COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Second Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan for Customs Risk Management
Date: 2018-07-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU control, action programme, customs cooperation, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), customs union, exchange of information, import policy, institutional cooperation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2018 SWD(2018) 380 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Second Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan for Customs Risk Management {COM(2018) 549 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................2 

1.1  A response to the Council’s invitation ...............................................................2 
1.2  The Strategy .......................................................................................................2 
1.3  The process of drafting the report ......................................................................4 

2 

PROGRESS REPORTING PER OBJECTIVE ...........................................................5 

2.1  Objective  1:  Improve  data  quality  and  filing  arrangements  for  effective 

risk management ................................................................................................5 

2.2  Objective  2:  Ensure  availability  of  supply  chain  data,  sharing  of  risk-
relevant  information  and  control  results  among  customs  authorities  to 
analyse  and  mitigate  risks  and  ensure  equivalent  treatment  of  economic 
operators .............................................................................................................8 

2.3  Objective  3:  Implement  the  concept  of  ‘Assess  in  advance  —  control 
where required’ to respond adequately to identified EU and national risks 
while  maximising  efficiency  in  the  use  of  resources  and  fluidity  of  the 
supply chain .....................................................................................................14 

2.4  Objective  4:  Strengthen  capacities  to  secure  equivalence  in  effective 
implementation  of  the  Common  Risk  Management  Framework  (CRMF) 
and to increase responsiveness to newly identified risks .................................19 

2.5  Objective  5:  Promoting 

improve 
information-sharing  between  customs  and  other  authorities  at  Member 
State and EU level to ensure effective risk management .................................36 

inter-agency  cooperation  and 

2.6  Objective  6:  Develop  co-operation  with  trade  to  secure  and  facilitate 

legitimate trade .................................................................................................56 

2.7  Objective  7:  Tap  the  potential  of  international  co-operation,  to  improve 
risk  management  of  the  supply  chain,  for  better  identification  of  risks, 
more  effective  risk  mitigation  and  cost  reduction  for  operators  and 
authorities .........................................................................................................70 

3 

PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK ......................................75 

3.1   Introduction ........................................................................................................75 
3.2  Developing indicators and sources of evidence to monitor the Strategy .........75 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1  A response to the Council’s invitation 

The Council conclusions of 6 December 2016 underlined that risk management processes are 
essential for safeguarding the security and financial interests of the EU and its Member States 
while facilitating legitimate trade. 

The Council conclusions, which followed the presentation of the first implementation report 
of the Strategy and Action Plan, invited the Commission to present a second progress report 
on  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  and  the  Action  Plan  within  eighteen  months,  and  to 
develop an efficient reporting mechanism to measure the impact of outcomes and results of 
specific actions in the future. 

As a response to that request, the Commission has adopted the second progress report on the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  and  the  Action  Plan  for  customs  risk  management 
(hereafter "the report"), which is accompanied by this Staff Working Document . 

This  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  provides  more  detailed  information  on  the 
implementation of individual actions laid down in the action plan annexed to the strategy. 

In the last part of the document, the Commission presents some initial ideas and suggestions 
for  establishing  a  monitoring  system.  The  system,  which  will  be  developed  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  will  enable  the  Commission  to  better  evaluate  the 
implementation of the Strategy and the Action Plan in the future. 

1.2  The Strategy 

Risk  management  was  introduced  into  the  EU  legal  framework  in  2005  and  rolled  out 
between  2009  and  2011.  On  21 August  2014  the  European  Commission  adopted  a 

2 

 
 
 
 
‘Communication on the EU Strategy and Action Plan for customs risk management: Tackling 
risks, strengthening supply chain security and facilitating trade’.1 

The  Strategy  embodies  a  number  of  key  objectives,  underpinned  by  the  overall  aim  of 
reaching a high-quality, multi-layered approach to risk management, which is effective and 
efficient. 

The Strategy outlines appropriate risk mitigation and control measures, to be employed at the 
most opportune time and place in the supply chain. It takes account of the variable nature and 
broad range of risks to be addressed, and the primary responsibility of customs authorities in 
the supervision of the EU’s international trade in goods. The Strategy also takes account of 
the role of other competent authorities involved in supply chain movements, and underlines 
the  need  for  complementarity.  It  also  refers  to  the  international  context  of  risks  and  the 
importance  of  international  cooperation  in  risk  management.  It  further  takes  account  of:  (i) 
the  importance  for  the  EU  of  facilitating  and  accelerating  trade;  (ii)  the  central  role  of 
economic operators; and (iii) the necessity to avoid undue disruption of logistics and supply 
chain processes. 

The Action Plan details a series of measures for each objective. The actions are intended to 
close the identified gaps so as to achieve strengthened capacities for EU customs authorities 
progressively and more systematic cooperation with other agencies, economic operators and 
international  trading  partners.  The  Action  Plan  includes  activities  to  support  or  develop 
international norms and standards where appropriate. 

The Strategy identifies the following seven key objectives: 

1.  Improving data quality and filing arrangements; 

2.  Ensuring availability of supply chain data and sharing of risk-relevant information among 

customs authorities; 

3.  Implementing control and risk mitigation measures where required; 

4.  Strengthening capacities; 

5.  Promoting inter-agency cooperation and information sharing between customs and other 

authorities at Member State and EU level; 

6.  Enhancing cooperation with trade;  

7.  Tapping the potential of international customs cooperation. 

1 COM (2014) 527 final 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.3  The process of drafting the report 

The  Commission  has  used  several  means  to  gather  information.  These  include:  (i)  the 
collection of open source information; (ii) the experience of the Risk Management Unit of the 
Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (DG  TAXUD);  and  (iii)  a  survey  of 
other Commission services involved in this policy and of all Member States. Member States 
were only asked to report on developments on nine actions, relating variously to objectives 4, 
5 and 6. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2  PROGRESS REPORTING PER OBJECTIVE 

2.1  Objective  1:  Improve  data  quality  and  filing  arrangements  for  effective  risk 

management 

As mentioned in the 2016 report, the Strategy and Action Plan call for a legal framework to 
be set up that will ensure a high-quality supply chain data. For goods entering the EU, this 
concerns data on advance cargo information relating to supply chain movements. Such data 
needs to be available and to be correctly used by customs and other competent authorities for 
the purpose of risk management. 

This legal framework consists of the Union Customs Code (the Code) and the detailed rules 
contained in the delegated and implementing acts. The Code’s substantive provisions entered 
into force on 1 May 2016. While the legal basis for this has been adopted, construction of the 
main  IT  solution  in  question  (the  Import  Control  System  2  (‘ICS2’))  has  not  yet  been 
launched, meaning that the desired results and outcomes cannot be observed yet. 

Besides  the  need  for  alignment  on  certain  technical  aspects  of  data  requirements  (Code's  
Annex  B  and  the  system  specification  level)  the  Commission  has  not  so  far  identified  any 
major problems in the application of the Code. However, it is clear that both the benefits and 
the impact of the Code will only be fully evident when all the related IT systems have been 
deployed. Since the Code’s entry into force, the Commission has continued regular meetings 
with  Member  States  and  trade  representatives  to  identify  and  address  problems  with  the 
legislation and technical aspects of the future advance cargo information system supporting 
the new entry summary declaration requirements. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 1.1 

1.1.1  COMPLETED 

1.1.2  COMPLETED 

Exercise  the  empowerment  granted  in  the  Union  Customs 
Code to adopt Commission acts 

For  goods  brought  into  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union; 
conclude  the  analysis  for  necessary  improvement  of  entry 
summary declaration (ENS) data, taking into account different 
business models, the results of air cargo security pilot actions, 
and evaluation of the Import Control System (ICS) 

For  goods  brought  into  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union; 
propose a harmonised solution for collection and integration of 
ENS  data  from  trade  sources,  based  on  analysis  of  costs  and 
benefits  and  associated 
issues  (including 
technical, financial and organisational aspects) 

implementation 

Analysis of the implementation feasibility for objectives 1-2 of the EU risk management 
strategy has been concluded by the Customs 2020 Project Group. 

1.1.3  COMPLETED  Adopt provisions within legal acts 

This action was completed with the adoption of the  Code, the Delegated Regulation and 
Implementing Regulation. The legislation applies since 1 May 2016. 

6 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Action 1.2 

Develop and implement appropriate IT solutions 

1.2.1 

ONGOING 

Adjust and further develop necessary IT systems for ENS data 
submission by economic operators, and its collection and integration 
for customs authorities  

For goods entering the EU, the reform of EU advance cargo information (the introduction of 
the ‘ICS2’ IT system) is ongoing and is in development. 

Following  the  agreement  with  the  Member  States  in  December  2017,  the  ICS2  as  a 
programme will be implemented in three operational releases: 

  From 15 March 2021 onwards, the new ENS requirements and the new IT system 
will take effect for goods in postal and express consignments in air traffic. This 
release will apply only to pre-loading air minimum data requirements. 

  The second implementation release will complete entire new ENS requirements for 

air traffic as from 1 March 2023. 

  The third release will implement maritime, road and rail requirements as from 

1 March 2024. 

The  decision  to  start  developing  and  building  the  necessary  IT  systems  is  expected  at  the 
Customs Policy Group (CPG) meeting in July 2018. The necessary IT systems consist in the 
Shared  and  National  Trader  Interface  based  on  the  harmonised  specifications,  Common 
Repository and National Entry System components. 

1.2.2 

NOT 
STARTED 

Develop IT access by customs to economic operators’ systems in 
the area of aviation security (Article 127(8) Union Customs Code) 

Start date and planning have not been decided for this action. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2  Objective  2:  Ensure  availability  of  supply  chain  data,  sharing  of  risk-relevant 
information  and  control  results  among  customs  authorities  to  analyse  and 
mitigate risks and ensure equivalent treatment of economic operators 

The  role  of  modern  customs  services  is  challenging  since  it  needs  to  reconcile  the 
management of the free flow of trade in support of trade policy and economic development 
with  the  security  and  safety  of  citizens,  while  still  carrying  out the  more traditional  task  of 
collecting duties and taxes. 

Improving data quality and filing arrangements and ensuring the availability and sharing of 
supply chain data and risk-relevant information between customs authorities depends on the 
development and availability of the necessary IT systems, i.e. the upgrade of the ICS2. 
IT systems for other customs procedures are also to be developed or upgraded as part of the 
Union Customs Code. 

Within this context, the use of ICT is a key element in ensuring trade facilitation and, at the 
same time, the effectiveness of customs controls, which significantly contributes to reducing 
costs  for  business  and  risks  to  citizens’  security  and  safety.  In  this  context,  and  with  full 
respect  to  relevant  data  protection  rules  and  principles,  specific  rules  are  needed  on  the 
information systems used for: (i) exchanges of information between customs authorities, and 
between economic operators and customs authorities, and (ii) the storage of such information 
using electronic data-processing techniques. Storage and processing of customs information 
and a harmonised interface with economic operators should be established as a component of 
systems offering a direct and EU harmonised access to trade, where appropriate. 

The traceability of goods’ movements along the supply chain is also important for providing 
customs  authorities  with  relevant  data  on  the  appropriate  points  at  which  to  apply  customs 
controls.  Various  initiatives  are  contributing  to  the  development  of  possible  solutions  for 
customs  that  would  avoid  duplicating  data.  These  include:  (i)  the  Digital  Transport  and 
Logistics Forum (DTLF) launched by the Commission on 1 July 2015 and still ongoing2 ; (ii) 
the  development  of  a  Common  Information  Sharing  Environment  (CISE)3    for  the 
surveillance of the EU maritime domain; and (iii) the tobacco traceability solution. 

2 C(2015) 2259. 

3 COM(2010)0584 final. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Action 2.1 

Exercise  the  empowerment  granted  in  the  Union  Customs  Code  to 
adopt Commission acts 

2.1.1 

ONGOING 

Identify  options  for  availability  and  sharing  among  customs 
authorities of supply chain data for risk management purposes 

2.1.2 

ONGOING 

Identify  options  for  availability  and  sharing  of  risk-relevant 
results,  among  EU  customs 
information, 
authorities to analyse and mitigate the risks on a real-time basis 

including  control 

As already reported in 2016, for entry the analysis has been completed and laid down in the 
business case and vision document for ICS2. 

For customs procedures after entry and in particular concerning the ‘Surveillance 3’ system, 
drafting  of  the  L4  business  process  model  (BPM)  (functional  requirements/specifications) 
has been completed. The business case has been updated and reviewed. 

The  Surveillance  3  system  is  to  be  implemented  by  October  2018.  However,  the  Member 
States would need to make the necessary changes to their national systems in order to feed 
the surveillance system with the new data elements provided for in the Code Implementing 
Act  (IA)4,  that  are  over  and  above  the  data  elements  currently  available5.  These  new 
elements  are  essential  for  the  evolution  of  customs  risk  management  systems.  Under  the 
Code Member States have a transition period until the end of 2020 to fulfil this obligation. 

For  transit,  the  amendment  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97  on  mutual  assistance 
offered  a  clear  legal  basis  for  the  Anti-Fraud  Transit  Information  System  (ATIS)  and 
enlarged  the  scope  of  the  information  to  be  exchanged  between  customs  authorities  and 
between the Commission and the national authorities. ATIS is a tool facilitating cooperation 
among  national  competent  authorities  and  with  OLAF,  the  European  Anti-fraud  Office, 
concerning possible customs fraud for goods placed under the transit procedure. This entails 
processing  movement  records  of  goods  which  may  be  linked  to  natural  persons  for  the 
purposes of fraud prevention and investigation 

The common directory with data on transit declarations provided for under that Regulation, 
offers a tool for more effective customs investigations related to financial fraud for goods in 
transit. The corresponding administrative arrangement  — prepared by the Commission and 
agreed by EU Member States and the contracting parties of the Common transit Convention 
except Switzerland — covers aspects of the ATIS system and has been brought into line with 
the  above-mentioned  Regulation.  Further  study  would  be  needed  on  the  needs  of  customs 
risk management and risk-based controls in all risk areas relevant to goods in transit as part 
of the Customs Risk Management Framework (CRMF). 

The Common guidelines for customs authorities have been finalised (all guidance documents 

4 UCC IA Annex 21-01. 

5 UCC IA Annex 21-02. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
are now in place). 

For the export (exit) of goods from the EU’s customs territory, the amended Regulation (EC) 
No 515/97 introduces a common directory of data of export declarations replicated from the 
Member  States’  national  export  systems.  This  directory  will  cover  certain  categories  of 
excise goods, such as alcohol and alcoholic beverages, tobacco and tobacco products. This 
will  provide  a  basis  for  more  effective  customs  investigations  on  financial  fraud.  Further 
study will be needed on the needs of customs risk management and risk-based controls in all 
risk areas for goods exported besides the financial risks, such as the export control regime of 
dual-use  goods,  export  sanctions,  waste,  cultural  goods,  etc.,  with  regard  to  the  Union 
Customs Code and as part of the CRMF. 

Action 2.2 

Develop and implement appropriate IT solutions 

Adjust  and further  develop  necessary  IT  systems  for  availability 
and  sharing  of  supply  chain  data,  and  risk-relevant  information, 
including control results, among EU customs authorities 

2.2.1 

COMPLETED  For entry 

For  entry  the  analysis  has  been  completed  and  laid  down  in  the  business  case  and  vision 
document for ICS2. 

2.2.2 

COMPLETED  For customs procedures after entry  

For  customs  procedures  after  entry and  in  particular  concerning  the  Surveillance  3  system, 
drafting of the L4 business process model (BPM) (functional requirements/specifications) has 
been completed. The business case has been updated and reviewed. 

The  provisions  on  simplifications  in  the  Union  Customs  Code  were  made  to  allow  for 
appropriate control of the operations and risk management to be carried out. For instance, the 
conditions to use entry in the declarant’s records or self-assessment were regulated. On the IT 
side, centralised clearance will require the development of a tool for the appropriate exchange 
of messages to ensure appropriate supervision and management of the operations. 

2.2.3 

ONGOING 

For export and exit  

As already reported in 2016, the Export Control System (ECS) Project Group begun work on 
developing  in  more  detail  the  functional  specifications,  including  the  required  export/exit 
specifications.  This  will  impact  the  production  of  the  technical  system  specifications. 
However,  these  IT  developments  do  not  address  the  needs  for  availability  of  data  for 
export/exit. To ensure the availability of supply chain data among customs authorities, action 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1 has not been launched for export/exit, although this would be necessary. 

2.2.4 

ONGOING 

For transit  

In  2016  the  New  Computerised  Transit  System  (NCTS)  Project  Group  began  work  on 
developing in more detail the functional transit system specifications, including the phasing 
of the progress changes related to safety and security. 

As mentioned also for the export/exit stage above under action 2.2.3, the IT developments do 
not  address  the  objective  on  supply  chain  data  among  customs  authorities.  To  achieve  the 
objective, action 2.1 also needs to be launched for transit. 

Action 2.3 

Propose  solutions  for  traceability  of  goods’  movements  during 
various customs control stages 

1. 

ONGOING 

Identify options for traceability of goods’ movements in the various 
stages of supply chain movements involving more than one Member 
State and through data provided by economic operators  

Identify  appropriate  customs  supervision  solutions  from  goods’ 
entry  into  the  Union  customs  territory  to  their  final  customs 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
clearance, taking account of ongoing initiatives and/or by adjusting 
the existing customs transactions systems 

The  development  of  a  ‘common  information  sharing  environment’  (CISE)  in  the 
maritime  domain  is  promoting  the  exchange  of  relevant  information  among  the  different 
authorities involved. 

CISE  is  a  voluntary  collaborative  process,  across  authorities  and  borders,  to  enhance  and 
promote awareness over the European maritime domain. The creation of common technical 
solutions,  interoperability  in  procedures  and  other  operational  aspects  will  also  boost 
performance in this area. 

Following  the  revision of  the  mandates  of  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency, 
the European Fisheries Control Agency and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), 
a  tripartite  working  arrangement  was  signed.  The  agreement  sets  out  a  framework  for 
enhanced  synergy  between  the  agencies,  enabling  effective  and  cost-efficient  support  for 
more  than  300  civilian  and  military  authorities  in  those  Member  States  responsible  for 
carrying  out  coastguard  functions  in  areas  including  maritime  safety,  security,  search  and 
rescue,  border  control,  fisheries  control,  customs  control,  general  law  enforcement  and 
environmental protection. 

The  Digital  Transport  and  Logistics  Forum  (DTLF)  is  continuing  its  work,  which  is 
expected  to  end  in  June  2018  (its  mandate,  however,  is  expected  to  be  prolonged  for  2-3 
years).  The  Forum,  launched  in  2015,  aims  to  achieve  further  digitalisation  of  freight 
transport and logistics. It brings together Member States and stakeholders from transport and 
logistics communities to identify areas where common action in the EU is needed, to provide 
recommendations  and  solutions,  and 
these 
recommendations and solutions, where appropriate. 

implementation  of 

to  work  on 

the 

Early 2016, the Commission launched the eManifest pilot project to establish a harmonised 
electronic cargo data set encompassing information required for the fulfilment of maritime 
and  customs  formalities  when  ships  enter  or  leave  European  ports.  A  European  Maritime 
Single  Window  (EMSW)  prototype  has  been  developed  by  the  European  Maritime  Safety 
Agency  (EMSA)  to  test  the  submission  of  the  eManifest  to  the  authorities  along  with  the 
other non-cargo formalities. The pilot project will run until mid-2018. 

The eManifest pilot  project aims to demonstrate how different cargo notifications used  for 
maritime  or  customs  purposes  can  be  consolidated  in  an  eManifest  and  reported 
electronically in a harmonised manner to a maritime single window, together with the other 
reporting  information  covered  by  the  Reporting  Formalities  Directive  2010/65/EU.  The 
EMSW prototype developed by EMSA will be used to test the objectives of the eManifest 
pilot project. 

The participating  Member States  and industry associations performed a first series of tests 
during Phase 1 of the eManifest pilot project (November to December 2016). The tests were 
intended  to  evaluate  the  submission  of  the  eManifest  formalities,  together  with  other 

12 

 
 
 
 
reporting  formalities,  using  the  EMSW  prototype.  Since  then,  the  prototype  was  further 
developed  by  EMSA  to  address  the  feedback  provided  by  the  testers,  improve  the  user 
interface  of  the  system  and  comply  with  the  requirements  identified  by  the  pilot  project 
participants for the pilot project’s phase 2. 

The  Trade  Control  and  Expert  System  (TRACES)  is  the  European  Commission’s 
multilingual  online  management  tool  for  all  sanitary  requirements  on  intra-EU  trade  and 
importation  of  animals,  semen  and  embryo,  food,  feed  and  plants.  Its  main  objective  is  to 
digitise  the  entire  certification  process  and  linked  procedures  and  is  in  line  with  the 
declaration  of  the  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe.  A  project  initiated  by  the  Commission 
integrates  electronic  certificates  of  inspection  certifying  the  organic  status  of  agricultural 
products exported from third countries to the EU. The project also provides input to identify 
possible solutions on traceability of goods. The project is creating an interface including risk 
management information giving input in customs automated systems for import declarations. 

A new project initiated by the Commission is the development of an IT system for electronic 
submission  and  management  of  catch  certificates  under  Regulation  (EC)  1005/2008  on 
establishing  a  Community  system  to  prevent,  deter  and  eliminate  illegal,  unreported  and 
unregulated fishing. The project will assist Member States' authorities in carrying out their 
verification and risk management tasks in relation to imports of fishery products into EU.  

2.  

ONGOING 

Put  forward  the  appropriate  approach,  taking  into  account  relevant 
aspects 

The  implementation  of  this  action  will  depend  on  the  outcome  of  projects  such  as  those 
mentioned above. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3  Objective  3:  Implement  the  concept  of  ‘Assess  in  advance  —  control  where 
required’  to  respond  adequately  to  identified  EU  and  national  risks  while 
maximising efficiency in the use of resources and fluidity of the supply chain 

This objective lies at the heart of the strategy, in the sense that all the other objectives should 
ultimately contribute to enabling customs to target their controls better in terms of when and 
where they take place. 

