Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Report on the implementation of the Customs 2002 programme (1998-2002)
Date: 2003-11-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, administrative cooperation, customs inspection, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.11.2003
COM(2003) 672 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL

Report on the implementation of the Customs 2002 programme (1998-2002)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL Report on the implementation of the Customs 2002 programme (1998-2002)....... 1

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ....................................................................................... 2

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL Report on the implementation of the Customs 2002 programme (1998-2002)....... 3

Part 1: Report on the implementation of Joint Actions under Customs 2002............................ 7

1.

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 8

1.1.

The programme ............................................................................................................ 8

1.1.1. Background .................................................................................................................. 8

1.1.2.

Programme objectives.................................................................................................. 8

1.1.3. Organisational structures of the programme ................................................................ 9

2.

3.

Budget .......................................................................................................................... 9

operations Joint .......................................................................................................... 10

3.1.

Types of joint action .................................................................................................. 10

3.1.1.

Seminars..................................................................................................................... 10

3.1.2.

Exchanges .................................................................................................................. 10

3.1.3.

Project Groups............................................................................................................ 11

3.1.4.

Training...................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.5. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1.6. Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 12

3.2.

3.3.

Programme management and efficiency.................................................................... 13

Conclusions and recommendations on joint actions .................................................. 13

3.3.1. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 13

3.3.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 13

3.4.

Detailed results of joint actions.................................................................................. 14

3.4.1.

Improving comprehension and application of Community legislation...................... 14

3.4.2. Risk management: a coherent set of results ............................................................... 14

3.4.3. Operational techniques for combating fraud: significant improvements................... 15

2

3.4.4. Relations with traders: determination and practical experience ................................ 15

3.4.5.

Training: devising and pooling materials................................................................... 15

3.4.6. Networks, structures, personal contacts: an important result..................................... 16

3.5.

Impact of joint actions................................................................................................ 16

3.5.1. Use of training results at national level...................................................................... 17

3.5.2. Cooperation with traders: better communication and a change of perspective ......... 17

3.5.3.

Improving administrative cooperation ....................................................................... 18

3.5.4.

Improving working methods ...................................................................................... 19

3.5.4.1. Understanding of legislation ...................................................................................... 19

3.5.4.2. Improving working methods and controls in particular............................................. 20

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

5.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

Actions financed under the external part of customs 2002 ........................................ 20

Baltic Sea Customs Conference. ................................................................................ 21

Support for the World Customs Organisation (WCO)............................................... 21

IT assistance financed by the Customs 2002 “External” budget line ........................ 22

IT initiatives financed by other Community programmes ......................................... 22

Opening the programme to applicant countries ......................................................... 22

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 23

General Conclusions .................................................................................................. 23

General Recommendations ........................................................................................ 24

Part 2: Report on implementation of Customs 2002 Information Technology (1998-2002)... 25

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

2.

3.

Introduction................................................................................................................ 26

Context ....................................................................................................................... 26

Data sources ............................................................................................................... 26

Interim evaluation report............................................................................................ 26

Structure of the analysis ............................................................................................. 26

Budget ........................................................................................................................ 27

Part common to Customs 2002 and Fiscalis .............................................................. 28

3.1.

CCN/CSI (Common Communication Network/Common System Interface)............ 28

3.1.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 28

3.1.2.

Evaluation of the deployment and development of CCN/CSI................................... 28

3.1.3. Results........................................................................................................................ 29

3

3.1.3.1. Users’ evaluation of quality ....................................................................................... 29

3.1.3.2. Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 29

3.1.3.3. Gartner Group study (2002). ...................................................................................... 30

3.1.4.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 30

3.2.

Programme management tools................................................................................... 31

3.2.1.

Project Support Office (PSO) .................................................................................... 31

3.2.2.

TEMPO (Taxud Electronic Management of Projects Online)................................... 31

3.2.2.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 31

3.2.2.2. Contribution made by Tempo .................................................................................... 31

4.

4.1.

4.2.

Customs applications ................................................................................................. 31

Introduction................................................................................................................ 31

Evaluation of the development, deployment and operation of the customs
applications overall .................................................................................................... 32

4.2.1. Development and deployment ................................................................................... 32

4.2.2. Operation.................................................................................................................... 33

4.2.3. Usefulness/Sustainability ........................................................................................... 33

4.3.

NCTS (New Computerised Transit System).............................................................. 33

4.3.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 33

4.3.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 34

4.3.2.1. Users’ evaluation of quality ....................................................................................... 34

4.3.2.2. Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 34

4.3.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 36

4.4.

The TARIC data base (Integrated Community Tariff) .............................................. 36

4.4.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 36

4.4.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 37

4.4.2.1. Member States’ evaluation of quality ........................................................................ 37

4.4.2.2. Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 37

4.4.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 37

4.5.

The TQS (Tariff Quota and Surveillance) application............................................... 38

4.5.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 38

4.5.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 38

4.5.2.1. Member States’ evaluation of quality ........................................................................ 38

4

4.5.2.2. Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 39

4.5.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 39

4.6.

The EBTI (European Binding Tariff Information) database...................................... 39

4.6.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 39

4.6.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 40

4.6.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 40

4.7.

DDS (Data Dissemination System): .......................................................................... 40

4.7.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 40

4.7.2. Results and impact ..................................................................................................... 40

4.8.

The SIGL application (Licence management information system) ........................... 41

4.8.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 41

4.8.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 41

4.8.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 41

4.9.

The AFIS (Anti-Fraud Information System)/SID (Système d’information douanier)
applications ................................................................................................................ 42

4.9.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 42

4.9.1.1. AFIS ........................................................................................................................... 42

4.9.1.2. SID ............................................................................................................................. 42

4.9.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 42

4.9.2.1. AFIS ........................................................................................................................... 42

4.9.2.2. SID ............................................................................................................................. 43

4.9.3.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 43

5.

5.1.

5.2.

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 43

Part common to Customs 2002 and Fiscalis .............................................................. 43

Customs applications ................................................................................................. 43

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 45

Annex 1:The method: Use of the MEANS model to structure the evaluation......................... 45

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

Delineating the scope of the evaluation ..................................................................... 45

Structure of the evaluation ......................................................................................... 45

Criteria and evaluation questions ............................................................................... 45

Evolution of the programme’s objectives .................................................................. 47

5

3.

Analysis of objectives (“Objective Tree”) and relation of effects to objectives........ 48

Annex 2 table of Customs 2002 objectives and expected effects of joint actions.................... 49

Annex 3 Member States’ evaluations of the effects of joint actions ........................................ 51

Annex 3.1

Seminars ........................................................................................................ 51

Annexe 3.2

Exchanges ...................................................................................................... 52

Annex 3.3

Project Groups ............................................................................................... 53

Annex 3.4

Training ......................................................................................................... 54

Annex 3.5

General Evaluation ........................................................................................ 55

Annex 4 Synthesis of individual evaluations by participants in seminars held in 2000, 2001

and 2002(results for 18 seminars out of 29)............................................................... 56

Annex 5 Development of number of exchanges....................................................................... 59

Annex 6 Customs 2002 IT budget ............................................................................................ 60

Annex 7 Member States’ evaluation of the development, deployment and operation of

CCN/CSI .................................................................................................................... 61

Annex 8 Member States’ Evaluatio of the completeness of information provided by the

Customs 2002 systems ............................................................................................... 62

Annex 9 Member States’ evaluation of the quality of information provided by the Customs

2002 systems .............................................................................................................. 63

Annex 10Member States’ evaluation of the deployment and operation of the national

components of the systems developed under Customs 2002..................................... 64

Annex 11Member States’ Evaluation of the contribution of the systems developed under

Customs 2002 to the Programme’s objectives ........................................................... 65

Annex 12Member States’ Evaluation of use of the systems developed under Customs 2002 66

6

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL

Report on the implementation of the Customs 2002 programme (1998-2002)

7

Summary

Customs 2002 covers two types of project: “joint” actions and computer applications.

I) The first part of the report concerns joint actions, i.e. those aspects of cooperation that are not
directly  related  to  information  technology:  exchanges  of  officials,  project  groups,  seminars,
benchmarking  and  training.  It  looks  at  the  joint  actions  carried  out  over  the  last  three  years  of
Customs 2002 (2000, 2001, 2002) for a total  cost  of  EUR 6.75  million,  since those  carried  out
earlier are covered in the 2001 interim report.

Exchanges of officials (EUR 2.55 Million, 38% of the total) provided opportunities for contacts
to  be  established  between  Community  and  national  administrations.  During  2000  to  2002
inclusive,  approximately  1400  exchanges  were  organised,  with  some  major  events  such  as  the
exchange fairs held in Brussels, Vienna and Larnaca. The exchanges have generally been found
to  be  quite  useful;  improvements  could  be  made  in  terms  of  monitoring  and  the  selection  of
subjects  and  candidates.  The  applicant  countries  have  recently  been  included  under  this
instrument.

Participants  in  the  38  project  groups  (EUR 2.02  million,  30%  of  the  total)  found  them  highly
satisfactory.  The  improvements  proposed  concern  the  preparation  of  meetings,  the  choice  of
subjects and more pooling of information.

The  29  seminars  (EUR  1.52  million,  23%  of  the  total)  organised  during  the  period  under
consideration were generally well appreciated. Possible improvements here, too, would concern
the selection of participants, preparation and follow-up.

The 18 benchmarking operations, introduced relatively recently, were organised by the Member
States for a cost of EUR 0.375 million, or 5.4% of the total. The participants were generally fairly
satisfied with the results, but suggested certain improvements, particularly as regards preparation.

Most of the participants  in  the  training  measures  (EUR 0.251  million,  3.7%  of  the total) found
them useful. Some participants felt that a specific institutional context could enhance the result of
future training measures.

The different aspects of the programme interested the national administrations, who were, by and
large, satisfied with the course and results of the operations.

In the participants’ opinion, the improvements to be made relate above all to an even more finely
tuned selection of subjects and participants.

The dissemination of the results could be improved.

II) The second part presents the results and impact of the different computer applications and
the organisational and management tools of the IT projects.

A  total  of  EUR  84  million  was  committed  to  the  IT  side  of  Customs  2002.  Since  the
computerised systems  have  Community  and  national  components,  Customs  2002  only  finances
the Community component.

8

The  development  and  deployment  of  the  CCN/CSI1  communication  network  required  an
investment of EUR 23 million, of which half was financed by Customs 2002 and the other half
by Fiscalis.

The  NCTS2  application  represents  51%  of  the  Customs  2002  IT  budget  (including  half  of  the
CCN/CSI  expenditure  and  the  management  tools).  The  NCTS  gave  rise  to  considerable  costs,
since both development and deployment were involved. Most of the other customs applications
were  already  in  operation  before  the  beginning  of  the  programme.  The  “tariff”  applications
account  for  15%  of  the  total  budget  (those  requiring  most  work  were  TARIC,3  TQS,4  EBTI,5
ISPP6 and SMS7).

AFIS/ SID8 and SIGL9 account for 13% and 5% respectively of the total budget.

- Part common to Customs 2002 and Fiscalis

The CCN/CSI communication network and interface offer full services. The network  runs  well
and is has a high use rate. Deployment, development and operating costs were determined by the
obligation to make CCN/CSI compatible with the different national systems already in place. The
decentralised  technical  architecture  of  CCN/CSI  entails  a  specific  infrastructure  being  put  in
place  for  every  new  connection,  and  possibly  some  development  to  adapt  to  additional  local
technology.

It has proved difficult to set realistic timetables for project implementation because Member State
delegates  on  the  committees  responsible  have  not  been  fully  informed  about  all  available
resources (budget and human resources) for implementing the “national” part of the projects.

- Customs applications

- It is not yet possible to measure all the results and impact generated by the NCTS, which is still
in a deployment phase. It is not yet used to full capacity, mainly because few of the traders using
the  simplified  procedure  (80%  of  transit  movements)  are  connected  to  the  system.  Since  all
Member State transit offices and all traders using the simplified procedure should be connected
by  1  July  2003  and  1  March  2004  respectively,  the  number  of  movements  processed  by  the
NCTS should increase rapidly.

Traders  and  the  Member  States  consider  that  the  NCTS  will  contribute  to  improving  inter-
administration  cooperation  and  fraud  prevention  and  will  help  facilitate  customs  controls.  In
terms  of  efficiency,  the  cost  of  computerising  the  transit  system  (EUR 43 million)  should  be
viewed  in  the  light  of  the  cost  of  fraud  in  customs  transit  (estimated  at  EUR 1  billion  for  the
period 1990 to 1996).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Common Communication Network/Common System Interface
New Computerised Transit System
TARif Intégré Communautaire (Integrated Community Tariff)
Tariff Quota and Surveillance
European Binding Tariff Information
Information System for Processing Procedures
Specimen Management System
Anti-Fraud Information System/ Système d’information douanier [Customs information system]
Système d’information de Gestation des Licences [Licence management information system]

9

                                                
- The purpose of the TARIC and DDS10 systems is to disseminate information held centrally to
national administrations and the public. Using information technology, this can be done rapidly
and  information  reaches  recipients  at  the  same  time,  thus  reducing  the  risks  of  divergent
applications  of  Community  law.  The  Member  States  also  consider  that  TARIC  is  helping  to
improve the efficiency of administrative procedures.

-  Central  computerised  quota  management  (TQS)  also  contributes  to  uniform  application  of
legislation because information is processed rapidly and in uniform fashion. However, Member
States have to make sure they do not make mistakes in their drawing requests.

The  Member  States  expressed  a  desire  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  tariff  applications  by
harmonising  and  integrating  them  all  to  avoid  discrepancies  between  them  and  facilitate
connections  and  compatibility  between  systems.  This  is  the  objective  of  the  planned  ITE
(Integrated Tariff Environment) project.

-  the  EBTI  application  was  deployed  thanks  to  financing  from  the  programme  (provision  of
scanners  and  cameras  to  national  administrations).  Central  computerised  management  of  BTIs
(Binding  Tariff  Information  notices)  primarily  contributes  to  improving  the  efficiency  of
administrative procedures and cooperation. However, particular attention needs to be devoted to
the few current cases of divergence in the application of tariff legislation and to improving  the
central dictionary of the data base.

-  There  was  a  very  low  response  from  Member  States  to  the  survey  on  the  SIGL  application
(computerised licence management). Nevertheless, it has made it possible to limit fraud involving
textile and steel import quotas.

- The AFIS application is a useful tool for combating customs fraud. The Member States consider
that  it  is  also  a  useful  tool  for  cooperation,  allowing  information  to  be  exchanged  between
customs  administrations.  Since  SID  was  not  in  the  operational  phase  during  the  programme
period, it’s results and impact cannot be evaluated.

III) Overall conclusions

Overall, Customs 2002 has helped enhance cooperation both among Member States and between
Member States and the Commission. In addition, it has prepared the way for the integration of
future Member States’ administrations into the management of Community customs.

Because of the direct involvement of national and EU administrations in this type of programme,
the  credibility  of  evaluations  would  be  improved  if  they  could  be  based  on  the  work  of
independent consultants.

We must not allow the positive effects of the programme to let us lose sight of the scale of the
objectives and the variety of national customs cultures and situations. The objective of ensuring
that  Member  States’  customs  administrations  “work  together  as  one”  justifies  intensifying  our
efforts. This is all the more necessary in view of the coming accession of new Member States and
the changes to the external borders of the EU that this will bring with it.

To ensure that  our  common  external  borders  are  well  managed,  facilitating  cross-border traffic
while controlling risks, it may be necessary to engage in more coordination between the various
services  concerned  and  renewed  cooperation  with  our  neighbours.  The  successors  to  Customs
2002 should be capable of taking such developments into account.

10

DDS (Data Dissemination System)

10

                                                
Part 1: Report on the implementation of Joint Actions under
Customs 2002

11

1. 

INTRODUCTION

1.1.  The programme

1.1.1.  Background

The Customs 2002 programme, adopted on 17 December 199911 and covering the period 1 January 1996
to 31 December 2002, was the successor to the Mattheus programme,12 which had existed since 1991 for
the training of customs officials and administrative cooperation and, from 1 January 1998, also covered
the IDA programme.13

It encompasses Customs 2000,14 the programme adopted in 1996 for the period 1996 to 2000, with an
overall  budget  of  EUR  50  to  135  million.  It  covers  all  customs-related  training,  computerisation  and
preparation of the applicant countries. It will be succeeded by Customs 2007,15 the programme for 2003
to 2007, with a budget of EUR 133 million.

1.1.2.  Programme objectives

Decision  No  210/97/EEC  adopting  the  Customs  2000  programme  cites  many  objectives  for  the
programme; Article 4, which sets out the “common framework of objectives”, divides them into seven
groups. Other objectives are cited in the recitals and the body of the text.

While the  overall  long-term  objective  of the  programme  is  to  facilitate the operation  of the internal
market, the interim evaluation carried out in the first half of 200116 emphasised three main intermediate
objectives:

– 

– 

– 

to contribute to the facilitation of trade;

to  improve  the  campaign  against  fraud  so  as  to  safeguard  the  financial  interests  of  the
Community;

to improve the uniform application of the law and of Community policies in all parts of
the customs territory.

These three objectives should ensure that the various customs administrations work together as one.

As the customs environment changes, the administrations have to adapt to new functions - from merely
administering the collection of duties and other charges, their role is extending to include responsibility
for the implementation of other measures connected with agricultural policy, safeguarding public health
and the environment, and combating fraud in the broadest sense.

11

12

13

14

15

16

Decision No 1991/341/EEC
Council  Decision  No  95/468/EC  From  1995  to  1997  this  programme  supported  a  variety  of  projects
contributing  to  the  telematic  exchange  of  data  between  administrations  in  the  Community,  in  particular
customs applications
Decision No 105/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Decision 210/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Decision No 253/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Interim  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Customs  2002  programme.  Commission  working  paper,
SEC(2001) 1329, 31 July 2001

12

                                                
1.1.3.  Organisational structures of the programme

The  organisational and  management  structures of the  programme,  of  which  an  account  is  given  in  the
interim report, have not changed.

The Customs Policy Group defines strategic and policy guidelines; Member States are represented in
the Group by their Directors-General of customs.

The Customs 2002 Management Committee takes decisions on programme implementation. It meets
twice a year. It has created five Management Groups, each one responsible for a priority area identified
in the annual action plan, which is regularly updated and sets out all actions undertaken.

2.  BUDGET

The  table  below  shows  the  development  of  expenditure  for  joint  actions  over  the  last  years  of  the
programme. The expenditure was financed by budget line B5-303.

2000

2001

2002

Total

EUR thousand

Actual ex-
penditure

%  of
total

Actual ex-
penditure

% of
total

Estimated
expend.

% of
total

Estimated
expend.

% of
total

Seminars

Exchanges
Project Groups
Training
Benchmarking
Monitoring
Other
Total
External actions
(candidate countries)

32%
40%
26%
1.4%

0.4%

593
733
475
26

8
1835

1068

469
967
597
5
145
34

2216

1039

21%
44%
27%
0.2%
6.5%
1.5%

460
850
950
220
220

2700

370

17%
31%
35%
8.1%
8.1%

23%
38%
30%
3.7%
5.4%
0.5%
0.1%

1521
2550
2021
251
365
34
8
6750

2477

The budget heading for the external part of Customs 2002 (B7-860) committed a total of EUR 2 596 089
to assisting the applicant countries with IT.

