CEN CWA 16597
WORKSHOP March 2013
AGREEMENT
ICS 35.240.60; 65.150
English version
FishBizz Business Case - For monitoring of quality and sales of fish products
This CEN Workshop Agreement has been drafted and approved by a Workshop of representatives of interested parties, the constitution of which is indicated in the foreword of this Workshop Agreement.
The formal process followed by the Workshop in the development of this Workshop Agreement has been endorsed by the National Members of CEN but neither the National Members of CEN nor the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre can be held accountable for the technical content of this CEN Workshop Agreement or possible conflicts with standards or legislation.
This CEN Workshop Agreement can in no way be held as being an official standard developed by CEN and its Members.
This CEN Workshop Agreement is publicly available as a reference document from the CEN Members National Standard Bodies.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2013 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members.
Ref. No.:CWA 16597:2013 E
CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Contents Page
Foreword ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 6 1 References ...... 9 2 Terms, definitions and abbreviations ...... 17 2.1 Terms and definitions ...... 17 2.2 Abbreviations ...... 17 3 FishBizz Business Case ...... 20 3.1 Introduction ...... 20 3.1.1 ebXML Common Business Processes(CBP): ...... 21 3.1.2 How does ebXML meet the eBusiness requirements? ...... 23 3.2 Key Elements of the Advanced Business Case ...... 26 3.2.1 E-business Infrastructure ...... 26 3.2.2 Actors – Food Business Operators ...... 29 3.2.3 Benefit Factors ...... 35 3.2.4 Expected Dis-benefits ...... 43 3.2.5 Timescales ...... 44 3.2.6 Costs ...... 44 3.2.7 Investment appraisal ...... 44 3.2.8 Major Risks ...... 45 4 GS1 Traceability Standards including EPC ...... 47 4.1 Background ...... 47 4.2 GS1 Standards for FishBizz Traceability ...... 49 4.2.1 GS1 Global Traceability Standard (GTS) ...... 51 4.2.2 Technical Standard Sets for Traceability Solutions ...... 52 4.3 GS1 EPC Standards for Traceability ...... 64 4.3.1 EPC Architectural Foundations ...... 64 4.3.2 EPCIS for Traceability ...... 70 4.3.3 EPCIS Pilot Learnings ...... 71 4.3.4 Other Traceability Systems in Place ...... 75 4.3.5 EPCIS Implementation steps for SMEs ...... 75 5 FishBizz and ebXML ...... 77 5.1 Background and Context ...... 77 5.2 ebXML Standards...... 78 5.2.1 Business Process ...... 78 5.2.2 Message Service Specification ...... 78 5.2.3 Collaboration Protocol Profiles and Agreements ...... 80 5.2.4 Core Components Technical Specification ...... 81 5.2.5 Registry and Repository ...... 83 5.3 ebXML Related Standards ...... 83 5.3.1 UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology ...... 83 5.3.2 UN/CEFACT Core Components Library ...... 84 5.3.3 Naming and Design Rules for XML ...... 84 5.3.4 UN/CEFACT XML...... 84 5.3.5 ebCore Party Identification ...... 85 5.4 Related e-Business Standards ...... 85 5.4.1 UBL ...... 85 5.4.2 GS1 eCom ...... 85 5.4.3 OAGIS ...... 86 5.4.4 CEN BII and BDX ...... 86 5.5 Deploying ebXML ...... 86
2 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
5.5.1 ebXML discovery and retrieval ...... 86 5.5.2 Other deployment scenarios ...... 87 6 Traceability Information in e-Business XML Document Standards ...... 88 6.1 Early Work on ebXML for Traceability Information Exchange ...... 88 6.1.1 Data Modelling and ebXML for Supply Chain Traceability ...... 88 6.1.2 TraceCore XML ...... 89 6.1.3 UN/CEFACT Agriculture PDA ...... 91 6.2 UBL 2.0 ...... 92 6.3 UN/CEFACT XML ...... 94 6.4 GS1 eCom XML ...... 98 6.5 Section Summary ...... 100 7 Seafood Industry B2B Traceability Requirements ...... 101 7.1 Food Business Operator Information ...... 101 7.1.1 Business and Establishment Identifier ...... 101 7.1.2 GMP Certification ...... 102 7.2 Traceable Unit Information ...... 102 7.2.1 Unit Identity ...... 103 7.2.2 Source...... 105 7.2.3 Destination ...... 106 7.2.4 Control Checks on Received Items ...... 107 7.2.5 Transformation Relations ...... 108 7.2.6 Description ...... 108 7.2.7 Production History ...... 112 7.2.8 Section Summary ...... 115 8 Regulatory Requirements ...... 117 8.1 Global level ...... 117 8.2 Regional level ...... 118 8.2.1 Europe ...... 118 8.2.2 USA ...... 126 9 Key Traceability Data requirements for the Business Actors ...... 129 9.1 Fish Supply Chain Process ...... 129 9.2 Critical Tracking Events ...... 129 9.3 Distributed EPCIS Architecture: ...... 131 9.4 Cumulative Data Elements required per Business Actor ...... 132 9.4.1 Fishing Vessel ...... 133 9.4.2 Vessel landing Business and Auction ...... 134 9.4.3 Fish feed production ...... 135 9.4.4 Breeders ...... 136 9.4.5 Hatcheries ...... 136 9.4.6 Fish Farms ...... 137 9.4.7 Live Fish transporters ...... 138 9.4.8 Processors ...... 139 9.4.9 Transporters and Storers ...... 140 9.4.10 Trader or Wholesaler ...... 141 9.4.11 Retailer or Caterer ...... 142 9.4.12 Supplies from outside Domain ...... 142 10 UN/CEFACT XML Profiling and Extensions for Traceability ...... 144 10.1 Introduction ...... 144 10.2 Extensions and Profiling for the XML Schema Library ...... 144 10.2.1 Trade Products ...... 144 10.2.2 Supply Chain Events ...... 147 10.3 EPCIS Interoperability ...... 149 10.3.1 UN/CEFACT XML and EPCIS ...... 149 10.3.2 Extensibility ...... 150 10.4 Traceability Business Transactions ...... 150 10.4.1 Advise Despatch ...... 150 10.4.2 Advise Receipt ...... 151
3 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
10.4.3 Request Trace ...... 151 10.4.4 Notify Trace ...... 152 10.5 Traceability Business Documents ...... 153 10.5.1 Despatch Advice ...... 153 10.5.2 Trace Request ...... 153 10.5.3 Trace Document ...... 154 11 Exchanging FishBizz Business Documents ...... 156 11.1 Introduction ...... 156 11.2 Using AS4 to Exchange UN/CEFACT Messages ...... 156 11.3 Sample AS4 Message ...... 157 12 Usage of ebXML and EPCIS in Business Case ...... 163 12.1 Measuring costs...... 163 12.2 The Cost-Benefit Assessment ...... 163 13 Training ...... 165 13.1 eBusiness infrastructure ...... 165 13.2 Training Needs Analysis ...... 166 13.2.1 Organizational Level ...... 166 13.2.2 Team/Department Level ...... 166 13.2.3 Individual Level ...... 167 13.3 Methods of Meeting Learning Needs ...... 167 13.4 Audiences ...... 167 13.4.1 Non-technical audience ...... 167 13.4.2 Technical audience ...... 167 13.4.3 Solution provider and IT integration audience ...... 168 Annex A Document History ...... 169 Annex B List of Figures...... 171 Annex C List of Tables ...... 174 Annex D Cumulative Data Elements required per Business Actor ...... 175
4 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Foreword
This CEN Workshop Agreement has been drafted and approved by a Workshop of representatives of interested parties on 2012-12-07, the constitution of which was supported by CEN following the public call for participation made on 2011-02-07.
This CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) has been prepared by the CEN Workshop Integration of standards for Traceability and Sale of Seafood Products (FishBizz).
More information on the workshop is available from: http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/Sectors/ISSS/Workshops/Pages/FishBizz.aspx
The individuals and organizations which supported the technical consensus represented by the CEN Workshop Agreement are:
Z. Patkai (Zoltan Patkai Consultant) P. van der Eijk (Sonnenglanz Consulting) M. Mitic (European Traceability Institute) H. Qian (Shandong Institute of Standardization) C. Udomwongsa (FXA Company Limited) Per Ole Johansen (Client Computing Germany GmbH) Svein Tore Johnsen (Collbiz International AS
Contributors include:
• Svein-Tore Johnsen • Miodrag Mitic • Zoltan Patkai • Pim van der Eijk
The formal process followed by the Workshop in the development of the CEN Workshop Agreement has been endorsed by the National Members of CEN but neither the National Members of CEN nor the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre can be held accountable for the technical content of the CEN Workshop Agreement or possible conflict with standards or legislation. This CEN Workshop Agreement can in no way be held as being an official standard developed by CEN and its members.
The final review/endorsement round for this CWA was started on 2012-10-06 and was successfully closed on 2012-12-07.The final text of this CWA was submitted to CEN for publication on 2013-02-19.
This CEN Workshop Agreement is publicly available as a reference document from the National Members of The following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Comments or suggestions from the users of the CEN Workshop Agreement are welcome and should be addressed to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre.
5 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Executive Summary
The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) aims to provide a stable, secure and healthy food supply. Sustainability is at the heart of the proposed reform. Fishing sustainably means fishing at levels that do not endanger the reproduction of stocks and that provide high long-term yields. This requires managing the volume of fish taken out of the sea through fishing. At the same time, an improved framework for aquaculture is expected to increase production and supply of seafood.
To enforce the CFP rules, a control system is designed to ensure that fish products can be traced back and checked throughout the supply chain. Checks are carried out at every point in the chain from the boat to the retailer: in ports where fish is landed or trans-shipped, during transport, in factories that process fish and at markets where fish is sold. At every point along the chain, for every consignment of fish, information shall be provided that proves that it was caught legally.
The CFP rules require that all fish products are traceable to their source. To achieve traceability throughout the fish product supply chain, various tracking and tracing methodologies and technologies shall be integrated in the operational business processes carried out by the different actors along the chain. As a result, different traceability systems shall have the ability to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. Traceability systems by the different actors along the chain shall be interoperable to guarantee fast, accurate and cost-effective exchange of information.
Standardization is a common approach towards achieving interoperability. There is also a wide range of technologies, ranging from simple to advanced IT systems, and from open source to closed source commercial systems, which can support a standard. The challenge lies in the fact that there is often more than one standard available and used by the actors along the supply chain. Some standards have a narrow point- to-point profile aimed at achieving, so called, "one-up/one-down" traceability with immediate trade partner systems. Other standards are either focused on establishing a "chain-of-custody" system via a central repository maintained by a third party, or focused on "traceability networks" that are based on registries that enable traceability data search along the fish product supply chain.
The FishBizz project team reviewed various CEN, ISO, UN/CEFACT, OASIS and GS1/EPC standards used for electronic commerce in the seafood sector. These range from standards at data component level and standards aimed at general principles for designing a traceability system, trough standards that specify how electronic transactions should be executed and standards for business collaboration, including end-to-end supply chain visibility. The aim is to leverage multiple complementary standards rather than picking one isolated standard that may be strong in some areas, but weak in others. This will enable broader, more integrated traceability functionalities and enable lower cost implementations.
The outcome of the work conducted so far is a Draft of a CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA). It specifies the data elements drawn from the work conducted under ISO TC 234, current regulatory and industry requirements, and the profiling and extensions to the UN/CEFACT reusable aggregate XML schema module to support traceability and e-business requirements. The interoperable solution outlined in the Draft CWA supports the critical traceability and e-business business processes, which are:
1. Advising the dispatch and receipt of products in accordance with the UN/CEFACT Business Requirement Specification for the Cross Industry Despatch and Receipt process (UN/CEFACT XML Despatch Advice). (The UN/CEFACT XML Receipt Advice yet has to be defined by UN/CEFACT)
2. Initiating and responding to a traceability request in accordance with the GS1 Global Traceability Standard. The Trace Request document and the response Trace Document are proposed new documents. They are used in the Request Trace business transaction to specify the trade item(s) for which a trace-back is requested and the trace-back information, respectively. There is a discussion with the UN/CEFACT Agriculture Program Development Area to submit these new document schemas to UN/CEFACT.
3. Notifying traceability is a newly defined business process in which instead of sending the traceability information in response to a Trace Request, this information is proactively sent as a notification. The recipient
6 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
of the information can be a third party, such as a traceability service provider that acts as a certified data trustee.
Economic benefits expected to be gained from FIHBIZZ:
Attaining traceability of fish products requires developing traceability data exchange connections between the supply chain actors involved. The hurdle up to now is that communication in such a partnership without common interoperable traceability solutions and use of information technology can be complex and costly to set up and maintain afterwards. There is therefore a tendency only for larger companies to have automated electronic systems and for the smaller ones to rely on paper-based manual systems.
FishBizz provides a solution supported by XML message standards, which describes how to communicate traceability data using interoperable solutions in a trade partnership between the actors in the fish product supply chain. It therefore helps a business set up how traceability systems should interact, how traceability data exchange should be defined and provides a common platform for supply chain actors to use. The level of benefits to be obtained is dependent upon each single company, and is influenced by the degree to which it has already adopted collaborative supply chain practices, information technology and the number of non- interoperable connections already in place.
The key economic benefits of using the FishBizz solution can be categorized as:
1. Faster integration between fish supply chain partners
1.1 Scaling. After the first interoperable integration between two traceability systems, it can be scaled to be used for new relationships, whereas without a interoperable solution (as for many today) each relationship requires its own integration model.
1.2 Costs. Running costs with the FishBizz solution are lower when compared with not having an interoperable system, since staff only need knowledge of one type of traceability data exchange model, with some business variances per partnership.
1.3 Time compression. It reduces the implementation time significantly when compared to implementing a non-interoperable solution.
2. Reduced IT cost
FishBizz helps to minimize the costs in these ways:
2.1 It provides a data exchange template for interoperable supply chain traceability. This reduces the time and effort needed to establish the ways of working between supply chain partners and speeds up the process of reaching a commercial agreement.
2.2 Once a company has adopted these processes and embedded them in its systems, more supply chain partners can be added quickly and easily without the need for costly business process re-engineering.
2.3 The electronic message handling systems need only to be configured once to follow the interoperable FishBizz solution, which is based on UN/CEFACT standards. Once this has been implemented and tested, new supply chain partners can be added with minimal changes.
2.4 Following one connection, FishBizz reduces the time required by IT staff on maintenance and reduces training requirements both for IT staff and business operators.
7 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
8 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
1 References
[1] Can-Trace. Canadian Food Traceability Data Standard. http://www.can-trace.org/portals/0/docs/CFTDS%20version%202.0%20FINAL.pdf
[2] CWA 15668. Business requirements specification - Cross industry invoicing process. CEN Workshop Agreement. March 2007. ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/EBES/CWAs/CWA%2015668.pdf
[3] CWA 16036. Cyber-Identity - Unique Identification Systems For Organizations and Parts Thereof. CEN Workshop Agreement 16036. November 2009. ftp://cenftp1.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/Cyber_Identity/CWA_CyberIdentity.pdf
[4] CWA 16073-1. Business Interoperability Interfaces for Public procurement in Europe - Part 1: Profile overview. ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/BII/Final/2010_16073_1.pdf
[5] ebXML Technical Architecture Specification v1.0.4. http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebTA.pdf
[6] EU Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2065/2001 of 22 October 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R2065:20070101:EN:PDF
[7] EU Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002R0178:EN:HTML
[8] EU Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1831:EN:NOT
[9] 2003/804/EC: Commission Decision of 14 November 2003 laying down the animal health conditions and certification requirements for imports of molluscs, their eggs and gametes for further growth, fattening, relaying or human consumption. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:302:0022:0033:EN:PDF
[10] 2004/319/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2004 amending Annex I to Decision 2003/804/EC laying down the animal health conditions and certification requirements for imports of molluscs, their eggs and gametes for further growth, fattening, relaying or human consumption. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:102:0073:0074:EN:PDF
[11] Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0001:0054:EN:PDF
[12] Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0055:0205:EN:PDF
[13] Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0206:0320:EN:PDF
[14] EU REGULATION (EC) No 183/2005 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_035/l_03520050208en00010022.pdf
9 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[15] 2007/240/EC: Commission Decision of 16 April 2007 laying down new veterinary certificates for importing live animals, semen, embryos, ova and products of animal origin into the Community pursuant to Decisions 79/542/EEC, 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/196/EEC, 93/197/EEC, 95/328/EC, 96/333/EC, 96/539/EC, 96/540/EC, 2000/572/EC, 2000/585/EC, 2000/666/EC, 2002/613/EC, 2003/56/EC, 2003/779/EC, 2003/804/EC, 2003/858/EC, 2003/863/EC, 2003/881/EC, 2004/407/EC, 2004/438/EC, 2004/595/EC, 2004/639/EC and 2006/168/EC (notified under document number C(2007) 1622) http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:104:0037:0050:EN:PDF
[16] EU Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008R1005:EN:NOT
[17] EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0001:0050:EN:PDF
[18] EU COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:284:SOM:EN:HTML
[19] EU COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.
[20] FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Principles for Traceability / Product Tracing as a Tool Within a Food Inspection and Certification System. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10603/CXG_060e.pdf
[21] GS1 eCom XML. http://www.gs1.org/ecom/xml/
[22] GS1. EPC Information Services (EPCIS) version 1.0.1. September 2007. http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/epcis/epcis_1_0_1-standard-20070921.pdf
[23] GS1 Standards Document. GS1 Global Traceability Standard. Issue 1.2.2. March 2010. http://www.gs1.org/docs/gsmp/traceability/Global_Traceability_Standard.pdf
[24] GS1 GTIN (Global Trade Identification Number). http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/technical/idkeys/gtin
[25] GS1 SSCC (Serial Shipping Container Code). http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/technical/idkeys/sscc
[26] GS1 Global Location Number (GLN). http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/technical/idkeys/gln
[27] IETF RFC4130. MIME-Based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interchange Using HTTP, Applicability Statement 2 (AS2). IETF RFC, July 2005. http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4130
[28] ISO/IEC 6523-1:1998. Information technology -- Structure for the identification of organizations and organization parts -- Part 1: Identification of organization identification schemes. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=25773
[29] EN ISO 9001:2008. Quality management systems - Requirements (ISO 9001:2008). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486
10 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[30] ISO 12875:2011. Traceability of finfish products -- Specification on the information to be recorded in captured finfish distribution chains. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=67&ics2=120&ics3= 30&csnumber=52084
[31] ISO 12877:2011. Traceability of finfish products -- Specification on the information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution chains. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=67&ics2=120&ics3= 30&csnumber=52085
[32] EN ISO 14001:2004. Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use (ISO 14001:2004). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=31807
[33] ISO 14662. Information Technologies. Open-edi reference model. ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=37354
[34] ISO/TS 15000-1:2004. Electronic business eXtensible Markup Language (ebXML) -- Part 1: Collaboration-protocol profile and agreement specification (ebCPP). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39972
[35] ISO/TS 15000-2:2004. Electronic business eXtensible Markup Language (ebXML) -- Part 2: Message service specification (ebMS). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39973
[36] ISO/TS 15000-5:2005. Electronic Business Extensible Markup Language (ebXML) -- Part 5: ebXML Core Components Technical Specification, Version 2.01 (ebCCTS). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41022
[37] EN ISO 22000. Food safety management systems - Requirements for any organization in the food chain (ISO 22000:2005). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35466
[38] EN ISO 22005:2007. Traceability in the feed and food chain - General principles and basic requirements for system design and implementation (ISO 22005:2007). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36297
[39] Open Applications Group. Integration Specification 9.5 (OAGIS). http://www.oagi.org/
[40] OASIS ebCore Party Id Type Technical Specification Version 1.0. OASIS Committee Specification, 28 September 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebcore/PartyIdType/v1.0/PartyIdType-1.0.odt
[41] OASIS ebXML Business Process Specification Schema. Version 2.0.4. OASIS Standard, 2006. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/2.0.4/ebxmlbp-v2.0.4-Spec-os-en.pdf
[42] OASIS ebXML Messaging Services Version 3.0: Part 1, Core Features. OASIS Standard. October 2007. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/core/ebms_core-3.0-spec.pdf
[43] OASIS ebXML Messaging Services Version 3.0: Part 2, Advanced Features. Committee Specification 01. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/part2/201004/ebms-v3-part2.pdf
[44] OASIS ebXML Messaging Services. AS4 Profile of ebMS 3.0 Version 1.0. http://docs.oasis- open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/profiles/AS4-profile/v1.0/AS4-profile-v1.0.pdf
[45] Rosetta Message Control and Choreography (MCC). http://www.rosettanet.org/dnn_rose/tabid/3367/Default.aspx
[46] THISFISH Traceability Data Standard. Draft Document for Public Consultation. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8AfsJRD0H-NamFwMlIwLUx3eWc/edit?pli=1
11 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[47] UN/CEFACT Core Components Library version 11A. http://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/unccl/CCL_index.html
[48] UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification. Version 3.0. http://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/CCTS/CCTS-Version3.pdf
[49] UN/CEFACT DAPLOS. http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5964720
[50] UN/CEFACT eCert - XML for Sanitary & Phytosanitary Certificates. http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5964708
[51] UN/CEFACT United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations. http://www.unece.org/cefact/locode/welcome.html
[52] UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology. http://www.unece.org/cefact/umm/umm_index.html
[53] UN/CEFACT XML Naming and Design Rules Technical Specification Version 3.0. http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml/UN_CEFACT_XML_Naming_and_Design_Rules_Technical_Specific ation_Version_3_Technical_Corrigendum_1.pdf
[54] UN/CEFACT XML Schemas. Release D.11B. http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml_schemas/index.html
[55] UN/CEFACT Business Requirements Specification. Cross Industry Despatch and Receive Process. http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/5965227/Specification+BRS+Despatch+ and+Receive_1+00+13.doc
[56] UN Food and Agriculatural Organization (FAO). List of Major Fishing Areas. ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/STAT/by_FishArea/Fishing_Areas_list.pdf
[57] UN Food and Agriculatural Organization (FAO). FAO 3 alpha code. ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes. http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
[58] US H.R.3448 -- Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3448enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3448enr.pdf
[59] US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts; Final Rule. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074925
[60] US FDA Food Safety Modernization Action http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW-111publ353.pdf
[61] US H.R. 2419--110th Congress: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. (2007). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr2419enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr2419enr.pdf
[62] US H.R.2646 -- Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2646enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr2646enr.pdf
[63] W3C XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition. W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/
[64] J. Almeida. TRACEABILITY AND QUALITY IN A FRESH FISH EXPORT CHAIN: AN ICELANDIC AND CAPVERDIAN STUDY. Final project paper. http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/janaina05prf.pdf.
12 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[65] Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. HACCP and EN ISO 22000: Application to Foods of Animal Origin. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405153660.html
[66] A. Bechini et al. Patterns and technologies for enabling supply chain traceability through collaborative e-business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.017
[67] A. Bechini. Data Modeling and ebXML for Supply Chain Traceability. http://ebxml.xml.org/sites/ebxml.xml.org/files/dubrovnik_2007_oct_12.pdf
[68] A. Bechini et al. Using ebXML for Supply Chain Traceability Pitfalls, solutions and experiences. http://www.iet.unipi.it/a.bechini/Bechini_papers.html
[69] Business Internet Consortium. High-Level Conceptual Model for B2B Integration. Version 1.0. White paper, 5 October 2001.
[70] CEN Workshop Agreement. Traceability of fishery products - Specification of the information to be recorded in farmed fish distribution chains. CWA 14659:2003.
[71] CEN Workshop Agreement. Traceability of fishery products - Specification on the information to be recorded in captured fish distribution chains. CWA 14660:2003.
[72] eBIZ. The Reference Architecture of eBusiness in Textile Clothing and Footwear sector. http://spring.bologna.enea.it/ebiz/imple/pg.asp?p=282
[73] S. Clarke. UNDERSTANDING CHINA’S FISH TRADE AND TRACEABILITY SYSTEMS. www.traffic.org/fisheries-reports/traffic_pub_fisheries9.pdf
[74] A. Dogac. Semantic Representations of the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic Business Document Artifacts. http://ubl.xml.org/blog/semantic-representations-of-the-uncefact-ccts-based-electronic- business-document-artifacts
[75] EAN International (GS1) 2002. Traceability of fish guidelines, Application of EAN.UCC Standards in implementing EU legislation and business requirements regarding consumer information and traceability [7th November 2002]. http://www.gs1ca.org/files/std_traceabilityoffish_v1_en.pdf
[76] ECR Europe. Using Traceability in the Supply Chain to meet Consumer Safety Expectations. http://www.ecr-institute.org/publications/best-practices/using-traceability-in-the-supply-chain-to-meet- consumer-safety-expectations/files/full_report.pdf
[77] E.Forås et al. Alternative directions for standardised traceability information exchange. SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture report SFH 80 A074059. http://sintef.se/upload/Fiskeri_og_havbruk/Havbruksteknologi/sporbarhet/Alternative%20directions%20 for%20stie.pdf
[78] Liu Junrong, 2002. Investigation on traceability of fish products in Iceland – A traceability study for fish processing industry in China. United Nations University-Fisheries Training Programme, Fellows 2002, Reykjavik. http://www.unuftp.is/proj02/Liu1PRF.pdf
[79] S. Kjærnsrød. TC-EPCIS-Alignment. EU Trace Project. http://www.tracefood.org/images/4/4e/TC- EPCIS-Alignment.pdf
[80] C. Laux and C. Hurburgh. Using Quality Management Systems for Food Traceability. Journal of Industrial Technology (JIT), volume 26, number 3. September 2010. http://atmae.org/jit/Articles/laux070110.pdf
[81] British Columbia. Ministry of Environment. Oceans and Marine Fisheries Branch. Traceability Guidelines and Standards. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/traceability/part2.pdf
13 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[82] British Columbia. Ministry of Environment. Oceans and Marine Fisheries Branch. The Requirements, Current Conditions and Readiness for Traceability in the Canadian Aquaculture Sector and British Columbia's Wild Harvest Sector - March 2010. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/traceability/bc- seafood-traceability-2010.pdf
[83] CPA Creation Toolkit. Open Source software available from https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/cpatoolkit/description.
