165
1 INTRODUCTION
The evaluation and possibility of comparing systems is
an element that enables their development. This also
applies to transport systems. They are most often
compared within the same branch (the same systems in
different areas) or in some area (e.g., systems of
different branches operating in the same country). In
both of these situations, the comparison of systems is
useful, but fraught with difficulties. One of the tools
used to evaluate transport systems is the model that
defines the maturity of systems or their components.
The maturity of a transport system is an indicator
reflecting the level of development and organization of
the system in relation to its key components. Maturity
models allow for the evaluation of the parameters
studied at specific levels.
Each mode of transport is greatly influenced by the
political situation of the area in which the system
operates, but road or rail transport is mainly
dependent on access to infrastructure, which is the
result of investments made. Inland waterway transport
is a system that is highly sensitive to geographical and
climatic conditions (including the presence of rivers
and the amount of rainfall), which is why comparing
systems of this type of transport in different areas is
more difficult than in the case of other modes.
The aim of this publication is to present the results
of research determining the maturity of selected inland
navigation systems in Europe, based on the author's
maturity model. The presented results allow for the
assessment of individual systems and also for the
comparison of the systems studied with each other.
The Maturity of Inland Waterway Transport Systems
in Europe
E.T. Skupień
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland
ABSTRACT: The development of inland navigation is an important component of sustainable transport in
Europe. Its use contributes to reducing harmful emissions, improving transport safety, and increasing the
economic efficiency of freight movement. However, the varying geographical, infrastructural, and institutional
conditions make it difficult to assess navigation systems across countries in a consistent and comparable manner.
This article aims to assess the maturity level of inland waterway transport systems in selected European countries
using a five-level maturity model that considers factors related to fleet, infrastructure, and system operations. The
study analyses systems operating in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in Western Europe (primarily in the
Rhine basin)a total of 12 systems. The countries were grouped according to geographic location and the
strategic role of inland navigation within national transport policies. The results reveal significant differences in
maturity levels and, through benchmarking, identify development priorities for individual systems. The use of a
coherent assessment model at the supranational level enables the identification of development gaps and
investment priorities across different regions of Europe. This approach provides practical support for policy
makers in the shaping of sustainable and integrated transport strategies across the continent.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 1
March 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.01.20
166
The structure of the article includes: i) a presentation of
the inland navigation systems subject to analysis, ii)
methodology - introduction of maturity models for the
assessment of transport systems and presentation of
the model used in the presented analysis, then iii) the
results of the conducted analyses, a comparison of
systems, and iv) conclusions resulting from the
conducted research.
2 EUROPEAN INLAND NAVIGATION SYSTEMS
Inland navigation in Europe is an important part of the
continental transport system, handling about 5% of
total freight transport in the European Union [1]. The
waterway network includes more than 40,000 km of
navigable rivers, canals, and lakes. Western European
countries such as Germany and the Netherlands
account for more than 70% of the total transport
performance in the EU [1], [2]. In 2023, the total
transport performance of inland waterway navigation
in the European Union was approximately 116.5 billion
tonne kilometres, and the total weight of transported
cargo reached 450 million tonnes [1]. The main
shipping routes in Europe are the Rhine, the Danube,
and the numerous canals connecting these rivers with
other regions. The Rhine remains the most important
waterway, connecting Switzerland with the North Sea
and handling huge volumes of goods (143.11 million
tonnes of goods in the first half of 2024) [1].
The dominant groups of cargo transported in inland
navigation are metal ores, coal, refined petroleum
products and chemicals, rubber and plastics, and
agricultural products that together represent more
than 65% of all transport [2]. Container transport also
has a significant share of total inland transport in the
EU, especially important in inland ports such as
Duisburg or Rotterdam, which serve as multimodal
logistics hubs [2]. The inland navigation fleet in Europe
is diverse and is undergoing continuous
modernisation, especially in the context of growing
environmental requirements and energy efficiency.
Modern traffic management systems, such as River
Information Services (RIS), are being implemented,
which increase the safety and efficiency of transport .
Inland waterway transport remains one of the safest
forms of transport, as confirmed by low accident rates
[2].
European inland navigation handles a significant
share of the total transport of goods on the continent,
offering ecological and efficient logistics solutions. Its
development is supported by investments in
infrastructure and digital technologies, which allow
integration with other modes of transport and
strengthens the role of inland navigation in a
sustainable European transport system.
2.1 Inland navigation systems of selected countries
The research presented in this publication focuses on
inland waterway systems in selected Central and
Western European countries: Poland, the Czech
Republic, Romania, Hungary, France, Austria,
Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, the
Netherlands, as well as the Rhine River. This selection
includes countries representing a cross section of
diverse governance models, infrastructure availability,
and the role of inland navigation in national transport
systems. The choice was also guided by the availability
of reliable data and the previous research experience of
the author in these regions.
The data presented in Table 1 indicate that well-
developed waterway infrastructure and favourable
hydrological conditions are key factors in determining
the intensity of inland waterway freight transport.
