REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the functioning of Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, exchange of information, harbour installation, harmonisation of standards, port traffic, simplification of formalities, vessel













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0320 - EN











|



52014DC0320

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the functioning of Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States /* COM/2014/0320 final */










1.                      
introduction

Maritime transport must comply with complex
administrative procedures, following a wide set of international, European
Union (EU) and national legislation in the fields of customs, taxation,
immigration, safety and security, waste, health protection, etc. Public
authorities therefore require upon a ship's arrival in and/or departure from a
port numerous documents and information relating to those fields. These
formalities and the procedures to fulfil them are often considered duplicative
and time consuming, resulting in costs and delays that could make maritime
transport less attractive.
On 20 October 2010, Directive 2010/65/EU on
reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the
Member States[1]
(the Reporting Formalities Directive) was adopted. The purpose of the Directive
is to simplify and harmonise some of these procedures by establishing a
standard electronic transmission of information and by rationalising reporting
formalities for ships arriving in and ships departing from EU ports, thus
reducing administrative burden for shipping companies. In practice this means
that Member States shall accept the fulfilment of these reporting formalities,
which are included in the Annex to the Directive, in electronic format and
their transmission via a national single window no later than 1st June 2015.
Article 15 of the Directive requires the
Commission to report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
functioning of this Directive, including on:
·              
the progress made towards harmonisation and
coordination of reporting formalities, i.e. the implementation of the National
Single Window
·              
the availability of data concerning ship
traffic/movement within the Union, and/or calling at third country ports
·              
the feasibility of avoiding or simplifying
formalities for ships that have called at a port in a third country or free
zone
·              
the compatibility of the River Information
Services with the electronic data transmission process
·              
the possibility of extending the simplification
introduced by the Directive to inland waterway transport
This report will address these issues. Since
the establishment of the single window is the main requirement of the
Directive, it will be dealt with in a separate heading (heading 3). The other
issues are dealt with in heading 4. In addition, the report will inform on
future plans aiming at improving the maritime exchange of information and
simplification and reduction of administrative burden. 
In order to prepare for this report, a
consultant was tasked to carry out a study[2]
on the above mentioned issues. 

2.                      
Context 

The Reporting Formalities Directive has been
proposed by the Commission in the framework of the Communication and action
plan to establish a European maritime transport space without barriers[3] which
introduced policies and actions aiming at harmonising and simplifying
administrative procedures in short sea shipping, thus improving the efficiency
and competitiveness of intra-EU maritime transport.
A link has been established between the
Reporting Formalities Directive and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a community vessel traffic
monitoring and information system and repealing Directive 93/75/EEC[4],
in particular as regards SafeSeaNet[5],
the Union Maritime Information and Exchange system. Relevant reporting
information will have to be exchanged through the SafeSeaNet system, which,
apart from the safety function, allows for the exchange of additional
information aiming at facilitating maritime traffic and maritime transport.
The Blue Belt, a recent initiative which
complements the objectives of the Reporting Formalities Directive, being part
of the Single Market Act II[6],
calls for the establishment of a true Single Market for maritime transport by
no longer subjecting EU goods carried between EU seaports to administrative and
customs formalities that apply to goods arriving from overseas ports. More
specifically, the Blue Belt Communication[7]
envisages the introduction of a harmonised electronic customs cargo manifest,
the so-called eManifest, which aims at further facilitating maritime transport
for vessels calling at EU ports and at the same time creating harmonisation and
reducing administrative burden. 

3.                      
implementation of the national single windows

The single window concept is the main
requirement for the implementation of the Reporting Formalities Directive. 
The single window:
·              
shall be the place where all information is
reported once and made available to the Member States' competent authorities in
various fields, i.e. port, customs, security, health and border control,  
·              
links SafeSeaNet, e-Customs and other electronic
systems and
·              
must be interoperable and compatible with, and
accessible to the SafeSeaNet system and, where applicable, with the systems provided
in Decision 70/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a
paperless environment for customs and trade[8].