[84] P. Engelseth and M. Abrahamsen. The Demise of Traditional Fish Distribution Structures in Japan? A case study of fish supply chains from Norway to Japan. http://www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/5850.pdf.
[85] FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Discussion Paper on Traceability/Product Tracing in the Context of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccfics12/FC03_04e.pdf
[86] FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 90. Guidelines for risk-based fish inspection. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0468e/i0468e00.pdf
[87] FAO FISHERIES TECHNICAL PAPER 334. Assurance of seafood quality. Rome, 2003. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T1768E/T1768E00.htm
[88] FAO FISHERIES TECHNICAL PAPER 444. Assessment and Management of Seafood Safety and Quality. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4743e/y4743e00.htm.
[89] GS1 eCom Technology Group: AS4 Web Services for B2B Communications. http://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/gsmp/ETG_AS4-WhitePaper_v1.pdf
[90] GS1 Healthcare. Healthcare Supply Chain Traceability. White Paper. http://www.gs1.org/docs/gsmp/traceability/20101025_Traceability_White_Paper_final.pdf
[91] EU Technical Note on EC Regulation 1005/2008 to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) Fishing. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/technical_note_en.pdf
[92] EU Queries on the IUU Regulation. The EU rules to combat illegal fishing (IUU). http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/index_en.htm
[93] EU Electronic recording and reporting system (ERS). The EU system for fisheries controls. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control/technologies/ers/index_en.htm
[94] EU Electronic recording and reporting system (ERS). Codelists. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control/codes/index_en.htm
[95] EU IUU Translation of the Annex in a primitive XSD and WSDL definition. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control/technologies/downloads/index_en.htm
[96] EU-Electronic recording and reporting system (ERS). ERS-3.0. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control/codes/eu-ers-3.0.zip
[97] Eurofish. A Guide to Traceability in the Fish Industry. http://www.eurofish.dk/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=62
[98] M. Hernandez Palacios. STUDY OF THE QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PRODUCT TRACEABILITY IN A FISH PROCESSING COMPANY. Final project paper. http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/mariaritaprf.pdf
[99] IHS Fairplay. IMO Identification Number website for Ships, Companies & Registered Owners. http://www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com/
14 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[100] INMARSAT. Calling with Inmarsat. http://www.inmarsat.com/Support/Calling/default.aspx?language=EN&textonly=False
[101] A. Magera and S. Beaton. Seafood Traceability in Canada. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2010/Seafood_Traceability_in_Canada.pdf
[102] Marine Stewardship Council. MSC Chain of Custody Standard v3. http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc-standards/msc-coc-standard- v3/at_download/file
[103] M. McNicholas. Using Digital Supply Chain Technology to Halt Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. http://www.box.net/shared/3rkq510hp9
[104] MSC Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc- standards/MSC_environmental_standard_for_sustainable_fishing.pdf/view
[105] Mai Thi Nuyet Nga. Enhancing Quality Management of Fresh Fish Supply Chains Through Improved Logistics and Ensured Traceability. PhD Dissertation, University of Iceland. June 2010. http://www.kaeligatt.is/media/uppsetning/Nga_Mai_PhD_dissertation.pdf
[106] NNS Consortium. Advancing Advancing e-Business among Textile and Clothing SMEs in Greece and Hungary using UBL and ebXML. http://ebiztcf.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/nns-pilot-project-white- paper-v1_0.pdf
[107] C. Novelli. CP-NET (Collaboration Protocol - Networking Enterprises Technology). http://summer.bologna.enea.it/~cristiano/cpnet/
[108] OECD. DRAFT COUNTRY NOTE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS – JAPAN. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/46/34429748.pdf
[109] PEPPOL Transport Infrastructure. Service Metadata Locator. Submitted to the OASIS BDX Committee. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/bdx/
[110] PEPPOL Transport Infrastructure. Service Metadata Publishing. Submitted to the OASIS BDX Committee. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/bdx/
[111] PEPPOL Transport Infrastructure. Service Secure Trusted Asynchronous Reliable Transport (START). Submitted to the OASIS BDX Committee. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/bdx/
[112] A. Petersen and D. Green. Seafood Traceability: a Practical Guide for the U.S. Industry. http://www.ncsu.edu/foodscience/seafoodlab/publications/SeafoodTraceabilityBook.pdf
[113] F. Schwagele, 2005. Traceability from a European Perspective. Meat science. 1-9. [27 of November 2005] www.sciencedirect.com
[114] SAP. Supply Network Traceability. http://www.sap.com/solutions/executiveview/supply-chain/supply-network-traceability/index.epx
[115] SAP. How to Solve the Business Standards Dilemma the Context Driven Business Exchange. http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a6c5dce6-0701-0010-45b9- f6ca8c0c6474
[116] S. Setboonsarng et al. Food Safety and ICT Traceability Systems: Lessons from Japan for Developing Countries. http://www.adbi.org/files/2009.05.28.wp139.ict.food.traceability.system.pdf
[117] Carl-Fredrik Sørensen, Finn Olav Bjørnson, Eskil Forås. Practical and Technological challenges for introduction of electronic traceability systems related to IUU. www.tracefood.org/images/9/99/Rapport_UUU_final.pdf
15 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
[118] Thompson M. et al, 2005, Seafood Traceability in the United States: Current Trends, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2005.tb00067.x/pdf
[119] Traceability Institute. WGA Traceability Bootcamp. http://www.wga.com/DocumentLibrary/TBC_PP.pdf
[120] TraceCore XML (TCX). http://www.tracefood.org/index.php/Tools:TraceCore_XML_Overview
[121] UN/CEFACT Draft Business Requirements Specification (BRS). Electronic Data Exchange Tracking and Tracing of Fish. Draft Document, UN/CEFACT Forum 2008.
[122] UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Best Practice Guidelines for Integration Traceability. April 2010. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/018/k7193e.pdf.
[123] UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Traceability and Labelling in Fish Trade. June 2006. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/013/j7440e.pdf
[124] C. Wang and J. Bravo. Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: An Application of Transaction Cost Analysis. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/61492/2/11418.pdf
[125] M. Will and D. Guenther. Food Quality and Safety Standards. A Practicioners' Reference Book. http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/07-0800.pdf
16 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
2 Terms, definitions and abbreviations
2.1 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply:
2.1.1 Memorandum of Understanding on Electronic Business Full benefits for consumers, industry and government demand a coherent set of Information and Communication Technology standards which are Open, Interoperable and internationally accepted. To this aim, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on electronic business in support of e-commerce has been signed by the four main organizations which develop international standards in this area: ISO, IEC, ITU, UN/ECE, with full participation from international user groups. More information may be obtained from the MoU site at: http://www.itu.int/itu-t/e-business/mou/
2.1.2 Electronic Business The application of information and communication technologies (ICT) to transform business processes, improve productivity and increase efficiencies. It enables an organisation to easily communicate and transact with its business associates; automate and integrate information exchange; and conduct business in a secure manner.
2.1.3 Electronic Business Standards Nationally or internationally developed and accepted technical specifications, principles, and models that define the parameters within which parties conduct electronic business.
2.1.4 Trade Facilitation The systematic rationalisation of formalities, processes, procedures, and documentation for international trade.
2.1.5 Electronic Commerce A subset of electronic business dealing with conducting online commerce (i.e., buying, selling, transporting and paying).
2.1.6 Electronic Government A subset of electronic business that includes inherently regulatory processes (e.g., customs).
2.2 Abbreviations
2.2.1 AS2 EDIINT Applicability Statement 2
2.2.2 BIE Business Information Entity
2.2.3 CCL Core Components Library
2.2.4 CCTS Core Components Technical Specification
17 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
2.2.5 CEN European Committee for Standardization
2.2.6 CFP Common Fisheries Policy
2.2.7 CPA Collaboration Protocol Agreement
2.2.8 CPP Collaboration Protocol Profile
2.2.9 ebBP ebXML Business Process
2.2.10 ebMS ebXML Messaging Service
2.2.11 ebXML electronic business XML
2.2.12 EDI Electronic Data Interchange
2.2.13 EPC Electronic Product Code
2.2.14 GLN Global Location Number
2.2.15 GS1 Global Standards One.
2.2.16 GTIN Global Trade Identification Number
2.2.17 ISO International Organization for Standardization
2.2.18 NDR Naming and Design Rules
2.2.19 OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
18 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
2.2.20 UBL Universal Business Language
2.2.21 UML Unified Modelling Language
2.2.22 UMM UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology
2.2.23 UN/CEFACT United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business
2.2.24 XML Extensible Markup Language
19 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3 FishBizz Business Case
3.1 Introduction
For many companies in the fisheries industry it is a challenging and costly task to set up a business infrastructure in order to make it possible to sell food in the local and especially in the international market via the Internet. Since the adoption of Internet and the relevant Internet-based technologies by enterprises into their everyday business practice, the vision of totally automated electronic transactions and traceability has been the panacea of their efforts. In spite of competitive advantages, such as reduced transactional cost, seamless information flow, and better communication, the creation of a system clearly oriented towards promoting interoperability of existing systems and facilitating electronic transactions between partners of diverse nature still remains elusive for the majority of enterprises, especially for SMEs. Drawbacks, such as the high technical complexity of the existing solutions, the need for intervention of third-party systems in the transactions, the mandatory adoption of proprietary standards and practices, have characterised this first generation of platforms for electronic transactions. Such problems can largely be attributed to the adopted architectures, primarily peer-to-peer and server-based, which impose specific preconditions in the design and implementation of the systems for all the actors in business.
Traceability comprises a standardized system of procedures covering all links of the fish product chain, both regarding the supply of products and the associated information to facilitate transparency for monitoring purposes. The Fishbizz workshop addresses the eBusiness interoperability issues and possible solutions, eBusiness frameworks for SMEs and eBusiness applications in specific sectors. The project's overall objective is to increase the ability for SMEs in rural areas throughout Europe to implement traceability requirements in a cost effective manner in producing, selling and delivering high quality fish to domestic and international markets, and also help companies comply with international and EU regulations on food safety.
The FishBizz infrastructure will highlight the roles of different actors that are necessary for sale of fish to any markets. Even if many of these actors already exist today, they are difficult to be reached by many of today’s SMEs. The FishBizz project is making an effort to streamline and, if it is feasible, automate many of the tasks such that it can be used by SMEs without great difficulties. This means that FishBizz shall define and test the standards to be used in such automation. But the FishBizz CWA will only define the standards, and to fulfill special business needs shall be left to a commercial implementation later. Many actors when established as companies can be located anywhere in the world.
Currently there are different approaches providing partial aspects of solutions in different electronic marketplaces. The standards operational today all around the world (for example UN/CEFACT, ISO, GS1 but also OASIS based work) will be the basis for development of this CWA on standards for traceability and sale of fish products.
There is a wide range of technology from open source to commercial enterprise IT systems that can support the standards. However, especially for SME's, the cost of such technology may be a significant issue. The objective of the workshop is to produce a CWA which will enable enterprises (large and small) to select the most suitable and cost effective solutions for their business case. As an illustration of this, we consider here some different approaches currently providing partial aspects of solutions in different electronic marketplaces.
The ebXML (XML-based infrastructure) standards developed by UN/CEFACT and OASIS and standardized by ISO as ISO 15000 seeks to provide formal XML-enabled mechanisms that can be implemented directly. The ebXML architecture is focused on concepts and methodologies that can be more broadly applied to allow practitioners to better implement e-business solutions.
EbXML was a project to standardise XML business specifications and to develop the technical framework that would enable XML to be utilised in a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business data.
20 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3.1.1 ebXML Common Business Processes(CBP):
The ebXML Catalog of Common Business Processes (Figure 1) that is specifying CBPs for different areas. Common Business Processes are industry neutral and re-usable business processes. Various components of a common business process specification can be re-used to create new business processes. Re-use will typically occur at the business process, business collaboration, business transaction, and business document model components.
Figure 1 - CBP The catalog’s categorization scheme is based upon an enterprise value chain, the concept pioneered by Michael Porter, following review of several other reference models. A value chain is a purposeful network of business processes designed to cumulatively transform a set of process inputs into an output of greater value to the enterprise’s set of customers. Porter’s Value Chain stages are illustrated in Figure 2 below as resource flows which progress from left to right in transforming inputs as labor, capital, and goods into components of a business’s final product. The figure illustrates the linked major events within each process that consume business inputs and produce business outputs.
Each business process in the Catalog of Common Business Processes is at the most general level represented by a normative category of enterprise activities as procurement, financing, and manufacturing. Normative category processes can be broken into normative sub-categories for better business discovery.
The figure shows also the normative categories, but the collaboration will be according to ebXML BPSS.
21 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
$$ $$ financing
raw materials
procurement transportation
labor human labor resources delivered raw materials manufactured $$ goods delivered labor manufactured facilities, services goods & technology manufacturing
labor procurement marketing & sales
product services customer service
Figure 2 - Porter Value Chain A Business Process Meta-Model is a combination of various notations mainly provided by UML or UMM, a e- business analysis and design methodology from UN/CEFACT [52], which allows industries or even single trading partners to document their processes. The Meta-model is used to specify business process definitions and subsequent schemas, elements, and core components
Figure 3 - Business Process Metamodel
22 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3.1.2 How does ebXML meet the eBusiness requirements?
Figure 4 - Layers in eBusiness The ebXML specifications, like messaging service and registry and repository specifications, meet all necessary storage, quality of service, and communication requirements of message exchange layer (4) of our model. Registry and repository services are storage and retrieval facilities, which meet the persistency, availability, and security in terms of authorization, authentication, and non-repudiation requirements. Moreover, registry and repository services are scalable and distributed, which implies load balancing. The messaging service provides parties with necessary communication protocols to exchange the messages between each other, whether parties would be trading partners or registries, and repositories. The message exchange layer, as realized in ebXML, is platform independent, since it uses platform-independent technologies, like XML, SOAP, and similar.
The ebXML project delivered a number of specifications, one of those was the Message Service Specifications (ebMS v2.0) defining the set of services and protocols that enable business applications to exchange data. An advantage of the Message Service Specification is that it is XML message and protocol neutral. A more recent version 3.0 of ebMS and a light-weight client called AS4 have subsequently been developed, in part to better address SME requirements. Chapter 11 describes how AS4 can be used to exchange FishBizz documents.
GS1’s Business Message Standards (derivations of ebXML) and Schemas have been developed following the eBusiness Methodology (eBMethodology – GS1’s own methodology). The methodology draws from international standards, parts of ebXML, the UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (UMM) and the World Wide Web consortium (W3C).
A foundational standard is the Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) work that continues to be developed within UN/CEFACT. CCTS version 2.0 is adopted by ISO as ISO 15000-5. A more recent development is the CCTS 3.0 Standard, developed with UN/CEFACT. CCTS is complemented by XML Naming and Design Rules (NDR) that express a mapping of CCTS-based data models to XML Schema. UN/CEFACT facilitates the development of e-business standards that can cross all international boundaries and help lower transaction costs, simplify data flow and reduce bureaucracy. UN/CEFACT is the standards arm of UN/ECE, a UN agency focused on trade facilitation and eBusiness.
UBL (Universal Business Language) specification has been developed within OASIS. UBL implements specific XML transactions by applying the principles of CCTS to typical supply chain transactions such as invoice, purchase order, ship notice etc. UBL uses CCTS-based Naming and Design Rules.
23 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The FishBizz project aims to facilitate the establishment of an infrastructure that can be used by all the actors (companies) and especially by SMEs to enable the global use of electronic business information in an interoperable, secure, and consistent manner by all trading partners.
These standards are today operational all around the world, and especially in the Far East where many advanced service providers offer business solutions to the marketplace. However, the standards produced by the various standards organizations are not yet fully aligned, a pre-requisite for effective electronic business between different entities.
As a specific illustration of this, ISO TC234/WG1 "Fisheries and aquaculture”, has considered eBusiness requirements in the fisheries areas, but has not been taken into account the UN/CEFACT and OASIS standards. Instead, they use standards with rather narrow scope, such as GS1’s Electronic Product Code Information Service (EPCIS) to integrate traceability into business environments. Better alignment of standards from UN/CEFACT, OASIS, GS1 and ISO would be in the long term benefit of the suppliers and customers involved in the fish products supply chain. Standards like EPCIS have a narrow point-to-point profile that works for a real time interaction profile with immediate partner systems. However, for end-to-end processes across the supply chain, there is a need to support distributed capabilities, as is the case with ebXML. This is especially true for solutions that need to scale from local use and be proven to work in practical solutions throughout Europe and around the world. Companies wishing to adopt ebXML standards may adopt specific components of the ebXML framework (e.g. CCTS or messaging). They may also adopt more advanced concepts, such process modeling methodology and the development framework.
Our approach here is to map the inter-relationships between these standards, and provide interoperable solutions that take full account of the differences between them, rather than picking one isolated standard that is strong in some areas but very weak in others.
Paperless Communication. There is a big difference between countries in paperless communications and the figure from APEC shows the world situation. Using paperless communications will make the communication more effective and less costly.
See Application Level overview below:
Figure 5 - Development Level and Development Procedure
24 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Implementing such solutions will open the way for Paperless communication and engineers do not have to design the solutions from scratch, because it is many tools and methodologies worldwide that can be used depending what phase they operatae in when the phases start with planning and ends with implementation.
Figure 6 - From Planning to Implementation
SMEs in the world market
More than 95% of the companies in the world are SMEs that are struggling to reach the international markets, and many of the operate in the Fishing Industries
See some statistics for the EU below:
Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are socially and economically important, they represent 99 % of an estimated 19.3 million enterprises in the EU and provide around 65 million jobs representing two-thirds of all employment. The average European business provides employment for four people, including the owner/manager.
25 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3.2 Key Elements of the Advanced Business Case
Key elements: • E-business infrastructure • Actors – Food Business Operators • Benefit Factors
Every business regardless of its size will need to make its own cost/benefit assessment of implementing industry standards for external traceability. Traceability is not simply a regulatory requirement that increases the cost of doing business. Rather, traceability offers real potential for adding value to the way businesses are conducted across the entire supply chain. Tracing a product back up the supply chain all the way to the vessel’s deck is possible thanks to traceability rules for fishery and aquaculture products. These identify every actor (Food Business operators), from the retailer to the fishing vessel. Originally put in place for control purposes, traceability also helps consumers to know what they are buying and to be sure that they are paying a fair price.
An advanced business case demonstrates that • all the traceability issues have been thought through • the full benefits will be realized on time • any technical aspects and cost have been thoroughly evaluated • their achievements are tracked and measured
The objectives of the Advanced Business Case are to: • demonstrate how SME(s) can sell seafood in a cost effective way via the Internet • guarantee the quality of the seafood by means of traceability • include all necessary features required by national and international businesses
The FishBizz CWA can also help SMEs select the most suitable and cost effective solutions for their business case. The cost / benefit implications of any IT application should be addressed as well.
3.2.1 E-business Infrastructure
An e-business infrastructure is an architecture of hardware, software, networks, content and data used to deliver business services to customers, employees and partners. Defining an adequate e-business infrastructure is vital to all companies adopting e-business as it affects directly the quality of service experienced by users of the system in terms of speed, responsiveness, flexibility and traceability. It is also important to decide which elements are located internally in the company and which are managed externally as 3rd party managed applications, networks and data servers. We should also consider potential problems faced by users of e-business applications who are either internal or external to the firm such as:
• Web site accessibility • Slow web site communications • Bugs • E-mails not replied to • Ordered products not delivered on time • Quality problems • Privacy issues
26 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The well-known OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model of ISO is a prescription of characterising and standardising the functions of a communication system in terms of abstraction layers. Similar communication functions are grouped into logical layers. An instance of a layer provides services to its upper layer instances while receiving services from the layer below. A reference model of the components that need to be provided in an e-business infrastructure and their layers is provided by the Business Internet Consortium (BIC, [69]), which can be thought of as a refined of ISO 14662, the Open-edi reference model [33]. The BIC model is displayed in Figure 7: B2B Conceptual Model.
Figure 7 - B2B Conceptual Model The various components can be summarized as follows:
• Backend Integration provides hooks into the backend enterprise systems through API or shared messaging bus. Includes functions like business logic processing and format transformation
• The Service Oriented Architecture layer provides basic development standards and tools and defines APIs that “glue” e-Business transaction systems with the backend ERP systems.
• Network Transport addresses the basic messaging transport protocols needed to communicate on the Internet
• Core XML Standards are XML protocols for defining business document types and for accessing the data within the documents.
• Messaging is about standardized message and envelope structure definitions and protocols for reliable and secure messaging.
• Standardized repository services specify the structure and access protocol and schemas for business content storage and retrieval.
27 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Registry Services specify the structure and access protocol of registries and repositories that trading entities can access to discover each other’s capabilities and services.
• Business Content includes everything that composes the payload of business transactions.
• Universal Business Content specifies business terminology and accepted values that may be universally used in business messages that support a broad range of industries, business models and locales.
• Specialized Business Content covers industry- or supply chain-specific technical vocabularies.
• Business Content Instance describes the particular business content exchanged during a particular business transaction.
• Service Description Language layer describes the tools and languages for service implementation and service interface.
• Process Description Language specifies the way in which any business process is recorded.
• Universal Business Process specifies business processes that are applicable to a broad range of businesses.
• Specialized Business Process specifies business processes that are specific to a business operating within a specific industry or supply chain.
• Business Process Instance defines binding of business processes and business content to complete particular business transactions.
• Trading Partner Agreement (TPA) covers dynamic creation and management of relationships between partners.
• Security layer spans a wide range of abstractions from basic encryption, authentication and authorization on the Core XML layer, to non-repudiation and security policies in the business process layer.
• Management layer specifies system management tools and standards that can be used to discover the existence, availability and health of a B2B solution.
This CWA will use the ebXML framework for electronic business as the reference framework for B2B infrastructures (see section 5), which, in conjunction with XML document schemas (see section 6), provides full coverage of B2B infrastructure functionality.
28 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 8 - Producer Countries 3.2.2 Actors – Food Business Operators
The fishing industry includes any industry or activity concerned with taking, culturing, processing, preserving, storing, transporting, marketing or selling fish or fish products. It is defined by the FAO as including recreational, subsistence and commercial fishing, and the harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors. The commercial activity is aimed at the delivery of fish and other seafood products for human consumption or as input factors in other industrial processes. Directly or indirectly, the livelihood of over 500 million people in developing countries depends on fisheries and aquaculture.
The European Union represents about 4.6 % of global fisheries and aquaculture production, which makes it the fourth producer worldwide. As has been the case each year for the last 20 years, total European Union production decreased slightly compared to previous years. Within the EU, the three largest producers in terms of volume are Spain, France and the United Kingdom. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp_en.pdf
Main world producers (2007) [catches and aquaculture]
Sources: Eurostat for EU-27 and FAO for other countries. Figure 9 below shows an overview of the fish distribution channels and the key roles played by various Actors (based upon the ISO 12875 and ISO 12877 standards) at both the Captured Fish and Farmed Fish trading processes.
29 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 9 - Actors in Fish Distribution Channels
We’ve considered two relevant ISO standards to have a standardised Actor list as follows:
• ISO 12875:2011: Traceability of finfish products —Specification on the information to be recorded in captured finfish distribution chains
• ISO 12877:2011: Traceability of finfish products —Specification on the information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution chains
The distribution system ensures adequate supply, minimizes waste, provides convenience and accountability and minimizes risk at each level of the chain. The Figure differentiates the Food Chain Actors and the Other Actors (such as Public Authorities, Expert Team, Bank & Insurance and Fishing Organisations). The Food Chain Actors of the Farmed Fish and Captured Fish are different before the fish product reaches the ‘Processors’ Actors (in the middle of the Figure above), but identical after a fish comes out of the water (Common Fish Actors as described in detail below).
30 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The ‘Farming’ and the ‘Capturing’ processes and Food Chain Actors are as follows:
3.2.2.1 Food Chain Actors
Fishing companies are Actors of the Food Chain. They are either enterprises or individuals
They could be grouped in three sets of Actors:
a) Farmed Fish Actors – aquaculture resources
b) Captured Fish Actors – wild-catch resources
c) Common Fish Distribution Process Actors – as from the ‘PROCESSORS’ process onwards.
d) Other Actors – authorities, banks, experts, fishing organisations
3.2.2.1.1 Farmed Fish Actors
Aquaculture is the cultivation of aquatic organisms. Unlike fishing, aquaculture, also known as aquafarming, is the cultivation of aquatic populations under controlled conditions. Mariculture refers to aquaculture practiced in marine environments. Particular kinds of aquaculture include algaculture (the production of kelp/seaweed and other algae); fish farming; shrimp farming, shellfish farming, and the growing of cultured pearls.
Fish farming involves raising fish commercially in tanks or enclosed pools, usually for food. Fish species raised by fish farms include carp, salmon, tilapia, catfish and cod. Increasing demands on wild fisheries by commercial fishing operations have caused widespread overfishing. Fish farming offers an alternative solution to the increasing market demand for fish and fish protein.
Feeders - Fish feed producers: produce fish feed based on an indefinite range of ingredients. They create new trade units that can range from one feed bag to bulk units of several hundreds of tons passed into the hands of the next food business.
Breeders: produce fish roe/eggs from broodstocks, often based on selection for special characteristics. They may carry out basic operations on the roe/eggs and broodstock such as temperature and light manipulation, and chemical treatments. Prior to dispatch breeders may carry out their own operations, including quality grading and packing. The trade units created by breeders can range from a few thousand to several millions of eggs passed into the hands of the next food business.
Hatcheries: receive roe/eggs and keep it/them during the hatching stage and start of the feeding stage, and dispatch fish to the fish farms. The hatcheries may change the nature of fishery products, by carrying out operations such as feeding, grading, treatments, etc. Hatcheries create new trade units that can range from a few thousand to several hundred thousand fishes passed into the hands of the next food business.
Fish farms: receive fish and keep them during the ongrowing stage and dispatch fish to the slaughtering /processing link. The fish farms may change the nature of fishery products, by carrying out operations such as feeding, grading, treatments, etc. Fish farms create new trade units that can range from a few thousand to several hundred thousand fishes passed into the hands of the next food business.