However, they are not sufficient on their own
logistical, organizational, and policy-related factors
also play a critical role in determining the actual share
of this mode within national transport systems.
Table 1. Inland waterway parameters and cargo transported
in selected countries of the EU in 2023. Source: own work
based on [2].
National
modal split
Length of
inland
waterways
Thousand
tonnes
Million tonnes-
kilometre (TKM)
Percentage
km
European
Union
468,849
116,405
5.0
Austria
6,047
1,187
1.7
351
Belgium
159,990
6,952
10.7
2,043
Czechia
378
18
0.0
726
France
47,333
5,920
1.9
8,507
Germany
171,689
41,506
6.6
7,675
Hungary
5,200
1,316
3.2
1,575
Luxembourg
4,745
165
6.9
37
Netherlands
327,479
41,631
40.9
7,040
Poland
587
29
0.0
3,767
Romania
32,102
11,947
22.3
2,763
Switzerland
7,100
38
0.1
531
The largest volumes of freight transported through
inland waterways were recorded in the Netherlands
(327.5 million tonnes), Germany (171.7 million tonnes),
and Belgium (160.0 million tonnes). These countries
also possess some of the longest navigable inland
waterway networks in the EU7,040 km, 7,675 km and
2,043 km, respectively, indicating a strong correlation
between the length of the waterway network and the
intensity of inland waterway freight transport. In the
Netherlands, inland water transport accounted for up
to 40.9% of the national modal split, the highest figure
in the EU. High shares were also recorded in Romania
(22.3%), Belgium (10.7%), Luxembourg (6.9%), and
Germany (6.6%). [2]
On the contrary, countries such as Poland, Czechia
and France despite having relatively extensive inland
waterway infrastructure (3,767 km, 726 km and 8,507
km, respectively) show very low freight volumes,
ranging only several hundred thousand tonnes
annually, and a marginal modal share of inland water
transport. In both Poland and Czechia, this share was
only 0.0%, and in France it reached just 1.9%. This may
reflect a significant under-utilisation of the potential
for inland navigation in these countries, possibly
resulting from infrastructure limitations (for example,
lack of continuous waterway routes that meet the
required navigability parameters), organisational
barriers, or insufficient integration with key industrial
and logistics hubs. [2]
In terms of transport performance (measured in
million tonne kilometres), which better reflects the
scope and intensity of long-distance freight movement,
the leading countries were Germany (41.5 billion
167
TKM), the Netherlands (41.6 billion TKM) and
Romania (11.9 billion TKM).). It is worth noting that
despite a comparatively lower volume of cargo,
Romania achieved a relatively high transport
performance, suggesting the significant use of inland
waterways over long distances, mainly along the
Danube River. Inland waterway freight transport
among the selected European countries is
characterized by significant variation in both the
volume of goods transported and the sector’s share in
the overall modal split. Data from 2023 [2] indicate that
countries with well-developed inland waterway
infrastructure and supporting logistics networks
achieve the highest volumes of freight transport and
transport performance, which is reflected in their
relatively high share of inland waterways in the
national transport structure.
3 MATURITY MODELS AS A TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT TOOL
Transport systems are essential for economic growth
and social integration. They significantly influence
quality of life by enabling the movement of goods and
people, supporting industrial activity, and connecting
regional and international markets. However, the
structure of transport systems is complex, as it
combines diverse technical, organizational, legal, and
financial subsystems. These subsystems operate under
different geographical, economic, and administrative
conditions, making it challenging to create universal
benchmarks for assessment. Traditional methods for
evaluating transport systems often focus on isolated
parameters, such as infrastructure condition, fleet size,
or cost efficiency. While these metrics are important,
they do not offer a comprehensive understanding of a
transport system’s overall development or readiness to
respond to modern challenges such as digital
transformation, environmental constraints, or
integration with other modes. There is a growing need
for tools that not only assess the current condition of
transport systems, but also guide their development in
a structured and consistent manner.
One promising approach that addresses this gap is
the use of maturity models. Maturity models offer a
multidimensional framework for assessment. They
originated from the need to improve the quality and
predictability of software development processes. The
most influential concept, the Capability Maturity
Model (CMM), was developed in the 1980s [3]. Its
objective was to assess organisations' ability to manage
projects effectively and mitigate operational risks,
primarily in the IT sector. Since then, maturity models
have been widely adapted to other fields, including
healthcare, education, manufacturing, and, more
recently, transport systems (e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).
A maturity model is built around three
fundamental components: (i) defined maturity levels,
typically ranging from three to five, indicating a
progression from initial or ad hoc stages to fully
optimised and integrated processes; (ii) evaluation
criteria, which outline the conditions that must be
fulfilled at each level of maturity; (iii) development
path, which illustrates how to move from a lower to a
higher level by implementing specific actions. These
models serve multiple purposes: to support
benchmarking, identify gaps between current and
desired state, guide strategic planning, and offer a tool
for risk analysis. In the context of transport, they can be
used to assess aspects such as safety, infrastructure
coherence, operational efficiency, and regulatory
alignment.
