EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.5.2018 SWD(2018) 183 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic freight transport information {COM(2018) 279 final}

{SEC(2018) 231 final}

{SWD(2018) 184 final}



Table of Contents 1Introduction: Political, legal and market context 2Problem definition 2.1What is/are the problems? 2.1.1 Low level of acceptance of electronic freight transport documents by the different market players 2.1.2 Different administrative practices between and within Member States 2.1.3 Why is it a problem? 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.2.1 A fragmented legal framework concerning the acceptance of electronic freight transport documents/information 2.2.2 Multiple and non-interoperable data exchange systems 2.3How will the problem evolve? 3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General and specific objectives 5What are the available policy options?

5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 5.2Policy measures and options 5.3How do the policy options differ 5.3.1 Material scope: transport contracts vs regulatory information evidence 5.3.2 The legal equivalence of the electronic transport contracts and the admissibility as proof of regulatory compliance 5.3.3 The role of international conventions and bilateral agreements with third parties as policy intervention instruments 5.3.4 Technical specifications for implementation 6What are the impacts of the policy options? 6.1 Economic impacts Use of electronic means for transport information and documentation exchange Administrative costs for businesses Compliance costs for businesses Modal shift and congestion costs Compliance costs for authorities Enforcement costs for authorities Transport costs for transport operators Internal market impacts Innovation impacts 6.2 Social impacts – impacts on employment 6.3 Environmental impacts

Emissions Use of natural resources and energy use efficiency 7How do the options compare? 8Preferred option 9How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? Annex 1: Procedural information 1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 2.Organisation and timing 3.Consultation of the RSB 4.Evidence, sources and quality Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 1.Introduction 2.Feedback 2.1. Feedback received on the Inception Impact Assessment 2.2. Feedback received during the consultation process 3.Methodology 4.Summary of input Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 1.An outlook of the preferred option implementation 2.Practical implications of the initiative

3.Summary of costs and benefits 4.Stakeholders table Annex 4: Analytical methods 1.Description of analytical models used: primes-tremove model Baseline scenario Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario Summary of main results of the Baseline scenario 2.Description of analytical models used: Ecorys model for the regulatory costs for businesses and public administrations 3.Assumptions used for assessing impacts on modal shift 4.Assumptions used for the uptake of electronic documents Annex 5: Monitoring arrangements Operational objectives of the preferred policy option Monitoring and evaluation framework – Relevant indicators and data sources Annex 6: Political context of the initiative and coherence with key EU policy objectives The White Paper on Transport Annex 7: Legal context and coherence with other relevant EU legislation and initiatives 1.Coherence with other on-going proposals/ initiatives including digitalisation provisions 2.Coherence with other EU legislation currently in force EU transport legislation EU customs and fiscal legislation

EU legislation on official controls on agri-food chain EU electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions legislation



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition Business register The database maintained by each Member State to keep record of registration of companies in the given Member State and subsequent changes in the information on companies. Electronic data vs digital See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/electronic-vs-digital-data-bernadette-bosse/ International transport Pursuant to articles 90 and 91 TFEU, by international transport it is understood in this study the transport of goods from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States Shipment Determined set of goods that exchanges ownership and needs to be transported from seller shipping point to a final buyer's/consignee reception point Member States/public authorities All relevant authorities. For the purposes of the analysis in this study, a distinction has been made between enforcement authorities and judicial authorities. Enforcement authorities Relevant public authorities having tasks related to controlling, monitoring and ensuring enforcement of applicable legal provisions concerning the international transport of goods on the territory of the EU, such as police, fiscal police, ministries and their agencies. Judicial authorities Administrative, criminal or civil courts. Member State(s) (MS) In the context of this Impact assessment, this covers Member States of the EU and of the EEA (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway in addition to the EU). Data Information that has been encoded digitally, using a revisable structured format which can be used directly for storage and processing by computers. Data elements A unit of data which, in a certain context, is considered indivisible and for which the identification, description and value representation has been specified. Information In the context of this Impact assessment, it covers the transport related information included in the transport documents and are necessary for the controls by authorities. Registered office The office and the address under which the company is registered in the business register. SME Small and Medium Enterprises DTLF Digital Transport and Logistics Forum TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2012/C 326/01 RFD Reporting Formalities Directive – No 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC eIDAS Regulation Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC UCC Union Customs Code as laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 RIS Directive Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community IWT Inland waterways transport CMR Convention Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), Geneva 19 May 1956 CMR Consignment note as defined in the CMR Convention eCMR Protocol Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) concerning the Electronic Consignment Note, Geneva 27 May 2008 eCMR Electronic consignment note as defined in the eCMR Protocol CIM Uniform Rules Concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) - Appendix B to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) 9 June 1999 COTIF Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) 9 June 1999 CIT International Rail Transport Committee CIM consignment note Rail consignment note TAF TSI Technical specifications for interoperability relating to Telematics application for freight TAF TSI Regulation Regulation (EU) No 1305/2014 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematics applications for freight subsystem of the rail system in the European Union and repealing the Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 CMNI Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterway (CMNI) Budapest 2000 Hamburg Rules United Nations International Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg Rules) Hamburg 31 March 1978 Montreal Convention Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal 28 May 1999 eAWB e-air waybill IATA International Air Transport Association Rotterdam Rules United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules) 11 December 2008 B2A Business to Administration communications B2B Business to Business communications Directive on dangerous goods Directive 2008/68/EC on the inland transport of dangerous goods ADR European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, 1 January 2017 RID Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) – Appendix C - Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail, 1 January 2017 ADN European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways, 1 January 2017



1Introduction: Political, legal and market context 1.1.Freight transport documents – background and scope limitation of this initiative The movement of goods from sellers to buyers is accompanied by a large amount of information being exchanged among a variety of parties, in both the private and the public domain. Today, this information is mostly printed on paper, in a variety of standard format documents. Most of these documents are issued by private parties and serve to convey important information related to their own contractual relation for the movement of the goods, and for business administration purposes. Some of these are also used by authorities as source of information to verify regulatory compliance. These documents are physically exchanged and, in the case of some of them also signed, and at times also modified, by hand, in a number of copies. As a result, the information contained in these documents is recopied in and printed out of the electronic systems of the various parties several consecutive times, for each individual cargo shipment. This is because one or more of the commercial parties involved, or one public authority concerned or another, request to see or sign paper documents. In a context where virtually all companies, to a very large extent, record, exchange and store data related to their business in electronic format, these paper-based information exchange processes over the movement of the goods are the source of important cost-inefficiencies, mainly related to the physical management of the paper documents, but also to business operations management. Some stakeholders have described them as a “black box”, which prevents the “end-to-end” visibility over the movement of the goods in the supply chain that businesses need to fully reap the benefits of digitalisation. This impact assessment focuses on goods related documents. The other two main groups of documents used in freight transport, namely documents related to the means of transport and, respectively the personnel manning them, have not been include in the scope. This focus limitation is linked to the distinct nature of the goods related documents and, in particular, their dynamic and commercial character. These documents are unique to each distinct set of goods being shipped from a seller to a buyer or final user and, therefore need to be issued anew for each shipment. In the case of the main transport documents, the contracts of carriage, in particular, they may also undergo changes during the course of the transport operation itself. They are mostly issued by the businesses, and serve both business-to-business and business-to-authorities information communication purposes. By contrast, the documents concerning the means of transport or the personnel manning them – such as certificates concerning the registration of a vehicle, its conformity with requirements for the transport of specific good or, in the case of personnel, if they have the qualifications to drive/conduct a certain type of vehicle – is issued either by a public authority or a private entity authorised by a public authority to do so. They are also static documents in the sense that, once issued, do not need to be renewed but only at very long and regular intervals. They are also used mainly in relation to the authorities, and do not need to be exchanged between the commercial partners. For this reason, even though the majority of these "other" documents involved in a transport operation are still being issued, kept and presented to the authorities on paper (and to some extent on plastic), the cost inefficiencies related to the issuing and management of these documents is, currently, less significant to the businesses than those related to goods documents. 1.2.Political context The Commission has acknowledged the need to foster acceptance and use of electronic transport documents in a number of policy initiatives: the White Paper on Transport, 2011 ; the Digital Single Market Strategy, 2015 ; the ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market, 2016; the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, 2016 . The case for intervention has been recognized also by a wide range of stakeholders. Since 2015, participants in the Digital Transport and Logistics Forum (DTLF) – a Commission expert group formed by more than one hundred private and public stakeholders – have repeatedly emphasised the need for EU level intervention to support wider uptake of electronic transport documents. In October 2017, in the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment, the Member States urged the Commission to step up efforts for provision of efficient, user-centric, electronic procedures in the EU, pointing out the significance of the eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 and the vision of the European Interoperability Framework .