3.1.                
State of play
3.1.1.          
Harmonisation and coordination of reporting
formalities that has been achieved under Article 3 of the Reporting Formalities
Directive at Member State level

Article 3(1) of the Reporting Formalities
Directive states that each Member State shall take measures to ensure that the
reporting formalities are requested in a harmonised and coordinated manner
within that Member State. 
All Member States have transposed the Directive
and have taken initiatives regarding implementation of a national maritime
single window. There is however a considerable variety of (1) single window
concepts, systems and environments, (2) approaches to create a single window
and (3) the state of play of development within the Member States. 
Some Member States are waiting for technical
specifications to be finalised (cf. infra); other Member States modernise,
interconnect or 'rebuild' their existing national reporting formalities
infrastructure in order to create their national single window in accordance
with the Directive. 
Different public authorities and private
stakeholders in various policy fields (amongst others maritime, customs, health
and border control) are involved. This leads to a complex implementation and
coordination process. Substantial efforts are required at Member State level to continuously involve all of these parties and ensure a coherent and effective
coordination. 
In addition, Member States are, on a varying
degree, faced with the following challenges:
·              
Impact of the implementation on the available
budget and the budgeting processes of the involved Member States and
stakeholders
·              
Concerns and/or legal difficulties regarding exchanging
confidential/sensitive information and guaranteeing data quality
·              
No or not enough technical specifications
developed at EU level yet
·              
The implementation timing, linked also to the
development of the eManifest in the Blue Belt context (cf. infra) 
The shipping industry pointed at the risk that,
in the absence of more interoperability standards and the lack of harmonisation
of the information required at national level, the national single window
systems developed by the Member States may turn out to be rather different from
each other, which might necessitate the development of specific interfaces for
industry to communicate which each Member State system, thus increasing
implementation costs and reducing benefits for industry. 

3.1.2.          
Harmonisation and coordination of reporting
formalities that has been achieved under Article 3 of the Reporting Formalities
Directive at EU level

According to Article 3(2) of the Reporting
Formalities Directive, the Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member
States, develop mechanisms for the harmonisation and coordination of reporting
formalities within the Union. However, it is worth noting that the Directive
does not provide for specific procedures that could result in binding acts to
incentivise harmonisation. 
For this purpose, the Commission has
established the Expert group on maritime simplification and electronic
information services, the "eMS group", which aims to support
Member States to implement the Reporting Formalities Directive in a coordinated
manner. In addition, the group welcomes observers from the main stakeholder
associations. The organisation of the eMS group is explained in annex I. 
The Directive is implemented on the basis of a phased-approach: 

(1)         
Phase 1: Development of functional
specifications 
(2)         
Phase 2: Development of technical specifications

(3)         
Phase 3: Technical implementation 
(4)         
Phase 4: Testing 
(5)         
Phase 5: Initial operational phase 
A detailed description of the different phases
can be found in annex II.
In the original time plan it was foreseen to develop
common functional specifications (phase 1) in the course of 2012 and 2013 and
technical specifications (phase 2) by the end of 2013. At present, functional
specifications have been established by the relevant sub-groups for
almost all specific notifications identified in the Annex to the Reporting
Formalities Directive. A number of common data and issues which have a
horizontal dimension were identified, reviewed and harmonized at horizontal
level. The sub-group on data mapping and functionalities has proposed a
harmonised data set of information to be provided when fulfilling the
requirements of the Directive, but the work still needs to be finalised.
Business Rules for the FAL Form 2 (Cargo
Declaration) and the Cargo Manifest have not been developed so far nor was it
taken along in the data mapping exercise, in order not to impede the development
by the Commission services of specifications for the eManifest. This eManifest,
which should be lodged through the national single window, is part of the Blue
Belt initiative. As the whole process of harmonisation would lead to common
definitions and formats of the data which are required in the different
formalities, the Commission services will endeavor to harmonise the technical
specifications of the harmonised electronic cargo manifest and of the other
reporting formalities collected according to Directive 2010/65/EU. The
eManifest is still under discussion. 
The technical implementation phase has started
at the beginning of 2014, but some Member States are waiting to start the
implementation until the functional and technical specifications are completed.
Indeed, following the above, technical specifications, i.e. data definitions
and data formats, have only been developed for the formalities covered by agreed
functional specifications. There is still some work to be done.
This might impact on the future calendar, since
the systems will need to be ready for testing during the first half of 2015, so
that the initial operational phase can start at the latest by 1st
June 2015. 

