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].

Goods transport by inland

waterways

National

modal split

Length of

inland

waterways

Thousand

tonnes

Million tonnes-

kilometre (TKM)

Percentage

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

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

Netherlands

327,479

41,631

40.9

7,040

Poland

587

0.0

3,767

Romania

32,102

11,947

22.3

2,763

Switzerland

7,100

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 EU—7,040 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

III

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

Netherlands

Poland

Rhine

Romania

Switzerland

Fleet:

Age

Navigation

equipment

Number

Crew

Infrastructure:

Financing

Linear

infrastructure

Point

infrastructure

Maintenance

System

operations:

Operation of

safety and

security

services

Regulations

Procedures

Information

flow

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 3–4. 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 (3–4), 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. 1317–1339. 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. 137–163, 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.