In November 2017, during the Tallinn Digital Transport Days, several public and private stakeholders from all transport sectors concluded that it is about time to reap the benefits of digitalisation, including paperless data sharing . Following up, the Council called on the Commission, in its December 2017 Conclusions on the digitalisation of transport, to continue working with the DTLF to develop “measures to support more systematic use and acceptance of e-documents and the harmonised exchange of information and data in the logistic chain” . In May 2017, the Parliament had also called on the Commission “to increase harmonisation in passenger transport and transport of goods”, and “to speed up the mandatory use … of electronic consignment notes (e-CMR)”, in particular . 1.3.Legal context The eIDAS Regulation provides a horizontal EU legal framework for the acceptance of electronic documents by Member States’ authorities, but only as evidence in legal proceedings. It does not impose an obligation on Member States’ (enforcement) authorities to accept electronic documents as evidence for other regulatory purposes, such as compliance with various legislative provisions, including as concerns the conditions for the transport of goods. The main information sets concerned also differ. This initiative focuses only on regulatory information concerning the goods and the transport operation itself – on the identity of the consignor, carrier and consignee, places of pick-up and delivery, route and several others. Both the UCC and the RFD concern also cargo information description, but alongside a large host of other information sets. In the case of UCC, this also includes certain information elements related to the transport operation itself; in the case of RFD, additional sets of information elements on the ship, its crew and passengers are concerned. Both the UCC and the RFD already contain provisions allowing fulfilment of reporting formalities by means of electronic information communication, including as regards the cargo and, respectively, the transport operation . This initiative aims to allow electronic communication for fulfilling regulatory information requirements also beyond the points of entry, or before the point of exit, of the EU, on the entire territory of the Union. Geographically therefore, the scope of this initiative begins where that of the UCC and/or the RFD ends (or, conversely, ends there where that of the UCC and/or the RFD begins). In terms of the transport operations concerned by the information requirements, however, these scopes overlap: this initiative concerns both purely intra-EU international/ cross-border transport (not falling under UCC's or RFD's scope), as well as international transport having its origin, destination or transiting an EU Member State's territory. As a result, the combined application of this initiative and that of the UCC and the RFD will further facilitate international freight transport having its origin and destination outside the EU, as well as intra-EU maritime traffic, by enabling the use of electronic means for transmission of regulatory information on cargo transport to the authorities not just at the point of entry and exit of the EU, but also on the entire EU territory. The Commission is currently considering further policy initiative in both policy areas covered by these two instruments, but neither is considering enlarging the information reporting requirements, nor the geographical scope of the application of the related regulatory conditions. Rather, these initiatives aim at insuring interoperability of the electronic data exchange related to their respective information reporting requirements. In this respect, this initiative will also aim to ensure the interoperability of the electronic data for the common information elements. In terms of technical solutions for enabling the electronic communication of the information/documents, this initiative also requires a different approach, due to the specificities of the information reporting under the UCC and the RFD. In the case of the latter, the information must be submitted at a specific point in time – before or at the time of arrival at EU entry/exit point – to all of a pre-defined set of authorities. By contrast, the information concerned by this initiative only needs to be available in case it is required for inspection, by one or another of the competent authorities, at any point in time during (and in certain cases also after) the completion of the transport operation. Several other EU legal acts and ongoing Commission policy initiatives address digitalisation aspects and affect to some extent transport related issues. None is however addressing the problem as identified in the context of this impact assessment report . 1.4.Market context Total freight transport in the EU has increased by almost 25% over the last 20 years , and it is projected to further increase by 51% during 2015-2050 under current trends and adopted policies . Today, this information is mostly printed on paper, in a variety of standard format documents. 99% of cross-border transport operations on the territory of the EU still involve paper-based documents at one stage of the operation or another. The digitalisation of information exchange has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of transport and, therefore, to contribute to the smooth functioning of the Single Market. In the past two decades, there have been a considerable number of private, public and mixed initiatives aiming at developing technical solutions for the digitalisation of transport and logistic processes . While contributing to efficiency gains in specific transport sectors and Member States, these initiatives were often run independently from each other. The growing concern, raised by all stakeholders, is the limited interoperability of the various systems and technical solutions being developed . In the absence of overall coordination and reliable indication as to which would be the dominant standard for data definition, representation, exchange and preservation , individual businesses face the risk of making the wrong choice of investment. In addition, specificities of individual transport modes – including their (historically separate) regulation – mean that most digitalisation efforts remain mode-specific . Yet, even in the rail and air transport sectors, where a de facto dominant international system for information and documentation exchanges has been established, concerns for the lack of interoperability and interconnectivity across mode-specific solutions and systems are high . 2Problem definition The main identified problem is the low and varying degree of acceptance by authorities of information or documents electronically communicated by the business as evidence of compliance with regulatory conditions for the transport of goods on the different EU Member States' territory. Two main drivers underpin this problem: a) a fragmented legal framework setting inconsistent obligations for authorities to accept electronic information or documents, and allowing for different administrative practices to implement them; and b) a fragmented IT environment characterised by a multitude of non-interoperable systems/solutions for electronic transport information and documentation exchange, both for business-to-administration and business-to-business communication. The two drivers are mutually reinforcing. The fragmented legislation and the ensuing lack of acceptance by authorities discourage investment in digital solutions for electronic documents. The fragmented IT environment, specifically the lack of well-established or interoperable solutions, discourages authorities from the use of electronic documents. Furthermore, both drivers are shaped by the fragmented wider market context, which is however not specifically addressed by this initiative, characterised by, on the one hand, historically-evolved characteristics of the different transport sectors and, on the other hand, competing, non-interoperable and evolving industry standards and technical solutions for electronic data exchange. As a consequence, the large majority of freight transport operators and other transport business stakeholders in the EU continue to use paper documents. This prevents considerable gains in efficiency for the various market players, in particular in multimodal and cross-border transport, and hinders the better functioning of the EU single market. These issues are further discussed in the upcoming sections and are summarized under Figure 2.1 below.





Figure 2.1: Problem tree 2.1What is/are the problems? The main conclusion of the stakeholder consultation activities is that there is general uncertainty among the stakeholders as to which authorities, in which Member States, are accepting electronic documents for which types of controls. In particular, stakeholders refer to the uncertainty related to acceptance by enforcement authorities. Acceptance by courts of the contract of carriage is also an issue, but it appears to be less of a concern for a majority of the respondents. 2.1.1Low level of acceptance of electronic freight transport documents by the different market players Lack of acceptance by Members States’ authorities of electronic documents has been indicated by all categories of industry stakeholders as the main obstacle preventing their wider use. Member States authorities Enforcement authorities Depending on the Member State and mode of transport concerned, authorities inspect cargo transport documents for some or all the following purposes: verification of legitimate possession; enforcement of rules related to safety, taxation, customs, environmental protection, security, working conditions and health, cabotage, and various transport conditions. Various authorities may be involved in inspections: police, fiscal police, tax authorities, customs; and control officers from the transport, health and veterinary departments. There are important differences in the extent to which those authorities currently accept electronic documents as valid (or admissible) evidence for inspection. In aviation, inland waterways and rail, documents are more often accepted in electronic form. But only in few Member States, and mainly for aviation, acceptance of full documentation is reported. At the other end, road transport documents and, in some cases rail, are explicitly reported as being accepted in paper format only. Figure 2.2: Significance of the lack of acceptance by Member States enforcement authorities Stakeholders also indicated significant differences in the inspection procedures, and the information/documents required as proof of compliance. The same transport document is often inspected in the same Member State by different authorities in different ways. Some authorities might accept the electronic transport document, while others only accept paper, although the paper document is often a print-out of the electronic one. Between Members States, differences in inspection practices are equally present, even when the same type of authority is performing a control for the same regulatory purposes in the same transport mode. Textbox 2.1: Examples of divergent acceptance An electronic transport document (the electronic air waybill/e-AWB) is accepted for the entry and exit processes of cargo by air in the Netherlands, but when the cargo is being transported by road to reach the final destination, the paper version of the same air waybill is often used, as Dutch road-side inspectors do not accept an e-AWB. In France, while custom authorities accept an e-AWB, a paper AWB still needs to be submitted to airport enforcement authorities . In inland transport, the Dutch police requires barge operators to have a paper transport document available at all times (and regularly inspects whether such a document is available on board), while the German police never performs cargo related inspections and therefore does not require a transport document at all. In road transport, in the Netherlands or Germany for example, the e-CMR would be accepted, but the operators do not use it because authorities of other Member States, such as neighbouring Belgium, do not. Truck drivers do not wish to take risks and therefore are only willing to perform the transport when receive the transport document in a paper format. In rail transport, an electronic document containing cargo information, which complies with the TAF TSI requirements, is accepted by the Belgian authorities for controls related to dangerous goods regulatory compliance. In Germany, a paper document is always required for dangerous goods certificates. Overall, the industry stakeholders report general uncertainty as to which enforcement authorities, in which Member States, are accepting which electronic documents for which types of controls. Consequently, to avoid the risk of electronic documents being declared noncompliant by authorities or not accepted by their partners, the transport operators, as well as the other commercial parties involved, prefer to print, carry and exchange paper cargo documents, in spite of all the inconvenience and cost this implies. In the framework of the OPC, 90% of the private companies and associations indicated the non-acceptance of electronic transport documents/ information by Member States authorities as a significant driver. For the smaller companies, according to the SME panel survey, the main reason for not using electronic transport documents is that their clients and business partners do not use transport documents in electronic format, followed closely by non-acceptance by authorities.

