2Nd Ems Group Meeting - Report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

Directorate C - Maritime transport C.2 - Maritime transport policy, Ports & Inland waterways

22 June 2011 Meeting Report eMS Expert group meeting on the implementation of the Reporting Formalities directive 16 June, 2011

Gener a l The meeting was held at the Commission premises in the Conference Centre A. Borschette, in Brussels. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss on the definition of Single Window and to identify the dedicated sub-groups for notifications. Additionally, presentations were given by EMSA on SafeSeaNet, by DG TAXUD on Customs, DG HOME on Schengen border code and DG MOVE on TEN-T funding possibilities. Finally, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) presented the UN Recommendation 33 on Single Window, the enterprise architecture and the various developments that UNECE supports worldwide. The meeting had 26 members, 8 observers, 12 Commission officials and one UNECE official present. Conclusions and proposals

 1st meeting report and the Rules of procedure were approved.  Members asked for rapid establishment of dedicated subgroups for each notification in order to define the business rules and identify the data elements for the notifications. Five groups were identified: 1. General maritime – Arrival notification, dangerous goods, waste, FALs 1 and 7 2. Customs - Entry summary declaration, FALs 2, 3 and 4 3. Border control - Border checks on persons, FALs 5 and 6 4. MARSEC – Security notification (group already existing – see the presentation later) 5. Health – Maritime declaration of health  Members pushed forward for the mandate of the sub-groups should be defined as soon as possible while the first meetings of the groups should be held in September. Furthermore, they emphasised to have these groups well coordinated by the Commission.  Furthermore, five possible horizontal groups were identified: transposition, single window, interoperability, confidentiality and data protection, and security. These groups will be accommodated when appropriate.  Members agreed that the secretariat should send the agenda as soon as possible and not later than fifteen days prior to the meeting. The rules of procedure for eMS will be modified accordingly  Furthermore, the second expert of MS will be named as "member" instead of "observer". The reimbursement article will define that only one member per MS will be covered. The article 8 on opinions will be changed to reflect the votes of the MS present instead of members present.  EMSA presented (slides available in the eMS CircaBC library) SafeSeaNet, which was initiated in October 2004 and became operational in 2009, and is current used to exchange four notifications. With its current mandate and resources EMSA can implement the exchange of Security and Waste messages. The eMS group will evaluate the impacts on the possible limited implementation to the other messages before any technical implementation work is done.  TAXUD presentation (slides in the eMS CircaBC respective meeting folder): o MASP (Customs Multiannual Strategic Plan) sets down the vision, objectives, the strategic framework and the milestones to implement the electronic customs initiative. The MASP is revised annually and the required resources made available based on it. o The electronic messages are exchanged through Common Communication Network/Common System Interface (CCN/CSI). The entry summary declaration is included since 1 January 2011. o The customs processes can be separated into pre-arrival phase and declaration phase. o Based on the presentation, at present, there is no plan by customs to use the FAL forms, as the custom related information have no direct relation with the FAL Forms. However, MOVE and TAXUD will be looking into this as the purpose is to avoid any re-transmissions of information.  EPCSA stated that cargo manifests should not be included into the implementation. The Commission position is that if a standardised cargo manifest is provided electronically instead of cargo declaration and it provides all the information required by the cargo declaration then in principle it should be accepted in order to avoid the need of double transmissions.  HOME presentation on Schengen border code (uploaded to the CircaBC respective meeting folder) set clearly the requirements of their legislation. Among others, o Crew and passenger lists containing information required in FAL Form 5 (Crew List) and FAL Form 6 (Passenger List) and visa or residence permit number o Time for transmitting lists aligned to Art. 4 of the RFD o Confirmation of receipt to be sent to captain o No electronic system is planned to be introduced to exchange FAL forms 5 and 6 at EU level.  Several members raised the issue that user needs should not be forgotten towards the implementation of the Single Window.  There is a possibility to fund the national single window implementations through the TEN-T budget. The meeting participants were invited to the TEN-T info day on 29 June in Brussels on calls for proposals for funding1. Furthermore, it is probable that another

1 http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/apply_for_funding/follow_the_funding_process/calls_for_proposals_2011.htm dedicated call could be organised in 2012 to support the NSW implementations as the current call is likely to be too soon for submissions.  MOVE presentation on Security message (speaking notes uploaded to the CircaBC): o The MARSEC Committee on 7 February 2011 decided that an expert group SSN- MARSEC should be established to define the business rules for the inclusion of the security message in SafeSeaNet as prescribed by the RFD and Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security. o The Kick-off meeting of the expert group was held in Lisbon on 24 May 2011 in EMSA premises. o The minutes of the kick-off meeting are under finalisation. However, the group reached conclusions on some points and identified issues requiring further discussion at its next meeting, in particular concerning: data providing processes, data processing at national level and data processing at SafeSeaNet core level.  The Commission emphasised the importance of the MARSEC work as it is the first subgroup to work on the business rules.  UNECE presented (slides in CircaBC) the UN/CEFACT Recommendation 33 on the Single Window concept. The participants were invited to the UN Global Conference on SW on 12-13 December in Geneva, Switzerland.  The secretariat will upload on CircaBC site relevant supporting documents helping to define Single Window.  DG MOVE clarified that the Directive 2010/65/EU sets clear minimum scope for the NSW implementations. However, the Commission encourages the further multimodal transport integration on national Single Windows.  A discussion paper by Norwegian Coastal Administration was distributed during the meeting. This paper, as well as the Norwegian Single Window will be presented in the next meeting.  When identifying the data elements, user communities, business processes, etc., the Commission encourages the MS to bring forward any resent studies in order to avoid any duplication of work.  Member States were asked to provide data on the current status in their countries regarding the implementation of Directive 2010/65/EU by 15 September (form Status_Sep_2011.doc in CircaBC). The purpose of this form is to help the Commission to evaluate the present state for better coordination.  Any access problems related to CircaBC should be reported to the secretariat.  The objections were raised for sharing the meeting participation list with the contact details in CircaBC.  The next meeting will be on 10 November in Brussels.

Contact: Jukka Savo, Telephone: +32-2-29 63488, [email protected]