As  already  reported  in  2016,  the  progress  made  in  this  area  is  mainly  due  to  the  progress 
made  on  activities  already  under  way  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  strategy,  including 
those relating to prohibitions and restrictions. 

In the area covered by Objective 3 further progress has also been made, which is particularly 
relevant, for example, to the ‘Systems-Based Approach’ (SBA), to credibility checks and in 
product compliance and safety. 

Action 3.1 

3.1.1 

ONGOING 

Develop  methodologies  to  implement  the  concept  of 
‘Assess in advance — control where required’ 

Propose  a  methodology  to  determine  the  most  appropriate 
place and time for the application of customs controls and risk 
mitigation  measures  based  on  the  type/level  of  risk,  control 
and  supply  chain  constraints  (availability  of  information, 
documentation, and control possibilities) 

Credibility checks are automated checks introduced at the clearance stage of imports. They 
are  measures  which  check  the  compatibility  of  entries  in  the  customs  declaration  against 
specific parameters. 

The  Systems-Based  Approach  (SBA)  is  a  control  methodology  directed  at  trustworthy 
economic operators, with the focus on whether the operator’s internal control systems enable 
it to  control its business and  mitigate risks  related to  customs compliance. Under  the SBA, 
the  role  of  customs  in  overseeing  individual  transactions  and  declarations  of  an  economic 
operator  is  to  some  extent,  or  even  completely,  transferred  to  the  economic  operator.  The 
SBA requires that the respective operators undergo a pre-audit to obtain the authorisation (i.e. 
the  internal  control  systems  need  to  be  tested  to  verify  that  all  requirements  based  on  the 
legislation  are  met  and  all  eventual  risks  are  mitigated).  This  gives  customs  adequate 
assurance  that  the  information  in  operators’  operational  and  administrative  accounting 
systems is reliable and that the operator complies with the customs regulations, which results 
in  correct  and  complete  customs  declarations.  For  each  operator,  there  must  be  continuous 
monitoring by establishing a control plan. 

The  work  of  the  SBA  Network  and  the  respective  Project  Group  was  completed  with 
submission of the SBA final report to the CPG in December 2017. The report summarises the 
results  of  SBA-related  activities  carried  out  between  December  2014  and  December  2017. 
The final report confirmed the SBA as an effective, efficient and solid control methodology 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
to  be  used  to  a  larger  extent  in  the  future.  The  use  of  the  SBA  methodology  could  be 
particularly important for the control of authorisation requirements (Article 39(a) and (b) of 
the Code). The implementation of the SBA as a working method requires implementation of 
the SBA framework consisting of several building blocks identified already during Phase IV 
of the SBA project. 

The  SBA  Project  Group  prepared  the  ground  for  further  use  of  the  SBA  methodology  by 
Member States’ customs administrations with the SBA reports from Phases IV and V and the 
draft  guidance  document  providing  all  necessary  information  to  proceed  with  SBA 
implementation.  In  addition,  the  environment  established  for  the  SBA  network  on 
Programmes  Information  and  Collaboration  Space  (PICS)  can  also  be  used  for  information 
sharing, exchange of good practices and practical consultations. Nevertheless, the current use 
of  SBA  still  varies  across  the  EU,  with  some  countries  advanced  in  this  area  of  expertise 
while  others  have  only  limited  knowledge  and  experience.  In  general,  the  activities  of  the 
SBA  Project  Group  and  Network  have  led  to  raising  awareness  of  the  SBA  as  a  control 
methodology.  In  addition,  the  SBA  should  be  taken  into  consideration  for  customs 
simplifications within implementation of the Union Customs Code. 

As  regards  potential  further  steps,  a  new  project  group  might  be  established  if  needed.  It 
could  provide  advice  and  guidance  for  countries  wishing  to  perform  a  pilot  project  on  the 
SBA implementation and contribute to the work on simplifications (linked to Title V of the 
Union  Customs  Code.  The  SBA  network  on  PICS  will  continue  providing  a  platform  for 
exchange of information and national practices.  

Action 3.2 

3.2.1 

ONGOING 

Perform ‘proof of concept’ within the main policy areas and 
propose appropriate solutions 

Identify  the  main  policy  areas  and  undertake  operational  actions 
to  test  solutions  e.g.  through  priority  control  area  (PCA)  actions 
in cooperation with relevant stakeholders 

The following main policy areas have been identified: health safety (including public, animal 
and  plant  health),  financial  risks,  intellectual  property  rights,  and  product  safety  and 
compliance. In the health safety and product safety and compliance sectors the objective is to 
support and give practical tools to national customs authorities to improve their controls on 
prohibited or restricted goods. 

The  Commission  has  drawn  up  factsheets  setting  out  guidelines  for  the  cooperation  of 
customs  and  sanitary  authorities  for  controls  on  goods  regulated  by  EU  law.  For  product 
safety,  checklists  for  a  selection  of  product  categories  have  been  drafted  together  with 
national  customs  and  market  surveillance  authorities.  The  checklists  are  intended  to  guide 
customs officers when they have to carry out product safety controls on goods. 

The  Commission  has  also  set  up  two  expert  groups  gathering  experts  from  the  28  Member 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States’ customs authorities, to address issues related to: 

  protection  of  health,  cultural  heritage,  the  environment  and  nature:  these  areas  are 
covered  by  the  PARCS  Expert  Group,  the  expert  group  on  the  protection  of  health, 
cultural heritage, the environment and nature; 

  product safety and compliance controls on imported goods. 

The  PARCs  meetings  are  a  key  activity  in  cooperation  and  control  of  activities  on  the 
protection  of  health,  cultural  heritage,  the  environment  and  product  safety. It contributes  to 
the exchange of experience, knowledge and best practices on coordination between customs 
administrations  and  between  customs  administrations  and  competent  national  authorities 
responsible  for  the  different  policy  areas  at  stake.  It  also  contributes  to  developing  risk 
criteria for customs controls to be carried out in these areas. This activity is ongoing. 

Preparation and follow-up to actions are organised by PROSAFE (Product Safety Forum of 
Europe),  a  non-profit  professional  organisation  for  market  surveillance  authorities  and 
officers in the EU and EEA. This activity is ongoing. 

‘Priority  control  area’  (PCA)  is  the  key  mechanism  in  the  CRMF.  It  enables  the  EU  to 
designate  specific  areas to  be  treated  as  a  priority  for  customs  control.  The  identified  areas 
are  subject  to  reinforced  customs  controls  carried  out  in  a  coordinated  manner  based  on 
common risk assessment criteria and real-time exchange of risk information. The PCA tool 
has been used to coordinate EU customs actions in most major risk areas already since 2007, 
delivering operational results and strategic lessons, most recently for firearms risks as part of 
the  EU  response  to  the Paris  attacks.  (In the  context  of  the firearms  PCA,  the  Commission 
and the Member States explored new forms of cooperation with police (including a specific 
exercise  with  Europol  on  gas  pistols  and  a  fast  parcels  operation  on  illicit  trafficking  of 
firearms  in  2017),  which  clearly  demonstrated  the  added  value  of  cooperation  between 
customs and police using new forms/types of collaboration). 

The  Decision  on  Financial  Risk  Criteria  (FRC)6  will  enable  Member  States  to  address 
financial  risks  in  an  equivalent  manner  at  the  external  border,  without  placing  an  undue 
burden  on  legitimate  trade.  It  will  also  identify  the  most  opportune  time  and  place  of  the 
control  depending  on  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  risk  and  on  the  availability  of  data  and 
documentation. 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): 

A  common  customs  IPR  experts/risk  analysis  expert  group  will  be  set  up  in  2018.  It  will 
assess  whether  the  existing  tools  are  sufficient  for  risk  analysis  and  IPR  infringements  or 
whether more needs to be done. 

6 C(2018) 3293 final. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.2 

COMPLETED 

into 

account 

outcomes 

Taking 
‘Toolbox’: 
recommendations  to  provide  guidance  in  the  preparation  or 
review of legislative acts which provide for customs controls, by 
describing how customs action can be envisaged in line with EU 
customs legislation and international trade practices. 

the 

of 

The Toolbox has been finalised and distributed to the Commission departments and national 
customs authorities. The action has been completed. 

The 2016 first progress report included a reference to the guidelines and checklists relating to 
product compliance and safety under Objective 3. A few more checklists have been drawn up 
since then for products covered by EU harmonisation legislation (‘harmonised products’) and 
will be used and updated on an ongoing basis. 

The most important new element to report is the Commission proposal for a Regulation on 
Compliance  and  Enforcement7.  This  proposal  aims  to  structurally  strengthen  the  legal 
framework  for  controls  on  goods  entering  the  EU  and  to  streamline  cooperation  between 
customs and market surveillance authorities for more effective checks on imported products. 
The stronger cooperation between customs and market surveillance authorities provided for 
in  the  proposal  would  be  facilitated  by:  (i)  an  EU  product  compliance  network;  (ii) 
comprehensive  national  market  surveillance  strategies  covering  import  and  digital  supply 
chains;  (iii)  structural  exchange  of  information  and  data  between  customs  and  market 
surveillance;  (iv)  international  cooperation;  and  (v)  alignment  with  concepts  of  the  Code, 
such as the Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) scheme.   

The evaluation of the current legal  framework (Regulation (EC) No 765/2008) showed that 
the  guidelines  helped  towards  establishing  a  good  cooperation  climate  between  market 
surveillance and customs services. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of controls on 
products  entering  the  EU  market  need  to  be  strengthened  to  keep  up  with  evolving 
international  and  digital  supply  chains  and  overall  increasing  imports.  Market  surveillance 
controls show that across product sectors still too many non-compliant products circulate in 
the single market. With imports accounting for 30 % of all harmonised products in the single 
market  in  2015,  supplies  from  third  countries  are  an  increasing  source  of  non-compliant 
products.  Despite  this,  constraints  on  human  and  financial  resources  affecting  customs  and 
market  surveillance  alike  limit  the  number  or  depth  of  controls.  Cooperation  among 
authorities  in  a  formalised  EU-level  network  will  help  authorities  to  pool  resources, 
coordinate control campaigns and allow them to build a common intelligence picture, taking 
the single market dimension into account to target controls better. Faster and more structural 
information  exchange  (for  risk  assessment,  controls  and  results  -e.g.  goods  refused  for  free 
release-  can  be  achieved  with  better  linked-up  IT  systems,  using  for  instance  the  single 
window environment.   

The  Commission  has  prepared,  with  the  assistance  of  a  group  of  Member  State  experts,  a 
‘Toolbox’  of  recommendations  to  provide  guidance  in  the  preparation  and  review  of 

7 COM(2017) 795 final. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
legislative  acts  that  provide  for  customs  controls.  The  Toolbox,  is  in  line  with  the 
Commission Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme. New legislative acts 
in  which  customs  controls  are  mentioned  will  now  be  drawn  up  in  line  with  the  guiding 
principles mentioned in the Toolbox. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4  Objective  4:  Strengthen  capacities 

in  effective 
implementation  of  the  common  risk  management  framework  and  to  increase 
responsiveness to newly identified risks 

secure  equivalence 

to 

The Common Risk Management Framework (CRMF) is the EU policy and legal vehicle for 
establishing an equivalent level of customs control throughout the EU. It has been created to 
support a common approach so that priorities are set effectively and resources are allocated 
efficiently with the aim of maintaining a proper balance between customs controls and the 
facilitation of legitimate trade. 

The core CRMF operations are:  

the common risk criteria (CRCs);  
the common Customs Risk Management System (CRMS);  

 
 
  customs crisis response; and  
 

the Priority Control Area (PCA) tool. 

The systematic CRMF evaluation cycle concept is in development in close consultation with 
the  Member  States.  The  joint  work  is  dedicated  on  improving  and  further  developing 
performance indicators in the field of customs controls. 

Action 4.1 

Identify and address weaknesses and inappropriate variances in 
the  current  implementation  of  the  CRMF  at  Member  State 
level, where relevant through EU-level support  

4.1.1 

ONGOING 

Analyse, determine and put forward appropriate IT solutions, where 
relevant through EU-level support 

As  already  reported  in  2016,  at  EU  level  risk  information  is  shared  via  the  CRMS  and 
implemented  in  the  national  systems  and  databases.  Capacity  gaps  and  variances  in  the 
national systems and applications are being identified through projects initiated by Member 
States,  namely  Entry  Summary  Declaration  (ENS)  pilot  (maritime)  and  the  common  risk 
analysis initiative of the Land Frontier Contact Group. 

The  Land  Frontier  Contact  Group  (LFCG)  action  and  the  ENS  pilot  are  now  closed.  
However,  the  LFCG  Common  Risk  Analysis  Initiative  (CRAI)  still  exists  as  a  sub-
group/network  of  the  LFCG  and  can  be  convened  where  needed  (it  supported  Customs 
Eastern  and  South-Eastern  Land  Border  Expert  Team  (CELBET)  last  year  in  exploring 
options  for  collaborative  risk  analysis)  but  for  the  time  being  has  not  been  assigned  any 
formal tasks. 

In  the  maritime  sector,  the  Customs  2020  ENS  pilot  covered  similar  ground  to  the  LFCG 
CRAI, with  a different approach and similar findings.  Differences in  capacities of systems 
and the manner of technical implementation of the CRC have a major impact on results of 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
risk analyses. The use of different languages is also a challenge. 

In January 2016 the Commission delivered the EU-classified interim summary report of the 
common risk analysis initiative to the Customs Code Committee-Customs Risk Management 
(CCC/CRM).  The  report  identified  gaps,  weaknesses  needs  and  ideas  for  solutions  for  the 
implementation of common risk analysis at the external land borders (road and rail). 

4.1.2 

ONGOING 

Identify  and  address  weaknesses  and  inappropriate  variances  by 
non-IT solutions 

A significant non-IT solution to address variances in harmonised implementation of customs 
competences throughout the EU is the EU Competency Framework (EU Customs CFW). A 
major  goal  of  the  competency  framework  is  to  help  harmonise  and  raise  customs 
performance standards throughout the EU. The Commission and Member States are active in 
harmonising the implementation of Common Risk Criteria (CRC). Guidance on training and 
performance  requirements  is  provided  in  the  EU  Customs  Performance  Competency 
Framework. 

The  European  Court  of Auditors  special  report of  December  2017  on  "Import  procedures" 
points  out  serious  weaknesses  linked  to  shortcomings  in  the  customs  legal  framework  as 
well  as  to  ineffective  implementation  of  customs  controls  on  imports,  which  consequently 
affect the EU's financial interests. It also highlights that there are loopholes in controlling the 
import and still some room for uniformity amongst the Member States as regards performing 
customs controls and imposing penalties.  

Action 4.2 

Develop  possible  further  capacities  and  enhance  cooperation 
and coordination between customs authorities 

4.2.1. 

ONGOING 

Identify  and  determine  —  at  Member  State  and  EU  level  — 
possible further capacities that might be necessary to support more 
effective  and  efficient  risk  management,  including  increased 
responsiveness to newly identified risks 

As already reported in 2016, the Commission, in close cooperation with Member States, has 
improved  the  use  of  CRMS  for  the  exchange  of  risk  information.  In  this  context,  various 
actions have been carried out. 

The  business  case  for  CRMS  2  and  the  vision  document  aiming  for  final  approval  of  the 
system have been finalised. The current go-live date is planned for April 2020. 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  about  the  status  of  the  sub-action,  the 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
results/progress made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results. 

Status of the sub-action in the Member States: 

No analysis 
planned 

Analysis 
planned but not 
started 

Analysis 
ongoing 

Analysis 
completed 

No reply 

2 

3 

18 

5 

0 

Use of results 

Not at all 

To a limited 
extent 

To some extent 

To a great 
extent 

No reply 

0 

4 

8 

11 

5 

Overview 

Member States have been very active in their efforts to identify capacities for more effective 
and  efficient  risk  management.  While  two  countries  have  no  plans  to  carry  out  any 
supplementary analyses, and in a couple of countries all initiatives are still in the planning 
phase, in at least 23 Member States, analyses are under way or have already been completed. 
In many cases, several initiatives are running in parallel, with some having been completed 
and others being currently carried out. 

Member States report few difficulties with their analysis activities, pointing rather to limited 
human,  time  and/or  financial  resources  that  affect  their  ability  to  put  the  results  of  these 
analyses into action. 

In the December 2017 special report of the European Court of Auditors it is mentioned that 
Member States are not sufficiently encouraged financially to perform customs controls and 
recommends to consider all available options to strengthen support for national services.  

IT resources 

Virtually  all  Member  States  reported  carrying  out  work  to  analyse  and  develop  their  IT 
systems.  These  seemingly  involve  various  IT  systems  and  capacities.  For  example,  in 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Belgium,  the  national risk  management  system  was  identified  as  requiring  new  features  in 
the  form  of  real-time  functionalities  for  the  production  environment  and  the  data  mining 
analysis environment. The update is currently ongoing and expected to be finalised in mid-
2018. Furthermore, a business analyst expert has been appointed to carry out a national-level 
impact analysis of ICS2. 

New  features  for  risk  management  engines  are  being  developed  and  implemented  in 
Bulgaria and Romania. Estonia developed an entire new risk engine, and the transition from 
the  old  to  the  new  engine  is  ongoing,  while  in  Sweden,  new  systems  for  risk  analysis, 
intelligence  and  handling  import  and  export  messages  electronically  have  been  developed. 
Belgium,  France,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Latvia  and  Slovakia  also  specifically  mention 
activities and advances in  data mining. For instance, France described a ‘project involving 
human  resources  (analysts  for  datamining)  and  installation  of  a  new  service  in  charge  of 
targeting,  building  and  implementing  profiles,  and  monitoring/checking  the  efficiency  of 
those profiles’. 

The  Romanian  administration  is  upgrading  the  national  risk  management  IT  system  to 
extract  comprehensive  statistical  data  for  use  in  special  reports  on  security  and  safety  risk 
criteria and for financial risk criteria. Analysis is also planned on technical requirements to 
directly link the national IT management application with the CRMS. However, this work, 
as well as the maintenance of national IT applications, is reportedly moving slowly due to 
human and financial resources constraints. In some cases, development has stagnated for the 
time being.  

In  Luxembourg,  the  detected  gaps  and  weaknesses  are  mainly  due  to  weakened  business 
relations  with  the  external  IT  provider,  which  have  resulted  in  the  system  currently  only 
being maintained, without developments to significantly improve it. 

Data resources 

Another  field  where  Member  States  (e.g.  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  France,  Lithuania) 
have identified development needs for improved risk management is data resources, which is 
often intertwined with improvements to IT resources. In Belgium, this has involved the pilot 
project  on  the  customs  dashboard  (run  by  the  CORE  Consortium)  and  an  analysis  of  the 
potential  inclusion  of  additional  supply  chain  data  from  multiple  transport  modes  in  risk 
management.  In  Bulgaria,  an  analysis  of  information  available  for  risk  management 
purposes  prompted  work  to  ensure  mutual  access  to  relevant  databases  of  customs  and 
authorities such as the National Revenue Agency and the Ministry of Interior, as well as an 
improved mechanism for the timely transmission of customs seizure information to relevant 
customs  risk  analysis  units.  In  France,  a  study  on  companies’  compliance  with  ENS 
submissions enabled the customs administration to better identify companies who needed to 
improve ENS quality and quantity. 

Cooperation and coordination  

Many Member States pointed to needs that had been identified for improved cooperation and 
coordination  of  activities  internally  or  externally  with  other  national  agencies  (Austria, 
Denmark,  Spain,  Finland,  Ireland,  Croatia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia 

22 

 
 
and  Slovakia),  and  occasionally  also  with  the  customs  authorities  of  other  Member  States 
(Austria, Finland and Slovenia). For instance, Spain and Croatia described cooperation with 
the  police  and  other  authorities  involved  in  border  management.  With  other  border 
intervention  authorities,  there  is  cooperation  to  implement  an  electronic  channel  for 
exchanging  import  authorisation  data  collected  through  documentary  controls  for  customs 
clearance.  Austria,  Croatia,  Latvia  and  Romania  also  point  to  participation  in  EU  or 
multilateral  working  groups,  such  as  the  Customs  Eastern  and  South-Eastern  Land  Border 
Expert  Team  (CELBET)  and  Land  Frontier  Contact  Group  -  Common  Risk  Analysis 
Initiative (LFCG CRAI) expert groups and other subgroups, and Customs 2020 joint actions. 

Human resources 

Many  Member  States  have  carried  out  gaps  and  needs  analyses  on  human  resources  (e.g. 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Croatia, Latvia, Slovakia). In 
some  cases,  the  identified  gaps  may  have  been  addressed  through  reorganisation  or  staff 
training,  guidelines  or  supervision  (e.g.  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Finland, 
Hungary,  Slovenia).  For  instance,  in  Belgium,  an  analysis  of  human  resources  in  risk 
management  in  the  domain  of  security  and  safety  resulted  in  the  development  of  a  new 
human resources approach. This approach, in use since the beginning of 2018, aims to use 
better  distribution  of  tasks  to  achieve  better  results  with  the  same  amount  of  human 
resources in the various risk management teams. This is expected to improve opportunities 
for  building  up  expertise  in  security  and  safety.  In  Bulgaria,  the  continuous  need  for  staff 
skills development was noted, and the administration is carrying out an ‘ongoing process’ to 
ensure that this will happen. 

In other cases, however, hiring more staff is the only way to obtain required expertise or deal 
with strained resources. For example, in Cyprus, organisational restructuring, staff training 
and  improved  monitoring  and  supervision  have  not  been  sufficient  to  address  deficient 
capacities  which  arose  as  a  result  of  a  hiring  freeze  in  the  public  sector  following  the 
financial  crisis.  The  hiring  freeze  having  recently  been  lifted,  the  Cypriot  customs 
administration  is  now  initiating  a  recruitment  process  to  address  the  lack  of  resources.  In 
Romania,  the  customs  administration  has  requested  an  increase  in  the  number  of  risk 
management staff, while Croatia cited a need for more staff to implement ICS2, but worried 
that the resources would not be available. 