3.2.2.1.2 Captured Fish Actors
Fishing vessels: vessels that catch fish, that may carry out basic operations on the fish such as bleeding, gutting, heading, washing, grading and weighing, and then stow the fish and transport it to the point of discharge. Fish may also be frozen on fishing vessels. Fishing vessels may carry out their own discharging
31 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
operations that may include grading, weighing and boxing the fish on discharge, prior to dispatch of their products into the hands of the next food business. Alternatively, the next food business may discharge the fishing vessel. The trade units created by fishing vessels can range from single large fish or boxes of graded fish that have been individually labeled by the vessel, to the entire hold of mixed fish passed into the hands of the next food business.
Other Vessels - landing businesses and markets: discharge vessels and/or carry out basic fish-handling operations, such as sorting, grading and weighing fish on landing. They may combine the catches of several vessels. Auction markets are businesses that hold fish for sale by competitive bidding. They may also discharge vessels and sort, grade and weigh fish prior to sale. Vessel-landing businesses and auction markets may land or auction intact trade units or even intact logistic units but commonly create new trade units.
3.2.2.1.3 Common Fish Distribution Process Actors
Processors: change the nature of fishery products, by carrying out operations such as cutting or by treatments such as salting or cooking. Fish processing is the processing of fish delivered by commercial fisheries and fish farms. The larger fish processing companies have their own fishing fleets and independent fisheries. This includes both primary and secondary processors.
However, fishing vessels that carry out basic operations on the fish and retailers and caterers who prepare fishery products for the consumer are not considered to be processors. Some processors also do additional value-added processing tasks such as smoking, battering and breading, cutting portion-control servings, vacuum packaging and gift boxing. Processors create new trade units. Those units may incorporate ingredients other than fishery products.
The processors may sell their products to buyers at any point along the distribution chain, but, because of the normally large volumes, they usually sell to traders or distributors (described later in this section). They may also sell to supermarket chains. In some instances, primary processors sell to specialty or custom processors who do the value-added processing. In any case, processors take raw materials – dead fish – and convert them into products that can be used by the consumer at home, the supermarket seafood department, the chef in a restaurant or someone else. Some processors have their own in-house sales staffs, who are employees of the processing company. They are paid a salary to make the calls, fill the orders and ensure that the company’s entire pack is sold at the best possible price.
Other processors use the services of a broker — an individual or firm that sells products on a commission. A broker usually doesn’t take ownership of the product and, therefore, has little risk, or “exposure,” and no inventory cost but receives typically only about three percent of the value of the sale. A broker may work out of a small office with little more than a telephone, fax and a computer and probably spends most of the day on the phone. Brokers have to move large amounts of product to make a living, so they usually deal in volumes rather than specialty items. Direct marketers may find it advantageous to pay a broker to sell their fish, freeing up time for other tasks. Brokers normally work in specific geographical territories. For a fisherman to compete in the seafood market, it is important to understand the seafood distribution system. This helps identify potential customers and potential competitors and determine where one can best be positioned to build on their strengths and capabilities.
Transporters and storers: provide the service of transporting or storing goods. They may operate at various stages in distribution chains, transporting or storing raw materials or products. Transport may be by land, sea or air. Transporters and storers do not break down or create trade units but may break down or create logistic units.
Traders and wholesalers: are merchants who buy, sell and physically trade fishery products to other businesses. Traders buy from anyone, including fishermen, packers, re-processors and other traders. They
32 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
buy at the lowest price they can and sell to anyone, at the highest possible price. They may sell to wholesalers (described below) or directly to retail and foodservice outlets. They like to buy “back-to-back,” meaning they have it sold before they take possession of the product, and they like to buy “on the float,” which means they arrange the terms of their purchase so that they have already been paid by their customer before they have to pay their supplier.
The trader’s role is to match the flow of product to the demand by “sourcing” from numerous suppliers and trying to supply each customer what he or she needs. They may operate at various stages in distribution chains, trading raw materials or products. They include cash-and-carry type businesses supplying retailers and caterers. Some traders and wholesalers may create new trade units, by breaking down trade units they have received into smaller units or by picking and mixing individual fishery products from a number of trade units they have received, in order to meet the needs of particular customers. However, traders and wholesalers do not change the nature of the fishery products they trade, or they would be considered also to be processors. Traders and wholesalers may also break down or create logistic units.
Wholesalers (also called Distributors) deliver product to the users. Usually, distributors have fleets of refrigerated trucks and those trucks do the door-to-door delivery of products to restaurants and supermarkets or to central warehouses owned by or serving those restaurants and supermarkets.
Most restaurants use small quantities of fish, no more than a few hundred kilos a week of all species, and individual supermarkets don’t sell much more than that. Neither has much refrigerated storage on-site, so the wholesaler’s job is to provide a slow, steady flow of product to meet the buyers’ daily needs. Wholesalers are buffers between the processors, who may produce millions of kilos a year, and dozens of end-users, each of whom needs only hundreds of pounds a week or a few pounds a day.
Retailers and caterers: are suppliers to the public, not to other businesses. They are likely to break down trade units received and may change the nature of fishery products by preparing them for their customers. Some may package and label the items sold. Retailers and caterers are encouraged to record information on their sales but the scope of this International Standard does not extend to sale to the public.
Foodservice is the trade term for businesses that serve meals. The class includes restaurants, kiosks and street vendors, schools, prisons, hospitals, airline meal providers, corporate cafeterias or mess halls, entertainment venues such as sports stadiums, and special facilities such as cruise ships and lodges with meal services. Large restaurant chains account for a big part of the food service seafood consumption. Foodservice operators usually buy from distributors, although some restaurants are willing to buy directly from fishermen. Usually these are the so-called “white tablecloth” restaurants that feature very high quality fare at commensurately high prices.
The other endpoint of the distribution web are the various kinds of retailers, including supermarkets, fish markets, health food stores, gift shops and even certain upscale department stores. Most supermarkets are members of chains, that is, many stores owned by a single parent company. Large chains have tremendous purchasing power and move large volumes of product, which can be a good thing if you have tons of fish to sell, but a bad thing if you’re trying to sell small quantities. They buy from a number of different processors and distributors. Most chains have their own central warehouses in large cities and may operate their own fleet of delivery trucks.
Supermarkets (and some other retailers) have extremely high overhead costs — building and space rental or purchase, maintenance, staff, advertising, etc. In addition, they experience shrinkage. This is the term for product value lost to factors such as in-house cutting and trimming, declining quality during storage or desiccation from exposure to air. Because of these overhead and shrinkage costs, retailers have to mark up their products by 30 to 40 percent or more. Retail mark-up is the largest single component of the increase in
33 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
fish price between the catcher and the consumer, but, because of overhead and shrinkage involved, it isn’t all “profit.”
Open Markets – Other Retailers: Other retailers include those who market seafoods at the dock or from a truck beside the road, via mail order, over the Internet, by subscription and through direct home deliveries.
Keep in mind that the aforementioned individuals are just the players who buy, sell, or take ownership of the product. They are direct market places where Fish Farms, Fish Vessels and Other Vessels as well as Processors can sell their fish / fish products to the customers.
Bringing in fish and materials from outside the domain apply to fish and materials received from businesses that are not operating according to these specifications. This includes the supply of non-fish ingredients to processors. They both identify and provide a description of the units received.
3.2.2.1.4 Other Actors
Public Authorities in most countries like to be informed of any sale of fish such that they can see that the sale is legal and also update their own statistics. To ensure that the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy are followed in practice, the policy also includes a control system with the necessary tools to enforce them. To enforce common-fisheries-policy rules, there is a control system, designed to: • ensure that only the allowed quantities of fish are caught • collect the necessary data for managing fishing opportunities • clarify the roles of EU countries and the Commission • ensure the rules are applied to all fishers in the same way, with harmonised sanctions across the EU • ensure that fisheries products can be traced back and checked throughout the supply chain, from net to plate. The system is laid down in the Control Regulation which entered into force on 1 January 2010 and which thoroughly modernised the EU's approach to fisheries control. In particular, it brought the system into line with the strong measures which the EU had adopted in 2008 to combat illegal fishing.
Expert Team: For the FishBizz Business Case to be compliant with the traceability principles, all actors shall be upgraded with adequate FishBizz standards. This upgrading process is going to be enabled with the CWA document being authored by the FishBizz technical group - in the FishBizz project they will be the FishBizz Expert Team.
Bank & Insurance: Banking and Insurance companies provide financing, payment and insurance services for all of the FishBizz Actors. The credit requirements (loan requirements and sources of credit) and supply, as well as savings facilities and insurance services are not encountered in fisheries or aquaculture context of the FishBizz project. Public financial support to fisheries is substantial, whether through EU fisheries funds or various Member State aid and support measures, including tax exemptions. It also often contradicts with CFP objectives, in particular the need to reduce overcapacity, and has sometimes appeared as compounding structural problems rather than helping to solve them.
The emphasis with regards to banking and insurance in this project could be on payment terms. Many companies and especially SMEs have great problems in handling the payment. And they therefore need a relationship with a proper bank/Insurance that can handle the money flow of the fish being sold such that the company can be assured to get the money in reasonable time.
Fishing Organisations: Most fishing companies are members of bigger International fishing organisations. The tasks of such organisations in the FishBizz case are to provide help in the marketing activities for their member organisations. They could be members of the FishBizz workshop group as well. Fishing organisations should have a contractual relationship with one or more FishBizz Traders. And it will be an advantage if the contract is made electronically and this can be an improvement of the ebXML CPA.
34 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3.2.3 Benefit Factors
There are two sets of benefit factors:
• compliance-driven factors (3.2.3.1) and
• value-driven factors (3.2.3.2)
Eventually traceability may be mandatory and it will simply cost the business and customers more money. When regulations are imposed, traceability becomes a market entry requirement; without it an SME cannot ship product into the regulated market.
It is also feasible to compare the value of being in regulated markets with alternative markets and measure the difference in revenue and contribution to gross margin or profits. If there are few unregulated market alternatives then traceability may be essential to the survival of the business. However, even in such cases, it is important to continue the business case analysis through the next levels of value assessment, since they identify benefits which can cover the costs of implementing traceability.
3.2.3.1 Compliance-driven factors
Compliance with data requirements to supply seafood to key international markets is the biggest driving force behind the implementation of formalized traceability systems. Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 states that “The traceability of food, feed, food-producing animals, and any other substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed shall be established at all stages of production, processing and distribution.”
Regulatory authorities respond to societies growing desire to know where seafood comes from and whether it is safe to consume. With an effective traceability system, authorities know, almost in real time, which operators handle the lots of fish after catch.
Lend support to legislation and associated regulations covering the seafood supply chain.
Address concerns of agro-terrorism or tampering in the seafood supply chain.
3.2.3.1.1 Compliance with specifications based on ISO standards and CWAs
ISO Standards:
• ISO 12875:2011(E) Traceability of finfish products — Specification on the information to be recorded in captured finfish distribution chains the information requirements to be recorded by the different businesses • ISO 12877 (First edition 2011-08-15) Traceability of finfish products — Specification on the information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution chains CWAs
• CWA 14660 (February 2003) Traceability of fishery products — Specification of the information to be recorded in captured fish distribution chains • CWA 14659 (February 2003) Traceability of fishery products — Specification of the information to be recorded in farmed fish distribution chains
35 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Table 1 - High level information requirements to be recorded according to ISO 12875 Food Business Operator (FBO) Table Data Receive Transform Create/ Dispatch type Prefixa Produce
Fishing vessels 3 CFV TU/LU TU/LU
Vessel-landing businesses and 4 CLA TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU markets Processors 5 CPR TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU
Transporters and storers 6 CTS TU/LU No LU TU/LU
Traders and wholesalers 7 CTW TU/LU No TU/LU TU/LU
Retailers and caterers 8 CRC TU/LU
Bringing in materials from outside 9 COT TU/LU the domain a For the purpose of unique identification to establish an extendable framework for data element identification, each table has been identified with a three-letter alphanumeric code. This code plus three digits is used to give a unique number to each data element. TU=Trade Units LU=Logistic Units
The fundamental principle of chain traceability is that trade units (TUs) shall be identified by unique codes (UI). This code may be globally unique in itself (for instance the GS1 SGTIN or EPC numbers) or it could be unique in that particular scope only, which means that there should be no other TUs in that part of the chain that may have the same number. If the scope (the company, the chain, the sector, the country, the product type, or similar) is assigned a globally unique number, the combination of the globally unique scope number and the locally unique TU number shall constitute a globally unique identifier for the TU.
Trade Units (TUs) may be grouped together to make Logistic Units (LUs) or LUs may be grouped together to make higher level LUs. A fundamental principle of chain traceability is that logistic units shall be identified by a unique code. This code may be globally unique in itself (for instance the GS1 SSCC code) or it could be unique in that particular scope only, which means that there should be no other LUs in that part of the chain that may have the same number. If the scope (the company, the chain, the sector, the country, the product type, or similar) is assigned a globally unique number, the combination of the globally unique scope number and the locally unique LU number shall constitute a globally unique identifier for the LU
The key to the operation of this traceability scheme is the labelling of each unit of goods traded, whether of raw materials or finished products, with a unique ID. This shall be done by the food business that creates each unit. Businesses that transform units, such as processors who convert the units of raw materials received into the products dispatched, shall create new units and shall give them new IDs.
36 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Each of the food businesses that create or physically trade in those units, throughout the distribution chains from catcher through to retailer or caterer, shall generate and hold the information necessary for traceability. The information is to be held on paper or electronically, keyed to the unit IDs.
Table 2 - High level information requirements to be recorded according to ISO 12877 Food Business Operator (FBO) Table Data Receive Transform Create/ Dispatch type Prefixa Produce
Fishing feed producers 3 FFE TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU
Breeders 4 FBR TU/LU TU/LU
Hatcheries 5 FHA TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU
Fish farms 6 FFF TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU
Live fish transporters 7 FTR TU/LU No LU TU/LU
Processors 8 FPR TU/LU Yes TU/LU TU/LU
Transporters and storers 9 FTS TU/LU No LU TU/LU
Traders and wholesalers 10 FTW TU/LU No TU/LU TU/LU
Retailers and caterers 11 FRC TU/LU
Bringing in materials from outside 12 FOT TU/LU the domain
a For the purpose of unique identification to establish an extendable framework for data element identification, each table has been identified with a three-letter alphanumeric code. This code plus three digits is used to give a unique number to each data element.
TU=Trade Units LU=Logistic Units
3.2.3.1.2 Standard Compliance in the process from sea to plate
Since 1 January 2010, the implementation of new rules on fisheries control [17] has further strengthened product traceability. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0001:0050:EN:PDF
37 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Let’s asses how the process works, from sea to plate. a) At sea
• When the fish is hauled aboard the vessel, the master shall submit a catch declaration to the control authorities without delay. • For each species, the declaration mentions the estimated quantity, date and zone of catch, gears used and the vessel’s home port, and the start and end dates of its season. • If lots are transshipped to another vessel, the masters of the fishing vessel and of the transport vessel shall both submit a transshipment declaration to their control authorities: these identify the vessel, give a detailed description of the goods and indicate their destination.
b) At the wharf
• Upon landing, catches shall be weighed on scales approved by the control authorities. • The auction centre where the fish will be sold is responsible for the accuracy of the weighing. • This responsibility can also be taken on by the producers’ organisation (PO) to which the vessel belongs or, for direct sales, by the buyer. • Before their first sale, fish, molluscs and crustaceans shall be divided into lots of the same species, generally presented in crates graded according to the requirements of the PO or the auction centre to which the vessel delivers its products. This sorting operation often takes place on the vessel, before reaching the port, so that the fish can be weighed by lots. • The lot is the basic unit that will be traced throughout the fish marketing chain. • It is often during the weighing that information on the fishery products is placed on the lot, generally in the form of a barcode or electronic chip. • This information will accompany the product up to the retail sale. • Apart from the lot identification number, this information shall at least include the catching vessel (or the aquaculture farm), the species (international code, commercial name and scientific name), dates and catch (or harvest) zone, exact quantity and whether the products are frozen or not. • On the basis of the weighing, the vessel master completes a landing declaration that describes the species landed, their exact quantity and the port of landing. • Generally, the auction centre, PO or fishermen’s association takes delivery of the goods and stores them until the sale begins. • The body receiving the goods shall submit a take-over declaration. • In addition to the information contained in the previous declarations, the description of the goods and the place of storage shall be detailed. • The take-over declaration shall be transmitted electronically and without delay, within 24 hours for entities with annual turnover of more than EUR 200 000 and within 48 hours for the others. o The new electronic transmission control scheme imposes the electronic logbook (electronic reporting system, ERS) for all vessels more than 12 m in length, with a daily declaration during fishing trips (before arrival in port for catches taken the last day out). o This provision is being phased into place. It is currently mandatory for vessels over 24 m in length. o As of 2011, it applies to all vessels over 15 m in length. o In 2012, it will be the rule for vessels 12 m or more in length. o For vessels up to 11.99 m, the paper logbook will remain in use and catches shall be declared every two days.
38 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
c) At the auction
• This stage marks the first sale of the lots. • Each lot is put on the block and sold to the highest bidder. • In most cases, the first buyer is a fish wholesale trader, although retail traders, restaurant owners and processors sometimes also buy at auctions. • Direct sales circuits also exist. In this case, the fish are delivered directly from the vessel’s hold to the cold storage plant of the wholesaler or processor who has reached a prior agreement with the vessel owner. • The buyers shall always be approved by the state and identified in a national list. • The seller issues an invoice plus a sales note that is transmitted to the control authorities. • This note adds further details to the other declarations: o identification of the buyer, o place and date of sale, o invoice references o and price. • The sales note and the information in the invoice shall match, not only for fisheries inspectors, but also for the tax authorities
d) On the road • For direct sales, lots of fish are sometimes transferred directly from the vessel to a lorry that will transport them, for example, to an auction or a processing plant located outside the port, sometimes very far away.
• In this case, the lots leave the port without a take-over declaration or sales note. • This scenario is authorised provided the haulier draws up a transport document. • It shall be completed before the lorry leaves the port and either transmitted immediately by electronic means to the competent control authorities or accompany the goods to their destination, where it shall be transmitted to the competent control authorities within 48 hours following unloading. • This transport document identifies the goods in the same manner as the earlier declarations and also gives the references of the transport vehicle, the place and date of loading, the destination and the identity of the recipient.
e) At the shop • This is where the first sale comes to an end. • The wholesalers and processors have bought their goods. • They shall then process and sell them to retailers (fish shops, supermarkets or restaurants) or to intermediaries (exporters, central trading groups, etc.). • The lots can naturally be grouped, split or divided among different buyers as long as their origin can still be traced. • The information shall be duplicated in the same number of groupings or divisions of the lots and the sales documents shall contain an express reference to the original lot. • The retailer has an additional obligation related to informing consumers. The sales label shall legibly show the following compulsory information: o species, o type of production (catch or farming), o geographical zone of catch or farming o for products sold in the fresh food department, whether they have once been frozen or not.
39 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• In compliance with Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) rules if there is a sanitary problem with a product, it is now possible, based on the information that accompanies each lot, to move back up the supply chain all the way to the catch declaration. • This is useful for fisheries controls. It is also useful for consumers, who have the possibility to learn the answer to a fundamental question: ‘Where does the fish on my plate come from?’
f) Assurance of sustainability • The Commission intends to ensure that labels respect FAO guidelines. • These directives impose a rigorous award procedure to keep a fisheries player from being both judge and judged in the award of the label. • Earning ‘sustainable fisheries’ certification is the result of a long process that meets very strictly established and controlled rules. o the promoter of the label shall develop standards to be met by certified fisheries. It thus becomes a standards setting body. Its specifications shall respect the minimum criteria set by the FAO. o These concern . the state of the stocks exploited, . the management system . the fishery’s impact on the ecosystem. • Traceability systems developed as post-processing traceability tools can be extended to the harvester stage to support eco-labelling initiatives. o Eco- labelling (such as dolphin friendly) is now standard practice around the world and the number of fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is growing every year.
3.2.3.2 Value-driven factors
Many companies may only consider the need for preparedness within the framework of regulatory compliance. Doing so will undervalue the business implications of preparedness, as pressure from the buyer community to comply with traceability requirements and practices also will have impact.
3.2.3.2.1 Market benefits – meeting market and consumer requirements
• Strengthens consumer confidence through industry’s ability to promptly identify and recall product. • Consumers more sensitive to environmental concerns, fish can command a premium if marketed according to when, where, and how was it caught. • Retailers will begin requiring the use of newer technologies and standards. This includes EDI, GTIN, SSCC as well as RFID. Therefore, the technical migration required for traceability will also meet emerging demands from retailers and foodservice companies. • Facilitates protection of company / brand name o Integrated, reliable and verifiable traceability systems are a key requirement for branding seafood as superior products that are safe to consume, managed sustainably and of superior quality.
3.2.3.2.2 Risk and recall benefits based on improvements in traceability systems and management, and the associated reduction in liability costs.
• More effective (Food safety, speed and accuracy) recall procedure o Enable a company to demonstrate its product is not implicated in a given recall . By ensuring proper segregation and clear identification of product
40 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
o Enable more precise recall. . The financial impact of recalling an entire commodity or brand versus a specific grouping of product (e.g., a batch or lot) can be enormous. • Provides internal logistical and quality related information, improving efficiency o Three types of information shall be shown on the label of a fishery product placed for sale on the retail market: . the name of the species, • the EU Commission is considering the option of requiring both the scientific name of the species and the commercial name. . the means of production (fishing or farming) • The use of terms such as ‘small-scale fishing’, ‘line fishing’ or ‘caught by trawl net’, ‘seine net’, ‘longline’, etc. would tell consumers what type of vessel or fishing gear was used to catch the fish on offer. . the origin. • information on fishing zones is hard for consumers to understand. It is based on 12 catch zones defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) • The Commission wishes to propose the use of zones that are more meaningful to consumers . A fourth type of information, namely whether the product is fresh or was previously frozen, is provided to consumers as of 1 January 2011.
o This information is not always clear enough or precise enough, nor are information obligations always respected.
• Reduce Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing o (IUU) fishing depletes fish stocks, destroys marine habitats, distorts competition, puts honest fishers at an unfair disadvantage, and weakens coastal communities, particularly in developing countries. . Under recently adopted rules only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU. . A European black list has been drawn up covering both IUU vessels and states that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities. . EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world, under any flag, face substantial penalties proportionate to the economic value of their catch, which deprive them of any profit. . The new EU regulation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Commission is working actively to inform all parties on how to apply the new rules.
3.2.3.2.3 Process improvement benefits – Efficiency and Quality
• Improved supply chain management and trading partner collaboration o improved real-time inventory management o reduces product waste as well as ensures a more consistent quality delivery to supply chain end users • Innovative monitoring solutions that add value to the end product. o micro-chips containing sensitive and accurate temperature probes are now being inserted into individual high value fish destined for the Japanese market, allowing historical temperature
41 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
graphs to be generated at any stage in the supply chain, in turn informing quality and pricing decisions • Supports fisheries monitoring efforts o Traceability data collection can be integrated with fisheries management data collection to add value to both requirements. • Supports enforcement efforts o Ensuring that all product moving through the seafood supply chain has been legally harvested o is essential for both quality assurance and marketing purposes. • Improved supply chain management is now extending back to seafood harvesters and growers o many individual quota fisheries are now managing fishing effort on a market demand rather than fishing opportunity basis • Create a Feedback Loop from fisherman to retailer / foodservice to improve product quality, condition, and delivery. Understanding how a particular seafood product performs under different circumstances can create opportunities for fishermen to improve the performance. o understanding differences in quality between the source of fish from a sales performance point of view. • Improved product quality and quality assurance • Providing consumers with verification of product quality claims, as well as by providing a mechanism to financially reward harvesters that meet quality standards.
• By adopting the EN ISO 9001 Quality Management System, SMEs could be viewed as industry leaders – and will be better equipped to withstand the intense scrutiny of NGO’s. • Improve aquaculture management practices o Vertical integration - from feed manufacturer to breeder to processor. In many stages of the aquaculture supply chain allows them to implement effective identity traceability systems covering the entire upstream chain. o By recording quality-related data elements in a traceability system, a downstream link (e.g. processing) can efficiently provide upstream links (e.g. farm) with valuable feedback for management decisions. • gaping of fillets recorded by processors would inform the farm managers that excess stress may have occurred during harvest – while observations of ‘pale’ fillets would alert the farm managers to feed-related issues. o Traceability systems also serve as valuable fish health tools for finfish aquaculture. • By linking the incidence of bacterial and viral diseases at the hatchery/farm level with specific broodstock, parental lines with a greater resistance to these diseases may be identified, thereby allowing for improvements in breeding programs at broodstock facilities.
3.2.3.2.4 Qualitative business benefits
It is possible to estimate real values for many, but not all, factors. For example, traceability may affect the reputation of the SME, providing a market advantage, and the perceived risk reduction may be extremely important to the SME. Such benefits are often termed intangibles, however improved reputation and reduced risks are very tangible benefits for the SMEs affected. They are tangible, just not easily measured. One way to assess the importance of such benefits is to ask SMEs to answer the following questions:
• How important is this benefit to the SME? • How much will implementing traceability affect this benefit?
42 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Potential qualitative benefits: • Perceived position as an industry leader and an early adopter of leading technologies and processes • Impact on reputation with customers, suppliers, consumers, governments or the public in general • Perception related to reduced risks • Improved customer service/response time 3.2.3.2.5 Quantifying business benefits
It is envisaged that compliance provides only a fraction of overall benefits. Potential benefits from supply chain optimization and recall scope reductions seem to be most noteworthy.
Potential quantitative benefits:
• Market Benefits – Regulatory Compliance • Market & Customer Requirements • Recall & Risk Management • Process Improvement - Quality and Efficiency
3.2.4 Expected Dis-benefits
Outcomes perceived as negative by one or more stakeholders. Dis-benefits are actual consequences of an activity whereas, by definition, a risk has some uncertainty about whether it will materialize.
Dis-Benefit Dis-Benefit measurement Business Actors
Too many traceability Extra admin - Negative Change in Profit Margin All standards to comply with.