3.1 Transport systems maturity model
Despite mentioned examples, maturity models are
rarely used to evaluate entire transport systems in a
comprehensive manner. Most existing studies focus on
isolated elements or single branches of transport,
without considering the broader system interactions
and the variety of stakeholders involved, e.g. [4], [5],
[6], [7], [8]. To address this gap, the author has
developed a Transport System Maturity Model
(TSMM) aimed at assessing the maturity of transport
systems as a whole [9].
The TSMM consists of three core domains:
Fleet: which includes sub-parameters such as
vehicle age, compliance with international
standards (equipment), match to market demand
(number and type), and human resources (crew
number and competence).
Infrastructure: subdivided into funding adequacy,
linear infrastructure network coherence, point
infrastructure intramodality potential, and the
operation of administrative and safety services.
Management System: with emphasis on legal and
regulatory alignment, clarity and enforcement of
procedures, and the efficiency of information
exchange between system elements. [9]
Each sub-parameter is described across five
maturity levels. For example, infrastructure funding
ranges from insufficient even for maintenance (Level I)
to comprehensive support for major investments
(Level V). Similarly, legal regulations may range from
non-alignment with supra-local law (Level I) to leading
in setting regional standards (Level V). These clearly
defined stages enable decision-makers to identify
strengths, weaknesses, and areas for strategic
intervention.
The strength of this model lies in its universality.
While tailored to support comparisons within a single
transport branch, it can be adapted to assess multiple
modes (e.g. road, rail, inland waterways).
Furthermore, it addresses both technical and
organisational components, offering a more complete
picture than traditional indicators. Importantly, the
model also provides a roadmap for progress,
identifying which actions are required to move to
higher maturity levels and thereby enhance system
effectiveness, sustainability, and integration.
The TSMM supports various applications: (i)
benchmarking: comparing different systems or
regions; (ii) strategic planning: identifying long-term
improvement priorities; (iii) monitoring: allowing
ongoing assessment and tracking of progress; (iv)
policy support: informing infrastructure investment,
regulation updates, or organizational reform.
168
3.2 Inland navigation systems maturity model
Building on the previously discussed transport system
maturity model designed as a universal framework
applicable across various transport sectors it was
necessary to adapt the structure to the specific
characteristics of individual transport branches.
Recognizing the unique requirements of inland
waterway transport, the author developed a dedicated
Maturity Model for Inland Waterway Transport
Systems, presented in publication [10]. The adapted
model retains the original structure of key parameter
groups (fleet, infrastructure, and operations) but
incorporates refinements and subcategories tailored to
the inland navigation context.
Fleet parameters are subdivided into four elements:
Age: The vessel fleet is categorised based on the
average age of units, reflecting ongoing
modernisation and higher operational
performance.
Navigation equipment: The model recognises the
progressive integration of navigational technology.
This sub-parameter is specifically described due to
its unique relevance to inland navigation and lower
general familiarity compared to other transport
sectors.
Fleet number: This factor evaluates the alignment
between the quantity and type of vessels and
market demand. It reflects not only adequacy but
also proportionality, assessing whether the fleet's
capacity and composition meet current and
anticipated transport needs.
Crew: This criterion assesses both the availability
and competence of fleet personnel. Progression
across maturity levels reflects increasing sufficiency
and professional qualification of crews, essential for
safe and efficient inland navigation operations.
Infrastructure parameters cover four critical
dimensions:
Financing: This sub-parameter evaluates whether
the funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance
and development are sufficient. The highest
maturity level implies support not only for current
operations but also for large-scale investments and
strategic growth.
Linear infrastructure: The model assesses the
coherence of the waterway network and its
connectivity with other regional or international
systems. It distinguishes between isolated segments
and fully integrated, cross-border networks.
Point infrastructure: The availability and efficiency
of transhipment points are essential in inland
navigation, where intermodal operations are
frequent. Higher maturity levels indicate full
intermodal compatibility and operational
integration.
Maintenance strategy: Introduced in this model as a
distinct sub-parameter, the evolution of
maintenance approaches is traced from reactive
practices (responding post-failure) to proactive
systems that emphasise predictive analytics and
condition-based interventions. The inclusion of this
dimension highlights the increasing importance of
maintenance planning in infrastructure resilience.
System operations (originally labelled as the
management system) are also assessed through four
components:
Safety and security services: Originally part of
infrastructure, this factor is now recognised as
operational. It tracks the development from
inconsistent or limited administrative presence to
fully functional and development-supportive safety
and security systems.
Regulations: This element evaluates the alignment
between local and supra-local (e.g., international)
legal frameworks. Maturity reflects the degree of
legal responsiveness, ranging from delayed
adaptation to proactive norm-setting.