Systems/structures 

Finally, analyses and assessments of various systems, structures and working methods have 
also  been  relatively  common  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Hungary,  Italy. 
Luxembourg, Latvia, Romania. For example, in Ireland, a centralised customs hub has been 
established  where  documentary  checks  are  currently  being  undertaken  for  two  customs 
stations  and  which  will  eventually  be  the  single  national  site  for  handling  orange-routed 
customs declarations for goods being imported and exported through all ports and airports. 

The  LFCG  CRAI  still  exists  as  a  valuable  sub-group/network  of  the  LFCG  and  can  be 
convened  where  needed  (it  supported  CELBET  last  year  in  exploring  options  for 
collaborative risk analysis). However, for the time being it has not otherwise been assigned 

23 

 
 
any formal tasks. 

4.2.2. 

ONGOING 

Analyse  and  identify  options  for  further  enhanced  proactive 
cooperation,  coordination  and  better  risk  assessment  of  the  supply 
chain on a real-time basis in cooperation with the Member States 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  about  the  status  of  the  sub-action,  the 
results/progress made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results. 

Status of the sub-action 

No analysis 
planned 

Analysis 
planned but not 
started 

Analysis 
ongoing 

Analysis 
completed 

No reply 

2 

3 

16 

6 

1 

Use of results 

Not at all 

To a limited 
extent 

To some extent 

To a great 
extent 

No reply 

1 

2.5 

14 

3.5 

7 

Overview 

As  with  sub-action  4.2.1,  Member  States  have  several  initiatives  running  in  parallel  under 
sub-action  4.2.2,  making  it  difficult  to  discuss  the  amount  of  progress  in  straightforward 
terms. Analyses have been conducted in various fields and regarding various capacities, in 
many cases related to the sub-actions under Objective 5, with none presenting themselves as 
particularly  prevalent.  In  general,  these  often  related  to  EU-level  and  multilateral  projects 
and working groups. The Member States considered sub-actions highly useful for facilitating 
and  improving  proactive  cooperation  and  coordination,  and  frequently  reported  their 
intention to continue participating actively. 

The  Member  States  cited  few  difficulties  in  carrying  out  analyses  under  sub-action  4.2.2; 
only Belgium and Romania noted the recurrent problem of insufficient human resources and 
training.  However,  procedural  or  system  weaknesses  and  frustrations  were  mentioned  as 
obstacles to acting on the results of the analysis carried out. 

Specific activities carried out 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Virtually  all  Member  States  reported  analysis within  the  various  working  groups  and  joint 
initiatives and projects, at EU level, multilaterally and bilaterally, both in long-term projects 
and through individual meetings, workshops or study visits. The reported participation varies 
slightly, with France, for example, stating involvement in all DG TAXUD-managed groups, 
while for instance Croatia indicating that it participates in risk management, IT and business-
related groups. 

At EU level, reported projects, initiatives and working groups include ODYSSUD (contact 
group  of  customs  managers  working  in  the  major  southern  ports  of  the  EU),  ICARUS 
(contact  group  of  customs  managers  working  in  the  major  EU  airports  of  the  EU),  LFCG 
(Land Frontier Contact Group), RALFH (contact group of customs managers working in the 
major northern ports of the EU), CDTPG (Customs Detection Technologies Project Group), 
ConTraffic-ENS,  ConTraffic-SAD,  Europol  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat 
Assessment (SOCTA), security risk rules, financial risk rules, and different CRMS network 
subgroups.  Corresponding  examples  at  the  multilateral  level  include  BAXE,  the  Benelux 
group, the Visegrad group, and CELBET.  

4.2.3. 

ONGOING 

Put forward and implement appropriate solutions (including IT) for 
developing necessary further risk management capacities at Member 
State  and  EU  level  (also  considering  solutions  proposed  by  EU-
funded  research  projects),  including  enhanced  cooperation  and 
coordination between the customs authorities 

According  to  the  agreed  phased  and  block  implementation  approach  and  as  set  out  in  the 
ICS2 business case, further analysis of Block 2.1 implementation will be carried out in 2019. 
This  will  involve  data  analytics,  ENS  data  enrichment  and  automated  execution  of  the 
common  risk  criteria  for  interested  Member  States.  The  analysis  will  take  into  account 
operational needs and requirements, and legal and IT aspects. Agreement for implementation 
(the ‘Go decision’) with the Member States is scheduled for end-2020, and implementation 
of Block 2.1 is planned as part of release 2 i.e. on 1 March 2023. 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  about  the  status  of  the  sub-action,  the 
results/progress made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results. 

Status of the sub-action 

For  sub-action  4.2.3,  the  Member  States  were  asked  to  describe  any  further  measures  to 
improve  the  implementation  of  the  CRMF,  in  addition  to  those  already  described  for  the 
previous sub-actions. Sub-action 4.2.3 thus established a catch-all umbrella for any activities 
that  the  respondents  could  not  place  under  other  sub-actions.  However,  overlaps  occurred 
with other sub-actions under objectives 4 and 5. 

Most  Member  States  reported  improved,  continuously  developed  or  otherwise  well-
functioning national IT and electronic analysis systems (Belgium, Greece, Finland, France, 
Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Romania,  Slovenia and 
United  Kingdom).  Some  of  these  systems  cover  customs  functions  in  a  comprehensive 
manner, while others are more targeted: for instance, in Ireland a new national intelligence 

25 

 
 
 
management  system  (NIMS)  has  been  developed,  of  which  Phase  I  &  II  focused  on  the 
reception and risk assessment of passenger and freight movement information from selected 
transport  operators.  The  NIMS  reportedly  facilitates  and  has  improved  recording, 
categorisation and use of data and contributes to the development and use of intelligence to 
target  cases  for  intervention  based  on  risk.  Similarly,  in  Italy,  the  automated  tool  SIDDA 
supports  trend  analyses  for  undervaluation,  overvaluation  and  outliers,  based  on  statistical 
analyses of data from customs declarations. Meanwhile, Luxembourg is planning the launch 
of its new Luxembourg customs clearance system (LUCCS). 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

The  most  commonly  identified  remaining  barrier  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
CRMF at the national level appears to be poor data quality, availability or usability (Austria, 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Lithuania,  United  Kingdom).  For  instance,  Belgium 
underlines  that  for  the  efficient  functioning  of  the  CRMF,  risk  management  information 
from other Member States should be automatically usable by the national risk management 
system, whereas today such information must be interpreted and translated manually before 
it  can  be  used.  Together  with  Greece,  Belgium  also  believes  that  there  should  be  more 
sharing between Member States of the results of controls. The Austrian respondents equally 
find  that  lacking  information  makes  risk  assessment  of  economic  operators  based  in  other 
Member States  very difficult; accordingly, CRC  hits are today ‘in most  of the cases’ false 
positives. 

The poor data quality and availability seems to relate partly to IT systems that are not fully 
interoperable and insufficient coordination among Member States, which is mentioned in a 
few  responses.  For  example,  the  Bulgarian  respondents  describe  functional  weaknesses  in 
the  New  Computerised  Transit  System  (NCTS),  which  do  not  allow  the  transfer  of  risk 
analysis  results  from  customs  transit  offices  and  thus  hinder  the  performance  of  customs 
controls at the most appropriate place and time. 

Leading on from this, most Member States do not request new IT systems, but rather call for 
a strengthening  of existing communication channels. For instance,  Latvia suggests that the 
CRMS  should  better  support  fast  information  exchange,  while  the  Greek  administration 
proposes that all Member States should have identical lists of dangerous goods and similar. 

Several Member States furthermore mention different types of resource limitations: human 
resources, training resources, financial resources and IT resources. New challenges are also 
anticipated  related  to  future  developments  such  as  the  roll-out  of  new  systems  (e.g.  ICS2) 
and changes in the operational environment (e.g. increasing e-commerce volumes). 

Action 4.3 

Develop  further national and EU level  customs threat and risk 
assessments for the full range of threats and risks 

4.3.1. 

ONGOING  Work  on  a  strategic  analysis  to  identify  trends  of  illicit  trade 
crossing  EU  borders  with  a  view  to  better  identifying  common 

26 

 
 
 
 
profiles of illicit trade within the CRMF 

The Decision on Financial Risk Criteria (FRC) which was adopted on 31 May 20188 sets out 
the  common  risk  criteria  that  have  to  be  used  to  address  specific  types  of  financial  risks: 
economic  operators  at  risk,  goods  at  risk,  undervaluation,  evasion  of  anti-dumping  duties, 
misclassification,  undue  quotas,  undue  preferential  origin,  undue  suspensions,    customs 
procedures  at  risk  (e.g.  CP  42)  and  customs  simplifications.  FRC  will  be  used  in  the 
everyday electronic risk management process to harmonise the selection process for customs 
controls. 

This Decision will enable Member States to address financial risks in an equivalent manner 
at  the  external  border,  without  placing  an  undue  burden  on  legitimate  trade.  It  will  also 
identify the most opportune time and place of the control depending on the scope and nature 
of the risk and on the availability of data and documentation.  

4.3.2 

ONGOING 

Develop  customs  threat  and  risk  assessments  at  national  level  and 
ensure that their results are shared and deployed in the CRMF and 
used  for  development  and  refinement  of  the  common  risk  criteria 
and standards, where appropriate 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results. 

Status of the sub-action 

Developing customs threat and risk assessments at national level 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

0 

0 

7 

21 

0 

Sharing and deploying these in the CRMF 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

0 

6 

13 

9 

0 

8 C(2018) 3293 final. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Results/progress made 

Developing customs threat and risk assessments at national level 

None 

Limited 

2 

0 

Some 

14 

A lot 

12 

No reply 

0 

Sharing and deploying these in the CRMF 

None 

Limited 

3 

6 

Some 

12 

A lot 

No reply 

6 

1 

Overview 

The  level  of  priority  of  developing  customs  threat  and  risk  assessment  at  national  level  is 
very high in the Member States, while sharing and deploying the assessments in the CRMF 
is prioritised to a lesser extent. Several Member States noted that the process of developing 
customs  threat  and  risk  assessment  is  ongoing  and  continuously  developing  work  that  in 
many cases has not changed fundamentally in recent years (i.e. Belgium, Germany, Estonia, 
Spain, France, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and United Kingdom). Compared to the level of 
priority,  actual  progress  has  been  more  modest.  This  may  be  in  part  explained  by  the 
Member States’ different starting points, with many of them considering the threat and risk 
assessment activities to be at a good level before the launch of the strategy (making further 
progress difficult to achieve). There also seemed to be different interpretations of the work 
envisaged for this sub-action. 

Some overlap may be noticed between sub-action 4.2.1 and sub-actions 4.3.2 and 5.1.2: for 
instance, groupings of officials have been mentioned under these other sub-actions as well 
(e.g. financial risk criteria, various CRMF and CRMS working groups, ENS Maritime, ENS 
Contraffic,  etc.).  Results  relevant  for  the  sub-action  may  have  been  achieved  in  such 
settings, but respondents rarely described them in detail for this sub-action and hence they 
are not discussed again at length. 

Developing customs threat and risk assessment at the national level 

New risk assessment tools and practices developed under the CRMF at national level have 
taken  various  forms.  Reorganisation  and  the  creation  of  new  units  and  improved  internal 
coordination and cooperation within customs authorities have supported the development of 
threat  and  risk  assessment  (e.g.  Denmark,  Spain,  Finland,  Croatia,  Italy,  and  Latvia).  In 
Denmark,  a  new  dedicated  analysis-division  and  a  24/7  risk  assessment  unit  are  working 
with open- and closed-data sources to validate information from e.g. Risk Information Forms 
(RIFs), while in Spain new working groups are being created in areas where threats or risks 
have been identified (e.g. e-commerce, customs procedure 42, excise duties) to facilitate the 
exchange of experience and information. In Lithuania, customs officials with special training 
have  been  appointed  to  monitor  the  internet  with  the  help  of  open  source  intelligence 

28 

 
 
techniques and of analyses of dark web marketplaces. Sweden has established new national 
analysis and intelligence centres. 

New national IT systems and tools have been developed and put into use, and old ones have 
been  updated  (Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Spain,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Romania, 
Sweden and Slovakia), leading to significant improvements to risk assessment. For example, 
in  Slovenia,  a  new  electronic  system  for  the  collection  of  excise  duties  and  environmental 
taxes has been considered very helpful, as the system allows for better accounting control, 
thereby facilitating risk identification. In Lithuania, system updates have made it possible to 
take in a larger range of declaration types, creating more sophisticated risk rules and more 
comprehensive  data  analysis.  Improvements  in  and  increased  usage  of  tools  such  as 
datamining and open source intelligence have furthermore improved analysis and resulted in 
a larger amount of seized goods, especially prohibited, restricted and counterfeit medicines. 
In  Bulgaria,  a  new  system  allows  for  the  gathering  and  storing  of  data  from  all  customs 
physical inspections performed inland, at external borders and by mobile teams. In Portugal, 
the interoperability of existing systems has been improved. 

Other  measures  have  also  been  introduced,  but  are  difficult  to  categorise  in  a  meaningful 
way:  for  instance,  Austria  and  Cyprus  have  conducted  mapping  exercises  for  specific  risk 
areas or on high-interest countries, while Luxembourg has investigated the increased use of 
non-intrusive  detection  equipment.  In  some  Member  States,  revised  methods,  processes  or 
strategies  have  resulted,  or  are  expected  to  result,  in  more  coherent  risk  assessment  (e.g. 
Austria, Ireland, Poland and Slovakia). 

The measures mentioned have led to related progress in several areas, especially in improved 
data quality, more consistent, efficient and effective use of information and other resources. 

Sharing results of customs threat and risk assessment in the CRMF 

Few concrete examples were given by the Member States regarding the sharing of results of 
customs  threat  and  risk  assessment  in  the  CRMF.  However,  there  is more  sharing  through 
the CRMS, with some concrete results described in more detail. For example, the Slovenian 
respondent described a recent example where several kilograms of khat were discovered at 
the  airport  in  the  checked  baggage  of  airline  passengers.  The  seizure  was  reported  in  the 
CRMS,  and  in  the  following  weeks  several  similar  attempts  were  thwarted  across  Europe. 
Aside  from  the  CRMS,  sharing  in  the  CRMF  is  described  to  take  place  through  meetings, 
seminars and personal relations. 

Related  progress  seems  to  concern  mainly  ‘more  consistent  and  effective’  sharing.  Many 
Member States report efforts to promote the use of CRMS among customs officials and in 
all  customs  processes  (e.g.  Luxembourg  and  Latvia).  Concrete  progress  has  often  been 
difficult  to  measure  or  describe  in  concrete  terms.  However,  Cyprus  noted  that  its  use  of 
CRMS to share risk information has more than doubled in the last few years. Furthermore, 
the  Romanian  national  risk  typology  has  been  aligned  with  those  in  the  CRMS,  while  in 
Croatia  risk  profiles  are  increasingly  considered  from  the  perspective  of  sharing  the  data 
through CRMS. 

29 

 
 
 
Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

15 

No 

10 

No reply 

3 

Compared  to  sub-actions  under  objectives  5  and  6,  sub-action  4.3.2  has  apparently  been 
more challenging for the Member States, with as many as 15 of them reporting having faced 
significant difficulties. 

The main areas referred to as obstacles were scarce resources and lack of data availability. In 
terms of resources, it was human and financial resources and time that were found lacking 
(Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Lithuania,  Romania  and  Portugal).  As  examples, 
Bulgaria reported that the volume and diversity of tasks prevented designated officers from 
focusing on improving threat and risk assessment, and Romania described lacking both the 
time  and  linguistic  expertise  to  deal  with  documentation  in  English.  Greece  and  Cyprus 
noted a general lack of human and financial resources, while Lithuania and Portugal referred 
to the cost of new technologies and the need to update IT systems to handle incoming data. 

The  other  significant  challenge  identified  is  the  low  data  quality,  including  from  other 
Member  States  and  national  authorities,  but  mainly  from  economic  operators  (Austria, 
Belgium, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom). Lithuania and Malta 
state that the quality and format of cargo data often make it difficult to use it in a meaningful 
way, with Lithuania attributing this to the varying and often too ‘soft’ data requirements of 
different  declarations.  Meanwhile,  Belgium  expressed  concerns  on  the  ‘data  quality  and 
lower level of responsiveness of [some] partner Member States’, and Slovenia stressed that 
better  quality  data  and  uniform  access  to  customs  data  within  the  EU  would  increase 
efficiency.  The  complexity  of  legal  frameworks  and  differences  between  national  legal 
systems  were  additionally  mentioned  as  obstacles  by  Portugal  and  the  Netherlands.  The 
complexity of data and outdated IT systems were brought up by Belgium and Finland. 

Member States also noted some problems with the use of CRMS. Occasionally, small cases 
that are of little interest to other Member States are shared, reducing the system’s relevance. 
This may reflect an unintended consequence in Member State targets related to, for example, 
the amount of sharing. In contrast, when risk information is of EU-level interest, respondents 
suggest it should be shared at this level, so as to avoid duplicates Risk Information Forms 
(RIFs)  from  the  Member  States.  The  guidelines  are  thought  sufficient  in  this  regard;  the 
problem lies in their interpretation and implementation. 

Austria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Germany,  Ireland,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands, 
Slovenia and Sweden mentioned that this action is part of daily operations. 

Italy,  as  a  member  of  the  CRMS  analysis  group,  implements  the  outcomes  of  the  group’s 
analysis. Italy has also reached an agreement with the main international express couriers in 
order to directly access their handling systems to detect immediately new trends and threats 
in the risk field. In addition, Italy has developed an automated tool (SIDDA). The tool assists 
Italian customs in trend analysis for — among others — undervaluation, based on statistical 
analyses of data from customs declarations on the unit price of consignments. 

30 

 
 
Poland  has  developed  a  similar  IT  tool  (based  on  statistical  measures)  for  preventing 
undervaluation of customs value in textiles and footwear for imports to the country. This has 
contributed to an increase of the declared customs values for the above-mentioned goods. 

The Dutch customs authorities are participating in national meetings on the EU policy cycle 
and in national operational activities for EMPACT (organised crime threat assessments). On 
a  tactical  level,  senior  customs  officers  and  management  meet  with  their  colleagues  to 
discuss  and  verify  national  threat  analyses.  With  a  view  to  achieving  multi-agency 
cooperation  (Objective  5)  at  a  more  operational  level,  customs  intelligence  officers  liaise 
with  their  counterparts  in  various  other  law  enforcement  agencies.  The  aim  is  to  ensure 
sharing of relevant targeting information. 

Cyprus indicated that the national government data warehouse has been recently developed 
in order to collect, link and analyse information obtained from various databases, including 
Import  Control  System  (ICS),  Export  Control  System  (ECS)  and  customs  declaration 
systems.  Various  reports  can  be  produced,  including  risk  assessments  and  compliance 
measurement, through the results monitored by the appropriate key performance indicators. 

In Lithuania, the Customs Criminal Service prepares annually the list of priority directions 
for the coming year. Threat assessment and discussions between leading experts take place 
during the preparation of the list, which is approved by order of the Director of the Customs 
Criminal Service. After that, the list is made available for obligatory use to all officers of the 
Customs Criminal Service. The list of priority directions contains: (i) control of circulation 
of  narcotics  and  precursors;  (ii)  control  of  illegal  transportation  and  command  of  excise 
goods; (iii) focus on organised crime and most dangerous offences; (iv) further improvement 
of  risk  management  and  targeting;  and  (v)  strengthening  cooperation  with  other  national 
control  institutions  and  with  institutions  in  other  countries,  as  well  as  with  international 
organisations. 

Poland  has  structured  task  force  groups  specialised  in  most  of  the  strategic  areas  of 
functioning of the customs service, such as tobacco products, mineral oils and illicit drugs. 
These groups coordinate and/or initiate actions at local as well as national level. They also 
coordinate 
with 
The  Strategic  Centre  of  Analysis  of  Customs  Service  (NRAC)  creates  strategic  analytical 
reports, which are implemented in the Polish automated customs environment ZISAR.  

government 

cooperation 

other 

the 

agencies.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

4.3.3. 

ONGOING 

Develop customs threat and risk assessments at EU level and ensure 
their  results  are  shared  and  deployed  in  the  CRMF  and  used  for 
development  and  refinement  of  the  common  risk  criteria  and 
standards, where appropriate 

See the work carried out by the CRMS analysis group as mentioned above for action 4.3.1. 
The group continues updating analysis of data for specific risks in 2016. 

Action 4.4 

Further  develop  EU  common  risk  criteria  and  standards 
(CRC)  for  the  full  range  of  risks,  in  cooperation  with  the 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
competent services 

4.4.1. 

ONGOING 

Develop  further,  under  the  CRMF,  EU  common  risk  criteria, 
where  relevant,  together  with  competent  authorities  for  the  full 
range of risks associated with goods’ movements 

This  action  occurs  for  11  different  policy  areas:  aviation  security;  product  safety  and 
compliance; health and consumer protection; animal, food, feed and plant health and safety; 
Intellectual Property Rights; financial risks; non-proliferation and conventional weapons; the 
environment  (waste,  ozone-depleting  substances  (ODS),  wildlife  trafficking,  chemical 
products); drug precursors; cash controls and cultural goods. As the actions cover a variety of 
policy  areas,  the  Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (DG  TAXUD)  has 
introduced initiatives in close cooperation with other relevant Commission departments. 

Drug precursors: this work is ongoing, with a clear requirement to develop the use of the RIF 
in the management and control of drug precursors. In 2018 it is proposed to use the Customs 
2020  programme  to  address  the  issue  of  risk-based  controls  and  the  use  of  the  RIF  for  the 
targeted control of irregular trafficking in drug precursors. 

On the control of the illicit movement of waste shipments, work is ongoing in the context of 
cooperation  between  the  EU  and  China  to  highlight  the  risks,  enhance  cooperation  and 
coordination  between  the  competent  authorities  and  customs  and  to  share  risk  information 
through the appropriate channels. 