Emerging market Affordability / extra costs of foreign labeling and All requirements restrict certification standards market access and erode competitiveness
Accessing international Extra admin. All markets, building consumer confidence, and ensuring the stewardship of data owners is resource intensive
Illegal fisheries don’t Standard compliance measures All invest in tracaebility system
Invested already in Data accuracy All proprietary system that is outdated. Migration to a new system is costly
Requires capital cost at evaluate against potential cost savings in material, All start up for hardware and labour and other resources. software
Training for staff in new Level of computer expertise All Equipment & processes
43 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
3.2.5 Timescales
- 3 to 5 months for the implementation at individual SME level
– Start up (implementation) and
– Ongoing (operation / maintenance) costs
3.2.6 Costs
Costs associated with adopting traceability systems and financing arrangements vary depending on the traceability program, the supply chain involved for a product, the regulatory environment, SME size, SME strategy, SME’s technology, product characteristics, processes.
The table below splits traceability costs into implementation and maintenance/operation costs. ‘Time’ , which includes production line, supervisory staff, managerial/administrative staff time and disruption of production, is an important traceability cost both for implementation and maintenance. The disruption of operations may also be linked to reluctant workforce, because additional effort is required for strictly separating each lot, inputting data and printing different labels, etc. ‘Equipment and software’ are fundamental for the management of traceability systems. A comprehensive training is required not only for startup but also ongoing. Consultants / advisors could be used if internal skills are not available. New materials should be purchased especially for labels. Certification and audits are securing comnpliance with due standards ongoing
CLASSIFICATION START UP ONGOING (OPERATION & (IMPLEMENTATION) COSTS MAINTENANCE) COSTS
TIME Information search/processing Slow down / interruption of (of workforce, administration Change management operations and management) Test runs/interruptions Additional reporting / recalls EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE New purchases / installation Upgrades and service contracts TRAINING Extensive, comprehensive Ongoing, for new staff CONSULTANTS For system choice/design For specific challenges MATERIALS Switch to new materials Labels/Packaging “system” CERTIFICATION AND AUDITS Initial audits/certification Repeat audits/certification
3.2.7 Investment appraisal
Attaining traceability of fish products requires developing traceability data exchange connections between the supply chain actors involved. FishBizz provides a solution supported by XML message standards, which describes how to communicate traceability data using interoperable solutions in a trade partnership between the actors in the fish product supply chain. It therefore helps a business set up how traceability systems should interact, how traceability data exchange should be defined and provides a common platform for supply chain actors to use. The level of benefits to be obtained is dependent upon each single company, and is influenced by the degree to which it has already adopted collaborative supply chain practices, information technology and the number of non-interoperable connections already in place.
The key economic benefits of using the FishBizz solution can be categorized as:
1. Faster integration between fish supply chain partners
1.1 Scaling. After the first interoperable integration between two traceability systems, it can be scaled to be used for new relationships, whereas without a interoperable solution (as for many today) each relationship requires its own integration model.
44 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
1.2 Costs. Running costs with the FishBizz solution are lower when compared with not having an interoperable system, since staff only need knowledge of one type of traceability data exchange model, with some business variances per partnership.
1.3 Time compression. It reduces the implementation time significantly when compared to implementing a non-interoperable solution.
2. Reduced IT cost
FishBizz helps to minimize the costs in these ways:
2.1 It provides a data exchange template for interoperable supply chain traceability. This reduces the time and effort needed to establish the ways of working between supply chain partners and speeds up the process of reaching a commercial agreement.
2.2 Once a company has adopted these processes and embedded them in its systems, more supply chain partners can be added quickly and easily without the need for costly business process re-engineering.
2.3 The electronic message handling systems need only to be configured once to follow the interoperable FishBizz solution, which is based on UN/CEFACT standards. Once this has been implemented and tested, new supply chain partners can be added with minimal changes.
2.4 Following one connection, FishBizz reduces the time required by IT staff on maintenance and reduces training requirements both for IT staff and business operators.
3.2.8 Major Risks
Risk Description Impact Probability Risk Response Id
1 Business benefits are not Medium High Training, Guidelines; considered important for the SME Best Practices
2 Traceability is buyer Medium Medium Case studies, success stories driven;
3 Traceability Medium Medium Centralised funding implementation not properly funded
4 Traceability information is Medium Medium Chain of custody difficult to collect
5 Proactive, non-regulatory Medium Medium Case studies, success stories advantages are not recognised
6 Processors who had Medium Medium Training. investigated technological solutions (e.g.. bar codes) Integrate IT with fish processing are not confident that they operations were presented with a workable system
45 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7 Not enough product ID Medium Medium Bar code to be incorporated into the labelling process as a product ID.
8 Lack of transport data Medium Medium Transport information to be integrated into the supply chain data system.
9 Data confidentiality & Medium Medium Confidentialilty and accessibility accessibility in the contract
46 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4 GS1 Traceability Standards including EPC
4.1 Background
Traceability comprises a standardized system of procedures covering all links of the fish product chain, both regarding the supply of products and the associated information to facilitate transparency for monitoring purposes. All trade partners shall achieve internal and external traceability (Figure 10).
Figure 10 - Traceability across the Supply Chain Implementing a traceability system within a supply chain requires all parties involved to systematically link the physical flow of materials and products with the flow of information about them. This requires a holistic view of the supply chain, which is best attained by deploying a common business language.
In Chapter 3 titled “FishBizz Business Case” we highlighted the key elements of the Advanced Business Case (e-Business infrastructure; Actors – Food Business Operators; Benefit Factors and Standards)
While businesses recognise the business benefits of traceability, they do not want multiple, potentially conflicting traceability standards and systems, and they do not want to increase costs unnecessarily. Businesses also recognise that an individual company is only one partner in the supply chain, and that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In short, businesses want a traceability system that can easily be adopted by just about everyone in the supply chain.
The key is to design the traceability system at the right granularity level based on the users’ needs for information at acceptable costs.
Compliance with data requirements to supply seafood to key international markets is the biggest driving force behind the implementation of formalized traceability systems. Data standardization is vital for end-to-end traceability.
FishBizz standards (other than GS1) • Management systems– EN ISO 9001, ISO14000, OHSAS18001 • Corporate responsibility– ISO 26000 • Security–ISO27001 • Feed and food safety - HACCP, BRC, IFS, SQF, EN ISO 22000, FSSC22000
47 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Good Agricultural/Aquaculture Practices – Global GAP Integrated Farm Assurance • Traceability -MSC Chain of Custody, EN ISO 22005:2007, GLOBALGAP CoC • Sustainability -Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Sustainable Fishing, Product Certification (Voluntary) –EN 45011/ISO Guide 65, GLOBALGAP • Food Packaging–BRC IOP
The European Union (EU) has recognized government authorities as the competent authority for certification of seafood exports to the EU. HACCP certification is now extended to other food industries with auditing being done by third parties. • HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points • Good Animal Husbandry Practice (GAHP) at the farm level. • Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) • Good Aquaculture Practice (GAqP) • Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) • Good Hygiene Practice (GHP)
Figure 11 - Standards Costs and Profits
48 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
A key player in data standardization and open systems for product traceability is GS1, a global non-profit organization with more than one million member organizations in 108 countries.
In Chapter 6 we assess the role of the GS1 traceability standard package with a special emphasis on EPCIS. For the compliance assessment we use the relevant ISO standards (ISO 12875 and ISO 12877) and assess each corresponding GS1 data element per Actor – Food Business Operator.
4.2 GS1 Standards for FishBizz Traceability
Linkage between EN ISO 22005, Food Safety and Quality Standards and the GS1 traceability standards:
• The GS1 Global Traceability Programme provides guidance to users on meeting the traceability requirements required by the highest standards of quality and food safety such as EN ISO 9001, EN ISO 22005, HACCP, BRC, IFS and GLOBALGAP.
• While food safety and quality standards define “what” should be done in terms of traceability (i.e. the objectives). The GS1 Programme helps companies to actually do it: it is about the ―”how” to do it.
For Traceability GS1 provides Process and Technical Standards: a) Traceability process standard
• GS1 Global Traceability Standard or GTS : A process standard independent from the choice of enabling technologies that defines minimum traceability system requirements for companies of all sizes across industry sectors and meets the core legislative and business needs.
• The GS1 Traceability Checklist or GTC: It is one of the first global traceability assessment tools with 95 Control Points & Compliance Criteria that allows organizations to audit and validate their supply chain compliance to the industry defined by the GS1 Global Traceability Standard.
49 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
b) Visibility standard sets for traceability solutions:
Figure 12 - GS1 Visibility Standards
• For Identification: Fundamental to tracking and tracing a product for full chain traceability is that every food component harvested from farm or sea and through every stage of its transformation / packaging to a finished consumer product shall be uniquely identified at each stage of transformation or possession – and that these identifiers be linked.
GS1 Identification Keys with numbering schemas
for products (Global Trade Item Number – GTIN; Serial Shipping Container Code – SSCC; Electronic Product Code – EPC; locations and parties (Global Location Number) and assets (Global Returnable Assets Identifier or GRAI), as well as a Global Product Classification standard (GPC).
• For Data capture: Effective traceability requires standardizing the information that needs to be recorded through each step of the food production and distribution chain: GS1Barcodes with several types of bar code, linear (EAN/UPC, GS1 128, ITF 14, Databar) and 2-dimensional (Datamatrix, QR Code) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags (EPC for HF and UHF).
• For Data sharing (data exchange and discovery):
50 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
To ensure the continuity of the flow of traceability information, each partner shall pass on information about the identified lot or product group to the next partner in the production chain, or alternatively, to a central data base or registry where information can be retrieved when necessary. Global Data Synchronisation Network (GDSN) for aligning product master data, eCOM business-to-business messaging standards, and EPCIS for visibility.
Figure 13 - GS1 Traceability Standard Package
4.2.1 GS1 Global Traceability Standard (GTS)
Traceability is a process and should be managed as such within companies. If not, traceability systems run the risk of not being consistent and not covering all necessary aspects to cover whole chain traceability in an integrated way: for all the components of traceability of traceability (identification, labelling data management) as well as for the integration with other processes such as logistics and quality management.
GS1 Global Traceability Standard (GTS) is a Process standard describing the traceability process independent from the choice of enabling technologies. It defines minimum requirements for all stakeholders, organisations, industry sectors and countries and corresponding GS1 Standards to be used in combination with information management tools
This is a building block for developing: • Traceability systems • Traceability assessments and auditing tools • Industry or country specific traceability Implementation Guidelines • Extensions of traceability requirements for specific industries, countries or business needs • New GS1 standards that may be required (or leverage of existing standards)
51 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Traceability Process in the GS1 GTS Standard: • Plan and Organize sub-process determines how to assign, collect, share and keep traceability data. Furthermore, it determines how to manage links between inputs, internal processes, and outputs. It is a prerequisite phase. • The Align Master Data sub - process determines how to assign identifications to the parties and physical locations, trade items and if appropriate to assets. It also determines how to exchange Master Data with trading partners. • The Record Traceability Data sub-process determines how to assign, apply and capture traceable items identification and how to collect, share and store traceability data during the physical flow. • The Request Trace sub-process determines how to initiate and respond to a traceability request • The Use Information sub-process enables the use of the previous processes to take appropriate action as required by legal and business requirements.
Figure 14 - GS1 Traceability Process
4.2.2 Technical Standard Sets for Traceability Solutions
Minimum data elements necessary to establish traceability:
• A consistent approach to what information needs to flow between actors / trading partners • One up; One down • Collect, Keep and Share • Generic: can apply to all food groups • Scope: fish to back door of retail / food service
52 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.2.2.1 FishBizz Actors (ISO 12875 and ISO 12877)
They all play a role in the traceability of a product and all those who handle the products shall ensure internal and external traceability.
Figure 15 - Actors
4.2.2.2 Traceable Item Identification
A traceable item is a physical object where there may be a need to retrieve information about its history, application, or location. The level at which the traceable item is defined within a product packaging or logistical hierarchy is dependent on the industry and degree of control required.
A traceable item across the supply chain can be at different hierarchy level: • Consumer Unit (CU) o Individually identified (with a serial number) o Identified by batch / lot o Identified by class of consumer units : Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) - all products with the same features to the consumer) • Groupings of trade items (TU) • Logistic Unit (LU): a pallet, a container • Shipment (ex: truckload, vessel)
The level at which the traceable item is defined within a product packaging or logistical hierarchy is dependent on the industry and degree of control required.
53 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 16 - Traceable Item Hierarchy
54 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The global standards managed by GS1 to identify traceable items in supply chains are summarized in the table below:
Figure 17 - GS1 Traceability Standards
4.2.2.3 Traceable Data Capture
Traceability data includes information about :
• Who?
• Where?
• When?
• What?
• What happened?
55 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Traceability can be (see Figure 18.)
• Public (at least for trading partners) or Private if they are confidential.
• Master or Transactional / event data.
Master data is relatively consistent over time and independent from day to day physical events (e.g.,name of the trade item, dimensions, country of origin of the raw material if part of the product specifications…).
Transactional or event data is created during the physical flow of goods. It can only be collected when events occur (e.g.,date of receipt, weight if variable…).
Figure 18 - Data and Information depending on Product Type and Contractual Relationship It is also important to distinguish four categories of data for recall notifications :
• Global (core data regardless of country)
• Category (product specific)
• Jurisdiction (regulation/notification specific)
• Trading partner (traceability) partner
56 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.2.2.4 Data recording and sharing
Data management is an essential part of traceability.
Key questions are:
• What data should be recorded?
• How long should it be recorded?
• To whom should it be made available, when, how and how fast?
• What is the acceptable quality of data? (accuracy of records with manual entry of information may be a problem)
4.2.2.5 Minimum data requirements for traceability stakeholders:
• Who is my Traceability Partner?
Parties may serve as a:
o Traceable Item Source, often as Traceability Data Source (GLN)
o Traceable Item Recipient, often as Traceability Data Recipient (GLN)
• What is the Traceable Item?
The data elements required are dependent on the level of traceable item chosen:
• When the Traceable Item is a Trade Item:
o Trade Item Identification (GTIN)
o Trade Item Description
o Trade Item Quantity
• When the Traceable Item is a batch of trade item:
o Trade Item Identification (GTIN + Batch/Lot Number)
o Trade Item Description
o Trade Item Quantity
• When the Traceable Item is a serialised of trade item:
o Trade Item Identification (GTIN + Serial Number)
o Trade Item Description
o Trade Item Quantity
• When the Traceable Item is a Logistic Unit:
o Logistic Unit Identification (SSCC + Application Identifiers)
o Logistic Unit Quantity
57 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• When the Traceable Item is a Shipment:
o Shipment Identification (Shipment Identification Number, SIN)
• Where was it shipped from or shipped to?
o Best practice or specific extensions of traceability requirements: “ship from” or “ship to ” identification (GLN).
• When did I receive / dispatch it?
o Date of receipt and/or date of dispatch as relevant depending on the role of the party (DESADV)
Public master data on products are typically partly available on the product label and exchanged via GDSN, the Global Data Synchronisation Network (http://www.gs1.org/gdsn).
Some public master data on parties are available via Gepir (www.gepir.org).
Public Transactional data are typically exchanged via the product label (logistic label in B2B interactions, typically with GS1 128 barcode or EPC RFID tag) and via e-messages (EDI, Electronic Data Interchanges, Despatch Advice or Advance shipping notices in the US) and / or a traceability network (following EPC network standard for example with EPCIS). (http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc)
Private information usually remains in the internal record of the data owner. There is usually no way to access it in an automatic way for 3rd parties. In few cases, some of this information is made available to customers or end consumers for product differentiation
4.2.2.6 GS1 Traceability Process
The GS1 standard traceability process is composed of five sub-processes (Figure 19: GS1 Traceability Sub- Processes)
Figure 19 - GS1 Traceability Sub-Processes
58 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 20 - Eighteen Traceability Steps
59 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
1. Plan & Organize I. Determine how to assign, collect, share and store traceability data II. Determine how to manage links between inputs, internal processes and outputs
2. Align Master Data III. Assign Identification to the Party IV. Assign identification to the physical location V. Assign identification to assets VI. Assign identification to trade items VII. Exchange master data 3. Record Traceability Data VIII. Assign identification to the traceable item when it is created IX. Apply the identification to the identification carrier on the traceable item X. Capture the identification of the traceable item or the asset containing it XI. Collect all other data including traceable information from internal / external sources XII. Share relevant traceable data XIII. Store traceable data
4. Request Trace XIV. Initiate the trace request XV. Receive the trace request XVI. Send a response XVII. Receive a response
5. Use Info XVIII. Take action
4.2.2.7 Traceability Data Models
4.2.2.7.1 One up, One down
Figure 21 - One up, One down
60 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Each traceability partner in the supply chain is responsible for linking input records to outputrecords. The main benefit is that organisations need only be concerned with exchanging data with their immediate trading partners (upstream and downstream in the supply chain). One-up- one-down traceability is the most used by organisations.
4.2.2.7.2 Centralised Database
Figure 22 - Central Database
In this model the traceable item source (trading partner that despatches or provides the product makes its traceability data available (e.g. publishes the data) to a central repository / database maintained by a 3rd Party. All partners shall follow specified data standards and criteria for the privacy of information shall be developed.
61 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.2.2.7.3 Pedigree
Figure 23 - Pedigree The traceable item source (trading partner that provides the product) makes the traceability data received from all previous upstream chain sources that have possessed (Chain of Custody) or owned (Chain of Ownershio) a traceable item(s) plus its additional traceability data, available to the next downstream supply partner.
62 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.2.2.7.4 Traceability Network
Figure 24 - Traceability Network The traceable item source (trading partner that provides the product) makes traceability identification keys available in a registry to enable traceability data search. This information can be stored anywhere as the registry provides the link and data search mechanism. This can be achieved with EPCIS, ONS and Discovery Services (http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal).
The combination of RFID, serialisation and internet actually brings the possibility of real time / event driven traceability.
63 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.3 GS1 EPC Standards for Traceability
4.3.1 EPC Architectural Foundations
Figure 25 - EPC Architecture a) An EPC, or Electronic Product Code, provides a unique, serialized identifier for any kind of object. o Ties together all data that flows within the EPCglobal Network o Plays a central part in every role and interface within the EPCglobal Architecture Framework
EPC is a universal identifier that provides a unique identity for every physical object anywhere in the world, for all time It was designed to establish a global unique object identifier which was made possible through the use of RFID – Radio Frequency Identification
Familiar identifiers can be encoded into an EPC format including: • GTIN (Global Trade Item Number) • GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier) • SSCC (Serialized Shipping Container Code) • GIAI(Global Individual Asset Identifier) • CAGE/DoDAAC (US Department of Defense Internal Numbering SYsytem)
64 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The GS1 bar code, which encodes GTINs, provides identifying information for a class of item. EPC goes beyond this when a GTIN is encoded in an EPC by identifying an individual serialized item or instance of the item (sGTIN). Two cases of the same product will have the same GTIN, but will have different EPCs (sGTIN). b) EPC Manager o Allocating new EPC from its assigned block o Associating it with a physical object or other entity o Maintaining the Object Name Service (ONS) records associated with blocks of EPCs it manages c) EPC Manager Number o Way an Issuing Agency grants a block of EPCs to an EPC Manager is by issuing the EPC Manager a single number: EPC Manager Number o Having the EPC Manager Number as a distinct field within any given representation, allows any system to instantly identify the EPC Manager associated with a given EPC. d) Embedding of existing codes e) Class level data vs Instance level data EPCIS data can be divided into five categories: o Static Data o Class-level Static Data o Instance-level Static Data o Transactional Data o Instance Observations o Quantity Observations o Business Transaction Observations f) Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) is a GS1 EPCglobal standard for sharing EPC related information between trading partners. EPCIS provides important new capabilities to improve efficiency, security, and visibility in the global supply chain, and complements lower level EPCglobal tag, reader, and middleware standards.
As depicted in Figure 26 below, EPCIS sits at the highest level of the EPCglobal Architecture Framework, both above the level of raw EPC observations (e.g., the Tag Protocol and the Reader “Wireline” Protocol), as well as above the level of filtered, consolidated observations (e.g., the Filtering & Collection Interface). In the diagram, the plain green bars denote interfaces governed by EPCglobal standards, while the blue shadowed boxes denote roles played by hardware and/or software components of the system.
While EPCIS is an integral part of the EPCglobal Network, it differs from elements at the lower layers of the Architecture in three key respects: • EPCIS deals explicitly with historical data (in addition to current data). The lower 193 layers of the stack, in contrast, are oriented exclusively towards real-time processing of EPC data. • EPCIS often deals not just with raw EPC observations, but also in contexts that imbue 196 those observations with meaning relative to the physical world and to specific steps in operational or analytical business processes. The lower layers of the stack are more purely observational in nature. An EPCIS- level event, while containing much of the same EPC data as a Filtering & Collection event, is at a semantically higher level because it incorporates an understanding of the business context in which the EPC data were obtained. Moreover, there is no requirement that an EPCIS event be directly related to a specific physical tag observation. • EPCIS operates within enterprise IT environments at a level that is much more 206 diverse and multi- faceted than the lower levels of the EPCglobal Network Architecture. In part, and most importantly, this is due to the desire to share EPCIS data between enterprises which are likely to have different solutions
65 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
deployed to perform similar tasks. In part, it is also due to the persistent nature of EPCIS data. And lastly, it is due to EPCIS being at the highest level of the EPCglobal Network Architecture, and hence the natural point of entry into other enterprise systems, which vary widely from one enterprise to the next (or even within parts of the same enterprise).
Figure 26 - EPCIS and other EPC Standards
66 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
o Defines standard set of messages for both data capture and data exchange o Caters to event related information with location and time attributes o different from traditional set of e-com messages which only defines data exchange o Data exchange standards have (Vocabulary and Schema) that governs B2B transaction for EPC information, similar to other messaging standards. o In addition it EPCglobal Network has a Data Synchronization style infrastructure – with ONS (Registry), Discovery Services (Search tool)
o Traditional messaging standards are driven by process; EPCIS is driven by real time EPC events o Not a replacement to the e-com messages (PO, Dispatch Advices, RCIT) o Standard does NOT represent a specific database, data storage or any other form of data structure o Data captured and stored by existing mechanism can utilise the EPCIS infrastructure to share information o EPCIS provide standard rules for synchronised and asynchronised data transfers
The What, Where, When, and Why of events occurring in any supply chain is exchanged, safely and securely, via the EPCIS standard. This is important business information, such the time, location, disposition and business step of each event that occurs during the life of an item in the supply chain.
The EPCIS standard provides interface specifications built on top of very widely used business and Internet standards. EPCIS facilitates internal data capture as well as secure external sharing of information about movement and status of goods in the physical world.
EPCIS is the bridge between the physical world and information systems. Many businesses have completely internal business processes that involve the handling of goods, and EPCIS provides a standard way of managing visibility into those processes. The benefits of giving business applications visibility into the physical world are as compelling within the four walls as they are between trading partners.
Using EPCglobal standards within the corporation will ensure a wide choice of vendors and interoperability between vendors and allow for the bringing together of disparate systems within an organization. The EPCIS standard can connect a factory to a warehouse to a store that may be using different systems to collect data about product movement and status. Clearly, if situations change and there is a need to share previously internal information with another subsidiary or trading partner, this will be greatly facilitated by using standards.
EPCIS specifies a standard representation of and interface to visibility data, at a finer granularity than prior standards. EPCIS data may be used as input to track and trace or visibility applications, and that input will in all likelihood improve those applications due to the finer granularity of information offered by EPCIS.
g) The EPCIS standard specifies two interfaces and a data model:
• The EPCIS Event Capture Interface specifies a standard way for business applications that generate visibility data to communicate that data to applications that wish to consume it. In many cases, the receiving side of the Event Capture Interface will be a repository, but this is not necessarily the case.
• The EPCIS Query Interface provide a standard way for internal and external systems to request business events from repositories and other sources of EPCIS data using a simple, parameter-driven query language. There are two types of queries – Poll Queries for a synchronous, on-demand response, and Subscription Queries for an asynchronous, scheduled response.
67 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• The EPCIS Data Model specifies a standard way to represent visibility information about physical objects, including descriptions of product movements in a supply chain. The main components of the data model include: EPC, Event Time, Business Step, Disposition, Read Point, Business Location, and Business Transaction. h) The data model is designed to be extended by industries and end users without revising the specification itself. Some extensions that have been used in EPCIS pilots to-date include Expiration Date, Batch Number, and Temperature. Implementers can freely define field names in the Extension section of the XML data model. It is readily possible to capture and query for extension fields.
Many pilots to date have successfully used the extension capability – with examples including: • Expiration Date, • Batch Number, • Temperature, • Receiver Name, • and Shipper Name.
Visibility information in EPCIS takes the form of “events” that describe specific occurrences in the supply chain. i) A quick way to summarize the components of an EPCIS event are what (product), when (time), where (location), and why (business step and disposition).
The data elements in the EPCIS standard data model define • WHAT (product), • WHERE (location), • WHEN (time), and • WHY (business step and status) for granular product movements in the supply chain.
WHAT • EPC – can be a list (Object or Transaction Events) or parent/child (Aggregation or Transaction Events). It is possible to include any unique identity in the EPC field. • Business Transaction – includes a type (e.g.: Purchase Order, Invoice, Bill of Lading) and a number. By including the Business Transaction number in a business event, it is possible to relate EPCs to a Business Transaction – e.g.: state that EPCs 1-5 are in Purchase Order CompanyA- 123.