Procedures: This sub-parameter focuses on the
operational clarity, enforceability, and simplicity of
rules governing fleet operation and transportation
processes. Higher levels indicate the
implementation of efficient, standardised, and user-
friendly procedures.
Information flow: Effective communication and
data exchange between system components is
essential in modern transport systems. The model
assesses the shift from poor or fragmented
communication to fully integrated, digital, and real-
time information systems. [10]
The model provides a structured, scalable, and
replicable method for assessing and comparing inland
waterway systems. It supports strategic planning by
identifying development gaps, benchmarking system
performance, and guiding investments and policy
decisions. Its application in this publication
demonstrated through examples from selected
European countries aims to validate its effectiveness
and illustrate its practical utility in the context of
sustainable transport development.
The exact structure of the model, divided into
maturity levels for individual criteria, is presented in
Table 2.
Importantly, the model applies relative assessment
principles it does not impose fixed quantitative
thresholds. For instance, in assessing fleet adequacy,
the model considers whether the number and type of
vessels are aligned with current and projected demand,
rather than prescribing a specific numerical value.
Similarly, linear infrastructure is evaluated based on
network connectivity and interoperability, rather than
on predefined route lengths or counts. For this reason,
the use of the model requires expert knowledge.
169
Table 2. The maturity model for assessment of inland waterways transport systems. Source [10].
Parameters
Maturity Level
I
II
III
IV
V
Fleet
Age
Most of the fleet is
over 20 years old
Most of the fleet is
over 15 to 20 years old
Most of the fleet is
over 10 to 15 years
old
Most of the fleet is
over 5 to 10 years old
Most of the fleet is 5
years old or less
Navigation
equipment
No navigation
equipment
Paper maps and GPS
Level II and radar,
AIS, and ECDIS
Level III and ERI,
autopilot, and steering
assistance
Level IV and
automatic steering,
and collision
prevention
equipment
Number
Fleet number and
type significantly
exceeds or falls
below market needs
Fleet number or type
meets market needs,
but the other factor
significantly exceeds
or falls below market
needs
Fleet number and
type are slightly
below or slightly
above market needs
Fleet number or type
meets market needs,
but the other factor is
slightly above or
below market needs
Fleet number and
type meet market
needs in the long
term
Crew
Number and
competency of fleet
and process staff do
not meet the demand
Number or
competency of fleet
and process staff does
not meet demand
Number and
competency of fleet
and process staff are
slightly below
demand
Number or
competency of fleet
and process staff is
slightly below
demand
Number and
competency of fleet
and process staff
meet the demand
Infrastructure
Financing
Funds allocated for
infrastructure
maintenance do not
cover current needs
Funds allocated for
infrastructure
maintenance cover
current needs
Funds allocated for
infrastructure
maintenance cover
current needs and
minor preventive
measures
Funds allocated for
infrastructure
maintenance cover
current needs and
investments
Funds allocated for
infrastructure
maintenance cover
current needs and
large-scale
investments
Linear
infrastructure
Linear infrastructure
does not create a
network
Linear infrastructure
creates a network
with certain
limitations
Linear infrastructure
creates a coherent
network and
connects to the
network of another
region
Linear infrastructure
creates a coherent
network and connects
with networks of
other regions
Linear infrastructure
creates a coherent
network and
connects with all
neighbouring
networks
Point
infrastructure
Point infrastructure
is insufficient and
does not allow for
inter-branch
transshipment
Point infrastructure is
insufficient but allows
for some inter-branch
transshipments
Point infrastructure is
sufficient and allows
for some inter-branch
transshipments
Point infrastructure is
sufficient and allows
for inter-branch
transshipment
Point infrastructure
fully integrates
available transport
modes
Maintenance
Reactive
maintenance
Prevent maintenance
Condition-based
maintenance
Predictive
maintenance
Proactive
maintenance
System
operations
Operation of
safety and
security
services
Administration and
security services do
not operate to the
appropriate extent
Administration or
security services do
not operate to the
appropriate extent
Administration and
security services
operate to the extent
that allows
maintaining the
current status quo
Administration and
security services
operate to the extent
that allows for the
improvement of the
current situation
Administration and
security services
ensure the
development of the
system
Regulations
Local regulations do
not correspond to
supra-local
regulations
Local regulations
correspond to supra-
local regulations to a
minimum extent and
are introduced with a
delay
Local regulations are
adapted to supra-
local regulations with
a slight delay
Local regulations are
constantly being
adapted to supra-local
regulations
Local regulations set
the directions for
creating supra-local
regulations
Procedures
Regulations and
procedures
governing the fleet
and transport
process are unclear
and unenforced
Regulations or
procedures governing
the fleet and
transportation process
are unclear and
unenforced
Regulations and
procedures
governing the fleet
and transportation
process are
complicated
Regulations and
procedures governing
the fleet and
transportation process
are clear
Regulations for
governing the fleet
and transportation
process are clear and
as simple as possible
Information
flow
Information flow
between system
elements is very
difficult
Information flow
between some system
elements is hindered
Information flow
between system
elements is efficient
Most information
flows between system
elements occur online
Information flow
between system
elements occurs
online
4 RESULTS -MATURITY OF INLAND
NAVIGATION SYSTEMS IN EUROPE
Using the inland navigation maturity model, the
inland navigation systems of 11 European countries
and the Rhine were assessed. The assessment was
carried out by the author based on her own knowledge
and professional experience, without the participation
of other independent experts. This decision was made
consciously, due to the nature of the assessment model
used and the specificity of the systems examined.