3.1.3.          
Supporting projects

In order to further facilitate the
implementation of the Reporting Formalities Directive, the Commission initiated
the AnNa and IMP demonstrator projects which gather a number of Member States. 

3.1.3.1.    
The IMP demonstrator project

The IMP demonstrator project, with a budget of
€700.000, implements action 3.1 on the evolution of SafeSeaNet of the
Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) work programme, and has been tasked to EMSA. 
The purpose of the demonstrator project is the
development of software and service components that would be used to support
the participating Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Malta and Romania) and Norway in implementing their national single window solution in compliance
with the Reporting Formalities Directive. This would allow the participating
Member States to save costs and time required to implement the national single
window by re-using and integrating components, built centrally by the project,
in their own national systems. 
The main deliverable of the project is the
design and implementation of a prototype of a national single window solution
which will test the information flows between:
–              
the shipping industry (e.g. ship
agent/master/duly authorised person) and the national single window
–              
the national single window and public authorities
(maritime safety, customs, border control, health, port authorities and others
that might be identified), and
–              
the central SafeSeaNet system and the national
single window
A first version of the prototype was released
and tested in the course of 2013. This version offered the possibility to
fulfil the reporting formalities through a harmonised interface. The data
structure and formats used were based on the results of the work of the eMS
Data Mapping and Functionalities sub-group. A second version of the prototype
featuring interfaces with public authorities to process the information
received from the ship data providers and record relevant decisions, and
allowing information exchange with SafeSeaNet was made available beginning
2014. Further developments are foreseen in the course of 2014, with the final
phase of the project running until November 2014.

3.1.3.2.    
The AnNa project[9]

AnNa, a project selected under the TEN-T
Motorways of the Sea 2012 Multi Annual Call with a budget of €37.076.000 and
running from 2012 to 2015, stands for Advanced National Networks for
Administrations and is a Member States' project to support the effective
implementation of the Reporting Formalities Directive. The project aims at
supporting the effective and sustainable development of national single windows
in line with the Directive (e.g. by supporting ICT based system integration in
the maritime single window developments).
14 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, France, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) are active participants in the project; 6 more (Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Finland and Malta) have observer status[10].
Several maritime stakeholder organisations[11]
are associated to the project. AnNa works bottom-up, assisting national
administrations building their maritime single windows, and supports (system)
integration within and between national maritime single windows (ship-to-shore
and between the various services and administrations) building on the need to:
·              
make optimal use of the data and the
(international) data models already available;
·              
clearly identify what data is required by public
authorities (by law) and by logistic chain operators;
·              
identify how data can be re-used;
·              
incorporate “the longer term”; this means that
work and the investments should relate to value for money (also in relation to
investments made in port community systems), and to the implementation of the
European transport policy agenda, including e-Freight and e-Customs goals.
·              
develop a framework providing a checklist of
feasible measures (including their international perspective).
Functional and technical requirements are
developed as well as an interim master plan for the minimum requirements of the
Directive and a stakeholder strategy paper describing the viewpoints of the
various stakeholder organisations. In the next phase pilot projects will be
launched to test different concepts and ideas of implementation of the
Directive. 
In order to avoid overlaps or contradictory activities
with the eMS group activities, deliverables of the AnNa project are presented and
validated by the eMS group.
Both the IMP demonstrator and the AnNa project
aim at answering the needs experienced by some Member States implementing the
Reporting Formalities Directive. The work done within the framework of the IMP
demonstrator and the AnNa project are considered as an added value to the work
of the eMS (sub)group(s) for the overall implementation of the Reporting
Formalities Directive, provided that they are properly coordinated and
consistent. 

4.                      
Other reporting requirements following article 15
4.1.                
Availability of data concerning ship
traffic/movement within the Union and/or calling at third country ports or in
free zones