WHERE • Read Point – indicates the location where an event took place – e.g.: DC X conveyor belt #2 • Business Location – describes where the object is immediately after the event occurs – e.g.: DC X Shipping Area
WHEN • Event Time – states when an event took place • Record Time – indicates when the event was received through the EPCIS Capture Interface
WHY • Business Step – indicates what business operation was taking place at the time ofthe event – e.g.: Receiving, Picking, Loading, Shipping • Disposition – describes the status of the product immediately after the event occurs – e.g.: Sellable, In Progress, Non Sellable, Destroyed
68 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The final standard field is Action, which has three values:
1. Add – indicates the first event in a product’s lifecycle for an Object Event, or indicates joining child EPCs to a parent EPC in an Aggregation Event 2. Observe – indicates an event between beginning of life and end of life for an Object Event 3. Delete – indicates the last event in a product’s lifecycle for an Object Event, or indicates removing child EPCs from a parent EPC in an Aggregation Event j) Business events specified in the EPCIS standard For traceability Object Event and Aggregation Events are used. • Object Event – describes an event pertaining to an EPC as it moves through the supply chain – from birth (ADD) through midlife (OBSERVE) to death (DELETE). • Aggregation Event – describes an event pertaining to a physical aggregation of child EPCs to a parent EPC, such as cases aggregated to a pallet. It is possible to include EPCs in an aggregation (ADD), see EPCs in an aggregation (OBSERVE), or remove EPCs from an aggregation (DELETE). It is possible to express any number of levels of aggregation – e.g.: Unit to Inner Case to Outer Case to Pallet to Shipping Container. • Transaction Event – describes the definitive association or disassociation of one or more EPCs to a Business Transaction. It is possible to include a hierarchy in a Transaction Event – e.g.: Pallet EPC 1 with Case EPCs 10-20 are in Purchase Order CompanyB-4567. • Quantity Event – describes events pertaining to products without serialized EPCs. These events include a Product Class (e.g.: GTIN), a Quantity, a Business Location, and Time. These events can be used for capturing inventory or point of sale data – e.g.: one hour ago there were 10 units of Product X in Storeroom Y or yesterday Store A sold 5 units of Product B. k) EPCIS Data elements The EPCIS specification does not define required values for many data elements. Instead it leaves the definition to trading partners. EPCglobal defines the standard values for the EPC code within the Tag Data Standards specification. l) EPC Core Business Vocabulary (CBV) o specify vocabulary elements and their values for use with EPCIS o ensure a common understanding of the semantic meaning of data o includes values and definitions for these Standard Vocabularies: o Business Step identifiers o Disposition identifiers o Business Transaction types o provides identification syntax options for these User Vocabularies: o Objects o Locations o Business Transactions o provides Master Data Attributes for Location identifiers including: o Site Locations o Sub-Site Location Type o Sub-Site Location Type Attributes m) EPCIS data security There are two forms of data security described in the EPCIS specification – authentication and authorization.
69 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Authentication – the EPCIS standard enables the use of multiple message transport bindings that include authentication – including SOAP over HTTP with TLS (web services) and XML over AS2. The implementation of the bindings are defined outside the EPCIS standard. • Authorization – an implementation of the EPCIS Query Interface may use the authenticated identity of the requester, together with arbitrary business rules, to decide which events to deliver to the requestor and which information to include within those events. The EPCIS specification itself does not specify what those business rules are – it is up to each implementation to use authorization rules that are appropriate given its own business situation. The specification defines what types of data may be withheld, and includes a standard error message to be provided when the EPCIS wishes to deny access to data entirely – i.e.: SecurityException.
n) EPCIS interface integration with existing systems The EPCIS standard does not mandate any implementation or repository. So it is possible for an end-user to build the EPCIS interfaces and data model themselves on top of an existing enterprise system. But it may be simpler for many organizations to buy an EPCIS repository application from a solution provider, or obtain EPCIS-compliant application enhancements from their existing application providers. A company could leverage their EPCIS repository for capturing business events from middleware, integrating the EPCIS repository into the enterprise architecture via web services, and allowing trading partners to access data in the EPCIS repository in a secure manner via the query interface.
4.3.2 EPCIS for Traceability
Why EPCIS is valuable for Traceability?
o Consistent bi-directional traceability system
o Two way traceability system for forward and reverse link o Link with international traceability/ EPCIS systems o Provides standard capture & query interfaces to enable track and trace, product authentication, diversion detection, and other use cases across supply chain partners across multiple industries o A standard interface is a much lower cost interface than multiple, custom, partner-specific mappings o Lower Total cost of ownership o GS1 Managed EPCIS service would be based on SaaS (Software as a Services), which would run on a OPEX plan rather than a capital expenditure. o Access to multiple applications eg – traceability, e-POD, asset management o Security is a core concept – Each trading manages their data – events remains distributed with trading partners only moving / sharing data elements they wish to share on an on-demand basis o Authentication, authorization, encryption o Support for both AS2 and secure web services o Can readily route events to existing enterprise applications o Layered architecture can support long-term scalability and flexibility o No vendor lock in o Already in use today in FishBizz and other sectors (FMCG, Healthcare)
The GS1 Global Traceability System is designed to be technology independent (e.g. assigning the identification to the traceable item, list of minimum data to record).
However companies need to select an appropriate enabling technology to attain traceability and data exchange based on the model of the supply chain process used.
For example:
70 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Use case Enabling Technology Identification carrier Ink jet, label, tag, accompanying document It can be human readable or machine readable (bar codes, RFID…) Collect and share data Label, Marking, EDI, Facsimile, Internet, Phone, Data Base, Physical inspection, Accompanying document… Store data Notebook, data base (internal or from a service provider via Internet) Manage a trace request Phone, e-mail, Facsimile, GEPIR (www.gepir.org), GDSN, EPCIS and electronic catalogues may be used for trace requests.
For each enabling technology, there are corresponding standards. The following enablers are examples of the most common “technological models”, but there are many other alternatives:
Model Technology Remark Traceability information is Paper No automatic process. sent with the physical GS1 - 128 All traceability information is included in the GS1-128 label object (GTIN, Batch / Lot Number, Best Before Date, ) Traceable item is identified GS1-128+ GS1-128 logistic unit label only needs to have an SSCC by batch / lot or serialised EDI/XML although for homogenous pallets additional attributes may be and traceability information displayed in human readable and bar code format. Additional is sent with the physical information is exchanged via EDI/XML. object or exchanged by EPC The EPC tag contains a unique identification number. any other means Traceability information is obtained from the associated system and databases (e.g. EPCIS). Traceable item is identified GS1-128 GS1-128 logistics unit label only needs to have an SSCC. by batch/lot or serialised Information is sent to a database shared between Supply and traceability information Chain Partners. is made available in a EPC The EPC tag contains a unique identification number. database Traceability information is obtained from the associated system and databases (e.g. EPCIS).
4.3.3 EPCIS Pilot Learnings o eTrace Project
o Partly funded by the SAFEFOODERA (www.safefoodera.net) through the Nordic Innovation Centre (www.nordicinnovation.net)
o Objective: To develop and evaluate an electronic traceability system based on the EPCIS standard by enabling automatic data capture related to tagged items o Two fish supply chains:
o Cod in Sweden
o Red fish in Iceland o Approach: based on identification of states and events in fish based food production and mapping these events to the EPCIS standard
71 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
o Method: Catches labeled with RFID tags and read using handheld RFID readers as product moved through the supply chain o Key Points
o Ability to integrate food safety and quality information into the EPCIS system
o Improved internal traceability by modeling of transformation, split and merge events
o Better information visibility in supply chains
o Efficient information capture and exchange
o Future industry applications – use of RFID tags and installation of fixed read points
Figure 27 - E-Trace Overview
72 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 28 - Swedish Pilot-Processor
73 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 29 - Icelandic Pilot
74 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
4.3.4 Other Traceability Systems in Place
The traceability systems currently available in the marketplace are diverse—in form, content and of course, price. Those profiled in Table 3 are by no means a complete list of available systems, but were included to illustrate some of the options presently available. Some of these systems may also be used in combination, depending on the needs of particular companies.
Table 3 - Other Traceability Pilots in Place Traceability / TraceTracker Scoring Ag De Haan Trace Register Program Automatisering
Website Tracetracker.net Scoringag.com Dha- Traceregister.com software.com/eng Controllingthefood chain.com Area EU, Asia, NA USA EU USA Basis Web (Global Traceability Web & hardware (ID, Hardware (Catch SAAS, secure, Network (GTNet) RFID tags, scanners) Registration) & product Software registration, data (Poseidon) access & exchange online Water to Y Y Y Uncertain Plate traceability? Pricing Subscription fee based Initial cost=$ 10 Installation cost Nominal annual on company size. No + 55 cents per record not for NA fee; incremental fee restriction on transaction or location per traceability value document Key clients Skretting, Coop Norway, Alaska Quality Youngs Bluecrest, Aquaculture Creative Salmon, EU Seafood Yemeni Fish Certification Traceability project Council Key benefits Web accessible Web access Extendible system, Web access Template, tracking Coded PIDC quality and fishing Multilingual applications location, labelling data Little infrstructure Product flow diagrams Data access to Seafood investment thru supply chain, retailers & Seafood consumers Seafood Downsides Info security Info security N/A in NA Info security Subscribe for 1 partner Focused on agri Generates sales Subscrption Partners could hide data business model orders needed EU regulations only
4.3.5 EPCIS Implementation steps for SMEs
There is no standard definition of an EPCIS implementation, however experience shows that a practical checklist could be appropriate.
a) Determine the needs of your business and your current capacity for traceability • Consider all the actors links in your supply chain . e.g. fishery/farm – processor – distributor – retail store
75 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
. Business or fisheries/aquaculture consultants . Non-governmental organization or scientific input (e.g. SeaChoice or Conservation . Alliance for Sustainable Seafood member groups)
b) Consider alternative Traceability Systems
• What kind of traceability do you want—external, internal or both? • What medium do you want to store your traceability on—paper or electronic? If electronic, will it be web-based, module based, or a combination? • What are the current traceability requirements of your trading partners—both according to individual company policies and national regulations? • Does the traceability system comply with European regulations? • Will you consider GS1 recommendations?
c) Choose EPCIS
• first determine how an SME would like to capture and share EPCIS business events. • For data capture, the company could set up EPC readers and middleware. • For data sharing, the company could make arrangements with its trading partners to monitor shipments and receipts of EPC-tagged products. • Compile master data for the products and locations in its supply chain. • Set up an EPCIS repository application with help from a solution provider. • Load the master data into its repository. • Route the captured EPCIS events from the middleware to the EPCIS repository via the capture interface. • Set up subscription queries with the trading partners to track all shipments and receipts.
d) Verification, Certification and Auditors
e) Communicate your traceability efforts
76 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
5 FishBizz and ebXML
The FishBizz workshop and this workshop agreement use ebXML (e-business XML) as the B2B reference framework and as an implementation framework. While other technologies, standards and frameworks exist for B2B e-business, ebXML is among the more functionally complete B2B frameworks as it covers content, process and technology. It has strongly influenced many newer specifications that have emerged after the initial ebXML project ended. There is also a match between FishBizz objectives and ebXML at the requirements level: both explicitly target small and medium size businesses.
This chapter provides an overview of ebXML and describes the state of the art in ebXML adoption and use. It is structured as follows:
• Section 5.1 provides background and (historical) context on ebXML, the organizations that launched it and are supporting its continued development.
• Section 5.2 explains the main ebXML standards, which were recognized as components of the framework to be delivered.
• Section 5.3 describes some key standards that are complementary to ebXML. Some were already under consideration in the context of the initial ebXML standards work. Some have emerged at later stages or have evolved independently in later stages of standardisation.
• Section 5.4 defines some standards are not part of ebXML, but are often used or considered in practical ebXML projects.
• Section 5.5 describes deployment scenarios for ebXML, including the scenario envisaged in the ebXML technical architecture and scenarios that are adopted in real-life situations.
5.1 Background and Context
The ebXML project started as a joint initiative of two organizations.
• The United Nations Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) is a global organization responsible for worldwide policy and technical development in the area of trade facilitation and electronic business. UN/CEFACT created and maintains the UN/EDIFACT standards.
• OASIS is a not-for-profit consortium that advances open standards for the global information society. OASIS is well-known for standards in areas such as security, e-commerce, Web Services, document and content formats, and others.
The ebXML project started in 1999 when UN/ECE and the UN/CEFACT community recognized the potential of XML to play a major role in facilitating all Web based business transactions. XML was seen to offer opportunities to small and medium sized companies, to developing countries, and to economies in transition and to enable them to enter easily into the world of electronic business. At the same time, there were many (often competing) efforts underway worldwide to develop XML specifications for global business exchanges. The goal of ebXML as a joint venture of UN/CEFACT with OASIS was to be a global initiative to develop an open technical framework to enable XML to be utilized in a consistent and uniform manner for the exchange of all electronic business data.
The initial joint ebXML project was completed in May 2001. A second phase then ran to August 2003 during which UN/CEFACT and OASIS separately developed and completed several improved versions of ebXML specifications. After 2003, some of these specification have been adopted by ISO as ISO 15000 standards in a third phase. Newer versions of specifications have continued to be developed and maintained in response to evolving user requirements and technological advances.
77 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
5.2 ebXML Standards
In this chapter we will present the various ebXML Standards as identified in ebXML and which have emerged from the ebXML initiative. The order in which the various standards are being presented in this chapter is chosen for expository convenience and does not reflect relative importance or level of maturity or adoption. A key feature of ebXML is its modularity. This means that each of the standards we discuss here can be (and, in real-life deployments, often is) used independently. As a result, ebXML-related initiatives vary greatly, depending which module(s) is (are) used and which other technology is used.
5.2.1 Business Process
The ebXML framework is a B2B framework and is concerned with peer-to-peer interactions between business parties. The ebXML Business Process (ebBP) specification allows communities to describe flows of B2B exchanges in a standard, machine-readable XML format. (The concept of a B2B business process relates to the externally observable interactions and exchanges of parties, it should not be confused with enterprise- internal workflows and business processes.)
The information elements in the ebBP XML schema are closely aligned with the analysis and design artefacts of UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (UMM, see section 5.3.1), allowing ebBP to serve as a format for the recording, interchange and run-time use of these UMM artefacts. However, ebBP can be used as a standalone standard and does not require use of UMM or other methodologies.
An early version of a Business Process Specification Schema (BPSS) was developed as part of the ebXML joint initiative. Further development of BPSS as ebBP took place in OASIS and resulted in the ebBP OASIS standard [41] in 2006. The ebBP OASIS Standard is the only ebXML standard from OASIS that has not yet been approved as one of the ISO 15000 series standards.
The core concept of ebBP is the Business Collaboration, which is a set of roles collaborating through a set of choreographed Business Transactions by exchanging business documents. Two or more business partners participate in a Business Collaboration through roles. The roles always exchange messages in the context of Business Transactions. Each Business Transaction consists of one or two predefined Business Document Flows. One or more Business Signals may additionally be exchanged as part of a Business Transaction to ensure state alignment of both parties.
The reference architecture of eBIZ, a European project to support and stimulate the use of e-business by small and medium size enterprises in the textile, clothing and footwear industries in Europe, makes an interesting use of ebBP to describe interoperable business scenarios [72]. Some other industries have adopted ebBP as well, such as the RosettaNet standards consortium. Rosettanet, which was set up to support the electronics industry, uses ebBP in its Message Control and Choreography (MCC, [45]) initiative. At the global level adoption of ebBP is still in an early stage at the time this CWA was being drafted.
5.2.2 Message Service Specification
The ebXML Messaging Service (ebMS) Specification defines a communications-protocol neutral method for exchanging electronic business messages and is among the most successful ebXML standards. It defines specific Web Services-based enveloping constructs supporting reliable, secure delivery of business information. Furthermore, the specification defines a flexible enveloping technique, permitting messages to contain payloads of any format type. This versatility ensures legacy electronic business systems employing traditional syntaxes (i.e. UN/EDIFACT, ASC X12, or HL7) can leverage the advantages of the ebXML infrastructure along with users of emerging technologies.
Several versions of ebMS exist. The 1.0 version developed within the original ebXML project was quickly superseded by the interoperable 2.0 version, which was adopted as an OASIS standard in 2002 and subsequently by ISO as ISO 15000-2 in 2004 [35]. This version, ebMS 2.0, is the version that practical production deployments of ebMS use today. Large scale implementations of ebMS 2.0 exist in most parts of the world, in particular in Asia, where ebXML has been supported by the-Business Asia Committee. This Committee included participants from 11 countries and has certified 14 implementations. Industries in which ebMS 2.0 has been adopted at a significant level include the agro-chemical sector, automotive, energy,
78 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
government, healthcare, paper and forest products, steel and telecommunications, and textile, clothing and footwear industries .
Irrespective of specific versions, ebXML Messaging provides the following high-level capabilities:
• Standard message header with business metadata that identifies the sending and receiving business partner, the transaction semantics and business process context, the agreement that underlies the message, other properties and a listing of the payload (or payloads) that are included with the message.
• Reliable message delivery, supporting at-least-once, at-most-once and in-order delivery of messages. The various versions of ebMS use different underlying technologies to implement this feature.
• Secure message exchange based on message signature and message encryption. Importantly for business document exchange, ebMS supports non-repudiation of origin and non-repudiation of message receipt.
• Flexible payload packaging is provided by the use of SOAP-with-attachments, which allows ebMS messages to carry any type of message payload (including XML, EDI and multimedia payloads) and even to carry multiple payloads in a single message.
• Internet-based exchange using either HTTP or SMTP, possible secured at transport-level security.
• Ability to be used along with other technologies (from ebXML or others) and supporting any business process or document schema.
Support for ebMS 2.0 is available in many enterprise application suites, by specialized B2B integration products, and in some open source implementations.
When partners exchange ebMS messages, the configuration of these messages and their endpoints may be specified in a collaboration protocol agreement (CPA, see section 5.2.3), but other configuration mechanisms are not excluded and are supported by many implementations.
Since publication of ebMS 2.0, a newer version 3.0 has been under development, with a first "core" part being published in 2007 as an OASIS Standard [42]. It provides an update to newer underlying Web Services standards and many functional enhancements. The structure of an ebMS 3.0 message is displayed in Figure 30.
AS4, a light-weight profile of ebMS 3.0, was adopted as a Committee Specification in 2011 [44] and is on track to be submitted for OASIS Standard vote in 2012. The AS4 name alludes to various EDIINT applicability statements, such as AS2 [27], which is a popular alternative to ebMS 2.0. The main improvement of AS4 over earlier applicability statements and over the 2.0 version of ebMS is that it enables light-weight, client-only implementations. AS4 therefore better supports small and medium-size industries. At the time of writing of this CWA, AS4 has a strong momentum and support from industry groups like GS1 [89]. AS4 is of interest to FishBizz as it is clearly focussed on addressing SME requirements. Implementations of AS4 are emerging, including in open source. AS4 is discussed in chapter 11.
The second part of ebMS 3.0, which covers various advanced features, was adopted as an OASIS Committee Specification in 2011 [43]. It is anticipated that this standard will take some time to become an OASIS standard and to be adopted in the marketplace.
79 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 30 - ebMS 3.0 Message Structure 5.2.3 Collaboration Protocol Profiles and Agreements
The ebXML concept of Collaboration Protocol Profiles (CPP) provides a mechanism for business partners to express their e-business capabilities as a combination of business process and content capabilities and information technology capabilities.
• Business and content process capabilities are closely related to the ebXML concept of a Business Process and Business Documents exchanged in Business Transactions (cf. section 5.2.1). For instance, a company may be capable of performing a role of Seller in a particular process, which means it is able to send and receiving the types of message (and associated types of business documents) that a Seller is supposed to be able to send and receive in the context of this business process, subject to any choreography constraints in the business process.
• Information technology capabilities provide to bridge to a technical infrastructure that the party is using and express the technical configuration details. For example, the CPP may express that the company is able to exchange messages using the ebMS 2.0 message protocol [35].
A CPP is an XML document, the structure and semantics of which are defined in the ebXML Collaboration Protocol and Agreements (CPP/A) standard [34]. This means that CPP documents can be machine- processed. Since a CPP is a machine-readable document, it is possible to determine if there is a match between two parties by comparing their respective CPPs. For example: assume the CPPs of two companies
80 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
both reference the same business process, for example a Cross Industry Invoicing process [2]. If the CPP indicates that one company is capable of being the Supplier and the CPP of the other company indicates it can act as a Customer, then there is a match at the level of business capabilities. However, if the supplier is only able to send an Invoice using the ebMS 2.0 protocol, and the customer can only receive such messages using the EDIINT AS2 protocol [27], then their technical capabilities do not match. Conversely, it is also possible that partners have compatible technical capabilities but incompatible business capabilities.
Like a CPP, an ebXML collaboration protocol agreement (CPA) is an XML document that expresses the technical configuration that two parties may use to exchange messages among themselves. The structure and semantics of CPA XML documents are also defined in the ebXML Collaboration Protocol and Agreements (CPP/A) standard [34]. As an XML document, CPA documents are intended to be machine-processed and to support automatic configuration of message and business applications for B2B exchange among trading partners.
There are multiple ways in which a CPA can be formed. A CPA can be created from scratch in an XML editor, or it can be formed in one of the two follow ways:
• A CPA can be formed by intersecting (merging) two input CPPs. This intersection process starts by finding a shared business process in which parties are capable of performing complementary roles (e.g. one can act as Seller and the other as Buyer), then match the sending capabilities of the one partner to the receiving capabilities of the other. This alignment process also requires a technical capability match of the delivery channels used.
• A CPA can also be formed by instantiating a "template" CPA, which is a complete CPA except that some placeholders are identified in which values are to be specified. In practical ebXML deployments, template instantiation is the more widely used option, and tooling exists to create and manage CPAs from CPA templates, including an open source CPA toolkit [83], as well as commercial solutions.
In CPP and CPA, there is a reference to a particular business process. This reference is just an identifier. There is no requirement that this business process is defined as an ebBP document (cf. section 5.2.1) or in some other machine-readable format. Tools exist that help create CPPs, CPAs or CPA templates from ebBPs, using a standardized mapping from ebBP to CPP/CPA structures. These have been applied in several deployments of ebXML involving SMEs [83], [107].
There are multiple versions of the ebXML CPP/A specification. The 1.0 version developed within the original ebXML project was quickly superseded by the interoperable 2.0 version, which was adopted as an OASIS Standard in 2002 and subsequently by ISO as ISO 15000-1 in 2004 [34]. This version complements and supports the ebMS 2.0 version. Many software implementations of ebMS 2.0 support the CPP/A 2.0 specification. A version 3.0 of CPP/A has been under development, but its development has been paused pending completion of ebMS 3.0 and AS4, which it intends to support. In addition to ebMS 2.0 and 3.0, this new version intends to support other message protocols, including EDIINT AS2 [27] and Web Services.
Note that a CPA is not an electronic business contract as it does not cover other aspects covered by trading partner contracts such as service level agreements, terms and conditions of use, applicable law etc. Trading partners typically establish and exchange such contracts in natural language (using word processors rather than any structured document software) and each keep a signed paper copy. The CPA XML structure has a "Comment" element that can reference such a contract or one partner's general terms and conditions. While the legal interpretation remains to be confirmed, exchange of messages that reference a CPA containing such a reference may under certain conditions be interpreted as a "click wrap" agreement to the referenced contract or terms and conditions.
5.2.4 Core Components Technical Specification
The ebXML concept of Core Components and the Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) has been developed to provide for standards-based semantic modelling of business information. Models produced using CCTS are independent of any specific technology platform or implementation language. While CCTS is at the basis of many large scale XML-based data exchanges, CCTS-based information models are themselves syntax neutral, and can be created, discussed and reviewed by business experts that have no expertise in XML.
81 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
UN/CEFACT business process and core component solutions capture a wealth of information about the business reasons for variation in data model and message semantics and structure. In the past, these variations have led to incompatible models and a subsequent lack of interoperability. The core components mechanism will allow identification of similarities and differences between these models.
The CCTS key concepts are based on two levels of abstraction — core components and business information entities. Core components are semantic building blocks that can be used for all aspects of data and information modelling and exchange. They are conceptual in nature; they are used for creating context specific business information entities. There are three different categories of CCs – aggregate core component (ACC), basic core component (BCC), and association core component (ASCC).
Core components act as conceptual models that are used to define Business Information Entities (BIEs). BIEs are the expression of the conceptual core components as logical data model objects and information exchanges. BIEs are created through the application of context and may be qualified to guarantee unique business semantics. A BIE may specify a restricted form of its underlying CC. The structure of CCs and BIEs are complementary in many respects. Analogously to the different types of Core Components, there are aggregate business information entities (ABIE), basic business information entities (BBIE) and association business information entities (ASBIE). The diagram in Figure 31 (from [48]) describes the objects at the CC and BIE level and their relations.
Figure 31 - Core Components and Business Information Entities The CCTS standard is a semantic standard that defines a meta-model. Core Components and Business Information Entities are syntax independent. CCTS is compatible with multiple implementation models, the most important of which is the W3C XML Schema [63]. For consistency, it is important that the mapping from CCTS constructs to XML schema follows unambiguous rules. This can be achieved by adopting a set of XML Naming and Design Rules (NDR, see section 5.3.3).
82 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
CCTS has wide support in the industry. Apart from UN/CEFACT teams, other horizontal industry standards have endorsed CCTS concepts, such as UBL (see section 5.4.1) and OAGIS (see section 5.4.3). CCTS is also used by several large enterprise software vendors.
While the CCTS standard is a technical standard that supports the development of libraries of core component or business information entities, such libraries themselves are not part of CCTS. See section 5.3.2 for discussion of the UN/CEFACT Core Component Library (CCL). The essential parts of CCTS can also be applied in other contexts and without using the UN/CEFACT CCL.
Initial work on CCTS was done in the course of the joint ebXML initiative. Development of the Core Components Technical Specification continued in UN/CEFACT. The ebXML CCTS 2.01 version was approved in 2001, and subsequently adopted in 2005 by ISO as ISO 15000-5 [36]. An updated version 3.0 was adopted by UN/CEFACT in 2009 [53]. This newer version enjoys broad industry support from groups like GS1 and OAG.
5.2.5 Registry and Repository
The ebXML technical architecture identified a requirement for sharing information between trading partners in a B2B environment using registry/repository functionality. An ebXML Registry is both a registry of metadata and a repository of content. Up until version 3.0, the ebXML Registry and Repository standard was developed as two separate specification documents: the ebXML Registry Information Model (ebRIM) and ebXML Registry Services (ebRS) standards. The ebXML Registry Information Model defines a core information model and information models for association, classification, provenance, services, events cooperation registries and access control.
The ebXML Registry Services (ebRS) provides two management interfaces:
• a lifecycle management interface provides operations for end-to-end lifecycle management of metadata and content within the registry. This includes publishing, update, approval and deletion of metadata and content.
• a query management interface provides a collection of operations for the discovery and retrieval of metadata and content within the registry.
The 2.0 versions of these standards became OASIS Standards in 2002 and were adopted by ISO as ISO 15000-3 (ebRIM) and 15000-4 (ebRS) in 2004. Updated version 3.0 specifications were adopted in 2005 as OASIS Standards. The OASIS Technical Committee is currently developing a version 4.0 that covers both RIM and RS functionality.