Courts Several stakeholders pointed out in the consultation process the lack or limited acceptance of the electronic transport documents by courts. Private parties should be able to enforce their rights in civil law procedures on the basis of the electronic transport document that serves as a contract of carriage. Secondly, operators should be able to challenge a fine imposed by an authority which refused to accept an electronic transport document. Figure 2.3: Significance of legal aspects (N=45) Source: Ecorys et al., 2018, results of targeted survey According to the targeted survey undertaken in the context of the IA support study, 38% of the respondents consider the lack of acceptance of electronic transport documents in courts as important (22% as very important, and additional 16% as moderately important). There is certain divergence of views among the stakeholders, as 29% of private companies consider this factor very important, against only 10% of the authorities. The support study also found limited empirical evidence on the acceptance of electronic transport documents by courts and on the enforceability of the contracts of carriage concluded or evidenced in an electronic form. In France, for example, where acceptance of electronic documents for road transport has been established already by national law in 1999, there is no case law yet on the enforceability of electronic transport documents . In the framework of the stakeholder consultation, none of the respondents was able to identify case law recognizing the enforceability of electronic transport contracts. The limited use so far of electronic transport documents may explain the lack of such case law, and the lower importance attributed to the ‘courts’ dimension of the ‘limited acceptance’ driver. Non-acceptance by third countries authorities In the OPC and SME Panel several stakeholders added the non–acceptance by third country authorities as an additional barrier hampering the use of electronic documents only. In the OPC, several stakeholders indicated that the non-acceptance is also a bottleneck when trading with neighbouring countries that are not part of the EU. An example frequently mentioned was Russia, as paper documentation is required in all road transport between Russia and the EU. The respondents to the targeted impact survey and targeted interviews undertaken in the framework of the IA support study confirmed this view. Out of the 45 respondents to the survey, 30 indicated that the non-acceptance of electronic transport documentation in third countries is, at least moderately, contributing to the problem. Authorities and private stakeholders interviewed also raised this issue. Acceptance by businesses Another important aspect is linked to the low acceptance of e-documents by the commercial parties themselves. Among these, banks and insurance companies, which are often necessary parties to a transport operation – insuring the cargo or providing bank guarantee as to the payment of the goods shipped – are highly relevant stakeholders in this regard. Figure 2.4: Significance of problem driver to the overall problem – lack of acceptance by banks Source: OPC and SME Panel In the industry’s view, the acceptance by banks and insurance companies of electronic transport documents, particularly those that evidence the contract of carriage, is strictly related to the acceptance and enforceability of the electronic contracts of carriage in courts. More than half of the stakeholders in the OPC indicated that the limited acceptance by both banks and insurance companies contributes, at least moderately, to the overall problem. Private companies (ranging from transport operators and forwarders to different associations) were the main respondents to the OPC. A relatively large share of the respondents (almost 30%) indicated however that they do not have an opinion on the subject. Figure 2.5: Significance of problem driver to the overall problem – lack of acceptance by insurance companies Source: OPC and SME Panel

Lack of legal certainty in this regard impacts the decision of banks and insurance companies to accept electronic transport documents . In case of litigation, banks and insurance companies want to be certain that the responsibilities and liabilities mentioned in a contract of carriage are enforceable by means of court order. It appears however, that insurance companies tend, more than banks, to accept electronic transport documents when requested to insure cargo. Smaller companies experience higher lack of acceptance by banks and insurance companies than their relatively larger counterparts. As presented in the figure 2.5, more than 60% of the respondents to the SME Panel see the lack of acceptance as a significant contributor, while in the OPC only 20 to 24% of the respondents showed a similar view. The difference might be explained by the fact that for smaller companies it is more difficult to obtain finance or insurance (due to business risks), than it is for larger companies. 2.1.2Different administrative practices between and within Member States The analysis of the stakeholder consultation has revealed important differences in the way the different Member States authorities are conducting inspections aimed at establishing compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Thus, when the same transport document is inspected in the same Member State by different authorities, for different purposes, they may do so in different ways. Across Members States, differences in inspection practices are equally present, even when the same type of authority is performing a control for the same regulatory purposes in the same transport mode. Furthermore, the consultation revealed that the appreciation by the different individual public authorities, including at the level of the enforcement officers, of the extent to which they may trust or not a document presented electronically, also determines whether they may accept in one case such document as evidence, while in other they may require to see the paper documents. Different authorities may impose different requirements for the acceptance of the same information/document inspected also pursuant to their long-established practices. Several authorities in (at least) some Member States appear to follow different administrative processes, developed in the course of decades. When moving from paper to digitalised inspection processes, these practices tend to be reproduced, resulting in continuing differences in therefore, with consequences for compliance requirements for businesses. This is for example the case in the maritime sector in Italy, where the harmonization of different administrative processes followed by the different maritime authorities has been the main challenge for the implementation of the maritime national single window, in the context of the RFD, at national level . Textbox 2.3: Other examples of different administrative practices In the Netherlands, an electronic transport document (the e-AWB) is accepted for the entry and exit processes of cargo by air, but when the cargo is being transported by road in order to reach the final destination, the paper version of the same air waybill is often used, as road side inspectors do not accept an e-AWB. Although the e-AWB is recognised by Dutch law (and is a valid document) road side inspectors still require a paper version. They prefer paper over electronic documents as they fear that the latter might be fraudulent. Reportedly, in France, while custom authorities accept an electronic air waybill, a paper air waybill still needs to be submitted to airport handlers or airlines . Another illustrative example for the argument made above is that of the Luxembourg police. Currently, officers may seize all paper documents presented by a driver during a road-side control, if they have reasons to suspect that the information or the documents provided are not genuine. Not surprisingly, during training in preparation of the launch of the Benelux e-CMR pilot, the main questions they raised were: how to trust that what they would be presented on a smart phone/tablet is genuine?; and, in case they had doubts, whether they would be allowed to confiscate the respective tablet/smartphone? . 2.1.3Why is it a problem? Businesses are currently facing a complex and uncertain landscape regarding the acceptance of electronic documents, particularly by the public authorities, in the different Member States. Consequently, and to avoid the risk of electronic documents being declared noncompliant, the transport operators as well as the other involved commercial parties prefer to print, carry and exchange paper cargo documents, in spite of all the inconvenience and cost this may imply. Paper is often carried in parallel to electronic information and documents exchange. Paper-based information and documentation exchange processes, both in business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-administration (B2A) communication, have been identified by numerous companies as an important source of foregone cost savings, untapped potential for administrative burden reduction and, more generally, efficiency losses. The large majority of the stakeholder consulted – i.e. more than 90% of the 265 SME respondents to the SME panel survey, and 88 of the 100 respondents to the open public consultation (OPC) survey indicated significant or at least some expected benefits from adopting electronic information exchange. Businesses have identified different sources of costs related to the paper-based processes. A primary source is the management of the physical documents as means of transfer of information from one party to the other – primarily related time spent by the employees, but also the use of physical resources such as paper and printer toner. Another source of costs are the errors in the manipulation of these documents by the various individuals involved in a transport operation – such as errors in (re-)copying the data, damage, misplacement or loss of documents. The degree of digitalisation is different across transport modes, impacting differently the time (and equivalent costs) spent in processing freight transport information by the different transport modes. Due to reasons explained under the problem driver section, the highest level of uptake of e-documents/information exchange is in the aviation sector (c.a. 40 %) followed by the rail sector (c.a. 5%) and road (c.a. 1%). The overall levels of uptake in the maritime and inland waterway transport sectors are close to zero. Table 2.1 shows that in 2018 it is estimated that more than 380 million hours would be spent for processing freight transport information needed for national and international trips, equivalent to almost EUR 7.9 billion: Table 2.1: Estimated time and equivalent costs spent processing freight transport information by mode of transport in 2018 Total time spent processing freight transport information (million hours) Administrative costs - intra-Member State shipments (EUR million) Administrative costs - shipments between EU Member State (EUR million) Total administrative costs (EUR million) Road 297 5,663 299 5,962 Rail 29 299 208 507 IWT 24 178 404 582 Maritime 36 147 667 814 Aviation 1 3 22 25 Total 387 6,290 1,600 7,890 Yet other costs are related to inefficiencies in companies’ internal decision-making processes, due to lack of real-time information on their actual physical stock (what goods are sold, but still awaiting shipment, which are in transit, which delivered and awaiting payment or, conversely, which have been contracted, but not yet delivered, for what value etc.). In addition, overall supply chain organisation could also be significantly optimised, if real-time data on the goods being moved were available. National public administrations believe that there is a potential for more effective use of larger volumes of data, in particular with regards to their capacity to effectively and efficiently enforce applicable regulations, and to devise better targeted and more effective policy measures. Moreover, some public administrations also indicate that there are some efficiency losses in processing non-digitised information. For example, for the Rhine-Danube corridor alone, authorities estimate about 5 million euros losses due to the time needed to process non-digital information for investigations. In short, paper-based processes of transport information and documentation exchange are an important source of unnecessary costs and inefficiencies for businesses. They also particularly affect the transport of goods changing transport mode or crossing borders, thus potentially hindering multimodality and putting obstacles to the Single Market. In multimodal transport operations involving several modal legs, stakeholders estimate potential savings from the digitalisation of current paper-based processes at about three times higher, per shipment, than in a unimodal operation. The two case studies conducted provide evidence of benefits of around EUR 9-37 and EUR 21-87 per trip due to time savings.

