canal or lake (cross‐sectoral)
• Overall socio economic impacts of measures (costs vs benefits)
• Possibilities of innovation and technological development (ship design,

maintenance technologies..)

Process to develop GNS I

32

Draft minimum standards II:

• Monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of measures
• Targeting a continuous improvement process and pro‐active

implementation

• Regular implementation of the process, frequency depending on the

type of measures and maturity as regards GNS

• Communication and discussion with the involved users by the

waterway managers about status and planned measures

Process to develop GNS II

33

• GNS parameters and quantitative KPIs related to the physical

waterway infrastructure and its use

• Exemptions as regards CEMT IV 2.5m draught and 5.25m height

based on specific criteria

• Minimum standards of process to define exemptions, develop

and monitor maintenance measures

• Additional “softer” elements, flexible approach using

qualitative descriptions, checklists inspired by good practices

• Process to reach GNS, enforcement of objectives, monitoring
• Taking into account external factors such as: innovation, market

development, climate change, …

• Link to Good Practice Guidelines on how to reach GNS

Summary GNS concept

34

Discussion

• What is your view on the GNS concept and approach as

presented?

• Do you agree?
• Do you have comments and/or suggestions for

modification?

• What is your view on the minimum standards, do you agree,

what are your comments/suggestions for modification?

• Your view on process to develop/monitor GNS?
• Is it applicable in practice?
• Into what extent is the process already `common practice’,

e.g. as regards the minimum standards?

• Are there elements missing/redundant?

35

Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS; part b) KPIs and monitoring

Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium/Planco

36

Waterway parameters

• Draught of vessel ( depth of fairway channel)
• Beam of vessel ( width and curve radius of fairway channel)
• Height of vessel ( air clearance under bridges and other infrastructure)
• Length of vessel ( curve radius of waterway and size of locks)

KPI: Navigation Reliability of a specific (TENtec) section

• Availability of the physical waterway infrastructure:

yearly score on reaching the targeted infrastructure dimensions KPI: Waiting times

• Capacity/use of locks, ship lifts, moveable bridge:

Average waiting time of vessels

GNS “hard” components and proposed KPIs

KPI Navigation Reliability

Navigation reliability

• f a specific section:
• > Targeted

dimensions met in days/year

Targeted physical dimensions for vessel/convoy at waterway section:

• Draught/depth navigation channel
• Height under bridges
• Beam
• Length

Availability of physical dimensions:

• Available depth/width navigation

channel

• Available height under bridges

Closures of waterways >24h

• Man-made (announced >12 weeks

in advance) and/or natural causes

• For waterway links and objects

(locks, bridges)

Navigation dimensions of a specific section:

• >Targeted

Classification CEMT class IV targets KPI for GNS Local targets

Targeted navigation dimensions: Min CEMT class IV (article 15.3(a)):

• 2.5m draught/5.25m height under bridges
• n 365d/year (or local conditions (92/2 ECMT resolution))?

and Local target value (higher than CEMT class IV):

• 3.2m fairway depth
• at the applicable reference water level (e.g. WL Hohnsdorf >=4.3m)
• r

Local target value (exemption):

• 1.6m fairway depth and 5.57 m height under bridges
• at the applicable reference water level (e.g. 345 days/year – ELWL;

355 days/year – BW10)

Examples

38

KPIs ‐ lock

Navigation reliability of a specific lock/ section: -> Targeted dimensions met in days/year Targeted physical dimensions for vessel/convoy at lock:

• Draught/fairway depth
• Height
• Beam
• Length

Closures of locks >24h

• Man-made and/or natural

causes

• For waterway links and objects

(locks, bridges) Navigation dimensions of a specific lock/section:

• >Targeted Classification

Availability of locks

• capacity and use

Waiting time at a specific lock/ section during peak times CEMT class IV targets Local targets KPIs for GNS

• Indicator is strongly demanded by Industry
• Definition is varying
• Data is not available all across Europe
• Accept fuzziness?
• Elaborate “waiting times” indicator until 2030?
• Find alternative indicators?
• Average chamber utilisation, average operation time, number of

vessels waiting, ..

• Apply a model based approach?
• Collection of lock and traffic characteristics and simulation with

standardised model?  high efforts

40

KPI Waiting times at locks

41

Monitoring based on TENtec

• TENtec: Multimodal European database for TEN‐T Network development
• IWW part: parameters on characteristics and performance of waterway links,

locks and bridges

• TENtec shall serve as tool to monitor parameters and KPIs on GNS (first

data collection is running, additional will follow)

• GNS study provided first input for revised glossary:

improved parameters and definitions

• Further contribution by GNS study to achieve meaningful data set for

2016 and the next years to come

• Initial data collection will be base for network assessment
• Focus on GNS hard components
• Total 58 parameters, of which 22 dynamic
• Further data collection planned for 2017

Key Performance Indicators for GNS

• Address navigability standards (physical infrastructure, “hard” GNS

components)

• KPI: Navigation reliability of a specific (TENtec) section (availability of

navigation dimensions, closures)

• KPI: Waiting time at locks, ship lifts, moveable bridge
• Definition to be elaborated
• to be monitored via TENtec

Targets:

• CEMT class IV
• “Local targets” – higher classes or exemptions to be agreed; at

applicable reference water level

42

Summary

• Do you agree with the KPIs for GNS?
• What is your view on feasibility/data availability?
• “Local targets” – your view on measuring fairway depth instead of draught?