For cultural goods, the work concerns mainly the restrictions on the import of cultural goods 
from  Iraq  and  Syria.  An  EU  risk  profile  for  imports  has  been  created.  To  identify  the 
parameters  of  this  problem  and  establish  an  appropriate  risk  management  approach  in  this 
area,  we  need  more  expertise  from  various  sources  in  the  field,  including  the  expert  group 
that was created on customs and cultural goods. This work is ongoing. 

It  has  been  widely  reported  that  illicit  trafficking  of  cultural  goods  is  a  source  of  terrorist 
financing. To enforce restrictions on the import of cultural goods from Iraq and Syria, an RIF 
for imports has been created. To further identify the parameters of the problems related to the 
illicit trafficking of cultural goods, the Commission launched a study to map the situation in 
the  EU,  which  highlighted  solutions  (binding  measures,  coupled  by  ‘soft  law’)  on  how  the 
problems could be best tackled. 

Regarding the air cargo security Common Risk Criteria and risk indicators, the Directorate-
General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  closely  cooperated  with  other 
Commission  departments,  national  customs  authorities,  civil  aviation  and  experts.  Work  on 
identifying the criteria has been concluded. However, the operational implementation of these 
criteria and risk indicators depends on the operational implementation of objectives 1 and 2. 
This includes the additional risk analysis capacity envisaged to electronically implement risk 
rules for these criteria at EU level. An end date for completing this project can therefore not 
yet be indicated. 

On product safety and compliance, a document entitled ‘Cooperation between Customs and 

32 

 
 
 
Market Surveillance Authorities (MSA) on risk management in the area of product safety and 
compliance  controls  on  imported  goods’  was  finalised  and  shared  with  Member  States  in 
December 2015. The document provides a methodology for the exchange of risk information 
between customs and market surveillance authorities. Over the years, numerous operational 
activities have been undertaken in the product safety and compliance sector. 

On  health  and  consumer  protection,  in  close  cooperation  with  Member  States  the 
Commission has drafted factsheets for a selection of legislative acts in the area of health and 
safety, setting prohibitions and restrictions at the border. Each factsheet gives a description of 
the legislative framework, the role of customs and the documentary and physical checks to be 
applied, and cooperation with other authorities. These factsheets provide a basis to evaluate 
the best place for customs to control and whether further recommendations for customs and 
other agencies need to be formulated. 

The  Commission  also  worked  on  the  drafting  of  factsheets  on  animal,  food,  feed  and  plant 
safety. The factsheets were discussed with Member States and distributed after finalisation. 

A  workshop  with  customs  and  veterinary  authorities  was  held  in  March  2016.  Issues  of 
common  interest  for  both  authorities  were  discussed,  such  as  scenarios  of  import  controls, 
cooperation between authorities, transit, and the EU single window (CVED). 

On the control of the correct application of VAT at importation, the Commission proposed in 
November  2017  to  give  customs  authorities  access  to  VIES  and  to  share  data  on  VAT-
exempt imports directly from the customs import system with the tax authorities in another 
Member State. These measures9 will streamline the control process for VAT-exempt imports 
and close an important loophole in the VAT system. To correctly implement these measures, 
efficient  and  lasting  cooperation  will  need  to  be  established  between  customs  and  tax 
administrations  at  EU  and  national  level.  The  Commission  is  exploring  possible  ways  to 
establish such a framework. 

On  financial  risks,  the  Decision  on  Financial  Risk  Criteria  (FRC)  is  a  response  to  the 
weaknesses  identified  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors’  report  and  aims  to  develop  a 
common,  broad-ranging  approach  on  the  way  to  address  financial  risks  in  the  EU.  The 
Decision  sets out  the  CRC that  have to  be  used to  address specific types  of financial risks: 
economic  operators  at  risk,  goods  at  risk,  undervaluation,  evasion  of  anti-dumping  duties, 
misclassification,  undue  quotas,    undue  preferential  origin,  undue  suspensions,  customs 
procedures at risk (e.g. CP 42) and customs simplifications. FRC will be used in the everyday 
electronic risk management process to harmonise the selection process for customs controls. 
The  Common  Risk  Criteria  need  to  take  account  of  the  proportionality  to  the  risk,  the 
urgency of the necessary application of the controls and the probable  impact on trade flow, 
on individual Member States and on control resources.  

4.4.2. 

COMPLETED 

Propose and adopt appropriate legal acts for the new EU common 
risk criteria 

9 COM(2017)706 - The ECOFIN of 22 June 2018 reached a political agreement on the Commission's proposal. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
As already reported in 2016, this action is completed. 

Action 4.5 

Systematically  monitor,  evaluate  and  improve    implementation 
of the EU risk management by the Member States and measure 
performance of the CRMF 

4.5.1. 

ONGOING 

Continue  to  evaluate  and  improve  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency 
of the existing CRC; improve the arrangements for CRC review 

The Commission developed the CRMF evaluation cycle model with the 28 Member States, 
and used a Commission CRMF sub-group to cover both the delivery of the first systematic 
CRMF evaluation cycle report (closed as of 20 December 2017) and to liaise with Customs 
Union Performance. 

4.5.2. 

ONGOING 

Develop a structured approach (evaluation cycle) for systematically 
monitoring,  evaluating  and  improving  implementation  of  EU  risk 
management by the Member States and measuring the performance 
of  the  CRMF,  to  ensure  harmonised,  effective  and  efficient 
implementation 

The  CRMF  evaluation  cycle  concept  is  being  developed  in  close  consultation  with  the 
Member States.  The overall concept and  the specific areas  for  the CRMF evaluation cycle 
and the Customs Union Performance (CUP) measuring overall performance of the Customs 
Union are mutually supportive and consistent approaches are applied where possible. Close 
coordination is ensured between the Customs Code Committee — Section Controls and Risk 
Management and the CRMF Sub-Group on one side and the CUP Project Group and its Sub-
Group  on  Controls  on  the  other  side  (the  work  of  that  CUP  Sub-Group  is  dedicated  to 
improving  and  further  developing  performance  indicators  in  the  field  of  controls).  The 
CRMF  Sub-Group  and  the  CUP  Sub-Group  on  Controls  work  closely  together  on  all  key 
issues related to control indicators (several joint meetings took place in 2016 and 2017). This 
avoids duplication of data collection and encourages re-use of data where appropriate. It also 
ensures that initiatives develop along mutually complementary paths. 

Based on consultations and joint meetings of the CRMF and CUP groups in 2016 and 2017, 
the  definitions  of  the  CUP  risk-based  control  indicators  were  amended  in  2017  to  ensure 
their  full  alignment  with  the  Union  Customs  Code  (Article 46(2)).  In  addition,  further 
clarifications  were  provided  in  the  CUP  Guidance  Notes  concerning  the  definitions  of  the 
control indicators, while quality assurance activities were also carried out in this field. 

A regards CUP indicators for post-release controls, the definitions of the indicators were also 
aligned with the Union Customs Code terminology in 2017. To improve analysis in the post-
release area and to be able to monitor further aspects of the Code implementation, a separate 

34 

 
 
  
 
 
 
sub-indicator on re-assessment audits was introduced in 2017. 

A survey on controls of passenger traffic, mobile controls and non-intrusive inspections was 
prepared,  carried  out  and  evaluated  in  cooperation  between  the  CUP  and  CRMF  during 
2017. The survey took into consideration a gap analysis of control indicators and was based 
on  policy  requirements.  It  was  constructed  as  a  mapping  exercise  to  obtain  general 
information  on  data  available  at  Member  State  level  in  the  above  areas.  The  structure, 
content  and  outcome  of  the  survey  were  also  consulted  within  the  CUP  Network  and  the 
Customs  Expert  Group  —  Section  for  Customs  Control  and  Risk  Management.  The 
CELBET  expert  team  was  also  involved  in  the  initial  drafting  process.  From  the  policy 
perspective, valuable information was collected through the survey, particularly in the light 
of  the  role  of  customs  in  the  increasingly  important  area  of  security.  The  survey  was  also 
closely linked to the Commission Communication on developing the EU Customs Union and 
its governance10, particularly as regards the need to develop the key performance indicators 
for the Customs Union and enhance cooperation between customs and other authorities. 

A pilot exercise will be carried out based on selected elements of the survey in 2018. The 
outcome  of  this  pilot  will  provide  a  basis  for  further  development  of  the  CUP  indicators, 
mainly as concerns sub-indicators on seizures in passenger traffic, and will also be used for 
the purposes of the CRMF evaluation work. 

10 COM(2016) 813 final. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.5  Objective  5:  Promoting  inter-agency  cooperation  and  improving  information 
sharing between customs and other authorities at the Member State and EU level 
to ensure effective risk management 

All  Member  States  reported  broad,  well-functioning  and  often  daily  cooperation  with  other 
national  authorities  (especially  other  law  enforcement  authorities  and  tax  authorities)  and 
agencies. 

Action 5.1 

Develop  further  cross-sectoral  cooperation  arrangements,  improve 
sharing  and  accessibility  of  (risk) 
information  and  customs 
involvement in risk and threat assessments 

5.1.1 

ONGOING 

Develop further the cooperation arrangements between customs and 
other 
ensuring 
complementarity of roles in supply chain risk management 

authorities,  with 

competent 

a  view 

to 

The previous cooperation and coordination between enforcement authorities at EU level on 
Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR)  infringements  has  led  to  the  seizure  of  millions  of  fake 
and  possibly  harmful  products  and  helped  take  down  several  transnational  criminal 
networks.  The  Intellectual  Property  Crime  Coordinated  Coalition  (IPC3)  set  up  within 
Europol and co-funded by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was at 
the forefront of such efforts. The IPC3 centre provides operational and technical support to 
law enforcement agencies and other partners in the EU. 

The  Customs  Cooperation  Working  Party  has  been  given  a  mandate  to  take  action  in  the 
policy area of IPR infringements under its 2018-2019 action plan (point  9.5 ‘Fight  against 
IPR infringements’). The draft mandates were adopted on 31 January 2018. 

Future  action  would  identify  examples  of  IPR  infringements  and  analyse  links  with  the 
Organised Crime Group (OCG)’s activities. The main objectives would therefore be to: 

  map trafficking routes, get a clearer picture on the illicit traffic of counterfeit 

packaging items and detect the groups involved in the intra-EU trade of assembled 
products; 
identify the major risks associated with infringement practices; 
improve cooperation between law enforcement, customs and police bodies and 
market surveillance authorities; 
increase the exchange of information and best practices. 

 
 

 

There  will  be  a  two-year  activity  period  (from  January  2018),  with  an  interim  report 
expected  in  early  2019.  Coordination  with  the  European  Commission  will  be  through  the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission Directorate-General for Taxation 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
and Customs Union (DG TAXUD). 

On  Forest  Law  Enforcement  Governance  and  Trade  (FLEGT),  guidelines  have  been 
completed and may be subject to review in 2018. The guidelines explicitly refer to the use of 
risk management in profiling and controls in this sector. 

In  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Regulation  setting  out  a  preliminary  correlation  table 
between customs and waste codes11. This table is intended to step up the enforcement of the 
Waste  Shipment  Regulation  whereby  customs  officials  would  be  able  to  identify  potential 
waste streams more easily. The table has been intended to serve as a tool to assist curbing 
illegal exports of waste out of the EU. 

In  addition,  the  Guidelines  on  Waste  Controls  have  been  completed  and  published.  They 
refer  explicitly  to  risk-based  targeting  and  controls.  Both  sets  of  guidelines  are  very 
important  to  cooperation  between  customs  authorities  and  competent  authorities  in  the 
implementation of the relevant legislation. 

E   Policy cycle and the ninth CCWP action plan — involvement of the customs authorities 

In May 2017, the EU adopted new priorities on crime for the 2018-2021 EU policy cycle for 
the combat of serious international and organised crime. Customs authorities’  involvement 
in implementing the policy cycle increased on previous years, but their participation is still 
selective  and  limited  to  some  crime  priorities  (mainly  excise/  Missing  Trader  Intra-
Community (MTIC) fraud and environmental crime priorities). In addition, the commitment 
of customs authorities differs between Member States (only four Member States participated 
in  the drafting of  more  than four operational  action plans in 2018).  Synergies  between  the 
2018-2021  EU  policy  cycle  and  the  ninth  CCWP  action  plan  (2018-2020)  were  further 
strengthened:  complementary actions are led by the same actors, joint police and customs 
operations  have  been  organised,  etc..  Furthermore,  the  ninth  CCWP  action  plan  includes 
action  on  ‘Better  integration  of  customs  in  the  EU  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat 
Assessment (EU SOCTA)’ covering not only customs participation in the EU SOCTA, but 
also broader cooperation between customs and Europol, focusing on identifying areas where 
improvement  is  needed,  best  practices,  and  development  and  preparation  of  awareness 
raising/training. 

   Cooperation with Europol 

Europol  is  further  developing  its  cooperation  with  customs  authorities.  The  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  ‘Strategic  Review:  Europol  and  customs’  confirmed  the  need  to 
further  strengthen  the  presence  of  customs  officials  in  Europol,  including  the  need  for 
customs to be able to access Europol’s information systems (SIENA). Europol also annually 
organises a meeting of directors of customs agencies under the aegis of the European Police 
Chiefs Convention. 

In  the  last  two  years,  the  Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (DG 
TAXUD)  has  been  in  contact  with  Europol  to  encourage  the  exchange  of  specific  risk 

11 (EU) 2016/1245. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
information  taken  from  CRMS  and  from  SIENA.  As  a  result  CRMS/RIFs  were  issued  on 
counterfeit  banknotes,  forged  authorisation  documents  used  to  procure  firearms  from  legal 
dealers and on weapons parts and a 3D printer machine used to produce weapons parts. All 
have received feedback from Member States’ customs authorities and have been integrated 
in their targeting systems. In addition, DG TAXUD (with the support of the Member States) 
provided  to  Europol  a  detailed  analysis  of  EU  trends  in  narcotics  trafficking,  based  on 
seizures by EU customs in 2014 and 2015. 

The cooperation between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and Europol was further 
strengthened.  OLAF  is  an  associated  service  for  Europol’s  COPY  analysis  project  dealing 
with organised crime on IPR. In accordance to the Europol Regulation, OLAF has indirect 
access  to  information  in  Europol  databases.  OLAF  also  recently  signed  with  Europol  a 
memorandum of understanding on secure communication and was connected to the SIENA 
system. This is expected to facilitate communication between these two bodies. 

As  regards  operational  cooperation  in  the  last  few  years,  several  joint  police  and  customs 
operations have been organised, focusing on different crime areas. One such operation was 
the ARMSTRONG II operation on firearms. 
Police and customs cooperation exists also in many Police and Customs Cooperation Centres 
(PCCCs).  Among  the  59  existing  multinational  cooperation  centres,  around  a  half include 
one or more customs representatives. The ‘single points of contact’ (SPOCs), located mainly 
in  international  police  cooperation  departments,  serve  as  a  single  contact  point  for  all 
international  police  cooperation  requests.  Here  also,  the  presence  of  customs  officials  is 
vital.  Both  SPOCs  and  PCCCs  have  as  one  of  their  main  tasks  to  ensure  information 
exchange on cross-border crime. 

Food safety and consumer health 

Food  safety  and  consumer  health  are  addressed  in  the  recent  Council/EP  Regulation  on 
official  controls12.  The  Commission  is  currently  preparing  a  delegated  act  and  an 
implementing  act  for  that  Regulation.  The  responsible  working  group  meets  regularly  and 
work will continue throughout 2018. The delegated act and implementing act should apply 
as of 14 December 2019. 

Cooperation has been constructive. A third consultation with Member States took place on 
18 and 19 January 2018. Similar consultations will be scheduled every 2 months. 

Food  fraud  has  a  clear  impact  on  consumer  health  and  trust  towards  the  food  industry. 
Following  some  high-profile  scandals  (e.g.  mislabelled  horse  meat)  the  issue  has  become 
politically sensitive.  

12 Regulation 2017/625, referred to as the Official Controls Regulation or ‘OCR’. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Animal, food, feed and plant health and safety 

Since the end of 2016, the administrative assistance and cooperation system (a dedicated IT 
application known as the ‘AAC’) available to the Member States for exchanging cases has 
been  split  into  two  strands,  one  dealing  with  non-compliance  classified  as  fraudulent 
activities  along  the  agro-food  chain  (AAC-FF)  and  the  other  dealing  with  any  other  non-
compliance (AAC-AA). 

In 2017, a total of 775 cases were exchanged through the AAC, of which 597 in the AAC-
AA and 178 in the AAC-FF. The fact that this number is considerably higher than in 2016, 
when  approximately  240  cases were  exchanged,  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  under  an  EU 
coordinated  control  programme  on  online  offered  food  products,  the  Member  States  were 
asked to identify websites which offer for sale specific types of products that are clearly not 
in compliance with the EU food law and to use the AAC-AA to report these cases. 

COI certificates in TRACES  

The  Commission  services  have  developed  the  certificate  of  inspection  (COI)  on  the  new 
TRACES  platform,  TRACES  NT.  Following  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/1842 of 14 October 2016, the COI certificate has been available since 19 April 2017, 
while  the  use  of  the  TRACES  NT  platform  has  been  mandatory  since  19 October 2017. 
40 000 certificates have been issued so far. 

Catch certificates in TRACES 

The  Commission  services  are  currently  developing  Catch  (for  the  introduction  of  Catch 
certificates)  on  the  new  TRACES  platform  TRACES  NT.  The  requirement  for  presenting 
paper  Catch  certificates  upon  imports  of  fishery  products  has  been  mandatory  since  1 
January  2010  in  order  to  prevent  imports  of  illegally  caught  fishery  products  into  the  EU. 
The Commission has introduced a legal obligation for importers to use Catch upon imports 
of  fishery  products.13    The  purpose  of  Catch  is  to  assist  Member  States'  authorities  in  the 
verification  and  risk  management  of  imports  of  fishery  products  into  the  EU.  On  average 
Member States receive more than 200 000 Catch certificates per year. 

New action envisaged: Food fraud network and the AAC system 

The  creation  of  IMSOC  (the  Integrated  Management  System  for  Official  Controls)  will 
integrate  the  existing  EU  systems  (RASFF,  AAC,  TRACES,  ADNS,  EUROPHYT14)  and 
streamline the procedures for the rapid exchange of data on official controls in the agro-food 
sector.  The  IMSOC  will  provide  a  generalised  possibility  to  exchange  information  with 
customs (i.e. the EU single window with CERTEX15 for TRACES), and to receive feedback 

13 COM (2018)368. 

14  RASFF:  Rapid  Alert  System  for  Dangerous  non-food  products,  AAC:  Administrative  Assistance  and 
Cooperation,  TRACES:  Trade  Control  and  Expert  System,  ADNS:  Animal  Disease  Notification  System, 
EUROPHYT: European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions.  

15 CERTEX: Certificates Exchane 

39 

 
 
                                                 
directly  from  third  countries  within  the  systems.  Moreover,  the  IMSOC  will  be  connected 
with  each  Member  State’s  national  systems  for  all  traceability  requirements,  so  that  there 
will always be a record in this system of what is coming into the EU. 

The  dematerialisation  of  documentary  controls  at  border  for  sanitary  and  phytosanitary 
reasons is also among the future actions. This will result in a very high quality and quantity 
of information in the relevant databases, which will be used to perform predictive analysis 
on consignments to determine the risk and streamline the frequency of controls. 

Health protection 

New  official  control  legislation  has  been  adopted16  and  the  Commission  services  are 
currently  preparing  the  implementing  and  delegated  acts  related  to  the  implementation  of 
this Regulation. The intention is to adopt all the implementing acts and delegated acts before 
December  2019,  especially  the  implementing  act  on  Article 75  on  Border  Crossing  Points 
(BCP)/customs cooperation. 

Environment 

In 2015, the Commission services, in cooperation with Member State competent authorities, 
prepared and published guidelines for customs officials to help them in the enforcement of 
the Waste Shipment Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006). These guidelines, together 
with a special factsheet that was also prepared, are considered an important tool for customs 
officials  when  it  comes  to  the  control  of  waste  entering,  existing  or  transiting  through  the 
EU.  The  Commission  plans  to  update  the  2014  ‘Customs  and  FLEGT  Implementation 
Guidelines’.  

Product compliance and safety 

Since the publication of the first progress report in 2016, a few more checklists were drawn 
up  for  products  that  are  subject  to  EU  harmonisation  legislation  (‘harmonised  products’). 
The checklists will be used and updated on an ongoing basis.  

5.1.2 

ONGOING 

Ensure customs participation in relevant supply chain security threat 
and  risk  assessments  at  national  and  EU  levels  and  ensure  the 
integration of this work into customs risk management of the supply 
chain 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

16 Regulation 2017/625. 

40 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

0 

2 

5 

21 

0 

Results/progress made 

None 

Limited 

0 

2 

Some 

16 

A lot 

9 

No reply 

1 

Overview 

The  priority  granted  to  sub-action  5.1.2  is  high  and  all  Member  States  report  broad,  well-
functioning  and  often  daily  cooperation  with  other  national  authorities.  In  most  cases, 
cooperation with  all or most national authorities:  (i) was in place long before the strategy; 
(ii) is a high priority; and (iii) is continuously maintained and developed as needed. Virtually 
no Member State reports dissatisfaction with the cooperation, even when specifically asked 
about  potential  or  desired  improvements.  Sweden  associates  the  smooth  cooperation  with 
flat  organisational  structures.  Moreover,  in  many  Member  States,  the  customs  and  tax 
administrations  have  been  merged,  further  facilitating  cooperation  between  the  authorities. 
Typical activities with other authorities include cooperation agreements, information sharing 
and  the  exchange  of  good  practices,  as  well  as  regular  meetings  within  different  types  of 
bodies and structures. This applies equally to all fields of cooperation. 