Today there is no detailed information
available of the extent of the traffic/movement of ships from one EU port to
another, or of ships calling intermediately at third country ports or entering
free zones. It is said by stakeholder organisations like ECSA and WSC that the
vast majority of vessels sailing EU waters call intermediately at third country
ports, but no exact data are publicly available, neither on cargo volumes nor
on traffic frequency. 
All information on cargo can be found in the
cargo manifest. Cargo data are submitted to the customs for financial and other
purposes and to the ports/terminals for operational reasons. They are exchanged
on a confidential basis for these specific purposes and can only be used for
other purposes with the explicit permission of the person or authority
providing it. 
The Member States are obliged to provide cargo
data to the Commission (Eurostat) but these data can only be used for the
purposes defined in Directive 2009/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 May 2009 on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods
and passengers by sea[12].
Data about maritime transport on port-to-port level are considered to be
confidential by the Working Group on Maritime Transport Statistics[13].
Instead, statistics on cargo volumes are disseminated by Eurostat on the
aggregated level of port-to-maritime coastal area. There are also other
statistics publicly available, but they are too general (they do not involve
specific cargo transport) and/or they are not linked to data on ship movement. 
Data on movement are incorporated in reporting
formalities (port security notification requirements, notification of dangerous
goods aboard ships, etc.) or can be obtained through tracking systems like Automatic
Identifications Systems (AIS)[14]
and Long Range Identification and Tracking Systems (LRIT)[15]. Only
a few studies are available containing analysed movement data for a certain
region, certain ship types or certain periods, but they are not sufficient to
get insight in the number of ship movements within the EU and to and from third
country ports or free zones. 
Studies linking ship movements with port/cargo
traffic have been carried out (successfully) at port or terminal level.
Although in theory it should be possible to match e.g. AIS data with cargo data,
it will be an extremely difficult task to do this at EU level. The amount of
data in the AIS databases is enormous and getting cargo data from ports is not
easy because of confidentiality reasons. 
A general dissemination of port-to-port data on
cargo volumes collected within the framework of Directive 2009/42/EC would go
against the principles of data confidentiality in the European Statistics Code
of Practice, as well as the legal framework for Eurostat and the national
statistics authorities. However, pre-qualified researchers may access the
confidential micro data for scientific purposes, provided that Eurostat's
guidelines for such access are fulfilled. 
Detailed vessel movement data could potentially
be derived using information from AIS. Information could also be gathered based
on the shipping reporting formalities and in the future on the eManifest. 

4.2.                
Feasibility of avoiding or simplifying
formalities for ships that have called at a port in a third country or free
zone 

Although simplifications have been introduced
in the past, administrative procedures for maritime transport are still often
considered to be unnecessarily complex, redundant and not harmonised between Member States and ports. Consequently, shipping is not always used to its full potential. 
A significant further facilitation is envisaged
with the introduction of the Blue Belt initiative, allowing vessels to
operate freely within the EU internal market with a minimum of administrative
burden, including simplification and harmonisation of customs measures for
maritime transport where the vessel has also called at third-country ports. 
When Union goods are placed on a vessel that
sails outside the territorial limit of 12 nautical miles, the status of the
goods automatically changes to non-Union goods and all goods will be treated
like this on arrival. This applies even if the vessel is bound for another EU
port. Consequently, upon entry of a ship in an EU port, customs require the
completion of certain reporting formalities, submission of declarations, proof
of Union status where necessary and other cargo information for the goods that
are to be unloaded; upon arrival of the ship in subsequent EU ports, the goods
to be unloaded might be subject to the same/similar controls. 
In the Blue Belt Communication reference is
made to two legal measures to be proposed by the Commission. The first one, a
further simplification of the scheme for operating a Regular Shipping Service,
i.e. authorised vessels mainly carrying Union goods that call on a regular
basis only in EU ports, has been adopted. Under the new rules, which apply
since 1 March 2014, the Regular Shipping Service status will become more
attractive. Firstly, the consultation period following an application was
reduced from 45 to 15 days. Secondly, shipping companies have the possibility
to include from the beginning not only the Member States actually concerned by
the service but also Member States which could potentially be concerned in the
future.
Since the majority of vessels call frequently
third country ports and carry both Union and non-Union goods, they are either excluded
from the Regular Shipping Service or it may not be an appropriate
simplification for them. If maritime transport is to exploit its full
potential, a real facilitation also needs to cover this type of shipping
service. To that end, the Commission is developing the eManifest as a second
measure. In a first phase, the eManifest, when lodged in an EU port, will allow
customs to easily determine the status of the goods, resulting in a decrease of
customs controls. Even if a vessel has called at a third country port but Union
goods remained on board, it will be easier to demonstrate their Union status,
allowing them to go on their way more quickly. The eManifest should be ready to
be applied as of June 2015. 
With regards to passenger transport,
simplifications have been introduced to the Schengen Borders Code. Upon entry
of a vessel in an EU port, border control requires the completion of certain
formalities such as the transmission of passenger and crew lists. This applies
when a ship arrives from or departs towards another EU port or a third-country
port. Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the
movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)[16], as
further amended by Regulation No 610/2013[17],
provides for a facilitation of these procedures for cruise ships, pleasure
boats and ferry connections, amongst others aligning the time-limits for
submission of the lists with the limits set by the Reporting Formalities
Directive. 