The inland navigation maturity model described in
the previous part of the article is based on a set of
criteria, some of which are objective and measurable
(e.g. fleet age, level of navigation equipment, type of
linear infrastructure), while others require
interpretation and expert assessment (e.g. compliance
of local regulations with supra-local ones, adequacy of
170
the number of units to market needs, level of
integration with other modes of transport). According
to the literature on maturity models, especially those
adapted for the needs of transport systems, factors
requiring subjective assessment are an integral part of
such tools and cannot be completely eliminated.
All assessed systems were analysed based on the
same set of criteria and by the same person, which
eliminates the risk of incomparability of results
resulting from differences in the perception of the
assessors. In comparative studies, such an approach is
justified, as it allows for maintaining methodological
consistency and a uniform point of reference. The
results for all parameters are presented in Table 3 and
on Figure 1.
Table 3. The maturity levels of selected European inland
navigation systems. Source own work.
Austria
Belgium
Czech
Republic
France
Germany
Hungary
Luxembour
g
Netherlands
Poland
Rhine
Romania
Switzerland
Fleet:
Age
3
4
1
3
4
2
3
5
1
4
1
3
Navigation
equipment
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
2
4
Number
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
5
3
4
Crew
3
4
2
3
4
2
5
5
2
4
2
5
Infrastructure:
Financing
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
5
2
4
1
3
Linear
infrastructure
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
Point
infrastructure
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
Maintenance
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
System
operations:
Operation of
safety and
security
services
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
Regulations
5
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
5
3
4
Procedures
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
4
2
5
Information
flow
3
4
2
2
4
3
3
5
2
5
2
3
Figure 1. The maturity levels of selected European inland
navigation systems. Source own work.
Austria presents a moderately developed inland
navigation system, mainly concentrated on the Danube
River. In terms of the fleet, the vessels reach level 3 in
terms of age most of them are between 10 and 15
years old. The navigation equipment was assessed at
level 4, which indicates an advanced implementation
of radar, AIS and electronic chart systems (ECDIS). The
number and type of the fleet (level 4) are adequate to
the market needs, although shipping in Austria is
rather regional. The staff was assessed at level 3
balanced, although with limited growth potential. The
infrastructure along the Austrian section of the Danube
is well maintained, although financing remains at an
average level (3). The linear and point network,
including ports and terminals, was assessed at level 3
sufficient, but requiring better integration with other
modes of transport. The infrastructure maintenance
strategy is also level 3 activities are systematic, but
not fully predictive. The operational system is
developed. The regulations are fully compliant with
international standards (level 5), and the procedures
and safety services reach levels 34. The flow of
information is partially computerised (level 3), which
allows for efficient, although not fully automated,
management.
The inland navigation system in Belgium is
characterised by a high degree of integration and
modernisation, especially in the Flanders region,
where water transport is an important element of
freight logistics. The fleet is modern (level 4), well-
equipped technologically (4), and the number and type
of units are adapted to market needs (4). The crewing
was assessed at level 4, which indicates a well-
prepared, although not fully diversified, workforce.
The infrastructure is one of the best developed in
Europe a dense network of canals, locks and ports
allows for efficient movement of cargo. Linear, point
infrastructure, and maintenance systems reach level 4.
Financing is rated slightly lower (3), which may be due
to differences in interregional management (Flanders-
Wallonia), although access to EU funds significantly
supports development. The operational system is
mature: the operation of security services and the
quality of regulations and procedures are rated at level
4. The flow of information also functions well (4),
especially in the area of data exchange between the
administration and the operator. Belgium stands out
for its strong emphasis on digitalisation and
interoperability within the TEN-T network.
The Czech Republic has a poorly developed inland
navigation system, mainly limited to the lower reaches
of the Elbe and a few short canal sections. In terms of
the fleet, the situation is difficult - most units are over
20 years old (level 1), which significantly affects
efficiency and safety. Navigation equipment is rated at
level 3 - the presence of basic systems such as GPS or
radar is standard, but more advanced technologies are
rare. The fleet is insufficient in numbers (3), and the
availability and competence of crews is limited (2).
Infrastructure also remains underinvested. Funding (2)
does not provide for large-scale investments, and the
linear and point networks are fragmented (level 2).
Infrastructure maintenance is also rated low, which
translates into low availability and reliability of
shipping routes. The operational system is
characterized by low coherence. Safety services and
regulations and procedures are rated at level 2-3.