The  Member  States  report  substantial  progress  on  sub-action  5.1.2.  While  this  is  less  than 
might  be  expected  considering  the  high  level  of  priority  of  the  sub-action,  interview 
evidence  suggests  that  the  reason  for  this  is  that  in  many  cases  cooperation  is  long 
established,  with  subsequent  progress  mostly  incremental.  Most  Member  States  described 
progress  in  the  exchange  of  and  access  to  information  between  authorities.  Several  also 
mentioned 
to 
committees  and  entire  inter-agency  joint  centres  (e.g.  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Ireland, 
Croatia,  Hungary,  Romania,  Sweden).  Other  Member  States  pointed  to  progress  through 
cooperation agreements, improved IT systems, and training seminars and workshops. 

institutionalised  cooperation  varying  from  dedicated 

liaison  officers 

Progress  has  most  commonly  occurred  in  the  areas  of  other  law  enforcement  and  health 
protection, followed cooperation and progress on cultural goods. Fewer Member States cited 
progress on non-proliferation and transport. 

Other law enforcement, including intelligence 

Other  law  enforcement  authorities  are  among  the  most  commonly  mentioned  national 
authorities for important cooperation initiatives. For instance, in Greece, the Hellenic Police 

41 

 
 
 
has established a National Coordination Centre for Border Control, Immigration and Asylum 
(ESKESMA),  where  Greek  customs  participate  in  an  interdisciplinary  team  to  prepare  the 
national risk analysis for integrated border management. Meanwhile, Italy has renewed the 
protocol  with  the  Italian  National  Anti-Mafia  and  Counterterrorism  Directorate  (DNA), 
whereby customs officers participate in anti-mafia working groups and produce a significant 
number  of  reports  regarding  information  and  data  about  transnational  crimes  and  criminal 
nets involved in various criminal activities such as drug trafficking, illegal waste trafficking, 
smuggling,  money  laundering,  cash  violations,  IPR,  terrorism  financing,  illegal  exports  of 
military trucks, smuggling and illegal handling of mineral oils. In this context, cooperation 
with ‘other law enforcement’ thus thematically overlaps also with other fields. 

Product safety and compliance 

Cooperation  on  product  safety  and  compliance  was  also  mentioned  among  the  most 
important activities under the sub-action, and also among the areas of progress. Information 
exchanged  on  product  safety  is  frequently  mentioned  as  being  included  in  national  risk 
profiles. Poland describes progress in the area in terms of enhancing the control process in 
relation  to  different  product  groups  requiring  different  types  of  control,  as  well  as  better 
prioritisation of risks in this area. In Belgium, the common risk management exercise  with 
China (the EU Smart and Secure Trade Lanes (SSTL) pilot) provided the opportunity to test 
mutual recognition of controls related to product safety. Bulgaria noted that initiatives in this 
field have led to a better and on-time risk response on the various risks that goods in these 
areas may pose to consumers. 

Limited  human,  time  or  other  resources  appear  particularly  challenging  in  the  area  of 
product safety, where the number of different types of products is tremendous and constantly 
growing. The Cypriot administration suggests that the problem could be addressed through 
technical support from competent authorities to customs targeting and control. 

Environment 

While the environment does not very frequently appear among the main initiatives reported, 
it  is  nevertheless  among  the  areas  where  progress  is  most  commonly  reported.  Progress  is 
described  above  all  in  terms  of  national  agreements  and  direct  information  sharing  and 
exchange (Belgium, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia) with competent 
authorities.  For  instance,  in  Romania  a  protocol  of  cooperation  between  customs  and  the 
National  Environmental  Guard  covers  exchange  of  information,  but  also  joint  actions  for 
preventing,  detecting  and  sanctioning  illegal  activities  in  the  field.  Further  examples  of 
progress in the area of the environment include training seminars in Cyprus on fluorinated 
greenhouse gases and learning sessions on the Shared Cities Convention in Belgium. 

Italy  outlined  the  most  notable  activities  in  the  field  of  the  environment:  cooperation 
between customs and the National Anti-Mafia and Counterterrorism Directorate (DNA) and 
other  law  enforcement  bodies  on  designing  shared  and  improved  risk  criteria  for  tackling 
waste trafficking has produced a high number of investigations and seizures. However, the 
Italian respondents point out that in response criminal activity has been redirected towards 
other European countries. Italy also described the customs authorities' participation, together 
with  other  national  environmental  authorities,  in  the  EU-funded  projects  CIVIC  (on 

42 

 
 
environmental  crime  infiltrations)  and  TECUM  (on  the  legislative,  investigative  and 
intelligence dimensions of illicit waste trafficking). 

Tax 

Tax  authorities  were,  alongside  other  law  enforcement  authorities  and  product  safety 
authorities,  among  the  most  commonly  mentioned  national  cooperation  authorities.  In 
Austria, Hungary and Ireland at least, customs and tax authorities are merged into a single 
administration,  which  seemingly  ensures  the  authorities’  effective  participation  in  each 
other’s  activities.  In  many  other  Member  States,  various  cooperation  agreements  and 
formalised information sharing structures are in place. In Belgium, for example, customs and 
tax authorities have joint delegations to Eurofisc and other working groups, as well as shared 
expertise and joint actions. The Spanish respondents described a common project to digitise 
invoice stamping for travellers’ VAT returns, which will counter the illicit use of the VAT 
benefit. Meanwhile, the Romanian tax authorities benefit from other competent authorities’ 
risk assessment activities on the illicit trade of tobacco products. 

Other areas 

Compared to the areas discussed above, cooperation with other national authorities on IPR, 
transport, animal, food, feed and plant health and safety, health protection, non-proliferation 
and  conventional  weapons,  and  cultural  goods,  were  less  frequently  mentioned  among  the 
most  significant  cooperation  activities.  Often,  Member  States  referred  in  general  terms  to 
cooperation  agreements,  regular  meetings,  dedicated  liaison  officers  or  experts,  and 
exchanges  of  information,  or  reported  database  access.  For  example,  in  the  field  of  health 
protection,  Cyprus  has  signed  a  cooperation  agreement  with  national  health  authorities, 
ensuring  the  provision  of  information  on  imported  food  found  to  be  unsafe  for  human 
consumption.  It  also  established  contacts  with  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  for  the 
implementation  of  sanctions  in  such  cases.  On  cultural  goods,  Spanish  customs  and  the 
Ministry of Culture meet monthly through the Board of qualification, valuation and export of 
Spanish  historical  heritage  properties,  and  additionally  collaborate  in  providing  experts  to 
assess cultural goods. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

12 

No 

14 

No reply 

2 

The  challenges  mentioned  by  12  Member  States  mainly  concern  information  access,  legal 
barriers and structures, and limited resources. 

On  information  access,  respondents  report  deficient  information  flows,  limited  access  to 
data,  and  similar  issues.  For  instance,  customs  administrations  in  Latvia  and  Slovakia 

43 

 
 
 
 
declared that they do not have access to some relevant databases operated by other national 
agencies. This barrier could be thought to relate more to sub-action 5.1.4, which again raises 
the issue of sub-action overlaps. 

Legislative barriers and structures create problems when customs and other authorities lack 
compatible  legal  competences,  operating  grounds  or  working  methods  (e.g.  Belgium, 
Cyprus, Italy). Belgium stated that other national authorities do not apply risk management 
techniques such as declaration scoring and targeting of operators in the way that customs do. 
In  some  areas,  it  has  been  difficult  for  customs  and  other  authorities  to  reach  a  common 
understanding  on  shared  interest  and  the  adaptations  they  need  to  make  in  order  to  put 
cooperation in  place. Italy  also cites an interesting problem concerning legal competences, 
where the separation of competences between customs and the police force has given rise to 
separate  rules  and  professional  cultures  within  the  two  authorities.  In  Lithuania,  other 
authorities  do  not  keep  the  customs  administration  up-to-date  with  all  threat  assessment 
activities carried out. 

As in the case of several other sub-actions, limited human, time or other resources remain a 
significant  challenge,  especially  as  the  number  of  cooperation  partnerships  is  large 
(Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark  and  Croatia).  Malta,  Portugal  and  Romania  cited 
common inter-agency  intelligence sharing  interfaces  and communication systems as a way 
to  further  improve  cooperation  with  other  authorities.  Meanwhile,  Portugal  referred  in  this 
regard  to  EU-level  actions  to  improve  the  interoperability  of  the  CRMS  and  Europol’s 
platforms. 

The  good  cooperation  described  by  the  Member  States  is  consistent  with  the  continued 
existence  of  challenges  for  three  main  reasons.  First,  cooperation  may  be  close  and  daily 
even  though  problems  remain;  as  several  Member  States  underlined,  there  will  always  be 
room for improvement. Second, cooperation may work well with most national authorities, 
but be problematic or still developing with some specific ones. The challenge faced by the 
Italian  customs  with  regard  to  cooperation  with  the  police  is  a  typical  example  of  this. 
Finally,  in  some  cases,  although  cooperation  essentially  functions  well,  limited  resources 
may not allow for the full realisation of the potential cooperation. 

Member States were asked whether there are areas in which cooperation with other national 
authorities  does  not  work  as  well  as  desired.  No  serious  deficiencies  or  problems  were 
reported. Potential areas for improvement varied from one country to another, possibly with 
the exception of the need for better ways to share confidential information. Acquiring such 
information  may  be  time  consuming  or  otherwise  complicated,  and  correspondingly  the 
cooperation with e.g. national intelligence authorities may often be less straightforward than 
with  other  national  authorities.  The  issue  was  raised  by  a  few  respondents,  but  was  rarely 
highlighted  as  a  serious  problem.  In  this  regard,  Sweden  noted  that  although  risk 
management work could always be made more efficient through more information sharing, 
this  would  threaten  data  protection  and  individual  rights,  which  public  authorities  need  to 
bear in mind. 

44 

 
 
 
 
5.1.3 

ONGOING 

Develop  together  with  the  competent  authorities  the  EU  common 
risk  criteria  and  standards  and  mechanisms  for  their  regular 
evaluation and review, where appropriate 

Information sharing 

In June 2017, an inter-service strategic steering function on fraud prevention and detection 
for traditional own resources was set up to enhance information sharing at EU level between 
Commission departments. 

Agriculture and food 

This action focuses on developing, together with the competent authorities in the EU, 
common risk criteria and standards and mechanisms for their regular evaluation and review. 
Risk analysis in the context of food safety and consumer protection is closely related to food 
fraud, which is dealt with by the OCR Regulation. 

Agricultural import and export licences entail a personal obligation for the licence holder to 
have  products  released  for  free  circulation  or  export.  To  enable  customs  and  licensing 
authorities  to  check  this  obligation,  the  Commission  introduced  the  mandatory  use  of  the 
Economic Operators Registration and Identification number (EORI) number in the licences. 
The  customs  procedure  may,  however,  be  carried  out  by  a  customs  representative,  as 
provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.  

In  the  soon-to-be-completed  review  of  agricultural  licence  legislation,  the  number  of 
products  for  which  an  import  or  export  licence  is  required  has  been  drastically  reduced  in 
cases  where  the  licence  only  serves  as  a  means  of  market  monitoring.  This  simplification 
could be achieved because the customs surveillance system has been significantly improved 
in  terms  of  information  generation  and  performance.  In  the  meantime,  using  customs 
surveillance  for  agricultural  market  monitoring  has  been  introduced  as  a  standard  in  the 
Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (DG  AGRI)  for  market 
monitoring, all in good cooperation with DG TAXUD. 

A system for local control coordination in specific cases between customs, paying agencies, 
and licence-issuing authorities should continue for at least preferential and tariff rate quota 
(TRQ) imports. TRQs with a high quota rent (= profit) are susceptible to abuse on issues like 
origin or classification, e.g. garlic. Customs surveillance over time shows shifts in  imports 
under certain CN codes or in origins per CN code. Such patterns can be normal, but could 
also identify an abuse warranting further analysis. 

5.1.4. 

ONGOING 

Improve  accessibility,  sharing  and  utilisation  of  risk  information 
from other authorities and ensure its timely integration into the risk 
management  of  the  supply  chains,  including  in  ad  hoc/crisis 
situations 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

0 

0 

12 

15 

1 

Results / progress made 

None 

Limited 

0 

3 

Some 

17 

A lot 

7 

No reply 

1 

Sub-action 5.1.4 is relatively highly prioritised, with all Member States reporting activities 
for  accessibility,  sharing  and  utilisation  of  risk  information.  It  is  repeatedly  stated  that 
cooperation  on  information  access  and  sharing  generally  works  well  and  is  continuously 
ongoing,  but  has  not  significantly  changed  in  recent  years  (Austria,  Germany,  Estonia, 
Latvia,  Slovenia).  Respondents  also  maintain  that  the  contacts  are  generally  sufficient  and 
smooth enough for ad hoc situations. 

Member  States  found  it  difficult  to  distinguish  especially  between  sub-actions  5.1.2  and 
5.1.4;  reference  was  frequently  made  to  the  former,  or  information  was  simply  repeated. 
There  was also  some  overlap  with  sub-actions  under  Objective  4.  Member  States  also  had 
trouble  distinguishing  between  activities  in  place  and  progress  made;  in  many  cases  most 
progress is reported in the fields where there is the most cooperation, or where cooperation is 
perceived to work well. While this is of course positive, it seems that such cooperation has 
often  been  in  place  a  long  time,  with  progress  taking  place  incrementally.  There  are 
exceptions to this: for instance, Germany states that while progress has been limited in most 
areas due to comprehensive cooperation having been established already prior to 2015, some 
progress  has  occurred  in  the  areas  of  other  law  enforcement  and  transport  following  the 
terrorist attacks in recent years. 

The  most  important  activities  and  progress  reported  concern  above  all  cooperation  with 
authorities dealing with taxation other law enforcement issues, as well as product safety and 
compliance.  Cooperation  on  information  sharing  regarding  cultural  goods  was  rarely 
mentioned. 

Regardless of the area, most Member States describe different types of cooperation bodies, 
regular  meetings  and  general  information  exchange  with  other  national  authorities.  Since 
answers  in  all  areas  were  relatively  similar  and  often  unspecific,  one  area  of  cooperation 
may effectively exemplify the types of cooperation and progress made in greater detail. In 
the  area  of  ‘other  law  enforcement’  (mentioned  by  e.g.  Austria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Spain, 

46 

 
 
 
Greece,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Sweden,  Slovakia),  a  few 
Member  States  described  information  cooperation  with  Europol  and  other  international 
agencies  on  narcotics,  cigarette  smuggling  and  investigations  of  stolen  cultural  goods;  for 
instance, Poland referred to the practical use of international information exchange through 
Anti-Fraud  Information  System/Mutual  Assistance  Broker  (AFIS/MAB)  in  the  Narcotics 
Task  Force.  Other  respondents  noted  cooperation  on  passenger  name  records,  entailing 
increased  information  sharing  with  other  law  enforcement  agencies;  in  Spain,  a  new  joint 
special unit has been created for this purpose. In Cyprus, the customs authority becoming a 
member of the GRAN (Global Rapid Alert Network) of the World Customs Organisation. 

Sweden  provided  a  particularly  interesting  example  of  cooperation  with  other  law 
enforcement  agencies.  After  the  founding  of  a  multi-agency  task  force  against  organised 
crime, the general mutual understanding and trust between the agencies reportedly improved 
substantially.  The  task  force  furthermore  led  to  amended  legislation,  creating  a  virtuous 
circle, which in turn further facilitated the exchange of intelligence between the participating 
agencies, including in ad hoc situations. 

For  intellectual  property  rights,  transport,  animal,  food,  feed  and  plant  safety,  health 
protection, the environment, non-proliferation and cultural goods, information sharing with 
other  authorities  is  mentioned  a  few  times,  but  with  few  concrete  examples.  Non-
proliferation is mentioned somewhat more frequently under sub-action 5.1.4 as compared to 
5.1.2  (e.g.  Austria,  Cyprus,  Croatia,  Luxembourg,  Romania).  In  this  field,  e.g.  Austria 
reports  very  close  cooperation  with  the  police,  especially  in  the  form  of  joint  national 
investigations. Cyprus and Croatia describe having been granted access to the Conventional 
Arms  Exports  (COARM)  database,  although  the  Croatian  respondents  underlined  the  need 
for  assessing  the  benefits  and  progress.  Meanwhile,  information  sharing  related  to  the 
environment is less commonly mentioned here than under sub-action 5.1.2. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

10 

No 

17 

No reply 

1 

Challenges were reported by 10 Member States and were often linked to legislative barriers 
that  made  it  difficult  to  share  information  between  authorities.  For  example,  the  Latvian 
customs  have  not  been  integrated  into  the  passenger  information  unit  and  therefore  do  not 
have  direct  access  to  passenger  name  record  data,  and  the  Spanish  authorities  noted  that 
national  legislation  does  not  allow  for  general  or  mass  data  exchanges  between  agencies; 
exchange therefore takes place on a case-by-case basis. In other cases, simple ‘reluctance’ to 
share  data  (Latvia)  or  the  absence  of  a  commitment  on  the  part  of  authorities  to  agree  to 
share data (Malta) may obstruct data exchange. 

Limited  resources  in  terms  of  time,  money,  human  resources  and  IT  systems  also  hamper 
progress  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Croatia,  Italy).  In  this 
regard,  the  Belgian  authorities  explained  the  difficulties  of  cooperating  with  authorities 
within  a  complex  structure  of  national  administrations,  while  the  Danish  find  the  sheer 

47 

 
 
number  of  cooperation  relationships  challenging.  In  Italy,  the  difficulties  are  related 
particularly to the rapid development of legislation and IT systems, and the interoperability 
needs of different systems. 

Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain report that 
their  customs  authorities  are  part  of  a  national  structure  in  which  competent  authorities 
participate,  mostly  at  ministerial  level,  to  ensure  national  threat  and  risk  assessments  in 
various policy areas, e.g. on firearms and dual-use goods. 

Belgium  mentioned  cooperation  between  the  national  market  surveillance  authority  and 
customs  in  the  area  of  product  safety.  The  current  level  of  cooperation  is  ensuring  an 
appropriate exchange of control and risk information. 

The  Netherlands  mentioned  a  joint  data  analysis  for  analysing  risks  for  air  passenger 
controls jointly between customs and the border guard authority (Koninklijke Marechausee 
(Royal  Military  Police).  A  maritime  operations  centre  is  planned  to  be  developed  by  the 
national  coast  guard,  in  which  customs  also  participates.  Concerning  cooperation  with  the 
coast guard, Latvia refers to the use by customs of SafeSeaNet (a vessel traffic monitoring 
and information system) operated by EMSA. 

Croatia cited agreements that customs signed regarding mutual cooperation and information 
sharing  with  other  authorities  such  as  the  police  and  the  tax  service.  An  agreement  for 
integrated  border  management  was  also  signed  between  the  customs  administration,  the 
Ministries  of  the  Interior,  Finance,  Agriculture,  Health,  Foreign  Affairs,  Maritime  Affairs, 
Transport  and  Infrastructure,  and  Tourism  and  the  Croatian  Personal  Data  Protection 
Agency.  Cooperation  and  information-sharing  structures  not  based  on  formal  agreements 
exist also with other authorities on product safety and dual-use goods. Also Slovenia pointed 
to improved cooperation with the Ministry of Economy at national level on the licensing of 
dual-use  goods  in  order  to  avoid  diversions  of  the  export  of  goods  for  which  an  export 
licence has been denied. 

On risk and threat assessments on fiscal fraud, Lithuania established a risk analysis centre in 
2014 by joint order of the Customs Department, State Tax Inspectorate and Financial Crime 
Investigation Service. It is run by a group of representatives from each of the institutions and 
ensures a continuous exchange of information. 

In  Estonia  strategic  comprehensive  risk  analysis  (base  analysis)  is  established  by  customs 
annually. This covers all known risk areas and is used, among others, as a basic document 
for creating new risk profiles. Customs shares these analyses with the police authorities and 
border guards. 

An agreement on mutual cooperation in the area of waste management between Slovakia’s 
financial  administration  and  the  Slovak  Environmental  Inspectorate  is  currently  being 
discussed.  The  agreement  provides  for  joint  controls  of  cross-border  movements  of  waste 
and  exchange  of  information  between  the  relevant  authorities.  Also,  regular  meetings  are 
organised  to  ensure  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between  customs  and  other 
authorities on the implementation of FLEGT and IPR. 

In  Spain,  cooperation  between  customs  and  other  authorities  is  operating  in  national 
structures for the exchange of information: (i) between the relevant authorities and customs, 
concerning denials for licences of dual-use goods; (ii) from TRACES; and (iii) from Market 

48 

 
 
Surveillance Authorities. Customs use this information in their risk analysis processes. 

Sweden  emphasises  cooperation  mechanisms  between  customs  and  other  law  enforcement 
authorities to coordinate and combat organised crime. 

Luxembourg indicates that its customs authority can interact at any given time in the supply 
chain based on transport and commercial related data, which is not yet declared to customs. 
These  data  can  be  required  by  means  of  memoranda  of  understanding.  Multi-agency 
cooperation  is  partly  done  under  an  ongoing  project  for  establishing  a  national  single 
window. 

Since June 2015, Portuguese customs are part of the National Superior Council for Internal 
Security.  This  Council  is  responsible  for  threat  assessment  in  all  issues  related  to  security 
and  advises  the  Prime  Minister  in  such  matters.  In  matters  of  security,  Denmark  also 
indicates that there is a structure in place at national level for cooperation between relevant 
services, including customs. 

On  cooperation  with  aviation  security  services,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Finland  and  Latvia 
mentioned planned activities in the near future. 

5.1.5. 

ONGOING 

Promote  complementarity  and  coherence  of  initiatives  from  other 
authorities aimed at improving security of the supply chain to avoid 
undue disruption or burden to trade 

European agenda on security 

As  gatekeeper  of  EU  borders  for  the  flow  of  goods,  EU  customs  play  a  crucial  role  in 
protecting  the  EU  and  its  citizens,  as  well  as  protecting  international  supply  chains  from 
criminal activities and terrorist attacks. 

By  implementing  the  EU  strategy  and  action  plan  for  customs  risk  management,  the 
Commission contributes to the implementation of the European agenda on security, a central 
component of the general objective to create an area of justice and fundamental rights. 

