International Data Exchange in the Area of Inland Navigationawareness Paper

International data exchange in the area of inland navigationAwareness Paper

Implementation of River Information Services in Europe

Document History:

Contributing author(s) of the Document:

Table of Content

Executive summary

1Background

2Observations

2.1International Data Exchange

2.1.1RIS Services

2.1.2ENI & data for the identification of the vessel

2.2Personal Data Protection

2.2.1RIS Services

2.2.2ENI & data for the identification of the vessel

2.3Harmonised Approach

2.3.1RIS Services

2.3.2ENI & data for the identification of the vessel

3Summary

4Recommendations

4.1General

4.2RIS Services

4.3ENI & data for the identification of the vessel

4.4Personal Data Protection

4.5Pilot Projects

Annex I:Legal Provisions wrt data requirements

Annex II:Legal Framework

Annex III:Services depending on International Data Exchange

Annex IV:Status of Implementation

Annex V:Data exchange with third countries – Inventory reference documents

Abbreviations

Executive summary

During the preparation of on-going and planned pilot projects for both River Information Services (RIS) and inland vessel certification purposes it has been noted by a number of EU Member States that international data exchange between EU Member States and, where applicable, between EU Member States and third countries, is hampered by current EU legislation. Key factors herein are that current EU legislation does not provide:

• a coherent and transparent regime for data exchange across Europe in that data elements to be exchanged for “cross-border” purposes according bilateral agreements between neighbouring States may vary;
• a sufficient legal basis for international data exchange between non-adjacent Member States with respect to voyage and cargo data;
• a sufficient legal basis for international data exchange in support of a European Hull Database.

The varied transposition by EU Member States of EU legislation on personal data protection into national legislation and/or interpretation thereof in relation to a specific technical Directive, is considered a major obstacle in achieving a coherent and transparent regime for international data exchange.

This Awareness Paper sets out a number of observations related to international data exchange for RIS services and for ENI and vessel certification data with the emphasis placed on the relevance of personal data protection hereto and the need for a harmonised approach. In addition this Paper sets out recommendations to redress these issues and establish support for the furtherance of the pilot projects. The focus is placed on the perceived challenges stemming from personal data protection legislation. The Annexes provide supporting text on the current legal provisions and framework, RIS services deemed to require international data exchange, the status of implementation and background information from other sectors with respect to setting up arrangements for cooperation and/or data exchange with third countries based on EU legislation.

It should be noted that this paper only deals with the specific concerns mentioned here above. The RIS Directive requires “continuity with other modal traffic management services” and further challenges are faced now and in the near-future for RIS authorities in response to the growing emphasis on cross-sector cooperation and harmonisation in reporting and data exchange as demonstrated in, for example, the recent Reporting Formalities Directive (2010/65/EC), the emergence of the e-Maritime and e-Freight initiatives and maritime surveillance pilots, all of which make direct reference to inland waterway transport. These and other issues have been dealt with separately in a Discussion Paper of the ERI Expert Group (October 2010). It is inevitable that a concerted action will be required to strengthen the existing legislation to meet these needs.

Major findings

The present EU legal framework on:

• Hull data - allows for informing between EU Member State competent authorities for assigning ENIs (use of EDI not mentioned in Directives, only Commission Regulation 164/2010), but not with competent authorities of other Member States or third countries unless an administrative agreement has been made per instance. However, current EU legislation on personal data protection has been transposed into national legislation in different ways and this has led to the situation wherebynot all EU Member States are able to participate in European hull data exchange, for example Germany who has stated that they would require an additional EU legal framework to facilitate this data exchange. The “neutral” referral to general EU legislation on privacy may effectively hamper the wider goals within the context of a specific Directive
• Voyage and cargo data – requires for data exchange between neighbouring EU Member States, but does not mention exchange with non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries. “Cross-border” data exchange is arranged through bilateral agreements and the data exchanged may vary per agreement according the data to be reported per EU Member State. This results in the need for some EU Member States to request parties to resubmit data.
• Position data – does neither require for data exchange between neighbouring EU Member States nor to non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries.
• Calamity abatement - does neither require for data exchange between neighbouring EU Member States nor for non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries.