Information flow (2) is weak - lack of integrated traffic
management systems and low digitalization result in
limited efficiency. The Czech Republic has been
declaring its desire to develop shipping for years, but
the lack of strategic investments and modernization
limits real progress.
The French inland navigation system, mainly
managed by Voies Navigables de France (VNF),
comprises one of the largest inland waterway networks
in Europe (over 6,700 km). The fleet is at a moderate
171
level of maturity: the age of the vessels is in the average
range (level 3), the navigation equipment is at a high
level (4) and the fleet structure is relatively adapted to
needs (4). Staffing is average (3), reflecting the lack of
intensive investment in professional development in
the sector. The infrastructure in France is extensive but
not fully modern. Financing is rated at level 3 it
allows the maintenance of the network but does not
support extensive modernisation. Both the linear and
point infrastructure are rated at level 3. The
maintenance strategy is planned but not systematic (3).
The operational system shows maturity in the
regulatory and procedural areas (4), with well-
established regulations and functioning services (3).
The flow of information remains limited (2), with slow
digitalisation and a dispersed management structure.
The inland navigation system in Germany is one of
the most developed and integrated in Europe. It covers
approx. 7,300 km of navigable waterways, with a
strong emphasis on freight transport along the Rhine,
Elbe or Dortmund-Ems Canal. The German fleet
presents a high level of modernity: the units are
relatively young (4), perfectly equipped with
navigation systems (4), adequate in numbers (4) and
the staff is highly qualified (4). The infrastructure is
supported by strong, stable financing (4), enabling not
only current maintenance, but also modernisation of
waterways and hydrotechnical facilities. The linear
and point infrastructure was assessed at level 4 a
dense network and good connections to land ports are
the hallmarks of the system. The maintenance strategy
also operates at a high level (4), with increasing use of
predictive systems. The operating system is coherent
and integrated. The safety services, legal framework
and procedures reach level 4, ensuring operational
stability. The flow of information is well developed (4),
with extensive use of RIS systems, reporting platforms
and electronic traffic management.
Hungary's inland navigation system is mainly
based on the Danube, which is a key transport route for
the country. However, its use does not reach the
potential similar to Germany or Austria. The fleet is
quite outdated - most units are over 15 years old (level
2). However, the navigation equipment is relatively
advanced (4), which indicates partial technological
modernization. The number of units and types of fleet
partially correspond to market needs (3), but the
competences of the crews are limited (2), which may be
due to the lack of systemic support for training. The
infrastructure is at a lower level of maturity. Financing
was rated the lowest (1), which significantly limits the
possibilities for modernization. The linear, point and
maintenance infrastructure was rated at level 3 - basic
functionality is provided, but without development
reserve. The operational system reaches an average
level: services, regulations and procedures are rated at
level 3, which suggests compliance with international
requirements, but without excessive flexibility. The
flow of information is also at level 3 reporting
systems are in place, but their integration and
availability are limited.
The inland navigation system in Luxembourg,
despite the small size of the country, is functionally
integrated with the Rhine system and the European
network (TEN-T). The fleet achieves good parameters:
the average age of the units (3) is not particularly low,
but the navigation equipment is advanced (4), and the
number and type of units are adapted to the needs (4).
The highest ratings were given to the competence and
availability of the crews (5), which reflects the high
standard of service and operational efficiency. The
country's infrastructure is of a supporting nature, not
independent - it mainly serves a transit function.
Financing and the infrastructure network were rated at
level 3 - they ensure efficient operation, although
without a large scale of investment. The maintenance
strategy is planned and effective (3). The operational
system achieves a high level. The operation of services,
compliance with regulations and procedures operate at
level 4-5, indicating adaptation to European standards.
The flow of information within the system was rated at
level 3 - the system operates efficiently, although it
does not achieve full digital integration as in the
Netherlands.
The Netherlands is the undisputed leader of
European inland navigation. The system is highly
developed, fully integrated with national and
international logistics. The fleet presents the highest
level in all categories: very young (5), fully equipped
with advanced technologies (5), numerically and
typically adapted to the market (5), and the staff is
highly qualified (5). The infrastructure in the
Netherlands is a model example of sustainable and
modern management. Both the linear and point
networks were rated at level 5. Financing is stable and
high, which allows for the implementation of strategic
and adaptive projects. The maintenance strategy is
comprehensive and predictive (5), using monitoring
systems and data analytics. The operational system is
characterized by the highest level of integration. The
services operate efficiently (5), and the procedures are
standardized and transparent (4). The flow of
information (5) is fully digital - the Netherlands was
the first to implement advanced RIS systems, and
cooperation between the administration and operators
is an example of good practice at EU level.
The Polish inland navigation system has great
potential, but remains one of the least developed in
Europe. Despite the existence of several major
navigable rivers (Oder, Vistula), their actual
availability and technical quality are limited. The fleet
is clearly outdated (1), equipped with basic
technologies (3), and the number of units does not
correspond to the real demand (3). Technical and
operational staff remains unevenly available (2) (there
are many specialists working outside Polish system).