In the original ebXML technical architecture [5], the ebXML Registry and Repository had a prominent role in the discovery and retrieval phase, which discussed in section 5.5.1. It was envisaged to store core components, business information entities, standardized business collaboration and collaboration protocol profiles in an ebXML registry and offer search and retrieval functions to support discovery. However, most adoption of the ebXML Registry seems to have taken place in areas that were unanticipated in the original ebXML projects, such as the storage of patient records or geographic information.
5.3 ebXML Related Standards
Several standards have been developed that are closely related to the ebXML standards presented in section 5.2.
5.3.1 UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology
UN/CEFACT’s Modeling Methodology (UMM [52]) was identified as the recommended e-business modelling methodology in the initial ebXML project. Development of the UMM has continued and has resulted in various new releases. UMM uses UML as a design language.
83 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
UMM focuses on developing a global choreography of inter-organizational business processes and their information exchanges. The UMM is a formal description technique for what is called a business scenario in ISO/IEC 14662, the Open-edi reference model [33]. An Open-edi scenario is a formal means of specifying a class of business transactions having the same business goal, such as, purchasing or inventory management. UMM is concerned with “business transactions limited to those aspects regarding the making of business decisions and commitments among organizations”. UMM is the source of the concepts of Business Collaborations, Business Transaction and Business Documents that we discussed in the context of the ebXML Business Process (see section 5.2.1). Where ebBP is an XML-based interchange format, UMM models are more often notated in UML syntax or similar visual representations.
The UMM distinguishes several views that correspond to progressively more refined analyses. UMM views are associated with particular design artefacts, expressed as UML models. The most detailed view has a level of granularity that matches and can be mapped to the meta-model of the ebBP standard, which goes beyond business modelling and allows run-time applications such as business monitoring and configuration of messaging and business applications in addition.
5.3.2 UN/CEFACT Core Components Library
As discussed in section 5.2.4, the ebXML CCTS provides a meta-model for core components and business information entities. The CCTS can be used by industry groups to define their business information at the core component and/or business information entity abstraction level. UN/CEFACT manages the development of a core component library (CCL). The 2011A version of this library [47] contains 456 aggregate core components with 5441 properties. There are 605 aggregate message aggregate business information entities with 4735 message ABIE properties.
While CCTS allows BIEs to be specialized according to multiple contextual dimensions, the CCL in practice only uses Business Process as a BIE context parameter. The CCL contains 30 different business process values, including an "In All Contexts" business process.
5.3.3 Naming and Design Rules for XML
As discussed in section 5.2.4, the ebXML CCTS is syntax neutral. To exchange using business information entities modelled in a library like the UN/CEFACT CCL, a binding to a particular syntax is required. As XML is the leading syntax for (non-legacy) B2B exchanges, there is a particular need for a binding to the W3C XML Schema recommendation [63]. Initial work on naming and design rules for XML Schemas based on CCTS concepts was done in the context of the OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) technical committee (see section 5.4.1). This work has strongly influenced work in other standards groups, including UN/CEFACT.
The version 2.0 of the UN/CEFACT XML NDR was released in 2006 and is the version that is currently used to produce XML schemas for UN/CEFACT business documents and reusable schema modules (see section 5.3.4). The most recent version 3.0 of the UN/CEFACT NDR was released in 2010, and is intended to be used for future XML Schema deliverables from UN/CEFACT. Many industry groups contributed to the version 3.0 NDR, including organizations like GS1 and OAG.
Like similar specifications, the UN/CEFACT version 3.0 XML Naming and Design Rule define a consistent mapping from CCTS concepts to XML Schema. The NDR can be statically implemented as a mechanism to validate quality of XML Schema definitions. More interestingly, they can be used in tools to generate XML Schemas from set of defined Business Information Entities. The NDRs define naming of XML elements and types, specify which XML Schema constructs are used and how they are used, and they define the folder hierarchy and import relations for a set of related schemas.
5.3.4 UN/CEFACT XML
The 2010A UN/CEFACT schema set [54] involves XML schemas for over seventy business documents and a reusable XML schema module that provides to an XML representation of the Business Information Entities in the Core Components Library. These include some cross industry documents:
• Cross Industry Order v4.
84 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Cross Industry Order Response v4.
• Cross Industry Despatch Advice v4.
• Cross Industry Invoice v5.
There are also some documents for the agricultural domain.
5.3.5 ebCore Party Identification
Party Identification is an essential requirement for electronic business. Several organizations have addressed this by developing party naming identifier domains at national, international or sector-specific level. For example, the GS1 organizations assign Global Location Numbers [26] to identify physical locations and legal entities to improve the efficiency of communication with the supply-chain. At the national or regional level, Chambers of Commerce serve as business registries and issue business identifier codes. However, many other identification systems exists and are widely used, a reality that any large-scale e-business initiative has to recognize.
ISO 6523 [28] is an international standard catalogue of schemes for naming identifier domains. For example, GS1 GLN is identified in ISO 6523 as the code "0088". CWA 16036 recommends the use of party identifiers based on a combination of a scheme identifier from ISO 6523 and the identifier from the identified scheme [3]. So a particular company might be identified as a combination of a code designator "0088" (for the GLN system) and an identifier "5209999001264" (for an entity registered in the GLN universe). CWA 16063 also recommends the use of a formal Uniform Resource Name (URN) notation for party identifiers. The OASIS ebCore Party Id Type technical specification [40] builds on ISO 6523 and CWA 16036 and provides such a standard URN syntax. The ebCore specification was adopted as an OASIS Committee Specification in 2010.
5.4 Related e-Business Standards
5.4.1 UBL
Development of the Universal Business Language (UBL) started in OASIS shortly after the initial ebXML initiative. UBL shares many of the goals and concepts of ebXML. UBL provides a common library and a set of business document definitions. UBL is CCTS-based but does not define a set of core components as a separate deliverable and is therefore taking a more "bottom up" approach than the approach used in the development of UN/CEFACT schemas.
UBL pioneered the work on XML Naming and Design rules (see section 5.3.3). Later NDR specifications are to a large extent evolutions of the UBL NDR and do not represent different significantly different approaches.
There are multiple versions of the UBL standard. The 1.0 version was delivered in 2004. It contained a small set of business documents. The 2.0 version, released in 2006, provides a much larger set of documents. The OASIS Technical Committee is currently working on a 2.1 UBL specification. UBL has been adopted for government e-procurement and for the transport sector, among others.
5.4.2 GS1 eCom
GS1 eCom provides global standards for electronic business messaging that allow rapid, efficient and accurate automatic electronic transmission of agreed business data between trading partners. The term eCom is a GS1 term for Electronic Data Interchange technology, which can be defined as "the transfer of structured data, by agreed message standards, from one computer application to another, by electronic means and with a minimum of human intervention". GS1 eCom consists of EANCOM, a profile of the UN/EDIFACT standard, and of GS1 XML [21]. GS1 XML uses and is compatible with various other GS1 standards, such GTIN product identification numbers [24] and GLN location numbers [26].
GS1 has strongly contributed to various UN/CEFACT working groups. GS1 XML is based on the GS1 data dictionary, which is based on CCTS and components in which have been submitted to the UN/CEFACT Core Components Library.
85 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
5.4.3 OAGIS
The Open Applications Group (OAGi) is a not-for-profit standards development organization. It was founded in 1994 and is focused on building enterprise ready process-based data exchange standards for both B2B and A2A integration. The 2011 version of the OAG Interface Specifications is OAGIS 9.5 [39]. OAG standards are adopted in the high tech and chemical industries, among others.
OAGi will adopt and implement the 3.0 version of the UN/CEFACT CCTS and NDR standards and will use components from the UN/CEFACT Core Component Library. OAGi has contributed to various UN/CEFACT working groups.
5.4.4 CEN BII and BDX
In Europe, the Pan-European Public Procurement Online Project (PEPPOL) project has developed a set of infrastructure specifications that are similar to ebXML. The Service Metadata Locator (SML, [109]) is similar to the registry functionality of ebXML Regrep. The Service Metadata Publisher (SMP, [110]) specification defines an XML structure to encode a party's receiving capabilities that is similar to an ebXML CPP. The START messaging protocol is similar to and offers a subset of the features of ebXML Messaging.
The CEN Business Interoperability Interface (BII) workshop has delivered a meta-model for business collaborations (referred to as "profiles") that is closely related to the UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (UMM). CEN BII is closely aligned with the OASIS Universal Business Language and has developed profiles of UBL documents for their profiles.
5.5 Deploying ebXML
As a framework consisting of independent modules, ebXML can be deployed in wide variety of ways. The vast majority of practical deployments only use a small subset of the ebXML standards, often in combination with other sectoral or national standards or with other technologies. This section reviews some deployment scenarios.
5.5.1 ebXML discovery and retrieval
The ebXML Technical Architecture document from the original ebXML projects [5] describes a deployment scenario in which ebXML standards are used both to set-up a business relation between two trading partners and the operational execution of business transactions. This scenario is displayed in Figure 32 (from [5]). It involves a fairly complete combination of ebXML standards.
In the scenario, information on business processes in particular industries and contexts, the business documents and information exchanged in those processes and the exchange formats (XML schemas) used in those exchanges are assumed to be published in an online registry. Companies can search and access that information (1) and adapt their internal systems to participate in a particular role in particular types of e- business exchanges (2). Companies can subsequently advertise their e-business capabilities and any associated implementation details in a registry, as an e-business profile (3). Other companies can search and retrieve this information and thus establish which interfaces they need to support to connect to a particular business partner, or which business partners support compatible interfaces (4). Based on this information, companies can connect to each other and establish a business arrangement. The technical aspects of that arrangement are based on an intersection of the e-business profiles of the two companies involved (5). Once this arrangement is agreed and implemented, companies can exchange business documents according to the agreed business processes (6).
The ebXML framework and standards support this scenario. The information flows, documents used, and partner types involved in business processes used in particular industries, or across industries, can be defined formally as an ebBP XML document (cf. section 5.2.1). The structure and content of documents exchanged in these processes can be defined using XML schemas that adhere to XML Naming and Design Rules (cf. section 5.3.3) and that are based on business information entities and core components from a standard library (cf. section 5.3.2). The UMM can be used to establish these processes and business content (cf. section 5.3.1). A business can express its e-business capabilities in reference to a particular process using a CPP (cf. section 5.2.3). To advertise capabilities, an ebXML CPP can be registered in an ebXML registry (cf.
86 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
section 5.2.5). The agreed business arrangement can be expressed as an ebXML CPA (cf. section 5.2.3). The operational exchange of business documents can use ebXML message (cf. section 5.2.2).
XML Business Scenarios 1 Business Profiles Request Business Details COMPANY A
2 Build Local System ebXML Implementation 3 Register Implementation Details Registry Register COMPANY A Profile
Download Query about COMPANY A profile
4 Scenarios and Profiles
5 Agree on Business Arrangement
6 COMPANY B DO BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ebXML compliant system
Figure 32 - ebXML Discovery and Retrieval 5.5.2 Other deployment scenarios
The discovery and retrieval scenario is just one of many deployment scenarios for ebXML. Since the ebXML standards are modular and vary in maturity, they can be, and are, used with non-ebXML standards and proprietary solutions. The following describes some options.
• ebMS and CPA can be used to exchange non-ebXML payloads. Examples include proprietary XML formats, XML formats from related initiatives such as UBL, GS1 or OAGi or other XML formats.
• ebXML payloads (e.g. the UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Invoice) with non-ebXML transport (e.g. AS2).
• ebXML Registry only. For example, ebXML registry is used to exchange data in some healthcare applications. Data is exchanged by one party registering data in the registry, and another party (or parties) retrieve the data from that registry. ebBP only. For example, the RosettaNet MCC [45] uses ebBP in conjunction with three transport protocols, two of which are not ebMS.
87 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
6 Traceability Information in e-Business XML Document Standards
Several modern business document schema standards provide support for exchanging traceability information using information structures in their underlying information structure libraries. Traceability information can be exchanged as structured information in one of two ways:
• As information contained in a regular e-business document, such as a Despatch Advice. Tracking and tracing are supported by correlating batch and lot numbers, trace unit identifiers, order numbers and other information that can be extracted and stored. The chain of custody model from 4.2.2.7 can be supported using this way.
• As information contained in a dedicated traceability information document, defined using information structures from a shared library or using a dedicated traceability schema.
When used in the second way, it could be used in the "Request Trace "sub-process of the GS1 Traceability Standards, steps XVI and XVII (see section 4.2.2.6) as a response document. It can also support other traceability data exchange models (see section 4.2.2.7) such as the centralised database model if actors send traceability information documents as notifications (i.e. not as a response to a query) to this central database, or retrieve traceability information as responses to queries to this database.
As companies typically first focus on solving their core business processes before attending to traceability, an approach that leverages the standards that companies use to support these core business processes has potential advantages over a dedicated specific traceability standard. In this section, we will consider the following e-Business Standards:
• Universal Business Language (UBL) version 2.0.
• UN/CEFACT XML Business Document schemas.
• GS1 eCom XML
We discuss UBL 2.0 prior to discussing similar UN/CEFACT and GS1 schemas, as it was referenced in the TraceCore documentation, and compare the three to TraceCore XML. The structure of the three subsections will be kept aligned. Note that none of the three standards has a dedicated traceability information document. We will instead consider the Despatch Advise business document, as it best matches the information content in such a document.
6.1 Early Work on ebXML for Traceability Information Exchange
Prior to discussing these three e-Business standards, we discuss some earlier initiatives for XML-based exchange of traceability information:
• Data Modelling and ebXML for Supply Chain Traceability
• TraceCore XML
• Work in the former UN/CEFACT TBG18 and current Agriculture PDA.
6.1.1 Data Modelling and ebXML for Supply Chain Traceability
Research and pilot projects by the University of Pisa constitute an early application of ebXML to food traceability [66], [67], [68]. This research was presented at workshops in Dubrovnik and Rome. It covers traceability in fisheries and agriculture, aims to support effective and efficient supply chain traversal (tracking and tracing), for example to locate potentially contaminated units in the event of a contamination incident.
To achieve business process interoperability, a highly distributed architecture, loosely coupled communication, facing failure scenarios and tackling heterogeneity are among the technological needs. Methodological needs include the need to rely on standard inter-organizational cooperation models and
88 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
protocols, strong separation of business and technical levels and support for management of business agreements. The ebXML framework and its concepts of business collaborations, ebXML messaging using open source software, ebBP, UMM and CPP/CPA are adopted. The proposed XML structures are not based on Core Components or on Naming and Design Rules, but follow a simple mapping from UML models to XML schema.
The project describes two types of "information push" exchanges of traceability information, a distributed (peer-to-peer) exchange and model involving a central management partner. To support data confidentiality and control, a model involving a certified data trustee is proposed that stores full information, but only reports product IDs to a food safety authority. In the case of an event such as a contamination that requires the information to be disclosed to the food safety agency, this information can be requested in a "pull" exchange.
Figure 33 - TraceCore XML TraceDocument 6.1.2 TraceCore XML
The TraceCore XML schema specification [120] was developed in the EU Trace project, and is a generalization from earlier work in the EU TraceFish project. It defines a core TraceDocument structure, which can be viewed as a standalone document to convey traceability information. Its main structure is displayed in Figure 33. This TraceDocument is exchanged between a DespatchParty and a DeliveryParty. A TraceDocument could be used in the "Request Trace "sub-process of the GS1 Traceability Standards, steps XVI and XVII (see section 4.2.2.6) as a response document. It can also support other traceability data exchange models (see section 4.2.2.7) such as the centralised database model if actors send TraceDocument documents as notifications (i.e. not as a response to a query) to this central database, or retrieve traceability information encoded using the TraceDocument schema.
For one or more TraceUnit structures being traded, a TraceDocument provides information on traceability relations, aggregation relations and properties. A TraceUnit can be identified by a unique identifier, such as a Serial Shipping Container Code [25]. For complete traceability, individual items being traded (within the SSCC identifiable units) should be identified using an SGTIN (Serial Global Trade Item Number) number that combines a GS1 GTIN [24] with a unique serial number. A lot number can be specified to link a unit to a group of trace units that have certain attributes in common. Despatch and Delivery Parties can also be specified at the unit level.
89 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 34 - TraceUnit Element
The TraceabilityRelation element expresses a single-link relation between input and output TraceUnits. When combined across a food chain, a series of links provides full end-to-end traceability. Traceability relations can be many-to-many.
Figure 35 - Traceability Relation
The AggregationRelation specifies what units are contained in other units. Packages may be contained in boxes, which are contained on pallets.
Figure 36 - Aggregation Relation The TraceCore XML schema is not a standard but a deliverable of a research project. Standardization of traceability information exchange was addressed in this project. In 2008, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, which had been involved in the work on TraceCore XML, produced a report on alternative directions for standardized traceability information exchange [77]. This report identifies four use cases for traceability information exchange in the seafood industry:
90 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• In a sourcing process, (potential) buyers request quotes from candidate suppliers. The information provided in the quote includes information on pricing, availability etc. and could also include traceability and quality information.
• After a sale, the supplier (or consigner) sends additional information to the customer (or consignee) in an advice shipping note (ASN) or other document. This document may contain traceability information as well.
• Traceability information may be requested separately as proof of legality. These proofs are issued electronically by government agencies.
• In situations where seafood products are sold through an auction on a commodity market or exchange, suppliers (fishing vessels) may provide catch information electronically. The catch information can be displayed to prospective customers that use the (Web-based) auction system or by government agencies.
In these use cases, minimal traceability information is typically enhanced with other quality information to increase B2B sales. Supporting the conclusions of the Pisa team involved in the research described in section 6.1.1, the report concludes that:
• Traceability information should not be managed independently from other B2B information.
• Traceability information and B2B information should be exchanged through the same mechanism as other B2B information.
Participants in the EU Trace project considered standardizing TraceCore XML as a standard, but were concerned that a lack of funding would lead to a standard that would not be maintained. As an alternative, an approach was suggested to adopt EPCIS [22], an existing standard and use its extension mechanisms to encode any information not available in the base standard [79]. Note that use of extensions, unless these extensions are themselves standardized, is not necessarily interoperable.
6.1.3 UN/CEFACT Agriculture PDA
In 2008, initial work was done in UN/CEFACT Trade and Business Group (TBG) 18 on a business requirement specification on fish traceability. Currently, work on agriculture and on related domains in UN/CEFACT is continued in the Agriculture Problem Domain Area (PDA). An initial draft document was prepared for the UN/CEFACT Forum in 2008 [121]. It describes several use cases:
• Flow to auction centre or flow from producer
• Sale in fish auction centre
• Flow from first buyer
• Sale outside auction centre
It then considers two documents in limited level of detail:
• Confirmation of the sale.
• Delivery Document: Seller to Customer.
The BRS was (personal communication from participants involved in this work) not progressed beyond the initial rough draft document. It has served as input into an ongoing national project in France. Information on that national project is not generally available. In 2012, a new project was start on an electronic log message.
UN/CEFACT also has other traceability-related projects in the area of inputs and techniques used on crops and on livestock conditions [49], on SPS certificates [50] and others. This CWA focuses on the main supply
91 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
chain related XML documents, in particular the UN/CEFACT Despatch Advice, but will refer to these specific projects in some specific situations.
6.2 UBL 2.0
The SINTEF report on traceability standardization [77] notes that the UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvise document is very close to the.TraceCore XML TraceDocument. The structure of a UBL 2.0 Item is shown in Figure 37, along with the structure of an ItemInstance which it contains.
The following is a top-level mapping:
• The TraceDocumentID in TraceCore XML maps to the UBL ID.
• The DespatchParty in TraceCore XML maps to the UBL DespatchSupplierParty.
• The DeliveryParty in TraceCore XML maps to the UBL DeliveryCustomerParty.
• Where TraceDocument has a repeatable TraceUnit element, UBL has a repeatable DespatchLine element. Among many other optional elements, the DespatchLine contains a required OrderLineReference element (which, differently from the trace document, reflects the purpose of a despatch advice in a B2B supply chain) and an Item, which is the equivalent of TraceUnit.
The UBL elements DespatchSupplierParty and DeliveryCustomerParty contain, among other elements, a Party element, which is defined in the UBL Common Aggregate Components XML library and used in other UBL documents. Among its sub-elements are PartyIdentification, PartyName and Contact elements.
Like the UBL Party element, the UBL Item is not specific to the UBL DespatchAdvise document but a reusable library element.
• The LotID in TraceUnit corresponds to the UBL Item/ItemInstance/LotIdentification.
• The ProductionDate and ProductionTime in TraceUnit correspond to the UBL Item/ItemInstance/ManufactureDate and Item/ItemInstance/ManufactureTime, respectively.
The counterpart to the DespatchAdvice is the ReceiptAdvice. Its structure is analogous, with ReceiptLine elements containing DespatchLineReference, ReceivedDate and Item elements.
The SINTEF report [77] states that the mapping is not complete in the following aspects:
• In TraceCore XML it is possible to describe TraceUnit elements, each with a unique TraceUnitID and specify a TraceabilityRelation between an OutputUnitID and an InputUnitID. In UBL, an ItemInstance has a single ProductTraceID which only covers the OutputUnitID. It is suggested to add an element InputUnitID to ItemInstance to allow the full functionality of TraceCore XML to be expressed in UBL. More discussion on this in section 7.2.5.
• In TraceCore XML it is possible attach Property elements to individual TraceUnits. This is covered in UBL by Item/ItemInstance/AdditionalItemProperty. However, there is no counterpart for the Property elements in a TraceDocument, which express properties common to a set of TraceUnits.
• The AggregationRelation of TraceCore XML is claimed to be missing from UBL. More discussion on this is provided in section 0.
In summary, the SINTEF report suggests that a very small number of extensions and industry customizations would allow UBL to support the full functionality of TraceCore XML. Since these extensions and
92 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
customizations relate to the UBL Library, these extensions are not restricted to the UBL Despatch Advice document but to any document schema that use the UBL Library.
Figure 37 - Item and ItemInstance (UBL 2.0)
93 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
6.3 UN/CEFACT XML
As UBL 2.0 provides a Despatch Advice XML Schema, there is a Cross Industry Despatch Advice in the UN/CEFACT D11B XML Schema set which uses components from the Reusable Aggregate Business Information Entity Library [54]. Unfortunately, there is no UN/CEFACT Receipt Advice document defined yet.
• The TraceDocumentID in TraceCore XML maps to CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise/ HeaderCIDDHExchangedDocument/ID.
• The DespatchParty in TraceCore XML maps to CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise/ SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction/ApplicableCIDDHSupplyChainTrade- Delivery/ShipFromCITradeParty.
• The DeliveryParty in TraceCore XML maps to CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise/ SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction/ApplicableCIDDHSupplyChainTrade- Delivery/ShipToCITradeParty.
• Where TraceDocument has a repeatable TraceUnit element, the CI DespatchAdvise has a repeatable IncludedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeLineItem element in SpecifiedCIDDH- SupplyChainTradeTransaction which contains a SpecifiedCITradeProduct element. Trade line items can also be referenced from containing SpecifiedCILogisticsPackage elements.
The UN/CEFACT schema component library defines a reusable CITradePartyType which is used by the ShipFromCITradeParty and other trade party elements.
The XML schema structure of IncludedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeLineItem is displayed in Figure 38. In addition to trade items, the document schema supports logistics items and any aggregation relations among them to be expressed.
94 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 38 - IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem (UN/CEFACT XML)
The SpecifiedCITradeProduct contains 41 sub-elements and its diagram is too large to display in this document. It includes elements similar to those contained in the UBL Item element, such as ID, GlobalID, ManufacturerAssignedID, DesignatedCIProductClassification.
95 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 39 - CIReferencedDocumentType and IndividualCITradeProductInstance (UN/CEFACT XML)
96 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 40 - ProductCIProductCharacteristic and CISupplyChainEventType (UN/CEFACT XML)
SpecifiedCITradeProduct also contains an element CertificationEvidence- ReferenceCIReferencedDocument of type CIReferencedDocumentType (see Figure 39, left). It is defined as "a Cross Industry (CI) certification evidence document reference for this CI trade product". We will refer back to this element in section 7.1.2 as it can be used to express GMP food safety certification.
SpecifiedCITradeProduct also contains an IndividualCITradeProductInstance element of type CITradeProductInstance, which contains elements similar to the UBL ItemInstance element. Its
97 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
structure is shown in Figure 39. Among the contents of CITradeProductInstance are the following elements:
• GlobalSerialID contains the unique global serial identifier for the CI trade product instance.
• UN/CEFACT XML has ExpiryDateTime, BestBeforeDateTime and SellByDateTime elements at the trade product level. UBL does have an ExpiryDate, specified at the LotIdentification level.
• Where TraceCore XML and UBL have LotID and LotIdentification elements, UN/CEFACT XML has an element BatchID.
UN/CEFACT XML does not have elements for the Production (or Manufacture) Data and Time like TraceCore XML and UBL, but instead CITradeProductInstance has a general ProductionCISupplyChainEvent structure which seems capable of encoding this information.
6.4 GS1 eCom XML
The GS1 eCom XML 3.0 Despatch Advise schema [21], to be launched in early 2012, consists of a despatchAdviceMessage root element, which includes a standard header and a despatchAdvice body.
• The TraceDocumentID in TraceCore XML maps to CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise/ HeaderCIDDHExchangedDocument/ID.
• The DespatchParty in TraceCore XML maps to eCom dispatchAdviceMessage / despatchAdvice / shipFrom.
• The DeliveryParty in TraceCore XML maps to eCom dispatchAdviceMessage / despatchAdvice / shipTo.
• Where TraceDocument has a repeatable TraceUnit element, eCom XML has a repeatable despatchAdviseLogisticUnit element, each of which contains a number of despatchAdviceLineItemType elements, which in turn have a required element transactionalTradeItem.
The shipFrom and shipTo elements are defined using a reusable TransactionPartyType type. Where UBL and UN/CEFACT XML flexibly support multiple identification schemes, GS1 eCom XML is hard-wired to only support GS1 numbering systems, in this case the GLN [26].
A Receiving Advice business document has also been defined in GS1 eCom XML 2.5, to be updated for eCom XML 3.0.