13

3.  OPERATIONS JOINT

3.1.  Types of joint action

The  interim  evaluation  showed  the  complementarity  of  the  programme’s  instruments  used  in
combination. Member States’ comments confirm the usefulness of the actions.

3.1.1.  Seminars

The seminars are organised by the Member States and bring together experts from the administrations,
and occasionally from economic circles. Their purpose is to examine specific subjects thoroughly. At the
end of each seminar, a final report is prepared by the organising Member State which lists the principal
conclusions and recommendations.

From  2000  to  2002,  twenty-nine  seminars  were  organised.  The  annexed  tables17  summarise  the
participants’ individual evaluations.

Six Member States consider the seminars “very useful”, and six consider them “useful”. On average the
seminars scored 3.5 for usefulness on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 for “not useful”, 2 for “not very useful”, 3 for
“useful” and 4 for “very useful”).

At the same time, when asked for their suggestions regarding future seminars, the Member States asked
that  seminars  be  organised  more  practically,  by  better  targeting  of  objectives  (9  countries)  and
participants (5  countries),  reducing  the  number  of  participants (3)  and  giving  them  more  time,  both  to
prepare  beforehand  and  to  finalise  proposals  during  workshops  (4).  Six  countries  recommended
improving follow-up.

3.1.2.  Exchanges

Exchanges are short stays or longer traineeships (up to  six  months)  for  customs  officials in  a Member
State other than their own.

The management and coordination of this instrument were improved over the course of the programme
to develop the exchanges and achieve better follow-up. Guidelines were defined for the implementation
of exchanges; national contact points were established, which allowed exchanges to be better organised
in terms of the programme’s objectives. European Exchange Fairs, were held in Brussels in 2000, in
Vienna (Austria) in April 2001 and in Larnaca (Cyprus) in March 2002.

The number of exchanges between Member States rose steeply between 2000 and 2001, from 258 to 579,
and  then  fell  to  470  in  2002.18  The  subjects  which  attracted  the  most  participants  were  exchanges  of
trainers and transit. (See table in Annex 5).

Since 2001 the applicant countries have participated to a significant extent in the exchange programme,
with  78  exchanges  in  2001  and  80  in  2002.  The  subject  in  the  greatest  demand  in  their  case  was
combating  counterfeiting.  In  addition,  a  number  of  specific  exchanges  were  organised  for  them  (on
transit and computerised auditing in 2001 and 2002).

The participating countries considered the exchanges useful or very useful. The average score, on a scale
of 1 to 4, is 3.54. Of the suggestions for increasing the usefulness of the exchanges put forward by the

17

18

see Annexes 3.1 and 4
see Annex 5

14

                                                
Member  States,  the  most  frequent  was  to  improve  organisation  before  (setting  precise  objectives,
targeting of participants) and after (follow-up, sharing results, evaluation) the exchanges.19

As  regards  content,  three  Member  States  considered  that  the  exchanges  should  have  a  more  practical
emphasis. The officials who participated were not always authorised by their hosts to take part in control
operations,  which  reduced  the  interest  of  the  exchange.  Two  countries  expressed  an  interest  in  having
high-level officials participate in exchanges. A number of proposals were made  as to  how the form  of
exchanges might be varied (e.g. long-term exchanges on shared projects).

3.1.3.  Project Groups

The project groups are made up of a limited number of national experts interested in a specific subject,
who come together over a limited period to pool their individual experience with a view to  devising  a
“tool”  or  common  guidelines.  They  are  set  up  by  the  Customs  2002  Committee  or  by  a  management
group, to which they submit their proposals.

38 project groups were set up under Customs 2002 in 2001 and 2002, and the majority completed their
work  in  2002.  In  the  second  half  of  2002  the  applicant  countries  were  invited  to  join  the  groups  still
underway.

At the end of each project group’s activity, those in charge of the group had to submit a detailed report
with  conclusions and recommendations,  either  to  the  Customs  2002  Management  Committee  or  to  the
management group that had set them up (see above, point 1.1.3).

The Member States rated the usefulness of this instrument highly, with an average score of 3.54 for the
twelve  responses  received.20  Its  effectiveness  was  stressed  by  8  countries,  on  the  grounds  of  its
flexibility, the specific nature of the subjects addressed, and the shared working language.

In  organisational  terms,  suggestions  for  making  this  instrument  still  more  efficient  included  prior
specification  of  objectives,  distribution  of  documentation  well  in  advance,  improving  the  selection  of
participants  and  ensuring  a  stable  group  make-up  (and  a  greater  opening  up  of  groups  to  experts  or
traders),  restricting  the  number  of  participants,  sharing  information  during  and  after  the  group’s  work
with countries not participating (or even consulting them by e-mail), follow-up and ex-post evaluation.

3.1.4.  Training

The  purpose  of  the  training  is  to  improve  the  knowledge  and  understanding  of  administrators,
particularly high-ranking customs officials.

The management group in charge of training, which meets two to three times a year, sets objectives and
coordinates  work  on  those  objectives  through  seminars,  exchange  programmes,  project  groups  and
publications.

Member States gave a positive assessment of the training’s value, giving an average score of 3.09 out of
4.21  Evaluations  varied  widely,  with  certain  countries  awarding  only  1  or  2  for  certain  aspects  of  the
training’s impact. The comments on usefulness show differing views: while one Member State considers
the training was carried out inadequately, another felt it had benefited from the work to improve its own
training system.

19

20

21

see Annex 3.2
see Annex 3.3
see Annex 3.4

15

                                                
In terms of organisation, four Member States stressed the need to “target objectives better” or “structure
cooperation” better to ensure its sustainability. In fact the organisation of training under Customs 2002
did  prove  unwieldy,  with  the  management  group  having  to  give  opinions  on  points  of  detail.  It  was
suggested that a permanent body (panel of experts or academy) be set up to perpetuate the achievements
of the training projects.

3.1.5.  Benchmarking

Benchmarking is an instrument for comparing working methods in order to identify best practice, which
can then be adapted to its own circumstances by each national administration.

Unlike  other  joint  actions,  in  particular  monitoring,  benchmarking  is  left  to  the  initiative  of  the
participants, with the Commission providing only coordination and support. It is a demanding exercise,
since  it  requires  the  administrations  to  make  a  considerable  investment  of  human  resources  (the  total
duration  of  a  benchmarking  exercise  is  about  twelve  and  a  half  months).  It  is  also  difficult,  since
administrations have different habits and practices for this type of evaluation exercise. However, as the
various  reports  that  have  been  disseminated  show,  it  provides  an  opportunity  for  a  very  thorough
comparative  study  of  practices  in  the  areas  selected,  and  really  does  pave  the  way  for  practical
improvements. It appears to be particularly well adapted to the needs of the applicant countries.

A seminar was held in Brighton to at the beginning of 2000 to launch the benchmarking and formed a
project  group,  which  drew  up  a  practical  guide22  in  February  2001.  The  guide  describes  the  stages  of
benchmarking  very  precisely;  it  shows  how,  after  the  report  is  finalised,  there  must  be  national  and
international follow-up on implementation of the recommendations and the sustainability of the impact
analysed. At the same time a network of national contacts was established, which met in January 2001
and October 2002.

A total of 30 benchmarking proposals were drafted and 18 were implemented.

All the Member States but one participated in at least one benchmarking exercise; some took part very
regularly. Three benchmarking exercises included a applicant country.

When  questioned  at  the  end  of  2002,  the  participating  administrations  expressed  a  high  degree  of
satisfaction  with  the  organisational  flexibility  of  the  benchmarking  activities,  the  contacts  made  in  the
course of the exercises and the level of detail of the work.

The difficulties cited were language barriers and the need for specialists to be available. The importance
of targeting objectives and participants was stressed, and more detailed reports and enhanced follow-up
were suggested to improve the dissemination of results.

While the long-term follow-through on changes is the responsibility of the national authorities, practical
results  have  already  been  noted.  However,  implementation  of  this  tool  is  too  recent  to  be  able  to
determine its impact yet.

3.1.6.  Monitoring

Whereas benchmarking exercises depend on Member States’ initiatives, monitoring is a tool coordinated
and used by the Commission. Its purpose is to improve administrative practices by organising visits to
different countries by national officials to analyse and compare procedures. During the last two years of
the  programme  it  was  only  used  for  two  projects.  Since  monitoring  is  a  relatively  cumbersome

22

Customs benchmarking information and Guidelines, Customs 2002 programme, Doc. TAXUD/728/2000,
13 February 2001

16

                                                
instrument  to  administer,  and  ties  up  considerable  human  resources,  the  participating  administrations
often prefer to obtain the results they are looking for by means of benchmarking and project groups.

The capacity of the applicant countries to take over the Community acquis was analysed and the results
incorporated in the regular reports on enlargement.23

A  precise  comparison  of  the  structures  (see  point  3.4.6  below)  of  the  northern  ports  was  carried  out
within the framework of the RALFH contact group.

The  risk  of  confusing  monitoring  with  benchmarking  seems  to  have  been  dispelled,  the  latter  having
become the more popular.

3.2. 

Programme management and efficiency

The  interim  report  stressed  the  work  that  had  been  done  to  improve  the  programme’s  efficiency.  This
work was continued, making extensive use of the tools for structuring the programme and for ensuring
coherence between actions. Two action plans, for 2001 and 2002, covering all the actions, were regularly
updated. There are now guidelines for each type of action.

At  the same  time,  programme  monitoring  was  enhanced:  the  organisers  of  joint  actions  were  asked  to
give a more precise account of the initial objectives and ensure that results and impact were subsequently
entered in a harmonised monitoring table.

3.3.  Conclusions and recommendations on joint actions

3.3.1.  Conclusions

– 

– 

– 

– 

23

The  Member  States  recognised  the  usefulness  of  the  joint  actions  Their  organisation  was
reinforced  by  the  new  Customs  2002  structures,  and  there  was  a  sustained  effort  to  improve
management, increasing the programme’s efficiency.

It would seem necessary to reinforce follow-up, with three types of results in view:

– 

– 

– 

sharing information on the work carried out with countries that did not participate in the
action concerned;

updating  the  results  of  completed  actions,  which  might  otherwise  lose  their  relevance
(e.g. training modules);

and, above all, disseminating information on the practical improvements arising from the
application of the results of joint actions.

3.3.2.  Recommendations

The  effectiveness  of  joint  actions  would  be  increased  by  improving  their  preparation  by
national and Community administrations, in particularly through a better targeted selection of
relevant participants, a schedule that allows the necessary time to clearly define an objective,
and distribution of documents sufficiently far in advance.

All  those  involved  must  be  encouraged  to  improve  their  preparation  of  activities.  If
recommendations  are  already  included  in  the  guidelines  of  each  action,  a  reminder  could  be
issued in the form of essential rules applicable to all activities.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/report2002)

17

                                                
– 

The use of monitoring tools established at the Commission should be continued and serve as a
basis for Member States’ development of impact monitoring at national level.

3.4.  Detailed results of joint actions

3.4.1.  Improving comprehension and application of Community legislation.

The interim report stressed the concerns of the Court of Auditors and the Member States regarding the
complexity  of  customs  legislation  and  the  difficulty  of  applying  it.  Apart  from  training,  seminars  and
exchanges also helped to improve understanding of the legislation and encourage uniform application.

The  Member  States  feel  that  the  seminars  really  did  contribute  to  better  application  of  Community
legislation,  since  they  made  it  possible  to  compare  the  way  different  Member  States  handle  specific
customs issues (average score 3.29). Four responses emphasised the full nature of this comparison, while
two  stressed  the  extent  of  the  differences  the  comparison  highlighted.  Two  pointed  out  that  informal
discussions  on  the  fringes  of  the  seminars  also  contributed  to  these  results.  The  participants  felt  that
certain seminars, such as those on counterfeiting and customs laboratories, had been particularly useful.

The exchanges also helped to  improve  participants’  understanding  of  customs legislation.  In  2001,
12% of exchanges led to a better comprehension of specific points in the legislation. In 2002 the Member
States gave a positive assessment (average score of 2.96 out of 4) of their contribution to this result.

The joint actions resulted in recommendations and guidelines to facilitate understanding and application
of customs legislation being drafted and distributed. Some of these actions were particularly aimed at the
applicant countries. For instance, a seminar held on 13 and 14 June 2002 on tariff quota management,
which was attended by all the applicant countries, concluded with recommendations on the steps to be
taken to adapt to the Community quota management system.

3.4.2.  Risk management: a coherent set of results

Since controls and control standards were one of the priorities of the 2001 and 2002 action plans, more
joint actions were conducted in this field than in any other. Thanks to the combination of different types
of action, concrete results were achieved.

In the area of risk management various instruments were developed.

– 

– 

A standard framework for risk analysis, establishing a common theoretical approach was
approved by the Controls Management Group at the end of 2002. This document sets out
common  definitions  and  principles  and  common  standards  in  four  fields  (devising  a
strategy,  risk  analysis,  the  treatment  of  risk  and  monitoring  and  reviewing).  This  is  a
significant  result,  given  the  substantial  differences  that  exist  between  Member  States’
ideas on controls.

At  the  operational  level,  a  project  group  worked  on  facilitating  the  exchange  of  risk
information.  This  involved  taking  the  Risk  Information  Form  as  a  common  basis  for
developing  informal,  rapid  transmission  between  customs  offices  of  information  that
could  help  combat  fraud  (e.g.  if  a  cargo  seems  suspect  when  it  comes  into  a  port,  but
cannot  be  checked,  the  suspicion  can  be  notified  to  the  authorities  in  the  port  of
destination). A few Member States tested this tool and found it satisfactory, and it was
then tried out between all 15 Member States. One of the participating countries reported
that the pilot test led to substantial recoveries. For use of the tool to become general, it
needs to be given an official legal basis and its exchange between customs offices needs
to be computerised.

18

– 

– 

In  parallel,  an  inventory  of  priority  control  areas  was  validated  by  the  Controls
Management  Group.  This  document  lists  all  the  applicable  Community  legislation
organised  in  terms  of  priorities.  A  final  version  of  the  document  is  currently  being
completed.

Lastly,  a  result  measurement  project  was  gradually  developed  and  put  into  practice.
Using  a  number  of  simple  statistical  indicators,  it  allows  Member  States’  customs
activity to be monitored and compared, encouraging reflection. The applicant countries
have been participating since July 2002.

3.4.3.  Operational techniques for combating fraud: significant improvements

Concrete results, frequently cited by the Member States, were achieved in two areas in particular.

1.  In  terms  of  combating  counterfeiting,  joint  actions  led  to  the  dissemination  of  techniques  and
recommendations  for  combating  fraud  more  effectively,  as  well  as  cooperation  to  with  the  holders  of
intellectual property rights to that end.

2.  As  regards  customs  laboratories,  joint  actions  gave  rise  to  the  formation  of  a  cooperation  group
which works regularly on harmonising techniques and priorities among Member States’ laboratories.

3.4.4.  Relations with traders: determination and practical experience

A variety of actions were devoted to dialogue with traders and devising ways of improving collaboration.

At  the  EMPACT24  seminar  in  Stockholm  in  June  2001,  attended  by  representatives  of  trade,  the
Commission  and  Member  States’  customs  authorities  expressed  their  strong  political  will  to  engage
traders in dialogue and partnership for the mutual benefit of all parties.

The  results  of  this  seminar  included  an  evaluation  of  the  pilot  project  on  the  single  administrative
authorisation, the launch of a website devoted to dialogue with trade (containing the details of national
contacts)  and  the  drafting  of  the  COMPACT25  model.  The  COMPACT  model  is  the  fruit  of  work
conducted  jointly  between  some  administrations  and  two  firms  over  a  number  of  actions;  it  is  an
authorisation model for firms, based on a detailed audit. By authorising simplified customs procedures it
can result in significant economies for traders.

The Member States gave the seminars on improving communication between administrations and traders
an average score of 3.42 out of 4. This result covers:

– 

– 

improving and personalising contacts; (7)

taking account of traders’ contributions at meetings. (4)

The  Member  States  expressed  a  desire  to  see  contact  developed  (3  references)  and  traders  more
effectively involved.

3.4.5.  Training: devising and pooling materials

Concrete  results  were  achieved  under  the  programme,  particularly  five  training  modules  on  specific
subjects (some of which are now being translated) on CD ROM and a database of training materials
available in different countries which will soon be available on internet.

24

25

European Model for Partnership between Customs and Trade
Compliance and Partnership, Customs and Trade

19

                                                
The language issue, already cited as a problem in the interim report, seriously slows down the impact of
training  actions.  The  translation  of  course  material,  often  complex  (interactive  CD-ROM)  has  proved
expensive  and  slow.  This  is  stressed  in  two  responses  to  questionnaires,  while  two  Member  States
expressed their regret that the material was not yet accessible. One system envisaged for the future is the
direct creation of modules in the three working languages by trilingual teams. Another approach under
consideration is to  promote  the  drafting  of  Community  standards for incorporation  in  national training
rather than the creation of materials for direct use in training actions.

3.4.6.  Networks, structures, personal contacts: an important result

An  important  result  of  the  programme  has  been  the  organisation  of  networks  between  the  different
parties involved in the same field. The first network to form was the RALFH26 contact group, a network
which, as well as conducting regular exchanges, used monitoring to compare the different northern ports
of the EU. This comparison was useful for all the ports, not only allowing them to see their practices and
organisation in context, but also helping in their relations with carriers, who are inclined to exploit the
differences in approach of the different ports they use.

This  contact  group  system  was  used  as  a  model  for  the  cooperation  between  airports  (ICARUS)  and
between the southern ports (ODYSSUD).

Another, indirect, result of the different joint actions has been the formation of an informal network of
personal contacts. Member States have strongly emphasised this as a result of seminars and exchanges in
particular.  The  average  score  given  in  responses  to  the  questionnaire  as  regards  the  “contribution  of
seminars  to  identifying  contacts  in  other  Member  States  and/or  ways  of  improving  administrative
cooperation and the exchange of information between customs services” was 3.42 out of 4. The personal
nature  of  the  contacts  established  was  cited  as  a  reason  for  this  positive  evaluation  by  eight  Member
States,  three  of  whom  directly  related  this  factor  to  the  possibility  of  improving  cooperation.  Two
countries considered that seminars were an instrument particularly well suited to forming contacts, while
one considered that only some seminars contributed to this objective.

For the same result, exchanges scored an average of 3.79 out of 4. Seven countries considered it to be
one of the main results of the exchanges, while three welcomed its informal nature.

The Member States’ observations justify stressing the importance of this result. The contacts made
are  of  practical  help  to  participants  in  their  subsequent  work.  They  also  raise  consciousness  about  the
European dimension of their work. Responses refer to improved “mutual understanding”, progress with
language skills, the acquisition of a more “Community” approach and the creation of a “shared identity”.

3.5. 

Impact of joint actions

The immediate results of the joint actions have been described above. What are the knock-on effects, and
how do they contribute to achieving the programme’s objectives?