The infrastructure was assessed low: financing is
limited and irregular (2), which translates into the
fragmentation of the linear and point network (2). The
maintenance strategy is planned, but not based on the
analysis of the technical condition - level 2 reflects the
lack of predictive implementation and low repair
efficiency. The operational system is at a medium level
of maturity. Regulations are partially compliant with
EU standards (3), but require adaptation to practice.
Management procedures were assessed at level 3 - they
are present, but not always applied. The flow of
information (2) remains limited, with a lack of digital
solutions in key links of the system.
Romania has a large shipping potential linked to the
Lower Danube and the port of Constanta, but the use
of this infrastructure is still limited. The Romanian fleet
is outdated most of the vessels are over 20 years old
(1), poorly equipped with navigation systems (2), the
172
number of vessels and their types do not fully meet the
needs (3). The operational staff was assessed at level 2
staff shortages and staff turnover are problems. The
infrastructure is functioning at a basic level. Financing
was assessed very low (1), which affects limited
development and modernisation. Despite the presence
of a long section of the Danube, the linear and point
network was assessed at level 3 functionality is
maintained, but integration with other modes of
transport is lacking. The maintenance strategy is also
basic (3). The operational system is characterised by
medium maturity. The services and regulations
operate at level 3 in line with the European
framework, but often ineffective in practice. The
procedures are of low transparency (2), and the flow of
information (2) takes place mainly in the traditional
form, without wider digitalisation.
Switzerland, despite not having a wide inland
navigation network, actively participates in traffic on
the Rhine and plays an important logistical role
through the port of Basel. The fleet is moderately
modern (3), well-equipped (4), numerically adapted to
needs (4), and the crews achieve a very high level of
qualifications (5) which is the result of the national
transport quality policy. The infrastructure is
functional and supported by systems integrated with
the German and French water networks. Despite the
lack of an extensive internal network, the point and
linear infrastructure in the Basel area operates
efficiently (3), financing and maintenance are stable (3).
The operating system was rated high. The safety
services and the regulatory framework operate
effectively (34), the procedures are standardized and
easy to use (5). The information flow is partially
computerized (3), with access to systems shared with
Rhine (e.g. RIS), although without full national
digitalization.
The Rhine inland navigation system (covering
several countries, including Germany, the
Netherlands, France and Switzerland) is the most
important water corridor in Europe and the main axis
of the trans-European TEN-T network. The fleet
operating on the Rhine is among the most modern (4),
fully equipped with ECDIS, AIS, autopilot and
collision devices (5), adequate to the needs (5) and
operated by qualified crews (4). The infrastructure was
assessed as the highest possible the linear and point
network is extensive, interoperable, and systematically
developed (5), and maintenance is carried out in a
predictive manner. Financing is stable and adapted to
the needs of expansion and adaptation to climate
change (4). The operational system is fully mature:
services operate efficiently and coordinate across
borders (5), regulations are unified within the AGN
and CCNR conventions (5), procedures are
harmonised (4). The information flow (5) is digital and
real-time, supported by RIS systems and common
reporting platforms, providing a reference point for the
entire EU.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation of 12 inland navigation systems in
Europe showed significant differences in their level of
development, organisation and the degree of
utilisation of the potential of inland waterway
transport. By analysing three main areas, fleet,
infrastructure, and operational system, it is possible to
distinguish both leaders and countries requiring
intensive modernisation.
The Netherlands received the highest scores in all
areas analysed. Its fleet is modern, technologically
advanced, and numerically adapted to market needs.
The water infrastructure is the best developed in
Europe interoperable, well-financed and perfectly
maintained. The operational system in the Netherlands
achieves full digitalisation, efficiency of services, and
transparency of procedures. The Netherlands can serve
as a model for a comprehensive approach to inland
navigation. The Rhine system, considered as a cross-
border whole, also presents a high level of maturity. It
benefits from strong international structures (CCNR)
and excellent hydrotechnical infrastructure. Both the
fleet and the water traffic management system are
highly organised and coordinated between countries.
Germany is just behind the Netherlands and the Rhine.
Their inland navigation system combines a modern
fleet with well-maintained infrastructure and a high
level of operation. Germany stands out for its strong
integration with land transport systems and the high
capacity of the main routes (Rhine, Elbe, and inland
canals).
Belgium and Luxembourg demonstrate high
quality in terms of system organisation, infrastructure,
and fleet, although their operational scale is smaller.
Belgium, especially Flanders, invests consistently in
water infrastructure and promotes water transport as
an element of sustainable logistics. Despite its
territorial limitations, Luxembourg operates effectively
as a system integrated with the Rhine. Switzerland and
Austria are countries with a moderate but stable level
of system development. In both cases, the
infrastructure is mainly based on one route
(Rhine/Basel and Danube), but good organisation and
a relatively high level of operation have been achieved.