The structure of the transactionalTradeItem element is shown in Figure 41. It is similar to the UBL Item and to the UN/CEFACT SpecifiedCITradeProduct element:
• The GS1 colour element corresponds to the UN/CEFACT ColourCode, which has no counterpart in UBL.
• The GS1 gtin element corresponds to the UN/CEFACT GlobalID and UBL StandardItem- Identification. Where the other schemas flexibly support multiple identification schemes, GS1 eCom XML is hard-wired to only support GS1 numbering systems, in this case the GTIN [24].
98 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 41 - transactionalTradeItem (GS1 eCom XML)
The element transactionalTradeItem contains an element transactionalItemData. The structure of the element transactionalItemData is displayed Figure 41. This is similar to the UBL ItemInstance and UN/CEFACT IndividualCITradeProductInstance elements. For example:
• The GS1 eCom lotNumber element corresponds to the LotIdentification element in UBL. There is also a batchNumber in the eCom structure and a BatchId in UN/CEFACT.
• The GS1 productionDate corresponds to the UBL ManufactureTime and to the UN/CEFACT ProductionCISupplyChainEvent.
• The GS1 bestBeforeDate corresponds to the UN/CEFACT bestBeforeDateTime which is absent in UBL and TraceCore XML.
Figure 42 - transactionalItemData (GS1 eCom XML)
99 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
There is an extension element in eCom XML at the transactionalTradeItem level, which allows arbitrary XML to be added to an item. This may be used to encode additional properties. UN/CEFACT and UBL have this extensibility at the item instance level.
6.5 Section Summary
In this section, we have introduced the UN/CEFACT XML, UBL and GS1 eCom XML e-Business Document standards. We have shown that they provide reusable building blocks that are capable of encoding some core traceability information requirements. The main exception at this core traceability level is transformation information. In the next section, section 7, we will explore the extent to which they are also capable of covering the more advanced/detailed seafood industry requirements for covering traceability information in B2B exchanges.
100 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7 Seafood Industry B2B Traceability Requirements
ISO TC 234 (Fisheries and aquaculture) has produced two international standards that specify information to be recorded in finfish distribution chains.
• ISO 12875 Traceability of finfish products — Specification on the information to be recorded in captured finfish distribution chains [30]. The operators in this chain include fishing vessels, vessel-landing businesses and auction markets, processors, transporters and storers, traders and wholesalers, retailers and caterers.
• ISO 12877 Traceability of finfish products — Specification on the information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution chains [31]. The operators in this chain include fish feed producers, breeders, hatchers, fish farms, live fish transporters, processors, transporters and storers, traders and wholesalers, retailers and caterers.
ISO 12875 and 12877 do not define the data formats in which this information should or could be encoded or the messaging protocols to use to exchange this information. They also recognize that other information items may be used beyond the specific items they specify. The ISO traceability guidelines are primarily oriented to B2B transactions and value chains. The standard provides no indication of utilization for regulatory purposes [82].
In this section, we analyze in more detail whether the e-Business document schemas discussed in section 6 can be used to encode the information identified in the two ISO standards. The ISO 12875 and ISO 12877 standards documents are structured at the level of different types of food business operators. For traceability units (trade units or logistic units), they make a further distinction in various events that may happen (receiving, creating, dispatching, auctioning). This is convenient for these food business operators, as it allows them to quickly find the section in the standards that is relevant for them. A single data element (for example "Unit ID") is therefore referenced several times. To avoid redundancy, this section matches (groups of) information elements to structures in the e-Business document schemas and schema libraries.
As in chapter 6, the focus will be on the XML structure (and underlying content elements) and the information they are capable of encoding. We will continue to look at the Dispatch Advice document, as it comes closest to a traceability exchange document.
7.1 Food Business Operator Information
Traceability requirements on information about food business operators relate to their identifiers, establishment ID, vessel information, GMP certification and other unassigned information elements.
7.1.1 Business and Establishment Identifier
ISO 12875/12877 define the food business identifier as a country prefix plus unique national identification number for the organization, as well as the name and address of the food business that operates the vessel (fishing vessels) or food business establishment (for other food business operators). They define the establishment as a country prefix plus unique national identification number for the organization, as well as the name and address or GLN of establishment.
UN/CEFACT XML has information on Despatch Party and Delivery Party as described in section 6.3. UBL and GS1 have similar reusable party identification types for use in their respective XML document schemas. These elements seem general enough to support the seafood industry requirements.
For vessels, two specialized data elements are identified that have no immediate counterparts in any of the three standards:
• Vessel Call Sign (CFV102)
• Vessel ID (CFV103)
101 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
To express this information in the e-Business document schemas, one approach might be to profile some existing elements, such as the elements ID and GlobalID in CITradePartyType in UN/CEFACT XML, the element PartyIdentification in PartyType in UBL 2.0 or the element additionalPartyIdentification in GS1 eCom XML. An alternative approach would be extend the XML libraries with a new Aggregate Business Information Entity (ABIE) for Vessels, which would allow other information about vessels to be encoded as additional properties. Such an ABIE may be useful to define other seafood industry documents. A proposal for such an ABIE is presented in section 10.2.2.3
7.1.2 GMP Certification
ISO 12875 and 12877 define a data element "GMP certification" to indicate that a food business operator has obtained a particular food safety certification.
ISO Data Element GMP Certification ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV103, CLA103, CPR103, CTS103, CTW103, CRC103, COT204, FFE103, FBR103, FTW103, FRC103, FOT202 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01006892 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ SpecifiedCITradeProduct/ CertificationEvidenceReferenceCIReferencedDocument UBL 2.0 N/A eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ despathInformation/ productCertification Notes The ISO data element is associated with the FBO, whereas the UN/CEFACT and eCom elements are associated with products. Expressing certification information at the level of trade products allows a single document to transfer information on products with different certifications (or none at all). Alternatively, certification could apply to a particular process step in the creation or lifecycle of a product. Each such a step could have its own properties, including certification information, as discussed in section 7.2.7.2. UBL does not seem to have a data element for product or operator certification.
7.2 Traceable Unit Information
The information to be recorded for trade units and logistic units can be organized in groups of information elements. The information requirements depend on the type of food business operator (see [30], [31] for details), the type of unit (trade unit or logistic unit) and the action taken on the item (i.e. whether it is being received, created, auctioned, created or dispatched). The mapping of events and unit types to information groups is as follows:
• Received trade units or logistic units: identity, source, control checks, and transformation relations.
• Created trade units: identity, source, transformation relations, descriptive information and production history.
• Auctioned trade units: identity and descriptive information.
102 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Created logistic units: identity and aggregation information.
• Dispatched units: identity, destination, dispatch Information and production history
The core traceability information capabilities of the three e-Business Document schema standards UN/CEFACT XML, UBL and GS1 eCom XML were discussed in section 6. The following subsections will discuss the various information groups in more detail.
7.2.1 Unit Identity
Traceability is enabled by unique identifiers for trade and logistic units and references from logistic units to included trade units. Section 6 showed that this information can be expressed in the UBL, UN/CEFACT XML and GS1 XML Despatch Advice business document and related XML libraries. The following subsections explain this in a tabular format.
7.2.1.1 Trade Units
ISO Data Element Trade Unit ID ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR201 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005810 UN01005811 UN01005812 UN01005813 UN01005799 UN01005802 UN01006745 UN01007164 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ SpecifiedCITradeProduct/ ( ID | GlobalID | SellerAssignedID | BuyerAssignedID ) CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ SpecifiedCITradeProduct/ IndividualCITradeProductInstance/ ( GlobalSerialID | SupplierAssignedSerialID | SerialID | RegistrationID ) UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice/ DespatchLine/ Item/ ( BuyersItemIdentification | SellersItemIdentification | ManufacturersItemIdentification | StandardItemIdentification ) DespatchAdvice/ DespatchLine/ Item/
103 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
ItemInstance/ ( ProductTraceID | RegistrationID |
SerialID ) eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ despatchAdviceLogisticUnit/ despatchAdviceLineItemType/ transactionalTradeItem/ gtin despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ despatchAdviceLogisticUnit/ despatchAdviceLineItemType/ transactionalTradeItem/ transactionalItemData/ serialNumber Notes For each of the three standards, the two right cells show trade product identification (top) and trade product instance identification (bottom). 7.2.1.2 Logistic Units
ISO Data Element ISO Data Element Identifier(s) Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01006814 UN01006815 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ SpecifiedCIDDLLogisticsPackage/ ( ID | GlobalID ) UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice/ Shipment/ TransportHandlingUnit/ ID eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ despatchAdviceLogisticUnit/ logisticUnitIdentification/ sscc Notes
7.2.1.3 Aggregation of Trade Units in a Logistic Unit
ISO Data Element Trade Unit IDs in logistic unit ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR202 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01006791 UN01006792 UN01006814 UN01006815
104 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
UN/CEFACT XML (a) CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ PhysicalReferencedLogisticsPackage/ ( ID | GlobalID ) UN/CEFACT XML (b) CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ SpecifiedCIDDLLogisticsPackage/ ( ID | GlobalID ) UBL 2.0 (a) DespatchAdvice/ Shipment/ TransportHandlingUnit/ HandlingUnitDespatchLine/ ID UBL 2.0 (b) DespatchAdvice/ DespatchLine/ ID eCom XML See section 7.2.1.1 Notes The (Global)ID at UN/CEFACT XML (a) is a logistic unit cross- reference to the ID in UN/CEFACT (b). The ID in UBL 2.0 (a) is a cross-reference line number to the ID in UBL 2.0 (b). In eCom XML, trade unit structures are embedded in the logistic unit XML structures they are packaged into as shown in section 7.2.1.1.
7.2.2 Source
A food business operator should record information about the business that it receives traceable items from, and when it receives them.
7.2.2.1 Previous source business ID
ISO Data Element Previous food business ID ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CLA203, CPR203, CTS203, CTW203, CRC203, FFE203, FPR203, FTS203, FTW203 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005757 UN01005758 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeDeliver / ShipFromCITradeParty / (ID | GlobalID) UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice/ DespatchSupplierParty/ (CustomerAssignedAccountID | SupplierAssignedAccountID) eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ shipFrom/
105 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
gln Notes The eCom XML element is less general than the UN/CEFACT or UBL identifiers. 7.2.2.2 Date and time of reception
ISO Data Element Date and time of reception ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CLA204, CPR204, FFE504, FHA204, FFF204, FTR204, FPR204, FTS204, FTW204, FRC204 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL N/A UN/CEFACT XML N/A UBL 2.0 ReceivedDate in the Receipt Advice document eCom XML receivingDateTime in the GS1 eCom XML Receiving Advice document Notes Unfortunately, there is no Receipt Advice in UN/CEFACT XML yet.
7.2.3 Destination
A food business operator should record information about the business that it sends traceable items to, and when and to which location it sends them.
7.2.3.1 Next food business ID
ISO Data Element Next food business ID ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV402, CLA604, CPR504, CPR504, CTS404, CTW504 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01006893 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvice/ SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTransaction/ IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeDelivery / ShipToCITradeParty / (ID | GlobalID ) UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice/ DeliveryCustomerParty/ (CustomerAssignedAccountID | SupplierAssignedAccountID) eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/ shipTo/ gln Notes The eCom XML element is less general than the UN/CEFACT or UBL identifiers.
7.2.3.2 Date and time of dispatch
ISO Data Element Date and time of dispatch ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV403, CLA605, CPR505, CTS405, CTW505, FFE504, FBR403, FFF503, FTR411, FTS405 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005628 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise /
106 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction/ IncludedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeDelivery / ActualDespatchCISupplyChainEvent / OccurrenceDateTime UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice / Shipment / Delivery / (ActualDeliveryData | ActualDeliveryTime ) eCom XML despatchAdviceMessage / despatchAdvice / despatchInformation / despatchDateTime Notes Options other than actual delivery date are supported (e.g. intervals, pick up delivery). 7.2.3.3 Place of Dispatch
ISO Data Element Place of dispatch ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV 404, CTS406, FTR410, FTS406 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005628 UN/CEFACT XML CrossIndustryDespatchAdvise / SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction/ IncludedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeDelivery / ActualDespatchCISupplyChainEvent / OccurrenceCILogisticsLocation UBL 2.0 DespatchAdvice / Shipment / Delivery / ( DeliveryAddress | DeliveryLocation ) eCom XML eCom XML has a despatchAdviceMessage/ despatchAdvice/shipTo/address and a separate receiver/address. Notes All three XML standards support addressing based on postal address or geographical coordinates, but lack addressing based on international ID code of ports.
7.2.4 Control Checks on Received Items
At receipt, information on the temperature of the received item is recorded and temperature logs validated:
• Temperature of unit when received (CLA205, CPR205, CTS206, CTW205, CRC205, FTR205, FTS206). This is defined as "Temperature of unit °C".
• Unit temperature record (CLA206, CPR206, CTW206). This is a "[series] of temperature (°C)/date and time points in ISO 8601 format".
• Further quality control checks (CPR207, FFE205, FHA207, FFF207 and FPR207). This is defined as "checks (organoleptic, physical, chemical or microbiological), each in the form of description of measurement and value, are available in electronic form, on paper or not available".
UN/CEFACT XML, UBL and eCom XML do not provide structure for encoding this information. Some approaches for temperature records are discussed in section 7.2.7.3. These may be applicable to the "further checks" as well. A proposal is presented in section 10.2.1.2.
107 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7.2.5 Transformation Relations
The ISO standards specify that transformation information is specified for received units, created trade units, and dispatched units.
• Related created trade unit IDs (CLA207, CPR210, FFE207, FHA208, FFF208, FPR210)
• Fraction of the received trade unit that goes into the created trade unit (FFE208, FHA209, FFF209, FPR211)
• Related received trade unit (CLA311, CPR320, FHA317, FFE319, FFE320, FPR325)
• Fraction of the created trade unit that was made up by a created trade unit (FFE320, FHA318, FFF321, FPR326)
It was already mentioned in section 6.1.2 that UBL does not support this type of relations between output and input item instances. UN/CEFACT XML and GS1 eCom XML similarly lack a structure to express transformation information.
Note that Trace Core XML does not support the concept of fractions, and that the suggestion [77] to add an InputUnitID element to ItemInstance is therefore insufficient to fully support the ISO standards. Instead, an XML structure would be needed that allows for pairs of
7.2.6 Description
Various types of descriptive information are recorded about items. We will discuss these in more detail in this section.
The following elements are listed in ISO 12875 as a further description of each trade unit for fish prior to processing, but as production history in other sections of the standard, so we discuss them in 7.2.7:
• COT403 Date of capture or sailing
• COT404 Fishing method
• COT405 Catch certification scheme (Name of scheme by which fishery is certified)
• COT406 Certification scheme identifier
• COT505 Date and time of production
7.2.6.1 Species
ISO Data Element Species ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV204 CLA304 CPR307, FBR202, FPR307, FOT301 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005575 (SystemName) UN01005577 (ClassCode) UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ SpecifiedCITradeProduct/ DesignatedCIProductClassification/ ClassCode UBL 2.0 DespatchLine/ Item/ CommodityClassification/ ItemClassificationCode
108 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
eCom XML N/A Notes: There is no specific element for "species" in the UN/CEFACT Despatch Advice, but there is a more generic product classification structure that can be used. The species name or code should then be used as value for ClassName or ClassCode, with the classification SystemID set to a value to indicate the FAO 3 alpha code or Taxonomic Serial Number. The structure can be repeated for items that are in multiple categories. See section 10.2.1.3 for a proposal. This approach is in line with the UN/CEFACT Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures messages [50], which also use a Classification business information entity to encode Species information (UN03000159). In the CCL, an ABIE is defined for livestock (domestic creatures kept or raised on a farm or ranch) which does have a "Species Type" property (UN01007649).
Figure 43 DesignatedCIProductClassification
7.2.6.2 Type of Unit
ISO Data Element Type of Unit ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV202, CLA302, CPR302, FFE 303, FPR302, FTW302, FOT203 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01006820 UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / PhysicalReferencedLogisticsPackage / TypeCode UBL 2.0 N/A eCom XML despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / packageTypeCode Notes The UN/CEFACT element is defined to use a value from the standard UN/ECE 67065 Package Type code list. 7.2.6.3 Net weight
ISO Data Element Net weight ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV203, CLA303, CPR 303, CTW305, COT206, FFE302, FFE308, FPR303, FTW305, FOT204
109 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005819 UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / NetWeightMeasure UBL 2.0 DespatchLine / Shipment / NetWeightMeasure eCom XML despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / despatchAdviceLineItemType / TransactionalTradeItem / transactionalItemData / transactionalItemWeight 7.2.6.4 Name/Type of Product
ISO Data Element Name/Type of Product ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR304, COT301, COT501, FFE304, FOT501, FOT701, FOT801 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005815 Name UN01005816 Trade Name UN01005817 Description UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / ( Name | TradeName | Description ) UBL 2.0 DespatchLine / Item / ( Name | BrandName | AdditionalInformation ) eCom XML despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / despatchAdviceLineItemType / TransactionalTradeItem / tradeItemDescription Notes The eCom XML match is approximate. The use of GTIN is mandatory in eCom XML, and can be converted unambiguously to a human-readable representation. 7.2.6.5 Country of Origin
ISO Data Element Area/Country of Origin ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CFV205, CLA306, CPR309, COT303, FFE 312, FPR309, FOT303 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005827 UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / OriginCITradeCountry UBL 2.0 DespatchLine / Item / OriginCountry eCom XML despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / despatchAdviceLineItemType / countryOfOrigin despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / despatchAdviceLineItemType / TransactionalTradeItem / transactionalItemData / countryOfOrigin Notes The ISO data element covers both country of origin for fish from inland waters and FAO area/RFMO area for marine
110 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
fish. The referenced elements from e-Business standards only cover the former. A new, separate element would seem to be needed to express the latter. See section 10.2.2.3. 7.2.6.6 Date of durability Best Before or Sell Before
ISO Data Element Date of durability Best Before or Sell Before ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR312, COT504, COT603, FFE309, FPR312, FOT405, FOT603, FOT702, FOT802 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005803 (Best Before) UN01005804 (Expiry Date) UN01005805 (Sell By) UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / IndividualCITradeProductInstance / ( BestBeforeDataTime | ExpiryDateTime | SellByDateTime ) UBL 2.0 Item / ItemInstance / LotIdentification / ExpiryDate eCom XML despatchAdviceLogisticUnit / despatchAdviceLineItemType / TransactionalTradeItem / transactionalItemData / ( bestBeforeDate | itemExpirationDate | sellByDate ) 7.2.6.7 Product Customs Code
ISO Data Element Product Customs Code ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR305, COT502, FPR305, FOT502 Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005575 (SystemName) UN01005577 (ClassCode) UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / DesignatedCIProductClassification / ClassCode UBL 2.0 Item/ CommodityClassification/ CommodityCode eCom XML eCom XML does not seem to have a data element for product customs code
Notes There seems to be no specific element in CCL for use in despatch advice documents, but the generic classification mechanism (discussed in section 7.2.6.1) can be used.
There is an EU Commodity code defined in CCL (UN03000047), but it is available as part of the SPS Business Information Entity set only.
111 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7.2.6.8 Unit Classification and Unit Instance Properties
The ISO standards specify recording various properties or classifications of items.
• The primary production method (captured or farmed) is expressed as data elements CLA305, CPR308, COT302, FPR308 and FOT302. (But note that, as information about production, it might make more sense to be added to the production information structure discussed in section 7.2.7).
• The product form (whole, gutted or headed) is expressed as data elements CFV206 CLA307 COT401 FFE306 and FPR313.
• The product condition (live, ambient, chilled or frozen) is expressed as data elements CFV 208 CLA 309 CPR 311, FPR311, FTW303 and FOT205.
• Whether there is any use of GMO or products from GMO in product or raw material GMO is expressed as FFE 308, FBR208, FPR317, FOT402, FOT506 and FOT705.
• The size grade (nominal weight (kg) or length (cm) range, or ungraded) is expressed as data elements CFV207, CLA308 and COT402.
• Whether records of further details of product specification, such as quality grades and size grades, are available (in electronic form, on paper or not available) is expressed as data elements CPR306, FFE310 and FPR306.
This information can be viewed as another classification mechanism and therefore use the approach discussed for expressing Species information (see section 7.2.6.1), as is proposed for UN/CEFACT Sanitary and Phytosanitary certificates (SPS; [47],[50]). Alternatively, this information can be viewed as product properties and use any of the mechanisms for property values available in UBL (see section 6.2), UN/CEFACT XML (section 6.3) or GS1 eCom XML (section 6.4). See section 10.2.1.4.
The profiling proposed in section 10.2.1 uses product characteristics with a profile-specific agency name ISO TC 234 and a list identifier set to the information element code.
7.2.6.9 Unit Composition
The ISO standards also discuss product ingredients among description elements that are in fact similar to transformation relations. One difference seems to be that ingredients or components do not have separate trade identifiers, or that such identifiers are not of interest.
• Composition List of names of ingredients and percents by weight (CPR310, COT503, FFE307, FPR310, FOT503, FOT602, FOT704, FOT804).
• For components of a product, type of product (CTW304), net weight (CTW305), received trade unit ID (CTW306).
• For ingredients incorporated in fish products, descriptive name of ingredient (COT601), composition (COT602, FFE307).
• Marine Species that went into fish meal (FFE311).
For discussion of transformation relations, see section 7.2.5.
7.2.7 Production History
Production history information is specified for received units, created trade units, and dispatched units. Some information items are used by multiple FBO types, some by specific operators only. Some properties have a fixed value for a particular unit instance, whereas other properties have different values as measured over time.
112 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7.2.7.1 Production Events
A product may emerge as a result of a series of steps or events. One such event is the Production (or Time of Packing) of a product.
ISO Data Element Date and Time of Production ISO Data Element Identifier(s) CPR315, COT505, FFE305, FPR320, FOT703, FOT803. Unique Identifier(s) in CCL UN01005628 UN/CEFACT XML IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem / SpecifiedCITradeProduct / IndividualCITradeProductInstance / ProductionCISupplyChainEvent / OccurrenceDateTime UBL 2.0 DespatchLine / Item / ItemInstance / ( ManufactureData | ManufactureTime ) eCom XML transactionalTradeItem / transactionalItemData / packagingDate Notes The mapping is based on the definition in the ISO standards of this element "as the time of packing/labelling at end of line". UN/CEFACT and and eCom XML have separate event data/time information for production and packaging. Other specialized events that are identified are:
• Date of capture or sailing (CFV209)
• Date of landing or first sale (CFV209)
These do not have direct equivalents in any of the UN/CEFACT, UBL or GS1 standards. One option might be to define additional event types e.g. a CaptureCISupplyChainEvent, as production and packaging already are, or to use the TypeCode element to classify ProductionCISupplyChainEvents elements. The latter approach is adopted in section 10.2.2.
7.2.7.2 Production Methods and Properties
The ISO standards define various information elements to express various methods applied during production.
• Temperature control method for transporter and storers (CTS402), traders and wholesalers (CTW502), storage/display (CRC302), storage at vessels (CFV217), raw material storage (CPR208) and product storage (CPR502) at producers and storage and landing or auctions businesses (CLA602), live fish transporters (FTR402).
• Size grading method (CFV214, CLA310).
• Weighing method (CFV215)
• Stowage method (CFV216)
While this information relates to the production process rather than the product, it can be viewed as product properties and use any of the mechanisms for property values available in UBL (see section 6.2),
113 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
UN/CEFACT XML (section 6.3) or GS1 eCom XML (section 6.4). Another approach would be to add a mechanism to express process properties in the UN/CEFACT ProductionCISupplyChainEvent group or in the UBL or eCom XML equivalents of these. The structure could be generic, like the structure of the product property group.
Production process properties also include:
• Process specification (CPR313 and FFE313)
• Production line IDs (CPR314 and FFE314)
• Farm unit (rearing tank) ID (FBR209, FHA307, FFF311)
• Other production information includes salinity record (FBR211), water flow record (FBR212), weight of parental fish (FBR214), age of parental fish (FBR215).
• Aquaculture certification scheme (FHA315, FFF318) and aquaculture certification identifiers (FHA316, FFF319).
• Loading/unloading technology (FTR406)
In section 7.2.7.2 we discussed a potential CaptureCISupplyChainEvent event. If such an event were to be defined, it could also have process properties itself, such as:
• Catch certification scheme (CFV211) and certification scheme identifier (CFV213)
• Fishing method (Trawl, longline or gill net, etc. as FAO alpha code; CFV210)
Alternatively, certification can be a property of a product, as discussed in section 7.1.2.
7.2.7.3 Production Records
For some production related information, the ISO standards specify information element that record their values over time.
• Temperature records are defined as CFV218 (storage), CPR209 (raw material storage), CPR503 (product storage), CLA603 (landing or auction), CTS403 (transporter or storage), CRC303 (storage/display), CTW503 (trader or wholesaler), feed producers (FFE206, FFE317, FFE502), hatcheries (FHA206, FHA310), fish farms (FFF206), live fish transporters (FTR206, FTR403), processors (FPR206), transporters and storers (FTS403), traders and wholesalers (FTW504) and retailers and caterers (FRC303). A temperature record is a series of temperature values (in degrees Celsius) measured at specific date/time points.
• Treatment records (FBR216, FHA312, FFF316)
• Feeding records (FBR217, FFF317)
• Starving Periods (FHA309, FFF312)
UN/CEFACT XML, UBL and eCom XML do not have defined structures for temperature records or other variables measured over time. In UN/CEFACT XML, the group IndividualCITradeProduct in IndividualCITradeProductInstance has an element ProductCIProductCharacteristic.It allows for arbitrary instance properties to be recorded, so a seafood industry profile of the standard might use it record the temperature of unit when received or other control check values, and communicate this information, for example in a Receiving Advice. However, this structure supports just one temperature value, not a time-stamped series of temperature measurements. A dedicated data structure for production records could be developed. It could be defined in a generic way so that it supports arbitrary properties (temperature being one instance of them).
114 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Note that derived representations (e.g. using maximum, minimum, average values) are conceivable and may even be more useful for reporting or data exchange purposes. They most likely will reduce the amount of data to be recorded and exchanged. This will not be discussed further here.