4.3.                
Possible extension of the simplification
introduced by the Reporting Formalities Directive to inland waterways and
compatibility of the electronic data transmission process with River
Information Services (RIS) 

The maritime and inland waterway transport
sectors are two different and separate sectors. The maritime transport sector
is already comprehensively regulated by EU and international rules and
mandatory administrative procedures, including information sets and reporting
obligations. The inland waterway sector on the other hand is regulated to a
lesser extent.
Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland
waterway in the Community[18]
and the subsequent technical specifications for electronic ship reporting in
inland navigation described in Commission Regulation No 164/2010[19]
define the rules and standards for electronic reporting and data transmission
between Member States, to be used where ship reporting is required by national
or international regulations. In addition, the Central Commission for the
Navigation of the Rhine introduced mandatory electronic reporting for certain
vessels carrying containers on the Rhine from 1 January 2010 and international
data exchange is implemented between Germany and the Netherlands. 
The maritime transport sector has developed in
the meantime well-established data exchange mechanism such as the SafeSeaNet
system. On top of that, the Reporting Formalities Directive foresees now
National Single Windows in a simplified and streamlined manner of lodging the
information needed for multiple purposes. The electronic data transmission in
the inland waterway transport sector is organised through the RIS system, but
with no single point of entry of information nor an advanced exchange mechanism
comparable to that of the SafeSeaNet system. 
Simplifications regarding reporting formalities
for the maritime sector could possibly be extended to the inland waterway
sector, but this would require (1) to harmonise the information sets used in
the maritime transport sector with the ones used in the inland waterway sector
and (2) a revision of the organisation of the electronic data exchange and
possibly also of the legal framework for electronic reporting in the inland
waterway sector. Furthermore, a stepwise and well-structured action plan with a
realistic timetable, supported by all concerned stakeholders, would have to be
set up. 

5.                      
Conclusions

The implementation process of the Reporting
Formalities Directive is still ongoing and the final establishment of the National
Single Windows is only due by June 2015. Nevertheless, some observations
can already be made based on the conclusions from the consultant's report and
following discussions with Member States and stakeholders in the framework of
the eMS group. 
There are a lot of different authorities and
stakeholders with various functions, competences and responsibilities involved
in the establishment of the national single window. Cooperation amongst them,
both on EU and national level, is key and should be enhanced. 
For reasons of maximising efficiency and
avoiding duplication of efforts, there is a tendency to build on existing
platforms, technical solutions and standardisation, also in order to use
investments in systems already made. However, when building on existing
systems, one should not lose track of the requirements of the Directive and
make sure that they are met in a correct manner. Therefore, Member States
should carefully assess their current systems, actively participate in the work
of the eMS group and implement the functional and technical specifications in a
correct manner and as discussed within the eMS group. In addition, benefit
could be taken from the work done in the IMP demonstrator project and the AnNa
project. Both projects offer hands-on solutions for implementing national
single windows. 
There is a need for a continued support to the
implementing process for establishing the national single window within the
stipulated timeframe. Functional and technical specifications need to be
further developed as soon as possible. In that respect, the development of the
eManifest, being the bulk of the volume to be lodged into the single window, is
an important factor. Member States are waiting to finalise the ICT
implementation of the national single window until there is a clear view on the
eManifest data set. A vote in the competent Community Customs Code committee on
the required legal framework is envisaged by mid-2014. 
With regards to the other reporting
requirements the following conclusions could be drawn:
·              
Today there is no sufficient and detailed
information available on the extent of the traffic/movement of ships from one
EU port to another, or of ships calling intermediately at third country ports
or entering free zones. There are however possibilities identified to gather
more information in the future. The Commission will look into these
possibilities and see if and how they could help to improve the quality and
availability of statistics. 
·              
The optimal use of shipping should be stimulated
by avoiding or further simplifying formalities for ships that have called at a
port in a third country or free zone. The recent Blue Belt initiative and the
development of the eManifest, once implemented, should be a major step in this
direction. As a next step, the Commission should look into further
simplification measures by e.g. adding other (customs) functionalities to the
eManifest. 
·              
It is feasible to extent the simplification
envisaged by the Reporting Formalities Directive to inland waterway transport
and to match RIS with the SafeSeaNet system, be it under certain conditions. The
Commission will consider these and, if appropriate, address certain issues in
the framework of the upcoming RIS policy review and of the e-freight
initiative. 