The  impact  noted  here  is  mainly  short-  and  medium-term  and  related  to  national  application  of
Community results. Expectations of long term impact largely relate to actions conducted in the last years
of  the  programme,  and  it  is  too  early  to  analyse  this,  while  the  long-term  impact  of  the  first  actions
cannot be measured since no indicators were established  in the first  years. The indicators  for  Customs
2007  will  be  set  in  2003.  It  would  therefore  be  difficult  to  form  any  conclusive  opinion  about  the
sustainability  of  the  results  obtained,  particularly  since  the  expected  results  can  only  be  assessed
according to qualitative, not quantitative, criteria.

26

for Rotterdam, Antwerp, Le Havre, Felixstowe and Hamburg

20

                                                
3.5.1.  Use of training results at national level

The Member States have qualified views regarding the impact of the training actions. They consider that
they made it possible to improve the training provided at national level (average score 3 out of 4). Six
countries  mention  improvements  introduced  at  national  level  on  the  basis  of  exchanges,  modules  or
recommendations.  The  same  average  score  was  given  to  the  contribution  made  by  training  actions  to
improving knowledge of specific subjects. One example mentioned is training on container and vehicle
searches.

Under  the  programme  particular  attention  was  given  to  training  senior  customs  officials.  Member
States gave this aspect of the programme a score of 2.82 out of 4. However, this figure is not a useful
indicator since some Member States evaluated the actions carried out at Community level, others those
carried out at national level.

On this point, the Member States refer to the  benefits  derived from  the  Community  action,  but  do  not
report  on  knock-on  effects  at  national  level.  Specifically,  a  seminar  was  organised  for  senior  customs
officials, which five respondents considered a positive experience. Two countries stressed that this action
should be extended, and some felt that the targeting of participants should be improved. The exchanges,
was well as maintaining contacts, are cited as contributing to better training of senior staff.

Conclusion

Overall, despite the large number of staff training modules provided under the programme, not all of the
great interest shown by parties concerned could be satisfied, since training needs are extensive.

Recommendation

Priority  should  be  given  to  making  the  organisation  of  training  more  flexible  and  better  adapted  to
supporting cooperation between training centres and the development of projects. These criteria should
be  applied  at  an  early  stage  to  evaluating  the  efficiency  of  the  new  organisation  of  training  under
Customs 2007 so that it can be adapted again if necessary. In general terms, the financing allocated to
training should be increased to meet the interest that has been expressed.

3.5.2.  Cooperation  with 
perspective

traders:  better  communication  and  a  change  of

In terms of impact,  seminars  scored  an average  of  2.5  for  improving  communication  between traders
and national administrations, with 9 answers referring to significant progress (e.g. help in structuring and
rationalising dialogue, improved communication on specific subjects).

The project groups scored an average of 2.92 out of 4 for impact in terms of their contribution to taking
better account of needs noted as regards:

– 

– 

– 

the coherence of controls (1 answer)

uniform application of the legislation (2 answers)

a common approach supported by information technology and taking account of traders’
points of view (1 answer).

Asked  about  the  overall  contribution  of  the  programme  to  facilitating  communication  and
consultation with economic operators, Member States gave qualified responses producing an average
score of 2.64 out of 4. Five countries felt that the programme had not contributed to this objective at all,
or only very little, although the reasons for this varied greatly. Some considered that the task was very

21

difficult,  for  instance  because  of  “differences  of  culture”,  for  others  the  programme  offered  very  little
added value, since they had already established dialogue at national level.

Overall,  progress  was  recognised  mainly  in  the  sphere  of  communication.  The  answers  refer  to
improvements in the spheres of

– 

– 

– 

communication (3)

initiating contacts (3)

consultation (3)

On the other hand, there is only one reference to a common approach. In other words, the programme
seems to have done more to raise consciousness than to produce concrete solutions or convergences of
approach.

Conclusions

It is too early now to evaluate the impact of the joint actions properly. There are three main categories of
effect achieved under the programme:

– 

– 

– 

encouraging greater openness to dialogue and partnership;

increasing  Member  States’  awareness  of  traders’  needs,  of  what  is  at  stake  in  terms  of
competitiveness and of the mutual benefits to be derived from collaboration;

examples and proposals for concrete improvements.

Recommendations

– 

– 

The  results  achieved  call  for  a  continuation  of  these  activities  under  Customs  2007,  which
should  make  it  possible  to  move  on  from  pilot  projects  (like  the  COMPACT  model)  to
Community standards.

To  maintain  momentum,  the  objective  of  facilitating  trade  should  be  a  constant,  primary
concern of Customs 2007, and be incorporated in the planning of all the joint actions.

3.5.3.  Improving administrative cooperation

The Member States positively evaluated (with a score of 3.55) the overall contribution of the programme
to  improving  administrative  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of information,  with  six  of  them  giving  the
contacts established as their main reason for this assessment.

Contacts made in the course of seminars are used afterwards (average estimate of 3.08).

The contribution of exchanges to improving methods of administrative cooperation and/or the exchange
of information between customs administrations was rated at 2.92 out of 4. For two countries this impact
is particularly related to specific networks such as RALFH, for others it is associated with the informal
aspect of the contacts made. More precisely, increased frequency of contacts between the administration
of departure and the administration of destination to obtain and exchange customs information was rated
at 3.05.

While the usefulness of such contacts has been established, some responses stress the need to maintain
and develop them, with some suggesting that the networks and their relays should be given formal status
within  the  national  administrations. This  raises the  question  of  whether,  while  the  sustainability  of  the
contacts cannot be guaranteed, formalising them may not detract from their effectiveness.

22

Two Member States raise the possibility that there may be a conflict between the informal networks and
the centralised procedures for the transmission of information.

Conclusions

– 

– 

The  multiplication  of  contacts  between  the  agents  of  different  national  administrations,  the
increase in consciousness of the international dimension  of  their  work  and the fact  that  these
relations  have  since  been  used  to  fruitful  effect  are  important  positive  outcomes  of  the
programme.

However,  it  does not seem  that  the  sustainability  of  these informal  contacts can  yet  be taken
entirely for granted.

Recommendations

While preserving the conduciveness of joint actions to establishing informal contacts, it seems important
to  focus  on  formalising  networks  at  Community  level  and  establishing  coherency  between  the  official
information circuits and the ways information is exchanged within the networks at national level.

3.5.4.  Improving working methods

3.5.4.1. Understanding of legislation

The contribution of the seminars to improving national administrations’ understanding and application
of customs legislation was given an average rating of 2.58. Four Member States stated that these results
had been directly incorporated, while others expect them indirectly as a result of progress with training,
as  well  as  in  specific  areas  such  as  collaboration  between  laboratories.  Two  respondents  therefore
stressed  the  need  to  extend  the  results  of  the  seminars  with  other  actions  so  that  the  intended  impact
could be achieved.

Exchanges were considered to have had a certain positive impact on the interpretation and application of
legislation, to the same extent as the seminars (average score of 2.46). Five Member States reported an
improvement  of  this  kind  in  their  comments.  For  two,  the  primary  beneficiaries  were  the  individuals
involved, with the administration benefiting indirectly. Two others found it very difficult to assess this
impact.

The Member States gave the contribution of the project groups to improving understanding of specific
aspects of legislation an average score of 3.38 out of 4. The timing of the expected impact varies: while
some Member States have already noted  certain  effects  (e.g.,  in  one case,  improved  knowledge),  most
expect an impact either from the application of certain results (e.g. use of the training modules) or even
from work still underway, such as the development of the e-customs initiative.

Conclusion

The programme has contributed to better understanding and application of the legislation thanks to the
various tools developed (risk analysis model presented below, IT applications).

Recommendations

Given the complexity of Community legislation highlighted by the Court of Auditors and many of the
countries involved, consideration might usefully be given to possible ways of simplifying it.

23

3.5.4.2. Improving working methods and controls in particular

An  analysis  of  Member  States’  objectives  for  exchanges  in  2001  showed  that  about  half  the  stated
objectives concerned improving a specific working method by acquiring experience and identifying good
practices.

Following the exchanges in 2001 and 2002, the Member States gave them an average rating of 2.46 out
of 4 for changes and/or improvements in the working methods of their  national  administrations. Three
cited  changes  already  underway  at  national  level,  two  cited  plans  for  change.  One  country  considered
that the improvements were above all in the officials directly involved in the exchanges. Three felt there
was a relation between the scale of impact achieved and the position of the official who took part in the
exchange,  both  in  terms  of  seniority  and  in  geographical  terms,  suggesting  that  some  of  the
improvements were only introduced locally.

The  Member  States  gave  the  project  groups  an  average  score  of  3  for  helping  to  improve  or  adapt
control  methods  and  procedures  within  national  administrations.  Some  mentioned  that  the  particularly
practical  nature  of  this  work  facilitated  its  application  at  national  level.  At  the  same  time,  the
convergence instruments such as result measurement and risk analysis model are being used.

Three  Member  States  expect  an  impact  from  some  of  the  projects,  for  instance  cooperation  between
laboratories and airports and the work on integrating IT systems.

Two countries cited factors slowing down the effects of project groups. One of them felt the problem was
that  in  some  cases  the  participants  did  not  have  the  power  within  their  Member  States  to  bring  about
changes. The other raised doubts about the capacity of certain delegates to steer their countries, which
have a working culture based on labour intensive control, towards risk management. This comment may
be  related  to  the  fact  that  there  was  uneven  participation  by  Member  States  in  the  project  groups
concerned.

Overall  the  Member  States  rated  the  programme’s  contribution  to  improving  customs  controls  very
highly, giving it an average score of 3.73. Apart from current or planned application of the conclusions
drawn, there are also references to indirect impact, for instance as a result of greater motivation within
the national administration associated with the adaptation of the lessons learnt.

Conclusion

The programme has made an effective contribution to improving working methods and encouraged the
rationalisation of control methods, even if the latter is more true of some Member States than others.

Recommendations

– 

– 

As  regards  working  methods,  ways  should  be  developed  of  disseminating  the  experience
acquired by seminar and exchange participants throughout the Member State  administrations.
This is more important where participation in the Community programme is part of a particular
national project.

As regards risk management, the next programme should allow a transition from pilot projects
to the drafting of Community standards recognised by everyone.

4.  ACTIONS FINANCED UNDER THE EXTERNAL PART OF CUSTOMS 2002

The  external  part  of  Customs  2002  has  a  modest  budget,  which  means  that  the  number  of  actions
organised  under  this  budget  line  each  year  is  limited.  The  same  applies  to  the  size  and  nature  of  the
actions,  which  tend  to  be  isolated  operations  rather  than  integrated  projects.  Furthermore,  as  far  as

24

applicant countries are concerned, these actions  form  only  part  of the technical  assistance  provided  on
customs matters. Other programmes in which DG TAXUD27 is involve are organised under the PHARE
assistance programme and in cooperation with TAIEX,28 or in the context of the TAC.29 Nevertheless,
the external part of Customs 2002 is considered very useful.

4.1.  Baltic Sea Customs Conference.

The Baltic Sea Customs Conference (BSCC) is an initiative taken within the framework of the Council
of Baltic Sea States (CBS). The conference first met in 1995. The Directors-General of customs of the
Baltic  region  meet  every  two  years  to  discuss  customs  priorities.  The  participating  countries  are
Denmark,  Sweden,  Finland,  Iceland,  Germany,  Poland,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Latvia  and  the  Russian
Federation.

In  the  light  of  the  priorities  defined  by  the  Directors-General,  working  parties  are  set  up  after  the
conference  to  implement  its  recommendations.  Until  2001  these  were  directed  mainly  at  the  applicant
countries and subjects such as combating corruption were discussed (a seminar was held in Krakow in
October 2000).

Given  the  progress  achieved  by  the  applicant  countries,  the  priority  focus  shifted  towards  the  Russian
Federation. In 2001 the fourth conference focused on reducing waiting time at borders, as requested by
the trade ministers. The working party on procedures conducted an exercise to measure the time spent on
customs  clearance  and  total  waiting  time  at  selected  border  posts  in  the  region  so  as  to  identify  the
problems affecting difficult crossing points.

Customs 2002 made a financial contribution for the organisation of conferences, seminars and working
party meetings.

The next conference is scheduled to be held in Riga in October 2003. It will take stock of the situation,
devoting  particular  attention  to  the  results  achieved  so  far.  The  future  of  the  conference  after  the
enlargement of the EU will also be discussed.

4.2. 

Support for the World Customs Organisation (WCO)

Towards the end of 1997 the World Customs Organisation asked the Commission for financial support
for the WCO Fellowship programme, which is intended to help young  customs  officials in  developing
countries to work or study in a specific field of customs and participate in training measures for middle-
management.

The  Commission  felt  that,  in  the  context  of  the  pre-accession  strategy,  it  would  be  useful  to  include
participants  from  the  applicant  countries,  as  well  as  from  the  NIS30  in  this  type  of  programme.  It
therefore approved financing for traineeships for six officials per year over four years (1998 to 2001). It
was agreed that the Commission could select the participants on the basis of their merits and their CV.
This subsidy was complementary to training measures supported under the Phare and Tacis programmes
to develop customs institutions in the applicant countries and the NIS. It is important to ensure that the
latter  participate,  since  when  they  become  the  EU’s  immediate  neighbours  on  its  external  border  they
will have to cooperate closely with the new Member States.

The  Member  States  were  consulted  on  this  Commission  proposal  at  a  meeting  of  the  Technical
Assistance and Training Committee in Brussels on 20 October 1997. There was unanimous support for

27

28

29

30

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union
Technical Assistance Information Exchange
Travel, Accommodation and Conference facility
New independent states

25

                                                
the initiative and the Member States expressed their willingness to receive trainees on Community grants
for two-week study programmes in an administration associated with the fellowship programme.

Participants had to submit a report at the end of their traineeships.

The  WCO  has  again  asked  for  financial  assistance  and  its  request  is  being  studied  in  the  context  of
Customs 2007.

4.3. 

IT assistance financed by the Customs 2002 “External” budget line

The “External” budget line for Customs 2002 financed a project for assisting the applicant countries with

– 

– 

developing  their  national  computerised  systems,  which  will  have  to  be  connected  to
Community customs systems;

increasing  their  IT  operational  capacity  and  guaranteeing  continuous  operation  of  the
national systems at an adequate standard when they join the EU.

For  their  part,  the  applicant  countries  must  develop  and  maintain  the  national  components  of  the
computerised Community systems necessary for the proper operation of the internal market (as regards
taxation)  and  customs  union.  The  technical  assistance  provided  to  the  applicant  countries  cannot
therefore  guarantee  that  their  computerised  systems  will  be  fully  operational  at  the  moment  of  their
accession.

The support provided took a number of forms:

– 

– 

– 

The Commission provided the applicant countries with regularly up-dated documentation
on the computerised customs systems, available on CD ROM and an internal website.

Numerous  visits  to  the  applicant  countries  were  organised  to  explain  the  tasks  to  be
carried out, to clarify technical points and to monitor the progress of projects.

“Model” project plans were devised for interconnectivity in general and for each project
in  particular,  and  made  available  to  the  customs  administrations.  Applicant  countries
were assisted with the development of project plans and the drafting of specifications for
invitations to tender.

4.4. 

IT initiatives financed by other Community programmes

Under  Phare,  the  Commission  approved  a  project  for  connecting  each  applicant  country  to  the  secure
CCN/CSI network. Connection of all the first-wave applicant countries is planned for mid-2003.

Under the Travel, Accommodation and Conference facility programme, a series of conferences were held
in  2002  to  provide  detailed  explanations  about  the  operation  of  each  system  covered  by  the
interconnectivity.

5.  OPENING THE PROGRAMME TO APPLICANT COUNTRIES

A  decision  was  adopted  in  2002  allowing  applicant  countries  to  participate  in  Customs  2002.  It  was
based on the pre-accession strategy under which administrations are to be prepared for full participation
in Community processes, to ensure that they have the administrative capacity to apply Community rules.

26

The programme was opened to 11 candidate countries31 with took effect from 11 July 2002 on the basis
of  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding.  The  Memorandum  provides  that  the  applicant  countries  can
participate  in  the  programmes  under  the  same  conditions  as  the  Member  States  as  regards  number  of
participants  in  seminars,  project  groups,  exchanges  and  other  joint  actions.  This  participation  has  no
budget implications since the candidate countries pay for it. However, the Community budget bears the
costs incurred for certain events (seminars, project groups) by the increased number of participants.

6.  CONCLUSIONS

6.1.  General Conclusions

– 

The actions conducted under the programme have made a real contribution to the programme’s
objectives. Although even without such a programme the Member States would probably have
made  progress  with  modernisation,  the  programme  both  coordinated  Member  States’  efforts
and  allowed  certain  countries  to  make  significant  advances  with  aspects  they  had  decided  to
invest in, and others to extend the scope of their reflection to issues that had been given little
attention at national level.

We must not allow the positive effects of the programme to let us lose sight of the scale of the objectives
and the variety of national customs cultures and situations. The objective of attaining a situation in which
Member States’ customs authorities work together as one justifies intensifying our efforts. This is all the
more necessary in view of the coming accession of new Member States and the changes to the external
borders of the EU that this will bring with it.

– 

– 

It seems that more work could still be done on propagating at national level the results achieved
at Community level. The comments of certain Member States suggest that the linkage between
national organisation and Community cooperation could be improved. This applies to all levels
of participation: for instance, delegates to seminars should be in a position to pass on results to
an adequate extent in their countries, delegates to the various management groups should be in
a position to speak on behalf of their administrations on the issues addressed, the exchange of
information within European networks should be linked up with official information circuits.

The  programme  is  developing  and  becoming  more  complex.  This  is  to  do  not  only  with  the
enlargement process, which increases the number of participants, but also with the diversity of
points of view to be coordinated and the increase in the number of actions proposed. Whereas
the  initiative  for  such  actions  came  from  the  Commission  at  first,  proposals  now  also  come
from the Member States, not all of which can be acted upon.

At the same time, the programme’s form is evolving. It seems there is a tendency to prefer actions such
as  benchmarking,  project  groups  and  certain  specific  exchanges,  which  involve  the  intensive
collaboration  of  a  small  number  of  countries,  to  more  “classical”  actions  such  as  seminars  and
exchanges,  intended  to  involve  all  the  participating  countries  in  the  same  way.  The  former  are  more
practically oriented and allow results to be achieved more quickly.

Lastly, development of the various activities has highlighted their complementarity and the convergence
of objectives. Each action must therefore be consistent with all the programme’s objectives, conceived as
an integrated whole (for  instance,  the  objective  of  facilitating  trade applies  to  the  various joint  actions
and also to computer applications).

– 

31

These developments call for improved monitoring and evaluation: monitoring results could be
more reader-friendly and more widely available to the various partners, including the Member

Latvia and Turkey decided not to participate until 2004

27

                                                
States. The credibility of evaluation could be increased by using more evaluators with a more
independent  perspective  than  national  or  Community  administrations, themselves  participants
in the programmes, can have.