In Austria, the strong link between navigation and
environmental policy is noteworthy.
France has a large network of waterways, but it
does not fully exploit it there is no coherent policy for
the development and modernisation of the fleet and
infrastructure. Information flow remains limited,
which negatively affects operational efficiency.
Hungary has potential thanks to the Danube, but low
financing and an outdated fleet limit development.
There is also no coherent strategy for infrastructure
modernisation. The Czech Republic, Poland, and
Romania are countries with a low level of system
maturity. All are characterised by an outdated fleet,
insufficient financing of infrastructure, and a low level
of digitalisation. Poland has the greatest growth
potential in the region, but requires significant
investments, especially in linear infrastructure (e.g.
Oder, Vistula). Romania, despite its strategic location
on the Danube and access to the Black Sea, does not
fully exploit these resources. The Czech Republic, on
the other hand, struggles with fragmented
infrastructure and a lack of high-standard transit
corridors.
The priority for systems with a low level of maturity
should be investments in linear and point
infrastructure and fleet renewal. An important step
will be the development of staff competencies and the
173
implementation of integrated information and traffic
management systems (RIS). Highly developed
countries such as the Netherlands can act as mentors
and reference points in the development of policies for
less advanced systems. Integration with the TEN-T
network, interoperability, and process automation are
key to the further sustainable development of
European inland navigation.
The analysis carried out of the maturity of inland
navigation systems in selected European countries
using the author's maturity assessment model confirms
the usefulness of such tools in diagnosing the state of
development of individual elements of the transport
system. Basing the model on three dimensions: fleet,
infrastructure, and operating system allows for
capturing both physical and organisational aspects of
the functioning of navigation. Such an approach allows
not only the identification of strengths and weaknesses
in individual countries but also supports the
formulation of directional political and investment
recommendations. Maturity models, although
sometimes perceived as qualitative tools, can provide
significant support for decision-making processes,
especially in the absence of uniform comparative data
on an international scale. Their use also facilitates
benchmarking analyses which, similarly to the
industrial sector, can lead to the identification of good
practices and development models that can be adapted
in other geographical contexts. In this sense, the model
presented in the article can be developed and adapted
to the needs of broader European analyses, and also
serve as a starting point for building harmonized tools
for assessing inland navigation systems within the
framework of EU policies.
Based on the results obtained, several general
recommendations can be indicated. Firstly, for
countries with low infrastructure maturity, it will be
crucial to ensure stable and long-term investment
programmes that aim to maintain and modernise the
basic waterway network. Second, not less important
are the actions for the digitalisation and integration of
operational systems, which determine the increase in
efficiency and competitiveness of water transport
compared to other branches. Finally, the fleet -
although often omitted in the public debate - requires
a systemic approach to its renewal, both through
financial support instruments and the creation of
predictable market conditions encouraging
investments.
The application of the maturity model to the
assessment of inland navigation systems shows that a
comprehensive approach to the development of this
sector must combine infrastructure, technological, and
institutional activities. Only then will it be possible to
fully use the potential of water transport in achieving
the goals of sustainable mobility in Europe.
REFERENCES
[1] “Inland Navigation Market.” [Online]. Available:
https://inland-navigation-market.org/quarter/q1-
en/?lang=en
[2] “Eurostat.”
[3] R. Wendler, “The maturity of maturity model research: A
systematic mapping study,” in Information and Software
Technology, Dec. 2012, pp. 13171339. doi:
10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007.
[4] A. Núñez, “Estimating the functional form of road traffic
maturity”, doi: 10.1007/s11067-007-9049-0ï.
[5] V. Laine, O. Valdez-Banda, and F. Goerlandt, “Risk
maturity model for the maritime authorities: a Delphi
study to design the R-Mare matrix model,” WMU Journal
of Maritime Affairs, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 137163, Jun. 2024,
doi: 10.1007/s13437-023-00328-z.
[6] D. R. Utama, M. Hamsal, S. B. Abdinagoro, and R. K.
Rahim, “Developing a digital transformation maturity
model for port assessment in archipelago countries: The
Indonesian case,” Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect, vol.
26, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101146.
[7] M. G. Yoon and J. K. Kim, “Evaluation methodology for
safety maturity in air navigation safety,” J Air Transp
Manag, vol. 98, Jan. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102159.
[8] I. Hausladen and M. Schosser, Towards a maturity
model for big data analytics in airline network planning,
J Air Transp Manag, vol. 82, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101721.
[9] E. T. Skupień, “Maturity model for transport system
assessment,” 12th Carpathian Logistics Congress,
CLC’2024: conference proceedings, November 28 - 29,
Kraków, Poland, 2025.
[10] E. T. Skupień, “The Maturity Model as a Tool for
Assessing Transportation Systems on the Example of
Inland Navigation,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 1577,
Feb. 2025, doi: 10.3390/su17041577.