Through  various  actions,  customs  contribute  to  the  protection  of  European  citizens  with 
regard to the ongoing increase of threats, in particular those posed by terrorism and serious 
and organised crime.  In the last 2 years, the Commission has submitted several legislative 
proposals  to  cut  off  the  sources  of  terrorist  financing.  From  the  customs  perspective,  the 
most relevant proposals are those on illicit cash movements, on illicit trade in cultural goods 
and on EU certification of airport screening equipment. The Commission also continues to  
implement  the  EU  action  plans:  (i)  against  illicit  trafficking  in  and  use  of  firearms  and 
explosives;  (ii)  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  terrorist  financing;  and  (iii)  against  wildlife 
trafficking. 

Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) 

In  response  to  the  problem  of  illegal  logging  and  related  trade,  in  2003  the  European 

49 

 
 
 
 
Commission launched an action plan on FLEGT17, setting a range of measures for tackling 
illegal logging in the world’s forests. 

In  2005,  the  EU  adopted  Regulation  (EC)  No  2173/2005  of  20 December  2005  on  the 
establishment  of  a  FLEGT  licensing  scheme  for  imports  of  timber  into  the  European 
Community (FLEGT Regulation), as part of the implementation of the FLEGT action plan. 
The  FLEGT  Regulation  lays  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of  the  FLEGT  licensing 
scheme through the conclusion of voluntary partnership agreements with timber producing 
countries, including a requirement for imports into the EU of timber products originating in 
FLEGT partner countries to be covered by a FLEGT licence. 

The FLEGT  licensing scheme became operational  for the first time on 15 November 2016 
with  the  start  of  FLEGT  licensing  from  Indonesia.  Under  the  FLEGT  Regulation,  the 
cooperation  and  communication  between  customs  and  other  Member  State  competent 
authorities  is  a  key  element  of  the  implementation  of  border  controls.  To  help  customs 
authorities to carry out their tasks effectively in accordance with the FLEGT Regulation, in 
2014  the  European  Commission  published  its  ‘Customs  and  FLEGT  Implementation 
Guidelines  —  Public  Summary’.  The  Guidelines  will  be  updated  (work  will  start  during 
2018), taking into account the experience gained since the start of the FLEGT licensing from 
Indonesia. 

Furthermore, an IT system — FLEGIT/TRACES — was developed by DG SANTE and DG 
ENV  for  the  electronic  management  of  FLEGT  licences  by  Member  State  competent 
authorities  and  customs  authorities.  Authorities  also  received  training  on  FLEGIT  in 
Brussels during 2016, while some onsite training sessions in interested Member States took 
place  at  the  beginning  of  2017.   FLEGIT/TRACES  was  further  developed  at  regular 
intervals, taking into account experience in implementing the FLEGT licensing scheme and 
relevant  recommendations  by  Member  State  competent  authorities  and  customs  on  how  to 
effectively carrying out their tasks in accordance with the FLEGT Regulation. 

In 2017 DG ENV and DG TAXUD drew up a non-paper on the ‘FLEGT licensing scheme 
with  Indonesia  —  Implications  of  2017  amendments  of  World  Customs  Organisation 
(WCO) HS codes’. The aim was to inform Member State competent authorities and customs 
of  the  relevant  implications  of  the  2017  amendments  of  WCO  HS  codes  on  HS  codes 
covered by the FLEGT licensing scheme. 

The  EU  Timber  Regulation  (EUTR)  is  the  key  instrument  for  the  implementation  of  the 
FLEGT  action  plan,  the  aim  being  to  address  the  problem  from  the  demand  side.  EUTR 
prohibits the placing by operators (i.e. any (natural or legal) person first placing timber on 
the EU market) of illegally harvested timber on the EU market. Although the EUTR does not 
stipulate measures for border control measures, better access to customs data regarding the 
identification of operators and relevant import data from competent authorities is essential. 
This  information  exchange  will  facilitate  checks  using  a  risk-based  approach  supporting  a 
more  effective  enforcement  of  the  EUTR.  Experience  so  far  shows  that  in  some  Member 
States the EUTR competent authorities have  difficulties accessing  or  no access to  customs 

17 COM/2003/0251 final. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
data. Furthermore, exchange of customs data among different Member States is cumbersome 
and is hampering effective cooperation among Member States. 

Action 5.2 

the  EU  Authorised  Economic  Operator 

Strengthen 
(AEO) 
programme  through  broader  recognition  and  promotion  by  other 
authorities 

5.2.1 

ONGOING 

the  EU  Authorised  Economic  Operator 

Strengthen 
(AEO) 
programme  through  its  broader  recognition  by  other  authorities  in 
the  relevant  existing  or  future  partnership  programmes  or  in  the 
control regimes stemming from other policies 

The authorised economic operator programmes 

Late 2016 and early 2017, the Authorised Network Meeting and the Dual-Use Coordination 
Group  jointly  conducted  a  survey  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  recommendations  for 
greater  convergence  of  Authorised  Economic  Operator  (AEO)  programmes  and  internal 
compliance programmes (ICPs) at Member State and EU level. The specific objective was to 
assess  how  far  the  recommendations  of  the  Joint  Working  Group  on  AEO-ICP  internal 
compliance programme convergence had been met. This survey is planned to be repeated in 
the second half of 2018. 

At  the  beginning of  2017,  the  Dual-Use  Coordination  Group  mandated  a  Technical  Expert 
Group to draft EU ICP guidelines for dual-use trade controls in the form of a guidance note. 
The Technical Expert Group aims to deliver these ICP guidelines in the second half of 2018. 
DG TAXUD is member of the Technical Expert Group. 

Since the adoption of the ‘Goods Package’ on 19 December 2017, DG TAXUD is following 
the discussions at the Council’s Technical Harmonisation Working Group together with the 
Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG 
GROW).  The  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  enforcement  of  the  Union  harmonisation 
legislation, which is part of the ‘Goods Package’, includes provisions for a more favourable 
treatment of the AEOs by market surveillance authorities. Overall the proposal aims to boost 
the safety of products placed on the EU market through better targeted risk-based controls. 

On intellectual property rights, the Commission will further examine how compliance with 
the IP protection standards could potentially fit in the AEO concept by becoming part of the 
process for acquiring such status in the future. 

The  Commission  proposal  on  the  amendment  of  Directive  2006/122/EC  would  make  it 
easier for AEOs to obtain the status of certified taxable person. 

51 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Action 5.3. 

Promote  use  of  good  practices  and  cooperation  methods  between 
customs and other national authorities 

5.3.1 

ONGOING 

Encourage  the  exchange  of  good  working  practices  and 
cooperation methods between Member State customs and other 
national authorities (Customs 2020, CCWP) 

Customs administrations and border guards are strategic partners in border control tasks at 
the EU external borders. Results of their work and cooperation have a direct impact on the 
proper  functioning  of  border  management  and  the  international  supply  chain  at  the  EU 
external  borders.  The  need  for  strengthening 
the  cooperation  between  customs 
administrations  and  border  guards  and  the  work  on  revising  the  Guidelines  for  their 
cooperation are an important part of the Governance Communication. The importance of the 
cooperation of customs with  other law enforcement authorities, particularly  those involved 
in border management, and development of possible synergies and cooperation models have 
also  been  highlighted  in  the  respective  Council  conclusions.  Further  development  of 
cooperation  and  identifying  innovative  and  sustainable  solutions  for  joined-up  border 
management contributes to increasing safety and security while enabling the fluid movement 
of people and goods. 

Based  on  the  ‘Guidelines  for  cooperation  between  Customs  and  Border  Guards’  issued  in 
2013  (the  Guidelines),  the  Commission  (DG  TAXUD  and  DG  HOME)  carried  out  their 
evaluation  in  2015-2017.  The  evaluation  procedure  consisted  of  several  steps:  analysis  of 
questionnaires  completed  by  Member  States,  field  visits  in  five  Member  States  (Finland, 
Bulgaria,  Poland,  Spain  and  the  Netherlands)  and  organisation  of  a  joint  high-level  event. 
The results of the Guidelines evaluation showed a diverse picture across the EU, with some 
Member  States  having  a  very  good  level  of  cooperation,  while  others  involved  in  limited 
cooperation.  It  was  also  recognised  that  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all  solution.  There  were 
differences  in  national  organisational  structures  and  competences  as  well  as  specific 
circumstances  in  several  Member  States,  which  influenced  the  methods  of  cooperation 
developed and tools used. 

information  exchange;  (iv)  risk  analysis;  (v)  equipment;  (vi) 

Based  on  results  of  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  prepared  a  revised  version  of  the 
Guidelines  in  October  2017.  These  revised  Guidelines  kept  the  content  of  the  eight 
cooperation areas: (i) synchronised checks; (ii) planning of infrastructure and procurement; 
training;  (vii) 
(iii) 
investigations; and (viii) joint operations. In addition, the revised Guidelines included a new 
feature on strategic cooperation between the two authorities: its main objective was to ensure 
that  the  cooperation  takes  place  at  all  levels  of  the  hierarchy  in  both  authorities  and  in  all 
eight  areas  for  cooperation.  Each  cooperation  area  contained  a  set  of  recommendations  — 
with a more ambitious approach combining elements of the previous modules A, B and C. 

A joint high-level meeting of representatives of customs administrations and border guards 
took  place  in  October  2017.  This  meeting  summarised  the  results  of  the  evaluation  of  the 
Guidelines and was used as an opportunity to present and discuss the revised version of the 
Guidelines, taking account of main outcomes of the evaluation. Member States participating 
in the field visits made presentations summarising their practical experience of cooperation 

52 

 
 
 
between  customs  and  border  guards.  Detailed  discussions  involving  all  participants  took 
place  in  the  form  of  workshops,  with  Member  States  contributing  to  the  discussion  with 
examples of national experience and practices. 

Member  States  received  the  revised  Guidelines  positively  at  the  high-level  meeting  in 
October  2017  as  well  as  during  the  Customs  Policy  Group  meeting  in  December  2017. 
Discussions with Member States confirmed that there was a need to strengthen the strategic 
level  of  cooperation  (e.g.  using  written  agreements  or  memoranda  of  understanding  as  a 
basis) and that the main focus should be on identifying good practices, which could then be 
used  to  a  wider  extent  in  other  countries.  It  was  also  concluded  that  the  future  evaluation 
mechanism of the revised Guidelines needs to be revisited in order not to become a heavy 
burden for both the Commission and Member States. On operational issues, there is a need 
for a specific approach based on the type of border. 

EU policy cycle and the ninth CCWP action plan — involvement of the customs authorities 

In May 2017, the EU adopted new priorities on crime for the 2018-2021 EU policy cycle to 
combat  serious  international  and  organised  crime.  Customs  authorities’  involvement  in 
implementing  the  policy  cycle  increased  compared  to  the  previous  years;  however,  their 
participation is still selective and limited to some crime priorities (mainly excise/MTIC fraud 
and  environmental  crime  priorities).  In  addition,  the  commitment  of  customs  authorities 
differs across Member States (only four Member States participated in the drafting of more 
than four operational action plans in 2018). The synergies between the 2018-2021 EU policy 
cycle and the ninth Customs Cooperation Working Party (CCWP) action plan (2018-2020) 
were  further  strengthened  through  complementary  actions  lead  by  the  same  actors,  joint 
police  and customs  operations,  etc.    Furthermore,  the  ninth  CCWP  action  plan  includes 
action  on  ‘Better  integration  of  customs  in  the  EU  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat 
Assessment (EU SOCTA)’ covering not only the customs participation in the EU SOCTA, 
but  also  broader  cooperation  between  customs  and  Europol.  The  cooperation  focuses  on 
identifying areas where improvement is needed, on best practices, and on development and 
preparation of awareness raising/training. 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

1 

2 

11.5 

12.5 

1 

Results / progress made 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
None 

Limited 

0 

3 

Some 

14 

A lot 

6 

No reply 

5 

The level of priority and progress made for sub-action 5.3.1 is somewhat lower than that for 
the  other  sub-actions  under  Objective  5,  though  this  could  result  from  differing 
interpretations  of  the  terms  ‘working  practices  and  cooperation  methods’.  In  many  cases, 
Member States here referred to the activities reported on under other sub-actions. 

Most commonly, Member States cited participation in Prohibitions and Restrictions Customs 
Expert  Group  (PARCS)  and  other  relevant  working  groups.  Member  States  also  promoted 
the use of PARCS factsheets through measures to ease access to them (e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
Poland  and Slovenia)); of particular note in  this respect are Cyprus, where  factsheets have 
been  uploaded  on  intranet  systems,  and  Bulgaria,  where  they  have  been  translated  into 
Bulgarian to reach a broader national audience. 

Regarding  progress,  a  few  Member  States  (Spain,  Ireland,  Italy,  Romania)  point  to 
cooperation  with  agencies  at  European  level  and  in  other  Member  States.  An  interesting 
concrete  example  is  Ireland,  which  has  made  use  of  Europol’s  facilities  and  funding  to 
arrange  meetings in  a  secure  environment.  Some  Member  States  also  mention  progress  on 
inter-agency  access  to  data  systems  (Luxembourg,  Romania)  other  types  of  information 
sharing (Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Poland). Progress has also been made on joint operations, 
such as joint controls (Bulgaria, Spain, Croatia, Poland). Reported results on improved risk 
management  practices  include  improved  internal  and  external  knowledge  bases  (Ireland), 
consolidated  cooperation  structures  with  other  authorities  (Germany),  more  targeted 
selection and more effective controls (Hungary), and improved hit rates and more compliant 
behaviour through improved controls (Sweden). 

Member States noted that more could be done to share methods and practices systematically. 
For example, it was noted that reporting too often concerns only results of activities, while it 
would  in  fact  be  very  useful  to  share  how  the  results  were  attained.  In  addition  to  a 
description  of  methods,  a  framework  for  such  sharing  should  preferably  also  cover  risk 
criteria and parameters. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties or barriers 

Yes 

4 

No 

19 

No reply 

5 

Few  respondents  reported  major  challenges  when  it  comes  to  making  progress  under  sub-
action  5.3.1.  This  is  presumably  connected  to  the  lower  level  of  priority  of  the  sub-action 
and to the respondents perceiving the issue of inter-agency cooperation as already covered in 
previous sub-actions. Cyprus mentioned limited finances and human resources. Meanwhile, 
the  divergent  competences  of  different  national  authorities  are  seen  as  a  problem  by  the 
Belgian, Italian and Polish customs administrations. 

54 

 
 
55 

 
 
 
 
 
2.6  Objective  6:  Develop  cooperation  with  trade  to  secure  and  facilitate  legitimate 

trade 

For  this  objective,  major  achievements  have  been  made  on  strengthening  the  Authorised 
Economic Operators (AEO) programme. 

The main changes for the AEO required in the context of the Union Customs Code and its 
delegated and implementing acts relate to the overall changes in policies and structure under 
the Code and also to the lessons learned over 10 years of practical implementation of the EU 
AEO programme. The AEO guidelines have been updated. 

The AEO Network was created back in 2007 as the main tool for monitoring implementation 
of the programme. The result of the second monitoring exercise, launched in 2013, confirmed 
that  the  EU  had  established  a  solid  and  convincing  AEO  programme.  Member  States 
developed  robust  procedures  to  apply  AEO  legislative  requirements,  guaranteeing  high 
quality and efficient management of the programme in a consistent and highly uniform way. 
This  can  be  shown,  among  others,  by  the  number  of  suspensions  and  revocations  of 
certificates. 

The currently existing structures of the AEO programme and other compliance programmes 
are  further  analysed  in  cooperation  with  competent  authorities  (Objective  5)  at  EU  and 
national  level  to  identify  areas  of  convergence  of  best  practice  that  will  avoid  duplications 
and  needless  administrative  burdens  both  for  operators  and  competent  authorities.  On 
maritime  security  and  market  surveillance,  discussions  are  ongoing  at  Commission  and 
Member State level to enhance mutual understanding of the different security schemes. 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  687/2014  of  20 June  2014  amending 
Regulation  (EU)  No  185/2010  as  regards  clarification,  harmonisation  and  simplification  of 
aviation  security  measures,  equivalence  of  security  standards  and  cargo  and  mail  security 
measures  refers  to  ‘regulated  agents’  in  connection  with  the  AEO  standards.  Reciprocal 
customs legislation does the same for the recognition of regulated agents and non-consignors. 
Implementation  of  the  legislation  is  continuously  monitored  by  the  relevant  Commission 
departments. 

A  number  of  indicators  have  been  implemented  in  the  context  of  the  Customs  Union 
Performance (CUP) reporting to measure the impact of the AEO programme. CUP supports 
the  achievement  of  strategic  objectives  of  the  EU  customs  union,  including  the  AEO 
programme.  In  particular,  under  the  main  area  relating  to  facilitation/competitiveness,  the 
AEO  programme  is  analysed  with  regard  to  general  aspects  such  as  the  number  of 
authorisations and applications at EU level, the involvement of AEOs in the supply chain and 
the control rates for AEOs in comparison with economic operators not authorised as AEOs. 

Two specific target groups were created within Customs Risk Management System (CRMS) 
for the exchange of risk information concerning the AEO process and procedures (for further 
details see action 6.1.1). 

For  other  areas  under  this  objective,  such  as  improving  the  knowledge  of  supply  chains, 
progress has been slower. 

56 

 
 
The  Trade  Contact  Group  (TCG)  provides  the  main  platform  for  customs  and  trade 
consultations discussing at EU level the development and implementation of customs-related 
issues  and  developments  in  customs  policy.  Revised  terms  of  reference  of  the  TCG  were 
agreed and published in 2017, developing further the mechanism for consultation with trade. 
The  Commission  also  promotes  joint  customs-trade  discussions  at  various  stages  of 
development and implementation of legislation. 

Action 6.1 

Continue  to  strengthen  and  promote  the  AEO  programme,  by 
addressing any relevant weaknesses identified and providing further 
benefits 

6.1.1. 

ONGOING 

Continue  to  strengthen  the  AEO  programme  by  addressing  any 
relevant  weaknesses 
the  monitoring  and 
evaluation of the implementation of the programme and by ensuring 
its harmonised implementation throughout the EU 

identified 

through 

Follow-up actions to the second monitoring initiative of the EU AEO programme included 
follow-up visits focusing on the implementation of the AEO programme (in the Netherlands, 
Sweden, Greece, Germany, Austria and Romania). The Commission services intend to work 
with  EU  Member  States  to  develop  an  EU  AEO  operational  implementation  plan  and 
strategies on communication and cooperation with traders. 

Indicators  on  the  AEO  are  an  integral  part  of  the 
Customs  Union  Performance  system.  AEO-related 
performance  indicators  were  introduced  already  in 
2014  to  monitor  overall  trends  and  measure  the 
impact  of  the  AEO  concept.  Under  the  strategic 
objectives  on  facilitation/competitiveness,  data  on 
AEO indicators are regularly collected and analysed. 
Besides  the  analysis  of  several  general  aspects  such  as  the  number  of  AEO  applications 
submitted/rejected  and  certificates  issued/revoked/suspended  at  the  EU  level,  the  CUP 
indicators also cover the involvement of AEOs in the supply chain, including analysis based 
on  different  roles  of  AEOs,  and  analysis  of  controls'  aspects  related  to  the  facilitation  of 
AEOs based on control rates indicators (this enables 
a  comparison  of  control  rates  for  AEOs  with  those 
economic  operators  not  certified  as  AEOs).  Quality 
assurance  initiative  activities  related  to  the  AEO 
CUP indicators were carried out on an annual basis. 

The  CUP  project  will  continue  implementing  the 
AEO-related  performance  indicators  and  explore 
possibilities to develop them further, mainly with the aim of enhancing the analysis of AEO 
benefits and monitoring the impact of mutual recognition. 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results. 

57 

 
 
 
 
Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

1 

1 

11 

15 

0 

Results / progress made 

None 

Limited 

1 

7 

Some 

13 

A lot 

6 

No reply 

1 

Sub-action  6.1.1  was  relatively  highly  prioritised  by  the  customs  administrations  in  the 
different  Member  States;  only  Slovenia  reported  the  level  of  priority  having  been  low. 
However, since the work has been ongoing and the structures and procedures were in place 
already  prior  to  2015,  Member  States  frequently  report  continued  incremental  progress  as 
‘business  as  usual’.  This  includes  work  to  implement  the  AEO  guidelines  on  regular 
monitoring  and  making  continuous  adjustments  to:  (i)  adapt  to  the  changing  operating 
environment; (ii) develop the AEO clearance procedures; and (iii) optimise the AEO system. 

The  focus  of  the  issues  mentioned  by  Member  States  was  predominantly  on  initiatives  to 
maintain and improve relations with AEOs. Member States describe active communications 
with AEOs and awareness raising among economic operators of the AEO programme. These 
activities  take  place  through  websites,  professional  newspapers,  brochures  and  leaflets, 
seminars,  tutorials,  events  and  meetings  with  contact  persons.  For  instance,  the  Estonian 
respondents  report  having  organised  ‘seminars/tutorials  for  AEOs  on  how  to  comply  with 
customs  requirements’.  Likewise,  awareness  has  been  raised 
the  customs 
organisations  through  training  modules,  instructions  and  working  groups.  For  example,  in 
France,  a  seminar  was  held  in  December  2017  for  all  auditors  regarding  Union  Customs 
Code  requirements  on  AEOs.  Italy,  Spain  and  Slovakia  report  efforts  focused  on  regional 
customs offices, so as to harmonise and standardise customs practices across the country. 

inside 

These  activities  have  led  to  some  progress  according  to  most  Member  States,  above  all  in 
terms  of  improved  contacts  and  communications  with  economic  operators.  The  number  of 
operators applying for and receiving AEO status is also growing, and compliance with AEO 
conditions and criteria is higher than before. Inside the customs agencies, knowledge of the 
AEO programme has improved, resulting in better recognition of the AEOs as well as better 
quality audits. Cooperation within customs and with other national authorities has increased. 