– 

The  “External”  budget  line  for  Customs  2002  has  provided  the  applicant  countries  with
technical  assistance  with  achieving  interconnectivity  of  their  computerised  systems  and
increasing their IT operational capacity. The Phare programme has helped them to connect to
the CCN/CSI network and other Community applications. Since the applicant countries have to
develop  and  maintain  the  national  components  of  the  computerised  Community  systems
necessary  for  the  proper  operation  of  the  internal  market  (as  regards  taxation)  and  customs
union,  the  technical  assistance  provided  to  those  countries  cannot  guarantee  that  their
computerised systems will be fully operational at the moment of their accession.

6.2.  General Recommendations

In addition to the recommendations set out above regarding the programme’s specific aims, the following
suggestions for increasing the value of joint actions should be considered:

– 

– 

The programme could be made more efficient through greater involvement of the participating
countries and enhanced coordination by the Commission. It seems that a variety of tools need
to  be  developed  to this  end.  Above  all the  programme  should  be  made  more  reader-friendly,
particularly as regards its financial aspects, so that participants can have a clear overview. The
design  and  organisation  of  joint  actions  by  national  administrations  could  be  supported  by
methodological  recommendations  (the  participating  countries  already  make  extensive  use  of
guidelines for benchmarking). In terms of evaluation, the classification of expected impact and
the  analysis  of  what  is  achieved  would  be  facilitated  by  the  establishment  of  quantitative
indicators at the beginning of the programme.

The  way  the  programme  has  evolved  indicates  that  limited  actions  with  a  small  number  of
participants  should  be  encouraged  in  future.  Nevertheless,  such  actions  should  be  tools  for
progress that can be shared with all the Member States. Consideration should also be given to
how  to  promote  the  sharing  of  results  -  not  only  their  dissemination,  but  their  adaptation  by
national  administrations.  In  this  respect  it  would  be  worth  developing  project  groups  that
involve more national administrations at each successive stage.

28

Part 2: Report on implementation of Customs 2002
Information Technology (1998-2002)

29

1. 

INTRODUCTION

1.1.  Context

This report analyses the strengths and weaknesses of computerised systems financed by Customs 2002
and accompanies the report on programme implementation (joint actions).

It  has  been  written  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Article  1(10)(b)  of  Decision
No 105/2000/EC of 17 December 1999, which stipulates that the final report on the implementation of
Customs 2002 must be accompanied by “a report analysing the strengths and weaknesses of any kind
of customs computerisation systems involved in the implementation of the internal market.”

1.2.  Data sources

The sources used for this evaluation are:

– 

– 

Member  States  opinions  given  in  response  to  a  questionnaire,  designed  to  gather  Member
States’  opinions  on  the  computerised  applications  introduced  under  the  programme  in  as
objective  a  fashion  as  possible.  The  response  rate  to  the  questionnaire  was  approximately
75%.

Quantitative data on the applications financed by the programme have also been taken into
account.

Where Member States’ opinions on computerised applications are reported, it should be borne in mind
that they refer to the final application as seen by the user, i.e. with both the components financed by
the  EU  (Community  component)  and  the  components  financed  by  the  Member  States  (national
component).

1.3. 

Interim evaluation report

The  Customs  2002  interim  report  concluded  that  computerisation  would  contribute  to  modern  and
efficient customs management by:

– 

– 

– 

simplifying and accelerating customs procedures,

ensuring uniform application of customs legislation throughout the customs territory,
and

increasing the security of transactions.

The pursuit of these objectives justified investment in computerised systems.

1.4. 

Structure of the analysis

The computerised systems are in part common to Customs 2002 and Fiscalis, and in part specific to
one or other of those programmes. The financing of the part in common was therefore charged equally
to each programme.

The different applications are summarised in the table below.

30

CCN/CSI

CCN: Common 
Communication Network

Communication network and common management tools

Full name

Definition/Objective

CSI: Common System 
Interface

Taxud Electronic 
Management of Project 
Online
Project Support Office 

Common communication network enabling partners to communicate
via a technical architecture of gateways in national administration or
DG TAXUD
Common computer language enabling national and Community IT
systems to use CCN services and to dialogue in secure and monitored
fashion
Methodology for developing and managing computer projects

Office to support IT projects managers in their daily tasks 

IT applications financed by Customs 2002 programme

Full name

Definition/Objective

New Computerised Transit 
System

TARif Intégré 
Communautaire [Integrated 
Community Tariff]
Tariff Quota and 
Surveillance

European Binding Tariff 
Information

Application allowing the electronic exchange of transit data between
national administrations in parallel with the movement of goods
On the basis of the Combined Nomenclature, lists rates of duty, other
Community charges and relevant Community rules for each type of
goods (e.g. anti-dumping measures, restrictions)
Application for the management of tariff quotas and the surveillance
of imported products to monitor tariff ceilings or for economic or anti-
fraud purposes
System for exchanging and consulting on Member States’ decisions
on the classification of goods and, therefore, their tariff treatment and
the application of trade policy measures

Transfert des Cachets 
d’Origine/ Transmission des 
Cachets de transit [Transfer 
of origin 
Used by the Commission to disseminate information to Member
stamps/Transmission of 
States about origin and transit stamps via an e-mail application
transit stamps]
Information System for 
System currently used to administer information on inward processing 
Processing Procedures
authorisations
Data Dissemination System Server for the publication of data on the web
European Customs Inventory 
of Chemical Substances

System for exchanging and consulting on Member States’ decisions
on the classification of goods and, therefore, their tariff treatment and
the application of trade policy measures
Application for calculating average prices used as points of reference
for establishing import tariffs on fruit and vegetables
Allows the creation of a dossier on the suspension of import duties
for certain goods; constitutes a back-up to the publication of
suspension regulations in the Official Journal.
Computerised system for the management of licences for the import
into the EU of textiles and steel subject to quotas
Electronic messaging system/central database for helping prevent,
detect and prosecute operations in contravention of customs or
agricultural legislation, using faster dissemination of information to
increase the efficiency of the competent authorities’ cooperation and
control procedures

Système d’Information de 
Gestion des Licences
Anti Fraud Information 
System/ Système 
d'information Douanier

Commitments 
(in 1000 euros)

23.801

1.418

Commitments 
(in 1000 euros)

43.323

12.841

4.483

10.836

Tempo

PSO

NSTI

TARIC

TQS

RTCE

TCO/TCT

ISPP (formerly:
IPR)
DDS
ECICS

Unit values

Suspensions

SIGL

AFIS/ SID

After presenting the budget data, we shall first look at the part common to both programmes, then at
the applications specific to Customs 2002.

2.  BUDGET

The table in Annex 6 shows the sums committed (in euros) for services relating to IT systems under
the two programmes. The commitments correspond to payments, at least for the years 1998 to 2000.
Payments  under  a  commitment  are  spread  over  a  number  of  years  according  to  the  nature  of  the
services, whereas the commitment is made when the service contract is signed.

31

The total amount committed by Customs 2002 was EUR 84 319 642. This includes the financing of
the CCN/CSI network and the programme management tools (joint financing, 50% each, by Customs
2002 and Fiscalis) and of customs applications as such.

It should be noted that where the computer systems have a Community and a national component, the
programmes  finance  only  the  Community  component  and  the  Member  States  have  to  finance  the
national component.

The CCN/CSI communication network required an investment of EUR 23 801 472, of which half was
financed  by  Customs  2002. This  scale  of  expenditure  was necessary  because  both  development  and
deployment were involved. Financing the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS) (including 50%
CCN/CSI expenditure and management tools) accounted for 51% of the total Customs 2002 budget.
The  systems  under  the  heading  “tariff  applications”  accounted  for  15%  of  the  total  budget  (those
requiring most work were TARIC, TQS, EBTI, ISPP and SMS).

AFIS/ SID and SIGL accounted for 13% and 5% respectively of the total budget.

The NCTS gave rise to very high costs, since both development and deployment were involved. Most
of the other customs applications were already in operation before the beginning of the programme.

3.  PART COMMON TO CUSTOMS 2002 AND FISCALIS

3.1.  CCN/CSI (Common Communication Network/Common System Interface)

3.1.1.  Description

The  purpose  of  developing  a  common  communication  network  and  interface  system,  as  decided  in
December  1992  by  the  Directors-General  for  customs  and  taxation,  is  to  harmonise  the  transfer  of
computerised  data  within  the  Community.  The  aim  is  to  create  a  gateway  between  the  computer
systems  of  the  Member  States  and  of  the  Commission,  which  are  all  different,  within  a  single
infrastructure allowing inter-operability between all the systems.

CCN/CSI has been operational since 8 May 1999. The work carried out under Fiscalis and Customs
2002 for the network concerned development and deployment in the period before 1999 and upgrading
and corrective maintenance and extensions to other sites (in particular in the applicant countries) in the
period thereafter.

The Commission manages its computers and gateways up to the national  entry  points. The Member
States manage the training of officials and the deployment of the national networks’ computer tools.

3.1.2.  Evaluation of the deployment and development of CCN/CSI

The  Member  States  rated  the  deployment  of  CCN/CSI  on  a  scale  of  1  to  5  (1  =  very  favourable
opinion,  5  =  very  unfavourable  opinion).32  What  emerges  is  that  their  opinion,  which  is  positive
overall, is common to the administrations for customs and for indirect taxation.

The budget resources and timetables for implementation allocated to the deployment and development
of CCN/CSI were considered realistic. The same applies to the support provided by the Commission in
terms  of  assistance,  training  and  documentation.  The  ease  with  which  local  applications  can  be
connected to CCN/CSI is judged satisfactory.

32

see Annex 7

32

                                                
This  confirms  the  results  of  the  study  carried  out  on  the  deployment  of  the  system  in  2000  by  the
Gartner Group under the ATOS Origin Integration contract.33 The study concluded that the CCN/CSI
technology  and  architecture  worked  properly  and  had  proved  their  capacity  to  support  a  growing
number of connections. However, it emphasised that integrating systems with CCN/CSI also calls for
a major effort in terms of organisation and support on the part of Member States wishing to link up to
the network.

3.1.3.  Results

The results for CCN/CSI are evaluated:

– 

– 

– 

in qualitative terms (national administrations’ and users satisfaction with the way the system
works),

quantitatively,

and by an external study (Gartner Group 2002).

3.1.3.1. Users’ evaluation of quality34

The  national  administrations  are  particularly  satisfied  with  the  support  offered  by  the  Commission
(general support), security of use and the availability of the network.

They  also  appreciate  how  easy  CCN/CSI  is  to  use  (ease  of  operation  and  of  link-up  with  national
systems).

However,  while  the  customs  administrations  consider  that  CCN/CSI  covers  information  exchange
needs  well  and  allows  savings  on  many  resources,  the  indirect  taxation  administrations  have  more
reserves in this respect.

3.1.3.2. Quantitative data

Network availability is over 99% (98% in the year of commissioning).

Availability of CCN

)

%

(

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
l
i
a
v
A

100.00

99.00

98.00

97.00

96.00

1999

2000

2001

2002

Use statistics for CCN show a sharp increase. The number of messages and the volume of information
transported can be seen separately.

33

34

The contract concluded between the Commission and ATOS allowed the latter to sub-contract the study
on CCN/CSI to the Gartner Group
see Annex 7

33

 
                                                
Volume and number of messages

handled by CCN

80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0

2000

2001

2002

Volume
(Mbytes)
No messages
(*1000)

The figure below gives an idea of the breakdown of number of messages by application. It is in the
nature of the VIES (VAT Information Exchange System), NCTS and AFIS applications to generate a
large  number  of  messages,  since  their  function  is  to  exchange  information  between  Member  States.
The NCTS application, still in the deployment phase, will generate a growing number of messages in
the coming years.

CCN traffic by number of messages

VIES
71%

TQM
0%

SCI
0%

TARIC
0%

NCTS
11%

EBTI
1%

AFIS
17%

MVS ELO
0%

SCACform 2001

0%

3.1.3.3. Gartner Group35 study (2002).

The study shows that CCN/CSI works well, is extensively used, and offers a very complete range of
services, but that its cost is relatively high and is growing fast as its functions expand.

Since  it  was  impossible  to  impose  a  common  standard  applicable  in  all  the  Member  States,  the
Commission adapted CCN/CSI to make it compatible with the different national systems, which gave
rise to substantial development costs for the Fiscalis and Customs 2002 programmes.

Technically the system can still easily take on a very large number of additional connections, but such
growth  will  require  considerable  investment,  since  the  decentralised  technical  architecture  of
CCN/CSI entails a specific infrastructure being put in place for  every  new  connection,  and  possibly
development to adapt to additional local technology.

Equally, the technical architecture of the system means that when any new function is added, the cost
of maintaining a high level of quality, availability and security may be considerable.

3.1.4.  Impact

Since the establishment of the CCN/CSI network was a necessary condition for the development of a
number  of  computer  applications  for  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  (in
particular  the  NCTS),  its  impact  on  the  programme’s  objectives  has  been  evaluated  in  terms  of  the
impact of the other applications. From this point of view, the costs of investing in and maintaining the
quality of the CCN/CSI service can be justified by the gains in productivity that it should lead to in the
development of the applications.

35

The Commission concluded a contract with ATOS which allowed the latter to sub-contract the study on
CCN/CSI to the Gartner Group

34

                                                
3.2. 

Programme management tools

3.2.1.  Project Support Office (PSO)

The  PSO  was  set  up  to  make  the  management  of  IT  projects  more  effective  and  efficient  by
centralising tasks common to such projects.

The study phase was completed in 2002 and a pilot phase is planned for 2003.

3.2.2.  TEMPO (Taxud Electronic Management of Projects Online)

3.2.2.1. Description

TEMP  is  a  development  and  management  methodology  for  IT  projects,  which  complies  with
recognised standards such as those of the PMI (Project Management Institute) and ISO (International
Standards  Organisation)  and  aims  to  reduce  risks  to  these  projects  in  terms  of  quality,  meeting
deadlines and keeping to budgets. It covers all the life cycle of a project, from the preparatory studies
to contract management.

3.2.2.2. Contribution made by Tempo

The  projects  were  divided  into  three  groups:  NCTS,  other  customs  tariff  applications  and  Fiscalis
applications. For each one, services were divided into two groups: development and maintenance on
the one hand, and operations, training and helpdesk on the other. This rationalisation led to a reduction
in  specific  agreements  (from  115  in  1999  to  35  in  2003),  management  economies  and  the
consolidation of good practice in project management.

Invitations to tender are formulated in terms of the service to be offered (set cost per service module)
with a requirement for quantified results rather than labour to be invested (cost in man-days).

By introducing a common approach for the development of IT applications and contract management,
Tempo has helped of increase the programmes’ efficiency and effectiveness.

4.  CUSTOMS APPLICATIONS

4.1. 

Introduction

Evaluation of the customs applications has been restricted to those applications which required most
work under Customs 2002, i.e. NCTS, TARIC, TQS, EBTI, SIGL and AFIS.

Customs  2002  also  financed  the  development  of  the  SMS  and  ISPP  applications.  At  the  time  of
drafting this report it has not yet been possible to evaluate the results and impact of these applications
for users in the short, medium or long term. The Customs 2007 interim report should devote attention
to these two applications.

The  TCO/TCT  system  is  in  the  process  of  being  replaced  by  the  Specimen  Management  System
(SMS). Development of the SMS was completed at the end of 2002 and it will be operational at the
beginning of 2003. It will include more information than that on origin or transit stamps.

The  ISPP  application  (old  version:  IPR)  has  been  operational  since  November  2002.  It  manages
information  on  inward  processing36 authorisations  which  are  stocked  in  a  central  database  available

36

A customs arrangement authorising the suspension of import duties under certain conditions for goods
imported for processing followed by re-exportation

35

                                                
for  consultation  by  Member  States.  It  may  be  possible  to  include  authorisations  for  other  customs
suspension arrangements in the new system in future.

The  work  and  resources  devoted  by  Customs  2002  to  ECICS,  Unit  Values  and  Suspensions  are
relatively insignificant compared with the programme’s investment in the other applications. Member
States’ opinions on the quality and completeness of the information provided by the systems and the
applications’ contribution to achieving the programme’s objectives are set out in Annexes 8, 9 and 11.

4.2.  Evaluation  of  the  development,  deployment  and  operation  of  the  customs

applications overall

Before evaluating the computer applications separately, this chapter gives an account of the Member
States’  perceptions  of  the  development,  deployment  and  operation37  of  the  applications  in
organisational terms.

4.2.1.  Development and deployment

The most important development and deployment work was carried out for the NCTS.

The support provided by the Commission (training, assistance) during deployment is considered very
good.  The  time  allowed  for  deploying  the  systems  is  considered  fairly  realistic  (too  short).  The
Member  States  have  asked  for  improvement  of  the  quality  of  specifications  for  the  systems  to  be
deployed. To a lesser extent, a desire for clear and fast communication between the Commission and
the Member States has been expressed.

Opinions  are  very  positive  regarding  the  administrations’  commitment  to  ensuring  that  systems  are
deployed according to the specifications. They are much less so about the availability at Member State
level of the financing and human resources necessary for deployment.

Very  positive  views  have  been  expressed  about  the  quality  and  availability  in  good  time  of  the
technological and legal tools present in the Member States and necessary to the proper operation of the
systems. On the other hand, Member States are less satisfied with the quality and availability of the
administrative arrangements necessary to operate the systems.

The survey of Member States was intended to determine the human and budget resources available at
national level for the development of IT systems under the programme. However, no conclusion can
be drawn on this subject, for which few responses were submitted.

The problem of the budget and human resources available in the Member States for the development
and deployment of the systems is not unrelated to the composition of the committees responsible for
managing  the  programme’s  IT  projects.  The  delegates  to  these  committees  from  the  national
administrations do not always have the authority to commit the human resources or financing needed
to apply the decisions taken at national level. This state of affairs can lead to coordination problems
and delays in the application of decisions, and one country’s delay can hold up the whole project.

The  delays  are  also  related  to  the  sensitivity  of  the  IT  projects  to  policy  decisions  leading  to  new
priorities being set while the programme is underway. In most cases their application requires an in-
depth  revision  of  the  work  plans,  and  the  necessary  additional  resources  are  rarely  made  available
within the Member States when such decisions are taken.

Lastly, the Member States are satisfied with the quality of the information exchanged at meetings of
the  committees  responsible  for  the  IT  projects,  but  feel  that  the  Commission  could  propose  more
opportunities for sharing the information with the Member States.

37

see Annex 10

36

                                                
4.2.2.  Operation

The  help  provided  by  the  Commission  during  operation  is  greatly  appreciated  by  users.  The  two
helpdesks  (for the  NCTS  and  for  other  customs  applications)  are  also subject  to  regular  evaluations
using precise quality criteria.

Ease of administration of the systems by Member States is not rated at all highly.

4.2.3.  Usefulness/Sustainability

The survey of Member States38 shows that two thirds of the systems financed by the programme are
rated as indispensable or frequently used, a quarter are used occasionally and less than 10% are never
used  or  are  in  the  introduction  phase.  A  little  under  half  (45%)  the  Member  States  have  drawn  up
action plans to improve use of the systems created under the programme. A little over half the systems
are subject to a legal or administrative requirement to use them in the Member States. Taken together,
these figures give an indication of the usefulness (usefulness criterion) of the systems as perceived by
the Member States and, where appropriate, their long-term use (sustainability criterion).

