Autonomous sailing in inland navigation has moved beyond theoretical debate and is now entering commercial reality. In this edition of the IUMI Eye, I share some relevant developments with respect to autonomous sailing in continental Europe.
First we start with a little background information. The need for international definitions (and thus a regulatory framework) was already identified almost a decade ago. Following a proposal at the Consultative Conference on 10 October 2017, the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine Secretariat began drafting international definitions, which were presented during the annual conference of the IVR in May 2018. By the end of the same year, in December 2018 the CCNR adopted the first international definitions of inland navigation automation levels.
These definitions introduced automation levels for inland navigation ranging from level 0 (no automation) to level 5 (full automation). In 2022, the CCNR published a vision to support the harmonised development of automated navigation via a holistic and technologically neutral approach.
Since then, the rapid development of various technologies increased with concrete examples of various Shore Control Centres in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany.
In the beginning of last year, the GDV, representing the German Insurance Sector, published an interesting position paper which stated that insurers are in principle prepared to insure automated ships, even though the risks of (semi-)autonomous sailing are still largely unknown. For insurers it is important that they are granted full access to high-quality, accurate operational data from the insured vessels. To mitigate these risks and to assess them adequately the development of standards and regulations to accelerate technological development and maximize the safety of inland waterway transport is needed. According to the German Insurance Association, the safety level of (semi-)autonomous ships must be at least as high as that of traditional ships.
The Flemish Government (Belgium) approved a new decree on 17 October 2025 that allows automated, remotely controlled and low-emission inland vessels to operate commercially, moving beyond temporary pilot projects. Companies must prove their vessels are as safe as conventional ones by submitting technical data, risk analyses and possibly pilot results to the Commission of Experts. It is encouraging to note that, in line with the position of the GDV, the Flemish authorities explicitly uphold the principle that automated vessels must demonstrate a safety level at least equivalent to that of “conventional” vessels.
Once approved, vessels receive a supplementary certificate permitting commercial use of innovative systems.
A further notable development occurred in January this year as HGK Shipping received a permit for the remote control of a hazardous goods tanker.
HGK Shipping has become the first shipping company to receive a one-year test permit in Flanders allowing an inland hazardous goods vessel to be operated remotely from a shore-based Remote Operations Centre (ROC). This significant development was granted by the licensing authority De Vlaamse Waterweg nv (Flemish Waterways plc) and marks a next step in automated sailing.
The permit applies to the chemical tanker WALCHEREN, which can be controlled remotely on designated waterways east of Antwerp.
Instead of the usual two boatmasters on board, the vessel now operates with one boatmaster and one deckhand, aiming to improve operational efficiency without compromising safety. A qualified ROC operator will steer the vessel remotely for up to four hours, while onboard crew monitor systems and support safe navigation. HGK expects that these remote operations will expand across its fleet in the future, working closely with regulators in the Netherlands and Germany.
This next step illustrates the potential for technology to support inland navigation operations and may contribute to addressing the ongoing shortage of specialist staff. The permit also indicates that authorities do recognize the safety and reliability of the remote operations technology under the current regulatory framework.
While regulatory authorities are gradually enabling remote and automated operations and technology is developing at a significantly faster pace, the private law framework (and the potential liability implications) remain largely untested. For insurers, this does not necessarily prevent underwriting these autonomous inland vessels, but it does require more enhanced data, contractual clarity and clear underwriting assumptions. Many key open questions for marine underwriters arise. To name a few:
- Who is legally navigating when the vessel is controlled from a Shore Control Centre?
- How will liability be allocated between shipowner, ROC operator and technology provider?
- How will causation be established in case of system failure versus human intervention?
- Does remote operation increase cyber aggregation risk?
The coming years will therefore be decisive in shaping how liability, limitation and insurability will be structured in the marine insurance practice.