There are also examples of improved audit procedures following active development efforts. 
For instance, in Belgium a pilot project (AEO-ICP) with a limited number of AEO operators 
included a specific audit on ICP internal procedures and the AEOs’ compliance in non-fiscal 
subjects.  The  aim  of  the  pilot  project  was  to  decrease  the  number  of  AEO  selections  for 
control  when  exporting  to  sensitive  destinations.  Based  on  the  results  of  the  pilot,  the 

58 

 
 
 
Belgian  customs  are  developing  a  working  method,  which  should  make  it  possible  to  set 
objective criteria to decrease the number of AEO control selections. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

9 

No 

16 

No reply 

3 

Only a minority of Member States reported facing problems in the implementation of sub-
action  6.1.1.  As  with  the  other  objectives  and  actions,  limited  resources  were  cited  as  a 
common  obstacle  for  progress  under  the  sub-action  (Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Italy); 
correspondingly, the programme is found to impose a heavy administrative burden both for 
customs  authorities  and  for  economic  operators  (Denmark).  In  addition  to  limited  human 
resources, data availability was also reported as a challenge in the United Kingdom. 

Other problems related to perceived weaknesses in the AEO programme more generally. For 
example, in some countries interest among economic operators is limited. In Cyprus this was 
due to economic operators not finding the programme attractive enough, whereas in Greece 
there  were  concerns  about  economic  operators’  ability  to  fulfil  requirements  on  IT  system 
security  (though  it  was  unclear  whether  this  issue  referred  to  national-  or  EU-level 
requirements). 

Austrian  customs  also  mentioned  several  fraud  cases  involving  forwarding  companies  and 
express  courier  services;  it  was  unclear  whether  these  had  led  to  improvements  to  the 
system.  In  addition,  outdated  or  otherwise  unsuitable  (national)  IT  systems  were  also 
reported to be hampering the AEO programmes of some Member States. 

6.1.2. 

ONGOING 

Identify  and  develop  enhanced  benefits  for  AEOs  to  be  given  by 
customs, propose and adopt adequate legal acts 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

3 

2 

16 

7 

0 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Results / progress made 

None 

Limited 

4 

4 

Some 

13 

A lot 

5 

No reply 

2 

Sub-action 6.1.2 is a medium-level priority for the Member States, with limited differences 
compared to the activities described under sub-actions 6.1.1; Member States often seem to 
view the two sub-actions as one. Focus in the open-ended responses on sub-action 6.1.2 was 
on communication with AEOs and awareness raising among them, with activities and media 
similar to those described above: websites, professional newspapers, brochures and leaflets, 
seminars, tutorials, events and meetings with contact persons. 

While most Member States do declare some progress on sub-action 6.1.2, descriptions of the 
progress  in  the  survey  responses  are  relatively  sparse.  Most  frequently,  the  respondents 
declared  that  the  controls  process  for  AEOs  had  been  smoothed:  for  example,  Germany 
reported  significant  improvement  in  the  automatic  recognition  of  AEOs  in  the  national 
customs clearance system, allowing for accelerated customs clearance. Similar measures are 
currently planned in Bulgaria, and several respondents mentioned reduced controls and more 
streamlined administrative processes. 

Other  areas  of  improvement  include  better  communications  with  AEOs  and  the  increasing 
number  of  AEO  status  applicants,  holders  and  trade  movements.  While  this  is  positive,  it 
shows that respondents have not clearly distinguished between sub-actions 6.1.1 and 6.1.2. 
As  for  improvement  in  communication  and  relations  with  AEOs,  and  awareness  raising 
among 
through  websites,  professional  newspapers, 
them,  communication  activities 
workshops and conferences have reportedly increased. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

11 

No 

12 

No reply 

5 

The  main  problem  reported  for  sub-action  6.1.2  is  limited  resources.  Belgium  and  the  UK 
highlight  that  Union  Customs  Code  requirements  and  other  EU  objectives  require  more 
resourcing  simultaneously  for  the  AEO  scheme  and  in  other  areas.  On  the  IT  systems  and 
processes  necessary  for  recognising  AEOs  in  the  risk  assessment  process,  the  Cypriot  and 
Romanian  authorities  noted  a  general  lack  of  such  resources  at  national  level,  while  the 
Latvian authorities noted specifically the burdensome, repeated updating of the AEO mutual 
recognition agreements list in the ICS (ENS). Another type of barrier is the lack of interest 
on behalf of AEOs, reported especially by the Greek authorities. Finally, Poland reported the 
apparently  ‘positive’  difficulty  of  there  simply  not  being  any  more  areas  in  which  further 
benefits for AEOs could be offered. 

Member States expressed different views as to the level of satisfaction of the AEOs with the 

60 

 
 
programme.  It  is  generally  recognised  that  there  is  room  for  constant  improvement. 
However,  some  Member  States  report  that  AEOs  find  the  number  and  types  of  benefits 
largely sufficient, whereas others think AEOs are rather dissatisfied with the situation. 

Member  States’  understanding  of  the  possibility  and  responsibility  to  offer  additional 
benefits to AEOs also seems to vary. Some respondents think that only the common benefits 
are necessary or even possible, whereas others report benefits that are apparently developed 
and offered at national level. 

Spain mentioned that it is exploring new benefits for AEOs certified within the EU as well 
as by third countries with mutual recognition agreements. 

Italy  provided  information  on  further  benefits  such  as  fast  corridors  to  compliant  traders. 
These  are  available  generally  when  quality  data  and  required  information  are  provided 
beforehand to customs so that it can perform risk analysis and appropriate control. 

Belgium  customs  meets  regularly  with  AEO  certified  traders  to  discuss  new  benefits  in 
addition  to  already  existing  national  AEO  benefits.  Decisions  on  additional  benefits  are 
communicated to the AEO. 

The  Netherlands  has  developed  for  AEOs  instructions  for  the  implementation  of  benefits 
(the ‘AEO staalkaart’). This document elaborates on the benefits related to traders and their 
specific role in the supply chain. AEOs have a dedicated ‘trader contact point’ with specific 
customs officers who will act as their point of contact. Regular meetings with AEOs are also 
hosted by customs. 

Poland listed benefits that have been introduced at national level for AEOs: 

  Shifting VAT payments to the day of a monthly VAT settlement. 
  Introduction of the ‘Ports 24 h’ programme, on the basis of which the required formalities 
related to the clearance of goods imported by sea to Poland should take no more than 24 
hours.  In  this  programme,  customs  has  a  coordinating  role  for  control  activities  of  all 
services operating in the Polish seaports. 

New information on AEOs’ size (Small and Medium Industries (SMIs), large companies or 
natural persons) started to be collected through the Economic Operator Systems/Authorised 
Economic  Operators  (EOS/AEO)  IT system  from 5 March 2018. Once the updating of  the 
AEO authorisations has been completed this information could allow for an analysis of the 
data  and,  depending  on  the  results  possible  target  measures  could  be  taken,  especially  for 
SMIs. 

The  Commission  is  working  to  develop  ‘eAEO  direct  trader  access’  that  from  1 October 
2019  will  give  traders  the  possibility  to  submit  their  AEO  application  and  receive  AEO 
decisions  electronically.  Traders  and  customs  in  EU  will  have  the  possibility  to 
communicate  each  other  via  the  eAEO  module  in  a  uniform  and  coherent  way.  Reducing 
manual data entry is expected to improve data quality.  

Action 6.2 

Improve the knowledge of supply chains, raise trade awareness and 

61 

 
 
 
6.2.1. 

ONGOING 

exploit valuable data available to trade 

Increase supply chain visibility by ensuring that valuable additional 
data  (not  required  by  customs  legislation)  available  to  traders  and 
made  available  to  customs  is  exploited  for  risk  management 
purposes  by  getting  access  to  economic  operators’  knowledge  and 
information 

Member States have been asked to report on the status of the sub-action, the results/progress 
made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

4 

1 

12 

10 

1 

Results / progress made 

None 

Limited 

7 

5 

Some 

11 

A lot 

3 

No reply 

2 

Sub-action  6.2.1  is  estimated  to  be  a  medium  to  low  priority  for  the  Member  States.  The 
most common activity within the sub-action seems to be the use of container status messages 
(CSMs)  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland, France, 
Poland,  Romania,  United  Kingdom),  which  Member  States  indeed  considered  important. 
However, as noted especially by the French and German authorities, CSMs have in fact been 
required by customs legislation since 2016. Consequently, they should today be in use in all 
Member States. 

However, the actual use of CSM data in risk management seems to vary from one Member 
State  to  another.  In  Bulgaria,  for  instance,  it  is  reportedly  used  ‘in  each  case  of  container 
tracing as part of risk analyses’. Meanwhile, the German administration finds that although 
sometimes  helpful  for  enhancing  routing  information,  routing  indicators  are  ‘rather 
supplementary  indicators’  within  the  overall  risk  analysis  process.  In  some  countries,  the 
role of CSM data in risk management is being further explored: for instance, in Belgium, a 
study has been carried out on integrating CSM data within the customs dashboard and risk 
management system. At EU level, Germany and Poland mentioned their participation in the 
Contraffic-ENS Project Group. The Austrian respondents noted that no additional data at all 
was provided by traders in the past, which suggests that the widespread use of CSMs can be 
regarded  as  progress  in  itself.  The  Finnish  and  French  administrations  highlighted  the  fact 

62 

 
 
 
 
that since the CSM system is very new, concrete results are still to emerge. 

Cooperation with companies on data that is in fact not legally required concerns the postal 
and  railway  sectors  especially.  In  Bulgaria  and  Lithuania,  customs  have  access  to  the 
information  systems  of  the  national  railway  companies  regarding  cargo-carrying  trains;  in 
Bulgaria,  the  same  applies  also  to  the  National  Electronic  Documentation  Centre  for 
Maritime Transport. Slovakia also reports ‘closer cooperation’ with the rail sector, which has 
reportedly resulted in better ENS data quality in the sector. The Slovak postal sector is also 
being supported by customs to meet the legal requirements of the Code. In Latvia, there is 
direct  information  exchange  between  customs  and  courier  companies,  who  provide  cargo 
manifests for further risk assessment. Similarly, in Belgium there is a pilot project to deploy 
airway bills data of express carriers for risk analysis and management. Poland reported that 
memoranda  of  understanding  have  been  signed  with  a  number  of  sea  carriers  that  have 
agreed  to  make  available  and  transfer  cargo  manifests  as  Customs  cargo  report  message 
(CUSCAR files), allowing for more effective and efficient pre-arrival targeting. 

Cooperation initiatives with other national authorities and at EU level to further the use of 
non-required  data  are  also  reported.  At  national  level,  for  instance,  Cyprus,  Latvia  and 
Poland mention a link between the customs system and the maritime single window, while 
Lithuania reports a common interface between the national customs risk management system 
and the Klaipeda seaport system. Sweden also cited general cooperation with other national 
authorities  in  this  regard,  but  without  going  into  more  detail.  In  Belgium,  a  national 
e-commerce  working  group  is  developing  the  use  of  data  provided  through  customs 
declarations. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

10 

No 

11 

No reply 

7 

Challenges  encountered  under  sub-action  6.2.1  concern  above  all  data  quality  (Spain, 
France)  and  availability  and  access  (Austria,  Cyprus,  Spain),  as  well  as  compatibility  of 
information  systems  (Belgium.  Bulgaria,  Spain,  Lithuania).  Overall,  it  seems  uncommon 
that customs administrations receive additional data from traders, and when they do, the data 
may  be  unsuitable  for  customs  use.  Both  systems  have  limited  information  on  goods  and 
very little information on seller, buyer, consignor and consignee, and therefore are of limited 
applicability  for  customs  risk  management.’  The  Romanian  administration  additionally 
reported that training is needed on how to use the CSM data, which could be obtained from 
OLAF. 

The Consistently Optimised REsilient ecosystem (CORE) project funded under the EU’s 7th 
framework  programme  will  end  in  June  2018.  The  Commission  services  are  currently 
reviewing  the  final  policy  recommendations.  The  results  of  the  different  supply  chain 
demonstrators were presented on 11 April 2018. 

1 August 2018  will  see  the  start  of  ‘PROFILE’  a  new  Horizon  2020-funded  project  on 
architectures  and  organisations  and  big  data  analytics  for  customs  risk  management.  Risk 

63 

 
 
management experts from Belgian, Dutch, Swedish and Estonian customs authorities will be 
part of the project, alongside data analysis experts from the EU’s Joint Research Centre. This 
project seeks to accelerate the uptake of state-of-the-art data analytics and incorporation of 
new data sources for more effective and efficient customs risk management. 

OLAF is currently developing a data analysis project together with the Commission’s Joint 
Research  Centre  and  Member  States,  in  coordination  with  DG  TAXUD,  with  the  aim  to 
research, support, and facilitate the sharing of, knowledge, good practice and lessons learnt 
in data analysis for customs antifraud purposes. The ultimate objective is to strengthen the 
analytical capacities of the Member States and build a community of practice in the domain, 
improving collaboration and thus bringing a genuine EU added value. 

In  2018,  a  pan-European  Customs  Practitioners  Network  (PEN-CP)  will  be  created  under 
Horizon  2020.  This  project  seeks  the  participation  of  14  customs  administrations  from  the 
EU and third countries  

The aim is to create an ecosystem for interoperability, knowledge sharing and innovation to 
contribute to the improvement of European security through more efficient control of illicit 
trade flows. 

6.2.2 

ONGOING 

Improve data quality and knowledge on supply chain vulnerabilities 
through  close  engagement  with  trade  organisations  at  EU  and 
Member State level 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  on  the  status  of  the  sub-action,  the 
results/progress made (compared to longer-term aims) and the use of the results 

Status of the sub-action 

No activity 

Low priority 

Medium 
priority 

High priority 

No reply 

8 

4 

11 

2 

3 

Results / progress made 

None 

Limited 

Some 

7 

4 

7 

A lot 

1 

No reply 

9 

Sub-action 6.2.2 is a relatively low priority for the Member States. Several noted simply the 
continuation of business as usual, without any new initiatives being taken. The few Member 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
States  that  described  activities  in  further  detail  mentioned  cooperation  activities  with 
companies  in  the  form  of  e.g.  agreements  (Cyprus,  Italy,  Poland)  or  committees  (Cyprus, 
Germany, Ireland, Lithuania). Awareness raising through campaigns, workshops or sharing 
relevant  information  on  websites  was  also  mentioned  by  some  Member  States  (Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Latvia. 

Progress cited on this action was also modest. A few countries reported learning effects on 
the  side  of  customs  or  economic  operators,  particularly  as  regards increased  knowledge  of 
economic operators and/or of supply chain risks. Luxembourg cited annual participation in 
events aimed at trade organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce, and liaises with such 
organisations  in  this  context.  Other  Member  States  also  reported  similar  activities,  albeit 
mostly in connection with other sub-actions. In contrast, in its answers to the survey Poland 
reported:  (i)  a  memorandum  of  understanding  on  cooperation  with  maritime  container 
carriers; and (ii) the provision of marine manifests in electronic form that was consulted on 
and  agreed  between  the  National  Revenue  Administration,  maritime  administration  and 
numerous sea carriers. Aside from this, very few examples of activities were given. 

Existence of challenges, difficulties and barriers 

Yes 

2 

No 

14 

No reply 

12 

Very  few  Member  States  reported  having  faced  problems  in  their  work  under  sub-action 
6.2.2, while the majority answered negatively or provided no response. Of the two Member 
States referring to problems faced, the Polish authorities noted that container operators had 
experienced  problems  in  adapting  the  format  of  transferred  data  to  the  required  message 
standards.  The  Spanish  authorities  cited  difficulties  related  to  ENS  declarations  and  the 
division  of  responsibilities  within  companies.  More  specifically,  since  company 
representatives in Spain often had little knowledge of the information provided in the ENS 
declaration,  they  were  of  little  help  in  solving  problems  related  to  incomplete  or  incorrect 
declarations. 

The  outcomes  of  two  projects  (i.e.  the  CORE  work  package  19  and  the  DTLF)  have 
contributed to this action. 

The improvement of data quality and filing arrangements as described under Objective 1 is 
also closely linked to the development of this action. 

6.2.3 

ONGOING 

Identify  existing  solutions  and,  where  necessary,  put  forward 
appropriate solutions 

This action is scheduled to be partly supported by ICS2 e.g. integration of ENS-CSM data as 

65 

 
 
 
 
part of the activities under Block 2.1. implementation as from ICS2 Release 2 onwards. 

The development of the common information sharing environment (CISE) is promoting the 
exchange  of  relevant  information  among  the  different  authorities  involved  in  the  maritime 
domain  (see  action  6.2.1).  This  platform  will  have  to  be  further  implemented  and  used  as 
widely as possible to obtain the best operational results. This will be a challenge from 2018 
and onwards. 

An administrative arrangement initiated by the Commission will be implemented over 2016-
2017  to  provide  a  preliminary  solution  design  for  the  operational  integration  of  CSMs  in 
real-time customs risk management and in flexible data analytics. 

Also contributing to this action are: (i) the development of the tobacco traceability solution 
required  under  Article 15  of  the  Tobacco  Products  Directive;  (ii)  advice  on  customs  risk 
management needs;  (iii) access to  the data for CRM processes;  and (iv) referencing of the 
solution at the relevant moment in the customs declarations. 

6.2.4 

ONGOING 

Implement  the  appropriate  IT  solution(s),  if  necessary,  to  ensure 
that  valuable  data  available  to  operators is  exploited  by  authorities 
for risk management purposes 

This action is scheduled to be partly supported by ICS2 e.g. integration of ENS-CSM data as 
part of the activities under Block 2.1. implementation as from ICS2 Release 2 onwards. 

Action 6.3 

Promote  compliance  management  by  customs  administrations  in 
close cooperation with trade 

6.3.1. 

COMPLETED 

Identify  best  practices  in  the  implementation  of  compliance 
management  by  comparing  national  programmes,  and  continue 
raising awareness among economic operators of the importance of 
managing their own compliance with customs regulations 

This  sub-action  was  regarded  as  completed  in  the  previous  progress  report.  The  respective 
Project Group on Compliance, which was mapping practices including client segmentation, 
presented its findings in December 2015. Since then, there have been no substantial further 
developments in this area. 

Client  segmentation  can  be  described  as  an  evolving  working  practice  in  which  customs 
categorise economic operators into distinct groups with common characteristics and/or needs 
that  may  require  similar  treatments.  Client  segmentation  enables  customs  to  develop  and 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
improve  targeted  controls  and  services  related  to  customers’  needs,  thereby  enhancing  the 
efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and deployment of resources. It can be used for 
compliance management, but has also been implemented for many other purposes. 

Not  all  Member  States  have  experience  with  client  segmentation  and  there  are  different 
purposes and approaches used in this area. Nevertheless, some generally valid aspects were 
recognised in a group of selected Member States.  

6.3.2. 

ONGOING 

Explore  possibilities  for  establishing  a  harmonised  approach  to 
client  segmentation  as  an  element  of  the  overall  concept; 
complementing  the  AEO  programme  and  supporting  more 
effective and efficient risk management 

The outcomes of the Customs 2020 Compliance Project Group will provide important input 
for  taking  forward  this  action  to  explore  possibilities  for  a  more  harmonised  approach  to 
client segmentation. The results of the project group are based on experiences of just seven 
Member  States,  and  the  purpose  and  approach  of  client  segmentation  varies  between  those 
Member States. 

Nevertheless, the main conclusions are: 

The objectives of client segmentation are in general: 

  decision-making process on controls — these help to balance controls and facilitation; 
  proactive customer relationship management — marketing and communication; 
  national planning and resource allocation. 

Typical segments of traders include: 

  known or not known; 
  scale/size of the company (not only from a customs perspective); 
  subjective risks of the economic operator (based in part on compliance history, 
sometimes taking into account type of industry, goods, authorisation, etc.). 

The segmentation process and management varies as well (range of data sources, degree of 
‘automation’, frequency/flexibility of change of segmentation). 

Some  Member  States  directly  integrate  information  about  clients  in  automated  risk-scoring 
systems. 

The main challenges identified are: lack of good data for automated use, recourse to manual 
analysis and complex system structures. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.3.3. 

NOT 
STARTED 

Subject  to  the  feasibility  of  harmonised  standards  in  the  area  of 
client segmentation and their possible incorporation into customs 
risk  management,  put 
the  appropriate  approach, 
supported by the business case. 

forward 

Not being pursued at this time 

Action 6.4 

Promote  the  re-use  of  customs  data  submitted  electronically  by 
economic  operators  to  streamline  customs  procedures,  reduce 
costs and improve efficiency 

6.4.1. 

ONGOING 

Identify,  in  cooperation  with  trade,  formalities  and  processes 
where  already  submitted  and  available  data  can  be  re-used 
without legal obstacles or additional risks.  

The  Code  legislative  package  established  a  legal  framework  that  guarantees  stability  and 
clarity  for  postal  and  express  carriers.  Nevertheless,  further  work  is  needed  as  at  this  point 
there is no unanimous view in the Member States on data re-use and how this would function. 

As  regards  the  establishment  of  the  legal  framework,  the  option  of  re-using  data  already 
submitted and made available by trade for other formalities and processes is being discussed 
in the context of the CN2318. The question is how the data elements of the CN23 could be 
made available and re-used for lodging a safety and security declaration (ENS) as well as for 
lodging a customs declaration. Several meetings were organised with Member State and trade 
participation to analyse the options in the context of ‘pilots’. 

While  there  is  general  agreement  on  the  benefits  of  re-using  data,  sometimes  difficulties 
emerge with regard to data protection, but also practical issues such as: at which time is the 
data available, who is in possession of the data, for which purpose is the data needed, etc. 

This is partially finalised regarding Article 144 of the Code Delegated Act. Work is ongoing 
in particular on the re-use of data in the e-commerce context, where further discussions with 
A2, DIH, the ICS2 project team, C1 (VAT) are required. 

This  action is  covered  partially  by ICS2 as  part  of ‘three releases’ implementation  process. 
Data provided for the purpose of ENS will be re-used by trade and Member States for further 
steps  in  entry  procedures,  such  as  arrival,  presentation  and  temporary  storage.  For  postal 
consignments, trade will be in a position to re-use ENS data also for the purpose of customs 
clearance  as  far  as  goods  falling  under  the  simplified  customs  declaration  provisions  are 
concerned. 