6.                      
Future outlook

EU policies are all highlighting the need of
more efficient use of resources and the need to secure competitiveness of
European transport industry and trade in general. The Commission believes that
one important element to achieve these objectives is to make better use of
electronic information. 
National single windows will create national
cross-cutting information sharing environments, enabling national authorities
to access all relevant shipping information through a single point while
industry needs to submit information only once. With the support of the
SafeSeaNet system, relevant information can and will be shared between national
single windows and consequently between Member States. Together, the national
single windows and the SafeSeaNet platform form and provide for a real
framework for maritime data collection and exchange, offering services to and
answering to a wide range of maritime related functions and needs. Indeed, the
SafeSeaNet system is developing and capable of providing integrated maritime
services, integrating terrestrial and satellite AIS, LRIT and satellite images.
Following this, nowadays information from the SafeSeaNet system is already used
for other purposes then maritime safety, i.e. for border control/immigration by
FRONTEX, for fisheries surveillance by the European Fisheries Control Agency
and for maritime security operations like anti-piracy. Discussions are ongoing
about the potential use of SafeSeaNet for other functionalities like law enforcement,
coastguards and customs. 
Such a development will also play a central
role in the realisation of the Common Information and Sharing Environment
(CISE) initiative/action, which aims at facilitating the cross-sectoral exchange
of surveillance information in the maritime domain, including the defence
sector.  The National Single Window/SafeSeaNet platform already provides for an
important part of data and information sharing, both centralised and
de-centralised, allowing national authorities to build on the existing systems
and solutions, as such further enhancing information sharing at international,
EU and national level. 
In the mid-term, existing legislation will
require some clarification and adjustments following lessons learned from the
Reporting Formalities Directive implementation and experience in the use and
further technological development within the scope of the SafeSeaNet. 
In relation to the Reporting Formalities
Directive and national single windows, the following issues could be
considered, leading to further simplification and reduction of administrative
burden, both for administrations as for the maritime industry:
·              
Extending the scope of the Directive to cover
additional formalities, like e.g. port State control notifications.
·              
A monitoring methodology for the implementation
of the national single windows in view of their further optimisation.
·              
Harmonising the legal provisions, in the various
legal acts of the Union which include reporting obligations covered by the
Reporting Formalities Directive, as regards to the ships to which they apply
and exemptions. 
·              
Reviewing Article 9 exempting vessels involved
in intra-EU shipping of some reporting obligations, as Member States claimed
that some reporting may still be needed. Its review may lead to better
understanding on how exemptions may be provided to ships trading between EU
ports.
·              
Further harmonising the time-limits for
reporting obligations in the various legal acts of the Union covered by the
Reporting Formalities Directive.
·              
Harmonisation of reporting formalities stemming
from national requirements which shall be lodged in the National Single
Windows.
·              
Re-using of data at EU level. 
In addition, there should be looked at the
possibility to introduce for the Commission possibilities to adopt binding
legal specifications. There is a clear need for a binding instrument, possibly
building on the Interface and Functionalities Control Document (IFCD) in
Directive 2002/59/EC, to regulate some functionalities (like e.g. for cargo-related
information) and issues of a technical nature as, for example, technical
specifications and authentication and access rights issues which can currently
not be satisfied under the legal framework provided for in the Reporting
Formalities Directive. 
In relation to SafeSeaNet, a two-step
approach is being envisaged in revising Directive 2002/59/EC. The first step is
focussed on the important elements of making better use of electronic
information and creating interoperability with existing maritime and other
relevant monitoring, information and reporting systems, allowing providing,
with SafeSeaNet at the core, integrated maritime services. Actions considered
include:
·              
Updating the Annex III of Directive 2002/59/EC,
harnessing the technological advancements with SafeSeaNet through the
integrated maritime services and consequently, adjusting the principles and
mandate of the High Level Steering Group. 
·              
Clarifying the further integration and use of