Table 2.2: Samskip case studies on administrative cost reduction from transport e-document Member States involved Modes of transport Number of transfers Lost time savings (min) Lost cost savings (EUR) Case 1 DE – NL – IE Road – Maritime - Road 2 29.6 9-37 Case 2 NO – NL – DE - IT Road – Maritime – IWT – Road – Rail - Road 5 89.6 21-87 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.1.4A fragmented legal framework concerning the acceptance of electronic freight transport documents/information Today, no single or uniformly applicable legal framework regulates the use of (electronic) cargo and transport documents for international freight transport in the EU. The applicable rules are determined by the combined application of various legal acts, issued at international, European, and national level. The result is a highly fragmented legal regime, which varies depending on the Member State, the transport mode and, often, the type and use of the documents. In the context of the present assessment, it is important to pay attention to three aspects that affect the use of electronic transport documents, and information more generally: (a) the general acceptance of the electronic form; (b) the requirements for validity of the electronic form (i.e. the necessary and sufficient conditions for acceptance); and (c) the technical specifications for implementation of these requirements. ØThe obligation of acceptance The international conventions relevant for this analysis are primarily those governing the regime applicable to the international contracts of carriage in the different transport modes. These conventions establish, separately for each transport mode, the legal equivalence of the electronic contract of carriage to that of the paper-based document . These conventions enable the use of the electronic contract of carriage but, except for the protocol to the CMR convention, the application of their provisions on electronic documents is conditional on the existence of specific national rules. In practice, they apply only if the national legislation of the State under which the contract was concluded allows the use of the electronic means for the conclusion or evidence of a transport contract. The e-CMR protocol, regulating the electronic road consignment note, does not include such clause and it is directly applicable if the respective State is a party to the protocol. Participation in the e-CMR protocol is however relatively modest, though growing. These conventions regulate however only the contractual relation between the commercial parties, if they choose to use the contract of carriage in an electronic form. They do not impose, but rather allow, the use of the electronic contract of carriage (transport document) by the commercial parties (business to business). Furthermore, they do not regulate the use of electronic documents between business and authorities. Indirectly, however, these conventions impact the acceptance by the authorities, and in particular courts, which may be called upon to enforce the rights and obligations deriving from an electronic transport contract. For enforcement authorities, they become relevant only when their national legislation requires a valid transport contract to evidence compliance with specific regulatory requirements. At EU level, acceptance by the Member States’ authorities of electronic documents or, more generally, of evidence communicated by electronic means, is regulated by means of several legal acts . These acts establish specific conditions for the transport of goods within the EU, either in general or for particular types of goods, for a variety of regulatory purposes – to ensure the safety and security of transport, to facilitate certain types of transport operations, or to ensure the smooth and fair functioning of the transport market. They also specify how, i.e. the required information elements, and by what means the private actors may make proof of compliance with the respective conditions. While the information elements concerned are often overlapping, the means of conveyance of this information, and the degree of specification of what constitutes an admissible electronic evidence, vary significantly between these legal acts. Only some of the EU legal acts establish the principle of acceptance of the electronic means. Moreover, they do so only for specific regulatory purposes, in specific transport modes – for example for compliance with security requirements in air freight transport, dangerous goods information transmission in inland waterway transport, or fulfil determined customs formalities (such summary transit declaration) for air and maritime. The acceptance of electronic means is generally established as possible alternative to the paper format, with the only exception of maritime formalities at arrival at and departure from ports, where the EU legislation explicitly states that “Member States shall accept the fulfilment of reporting formalities in electronic format”. In three of the five transport modes, there is at least one legal act that foresees only the use of paper and another one (for a different regulatory purpose) that allows the use of electronic means. As a result, an enforcement authority that controls regulatory compliance of the same transport operation, is expected to accept an electronic document pursuant a certain EU legislation, but to require a paper document pursuant another . At national level, Member States’ legislation regulates acceptance by authorities of (electronic) cargo transport information or documentation for a variety of purposes. These include compliance with fiscal rules, environmental rules, or mere legality of transport. Often, compliance with these rules requires presentation of evidence of a valid transport contract . These provisions vary considerably. They differ both between Member States and within Member States, depending on the transport mode concerned or regulatory purpose . They range from specific provisions establishing the obligation of the authorities to always accept the electronic means for certain regulatory purposes, when certain conditions are met , to legislation under which no such means is accepted . In other Member States, legislation may take the form of horizontal laws requiring or (implicitly) allowing acceptance by authorities of electronic means in business-to-administration communication . In addition, specific legislation provisions may also require the paper format for certain, clearly identified documents, while remaining silent on others . Where the legislation specifically requires the acceptance of electronic documents, it is most often limited to the transport contract and it does so for specific regulatory purposes only or in specific transport modes . Acceptance by national courts of the electronic means for business-to-administration regulatory information conveyance, and of transport contracts in particular, depends on specific provisions in national legislation on the type of evidence admissible in legal proceedings in courts. In most Member States the contract of carriage does not need to be in paper to be enforced by national courts ; and while in some States even oral contracts of carriage would be enforceable , in several of them the national legislation establishes specific conditions for the probative value of contracts concluded electronically. At the same time, acceptance of a document as admissible evidence in courts of law is generally not regulated in detail in most Member States. As a result, most Member States’ national courts have discretion on whether to accept or not electronic transport documents as evidence of a contract of carriage . ØRequirements for acceptance/admissibility and guidance on technical implementation The acceptance of the electronic documents is in practice linked to the criteria and means by which admissibility can be established. When authorities are asked to accept electronically conveyed evidence, they have to apply more general principles of law related to the authenticity and integrity of the information provided. Compared to paper documents , current guidance on how to establish the validity of electronically conveyed information/documents remains generally limited and uneven. This creates uncertainty and room for interpretation in implementation as to the necessary and sufficient conditions for validity and, therefore acceptance, of the electronic means. Two levels of specification can be identified with respect to the guidance provided by the current legislative framework: general requirements for acceptance and specifications for technical implementation. EU legislation limits general requirements for acceptance to the specification of the possibility of use, presentation or transmission of the required information electronically. In addition, the electronic means of information conveyance are referred to, or defined, in different ways. In several acts, a more specific format is implied – “document”, “documentation” or “message” – while in others the wider term – “evidence” – is used. Furthermore, it provides technical specifications in only three of the seven EU legal acts establishing the requirement of acceptance. However, these specifications differ significantly, requiring specific and largely non-interoperable technical solutions. Similarly, all mode-specific international conventions link the validity (i.e. legal equivalence to the paper format) of the electronically supported contract of carriage to the fulfilment of certain general requirements. Yet these requirements vary significantly between the different conventions. They range from single reference to the manner in which the necessary signatures are performed – “stamped, in symbols or made by any other mechanical or electronic means” (Article 6, CMNI) or just “stamped” (Article 11, Montreal Convention) – to more general reference to the information representation – “electronic data registration which can be transformed in legible written forms” (Article 6, CIM) – to a larger set of more specific requirements such as how the consignment note shall be authenticated, its integrity ensured, and how to deal with additional cargo and transport documents supplementing the note (Articles 3 to 6, e-CMR Protocol). However, none of the conventions provide further guidance on specific options for the technical implementation of these requirements. This is left for the interpretation of the parties concerned resulting in a variety of implementation approaches and specific/non-interoperable technical solutions for electronic transport contracts, mostly along sectoral lines, both by the private sector and the authorities.