4.3.  NCTS (New Computerised Transit System)

4.3.1.  Description

Transit  is  a  customs  arrangement  which  allows  the  movement  of  goods  -  both  in  the  EU  and  in
countries  which  are  contracting  parties  to  the  Convention  on  a  common  transit  procedure  -  under
suspension of the duties and taxes normally applicable to imported goods. It was introduced at the end
of the 1960s, based on the exchange of paper forms between customs offices.

In  the  early  1990s  the  Commission  identified  a  number  of  ways  in  which  the  transit  system  was
dysfunctional:  in  particular  there  was  a  lack  of  coordination  between  the  administrations  and
departments involved and a lack of consistency resulting from the multiplicity of systems, the existing
systems were slow and a paper-based system was not adequate to combat fraud effectively (circulation
of the transit documents lasts much longer than the movement of the goods they cover). Subsequently
numerous studies stressed the need to reform the system to respond to the growth of trade flows.

It was therefore decided in 1994 to computerise the administration of the international transit system
and create the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), replacing paper forms with electronic ones
and exchanging them by e-mail.

The system will cover the 15 Member States, the EFTA countries (Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein
and  Iceland)  and  the  Visegrad  countries  (Czech  Republic,  Slovakia,  Poland  and  Hungary),  i.e.  23
countries.

Its financing is based on Decision EEC/105/2000 adopting the Customs 2002 programme.

On the technical side, the Commission has:

– 

– 

– 

38

established  a  database  listing  the  customs  offices  with  an  operational  role  in  the  common
transit procedure - the list is published on the Europa website;

provided coordination of the participating countries;

provided the participating countries with an MCC (Minimal Common Core) application, and

see Annex 12

37

                                                
– 

helped  the  participating  countries  with  project  development:  the  Commission  organised
many  coordination  meetings,  operational  workshops  and  training  sessions  and  developed
central applications for testing national applications and providing daily statistics.

The MCC application is used by some countries, and some of them have extended its functions.39

The  NCTS  must  be  fully  operational  by  30  June  2003,  on  which  date  all  the  customs  offices
administering transit must be connected to the system. The Commission must inform Parliament and
the Council of any delay.40 Approved traders using the simplified transit procedure must be connected
by 31 March 2004.

In June 2000 a demonstration of the NCTS was given at the Parliament for MEPs and the Directors-
General of the national administrations concerned.

4.3.2.  Results

4.3.2.1. Users’ evaluation of quality41

The Member States rate the information provided by the NCTS as very full, with very little need for
improvements. In fact, what certain Member States are calling for is not so much improvements to the
NCTS  itself  as  similar  developments  for  excise  and  the  free  circulation  of  export  goods  and,  more
generally, integration of all the systems for monitoring the movement of goods.

They also consider that information is updated and provided in good time, and is correct and precise,
with  some  qualifications  regarding  the  updating  of  the  list  of  transit  offices,  which  certain  Member
States would like to be more rapid.

At  the  18  December  2002  meeting  of  the  Transit  Contact  Group,  which  brings  together  traders,
customs  administrations  and  the  Commission,  the  traders  present  unanimously  confirmed  that  the
operational specifications of the system fully satisfied their requirements.42

4.3.2.2. Quantitative data

As the table below, drawn up on 31 December 2002, shows, progress with connections to the system
varies  greatly  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  However,  the  Commission  believes  that  all  the
Member States but two can meet the 30 June deadline.43

39

40

41

42

43

The countries using or intending to use the MCC are Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Hungary and Portugal
The Commission informed the Council and Parliament on 20 March 2003: COM(2003)125 final
see Annex 8 and Annex 9
COM(2003)  125  final:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European
Parliament: Implementation of the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS)
COM(2003) 125 final

38

                                                
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

ES NO SV DK CH IT NL DE CZ UK FR PL HU SK GR AT FI BE IRL PT IS LU AD SM

Non-computerised "transit" customs offices

Customs offices connected to the NCTS (SV, DK and UK connected in December 2002)

It is estimated that there are 20 million national and international transit movements per year within
the  EU.  From  the  connection  of  the  first  customs  offices  in  December  2001  to  the  end  of  2002,
170 000  international  movements  were  processed  by  the  system.  In  December  2002,  when  26%  of
offices were connected, the weekly average reached 7 500, or 375 000 per year, which is a marginal
amount compared to the Commission’s estimate of total international transit movements.

A transit movement is processed by the system when the transit document is:

– 

– 

issued by a trader or office connected to the system and

received by an office connected to the system.

For  NCTS  movements  under a  simplified  procedure,  authorised  traders  are  connected  to  the  system
and can initiate an NCTS movement without going via a customs office. The movement is closed if
the transit document is sent to a customs office connected to the system. Under the normal procedure,
the movement is processed by the system if it is initiated and closed from a customs office connected
to the system.

The  number  of  movements  processed by  the  system  therefore  depends  on  the  number  of  authorised
traders and offices that are connected.

The table below (figures as of 31 December 2002) illustrates the difficulties of starting up the NCTS:
most  authorised  traders  are  not  yet  connected  to  the  system.  Furthermore,  not  all  the  participating
countries have yet developed interfaces allowing traders using the normal procedure to transmit their
declarations electronically.

s
e
c
i
f
f
o
s
m
o
t
s
u
c

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

250

200

150

100

50

0

)
t
u
o
1
0
E

I
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m
S
T
C
N

10 000

9 000

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

ES

NO

SV

DK

CH

IT

NL

DE

CZ

UK

Customs offices connected to NCTS (SV, DK and UK connected in December 2002)
NCTS movements in January 2003

The number of messages processed by NCTS should increase dramatically between 1 July 2003 and 1
March  2004,  since  by  the  latter  date  all  authorised  traders  using  the  simplified  procedure,  which
accounts for the bulk of transit movements, will be legally obliged to be connected.

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The efficiency of the NCTS project (ratio of cost to results) is hard to evaluate. However, the report of
Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry44 estimated that for the period 1990 to 1996 the minimum value of
fraud in the transit system was one billion euros. Computerising transit is intended to greatly reduce
this  fraud,  which  is  made  possible  by  the  time  lag  between  the  movement  of  the  paper  transit
documents  and  the  travel time  of  the  goods.  The  amounts  invested  in  computerisation  are  therefore
modest compared to the savings that will be made by levying customs duties more correctly.

4.3.3.  Impact

Member  States  responses45  indicate  that  the  NCTS  is  among  the  customs  applications  making  the
greatest  contribution  to  more  uniform  application  of  Community  legislation  throughout  the  customs
territory  of  the  EU.  It  ensures  that  all  operators  are  treated  in  the  same  way:  the  operational
specifications of the system are exactly the same in all Member States.

They consider that the NCTS represents major progress in fraud prevention, since transit declarations
arrive at the office responsible for controls in good time.

The transit movements processed by the NCTS must be linked to a risk analysis to ensure that checks
are  well  targeted.  However,  traders  are  not  legally  obliged  to  indicate  the  codes  for  their  goods  on
transit declarations. This makes risk analysis more difficult.

The  Member  States  consider  that the  NCTS  has  done  more  to improve  communication  with  traders
than  the  other  computerised  customs  applications.  They  also  consider  it  useful  for  improving
administrative cooperation between customs authorities.

4.4.  The TARIC data base (Integrated Community Tariff)

4.4.1.  Description

TARIC lists, on the basis of the Combined Nomenclature, rates of duty, other Community charges and
relevant  Community  rules  (e.g.  anti-dumping  measures,  restrictions)  for  each  type  of  goods.  It
encompasses  all  Community  legislation  connected  with  tariffs  and  all  commercial  policy  measures
connected with imports and exports of goods.

TARIC’s objectives are:

– 

– 

to make an up-to-date version of customs and commercial legislation available to everyone
by direct publication of this information (on line and on paper) in order to facilitate customs
clearance operations;

to enable tariff and commercial legislation to be applied in a uniform fashion throughout the
territory of the customs union.

The TARIC database was computerised in 1994. It is available in the 11 official languages, with daily
updates carried out and notified to the national administrations by the Commission.

Since September 2000 TARIC has also been available to the public on the Commission’s EUROPA
website.

44

45

See  Committee  of  Inquiry  into  the  Community  Transit  System/Report  on  the  Community  Transit
System, Rapporteur Mr Edward Kelley-Bowman, A4-0053/97:
 http://www.europarl.eu.int/hearings/kelletta/default_en.htm
see Annex 11

40

                                                
Customs 2002 financed the adaptation of TARIC for the year 2000 as well as upgrading and corrective
maintenance.

4.4.2.  Results

4.4.2.1.  Member States’ evaluation of quality46

The Member States consider that the information provided by TARIC is complete, but suggest certain
improvements,  such  as  the  incorporation  of  all  Community  customs  legislation  (information  on
certificates of origin, import or export restrictions, risk analysis).

They also consider that information is provided and updated in good time and is precise and correct,
although  it  is  felt  that  the  Commission  could  inform  the  Member  States  more  rapidly  about  anti-
dumping  measures.  However,  because  of  the  confidential  nature  of  such  trade  policy  measures,  in
most cases they enter into force the day after their  publication  in the  Official Journal.  As  a rule  the
Commission sends the information to the Member States via TARIC on the day of publication. Some
Member  States  have  an  electronic  interface  between  TARIC  and  their  national  tariff  database,
allowing  automatic  incorporation  of  anti-dumping  information.  Those  who  do  not  have  such  an
interface  suffer  delays  in  the  updating  of  these  measures,  which  is  deleterious  to  the  principle  of
uniform application of Community legislation.

4.4.2.2. Quantitative data

Consultations  on  the  Commission’s  Europa  website  (DDS  server)  have  been  constantly  expanding
since  September  2001.  There  were  1  752  945  consultations  in  the  last  quarter  of  2002,  i.e.  almost
600 000 a month, not counting consultations on the sites that certain Member States have developed.
Some of them have services identical to DDS, into which they incorporate the data received from the
Commission every day, and in some cases other data on excise duties, VAT, phytosanitary measures,
etc.

Apart  from  consultation  on  the  DDS  server,  there  is  also  an  address  to  which  the  public  can  send
enquiries about customs tariffs to the Commission department responsible for TARIC. At the end of
2002, more than 1 400 such enquiries had already been received. No time limit for responses is fixed
by law, but response time could be reduced if resources were devoted to this objective.

These figures show how much interest there is in TARIC.

Furthermore,  TARIC  facilitates  the  tasks  of  traders  and  customs  officials  in  customs  clearance
procedures,  since  some  of  the  boxes  on  the  customs  declaration  (Single  Administrative  Document)
correspond exactly to TARIC, meaning that the customs duties can be calculated automatically.

4.4.3.  Impact47

In  the  Member  States’  view  TARIC  is  one  of  the  applications  that  contributes  most  to  the  uniform
application  of  Community  legislation  throughout  the  customs  territory  and  to  more  efficient
administrative procedures.

TARIC  rapidly  and  simultaneously  informs  all  the  national  administrations  of  legislative  changes.
This helps reduce the risk of discrepancies between Member States in the application  of  legislation.
The  dissemination  of  information  via  the  Europa  website  and  the  possibility  of  communicating
directly  with  Commission  staff  also  allow  the  risk  of  discrepancies  to  be  reducing  by  enhancing
communication with traders.

46

47

see Annex 8 et 9
see Annex 11

41

                                                
The Member States gave very positive opinions on TARIC’s contribution to improving the quality and
results  of  customs  controls  through  concordance  between  boxes  on  the  declaration  form  and  the
TARIC codes.

4.5.  The TQS (Tariff Quota and Surveillance) application

4.5.1.  Description

TQS  is  a  management  system  allowing  direct  communication  between  Member  States  concerning
tariff quotas and ceilings and the surveillance of quantities imported.

For a number of products a reduction in the customs duty payable is authorised for limited quantities
of imports according to their origin. This limitation takes the form of tariff quotas or tariff ceilings.

Tariff quotas  are  granted annually  by  Regulations and  can  be  drawn  on  until  they  are  exhausted,  at
which point standard duties have to be paid on the products. Tariff ceilings differ from quotas in that
when  the  ceiling  is  passed  the  preferential  duties  are  not  automatically  terminated.  A  Commission
decision or regulation is required to reintroduce the standard tariff.

The information derived from the surveillance of quantities imported is used, inter alia, in trade and
tariff negotiations.

The objectives of computerising tariff quotas and surveillance are:

– 

– 

effective  and  efficient  management  of  quotas  to  ensure  uniform  application  of  the
legislation;

provision  of  a  powerful  tool  for  the  surveillance  of  imported  quantities  and
surveillance for economic or anti-fraud reasons.

Quotas are managed as follows: every day Member States send their requests to draw on quotas and
receive a response from the Commission in the form of an allocation. The data is updated daily.

For  surveillance  purposes,  national  administrations  introduce  their  statistics  either  using  a  web
application provided by the Commission or by sending an e-mail. The statistics are then consolidated
by  the  Commission  and  can  be  consulted  via  the  same  web  application  or  by  means  of  monthly  e-
mails sent to the national administrations.

Customs  2002  financed  the  adaptation  of  TQS  for  the  year  2000,  migration  to  CCN/CSI  and  the
development of new functions.

4.5.2.  Results

4.5.2.1.  Member States’ evaluation of quality48

The survey of Member State users of the system shows that TQS provides full  information.  Certain
improvements  could  nevertheless  be  made,  but  no  suggestions  have  been  made.  Above  all,  the
Member States rated highly the precise and correct nature of the information provided by the system.
They  consider  that  information  is  provided  and  updated  in  adequate  time,  with  a  need  for
improvements as regards the publication of certain Regulations on tariff quotas.

Certain  Member  States  strongly  advocate  harmonising  TARIC  and  QUOTA,  which  are  mutually
contradictory for certain products.

48

see Annex 8 and Annex 9

42

                                                
The Integrated Tariff Environment (ITE) project should allow these discrepancies to be rectified: it is
intended  to  integrate  and  harmonise  all  tariff  applications  to  allow  shared  management  of  common
data. The project study has been completed, and the project will be implemented under Customs 2007.

4.5.2.2. Quantitative data

Computerised  management  is  conducted  in  a  central  office  in  each  Member  State  and  at  the
Commission;  the  central  offices  collect  the  requests  to  draw  on  quotas  and  the  Commission  is
responsible  for  allocating  the  amounts.  The  offices  are  therefore  directly  connected  to  the
Commission.

However, not all the Member States are computerised to the same degree; in general, computerisation
is further advanced for surveillance than for quota management. In some Member States the data on
customs declarations is still entered manually as there is a lack of human and budget resources for IT
projects.

There was an upward trend in the number of drawing requests in the period 2000-2002. Unfortunately,
the  number  of  returns  to  tariff  quotas  (following  drawing  errors)  is  also  on  the  increase;  the
Commission  conducts  follow-up  to  encourage  Member  States  to  reduce  number  of  errors  in  their
drawing requests.

No of drawing
requests
No of
returns

2000

2001

2002

176 009

170 699

238 743

2 640

2 176

3 264

The  Commission  publishes  QUOTA  information  on  its  Europa  website  via  the  DDS  server;  this
information is consulted over 200 000 times a quarter.

4.5.3.  Impact49

In  the  Member  States’  view  TQS  contributes  to  the  uniform  application  of  Community  legislation
throughout  the  customs  territory,  since  centralisation  and  computerisation  make  possible  rapid  and
uniform quota management. This ensures that drawing requests are treated in the same way and at the
same  speed  throughout  the  Community.  However,  harmonisation  of  administrative  management
procedures (for instance, how errors are handled) would allow distortions to be avoided.

Delays  when  certain  tariff  quota  Regulations  are  published  have  affected  Member  States’  opinions
about how well TQS contributes to communication with traders.

Member States consider that the system does help to improve customs controls.

4.6.  The EBTI (European Binding Tariff Information) database

4.6.1.  Description

EBTI is a system for exchanging and consulting on Member States’ decisions on the classification of
goods  and,  therefore,  their  tariff  treatment  and  the  application  of  trade  policy  measures.  A  tariff
classification issued  to  someone  for  the  import  of  a  specific  product  is  valid  for  that  person  for  six
years throughout the customs territory of the Community. The Member States send their decisions and
descriptive photos of the product to the Commission, who manages a database which can be consulted
electronically by the Member States.

49

see Annex 11

43

                                                
The present computerised system was deployed in the Member States at the end of 1999. The national
administrations  were  provided  with  scanners  and  cameras.  The  programme  also  financed  corrective
maintenance work, and in particular the creation of an interface between some of the administrations
which issue large numbers of BTI notices and the central database.

4.6.2.  Results

Member States’ opinions on the fullness and quality of the information provided by the system are set
out in 0 and 0.

The number of BTIs stored in the central database has been constantly on the increase since 1998; at
the end of 2002 there were approximately 270 000.

The  computerised  management  of  BTIs  makes  the  work  of  customs  officials  easier  since  they  no
longer need to classify goods when they are imported, but can confine their controls to checking the
goods against the description on the BTI (with photo).

However, there have been some difficulties with consulting the system, since the Member States issue
BTIs in their own language and correspondences in the central dictionary (Thesaurus) are imperfect in
some  areas  (chemical,  electronic)  and  for  some  languages  correspondence.  This  may  lead  to
discrepancies in the application of tariff legislation throughout the customs territory in the case of an
estimated  2-5%  of  BTIs.  Another  reason  for  difficulties  may  be  the  fact  that  in  some  countries  a
number of offices, rather than a single central office, are responsible for issuing BTIs.

These difficulties may also have been accentuated by  the  suspension  of some  management  work  on
the database (e.g. management of the Thesaurus, coordination between Member States) between 2000
and 2002.

Improving the central dictionary and dealing with discrepancies are the challenges the EBTI needs to
address in future.

4.6.3.  Impact50

The survey of Member States shows that they feel the EBTI has contributed principally to increasing
the efficiency of procedures, cooperation and the exchange of information between Member States.

They also consider that it assists with the uniform application of Community legislation and improving
the quality and results of customs controls.

4.7.  DDS (Data Dissemination System):

4.7.1.  Description

DDS  is  a  server  which,  since  September  2000,  allows  the  publication  of  data  on  the  Commission’s
Europa website and gives the public access to certain applications (such as TARIC, TQS and the list of
transit offices). Its development and commissioning were financed by Customs 2002.

4.7.2.  Results and impact

The statistics on use of the DDS server are given in the “results” paragraphs of each of the applications
for which information is disseminated. DDS is a tool for publishing information for the public: it helps
improve  communication  with  traders  (via  the  mailboxes)  and  achieve  uniform  application  of
Community legislation.

50

see Annex 11

44

                                                
4.8. 

The SIGL application (Licence management information system)

4.8.1.  Description

SIGL is a trade policy tool which is also used for customs policy, given the close link between the two
policy areas.

SIGL is an import licence management system for textile and steel imports subject to quotas. Its main
users  are  not  customs  administrations  but  the  ministerial  departments  responsible  for  trade  in  each
Member State, which consult the central SIGL database before issuing import licences on the basis of
the information provided in real time.