the national single window/SafeSeaNet platform with respect to environmental
monitoring and reporting, e.g. Port Reception Facilities and Ship Source
Pollution monitoring and information systems.
The second step, a fully-fledged revision of
the Directive, will take into account the impact and lessons learned from the
Reporting Formalities Directive implementation.
In addition, the Commission will further
develop the e-Maritime initiative which aims at the optimisation of ship
and cargo related port processes and the reduction of administrative burden by
looking into existing practises, processes and regulations and by proposing
simplifications deriving from use of existing and emerging electronic systems,
from information sharing and from removal of obsolete practices and
regulations. In the context of this initiative, discussions will be launched
with experts providing an opportunity for maritime transport industry and
administrations to work together in order to identify barriers hindering the
competitiveness and efficiency of the European maritime transport sector and to
identify promising ideas for improving the current situation.
Looking from a logistics perspective, the
Commission will launch the e-Freight policy which aims at connecting
stakeholders for an efficient access and use of information in freight
transport, not only in maritime but in all modes of transport. The e-Freight
objective is three-fold: moving "for real" from paper to electronic
documents, simplifying procedures and avoiding repeated data entry into
different systems and integrating information from various sources and layers
across. New business opportunities will emerge. More specifically as regards
reporting formalities, the Reporting Formalities Directive and policy
initiatives such as e-Maritime and Blue Belt should be complemented by the
technical tools and coordination capacities which will be developed within the
e-Freight initiative. Extended data re-use will make the submission from trade
to the authorities of a single set of information sufficient to serve customs,
transport and other purposes in all modes of transport.
The establishment of national single windows
and availability of electronic information and exchange systems in the maritime
domain is already quite an achievement but we need to think ahead. The next
generation maritime information and exchange system, combining and building
on the National Single Windows, the SafeSeaNet system and the e-maritime
initiative, should benefit various maritime functions and answer needs both at
national and EU level, hence further enhancing both the maritime safety and
transport and traffic dimension as well as trade facilitation aspects. This
will foster a more holistic approach contributing to achieving the overall
transport objectives of the Commission's White Paper on Transport.
[1]               OJ L283
of 29.10.2010
[2]               http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2013-12-reporting-obligation-2010l0065-            final-report.pdf
[3]               COM(2009)10
final of 21.1.2009
[4]               OJ L208
of 5.8.2002
[5]               SafeSeaNet
is an electronic reporting and information exchange system for vessel traffic,
hosted and           technically developed by EMSA. It provides amongst others
the identification, position and status of a                ship, times of
departure and arrival, incidents reports and details on hazardous cargo.
[6]               COM(2012)573
final of 3.10.2012
[7]               COM(2013)510
final of 8.7.2013
[8]               OJ L23
of 26.1.2008
[9]               www.annamsw.eu.
[10]             In
addition, also Iceland, Israel, Montenegro and Norway have observer status. 
[11]             CESMA
(Confederation of European Shipmasters’ Associations), CLECAT (European
organisation for       freight forwarding, logistics and customs), FIATA
(International Federation of Freight Forwarders    Associations), ECASBA
(European Community Association of Ship brokers and agents), ECSA            (European
Community Shipowners’ Association), EHMC (European Harbour Masters’ Committee),
        EPCSA (European Port Community Systems Association), ESPO (European Sea
Port Association),               WSC (World Shipping Council) and WCO (World
Customs Organisation)
[12]             OJ L141/29 of 6.6.2009.
[13]             The
Working Group on Maritime Transport Statistics is a Commission expert group
that advises the              Commission on issues relating to the concerned
area, establishes close cooperation between the              statistical
institutions of the Member States and the Commission and facilitates the
exchange of                 information, experiences and good practices. 
[14]             AIS is
introduced by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), as amended,        requiring all ships to carry automatic
identification systems capable of providing information about the           ship
to other ships and to coastal authorities automatically.
[15]             LRIT is
introduced by SOLAS, as amended. The main purpose of the LRIT ship position
reports is to           enable a Contracting Government to the Convention to