National provisions on validity requirements also vary significantly. Most often there are no specific requirements, apart from the possibility, or obligation, to accept electronic means. Some countries have however established explicit conditions, with varying degree of detail – some formulated at general level (such as referred to the identification of the parties, integrity and availability of the document ), other related to the existence of an electronic signature . These requirements may relate either to certain transport mode documents, (e.g. the transport contract), or to the validity of commercial contracts in general. In most cases, no guidance on technical implementation is provided. Overall, national provisions concerning acceptance leave ample room for interpretation to determine the concrete and specific conditions of their implementation. 34 (i.e. more than 75%) respondents to the IA support study targeted survey confirmed that the diverse and inconsistent legal framework applicable at EU Member State level on the acceptance of electronic transport documents/information is a significant driver to the limited use of electronic transport documents. 26 respondents also stressed the fact that national rules requirements for handwritten signatures also hampers the use of electronic documentation. Another 23 respondents mentioned the requirement to use stamps on a transport documents as hampering factor. Closely related to the question whether national rules are in place that allow authorities to accept electronic transport documents, is the question whether they do accept them once the legal basis is provided. 13 out of the 35 respondents to the targeted IA support study survey indicated that authorities do accept the electronic transport documents when the applicable legislation allows it, although the majority also stressed that the authorities do not accept the electronic form once they have reason to believe the documents are not accurate or are manipulated. 12 respondents indicated that, although a legal basis exists that allow authorities to accept electronic documentation they do not accept it. The remaining ten stakeholders did not provide an answer. It can be concluded therefore, that the legal framework for acceptance of electronic information in relation to international transport operations applicable across the EU is patchy and incomplete. Different requirements in different applicable pieces of legislation implies that the same authority is required (or allowed) to accept an electronic transport document specific to one transport mode, but not to another, or to accept the electronic contract of carriage, but not an electronic invoice, packing list, or house manifest. Furthermore, the limited and variable specification of the law creates ample room for interpretation in application by the authorities. As a result, acceptance remains limited in scale and appears to be more a consequence of initiatives of individual authorities than the legal implication of a general requirement compelling all national authorities to accept electronic transport documents. 2.1.5Multiple and non-interoperable data exchange systems The second problem driver identified relates to the technical means that authorities need in order to be able to accept electronically communicated transport documents or information. Due to limited requirements by the applicable legislation, the number of transport specific IT systems used by Member States’ authorities is currently small. Apart from the electronic systems set up by the Member States pursuant to the EU legal framework on customs and, respectively, maritime reporting formalities, there have been few attempts to develop transport specific electronic cargo information and documentation exchange systems and, so far, they remained at the level of pilot projects. Each of these pilot projects tended to create its own technical system for sharing the electronic transport documents or information. This means that in each pilot for each authority, mode and Member State, a new technical solution would be introduced for the sharing of information. As a result, multiple technical systems are used by authorities. In addition, these systems differ from the systems used by business in B2B communication. They contain different information, are based on different technical protocols and might use different devices/solutions. Even within the same Member State, for the same transport mode, systems may differ.



Textbox 2.2: Example of multiple technical systems used within the same Member State In Germany, multiple systems are used, each based on a different legal act. Based on EU Regulation 2015/2447 custom specific information needs to be included in the ATLAS-system (Automatisiertes Tarif- und Lokales Zollabwicklungssystem). Based on EU Regulation 2010/65, the transport document needs to be included in the National Single Window (NSW) for general inspection. Based on national law, transport related information needs to be included in a nationally developed system. These different data transmissions contain partly the same data, but transfer formats and data channels are different. Each authority regards the requested data for their own system as the most vital information. Furthermore, almost the same data is sometimes sent to comparable authorities in different EU countries in order to comply with laws in single countries. This existing administrative burden today causes reluctance among all interviewed companies to create another system to send the same data once more. In the Netherlands, Dutch inland transport sector, two systems are currently used for business-to-administration communication. Furthermore, under the current circumstances, the Dutch barge operators cannot share their transport related information with, for example, the German or Belgian authorities, as they have different systems. This diversity of public administration systems impacts also on the market responses, resulting in a variety of business-to-administration technical solutions. Most solutions are only suitable for one mode (e.g. road, air, or rail) or are created for a specific authority (e.g. customs), while others are primarily used for business-to-business information exchange. Rail and air are sectors characterised by rather high concentration of players, and virtually single electronic information exchange solutions with global reach have been established under the umbrella of the respective global industry organisations. This are essentially B2B systems, but are also used for B2A electronic communication. In road, inland waterway and maritime transport, where the market is more fragmented, the number of available solutions is higher, and their use more heterogeneous across the Member States. However, none of the observed solutions apply at least for B2A electronic information exchange with all authorities in one Member States, let alone apply to all relevant authorities in multiple Member States. As a result, companies need multiple technical solutions to provide the relevant information to authorities and business partners, even if the basic information is the same for all. The problem therefore, as it emerged from the feed-back received from the stakeholders, is that the low interoperability between the current B2A systems, which also impacts on B2B solutions. Source: OPC The SME panel results for options regarding the question on how interoperability of IT solutions/systems can be ensured reveal that 73% of the respondents consider that standardized technical specifications for sharing data between logistics operators and public administrations should be established.