Your view on relating it to reference water level?

• Reference values for factor draught/depth?

Recommended ratio fairway depth/draught : 1.4 (e.g. Dutch Waterway Guidelines, PIANC) ; Danube / Rhine: required depth ≈ draught + 0.2 ‐ 0.3m; Reasonable for Elbe, Oder, Mittelweser etc.?

• Waterway closures only >24 hrs, or more detail?
• When are man‐made closures considered as ‘planned’? Announcement to users

12 weeks in advance sufficient?

• Which significant developments expected towards 2030 as regards data

availability (technological innovation..) that may facilitate GNS assessment/ monitoring?

43

Questions for discussion

44

First proposal of exemption criteria for non- compliance with Art. 15.3(a)by GNS consortium, discussion on possible criteria and examples

Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium, Planco

45

Article 15.3 (a): rivers, canals and lakes comply with the minimum requirements for class IV waterways as laid down in the new classification of inland waterways established by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and that there is continuous bridge clearance, without prejudice to Articles 35 and 36 of this Regulation. At the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, exemptions shall be granted by the Commission from the minimum requirements on draught (less than 2,50 m) and on minimum height under bridges (less than 5,25 m);

Understanding of Article 15.3 (a)

46

Definition minimum criteria

Study objectives:

• Catalogue of feasible exemption criteria
• Outline of process enabling acceptance of exemptions

What is the reference of 2.5 metre & 5.25 metre?

• 365 days?
• “ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland

Waterways” including the footnotes and how to interprete these?

• Local reference: 345 days (GlW20) / 343 days (RNW)

47

ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland Waterways

48

ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland Waterways ‐ footnotes

Relevant footnotes ECMT Resolution 92/2:

• 1. The class of a waterway is determined by the horizontal dimensions of the vessels or

pushed units, especially by their width.

• 2. The draught of a inland waterway must be specified with reference to local

conditions. …

• 4. Takes into account a security clearance of 30 cm between the highest point of the

vessel or its load and the height under the bridge. …

• 6. Adapted for container transport:

‐‐ 5.25 metres for vessels carrying two layers of containers; ‐‐ 7.00 metres for vessels carrying three layers of containers; ‐‐ 9.10 metres for vessels carrying four layers of containers; 50 per cent of the containers may be empty, otherwise ballast must be used.

• 7. The first figure relates to existing situations and the second to future developments
• r, in some cases, also existing situations.

…

49

Definition – Rhine profile

• How to see the Rhine profile in

relation to exemptions for 2.5 draught?

• Width and depth guaranteed at

reference low water values : on the Rhine distributaries the reference is the equivalent low water level (ELWL), a level that is not exceeded on 20 days

• n which the temperature is above

zero, and thus occurs approximately 5% of the time.

• Height under bridge at highest

navigable water level (HNWL) (1% of time exceeded in past 10 yrs)

50

• Proposed topics for exemption criteria:

– local conditions (hydrology, hydro‐morphology, further uses of a river..) – extreme weather events (floods,…) – environmental requirements (e.g. WFD) – benefit/cost ratio less than 1 – cultural heritage – Other?

• For each topic, criteria need to be specified

Exemption criteria

51

Exemption criteria

ELWL value reached

• n 345 days in the current year

Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions CASE 1:

1.6 m fairway depth available on 345 days in the current year: Local target met No further exemption applicable Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria): 1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )

52

Exemption criteria

ELWL value NOT reached

• n 345 days in the current year,

but on 274 days

Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions CASE 2:

Exemption applicable – availability target reduced 1.6 m fairway depth available on 274 days in the current year: Reduced exemption target met Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria): 1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )

53

Exemption criteria

ELWL value NOT reached

• n 345 days in the current year,

but on 274 days

Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions CASE 2:

1.6 m fairway depth only available on 182 days in the current year: Exemption target not met Exemption applicable – availability target reduced Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria): 1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )

54

• Local targets as the basic reference? What are the arguments

for justification?

• How to deal with temporary limitations (e.g. sedimentations

after floods)

• Are proposed topics for exemption criteria sufficient?
• Feedback on proposal for weather events?
• Possible further definitions for exemptions available?