obtain ship identity and location information in             sufficient time to
evaluate the security risk posed by a ship off its coast and to respond, if
necessary, to                reduce any risks.
[16]             OJ L105/1
of 13.4.2006
[17]             OJ L182/1
of 29.6.2013
[18]             OJ
L255/152 of 30.9.2005
[19]             OJ L57/1
of 6.3.2010
ANNEX I: the functioning of the eMS group
In order to discuss
specific topics and formalities with the different
administrative authorities, the eMS group created eight
dedicated subgroups:
(1)     General Maritime sub-group:
notification prior to entry into ports, notification of dangerous and polluting
goods, FAL form 1 (general declaration) and FAL form 7 (dangerous goods
manifest)
(2)     Customs sub-group: entry summary
declaration, FAL form 2 (cargo declaration), FAL form 3 (ships store's
declaration) and FAL form 4 (crews effects declaration)
(3)     Waste sub-group: notification of waste
and residues
(4)     Security sub-group: notification of
security information
(5)     Health sub-group: maritime declaration
of health
(6)     Border control sub-group: border checks
on persons, FAL form 5 (crew list) and FAL form 6 (passenger list)
(7)     Data mapping and functionalities
sub-group
(8)     Single Window and Data flow definition
sub-group
The eMS group and the sub-groups gather
respectively the national coordinators for the implementation of the Directive
and national authorities, like transport, customs, health or border control
authorities, depending on the specific data they use. 
There is an important involvement of the
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), who supports the Commission and the Member States with the development of functional and technical specifications, and manages
a demonstrator project. 
Commission expert groups, like e.g. the
SafeSeaNet High Level Steering Group[1] 
and the Electronic Customs Group[2],
are informed and consulted respectively on data exchange and customs-related
information. 
ANNEX II: roadmap
(1)     Phase 1: Development of Functional
specifications 
The functional specifications describe what is
needed by the stakeholders (authorities and industry) and the processes as well
as requested properties of data submitted and shared. Specifications will help
to avoid duplication and inconsistencies, and will allow for more accurate
estimates of necessary work and resources. They will provide a precise idea of
the problems to be solved so that the system architects can efficiently design
the system and estimate the cost of design alternatives. Furthermore, the
specifications will provide guidance to testers for verification of each
technical requirement. 
The functional specifications contain the
following elements: single window and data flow definition, business rules for
each reporting formality, harmonisation of business rules and a map of the data
set. 
(2)     Phase 2: Development of Technical
specifications 
The technical specifications define the
interface between the single window and related network connections including
the system architecture, interfaces and performance requirements. 
They include guidelines for the interface
between the shipping industry and the single widow, as well as the single
window and the SafeSeaNet system, mandatory functionalities of the single
window including the data quality and the management of the access rights, user
authentication, commissioning test plans and a ship information repository. 
Together, the functional and technical
specifications form the implementation guidelines. The National Single Window
guidelines provide a definition of the minimum required functionalities that
the national single window shall support. They also provide a definition of
functionalities that may be implemented by Member States depending on their
national legislative provisions. Minimum requirements are qualified as
mandatory in the guidelines; others are optional.
(3)     Phase 3: Technical implementation 
During this phase, the national and central
systems have to be implemented by Member States and EMSA following the
functional and technical specifications agreed upon in phase 1 and 2. 
(4)     Phase 4: Testing 
In the testing phase functional and
non-functional tests will be performed. Functional testing will verify actions
of functions specified in the functional specifications. Functional tests tend
to answer questions like "can the user do this" and "does this
particular feature work". Non-functional testing refers to aspects such as
scalability or other performance, behaviour under certain constraints or
security. 
(5)     Phase 5: Initial operational phase 
During this final phase, the national
implementation will be reviewed against legal and technical requirements.
[1]               Commission
Decision 2009/584/EC of 31 July 2009 (OJ L 201/63 of 1.8.2009) establishing the
High            Level Steering Group on SafeSaeNet comprising of all EU Member
States and the Commission
[2]               The
Electronic Customs Group is a Commission expert group concerned with the policy
  implementation of the electronic customs strategy.