Recommendations

• Hull data – an amendment to 2006/87/EC to allow for the establishment of a European Hull Data Base will be prepared by the EC (During the IRIS Europe II Steering Committee meeting of 7 November 2010, the European Commission has indicated to propose this amendment). The amendment should cover a provision for data exchange between EU Member States and between EU Member States and third countries. It is to be noted that provisions for hull data exchange with third countries would require particular attention regarding assurances on privacy legislation.
• Voyage and cargo data – The EU Member States and the EC should commonly agree whether data exchange between other than neighbouring countries, i.e.with non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries, should be established. In addition and in consideration hereof, it is necessary to address the issue of coherency of data exchange as provided for in the different “cross-border” bilateral agreements. Without the same terms and conditions the protection of privacy and the goal of a transparent European inland waterway transport may be impeded.
• Position data – EU Member States and the EC should commonly decide/agree whether data exchange between EU neighbouring countries, as well as non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries should be established.
• Calamity abatement - EU Member States and the EC should commonly decide/agree whether data exchange between EU neighbouring countries as well as non-adjacent EU Member States and third countries should commonly

Recommendation for ongoing pilot projects relating European Hull data base international exchange of vessel position and electronic reporting data:

The EU Member States and the EC provide for a clear statement stating whether or not the establishment of a European Hull database and for the international exchange of position and electronic reporting data are reasonable tools to achieve the goals ofthe RIS Directive, including the underlying Commission Regulations (No 414/2007, 415/2007 & 164/2010).

There is no common position of all Member States concerned whether or not additional exchange of data is needed and if so to what extent. With respect to international exchange of position and electronic reporting data, the interests of not only authorities but also the logistic and shipping industry have to be considered.

1Background

1.This Awareness Paper has the aim to highlight the perceived restrictions and/or limitations in the current EU legislative framework[1] towards international data exchange which ultimately hinder the continued implementation of RIS and development of international data exchange regarding vessel identification numbers and certification data.

2.The following observations are also centred on the need to clarify legislation with respect to international data exchange in anticipation of pilot activities in a number of EU projects. The observations, which are supported through the annexes, ultimately lead to recommendations for further action.

3.The paper was written as the execution of pilot projects relating to cross border data exchange confront legal experts with many difficult and different procedures on how to accommodate the various national and EU legal requirements.

4.The services and functionality attributed to River Information Services (RIS) are taken into consideration, as well as recognition of the various initiatives and technical developments towards the furtherance of these RIS services, which may ultimately rely on international data exchange. (Services depending on cross-border and international data exchange and their status of implementation are provided for hereafter in Annex III and Annex IV respectively)[2]. Some research has been conducted on data exchange with third countries, e.g. experience gained in maritime sector. No firm conclusions could be drawn from this research as yet for inclusion in the Awareness paper. This needs more in depth study. Annex V provides an insight into the research conducted.

5.The River Information Services (RIS) concept is aimed at the implementation of harmonised information services in order to support the planning and management of traffic and transport operations. RIS streamlines information exchange between public and private parties participating in inland waterborne transport[3]. The information is shared on the basis of information and communication standards. Interaction between the responsible bodies in the European Commission and competent authorities responsible for inland navigation and RIS, and those responsible for initiatives such as e-Maritime[4] is essential to secure the interoperability and harmonisation of the eventual services and systems.

6.For the purposes of this Awareness Paper “International Data Exchange” refers to data exchange between EU Member States and/or to third countries[5] as well as to/from third parties including logistic providers in the area of inland navigation including hull, position, cargo and voyage data. “Cross Border data exchange” refers to data exchange between neighbouring States.

7.The focus is placed on the Technical Requirements Directive[6] and the RIS Directive, including the underlying Commission Regulations[7], which indicate that international data exchange between the authorities is required for the performance of certain hull data and RIS services.

2Observations

2.1International Data Exchange

8.It is foreseen that the following type of data[8] will be required for certification and for specific RIS services and as such will require international data exchange:

RIS Services:

• Traffic Information of vessels, including position data;
• Voyage and Cargo data;
• Hull data (ENI, data for the identification of the vessel, certification details);
• Information on Calamities.

Vessel Certification:

• Hull data (ENI, data for the identification of the vessel, certification details).

2.1.1RIS Services

9.The RIS Directive requires that the EU Member States will enable, as far as ship reporting is required by national or international regulations, competent authorities to receive electronic ship reports containing the required data from ships. To this end the ERINOT message has been developed[9] for the electronic reporting of voyage and cargo details (dangerous as well as non-dangerous goods) by a ship sailing on inland waterways, whether the EC or the individual EU Member States are entitled to conclude agreements with third countries in this area and bilateral agreements would have to be state treaties in most countries.