18 ENS data for goods moved under the UPU Acts. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.4.2. 

COMPLETED 

Analyse,  in  cooperation  with  trade,  whether  re-use  of  data  will 
increase  efficiency  of 
identified  procedures  for  economic 
operators and customs administrations 

The data requirements as defined in the Code legislative package (see Objective 1) have been 
aligned with the WCO data model. The analysis was carried out with the support of Customs 
Code  Expert  group  and  in  close  cooperation  with  relevant  stakeholders,  resulting  in  the 
preparation  of  new  legal  provisions  (data  annexes  to  the  Code  Delegated  Act  and 
Implementing  Act).  The  analysis  and  consultation  on  the  Code  Delegated  Act  and 
Implementing Act data requirements were finished and agreed with Member States and trade 
stakeholders at the end of 2015. 

This  action is  covered  partially  by ICS2 as  part  of ‘three releases’ implementation  process. 
Data provided for the purpose of ENS will be re-used by trade and Member States for further 
steps  in  entry  procedures,  such  as  arrival,  presentation  and  temporary  storage.  For  postal 
consignments,  trade  will be in  position to  re-use ENS data also for the purpose of customs 
clearance  as  far  as  goods  falling  under  the  simplified  customs  declaration  provisions  are 
concerned.  

6.4.3. 

COMPLETED 

Put  forward  appropriate  proposals  to  agree  with  Member  States 
and economic operators 

As  already  reported  in  2016,  the  EU  customs  data  model  can  be  seen  as  a  supporting 
instrument  for  Member  States  and  trade.  This  data  model  also  provides  for  specific  views 
such as the ‘consignment view’, which allows for the mapping of the EU safety and security 
data against the WCO data model. 

6.4.4. 

COMPLETED 

Draft adequate legal basis to enable and support implementation 
in practice 

As already reported in 2016, the analysis of the Code Delegated Act and Implementing Act 
data requirements has been finished and agreed with Member States and trade stakeholders.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.7  Objective  7:  Tap  the  potential  of  international  cooperation,  to  improve  risk 
management of the supply chain, for better identification of risks, more effective 
risk mitigation and cost reduction for operators and authorities 

Exchange of customs-related information with third countries 

Cooperation  and  exchange  of  customs-related  information  with  third  countries  play  an 
important  role  in  the  area  of  the  Customs  Union  and  common  commercial  policy. 
Cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  can  improve  customs  risk  management  and  may 
make  legitimate  trade  faster  and  less  costly  by  targeting  customs  controls  and  simplifying 
customs  procedures.  Along  with  mandatory  pre-arrival  declarations,  it  contributes  to  the 
security  and  safety  of  the  EU  by  strengthening  controls  to  block  the  entry  of  hazardous 
goods, arms, explosives and dual-use goods and to prevent IPR infringements and the entry 
and trafficking of drug precursors. 

Member  Sates  stressed  the  importance  of  the  subject  in  their  Council  Conclusions  on 
Enhanced  Exchange  of  Customs  Related  Information  with  Third  Countries  adopted  on  19 
December 2016 and explicitly invited the Commission to consider coming forward, buy the 
end of 2017, with proposals for a policy framework and, where necessary, Union legislation 
on  enhancing  the  exchange  of  information   between  the  Customs  Authorities  of  the  EU 
Member States and those of third countries in the area of common commercial policy. 

Against  this  background,  a  High  Level  Seminar  on  the  topic  was  hosted  by  the  Bulgarian 
Presidency  on  7-8  June  2018.  At  the  seminar  participants:  (i)  reviewed  the  current  state  of 
play  in  the  area  of  the  exchange  of  customs-related  information  with  third  countries  and 
confirmed the growing importance of such exchanges as well as the timely need to act; (ii) 
identified  the  needs  for  enhancing  exchanges  of  customs  related  information  with  third 
countries;  and  (iii)  discussed  and  identified  the  potential  scope,  purposes,  benefits, 
conditions, means and constraints for enhanced exchanges of customs-related information. In 
the  conclusions  of  this  seminar  it  was  agreed  that  a  strategic  and  consistent  approach  is 
needed  in  choosing  with  whom  information  should  be  exchanged,  what  should  be  the 
concrete types of information and what should be the concrete purposes for exchanges, taking 
into account current financial and security risks, trade patterns and political interests.     

Agreements and projects 

EU-Norway:  

The  IT  deployment  of  the  automatic  mutual  recognition  agreement  (MRA)  exchange  with 
Norway started on 30 January 2018 (already exists with Switzerland). 

EU-RU Project Group on border issues: 

The  strategic  framework  for  EU  —  Russia  customs  cooperation  includes  the  following 
objectives:  (i)  trade  facilitation  on  the  basis  of  operator  reliability  —  use  of  the  AEO 
programme  for  simplifying  trade:  identify  the  possibility  of  creating  an  EU-Russia  green 
corridor; and (ii) identifying opportunities for cooperation on risk management. It was agreed 

70 

 
 
 
at the last meeting, held in Saint Petersburg on 17-18 March 2017 that the next meeting of the 
expert group will be organised by DG TAXUD. 

EU-Ukraine:  project  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategic  framework  for  customs 
cooperation 

A  Project  Group  meeting  took  place  on  8-9 December 2016  while  the  Customs  Sub-
Committee meeting held on 15 June 2017. Ukraine has prepared its AEO legislation based on 
EU  recommendations  and  support  (not  adopted  yet).  Ukraine  will  continue  preparations  on 
implementation tools, namely secondary legislation, AEO Guidelines for administration and 
business, and training for regional and local officers. 

EU-Moldova:  project  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategic  framework  for  customs 
cooperation 

The  Project Group  meeting  took  place  on  13 March 2017  and  the  Customs  Sub-Committee 
met  on  16 November 2017.  Moldovan  legislation  is  compatible  with  the  EU  AEO 
programme.  The  roadmap  on  an  AEO  MRA  should  start  to  be  implemented.  Moldova  and 
Romania are continuing an AEO pilot project on unilateral recognition of EU AEOs. 

EU-Georgia:  project  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategic  framework  for  customs 
cooperation 

The Project Group meeting took place on 12 October 2017 and the Customs Sub-Committee 
met on 17 May 2017. 

Workshops  and  study  visits  on  risk  management  for  Georgia  should  continue.  The 
Commission was asked to explore methods by which Georgia and the EU could exchange of 
risk management-related information. 

Project Group on customs dialogue with Belarus 

The action plan for the EU-Belarus customs dialogue for the period 2016-2019 includes two 
objectives:  (i)  risk  analysis  and  risk  management;  and  (ii)  increased  business  awareness  of 
applicable  customs  laws (customs-business cooperation programmes).  Additionally, a study 
visit  for  Belarus  has  been  requested  to  share  EU  experience  and  discuss  an  early  warning 
mechanism. 

Action 7.1 

Develop international cooperation through multilateral and bilateral 
initiatives 

7.1.1. 

ONGOING 

On the basis of the objectives and priorities of the overall strategy, 
develop  international  cooperation  models  in  the  area  of  risk 
management  and  supply  chain  security,  including  AEO  mutual 
recognition  schemes,  development  of  trusted  and  fluid  trade  lanes 

71 

 
 
 
 
and necessary exchanges of information 

AEO MRA negotiations with Hong Kong are suspended. The first step has been concluded, 
namely  to  assess  the  legislative  acts  of  the  respective  programmes  to  determine  the 
compatibility of the programmes. Next steps are the IT-related issues and the determination 
of  equivalence  and  compatibility  in  the  practical  implementation  of  the  two  programmes. 
However,  the  legal  basis  that  will  allow  the  EU  to  formalise  mutual  recognition  is  not 
expected to be available in the near future and therefore work is suspended. 

is 

the 

trade  facilitation  policy 

Enlargement countries are in  the process of aligning  their customs legislation with the EU 
acquis  and  with  the  assistance  of  the  EU  and  its  Member  States.  A  key  tool  in  the  EU 
customs  risk  management  and 
introduction  and 
implementation  of  the  AEO  concept.  An  AEO  regional  action  plan  has  been  drafted.  A 
leading role in matters of trade facilitation in the Western Balkans has also been given to the 
Secretariat  of  CEFTA  (the  Central  European  Free  Trade  Agreement).  In  aligning  the 
national AEO programmes with the conditions in Annex III to CEFTA Additional Protocol 5 
(AP5), CEFTA parties will indeed also be aligning with an important part of the EU customs 
acquis. The Commission's Western Balkans Strategy19 equally envisages to support this as a 
priority  and  to  further  facilitate  EU-Western  Balkans  trade,  including  through  the 
development of mutual recognition programmes of AEO programmes between the EU and 
the Western Balkans on the basis of CEFTA. Technical support and assistance is provided 
through  national  experts  of  the  AEO  expert  network.  Priorities  of  the  Council  and  the 
Commission  in  this  area  are:  (i)  strengthening  the  EU  operational  partnership  with 
enlargement  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidate  countries  in  the  fight  against 
international crime and border security; and (ii) stressing the importance of joint efforts on 
countering illicit trafficking with the use of internal security tools (AEO, risk management, 
aviation security procedures in line with international standards). 

The ‘Smart and Secure Trade Lanes’ (SSTL) pilot project between EU and China and Hong 
Kong customs introduced trusted and accelerated trade lanes models for air and rail, on top 
of the existing trade lanes in the maritime domain. 

7.1.2. 

ONGOING 

Pursue  the  existing  bilateral  cooperation,  including  piloting  with 
third  countries,  with  a  view  to  reaching  a  stable  operational  and 
legal basis for full implementation 

For  exchanging  information  from  customs  transaction  systems  for  the  purpose  of  SSTL 
between EU and the Chinese and Hong Kong customs administrations, the following actions 
have been completed: (i) in-depth analysis of the business processes for maritime transport; 
(ii)  analysis  of  the  data  availability  in  the  national  systems;  (iii)  data  mapping;  and  (iv) 

19 COM(2018)65. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
message  specification.  Additionally,  the  user  requirements  (international  component)  with 
the Member States for the automated SSTL data exchange for phase 3 have been defined. 

The SSTL business case for the IT internal part has been approved and in the next months 
the business process modelling for the internal part and the functional requirements will be 
prepared.  Basically,  the  SSTL  automated  data  exchange  should  focus  on  the  exchange  of 
customs  export  declaration/transaction  data,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  integration  of  the 
existing IT systems and processes at EU level via SPEED220, on the other.  It will include: 
(i)  flagging  of  export  declarations/transaction  data  and  their  real-time  transmission  to 
SPEED2  (on  the  export  side);  and  (ii)  validation  and  real-time  transmission  of  customs 
declaration/transaction data from China/and Hong Kong Customs to Member State systems 
(on the entry side) via a repository, including the link with the ENS (import control system).   

7.1.3. 

ONGOING 

Develop international cooperation through multilateral and bilateral 
initiatives 

CORE FP7 project:  

The  results  of  the  different  supply  chain  demonstrators,  with  the  involvement  of  third 
countries such as the US and Kenya, were presented on 11 April 2018, together with part of 
the final report that will be available in June. 

Action 7.2 

Implement  appropriate  cost-effective  IT  solutions 
international cooperation 

to  enable 

7.2.1. 

ONGOING 

Implement  necessary 
enabling 
cost-effective 
international  cooperation  to  support  EU  customs  authorities  in 
detecting risks with the use of utility blocks (UB 1 — exchange of 
AEO  mutual  recognition  data  and  information  from  customs 
transaction systems; and UB 2 — relevant risk information) 

solutions 

IT 

As  already  reported  in  2016,  the  EU  has  concluded  agreements  on  customs  security 
measures with Norway, Switzerland, Andorra, the US, Japan and China. An automated data 
exchange solution has already been deployed for the exchange of data between the EU and 
China, Japan, Switzerland, Norway and the US. 

20 Flexible and secure portal interfacing EU Customs applications and the external world. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Action 7.3 

Ensure  that the  EU  and its  Member  States  play a  proactive role in 
the development of global standards in the relevant multilateral fora 

7.3.1. 

ONGOING 

Continue ensuring the EU’s input and leading role in establishment 
of international standards 

The  EU’s  input  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  international  standards,  namely  the 
‘utility  blocks’  that  are  either  approved  or  still  under  development.  There  are  three  utility 
blocks (UB1 — exchange of AEO MR data; UB2 — exchange of information from customs 
transaction  systems;  and  (iii)  UB3  —  exchange  of  risk-relevant  information)  in  which  the 
EU took or takes part in the development. 

7.3.2. 

ONGOING 

Ensure that the international norms and standards are respected and 
implemented in the EU 

This  is  a  permanently  ongoing  action.  Examples  of  recent  implementation  of  international 
standards  are:  (i)  the  Union  Customs  Code  Delegated  Act/Implementing  Act  data 
requirements  (Union  Customs  Code  Delegated  Act/Implementing  Act  Annex  B)  based  on 
the  WCO  data  model;  and  (ii)  the  EU  contributions  to  the  review  of  the  WCO  SAFE 
framework of standards (see actions 7.3.1 and 7.1.3). 

74 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
3  PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK 

3.1   Introduction 

In the 2016 Council conclusions on the first progress report on the implementation of the EU 
Strategy  and  action  plan  for  customs  risk  management,  the  Commission  was  invited  to 
develop  a  performance  and  monitoring  framework  so  that  the  strategy’s  implementation 
could be monitored more systematically and robustly in the future. The Commission enlisted 
the help of a team of consultants to assist in this task and to collect and analyse data for the 
second progress report on the strategy. 

The Commission has begun to work on this system, including the development of indicators 
and  sources  of  evidence  to  efficiently  monitor  the  strategy.  The  following  points  of 
discussion  are  intended  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  further  reflection  with  Member  States  in  an 
appropriate working group. 

As a starting point, there are two main steps for developing a monitoring framework. 

  First, having a common understanding of the strategy’s intervention logic. This will 
make it possible to identify and structure the strategy’s main objectives and expected 
results, thereby helping to determine what should be measured/monitored to assess 
performance. 

  Second, using the intervention logic as a foundation with a view to developing the 
indicators and sources of evidence that will inform the monitoring framework. 

3.2  Developing indicators and sources of evidence to monitor the strategy 

The intervention logic provides the basis for an effective monitoring system. This is because 
the key outputs, results and outcomes defined in the intervention logic determine what needs 
to be measured to monitor progress on implementing the strategy and (to the extent possible) 
its effects. 

The  building  blocks  of  the  system  to  monitor  the  implementation  and  performance  of  the 
strategy in the future will be a series of indicators, covering the intended outputs, results and 
outcomes under all of the objectives. 

In  identifying  appropriate  indicators,  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  core  principles  of 
good  monitoring,  which  include:  (i)  comprehensiveness  (coverage  of  all  objectives);  (ii) 
proportionality  (minimising  the  burden  of  data  collection);  (iii)  and  minimal  duplication 
(making  use  of  data  sources  that  are  already  available).  In  particular,  the  indicators  should 
draw on existing monitoring or performance measurement frameworks to the extent possible. 
This  is  especially  true  for  the  Customs  Union  Performance  (CUP)  project  and  evaluation 
cycle  of  the  common  risk  management  framework  (CRMF),  which  are  already  allocated 
substantial  resources  at  EU  and  Member  State  levels,  and  which  cover  some  of  the  same 
issues as the strategy.  

75 

 
 
 
 
Putting  these  principles  into  practice,  the  output  indicators  will  relate  to  the  impact  of  the 
various  actions.  At  the  output  level  this  includes  such  deliverables  as  new  legislative  acts 
adopted,  IT  systems  developed,  analytical  studies  completed,  collaborative  agreements 
concluded  and  new  customs  working  practices  introduced.  Relevant  indicators  will  be  data 
identified and collected data from relevant actors, in a similar way to what has been done for 
the present progress reporting exercise. 

The indicators at the results and outcomes levels are more challenging to define. They relate 
less directly to individual actions and their deliverables, but should aim to provide relevant 
measures  of  progress  made  (based  at  least  partly  on  the  cumulative  effects  of  the  actions) 
towards the objectives pursued by the strategy and hence, its effectiveness. 

With  the  above  considerations  in  mind,  the  following  paragraphs  contain  initial  ideas  and 
suggestions  for  the  results  and  outcome  indicators  under  each  of  the  objectives,  drawing 
where possible on the CUP project and CRMF evaluation cycle. The proposed indicators will 
need  to  be  refined  and  operationalised  further,  in  consultation  with  national  customs 
authorities and other relevant stakeholders. Depending on the resources available, the mainly 
quantitative indicators proposed could be supplemented with qualitative indicators to provide 
more  detail  on  the  issues  of  interest.  The  indicators  should  also  be  updated  periodically  to 
take account of policy and operational developments. 

Objective 1: Data quality and filing arrangements 

This objective is to be achieved primarily via new legal requirements for economic operators 
to submit data as part of their entry summary declarations (ENS), and the development and 
implementation of appropriate IT solutions to facilitate this. While the legal basis for this has 
been  adopted,  the  main  IT  solution  in  question  (ICS2)  has  not  yet  been  launched,  meaning 
that the desired results and outcomes cannot be observed yet. In anticipation of ICS2 going 
live (expected to be in 2021), it will need to be considered how its use can best be monitored 
(in  terms  of  the  provision  of  data  on  international  supply  chain  movements).  Potential 
indicators could include: 

 

 

 

the additional data economic operators will be legally required to provide under ICS2 
(in comparison with the situation pre-ICS2); 

the number of ENS submitted/processed via ICS2 (cf. CUP indicators on ICS); 

the  quality  of  ENS  submitted/processed  via  ICS2: 
language/alphabet  used, 
completeness of the declarations (persons involved, codification of risk analysis data 
fields, goods descriptions) and other factors (cf. CRMF evaluation cycle pilot report); 

  economic operators’ (EOs') rate of compliance with the new requirements; 

  Member States' readiness to feed new date elements in Surveillance 3; 

  shortcoming in Member States to achieve this objective, e.g. legal, IT wise etc. 

Objective 2: Access to and use of data by customs authorities 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
The  second  objective  relates  to  the  sharing  and  use  of  the  data  submitted  by  economic 
operators (see above). Again, until ICS2 is fully operational, it appears unlikely this can be 
monitored.  We  understand  that  at  present  discussions  are  ongoing  about  the  exact  ways  in 
which  such  data  will  be  shared  and  made  available  (e.g.  automatically  or  manually/on 
request).  Once  customs  authorities  have  the  ability  to  access,  use  and  share  the  additional 
risk-relevant information, it should be monitored to what extent they are able (or choose) to 
do so in practice. Indicators for this purpose could include: 

 

 

 

 

 

the level of sharing of data on movements of goods along the supply chain; 

the level of sharing of risk analysis results; 

the level of sharing of control results and related information; 

the  level  of  cooperation  between  Customs  and  Market  Surveillance  Authorities 
(MSA); 

the  level  of  cooperation  between  Customs  and  Postal  authorities  and  online  big 
platforms to tackle low value consignments. 

Objective 3: Better targeted controls 

As noted above, this objective lies at the heart of the strategy, in the sense that in a more or 
less direct way, all the other objectives should ultimately contribute to enabling customs to 
target their controls better in terms of when and where they take place. A significant amount 
of potentially relevant data on controls is collected as part of the CUP project, and it would 
appear  appropriate  to  also  rely  (at  least  partly)  on  this  data  to  try  to  measure  whether  risk-
based  controls  increasingly  occur  at  the  most  appropriate  time  and  place.  This  could  be 
achieved through the use of a combination of existing indicators listed under the ‘Controls’ 
chapter of the CUP: 

 

rates  of  controls  of  different  types  (covering  clearance,  post-clearance  and  post-
release controls as well as documentary controls and physical controls); 

 

results of different types of controls (e.g. the percentage that detect irregularities); 

  detection rate (ratio between total established amount in the total gross TOR collected 

by Member States) 

 

the proportion of controls based on (different types of) risk management (risk profiles 
based and random element controls). 

Objective 4: Effective implementation of the CRMF 

The  fourth  objective  is  very  broad,  and  covers  the  effective  implementation  of  the  CRMF 
across Member States, which (with appropriate support from the EU) are expected to identify 
and  address  weaknesses  and  work  towards  the  continuous  improvement  of  the  framework 
and how it is applied. To monitor progress towards this objective, it would seem appropriate 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
to  rely  heavily  on  data  already  being  collected  as  part  of  the  CRMF  evaluation  cycle. 
Examples of indicators that are potentially relevant for the strategy include: 

 

 

 

 

the  number  of  items  subject  to  Common  Risk  Criteria  (CRC)  analysis,  and  the 
number of automated hits and final hits; 

the number of false positives; 

the level of system usage of Risk Information Forms (RIFs) (expressed  e.g. through 
the number of RIFs issued through the CRMS), RIF quality (level of completion and 
precision), and the relevance and timeliness of feedback; 

results  on  Priority  Control  Areas  (PCA)  and    Joint  Customs  Operations  (JCO) 
launched; 

 

the number of positive results with random based controls; 

  controls  on  simplified  procedures  (authorisations  and  communication  systems  with 

economic operators). 

Objectives 5-7: Cooperation with other actors 

Objectives  5,  6  and  7  refer  to  enhanced  cooperation  between  customs  and  other  competent 
authorities, traders, and third countries and international fora respectively. This cooperation is 
intended  to  improve  the  availability  of  relevant  data  and  information  for  risk  management 
purposes, which is an important enabling factor for achieving the objectives of the strategy as 
a whole. Monitoring the results and outcomes of such cooperation is likely to be challenging, 
as  the  effects  on  risk  management  practices  can  be  rather  indirect.  Taking  a  proportionate 
approach, a number of indicators from the CUP should be considered: 

  administrative  assistance 

indicators  on 

the  numbers  of  requests/answers  for 

administrative assistance sent and received within the EU/with third countries; 

 

 

 

the number of participations in the activities of the customs programme; 

the  number  of  AEOs  and  related  sub-indicators  (e.g.  numbers  of  applications, 
rejections, revocations, suspensions etc.); 

the  number  of  controls  per  AEO,  compared  with  the  number  of  controls  per  non-
authorised economic operator; 

 

the total number of man-days spent on technical assistance to non-EU countries. 

78