Questions

55

Contributions and discussion on Good Practice Guidelines based on initial overview

• f topics

Karin De Schepper, GNS Consortium/ Inland Navigation Europe

56

Guidelines: Background and Purpose

• Need for guidelines and good practice examples on how to develop GNS

confirmed by expert group

• Need for common understanding of key principles (vocabulary, fairway

depth vs. water levels, requirements of different regulations etc.)

• Exchange on European level has proven fruitful in past activities,

additional to PLATINA I and II Good Practice Manuals as well as further key documents

• Especially for “soft” GNS components, checklists, benchmarks (good

practices) need to be identified vs. need to focus

• First version can not be exhaustive because of limited resources available

in this study: need to focus on most important issues

57

GNS Good Practice Manual ‐ Content

Proposed chapters:

I. Introduction and reference to further manuals II. Basic information on fairway parameters and navigability III. Definition of GNS and implications IV. Minimum standards of a process on GNS development V. Selected Good Practices: – manuals and guidance documents – maintenance and rehabilitation – user involvement process VI. Checklists for selected soft components

• VII. Further topics in need of discussion

– Waterway/infrastructure management – Traffic management – Wider scope and facilities along waterway

58

• II. Fairway parameters and navigability
• Key vocabulary and definitions
• Reference water levels
• Water levels and fairway depth
• Fairway depth and draught
• …

Source: Xavax

59

• IV. Minimum standards
• f a process on GNS development

Minimum requirements set out (trans)nationally

• TRANSPORT DIMENSION
• Transport potential demand and user requirements
• Possibilities of innovation and technological development (e.g. ship design, maintenance

technologies)

• Cost and benefits of measures from a broad socio‐economic perspective
• CROSS‐SECTOR DIMENSION
• Further uses of a river, lake or canal ‐ application of a cross‐sectoral approach
• Local conditions related to hydrology, hydro‐morphology, extreme weather events
• Applicable environmental law and where possible creating synergies (“working with nature”)

linking to for example the Water Framework Directive

• EXEMPTION CRITERIA
• underlying factors
• any remediation measures if appropriate
• proof of justification (ex‐ante / ex‐post)
• MONITORING
• COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
• involving waterways users (timing, process)

….[your input please!]

60

• VI. Checklist for soft components
• Process related components: infrastructure and traffic management
• Providing further information to users
• Traffic regulations
• Incident management
• Administrative processes
• Emergency response
• Wider range of topics
• mooring places
• internet access
• waste reception facilities
• ….[your input please!]

61

• V. Good practices
• Manuals and Guidance Reports:
• PLATINA I and II Good Practice manuals on sustainable waterway planning and

management

• PIANC Reports
• Dutch Waterway Guidelines
• Beheersplan Rijkswateren
• European Commission ‐ Guidance documents on inland waterway transport and

environmental legislation

• Germany ‐ „Rahmenkonzept Unterhaltung”
• „Joint Statement on Guiding Principles on the Development of Inland Navigation

and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin“ and its follow‐up process

• ….[your input please!]

62

• V. Good practices
• Waterway infrastructure maintenance and management
• Fairway Masterplan for the Danube region
• Coordination of maintenance works on the Rhine
• Lock maintenance in Flanders
• Seine‐Scheldt example lock management
• Rhine example lock management
• ….[your input please!]
• User involvement processes
• COV
• VBW process
• ….[your input please!]

63

Discussion

• Do you agree with the focus topics for the guidelines?
• Do you have further good practice examples for the focus

topics in mind?

• Are there specific requests towards the form/methodology
• f the guidelines?
• ….

64

Presentation of GNS ‐ study

Discussion on implications of GNS assessment: Bottlenecks / Projects

Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium/ Planco

65

• Application of GNS concept to assess network
• Identification of bottlenecks
• Evaluation of deficits
• Projection of network assessment for 2030
• Development of network conditions and navigation status
• Stocktaking of upgrading projects planned to be completed by 2030
• Roadmap to achieve GNS
• Collection of measures to address bottlenecks
• Project outline including cost estimation
• Feasibility
• Timeline

Questions:

• Bottlenecks?
• Projects are under implementation? Scheduled until 2030? Planned?
• Additional measures needed to address bottlenecks?

GNS assessment

Closing

• Summary of main findings
• Next steps

66

Presentation of GNS ‐ study

• Ongoing bilateral expert contacts and discussions
• Updated papers on GNS concept
• Presentation, discussion of concept:

 Meeting with Core Network Coordinator Mathieu Grosch, 27th of October, Brussels (and other coordinators)  Discussion of links to AGN with UN‐ECE, 2 November, Geneva  Pan‐European meeting to validate GNS concept, Q1 2017  Corridor meetings: IWT and ports

• Network assessment using TENtec parameter values
• Roadmaps
• Good Practice guidelines
• Exemption criteria

67

Next steps

Thank you for your contributions.