2.3How will the problem evolve? Without any specific EU level intervention, acceptance of electronic documents is likely to remain limited. International fora generally take a long time to secure agreement between the various parties concerned, and often only recommend, but do not require using certain procedures. At EU level, progress may be equally slow and variable, as it will depend on the various revision processes of the current applicable legislation. At national level, Member States will likely continue to adapt their legislation in order to accommodate the increasing need for development of eGovernment services. However, they are likely to do so at variable pace and with different results, depending on national political priorities. Businesses will likely try to adapt to this evolving enabling environment, in order to capture most of the expected benefits of digitalisation. Therefore, the current trend of slow and mode-specific uptake of a variety of primarily mode-specific and non-interoperable solutions will continue. Theoretically, a company could acquire as many mode specific and/or national specific solutions as necessary, or use the services of companies that provide connecting software that ensures the interoperability of the data exchanged with the various commercial partners. However, that is neither economically sound nor effectively sustainable in practice, due to the high investment and maintenance costs for this solutions and integrators/translators. Rather, the large majority of businesses will continue to prefer the certainty (including as regards costs) of paper, and not invest in digital solutions, since the currently fragmented IT market, as well as the limited acceptance by authorities, makes digitalisation too costly. In the baseline scenario, freight transport activity for inland modes is projected to increase by 28% between 2015 and 2030 (51% for 2015-2050). Yet the digitalisation levels of the electronic transport document will remain limited for most of the transport modes. The levels provided in the table below represent the continuation of the current situation with only limited coordinated action in the direction of tackling the existing problem drivers. They account however for a certain increase in the use of electronic transport documents in the more digitally-ready Member States, such as for example the Netherlands, Denmark, or Estonia. Table 2.3: Baseline scenario – assumed level of uptake for electronic documents 2018 2025 2030 Road 1% 3% 5% Rail 5% 10% 15% IWT 0% 2% 5% Maritime 0% 2% 5% Aviation 40% 45% 50% Source: Ecorys et al. (2018) impact assessment support study Driven by growing traffic and low acceptance/use of electronic documentation and information exchange, the administrative costs under the baseline scenario are projected to increase despite some further uptake of electronic documents. Table 2.4 shows the evolution of administrative costs by mode of transport between 2018 and 2030 in million euros. The assumed uptake rates in the baseline scenario and the calculation of administrative costs are explained in Annex 4. Table 2.4 Estimated administrative costs in the baseline scenario Sector 2018 2025 2030 Digital Paper Total Digital Paper Total Digital Paper Total Road 42 5,920 5,962 140 6,474 6,614 250 6,776 7,026 Rail 17 490 507 40 536 576 66 559 625 IWT 0 582 582 7 628 635 18 656 674 Maritime 0 814 814 9 873 882 25 901 926 Aviation 8 17 25 11 20 31 15 21 36 Total 7,890 8,738 9,287 Source: Ecorys et al. (2018) impact assessment support study The slow and mode-dependent progress in the acceptance/use of electronic documents and information exchange is expected to hamper developments in the multimodal transport. In the baseline scenario road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU, road freight activity going up by 27% by 2030 (47% for 2015-2050). These developments would not support the achievement of the 2011 Transport White Paper goal of shifting 30% of road freight over 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030. A description of the baseline scenario and its assumptions is provided in Annex 4. 3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis The legal basis is provided by Article 91 and 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which must be understood in light of Article 90. Article 90 requires Member States to pursue a common transport policy. Articles 91 and, respectively 100(2) set out the requirement that common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States and, respectively, appropriate provisions for sea and air transport, be laid down by the European Parliament and the Council. 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action Unilateral initiatives by Member States to facilitate the uptake of electronic transport documents and information exchange would have limited effect, if similar action was not taken in other Member States whose territory is also concerned by the transport operations in question. At the same time, even if most EU Member States were to enact legislation facilitating the use of electronic documents, there is a high risk that, legislating unilaterally, each Member State would adopt different requirements for the acceptance of electronic documents, and regulatory information communication more generally, as valid and authentic. In practice, electronic documents and regulatory information communication which fulfilled the requirements for acceptance in one Member State would not be accepted in the other(s), thus creating barriers in the EU internal market. 3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The most appropriate level to address the problem and its drivers is therefore the EU level, where a uniform approach to acceptance of and common standards for acceptance of electronic documents can be set. In that respect, this initiative takes further and complements measures already established at EU level to ensure uniform conditions for acceptance of electronic freight transport information and documents, including by ensuring trust with regards to the electronic means for their communication. 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General and specific objectives The general objective of the initiative is to contribute to removing barriers to the smooth functioning of the Internal Market, to the modernisation of the economy and to the greater efficiency of the transport sector, through enabling wider use of digital technologies. This general objective would be achieved by means of specific measures implementing the following specific objectives: a) Addressing the problem driver "fragmented legal framework" 1.Ensure the establishment, in all EU Member States, of the obligation of acceptance of electronic cargo transport documents/information by all relevant public authorities; 2.Ensure the uniform implementation by authorities of the obligation of acceptance; b) Addressing the problem driver "multiple and non-interoperable systems" 3.Ensure the interoperability of IT systems and solutions for electronic exchange of cargo transport information, in particular for B2A regulatory information communication. There are clear synergies between the specific objectives of the intervention. For example, acceptance of the electronic transport information/documents by the authorities will significantly impact the level of acceptance by the businesses, and is expected to have a significant impact on reducing related B2A administrative costs and on improving the accuracy and reliability of the information exchanged B2B. However, if the authorities will continue to have large room for interpretation in how to apply their regulatory obligation to accept the information/documents communicated electronically, this will significantly impact the interoperability of the systems developed or adopted by the authorities to that end. If these systems remain not interoperable, this will impact on the interoperability of the solutions developed for the businesses, both for B2A and B2B communication, and therefore their related costs. As a result, the printed versions of the documents will continue to be issued and physically exchanged alongside the goods throughout the entire logistics chain. Therefore, it is important to pursue these objectives in parallel for a more coherent system of digital solutions. All of the stated specific objectives were supported by the large majority of the stakeholders consulted. 90 of the 100 OPC respondents fully agreed with the first objective, namely to ensure the acceptance by Member States' authorities. The same number of respondents also agreed with the third objective, aimed at ensuring the interoperability for B2A and B2B communications. There was also no subgroup of respondents that disagreed with any of these two objectives. Likewise, most enterprises responding to the SME panel indicated that ‘acceptance by MS authorities’ would be the most important policy objective to increase the use of electronic transport documents by SME’s (with 198 out 265 indicating it as a very important objective, and additional 35 as moderately important). A great majority also indicated the ability to use a single IT application/system to exchange electronic transport documents with all the other companies as a second most important objective (240 in total, with 172 indicating it as very important and 58 as moderately important). The second objective has been suggested by stakeholders during the consultation workshops and interviews. It aims to complement the implementation of the first objective, by ensuring also the uniform implementation, across the Member States, of the new uniform legal regime concerning the acceptance of the electronic documents by the authorities. This would tackle, in particular, the different administrative practices aspect of the identified problem. The objectives of the present intervention are consistent with the objectives of other ongoing initiatives currently being pursued, such as on the revision of the cabotage and combined transport rules in the EU, which provide for the acceptance by authorities of electronic evidence as proof of compliance with these rules, but do not provide detailed guidance on what could be considered authentic evidence, and how such authenticity could be proved. As highlighted earlier, the initiative is also consistent with the on-going initiative dealing with the RFD revision. By ensuring the uniform acceptance of electronically communicated cargo transport information on the hinterland journey of the goods – either before reaching a port for continuation over a maritime leg, or once the goods left the port after their maritime voyage – this initiative would facilitate the possibility of end-to-end electronic communication and exchange of transport information along the entire logistics chain. Furthermore, in pursuing the objective of ensuring the interoperability of the systems used by authorities to accept the electronic cargo information, synergies will be exploited, notably in terms of data models and interoperability. 5What are the available policy options? 5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed? The Baseline scenario reflects developments under current trends and adopted policies as described in section 2.4, without further EU level intervention. In this scenario the acceptance of documents will continue to remain limited, particularly on the side of the public authorities, though improving slowly and at variable speeds depending on the transport mode and on the Member State concerned. The adoption by authorities of technical implementation orientations and digital tools for inspecting electronic transport information would also remain limited, and largely divergent. Slow progress will be hampering the development of multimodal transport. National based approaches will likely continue to remain the norm, impacting on the digitalisation of cross-border transport information and documentation exchange. As suggested by current pilot initiative, more efforts for coordination among the different Member States and between and with the business can be expected. Yet, as this experience also suggests, these pilots will continue largely independently, with cross-border coordination concentrated rather at regional level. 5.2Policy measures and options