The SIGL database is also connected to various third countries which send the EU export licences they
have issued in electronic form. This allows the export licences issued by third countries to be checked
against applications for licences for the import of the same products into the EU.

The programme financed:

– 

– 

– 

the creation of a website which can be consulted by the public to find out what import
quantities are available;

the help provided by the helpdesk and

the  connections  with  third  countries  allowing  export  licences  to  be  checked  against
import licences.

4.8.2.  Results

The SIGL system is of use primarily to ministerial departments responsible for trade, which are  not
always  part  of  the  customs  administrations.  Since  the  questionnaires  were answered  by  the  customs
administrations, the response rate is low.

However, those responses that were received rate very highly the fullness, exactness and precision of
the information provided as well as the promptness with which it is updated and transmitted.51

The website makes the system transparent for traders. The number of consultations of the site remains
steady (78 000 for the last six months of 2002).

It is worth noting that the system for electronic checking of export licences issued by third countries
against  applications  in  the  EU  for  import  licences  for  the  same  products  has  allowed  a  fraudulent
network dealing in textiles to be dismantled.

4.8.3.  Impact52

It is very difficult to evaluate the impact of SIGL on the objectives of Customs 2002. However, the
results referred to above highlight the importance of the system for combating fraud.

51

52

see Annex 8 and Annex 9
see Annex 11

45

                                                
4.9.  The  AFIS  (Anti-Fraud  Information  System)/SID  (Système  d’information

douanier) applications

4.9.1.  Description

Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 is the legal basis for the AFIS (communication system)
and SID (central database) applications.

Customs 2002 financed the upgrading and corrective maintenance of both applications.

4.9.1.1. AFIS

AFIS, which is made up of different applications defined according to area of competence or particular
mode of transport, is an electronic messaging system for the rapid and secure exchange of information
between  different  specified  and  limited  partners,  including  the  Commission  and  certain  national
administrations  (customs,  agriculture,  police  or  other)  in  the  Member  States.  The  national
administrations  of  fifteen  third  countries53  with  which  the  Commission  has  concluded  mutual
assistance  agreements  or  protocols  for  customs  have  limited  access  to  the  generic  application  AFIS
mail.

The purpose of AFIS is to prevent, detect and prosecute irregularities in customs and agriculture.

The  exchange  of  information  concerns  customs  matters  primarily,  but  also  agricultural,  excise  and
other matters.

4.9.1.2. SID

SID  is  a  central  database,  accessible  from  terminals  positioned  in  each  Member  State  and  at  the
Commission,  containing  data,  including  personal  data,  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  its
objectives.

The objective of SID is to prevent, detect and prosecute operations that are in infringement of customs
or agricultural law by using the more rapid dissemination of information to increase the efficiency of
the competent authorities’ cooperation and control procedures.

In the context of this general objective, however, the relevant legislation only allows data to be entered
in SID for the purposes of the following operations: discreet surveillance, observation and reporting,
specific controls.

4.9.2.  Results

4.9.2.1. AFIS

In 200254 786 357 messages were exchanged (providing assistance spontaneously or on request from
Member State administrations) via AFIS.

It  is  extremely  difficult,  given  the  nature  of  the  objective,  to  quantify  the  amount  of  fraud  detected
with  the  assistance  of  AFIS.  However,  one  may  cite  as  an  example  the  number  of  containers  of
cigarettes  alone  registered  in  a  single  AFIS  application  as  seized  in  the  Community  in  the  first  six
months of 2002 (169, not counting the UK); seizing only two or three containers a year is enough to
cover  the  annual  costs  of  AFIS.  Account  should  also  be  taken  of  the  contribution,  which  is  not
negligible, made by AFIS applications to the prevention of fraud.

53

54

NO, CH, MT, CIE, EE, LT, PL, LV, CN, UH, BAG, CHI, GI, RU
No data available for previous years

46

                                                
4.9.2.2. SID

Although  the  software  was  technically  ready,  SID  was  held  up  at  the  formative  stage  from  1998  to
2002 to allow the Member States to sort out various legal, administrative and technical issues: it could
not be used unless Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data was transcribed into national
law, roles and responsibilities had to be allocated, and the Member States did not migrate the national
component  of the  system  onto  the  CCN/CSI  network  until  31  December  2002.  It  was  not  therefore
possible to commission the system (operational phase) until March 2003. Consequently it is too early
to evaluate either the results of the impact of SID at the operational level.

4.9.3.  Impact55

The  Member  States  consider  that  AFIS  contributes  very  effectively  to  combating  fraud  and  helps
improve  the  quality  and  results  of  customs  controls.  They  also  consider  that  it  is  a  useful  tool  for
cooperation, allowing information to be exchanged between customs authorities.

5.  CONCLUSIONS

5.1. 

Part common to Customs 2002 and Fiscalis

CCN/CSI offers very thorough services and the network operates well and has a high use rate.
1
Deployment, development and operating costs were determined by the obligation to make CCN/CSI
compatible with the different national systems already in place. By the same token, the decentralised
technical  architecture  of  CCN/CSI  entails  a  specific  infrastructure  being  put  in  place  for  every  new
connection, and possibly development to adapt to additional local technology.

The introduction of the Tempo technology helped make the Commission’s organisation of the

2
management of IT projects more efficient and effective.

However, Member State delegates on the committees responsible are not fully informed about all the
resources (budget and human resources) available for implementing the “national” part of the projects,
which poses problems when it comes to setting realistic schedules for project progress.

5.2.  Customs applications

It is not yet possible to measure all the results and impact generated by the NCTS, since it is

1
still in a deployment phase.

The  system  is  not  yet  used  to  full  capacity,  mainly  because  few  of  the  traders  using  the  simplified
procedure  (80%  of  transit  movements)  are  connected  to  the  system.  Since  all  Member  State  transit
offices and all traders using the simplified procedure must be connected by 1 July 2003 and 1 March
2004 respectively, the number of movements processed by the NCTS should increase rapidly.

Traders  and  the  Member  States  consider  that  the  NCTS  will  contribute  to  improved  cooperation
between authorities and to fraud prevention and will help facilitate customs controls.

In terms of efficiency, the cost of computerising the transit system (EUR 43 million) should be viewed
in  the  light  of  the  estimated  cost  of  fraud  in  customs  transit  (EUR 1  billion  for  the  period  1990  to
1996).

2
The purpose of the TARIC and DDS systems is to disseminate information held centrally to
national authorities and the public. Using information technology allows this to be done rapidly, with

55

see Annex 11

47

                                                
information reaching recipients at the same time, thus reducing the risks of divergent applications of
Community law. The Member States also consider that TARIC is helping to improve the efficiency of
administrative procedures.

3
Central  computerised  quota  management  (TQS)  also  contributes  to  uniform  application  of
legislation because information is processed rapidly and in uniform fashion. However, Member States
need to avoid making mistakes in their drawing requests.

4
The Member States have expressed a desire to improve the efficiency of the tariff applications
by  harmonising  and  integrating  them  all  to  avoid  discrepancies  and  to  facilitate  connections  and
compatibility between systems. The ITE project should resolve this problem.

5
The  EBTI  application  was  deployed  thanks  to  financing  from  the  programme  (provision  of
scanners  and  cameras  to  national  authorities).  Central  computerised  management  of  BTIs  (Binding
Tariff  Information  notices)  primarily  contributes  to  improving  the  efficiency  of  administrative
procedures and cooperation. However, particular attention needs to be devoted to the few current cases
of divergence in the application of tariff legislation and to improving the central dictionary of the data
base.

6
There  was  a  very  low  response  from  Member  States  to  the  survey  on  the  SIGL  application
(computerised  licence  management).  However,  it  did  confirm  that  SIGL  helps  limit  quota-related
fraud for textiles and steel.

7
The  AFIS  application  is  a  useful  tool  for  combating  customs  fraud.  The  Member  States
consider that it is also  a  useful tool  for  cooperation,  allowing  information  to be  exchanged  between
customs  authorities.  Since  SID  was  not  in  the  operational  phase  during  the  programme  period,  it’s
results and impact cannot be evaluated.

48

ACRONYMS – GLOSSARY

AFIS
help prevent, detect and prosecute operations in contravention of customs or agricultural legislation)

Anti-Fraud  Information  System  (Electronic  messaging  system  designed  to

ART

Activity Reporting Tool (Computerised system for budget management)

Proportion of time that a network is capable of operating. The availability of
Availability
CCN/CSI represents the average for the gateways and their connections. Unavailability caused by networks or
systems managed by national administrations is not taken into account

Benchmarking
In  order  to  enhance  the  efficiency  of  national  customs  administrations,  a
number  of  Member  States  have  chosen  to  identify  the  best  practice  in  each  participating  Member  State  and
formulate recommendations to be adapted to its own context by each national administration

BSCC
of the countries on the Baltic Sea

Baltic  Sea  Customs  Conference:  conference  of  the  customs  administrations

CBS

Council of Baltic Sea States

CCN/CSI
Communication platform and interface used to link national administrations and the Commission

Common  Communication  Network/Common 

System 

Interface.

COMPACT

Compliance and Partnership, Customs and Trade

Computer application

Synonymous with computer programme

CUSTOMS 2002
Member States’ initiatives in the field of customs

Multi-annual  Community  action  programme  supporting  and  supplementing

DDS

Data Dissemination System (Server for the internet publication of data)

Deployment
used. In the life cycle of a computerised system, deployment follows development and precedes operations

Installation of a computer application or system in the place where it will be

Development
computerised system, development follows studies and precedes deployment

Programming  and  testing  a  computerised  system.  In  the  life  cycle  of  a

DG TAXUD

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union

EBTI
European Binding Tariff Information (System for exchanging and consulting
on  Member  States’  decisions  on  the  classification  of  goods  and,  therefore,  their  tariff  treatment  and  the
application of trade policy measures)

ECICS
European  Customs  Inventory  of  Chemical  Substances  (Inventory,  in  the  11
official languages, of the names and synonyms of chemical substances together with their tariff classification in
the combined nomenclature)

e-commerce VAT
owed by traders

Computerised system for the declaration, collection and levying of the VAT

EEC

European Economic Community

Efficiency
proportional to the resources mobilised and the effects have been achieved at a reasonable cost

Criterion  for  determining  the  extent  to  which  the  results  obtained  are

Effectiveness
objectives have been achieved and whether the expected effects have been obtained

Criterion  for  determining  the  extent  to  which  the  programme’s  official

49

EMCS

EMPACT

EU

Evaluation
and standards

Excise Movement and Control System

European Model for Partnership between Customs and Trade

European Union

Judgment of the value of a public operation with reference to explicit criteria

Exchanges
Visits  in  which  officials  spend  15  days  with  an  administration  in  another
Member State. This allows the exchange officials to meet other officials and improve their understanding of the
organisation, methods and procedures used in another Member State

Ex post evaluation

Evaluation summarising and judging the programme after its completion

EWS-E
Early Warning System - Excise (Allows the Member State of departure of a
consignment of excise goods to send an information or warning message to the Member State of arrival so that
checks can be carried out in time)

FISCALIS
indirect taxation systems in the single market

Multi-annual  Community  action  programme  to  improve  the  operation  of

Gateway
Point of connection of a national administration to a CCN network. There is
only  one  gateway  for  each  connected  administration.  The  systems  communicate  with  the  gateways  via  the
networks managed by the national administrations

ICARUS

Contact group for airport customs offices

IDA
initiative for linking Member State and Community IT systems

Interchange  of  Data  between  Administrations,  a  European  Commission

Impact
indirectly, other beneficiaries

Medium- to long-term effects of an activity on the intended beneficiaries or,

Indicator
obtained or a variable. The information provided by an indicator is a quantitative measure of facts or opinions

Measure  of  an  objective  to  be  achieved,  a  resource  mobilised,  an  effect

Interim evaluation
allowing the quality of monitoring and implementation to be assessed

Critical  evaluation  of  the  first  activities  and  results  of  the  programme,

ISPP
manage information on inward processing authorisations)

Information  System  for  Processing  Procedures  (System  currently  used  to

IT

Information Technology

Joint actions
the Member States: seminars, exchanges, multilateral controls and training activities

All  actions  under  the  programme  jointly  organised  by  the  Commission  and

Five  management  groups  in  which  the  Member  States  are  represented
Management Groups
manage  the  priority  areas  of  the  programme  under  the  supervision  of  the  Customs  2002  Committee.  The  five
groups are the Administrative Management Group, the Controls Management Group, the Training Management
Group,  the  Management  Group  for  Relations  with  Trade,  and  the  Management  Group  for  Information
Technology and New Developments. The Management Groups meet approximately twice a year

MEANS
Méthode  d’évaluation  des  Actions  de  Nature  Structurelle  [Method  for  the
evaluation  of  structural  operations]  -  used  to  evaluate  Community  programmes.  The  MEANS  methodology
defines the standard phases and stages of an evaluation, with a stage for the delimitation and structuring of the
evaluation (described in detail below) preceding observation, analysis and judgment

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding

50

MVS

Movement Verification System

NCTS
exchange of transit data between national administrations in parallel with the movement of goods)

New  Computerised  Transit  System  (Computerised  system  for  the  electronic

NIS

New Independent States (of the former Soviet Union)

ODYSSUD

Contact group organising major southern ports of the EU

OLAF
Commission Office for combating fraud)

Office  pour  la  Lutte  Anti-Fraude  de  la  Commission  européenne  (European

Operation
Use  of  a  computerised  system.  In  the  life  cycle  of  a  computerised  system,
operation is the end objective. It is the stage at which the investment previously agreed to (study, development,
deployment) bears fruit, and the system begins to contribute to the objectives

Phare
in 1990

PSO

RALFH

The financial assistance system for the applicant countries set up by the EC

Project Support Office

Rotterdam Anvers Le Havre Felixstowe Hambourg

Relevance
the needs of the Member States

Criterion for judging the extent to which a the programme’s objectives match

Results

SCAC
programme)

Short term effects of an activity on the intended beneficiaries

Standing  Committee  of  Administrative  Cooperation  (for  the  Fiscalis

SEED
authorised warehousekeepers or registered traders within the meaning of Directive 92/12/EEC

System for the Exchange of Excise Data; Register of persons recognised as

Seminars
Seminars provide the ideal context for national officials and experts to meet
to analyse problems and identify and disseminate the best solutions. Their purpose is to give national officials
the opportunity to speak about their experience on their own behalf (and not as representatives of the national
administrations), with a view to improving administrative cooperation

SID
Système d'Information Douanier [Customs Information System] (central data
base  designed  to  help  prevent,  detect  and  prosecute  operations  in  contravention  of  customs  or  agricultural
legislation,  using  faster  dissemination  of  information  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  competent  authorities’
cooperation and control procedures)

SIGL
information system for textile and steel imports subject to quotas)

Système d’Information de Gestion des Licences (Import licence management

SMS

Specimen Management System

Suspensions
goods; constitutes a back-up to the publication of suspension regulations in the Official Journal

Allows the creation of a dossier on the suspension of import duties for certain

Sustainability
the programme will last after it comes to a close

Criterion to determine the extent to which changes and benefits arising from

TAC

Travel, Accommodation and Conference facility

TACIS
of financial assistance to the States of the former Soviet Union

Technical  Assistance  for  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States:  system

TAIE

Technical Assistance Information Exchange

51

TAIEX
for expert advice

European Commission office handling requests from the applicant countries

TARIC
TARif Intégré Communautaire [Integrated Community Tariff] (On the basis
of the Combined Nomenclature sets out rates of duty, other Community charges and relevant Community rules
for each type of goods)

TCO/TCT
Transfert  des  Cachets  d’Origine/Transmission  des  Cachets  de  Transit
[Transfer  of  Origin  Stamps/Transmission  of  Transit  Stamps]  (Application  used  by  the  Commission  to  send
information on origin and transit stamps to the Member State administrations by e-mail)

TEMPO
developing and managing computer projects)

Taxud  Electronic  Management  of  Projects  Online  (Methodology  for

TQS
monitoring imported products to monitor tariff ceilings, for economic reasons or to combat fraud)

Tariff  Quota  and  Surveillance  (Application  for  managing  tariff  quotas  and

Unit Values

Application for calculating average prices serving as points of reference

Usefulness
changes in terms of the needs of the parties concerned

Criterion for judging whether a programme has brought about the expected

VAT

VATR

Value-Added Tax

Request for verification of a VAT number in the VIES

VIES
VAT  Information  Exchange  System  (Computer  system  linking  the  Member
States and enabling them to obtain information on any intra-Community transactions involving goods between
traders registered in their own VAT file and those listed in another Member State, and to confirm the validity of
the VAT identification number of a VAT-taxable person)

WCO

World Customs Organisation

52

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1:

THE  METHOD:  USE  OF  THE  MEANS  MODEL  TO  STRUCTURE  THE

EVALUATION

The  MEANS56  method  (Méthode  d’Évaluation  des  Actions  de  Nature  Structurelle)  was
developed to ensure a consistent and uniform approach to evaluating Community programmes. It
defines  the  standard  phases  and  stages  of  an  evaluation,  with  a  stage  for  the  delimitation  and
structuring  of  the  evaluation  (detailed  implementation  described  below)  preceding  observation,
analysis and judgment.

1.  DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

Period considered

This  report,  covering  the  years  2000  to  2002,  complements  the  mid-term  evaluation57  already
carried out under the Customs 2002, which covered the years up to 2000.

Actors considered

The way the national administrations use the opportunities offered by the programme is vital to
the achievement of its objectives. The Member  States  and  the  Commission  are the  actors  most
involved in the programme.

2.  STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION

2.1.  Criteria and evaluation questions

The first step in the structuring phase concerns the effects to be evaluated.

The  MEANS  model  distinguishes  four  different  effects  that  can  be  measured  in  an  evaluation.
Figure 1 shows these effects and evaluation criteria.

56

57

(Method for evaluating structural operations) volume 3, page 25
Interim  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Customs  2002  programme  SEC(2001)  1329,
31.7.2001; Commission working paper

53

                                                
Programme Evaluation

Needs

Inpacts

Results

Objectives

Inputs

Outputs

Society
Economy
Environment

Programme

Evaluation

Relevance

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Utility & Sustainibility

Usefulness and sustainability

Figure 1 Policy effects to be evaluated

The results are the immediate effects of an activity on its intended beneficiaries,58 the impact is
the medium and long term effects of an activity on its intended beneficiaries, or,  indirectly,  on
other beneficiaries.59

The evaluation was planned around the following overarching question:

“Were the actions conducted under  Customs  2002 effective,  efficient,  relevant  and  useful,
and  can  it  be  inferred  that  they  will  produce  sustainable  results  in  terms  of  the
programme’s general objectives?”

The questions to be asked regarding effectiveness are:

– 

– 

– 

whether the formal objectives set out in the Customs 2002 programme have been
achieved;

what successes have been achieved and what difficulties encountered under the
programme, and

whether the solutions selected are appropriate and their influence extends beyond
the programme.