10.The articles concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy have led to the same challenges with respect to variance in interpretation in the EU Member States, including the type “passage notification” from authority to authority (used for cross-border reporting (neighbouring State).

11.It is recognised that data exchange is foreseen under Article 4(3c) of the RIS Directive for the purposes of cross-border ship reporting to a neighbouring State however this is deemed limited in its purpose and scope for a number of the overall stated functionalities of RIS which may ultimately require international data exchange between EU Member States and third countries as well as non-adjacent EU Member States.

12.The bilateral agreements as established for cross-border reporting are not uniform and the data to be exchanged can vary between the agreements depending on the data available according individual national reporting requirements. In effect data originally reported can be “lost” during a voyage between more than two EU Member States. This does not promote transparency and may also lead to additional requirements when reports are to be used for international data exchange with non-adjacent EU Member States.

13.A requirement for international data exchange of position data derived from tracking and tracing systems such as Inland AIS in support of traffic management, information for logistics / transport management or calamity abatement is not foreseen in the RIS Directive.

14.It is recognised in the RIS Guidelines that the competent authorities should provide ample room for logistics applications within the bounds of their possibilities, including the exchange of information between users and customers relating to vessels and terminals[10].

15.The participating EU Member States of IRIS Europe aimed to reach a multilateral legal agreement among the member states as the basis for international data exchange. This so-called “Technical and Administrative Agreement for the international data exchange with regard to River Information Services”, in short TAA, would supplement the EU RIS Directive 2005/44/EC especially with relation to the international data exchange.

16.Further, this would require the adaptation of the national legislation in some countries in order to enable the organisations, which provide RIS Services, to exchange RIS data with governmental RIS users (traffic authorities), logistical RIS users (e.g. fleet manager) and RIS Centres in other countries.

17.The varied implementation of the relevant legislation in EU Member States has led to the possibility to only instigate pilot operations in some countries. This will make use of real data where permission of the vessel operator has been given (as well as artificial data) between some EU Member States. Some EU Member States are not even able to participate in the pilot. The legal basis for data exchange with countries outside of the EU is missing.

2.1.2ENI & data for the identification of the vessel

18.There is a distinction to be made between:

1. the requirement for international data exchange between the competent authorities responsible for assigning European Vessel Identification Numbers (ENI), including the assigned ENIs and data for the identification of the vessel;
2. the making available of data for the identification of the vessel to competent authorities of other EU Member States, Contracting States of the Mannheim Convention and to third countries on the basis of administrative agreements in order to perform administrative measures for maintaining safety and ease of navigation.

19.Each competent authority responsible for assigning ENIs is to make all necessary arrangements in order to inform all other competent authorities listed in the register held by the Commission of the ENIs assigned[11].

20.Data for the identification of the vessel, including the ENI, as set out in EU Directive 2006/87/EC may be made available to competent authorities of other EU Member States, Contracting States of the Mannheim Convention and, as far as an equivalent level of privacy is guaranteed, to third countries on the basis of administrative agreements in order to perform administrative measures for maintaining safety and ease of navigation[12]. In addition, vessel certification authorities are obliged to keep a register of all the issued community certificates in order to grant read only access[13].

21.The “European vessel number database” is only mentioned in the Commission Regulation 164/2010[14] and is not mentioned in EU Directive 2006/87/EC or subsequent amendments.

22.The reference to ENI and data for the identification of the vessel being “made available” and community certificates being provided on a “read only” basis only imply the ability for third countries to access the relevant data and only in the event that administrative agreements have been secured where necessary. There is no legal provision for third countries to be able to exchangedata in an eventual “European vessel number database”[15]. At least one MemberState takes the position that they are also not able to input data into an eventual "European vessel number database" as there is also no legal provision for that. A further amendment to this Directive in order to redress these issues will lead to further delays taking into account the time for transposition into national law. This may be further compounded when considering the timeline for UNECE and Danube Commission adoption and the eventual implementation in third countries.

23.It is challenging for EU Member States to secure this administrative agreement in that they are confronted with a varied implementation of underlying legal provisions (i.e. with respect to privacy) which have ultimately led to them not being able to conclude the agreement as intended. The failure to conclude is not the fact that EU Member States cannot agree. It is to be noted that whilst EU Member States have to ensure the successful transposition of the EU legislation into national legislation, it is not for the individual EU Member States to solve and fill those gaps in current EU legislation that do not foresee sufficient provision for international data exchange on the basis of international standards (ref. point 27 below).