A long list of policy measures addressing the two main problem drivers was considered after extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research and the Commission’s own analysis. This list was subsequently screened based on the following criteria: legal, political and technical feasibility, effectiveness, efficiency and proportionality. Based on this initial screening (see Annex 9 for detailed explanation), a number of policy measures were discarded: ·Separate revision of individual pieces of current EU legislation; ·Obligation for businesses to use electronic documents for regulatory inspection by authorities; ·Establishment of a single EU legal regime concerning the validity of electronic transport contracts as commercial contracts; ·Establishment of a centralised EU transport information exchange system. The retained policy measures have been grouped in four distinct policy options. Table 5.1 below provides an overview of the retained policy measures, and links the individual policy measures with the problem drivers in the problem definition, the objectives and the policy options. Table 5.1: Description of policy measures (Key: D1=“multiple legal requirements” driver; D2=“non-interoperable systems” driver; SO = specific objective; S = support measure; R= regulatory measure; ✓ : included) Policy measure Driver / Specific objective PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 Acceptance D1 / SO1 1 Member States adherence to international contracts of carrige conventions D1 / SO1 ✓ R ✓S ✓S ✓S 2 Amendment of international conventions to remove the limitation of applicability of the conventions' provisions on the legal equivalence of the electronic transport contracts D1 / SO1 ✓S ✓S ✓S ✓S 3 Establishment of general obligation for MS authorities to accept electronic means for B2A information/documentation communication D1 / SO1 - ✓R ✓R ✓R 4 Inclusion in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements of provisions on mutual acceptance of electronic information/documentation D1 / SO1 (int'l dimension) - ✓R ✓R ✓R 5 Awareness raising, training and exchange of experience D1 / SO1 ✓ S ✓S ✓S ✓S Requirements for validity/acceptance D1 / SO1 6 Amendment of international conventions to align provisions on the validity of electronic contracts of carriage D1 / SO1 ✓S ✓S ✓S ✓S 7 Establishment of requirements for acceptance by authorities of B2A information made avaliable electronically D1 / SO1 ✓S ✓R ✓R ✓R 8 Inclusion of provisions on common requirements for acceptance in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements D1 / SO1 - ✓R ✓R ✓R Alignment of administrative procedures D1 / SO2 9 Review of administrative practices for checks by authorities of regulatory information D1 / SO2 ✓ S ✓S ✓R ✓R 10 Adoption of aligned procedures for regulatory information checks D1 / SO2 ✓ S ✓S ✓R ✓R Technical specifications for interoperability D2 / SO3 11 Establishment of technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for acceptance of B2A information/documentation made available electronically D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S ✓R ✓R 12a Establishment of an EU transport data dictionary/ data model D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S ✓R ✓R 12b Mode-specific technical specifications D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S ✓R - 12c Technical specifications common to all transport modes D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S - ✓R 13 Establishment of technical specifications for implementation of B2A electronic documentation requirements for validity/acceptance D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S ✓R ✓R 14 Certification of IT solutions for B2A information communication D2 / SO3 ✓S ✓S ✓R ✓R 15 Inclusion of provisions on common technical specifications in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements D2 / SO3 - - ✓R ✓R As indicated in Table 5.1 above, all options contain, for most part, the same set of policy measures. These measures may be implemented either in non-binding form, as support measures promoting voluntary action by the Member States, or regulatory form, such as the adoption of EU legal acts and the signature of bilateral agreements with third countries. The logic of the policy options building has followed a combination of these measures, when varied along two axes: material scope of the policy initiative, on the one hand, and levels of regulatory strength of the intervention, on the other hand. In scope, the options differ primarily in the range of cargo and transport documents/information covered, namely whether it includes only the main transport documents (i.e. those which serve as contracts of carriage), or any document/evidence containing the information required by applicable legislations. The depth of regulatory intervention is determined by the mix of non-regulatory instruments (support measures) and regulatory instruments under each option. It ranges from limited legislative intervention, relying primarily on ensuring adherence to current international conventions provisions on the legal equivalence of the electronic transport contracts to full regulatory guidance on the implementation of the obligation of acceptance. Table 5.2 below provides a synthetic overview of the four policy options envisaged. A more detailed explanation of the differences between the options is provided further below. Table 5.2 – Definition of policy options (Key: S = support measure; R= regulatory measure) Policy Option 1 – Full obligation of adherence by the Member States to the current legal framework as regards acceptance of electronic transport contracts, with voluntary harmonisation of implementation (PO1) Acceptance ✓ Adherence to relevant international conventions (R) ØScope: international conventions to which not all Member States are party, i.e. the e-CMR protocol (road), the CMNI convention (inland waterways), and the Hamburg Rules (maritime) ✓ Amendment of international conventions to remove the limitation of the applicability of conventions' provisions on the legal equivalence of the electronic contracts to the paper concluded/evidenced contracts (S) ✓ Awareness raising, training and exchange of experience (S) Requirements for validity/acceptance/admissibility ✓ Amendment of international conventions to align current mode-specific provisions on requirements for the legal equivalence of electronic contracts of carriage to paper-based/evidenced contracts (S) Administrative procedures ✓ Review of administrative practices for controls of electronic transport documents/information (S) ✓ Adoption of aligned procedures for controls of electronic transport contracts presented electronically (S) Technical specifications ✓ Establishment and alignment by Member States of technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for validity/admissibility of electronic transport contracts, as specified in the international conventions, in their respective national legislation (S) ✓ Certification of IT solutions for B2A information communication (S) Policy Option 2 – Full obligation of acceptance for the Member States authorities of the electronic transport contracts, with minimum harmonisation of implementation (PO2) Acceptance ✓ Establishment of general obligation for MS enforcement authorities to accept electronic contracts of carriage (R) ØScope: international transport contracts as governed by the mode-specific international conventions, as well as any other electronically concluded or evidenced transport contract ✓ Inclusion of provisions of mutual acceptance of electronic contracts of carriage in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) ✓ Awareness raising, training and exchange of experience (S) Requirements for validity/acceptance/admissibility ✓ Establishment of single set of requirements for acceptance by authorities of electronic contracts of carriage for all transport modes (R) ✓ Amendment of international conventions to align current mode-specific provisions on electronic contracts of carriage with EU requirements (S) ✓ Inclusion of provisions on common requirements in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) Administrative procedures ✓ Review of administrative practices of inspection of transport documents, including, and in particular, the electronic contracts of carriage (S) ✓ Adoption of aligned procedures for controls of transport contracts presented electronically (S) Technical specifications ✓ Establishment of technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for acceptance of electronic contracts of carriage (S) ✓ Establishment of an EU transport data dictionary/data model (S) ✓ Inclusion of provisions on common technical specifications in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) ✓ Certification of IT solutions for B2A information communication (S) Policy Option 3 – Full obligation of acceptance for the Member States authorities of regulatory cargo transport information or documentation, with partially harmonised implementation (PO3) Acceptance ✓ Establishment of general obligation for MS enforcement authorities to accept B2A regulatory information and documentation made available electronically (R). ØScope: All regulatory information/documentation required to be evidenced as proof of compliance as specified by EU legislation regulating the conditions of the transport of goods within the EU (cf. Title VI TFEU), as well as specific national provisions that may bear on international freight transport. This includes information evidenced by, but not limited to, contracts of carriage. ✓ Amendment of international conventions to remove the limitation of applicability of the conventions' provisions (S) ✓ Inclusion in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements of provisions on mutual acceptance of electronic means for B2A regulatory information / documentation communication (S) ✓ Awareness raising, training and exchange of experience (S) Requirements for validity/acceptance/admissibility ✓ Establishment of single set of requirements for acceptance by authorities of B2A regulatory information / documentation made available electronically (R) ✓ Amendment of international conventions to align provisions on electronic contracts of carriage (S) or ✓ Inclusion of provisions on common requirements in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) Administrative procedures ✓ Review of administrative practices for regulatory controls and information requirements (R) ✓ Adoption of aligned procedures for controls, including checks of information requirements (R) Technical specifications ✓ Establishment of technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for validity/admissibility of B2A and, respectively, A2B electronic information/documentation communication (R) ØMode-specific technical specifications for B2A communication but with ✓ common core EU transport data dictionary/ data Ø(Possibly) Different technical specifications for requirements implementation for A2B documentation ✓ Certification of IT solutions for B2A information communication (R) ✓ Inclusion of provisions on common technical specifications in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) Policy Option 4 – Full obligation of acceptance for the Member States authorities of regulatory cargo transport information or documentation, with fully harmonised implementation (PO4) Acceptance ✓ Same as PO3 Requirements for validity/acceptance/admissibility ✓ Same as PO3 Alignement of administrative procedures ✓ Same as PO3 Technical specifications ✓ Establishment of technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for validity/admissibility of B2A and A2B electronic information/documentation communication (R) ØCommon technical specifications for requirements implementation for all B2A communication in all transport modes ✓ Certification of IT solutions for B2A information communication (R) ✓ Inclusion of provisions on common technical specifications in relevant EU-third countries bilateral agreements (S) 5.3How do the policy options differ 5.1.1Material scope: transport contracts vs regulatory information evidence The scope of policy intervention is limited in PO1 and PO2 to those transport documents which serve as (international) contracts of carriage. In PO3 and PO4, this scope is enlarged to include any document which, due to its information content, may serve as evidence of compliance of a determined transport operation with the applicable regulatory conditions on the EU Member States' territory. The justification of limiting the focus of some policy options to the transport contracts lies, on the one hand, in the nature and functions of the document and, on the other hand, in the urge expressed by a good number of stakeholders that there might be merits in "starting small", as it would allow unlocking some immediate potential. The transport contracts are the main documents currently used by businesses, and requested by authorities for inspection, to evidence compliance with transport conditions. They contain an important part of the information required by the authorities, and they also constitute proof of the legitimate possession of the goods. Unlike most other documents used to communicate freight transport information, the contracts of carriage are central and indispensable to a transport operation. In addition, not all business stakeholders come in contact with the other transport documents with the same frequency. Shippers (i.e. sellers of the goods) come relatively less frequently in contact with them than the freight forwarders, which come less frequently with them than the carriers. Yet almost all categories of these stakeholders come in contact with the contract of carriage. Most stakeholders initially indicated that the acceptance of these transport documents by the authorities was their main concern, and this was also reflected in the various formal takes of position on the issue of digitalisation of transport documents. The acceptance of the electronic road consignment note, currently characterised by the lowest level of use and acceptance relative to the other mode-specific transport contracts, has been particularly highlighted. Consequently, an exclusive focus on the international transport contracts, and particularly as defined by the mode-specific international conventions, was the starting point of this impact assessment. This was clearly indicated in the inception impact assessment (IIA) report. None of the reactions received to the IIA had challenged that focus. The shift in focus came as a result of the wider and more in-depth stakeholder consultation. This became clear particularly in discussions with rail and aviation stakeholders, where the degree of digitalisation of the transport contracts is most advanced. According to them, the reason why penetration rates had remained rather low (or at least lower than anticipated), was the fact that the digital solutions developed focused only on the transport contracts. For many companies, that significantly dented the business case for investment in such solutions, if the rest of the documents had to be circulated in paper. This was also confirmed by several other stakeholder groups' representatives, including from the maritime sector and those whose business activities span more than one transport mode. In addition, a large number of stakeholders made a strong call to avoid aiming to simply reproduce current paper documents and business processes in a digital environment. Rather, digitalisation opens up important opportunities to rethink and optimise such processes. The stakeholder consultation activities also revealed relatively broader support for a wider rather than narrower approach to the scope of the policy intervention. However, the results also highlighted that there would be significant support – about half of the stakeholders consulted – for a more narrowly based intervention. Thus, while 40 of the 100 OPC respondents indicated that electronic means should also be used for the other documents, 54 were undecided. Similarly, 137 of the respondents to the SME panel were not sure whether it was necessary at this stage to pursue also the digitalisation of the other transport documents, against 101 which thought that they should.