For  the  purposes  of  this  evaluation,  efficiency  is  evaluated  by  comparing  the  results  or  impact
achieved with the resources invested. In other words, are the effects obtained in proportion to the
budget used by Customs 2002?

58

59

For  instance,  after  a  seminar  the  problems  involved  in  applying  a  particular  customs  provision
have been identified and solutions have been proposed
An  example  of  medium  term  impact:  as  the  result  of  a  project  group’s  work,  the  risk  analysis
system  and,  in  particular,  the  selection  criteria,  were  altered;  long-term  impact:  the  national
customs administration has improved its effectiveness in combating counterfeiting

54

                                                
The  evaluation  of  relevance  looks  at  the  match  between  the  programme’s  objectives  and  the
needs of the Member States and the EU.

As  regards  usefulness,  the  question  to  be  asked  is:  “Did  the  programme  produce  the  expected
changes in view of the needs of the parties concerned?”

Lastly the question for sustainability is “Can one infer that the changes (and benefits) obtained
will last after the programme ends?”

2.2.  Evolution of the programme’s objectives

As  well  as  clarifying  the  initial  objectives,  the  interim  evaluation  stressed  the  need  for  the
programme  to  adapt  those  objectives  to  changes  affecting  the  environment  in  which  customs
administrations operate.

The objectives were therefore amended to take account of

the Commission Communication60 of February 2002 concerning  a  strategy for  the Customs
Union,  which  sets  out  the  challenges  facing  customs.  It  points  out  that  in  addition  to  the  very
important task of collecting duties and other charges, customs administrations are responsible for
the  implementation  of  customs  policies  in  nearly  all  areas  relating  to  international  trade.  It
stresses  the  tension  between  the  growing  workload  of  combating  illegal  traffic  (fraud,
counterfeiting,  non-compliance  with  environmental  agreements)  and  the  growing  demand  of
traders for a faster service. The question is how to increase controls while facilitating legitimate
trade. The situation is further complicated by the challenge of enlargement.

The Communication defines the strategic objectives of customs for the coming years as:

– 

– 

– 

“providing a framework for the development of international trade based on transparent
and stable rules, applied coherently;

providing the Community and Member States with budgetary resources

protecting  society  from  unfair  international  trade  and  damage,  notably  in  terms  of
financial, commercial, public health, cultural and environmental interests.”

On  the  basis  of  these  objectives  the  Communication  identifies  five  main  areas  of  action  for
customs:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

customs  legislation,  with  the  emphasis  on  spreading  information  to  help  customs  and
economic operators apply the legislation in a consistent manner;

improving operations through greater cooperation between national administrations;

improving service to the business community;

more extensive training, including of traders;

promoting international customs cooperation.

It stresses the strategic importance of computerisation in all these spheres.

60

Communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee
concerning a strategy for the Customs Union, 8 February 2001, COM(2001) 51 final

55

                                                
Traditionally an evaluation looks at how the programme’s explicit objectives match up with the
issues it is supposed to address.

However, this evaluation does not include a full study of the programme’s relevance, since that is
principally an issue for the interim report, which addressed the subject extensively, as well as for
an “ex ante” evaluation which may propose amendments to the objectives.

Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out at this stage that the objectives set for Customs 2002 remain
relevant in terms of the development of the context as noted at the beginning of 2001.

The evaluation was based mainly on the questionnaires filled out by the Member States, asking
them for information and their opinions, with 29 questions asking them to grade on a scale of 1 to
4  the  contribution  of  a  type  of  activity,  or  the  programme  as  a  whole,  to  a  particular  result  or
impact.

These  assessments,  interpreted  in  the  light  of  Member  States’  comments  and  recorded  action,
constitute the evaluation criteria.

3.  ANALYSIS  OF  OBJECTIVES  (“OBJECTIVE  TREE”)  AND  RELATION  OF  EFFECTS  TO

OBJECTIVES

The  interim  evaluation  clarified  the  programme’s  objectives:  three  subsidiary  objectives  derive
from the main objective of improving the operation of the internal market: uniform application of
the  legislation,  protection  of  the  Community’s  interests  and  facilitating  trade.  The  evaluation
seeks  to  determine  whether  the  results  and  impact  of  the  action  taken  contributed  to  these
objectives. To do so, it first established what the expected effects of the action taken were, and in
what way they could be related to the objectives, thus drawing up a tree of expected effects.

Annexes  1  and  2  present  the  trees  of  expected  results  for  the  joint  actions  and  for  the  IT
applications. The “objectives tree” can be read in two ways: from the top, i.e. asking what action
needs to be taken to achieve each level, or from the bottom, asking why a given action was taken.

In the second stage, observation enables us to evaluate the extent to which the expected
effects were achieved in practice.

56

ANNEX 2

TABLE OF CUSTOMS 2002 OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED EFFECTS OF JOINT

ACTIONS

The following table shows the relation between the objectives of Customs 2002 as it was possible
to define them in terms of expected results and impact at the time of the interim report and the
expected results and impact of the joint actions. The types of joint action organised are indicated
by “S” for seminars, “T” for training, “PG” for project groups and “E” for exchanges. Each type
of joint action is specified in the corresponding “results” and “impact” boxes.

In  the  case  of  some  actions  both  results  and  impact  are  expected,  in  other  cases  only  impact
(e.g. for training).

The  table  shows  how  the  recently  organised  actions  are  consistent  with  the  programme’s
objectives as set out in the interim report.

57

Table of Customs 2002 objectives and expected effects of joint actions

Improved functioning of the internal market

S
E
V
I
T
C
E
J
B
O

T
C
A
P
M

I

S
T
L
U
S
E
R

U niform application of Community law
and policies throughout the customs
territory

Safeguarding the
Community’s financial
interests

Facilitating trade

Combating fraud more
effectively

Reducing the burden on
legitimate traders

Improving
understanding
of Community
customs
legislation and
its application
by national
officials (S, E,
PG)

Improving training
in national
administrations
- improving
general training
- improving the
training of senior
customs officials
(T)

Improving or
adapting
control
procedures in
national
administrations
(PG)

Improving use of
modern technology
for the exchange of
information (S, T)

Improving the
exchange of
information and
administrative
cooperation between
customs

Adapting national administration's
working methods (E, PG)

Taking better
account of the
needs and
concerns of
traders

Increasing
communication
and
cooperation
with traders

Comparing  M S's
treatment of
specific issues (S,
T)

Better
understanding
of customs
legislation (E,
PG)

Identification of
ways of
improving
working methods
within national
administrations
(E)

D efining
common
solutions to
customs
problems (S)

Identifying contact
points and ways of
improving
administrative
cooperation (S, E)

Exchanges betw een
national
administrations and
traders (S)

58

ANNEX 3

MEMBER STATES’ EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF JOINT ACTIONS

Annex 3.1

Seminars
Usefulness

RESULTS

IMPACTS

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

Other

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Other

s
e
u
s
s

i

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

f
o

t
n
e
m
t
a
e
r
t

’

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M
e
r
a
p
m
o
c

l

o
t
e
b
s
s
o
p

i

GERMANY
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
DENMARK
SPAIN
FINLAND
FRANCE
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS

PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM

SWEDEN
No of responses
AVERAGE

t
i

e
k
a
M

4
3
4

3
4
3
4
4
3

3

3
4
12
3.50

From 1 (poor) to 4 (very good)

n
o
m
m
o
c

e
n
i
f
e
d

d
n
a

r
o
f

k
o
o

l

l

o
t
e
b
s
s
o
p

i

t
i

e
k
a
M

4
3
3.5

3
3
3
4
4
3

3

3
3
12
3.29

l

s
m
e
b
o
r
p
s
m
o
t
s
u
c

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

o
t

s
n
o
i
t
u
o
s

l

3
2
3.5

3
3
3
4
3
3

3

2
3
12
2.96

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

s
w
e
v

i

f
o

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e

d
e
w
o

l
l

A

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

n
o

s
r
e
d
a
r
t
d
n
a

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

s
e
u
s
s

i

4
4
3

4
3
3
3
4
3

3

3
4
12
3.42

i

s
t
n
o
p
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

y
f
i
t
n
e
d

i

o
t

s
t
n
a
p
c
i
t
r
a
p

d
e
w
o

l
l

A

n

i

l

d
e
h

s
r
a
n
m
e
s

i

e
h
t

i

g
n
w
o

l
l

o
f

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

i

g
n
w
o

l
l

o
f

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

)
s
r
e
d
a
r
t

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c

2
0
0
2
d
n
a

1
0
0
2

n

i

s
r
a
n
m
e
s

i

e
h
t

i

g
n
d
u
c
n
i
(

l

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

e
h
t

d
n
a

s
r
e
d
a
r
t

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
n
u
m
m
o
C

s
t
i

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
n

i

s
t
i

,
n
o
i
t
a
s
g
e

i

l

l

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

)
o
n
=
0
,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

s
t
l
u
s
e
r

r
e
h
t
O

r
o
/
d
n
a

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

r
e
h
t
o
n

i

)
s
k
r
o
w
t
e
n

r
o
(

n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c
e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

f
o

s
y
a
w

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

f
o
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e

e
h
t

d
n
a

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

s
m
o
t
t
s
u
c

4
4
3

4
3
3
4
4
3

3

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

f
o

p
s
a
r
g

’

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

e
h
T

0
1
1

0
1
1
1
0
0

1

s
r
a
n
m
e
s

i

e
h
t

i

g
n
w
o

l
l

o
f
d
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

n
o
i
t
a
c

i
l

p
p
a

2
0
0
2

d
n
a

1
0
0
2

n

i

l

d
e
h

3
3

3
3
3
4
2
3

2

f
o

e
s
u

’

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

e
h
T

3
3
2

3
3
2
3
2
3

2

e
h
t

i

g
n
w
o

l
l

o
f
d
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

l

s
o
o
t

r
e
t
u
p
m
o
c

d
e
i
f
i
t
n
e
d

i

s
k
r
o
w
t
e
n

r
o
/
d
n
a
s
t
n
o
p

i

t
c
a
t
n
o
c

e
h
T

o
t

d
e
p
e
h

l

d
n
a

d
e
s
u
e
r
e
w
s
t
n
a
p
c
i
t
r
a
p

i

y
b

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

2
0
0
2
d
n
a

1
0
0
2

n

i

l

d
e
h

s
r
a
n
m
e
s

i

1
2
1

3
2
1
4
2
2

2

)
o
n
=
0
,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
c
a
p
m

i

r
e
h
t
O

0
1
1

0
1
1
0
1
0

0

2
0
0
2
&
1
0
0
2

3
3
3

4
3
3
3
3
2

4

3
3
12
3.42

1
1
12
0.67

2
3
12
2.58

1
3
12
2.50

2
2
12
2.00

3
3
12
3.08

0
0
12
0.42

59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexe 3.2 Exchanges

USEFULNESS

6.1.

RESULTS
6.2.

6.3.

Other

7.1.

7.2.

IMPACT
7.3.

7.4.

Other

l

d
e
b
a
n
e
2
0
0
2
n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
T

r
i
e
h
t
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

i

s
t
n
a
p
c
i
t
r
a
p
e
h
t

n
o
i
t
a
s
g
e

i

l

l

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

i

f
o
g
n
d
n
a
t
s
r
e
d
n
u

2
3
3.5

3
3
4
4
2
3

2

t
i

e
d
a
m
2
0
0
2
n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
T

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

f
o
s
y
a
w
y
f
i
t
n
e
d

i

l

o
t
e
b
s
s
o
p

i

s
m
o
t
s
u
c
n

i

s
d
o
h
t
e
m
g
n
k
r
o
w

i

3
4
3.5

2
3
4
4
4
3

3

2
4
12
2.96

2
3
12
3.21

f
o
e
s
o
h
t
d
n
a
h
c
t
a
p
s
d
f
o
s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

i

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
t
g
n
w
o

i

l
l

o
f

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

e
v
a
h
e
r
e
h
t

t
a
h
t
d
n
u
o
f
u
o
y
e
v
a
h
,
r
a
u
c
i
t
r
a
p
n
I

l

e
h
t
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
s
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

t
n
e
u
q
e
r
f
e
r
o
m
n
e
e
b

?
2
0
0
2
d
n
a
1
0
0
2
n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

2
3
2

3
4
3
3
3
4

4

e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
r
o
n
a
t
b
o
o
t

i

y

l
l

i

a
c
e
p
s
e
,
n
o
i
t
p
e
c
e
r

)
o
n
=
0
,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s
s
t
l
u
s
e
r

r
e
h
t
O

e
h
t

f
o
t
l
u
s
e
r
a
s
a
,
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

?
s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e

3
3
1.5

3
3
3
3
3
4

4

0
0
1

0
1
1
0
0
1

0

1
3
12
2.92

3
#
11
3.05

1
0
12
0.42

s
m
o
t
s
u
c
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

f
o
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e

e
h
t
n

i

s
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

r
o
/
d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c

i

i

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a
f
o
s
d
o
h
t
e
m

e
h
t
g
n
w
o

i

l
l

o
f
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

n

i

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
/
s
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

y
n
a
d
e
t
o
n
u
o
y
e
v
a
H

?
2
0
0
2
d
n
a
1
0
0
2
n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e

2
3
2.5

1
3
2
3
3
4

2

1
3
12
2.46

l

d
e
b
a
n
e
2
0
0
2
n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
T

r
o
(

i

s
t
n
o
p
s
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

y
f
i
t
n
e
d

i

o
t

s
t
n
a
p
c
i
t
r
a
p

i

r
o
/
d
n
a
s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

r
e
h
t
o
n

i

)
s
k
r
o
w
t
e
n

)
o
n
=
0
,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s
s
t
l
u
s
e
r

r
e
h
t
O

i

s
e
c
v
r
e
s
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c

w
a

l

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c

i
l

p
p
a
r
o
n
o
i
t
a
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t
n

i

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

y
n
a
d
e
t
o
n
u
o
y
e
v
a
H

n

i

d
e
t
c
u
d
n
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
t
g
n
w
o

i

l
l

o
f

i

i

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a
g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

i

f
o
s
y
a
w

4
4
3.5

4
4
3
3
4
4

4

4
4
12
3.79

0
1
1

0
1
1
0
0
1

1

0
1
12
0.58

n
o
i
t
a
t
p
a
d
a
/
n

i

s
e
g
n
a
h
c

y
n
a
d
e
t
o
n
u
o
y
e
v
a
H

e
h
t
n
h
t
i

i

w
s
d
o
h
t
e
m
g
n
k
r
o
w

i

f
o

?
2
0
0
2
d
n
a
1
0
0
2

2
2
2.5

3
3
3
3
1
3

2

2
3
12
2.46

60

GERMANY
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
DENMARK
SPAIN
FINLAND
FRANCE
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS

PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM

SWEDEN
No of responses
AVERAGE

3
3
3.5

3
4
3
4
4
4

3

4
4
12
3.54

From 1 (poor) to 4 (very good)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3.3

Project Groups

USEFULNESS

10.1

IMPACT

10.2

10.3

Other

i

g
n
k
r
o
w

t
p
a
d
a
r
o

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

l

i

e
b
s
s
o
p

e
d
a
m
s
a
h

s
p
u
o
r
g
t
c
e
o
r
p

j

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

e
h
t

f
o

k
r
o
w
e
h
t

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

n

i

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

l

o
r
t
n
o
c

d
n
a

s
d
o
h
t
e
m

i

?
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a
r
u
o
y

i

3
2
3

3
3
3
3
3
3

3

3
4
12
3.00

f
o

t
n
u
o
c
c
a

r
e
t
t
e
b

e
k
a
t
o
t

i

l

e
b
s
s
o
p
t
i

)
o
n
=
0

,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
c
a
p
m

i

r
e
h
t
O

0
1
1

0
1
1
0
1
1

0

?
s
d
e
e
n

’

s
r
e
d
a
r
t

1
3
3

3
2
3
3
3
4

3

3
4
12
2.92

1
1
12
0.67

t
i

e
d
a
m

s
a
h

s
p
u
o
r
g

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

2
0
0
2
s

m
o
t
s
u
C

e
h
t

f
o

k
r
o
w
e
h
t

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

d
n
a

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

i

l

e
b
s
s
o
p
t
i

f
o

s
e
u
s
s

i

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

f
o

i

g
n
d
n
a
t
s
r
e
d
n
u

e
d
a
m
s
a
h

s
p
u
o
r
g
t
c
e
o
r
p

j

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

e
h
t

f
o

k
r
o
w
e
h
t

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

GERMANY
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
DENMARK
SPAIN
FINLAND
FRANCE
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS
PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM
SWEDEN
No of responses
AVERAGE

4
3
3.5

4
3
3
4
4
3

4

3
4
12
3.54

?
n
o
i
t
a
s
g
e

i

l

l

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

3
4
3.5

4
3
4
4
4
3

2

3
3
12
3.38

61

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3.4

Training

USEFULNESS

12.1

12.2

IMPACT
12.3

12.4

Other

GERMANY
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
DENMARK
SPAIN
FINLAND
FRANCE
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS

PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM
SWEDEN
No of responses
AVERAGE

i

g
n
n
a
r
t

i

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

3
3
3

3
3
3
4
4
2

3

o
t

d
e
r
e
f
f
o

o
t

i

l

e
b
s
s
o
p

t
i

e
d
a
m
e
v
a
h

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

l

s
e
u
d
o
m
g
n
n
a
r
t

i

i

e
h
t

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

,
y
t
i
l

a
u
q
(

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

r
u
o
y

n

i

l

i

s
a
c
i
f
f
o

i

g
n
n
a
r
t

i

?
)
d
e
r
e
f
f
o

s
t
c
e
b
u
s

j

,
y
t
i
r
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m
o
c

l

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

3
3
3

3
3
2
3
4
2

4

o
t

l

i

e
b
s
s
o
p

t
i

e
d
a
m
e
v
a
h

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

i

g
n
n
a
r
t

i

o
t

l

i

e
b
s
s
o
p

t
i

e
d
a
m
e
v
a
h

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

f
o

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

?
s
t
c
e
b
u
s

j

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

3
4
2

3
3
2
4
4
2

2

f
f
a
t
s

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

i

r
o
n
e
s

f
o

i

g
n
n
a
r
t

i

e
h
t

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

3
4
1

3
2
3
4
3
3

2

i

g
n
n
a
r
t

i

2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C

t
a
h
t

i

r
e
d
s
n
o
c

u
o
y

o
D

o
t

l

i

e
b
s
s
o
p

t
i

e
d
a
m
e
v
a
h

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

r
u
o
y

n

i

l

i

s
a
c
i
f
f
o

y
a
w
e
h
t

e
v
o
r
p
m

i

l

i

s
e
g
o
o
n
h
c
e
t

n
r
e
d
o
m
e
s
u

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

)
o
n
=
0

,
s
e
y
=
1
(
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
c
a
p
m

i

r
e
h
t
O

?
)
.
c
t
e

,
s
n
o
i
t
a
c

i
l

p
p
a

r
e
t
u
p
m
o
c
(

3
#
2

3
2
3
3
3
1

2

0
1
0

0
0
1
0
1
0

1

3
11
3.09

3
11
3.00

4
11
3.00

3
11
2.82

2
9
2.67

0
11
0.36

62

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3.5

General Evaluation

Achievement of objectives
13.A.