5.1.2The legal equivalence of the electronic transport contracts and the admissibility as proof of regulatory compliance An important difference between the policy options retained for further impact assessment consideration lies in whether the options concern also the validity of the electronic transport contract, as a commercial contract, in addition to the admissibility of the electronic form this document, alongside any other documents/information electronically presented, as evidence (i.e. valid source of information) of compliance with the regulatory requirements. This distinction is closely related to the difference in the material scope of the different options. Only PO1 addresses, and only partly, the issue of validity of the contracts by a regulatory measure, by ensuring adherence by all Member States to the road e-CMR protocol. As highlighted earlier in the analysis in section 2.2.1, this protocol is the only one among the mode-specific conventions which does not subject the validity of the electronic transport contract to national rules related to the validity of the commercial contracts. As such, both acceptance by authorities, including courts, and by all commercial partners, would be warranted. In all other cases – i.e. of the other mode specific transport contracts under option 1, and of all the other (modal) transport contracts under PO2, PO3 and PO4 – the validity of the transport contract would remain dependable on national rules concerning the validity of the commercial contracts. While the eIDAS Regulation would in principle cover the aspect of acceptance of the electronically evidenced contracts by courts, if national legislation conditions acceptance of the electronic evidence to other requirements, related to aspects such as the authenticity or integrity of the document/information, those national law-specific conditions would need to be complied with in order for the electronic document to be accepted. By contrast, all options would ensure, though to various degrees, the acceptance of the electronic transport contracts as evidence of compliance with regulatory conditions for the transport of goods in the different Member States. By providing clear requirements, as well as technical specifications for the implementation of these requirements, as regards the conditions for acceptance (such as authenticity, integrity) of the regulatory information made available electronically, PO3 and PO4 would also provide uniform conditions that MS courts could take into account when considering the admissibility of the electronic documents containing this information, including electronic contracts, as evidence (i.e. valid source of information). These two options would ensure admissibility at least in administrative legal proceedings, namely in case of dispute between the authorities and the commercial party which presented them over the admissibility of the electronic document as evidence of compliance with regulatory transport conditions. In civil legal proceedings, namely disputes between private parties, national rules on the validity of the transport/commercial contracts would still impact the extent to which the parties could enforce their rights deriving from that contract in a court of law. 5.1.3The role of international conventions and bilateral agreements with third parties as policy intervention instruments The international conventions concerned by this initiative, and considered in the context of the policy options, are those governing the mode-specific international contracts of carriage. As highlighted in the analysis in section 2.2.1 above, these conventions concern strictly the conditions of – i.e. the rights and obligations of the parties to – an international transport contract, and the requirements these contracts need to fulfil in order to trigger the application of these conditions. These conditions relate to the information content of the contract, and to its form, specifically under what conditions the electronic form of a contract is legally equivalent to a paper-based document. There is no provision in these conventions obliging the authorities to accept these documents, either electronically or on paper. Furthermore, no European or Member State law obliges businesses to use these specific contracts (as defined by the conventions) and to carry them along in order to have it available for inspection. In practice however, contracts concluded according with these conventions are those most often used by the businesses, as they contain clearly defined, standard contract conditions. As highlighted earlier, the transport contract is also the document most frequently requested for vision by the authorities. For this reason, measures concerning adherence to or transposition of the provisions of the international conventions, as well as future amendment of these provisions, are part of all retained policy options. But these measures play different roles, with different impacts, including on the timing, of the implementation of the policy options considered. In the context of PO1, international conventions constitute the main instruments for implementation. This option foresees an EU legal act that would require adherence to the international conventions. PO2 would transpose these conventions provisions, by requiring Member States to recognise the legal equivalence of the electronic transport contracts as defined by these conventions but, in addition, would also seek to align and supplement these conventions' requirements related to the electronic form of the document, into a single and common across all modes set of criteria. Since the timing for the implementation of the related measures would be no different than for ordinary legislation, such options would therefore speed up the process of acceptance by Member States authorities of these transport documents, compared with the baseline scenario. PO2 would also ensure a more uniformly applicable set of rules as regards the acceptance, and the requirements for acceptance of, the electronic form of these documents as legally equivalent to their paper version. In the context of PO3 and PO4, the international conventions are no longer the reference point. As the scope of the intervention is enlarged to cover any “documents” (or “evidence”) that contain the regulatory information required by the EU and national laws regulating the conditions of freight carriage on the EU Member States' territory, the acceptance by authorities of electronic documents (or rather of the information contained therein) is achieved by dedicated regulatory measures, in the framework of an EU legal act. International conventions are concerned only by support measures, aimed at ensuring voluntary adherence by all Member States to the international conventions. The goal is to ensure a uniform global framework to further facilitate B2B use of these electronic contracts, and particularly in the international transport originating or ending outside the EU. Measures aimed at the amendment of these conventions are also relevant to all options, in different ways. The purpose of these measures is to align and better specify the various mode specific requirements related to the legal equivalence (validity) of the electronic form of the international transport contracts. Under PO1, it would be the only measure that would ensure alignment of the (technical) requirements concerning the validity of the different mode-specific electronic contracts. Under PO2, PO3 and PO4, this requirements alignment would be achieved through specific regulatory measures. The amendment of the international conventions would however remain a useful instrument to further facilitate the use of electronic contracts in the international transport originating or ending outside the EU, by ensuring their acceptance also by third countries, under similar conditions as by EU Member States. Experience suggests that the amendment of international conventions may take several years, and their entry into force remains dependent on the ratification of a certain minimum number of Member States. This would particularly impact on the timing for the implementation of PO1, which relies primarily on these conventions to provide a uniform EU framework concerning the validity of the electronic transport contracts. The timing would also vary depending on the transport mode. In rail and aviation sector, the EU itself is party to the respective international conventions. This should facilitate negotiations, at least as regards the EU Member States positions. This is however not the case for the other mode specific international conventions. Under PO2, PO3 and PO4, the impact on timing would be more limited since, as explained earlier, the amendment of these conventions is not central to the implementation of this initiative. In addition, all these options foresee measures related to the inclusion, in relevant bilateral EU – third countries agreements, as alternative, or "bridge" measure until the international conventions are amended. These bilateral agreements provisions would also supplement international conventions provisions by (i) ensuring mutual acceptance by the authorities of the Member States and of the third countries concerned of the electronic transport information (when provided by commercial parties established on the others' territory), in the case of PO2, PO3 and PO4; and (ii) agreeing on more detailed technical requirements for implementation (of the obligation of acceptance by authorities), under PO3 and PO4. 5.1.4Technical specifications for implementation All options contain measures aimed at providing further technical specifications for the implementation of the requirements for the validity/admissibility of the information or documents made available to the authorities by electronic means. The aim of these measures is to ensure the interoperability of these electronic means, in particular with the Member States' systems for reception and control of the electronic information/documentation, both as currently developed as a result of obligations stemming from other EU legal acts (the UCC and RFD in particular), and as they will be developed in the framework of the implementation of this initiative. In the case of PO1 and PO2, these measures would take the form of support measures for voluntary cooperation and coordination among the Member States, including in the implementation of proposed non-binding implementation guidelines by the Commission. In the case of PO3 and PO4, these would take the form of regulatory provisions, in the framework of the proposed EU legal act. More specifically, these are proposed to be adopted by means of implementing or delegated regulations, which would be based on a dedicated impact assessment. The main difference between PO3 and PO4 in this regard is the extent to which these technical specifications will be harmonised across the different transport modes, to ensure interoperability. PO4 proposes that these specifications are fully common, whereas PO3 proposes a middle-ground solution, where only a minimum set of specifications would be fully common, while other specifications would take into account mode-specificities. The aim is to ensure a minimum level of interoperability across the mode-specific technical solutions and which, according to stakeholder feed-back requires, at a minimum, interoperability at data level, while trying to avoid excessive costs for adaptation of current mode-specific solutions to "one-size-fits-all" specifications, particularly for those modes where well-established solutions are already in place, such as in the rail and aviation sector and, to a lesser extent, maritime (i.e. as related to the maritime single window). Any proposal in this regard would, nonetheless, be based on a specifically dedicated impact assessment. Under all options, the technical specifications related measures are envisaged to comply with the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. to accommodate any tec