13.B

13.C

13.D

13.E

Usefulness of

IT systems
14

Other comments

15

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
e
h
t
d
d
t
n
e
t
x
e
t
a
h
w
o
T

i

GERMANY
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
DENMARK
SPAIN
FINLAND
FRANCE
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS
PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM
SWEDEN
No of responses
AVERAGE

n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

l

p
e
h

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

d
d

i

t
n
e
t
x
e

t
a
h
w
o
T

n
e
e
w
t
e
b
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

f
o
e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
h
t
d
n
a

?
s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

4
4
2

4
3
3
3
4
3

3

d
n
a

h
t
i

i

w
n
o
i
t
a
c
n
u
m
m
o
c

e
t
a
t
i
l
i

c
a
f

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

d
d

i

t
n
e
t
x
e

t
a
h
w
o
T

y
t
i
l

a
u
q

e
h
t

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

l

?
s
o
r
t
n
o
c

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

f
o

s
t
l
u
s
e
r

d
n
a

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

d
d

i

t
n
e
t
x
e

t
a
h
w
o
T

e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
e

e
r
o
m
o
t

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

3
4
3

4
3
3
3
3
4

3

?
d
u
a
r
f

f
o

g
n
i
t
a
b
m
o
c

3
4
2.5

4
3
3
4
3
4

3

?
s
r
e
d
a
r
t

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c

1
3
2

3
3
2
2
3
3

3

3
3
12
3.25

1
3
12
2.42

4
4
12
3.42

2
3
12
3.21

e
k
a
m
o
t

s
t
n
e
m
m
o
c

r
e
h
t
o

y
n
a

e
v
a
h

u
o
y

o
D

e
h
t

r
o
/
d
n
a

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

t
u
o
b
a

s
m
e
t
s
y
s

r
e
t
u
p
m
o
c

e
h
t

f
o

l

s
s
e
n
u
f
e
s
u

l
l

a
r
e
v
o

e
h
t

s
s
e
s
s
a

u
o
y

l

d
u
o
w
w
o
H

?
2
0
0
2

s
m
o
t
s
u
C
y
b

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f

4
3
2.5

4
4
3
3
4
3

3

3
4
12
3.38

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
c

i
l

p
p
a

e
h
t

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

o
t

?
y
r
o
t
i
r
r
e
t

s
m
o
t
s
u
c

e
h
t

t
u
o
h
g
u
o
r
h
t

w
a

l

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
e
h
t
d
d
t
n
e
t
x
e
t
a
h
w
o
T

i

4
3
2.5

4
3
3
3
3
3

2

2
3
12
2.96

63

i

g
n
d
u
c
n
i
(

l

t
i

g
n
i
t
a
u
a
v
e

l

r
o
f

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

y
n
a

u
o
y

e
v
a
H
?
)
e
r
i
a
n
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
q

i

s
h
t

i

g
n
v
o
r
p
m

i

r
o
f

e
k
a
m
o
t

s
n
o
i
t
s
e
g
g
u
s

)
o
n
=
1

,
s
e
y
=
1
(

?
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

0
1
1

1
0
1
0
0
1

1

1
0
12
0.58

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4

SYNTHESIS  OF  INDIVIDUAL  EVALUATIONS  BY  PARTICIPANTS  IN  SEMINARS

HELD IN 2000, 2001 AND 2002(RESULTS FOR 18 SEMINARS OUT OF 29)

Did the seminar meet (or exceed) your expectations?

Sometimes
6,3%

No
0,1%

Often
32,7%

Yes
60,9%

Did the seminar cover the subjects you expected?

No
0,2%

Sometimes
7,0%

No answer
0,2%

Often
31,2%

Yes
61,4%

Were there too many presentations?

No answer
0,4%

Yes
9,0%

Often
4,6%

Sometimes
11,3%

No
74,7%

64

Were there too many presentations?

No answer
0,4%

Yes
9,0%

Often
4,6%

Sometimes
11,3%

No
74,7%

Was there enough time to speak to the other delegates?

Sometimes
9,7%

No
1,7%

No answer
0,4%

Often
19,9%

Yes
68,3%

Where enough documents available?

Sometimes
9%

No
4%

No answer
1%

Often
18%

Yes
68%

65

Would you say in general that the seminar was useful for your administration?

Sometimes
6,0%

Often
20,7%

No
1,9%

Yes
71,5%

Was the environment of the seminar good?

Sometimes
0,4%

Often
8,8%

No
0,1%

No answer
0,2%

Oui
90,6%

66

ANNEX 5

DEVELOPMENT OF NUMBER OF EXCHANGES

Development of number of exchanges by priority area (Member States)

Controls

and control

standards

Relations
 with
trade

number % number %

2000
2001
2002

156
323
276

60
56
61

15
27
38

6
5
8

Information

technologies
and new
developments
number
%
13
136
8

5
23
2

Training

Exchanges

specific and other

number %
74
21
88

29
4
20

number

%

total

0
72
39

0
12
9

258
579
449

NB: The total in the last column differ from the totals in the previous table (development of exchanges
by country). The figures in this table are taken from the annual accounts submitted at the end of the
year by the Member States, whereas those in the previous table come from the general questionnaire in
which some Member States made significant

Development of number of exchanges by priority area (Candidate countries)

Controls

and control

standards

Relations
 with
trade

number % number %

Information

technologies
and new
developments
number
%

Training

Exchanges

specific and other

number %

number

%

total

2001
2002

58
42

60
74
69

3
2

4
3

5

4

6

7

3
8

4
13

9
5

12
8

78
61

67

ANNEX 6

CUSTOMS 2002 IT BUDGET

Project/Years

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total

% du budget 
TOTAL Douane 
2002 

CCN/CSI (50% Fiscalis - 50% Customs)

2.182.687 

6.033.857 

4.336.042 

4.672.356 

6.576.530 

23.801.472 

Management tools (50% Fiscalis - 50% Customs)

Tempo

PSO

-

-

-

124.627 

124.627 

-

476.406 

476.406 

688.350 

129.500 

129.500 

-

688.350 

-

1.418.883 

730.533 

688.350 

Customs (excl. CCN/CSI and management tools budget)

12.061.986 

10.293.952 

15.876.661 

17.312.595 

16.973.560 

72.518.754 

NSTI

Tariff application

E-Customs

Others

AFIS/SID

SIGL

7.045.916 

7.838.227 

8.725.941 

10.461.500 

9.251.972 

1.680.567 

1.328.956 

2.910.096 

2.995.835 

3.926.326 

-

-

84.990 

85.260 

273.262 

2.425 

78.006 

229.627 

280.000 

-

43.323.556 

12.841.780 

443.512 

590.058 

2.501.819 

176.383 

3.008.007 

2.565.000 

2.585.000 

10.836.209 

831.259 

872.380 

918.000 

925.000 

937.000 

4.483.639 

51,38%

15,23%

0,53%

0,70%

12,85%

5,32%

Customs 2002 TOTAL  (including 50% CCN/CSI and 
management tools component)

13.154.918 

13.280.047 

18.320.342 

19.241.032 

20.323.303 

84.319.642 

68

    
    
    
    
    
         
 
               
       
       
       
       
           
 
               
        
        
        
              
 
               
 
               
 
               
        
 
               
              
  
  
  
  
  
         
     
     
     
   
     
         
     
     
     
     
     
         
 
               
 
               
          
          
        
              
            
          
        
        
 
               
              
     
        
     
     
     
         
        
        
        
        
        
           
  
  
  
  
  
   
ANNEX 7

MEMBER  STATES’  EVALUATION  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT,  DEPLOYMENT  AND

OPERATION OF CCN/CSI

Question

Please  indicate  the  extent  to  which  you  agree  with  the  statements  below,  using  a  scale  of  1  (agree
entirely) to 5 (do not agree at all).

Answers

Development and deployment of CCN/CSI

A. Realistic time targets for the implementation of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
B. Realistic budgets for the implementation of CCN/CSI 
in your Member State
C. Sufficient support of the Commission (CCN/TC) 
during the implementation/deployment of CCN/CSI in 
your Member State
D. Sufficient training provided by the European 
Commission for the implementation /deployment of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
E. Sufficient documentation provided by the European 
Commission for the implementation/ deployment of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
 F. Easy to link CCN/CSI with your national system 
platforms
G. Locally supported technologies are used in the 
specification of CCN/CSI (i.e. supported in your Member 
State)

About the operation of CCN/CSI (1999-2002)

H. Sufficient support of the European Commission 
(CCN/TC) during the operation of CCN/CSI
I. Sufficient documentation and training provided by the 
European Commission (CCN/TC) for the operation of 
CCN/CSI and system development
J. Easy to  operate CCN/CSI in your Member State
K. CCN/CSI services cover all requirements for 
information exchange between administrations as 
required by the programme (synchronous & 
asynchronous services, HTTP, CCN-mail)
L. Sufficient availability of the backbone-system, 
managed by the European Commission
M. Sufficient availability of other gateways, managed by 
other Member States

N. CCN/CSI easily interfaces with the national systems
O. Any system using CCN/CSI contains in their 
specification the required specifications to interoperate 
with CCN/CSI
P. CCN/CSI is saving considerable resources to set up a 
new Fiscalis IT system in your Member State
Q. Sufficient security for all exchange services

No of 
responses 
Fiscalis

Average 
Fiscalis

No of 
responses 
Customs

Average 
Customs

General 
average

9

8

9

9

6

9

9

9

9
9

8

8

7

9

8

5
8

2,00

1,56

1,78

1,83

1,83

1,83

1,67

2,00

2,22
2,17

2,88

1,88

1,71

2,22

2,38

2,60
2,00

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

11

11
11

10

10

10

10

10

9
11

2,00

1,70

2,00

1,64

2,00

1,90

2,10

1,97

2,10

2,30

2,00

2,08

2,10

1,90

1,73

1,85

2,09
2,64

2,10

1,80

2,00

2,50

2,10

2,11
1,36

2,15
2,43

2,44

1,83

1,88

2,37

2,22

2,29
1,63

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree
Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

69

ANNEX 8

MEMBER STATES’ EVALUATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED

BY THE CUSTOMS 2002 SYSTEMS

Question

Please  evaluate  the  completeness  of  the  information  provided  to  your  Member  State  by  the  Customs  2002
systems in terms of the programme’s main objectives:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

improving  administrative  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  between
customs administrations;

facilitating  communication  with  traders  and  the  way  their  concerns  are  taken  into
consideration;

improving the quality and results of customs controls;

improving measures to combat fraud;

improving the application of Community law throughout the customs territory

All the necessary information is provided

Nearly all the necessary information is provided, but some improvements could be made

Not all the necessary information is provided.

The information provided is not useful.

1

2

3

4

Responses

Systems (including Community and national components) 

A. ECICS (European Commission Inventory of Chemical Substances)
B. IPR (Inward Processing Relief)
C. NCTS (New Computerised Transit System)
D. Taric (Tarif Intégré communautaire)
E. TCO/TCT (Transfert des Cachets d'Origine/Transit)
F. Unit Values
G. Tariff Quota Surveillance (TQS)
H. AFIS
I. EBTI
J. DDS
K. SIGL

No of 
responses Average
8
10
9
9
10
5
9
11
11
7
3

2,00
1,80
1,56
1,89
2,10
1,40
1,78
2,00
1,82
2,00
1,67

Average below 2
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average above 2.5

70

ANNEX 9

MEMBER STATES’ EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CUSTOMS 2002 SYSTEMS

Question

Please evaluate the quality of information provided by the systems listed below in terms of the needs of your Member State.

Responses

Quality of the information provided by Fiscalis applications

TARIC

ECICS

IPR

SIGL

Systems
DDS

TCO/TCT

Unit 
Values

QUOTA

AFIS

EBTI

A. Other Member States update the information your Member 
State depends on in time

No of countries which replied
Average

B. Other Member States provide new information your Member 
State depends on in time

No of countries which replied
Average

C. Information provided by other Member States is accurate and 
correct

No of countries which replied
Average

Total average

15
8
1,88

17
8
2,13

13,3
8
1,66

1,89

21
9
2,33

24
9
2,67

18
9
2,00

2,33

16
9
1,78

16
9
1,78

16
9
1,78

1,78

5
3
1,67

6
3
2,00

4
3
1,33

1,67

9
5
1,80

10
5
2,00

6
5
1,20

1,67

19,5
9
2,17

19,5
9
2,17

15,5
9
1,72

2,02

9
5
1,80

10
5
2,00

8
5
1,60

1,80

14
7
2,00

15
7
2,14

11
7
1,57

1,90

21
10
2,10

23
10
2,30

19
10
1,90

2,10

17
9
1,89

19
9
2,11

13
9
1,44

1,81

Rating
1 = Completely agree
5 = Completely disagree 

Average below 2
Average of 2 to 2.5
Average above 2.5

71

ANNEX 10 MEMBER  STATES’  EVALUATION  OF  THE  DEPLOYMENT  AND  OPERATION  OF

THE NATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEMS DEVELOPED UNDER CUSTOMS 2002

Question

Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements on a scale of 1 (I completely
agree) to 5 (I completely disagree),

Responses

Deployment in the Member States and operation of the systems 
developed under the Customs 2002 programme

No of 
responses Average

A. Your Member State feels the need for and is committed to have 
the systems deployed at national level as specified in the common 
specification
B. Time span for the deployment of the systems is realistic
C. Training provided is sufficient
D. Support provided is sufficient
E. Requirements and/or specifications for the systems to be 
deployed and/or developed are comprehensive enough
F. Clear and timely communication between the European 
Commission and your Member State about deployment
G. Enough budgetary resources available at national level
H. Enough people that can be dedicated to these projects on a 
national level
I. Required technology supported by your Member State
J. Timely availability and high quality of the legal instruments 
necessary for the operation of the systems
K. Timely availability and high quality of the administration 
arrangements necessary for the operation of the systems
L. Interoperability with existing back end systems possible

11
11
11
11

11

11
11

11
10

11

10
9

About the operation of systems falling under the Customs 2002 programme in your 
Member State

M. Sufficient support of the European Commission during the 
operation of the systems
N. Easy to administrate in your Member State

11
10

About the cooperation of your Member State with the other Member States

O. There are sufficient opportunities to share valuable information 
between your Member State and other Member States on the 
deployment and development of systems proposed by the 
European Commission

P. Regular meetings between our Member State other Member 
States (e.g. working groups) provide you with valuable information

11

11

1,45
2,36
2,00
1,86

2,68

2,18
2,42

2,70
1,80

2,00

2,30
2,44

1,91
2,80

2,55

2,27

72

ANNEX 11 MEMBER STATES’ EVALUATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SYSTEMS DEVELOPED UNDER CUSTOMS 2002 TO THE PROGRAMME’S

OBJECTIVES

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the statements below using a scale of 1 (completely agree) to 5 (completely disagree).

TARIC 

ECICS

IPR

NCTS

TCO/TCT

Unit Values

AFIS

EBTI

TQS

TOTAL

Contribution to objectives

A. The systems lead to more efficiency in national 
administrative procedures

No of responses
Average

B. The systems enhance the cooperation between 
tax administrations of different Member States

No of responses
Average

C. The systems enhance simplification of tax 
collection

No of responses
Average

D. The systems effectively support the  combating of 
fraud

No of responses
Average

E. The implementation of requirements is well 
supported by guidelines, training, standards etc...

No of responses
Average

F. Availability of data and systems is overall 
sufficient

No of responses
Average

General average

11

8
1,38

15

6
2,50

14

7
2,00

12

8
1,50

15

6
2,50

13

9
1,44

1,89

21

9
2,33

20

8
2,50

22

7
3,14

14

7
2,00

18

7
2,57

13

7
1,86

2,40

Rating
1 = Completely agree
5 = Completely disagree 
Average below 2
Average of 2 to 2.5
Average above 2.5

18

9
2,00

14

9
1,56

18

9
2,00

18

9
2,00

15

8
1,88

12

7
1,71

1,86

19

9
2,11

18

8
2,25

29,5

8
3,69

15,5

9
1,72

17

8
2,13

19,5

9
2,17

2,34

10

5
2,00

13

5
2,60

15

5
3,00

8

5
1,60

14

5
2,80

9

5
1,80

2,30

20

10
2,00

19

11
1,73

25

8
3,13

15

10
1,50

12

8
1,50

22

11
2,00

1,98

14

9
1,56

16

9
1,78

22

7
3,14

18

9
2,00

20

7
2,86

14

7
2,00

2,22

13

7
1,86

12

6
2,00

16

6
2,67

10

6
1,67

13

5
2,60

11

7
1,57

2,06

2,01

2,15

2,88

1,87

2,44

1,88

2,21

23

8
2,88

17

7
2,43

25

8
3,13

20

7
2,86

19

6
3,17

19

8
2,38

2,80

73

ANNEX 12 MEMBER STATES’ EVALUATION OF USE OF THE SYSTEMS DEVELOPED UNDER

CUSTOMS 2002

Questions

Do you have a system for monitoring the use of computer systems, i.e. do you keep regular statistics
on their use?

Indicate with a cross in the “monitoring” column of the table below whether you monitor the use of
the systems listed and, if so, whether you do so regularly (continuous monitoring at system level and
regular reporting) or on an ad hoc basis (no regular reporting).

For all the systems which you monitor, or for which you have a clear idea about their use, please enter
a cross under the appropriate option in the “Frequency” column.

Indicate with a cross in the appropriate part of the “obligation” column whether officials are legally or
administratively obliged to use these systems.

Responses

Systems

Monitored

A. TARIC (TARif Intégré Communautaire) 
B. ECICS (European Commission Inventory of 
Chemical Substances)
C. IPR (Inward Processing Relief)
D. NCTS (New Computerised Transit System)
E. TCO/TCT (Transfert des Cachets 
d'Origin/Transit)
F. Unit Values
G. AFIS
H EBTI
I. TQS

J. DDS
L.SIGL

Number of systems covered by questionnaire
Average

Total

l

y
l
r
a
u
g
e
r

,
s
e
Y

4
1

0
5
2

2
3
4
4
1
2

28
88

c
o
h
d
a
,
s
e
Y

0
2

4
0
2

0
0
0
1
0
0

9
88

d
e
s
u
r
e
v
e
N

1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
1

3
78

o
N

4
7

5
2
6

3
7
5
3
6
4

52
88

e
s
a
h
p
y
r
o
t
c
u
d
o
r
t
n
I

0
0

0
2
0

0
0
2
0
0
0

4
78

Frequency

y

l
l

i

a
n
o
s
a
c
c
O

1
6

2
0
3

2
2
0
1
2
1

20
78

y
l
t
n
e
u
q
e
r
F

0
2

6
1
6

1
4
3
1
3
2

29
78

Obligation

o
N

s
e
Y

l

e
b
a
s
n
e
p
s
d
n
I

i

6
1

0
3
0

1
2
4
5
0
1

2
6

2
3
5

2
5
2
2
6
2

6
3

6
4
4

2
4
7
5
0
3

23
78

37
80

44
80

59%

32%

10%

4%

5%

26%

37%

29%

46%

55%

74