Section 10.2.2.2 describes how records can be attached to a UN/CEFACT XML trade document.
7.2.7.4 Production Record Keeping
For other types of production-related information, the ISO standards have data elements using which food business operators indicate whether related records are available in electronic form, on paper or not available:
• Records of HACCP analysis and critical control-point checks (CPR316, HACCP and FFE315).
• Records of hygiene checks (CPR 317 and FFE316).
• Process temperature records (processes and process area; CPR 318, FFE317).
• Product quality-control checks (organoleptic, physical, chemical or microbiological (CPR 319 and FFE318).
• Disease records (FBR213, FHA308, FFF315)
• Oxygen records (FHA311)
• Fish density records (FHA 312)
In some cases, the ISO standards data elements are ambiguous between record keeping policies and actuals records, as in the case of:
• Fish density record (FFF314, FTR407)
• Disinfecting date (FTR404)
• Water parameter record (FTR405)
This information can be encoded using either the mechanism discussed in section 7.2.7.2 or 7.2.7.3.
7.2.8 Section Summary
In this section, we reviewed the seafood industry information elements to be recorded according to ISO 12875 and 12877 standards and matched them against the UN/CEFACT XML, UBL 2.0 and GS1 eCom XML electronic business XML standards. In particular, we looked at the Despatch Advice business documents and the underlying libraries of XML schemas and Business Information Entities.
Specific findings are:
• There is a clear need to be able to express transformation relations, including transformations with specified fractions (section 7.2.5). Unit composition (section 7.2.6.9) is a very similar issue.
• The ISO standards define many properties or classifications of items that have no corresponding elements in the XML schemas of the three e-Business standards. Rather than proposing additional elements, it makes sense to use generic mechanism for classification of items, or for expressing properties about items. This mechanism is generic and can support new information items to be recorded in the future and other related products besides farmed or captured fish, such as shellfish including crustaceans and molluscs. In fact, this scheme in essence is sufficiently generic to support any food product.
115 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• The ISO standards define a large number of information elements that express properties of processes (or process steps or events in the lifetime of a product instance). It would make sense to have a generic mechanism to be able to attach properties to supply chain events (section 7.2.7.2).
• The ISO standards define several properties of product instances, the values of which are measured repeatedly and are recorded. Again, it makes sense to have a generic mechanism to encode and express such records of time-standard property value measurements (section 7.2.7.3).
• There is a potential need for a dedicated ABIE for information about vessels (7.1.1).
• There may be a need for additional supply chain event types, in addition to the production and packaging events (section 7.2.7.1).
Chapter 10 profiles and defines extensions to UN/CEFACT XML to address these findings.
116 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
8 Regulatory Requirements
8.1 Global level
On a global level, WTO and the organizations of the UN system are the main actors shaping the regulatory framework on trade in fishery products. The WTO provides the institutional structure for the opening of world markets, whereas UN organizations address the issues of sustainable development, environmental conservation and food security as targets world trade liberalization shall meet.
The WTO system is based on a series of agreements whose aim is the gradual opening of international markets in goods, with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), services, with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and traded inventions, with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). GATT provides for the liberalization of trade in goods through gradual reduction of tariffs, conversion of non-tariff import restrictions into tariffs (tariffication) and elimination of trade-distorting domestic support. Developing countries can count on extended schedules and other special provisions to help adapting their economies to world trade liberalization, such as technical assistance and training programmes.
Specific WTO agreements have been concluded in order to determine the conditions under which specific trade restricting measures are permitted and considered not to violate principles of trade liberalization. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) tries to ensure that technical standards, regulations and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade. Countries can adopt standards they deem appropriate for human, animal or plant health, protection of the environment or of consumers. However, WTO promotes the use of international standards and discourages methods giving to domestic goods an unfair advantage.
The Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) complements that on TBT. It aims to ensure a balance between protection of health and safety on the one hand and international trade on the other. It encourages member states to use international standards on food safety, animal and plant health, such as those set by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Nevertheless, states can set their own standards at higher protection levels on the basis of science or of an appropriate risk assessment. Higher standards should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, plant life and health. They should not discriminate between countries with identical or similar conditions.
The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) disciplines the use of subsidies for products not covered by the Agreement on Agriculture, e.g. fishery products. It also disciplines the actions states can take against them. A state can either launch the WTO dispute-settlement procedure or make its own inspection to subsequently charge a countervailing duty on subsidised imports hurting domestic producers.
UN agencies and programmes contribute to the shaping of the international trade framework by focusing on the impact of trade on the environment, sustainable development and food security. They also have a primary role in developing the international standards for food health and safety. The 1992 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) introduced for the first time on a binding document issues such as the sustainable management of fishery resources. The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries tackles issues such as the health, safety and quality requirements in processing and marketing fishery products. The CITES Convention sets restrictions on trade in specimens of wild fauna and flora listed in its three appendices.
117 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The FAO/World Health Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarius Commission provides the international standards for food hygiene, contaminants, food technology, food import and export, microbiology and fishery products. Other internationally-recognised standards setting bodies are the above-mentioned OIE and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
International NGOs have a strong influence on the shaping of the regulatory framework of trade in fishery products. Some NGOs lobby the WTO and UN agencies to raise the profile of the environment, sustainable development and food safety in their trade agendas. Other organizations such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) set up practical tools such as eco-labelling schemes to foster sustainable trade in fishery products.
8.2 Regional level
On a regional level states have been creating various Regional Economic Organizations (REOs) to foster peace and prosperity in given areas through market and eventually economic integration. Article 24 of GATT allows states to set up REOs as a special exception to the principle of equal treatment for all trading partners (most favoured nation). However REOs should help trade flow more freely among their member countries without raising further trade barriers against third countries. This web site provides links to online REOs from Europe, Asia Pacific and Oceania, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. Among REOs, the European Union (EU) did reach a high degree of economic and even political integration. EU legislation now governs the majority of policy areas within its member states, being particularly dominant in sectors such as fisheries, trade, health and safety.
Among the regional bodies not pursuing any economic or political integration, Regional Fishery Bodies and Arrangements (RFBAs) do have a certain impact on trade in fish and fishery products. The role of these bodies is to manage resources in a sustainable way. On the basis of scientific evidence they recommend measures aimed at maintaining the natural resources under their mandate at levels allowing maximum sustainable catch in the areas under mandate.
8.2.1 Europe
In the early days EU trade policy on fish was decided by the EU alone. However, since the launch of the WTO process, trade policy and tariffs in all economic sectors are now dealt with multilaterally at the highest international level.
The EU is fully committed to the WTO process, which can bring many advantages beyond those associated with the extension of free trade. An international consensus on rules of origin, for instance, could greatly facilitate trade in fish for the EU and its partners, at a time when globalisation is making it more and more difficult to say where exactly any given product comes from.
The Commission is committed to working for an outcome which is positive for the EU fishing industry, and for the promotion of sustainable fishing worldwide.
There are several requirements from EU and other regulations for information to be recorded that is not required in the ISO standards, referenced in Chapter 4.
8.2.1.1 General Food Law (Decision 2002/178/EC)
The European Union has mandatory traceability requirements for all food and feed, including seafood. The requirements are found in the “Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of Jan. 28, 2002, laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European
118 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety,” also known as the “General Food Law” [7].
According to Article 18 of Decision 2002/178/EC, the traceability of food shall be established at all stages of production, processing and distribution. According to Article 2(5), transport businesses are considered to be ‘food businesses’ and shall therefore comply with the traceability requirements of Article 18. The article requires that a food business be able to identify any person from whom they have been supplied with a food product. This person can be an individual (e.g. fisher or shellfish grower) or a legal entity (e.g. business). The food business shall also be able to identify legal entities that it subsequently supplied with this product18.
Article 18 does not detail the specific data elements that the EU would demand to meet its traceability requirement. However, the document entitled “Guidance on the Implementation of Articles 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 Of Regulation (Ec) N° 178/2002 On General Food Law” more clearly stipulates the data requirements18
The requirements on mandatory traceability found in Reg. 178 came into effect on Jan. 1, 2005, and require all producers of food and feed to keep records sufficient to identify the immediate previous supplier and the immediate subsequent buyer. This principle is called “one up–one down.”
The document states that the traceability provisions of Article 18 do not have an extra-territorial effect outside the EU.
In other words, exporters in non-EU trading partner countries are not legally required to fulfill the traceability requirement imposed within the EU. According to this document, the objective of Article 18 is sufficiently fulfilled because the requirement extends to the importer. Since the EU importer shall be able to identify the exporter in the third country, the requirement of Article 18 and its objective is deemed to be satisfied.
While fishery and aquaculture supply chains may not be legally required to fulfill the traceability requirements of the EU General Food Law, the data requirements of this regulation have been included:
• Exporters shall be prepared to provide the traceability-related information that may be needed by the importer for compliance with the regulation. Some of the product-related information required by the importer may extend back to the harvester. • The traceability requirements of the General Food Law will likely become the template for other countries seeking to implement traceability legislation. In other words, a level of traceability – similar to that required by this law – may soon become necessary for access to many other important markets.
8.2.1.2 Decision 2001 2065/EC
Detailed rules for the application of European Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 in regards to informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products” [6]. This regulation requires the recording of the following information:
• Commercial name of the species. • Method of production (i.e. wild or farmed). • Catch Area. Products caught at sea have to show the area of capture (taken from the FAO list, in annex of the above EU regulation). However, only the general area has to be mentioned (e.g. “Pacific Ocean”) and not the “Area codes”. Operators may provide additional information on the area.
119 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
8.2.1.3 Decision 2003 / 804/EC
The animal health conditions and certification requirements for imports of molluscs, their eggs and gametes for further growth, fattening, relaying or human consumption.” [7].
• live molluscs, their eggs and gametes, for further growth, fattening or relaying; • live molluscs and non-viable molluscs for immediate human consumption or further processing before human consumption. EC member states shall authorize the importation into their territory of live molluscs intended for immediate human consumption, or for further processing before human consumption, only if:
• the molluscs originate and have been harvested in a territory listed in Annex I of the regulation; • the consignment complies with the guarantees, including those for packaging and labelling and the appropriate specific additional requirements, as laid down in the animal health certificate in Annex II of the regulation.
8.2.1.4 Decision 2004 / 319 / EC
In order to avoid interrupting trade with third country exporters, the EC adopted Decision 2004/319/EC [10] which amended Annex I of 2003/804/EC to include a list of countries temporarily approved as exporters to the EU. Countries – such as Canada – that appear on this list shall allow EC regulators to conduct inspections regarding their compliance with 2003/804/EC. These inspections were completed in 2005. Through this regulation, the EU requires that the exporter can attest to the disease status of the animals being exported.
The key traceability-related requirements of this regulation include: a. Farms shall maintain up-to-date records that are open to scrutiny on:
• Observed mortalities of molluscs, eggs or gametes entering or leaving the farm. • All information on the delivery and dispatch of molluscs, eggs or gametes. • The number or weight, size, origin, suppliers and destination of molluscs, eggs or gametes. b. In order to meet EU requirements, reliable evidence of freedom from particular diseases is needed. Farm shellstocks shall have been free of unexplained or abnormal mortalities for two years prior to shipment; as well, the regulation requires that the farm be capable of providing evidence that it is free from specific diseases.
8.2.1.5 Decisions 2004/852/EC, 2004/853/EC & 2004/854/EC
Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs [11].
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 on specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin [12].
Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 on specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption [13].
These decisions represent a trio of related regulations that deal with food hygiene“laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption”. While these regulations focus on animal health certification, they do contain a limited number of requirements that would demand the existence of a traceability system for verification of compliance.
120 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
8.2.1.6 Article 58 of Regulation 1224/2009
Establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 [17].
Traceability
1. Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products shall be traceable at all stages of production, processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to retail stage.
2. Fisheries and aquaculture products placed on the market or likely to be placed on the market in the Community shall be adequately labelled to ensure the traceability of each lot.
3. Lots of fisheries and aquaculture products may be merged or split after first sale only if it is possible to trace them back to catching or harvesting stage.
4. Member States shall ensure that operators have in place systems and procedures to identify any operator from whom they have been supplied with lots of fisheries and aquaculture products and to whom these products have been supplied. This information shall be made available to the competent authorities ondemand.
5. The minimum labelling and information requirements for all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products shall include
(a) the identification number of each lot;
(b) the external identification number and name of the fishing vessel or the name of the aquaculture production unit;
(c) the FAO alpha-3 code of each species;
(d) the date of catches or the date of production
(e) the quantities of each species in kilograms expressed in net weight or, where appropriate, the number of individuals;
(f) the name and address of the suppliers;
(g) the information to consumers provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001: the commercial designation,the scientific name, the relevant geographical area and theproduction method;
(h) whether the fisheries products have been previously frozen or not.
6. Member States shall ensure that the information listed inpoints (g) and (h) of paragraph 5 is available to the consumer atretail sale stage.
121 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
7. The information listed in points (a) to (f) of paragraph 5 shall not apply to fisheries and aquaculture products imported into the Community with catch certificates submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.
8. Member States may exempt from the requirements set outin this Article small quantities of products sold directly from fishing vessels to consumers, provided that these do not exceed thevalue of EUR 50 per day. Any amendment to this threshold shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 119.
9. Detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 119.
8.2.1.7 Legal base: The EU IUU Regulation 1005/2008
• Implementing regulation: Commission regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1222/2011 of 28 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements with third countries on catch certificates for marine fisheries products • Regulation no. 202/2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 as regards the definition of fishery products and amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards prior notification templates, benchmarks for port inspections and recognised catch documentation schemes adopted by regional fisheries management organisations. • Commission regulation (EU) No 86/2010 of 29 January 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 as regards the definition of fishery products and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards exchange of information on inspections of third country vessels and administrative arrangements on catch certificates • Commission Regulation (EU) No 395/2010 of 7 May 2010 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements on catch certificates • Commission regulation (EU) No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2011 of 25 July 2011 amending Regulation (EU) Nr 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
The EU IUU Regulation 1005/2008 [16] established a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing from entering European Union member states. IUU fishing is a global problem and approximately 20% of global catch is estimated to be derived from IUU fisheries.
The IUU regulation applies to wild harvested marine species. Freshwater fisheries products, aquaculture products obtained from fry or larvae, live oysters, scallops, mussels and prepared and preserved molluscs are exempted (Annex 1 of the regulation). The regulation applies to marine catches obtained as of January 01, 2010.
Main components of the EU IUU Regulation:
• Port State Measures • The catch certification scheme • The EU IUU vessel list • List of non-cooperating third countries • Provisions concerning EU nationals • System for mutual assistance and administrative cooperation
122 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The EU has issued a handbook on the application of the IUU regulation which outlines in detail the principles, scope and application of the regulation generally (for all parties in both member and third party states). The regulation seeks to ensure full traceability of all marine fisheries products traded with the EU by means of a Catch cCertificate. The Catch Certificate reporting requirements are outlined in Annex 2 of the Regulation. The Catch Certificate is intended to enable traceability of any lot of seafood imported to the EU back to a legally licensed harvest vessel (or group of harvest vessels) fishing in compliance with conservation and management rules
Member States into which the products are intended to be imported should be able to check the validity of the Catch Certificates accompanying the consignment and be entitled to refuse the importation where the conditions laid down in this Regulation with respect to the catch certificate are not met.
Article 12: Catch Certificates
1. The importation into the Community of fishery products obtained from IUU fishing shall be prohibited.
2. To ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition established in paragraph 1, fishery products shall only be imported into the Community when accompanied by a catch certificate in conformity with this Regulation.
3. The catch certificate referred to in paragraph 2 shall be validated by the flag State of the fishing vessel or fishing vessels which made the catches from which the fishery products have been obtained. It shall be used to certify that such catches have been made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures.
4. The catch certificate shall contain all the information specified in the specimen shown in Annex II, and shall be validated by a public authority of the flag State with the necessary powers to attest the accuracy of the information. In agreement with flag States, within the framework of the cooperation set out in Article 20(4), the catch certificate may be established, validated or submitted by electronic means or be replaced by electronic traceability systems ensuring the same level of control by authorities.
5. The list in Annex I of the products excluded from the scope of implementation of the catch certificate may be reviewed each year on the basis of the results of the information gathered under Chapters II, III, IV, V, VIII, X and XII, and amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 54(2).
The scope of the catch certification scheme: Where there is a connection to the EU in form of trade to and from the EU
• all fishing vessels under any flag in all maritime waters; • all processed and unprocessed marine fishery products, (excluding products listed in Annex I of the IUU Regulation, revised on a yearly basis)
How does the catch certificate work?
• Exporter requests a catch certificate for catches which are traded to the EU, completes it and transmits it to the competent flag State authority for validation. • The certificate can cover catches from one or more vessels but shall only be validated for the part of the catch to be exported • The EU importer shall ensure that the consignment to be imported is accompanied by a validated catch certificate
123 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Validation of catch certificates
• Validation by the competent public authority certifies that the catch was taken in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures • If doubt regarding compliance => verification to determine legality of catch • If evidence of non-compliance => no validation
Indirect importation without processing in another third country
• In order to ensure full traceability, the certification scheme also applies when fishery products are imported fro another country than the flag State of the vessel. As a result: o Products traded to another third country shall be accompanied by a validated catch certificate; and o Documented evidence that the products did not undergo any operations other than unloading, reloading or any operation designated to preserve them in good and genuine condition (e.g. single transport document or a document issued by the third country authorities).
Indirect importation of products processed in another third country
• When products are processed in another country than the flag State of the vessel, the EU importer shall submit a statement established by the processing plant in the third country (Annex IV of the Regulation): o Giving an exact description of the products o Indicating that the products originated from catches accompanied by a catch certificate (and a copy of those catch certificates) o Endorsed by the competent authorities. Verification in Member States
• The consignment to be imported may be verified by the competent Member State authority together with the catch certificate and related documents • Verifications are carried out mainly on the basis of common risk management criteria as well as on an obligatory basis for specific situations listed in the Regulation • Verifications may consist of examining the fishery products, the declaration data and authenticity of the documents, inspection of transport, containers and storage areas. • If well-founded doubt over the validity of the catch certificate or it’s contents, the competent authorities of a Member State may request assistance of the competent authorities of the flag State or of the processing third country.
124 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
ANNEX II
Figure 44 - Catch Certificate
125 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The general food law does not have an extraterritorial effect outside the EU. This means that a U.S. company exporting to EU countries is not required by the food law to be able to trace its product before entering the EU. However, the EU importer has to be able to identify its immediate previous supplier (the last U.S. company) and make sure that the imported product complies with other relevant requirements in the EU food law (e.g., food standards, labeling standards, country of origin standards etc.). Some EU food business operators request trading partners to meet the traceability requirements and even go beyond the “one up–one down” principle. This is a common business practice for some business operators and not a requirement established by the EU regulation. Furthermore, EU importers are encouraging third country suppliers to set up a bar coding system used for internal EU purposes, such as GS1.
8.2.2 USA
Despite the health, safety and conservation implications of its consumption, seafood lags behind many meat and produce products when it comes to traceability. While seafood accounts for a disproportionate number of foodborne illness outbreaks the seafood industry has largely not adopted the traceability standards that meat and produce companies often employ.In addition, many food safety and labeling laws include exemptions for certain seafood suppliers, such as fishing vesselsand fish markets, which have essentially given the industry a free pass from mandatory, full traceability.
Currently, imports account for over 75 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S., FDA inspects only two percent of these shipments. Importers will need to perform risk-based foreign supplier verifications activities to ensure that food entering the US has been produced by firms employing preventive controls unless the food is already required to be manufactured using HACCPbased preventative controls (seafood, juice, low acid canned products).
8.2.2.1 US BIOTERRORISM ACT (USBTA)
U.S. FDA registration is required for all facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or store food, beverages, or dietary supplements that may be consumed in the United States by humans or animals. Companies located outside the United States shall designate a U.S. Agent for U.S. FDA communications.
Specific recordkeeping requirements were implemented for all foods regulated by the FDA, including seafood. Facilities that manufacture, process, pack, transport, or handle these foods shall register with the FDA and maintain detailed records about the supply chain of their food. However, farms, restaurants and fishing vessels are exempted from this requirement. While the seafood industry, through the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), has issued guidance on implementing voluntary traceability methods that go beyond what the law requires (NFI 2011), it is difficult to know how widespread these efforts are and will be in the future.
Section 306 of the US Bioterrorism Act [58] requires the establishment and maintenance of records for one- up, one-down traceability and specifies a 4 hour (during business hours) and 8 hour (during non-business hours) time limit to respond to a Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) demand for information.
Non-Transporter Sources – A processor shipping to the US shall be able to provide specific information on all “immediate non-transporter previous sources”. In other words, the USBTA requirements apply specifically to the processor – who shall be able to provide information on all sources ‘one-step’ upstream. To meet the one-up traceability requirement where product moves directly from harvester to processor, the harvester would be considered the ‘one-up’ nontransporter previous source. It would, therefore, be the responsibility of the harvester to record and share certain information to allow the processor to comply with the USBTA requirements.
126 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Where product moves from harvester to buyer to processor, the buyer would be the ‘one-up’ non-transporter previous source; the buyer would, therefore, assume the responsibility of providing the processor with USBTA-related information.
8.2.2.2 US COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LEGISLATION
The US Country of Origin Legislation (COOL, [59]) requires fish products to bear labels identifying their country of origin and method of production (wild/farmed). Country-of-origin labeling has been required for seafood since 2005 (under the 2002 Farm Bill), yet the law includes some significant loopholes that make traceability difficult.
However, in addition to this labelling requirement, the USFDA also requires country of origin and production method to be verifiable through additional supporting documentation. COOL requires that all suppliers possess, or have legal access to, records that substantiate origin claims – and that they maintain records unique to each transaction for 2 years. The records shall identify the previous source and subsequent recipient of all products.
With regard to finfish aquaculture, the hatchery shall provide enough information for an auditor to verify the origin and ownership of all shipments of fry/fingerlings and shall properly record all hatchery production according to origin designation. Finfish grow-out facilities shall identify and segregate fingerlings according to the origin designation. They shall properly label and identify all marketable size fish sold as well as maintain all ownership transfer records.
8.2.2.3 US Farm Bills
The Farm Bill is the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the federal government. The comprehensive omnibus bill is passed every 5 years or so by the United States Congress and deals with both agriculture and all other affairs under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture. The 2002 and the 2008 Farm Bills address traceability
• 2002 Farm Bill [62]: Amended the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 to require COOL for most whole (unprocessed) foods, including seafood (but excluding processed products like fish sticks, canned tuna, chowder, etc.). Implementation of COOL for seafood began in 2005, but Congress delayed implementation for other products (including beef and produce) until 2009. • 2008 Farm Bill [61]: Pushed forward implementation of COOL for non-seafood foods (including beef and produce). Also amended the AMA to cover additional foods, require labelling for products of multiple origins and stipulate whether fish or shellfish products are wild-caught or farm-raised.
8.2.2.4 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) January 2011
FSMA [60] is one of the primary drivers for improved traceability in the food industry, and touches all sectors of the industry. By focusing on the importance of unique identification of products and the sharing of key data, supply-chain partners can begin to establish a foundation for traceability to meet the anticipated FSMA requirements.
FSMA affirms the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which requires anyone playing a role in the food supply chain to identify from where the product was received, and to where the product was shipped, so that in case of a food-safety event, public health can be better protected. Regardless of upcoming FDA regulations, all sectors in the food industry are already actively establishing or implementing traceability processes to improve their own performance and food-safety procedures. Fresh foods, consumer packaged goods, grocery, retail and
127 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
foodservice companies are looking to shorten response times in the event of an outbreak, streamline their business processes and improve consumer confidence in the safety of the food we eat.
Does not specifically require traceability for seafood, nor does it improve significantly on recordkeeping requirements for seafood products. The Act exempts certain portions of the seafood supply chain, such as fishing vessels, seafood farms and restaurants. Only facilities that are identified as handling specifically designated high-risk foods are subject to new recordkeeping requirements (and records shall only demonstrate “one-up, one-down” chain of custody).
128 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
9 Key Traceability Data requirements for the Business Actors
9.1 Fish Supply Chain Process
Figure 45 - Fish Supply Chain Process
9.2 Critical Tracking Events
along with Key Data Elements for traceability of product movement in the supply chain consists of:
o Product Receipt (Unique Identification of Shipment linked to Unique Product Identification, Date Received, Origin of product)
o Product Ingredient (Unique Identification of ingredient along with Batch/Lot Number or Serial Number) o Product Creation (Unique Identification of product, Batch/Lot Number or Serial Number) o Product Shipping (Unique Identification of Shipment linked to Unique Product Identification, Date Shipped, Shipment Destination)
o Pallet Configuration (Unique Shipment ID with Unique Product ID aggregation, Batch/Lot Number or Serial Number, Quantity.
o Consumer Unit Depletion and/or Point of Sale (Unique Product ID, Batch/Lot Number link, Date Purchased, Quantity
129 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
What are the Critical Tracking events for fish traceability?
Figure 46 - Criticial Tracking Events
Source: US Seafood Traceability Implementation Guide http://www.aboutseafood.com/sites/all/files/FINAL%20Seafood%20Trace%20Guide_v1.1.pdf
130 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
9.3 Distributed EPCIS Architecture:
Figure 47 - Distributed EPCIS Architecture
131 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
9.4 Cumulative Data Elements required per Business Actor
These data elements are the cumulative results of the mapping exercise detailed in a spreadsheet (Annex D).
Figure 48 - Determination of Cumulative Data Elements For each data element, the cumulative requirement is based on the most stringent of the “mandatory, recommended or optional” requirements for all the listed regulations as follows:
• ISO 12877 and ISO 12875 • EU regulations o EU 1005/2008 ANNEX II o EU 1224/2009 o EC 2065 /2001 o 2004 /852/EC, 2004/853/EC, o 2003/804/EC 2004/319/EC • US regulations o US Bioterrorism as of 12/2003 o US Country of Origin as of 9/2004 • Canadian THISFISH Traceability Data Standard [46] • GS1 o GS1 EPCIS o GS1 Standard Data Element
132 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
o GS1 – 128 info
The wild fishery and aquaculture sectors are not likely to develop traceability systems which address the full complement of cumulative requirements provided in the spreadsheet. Each supply chain can develop traceability systems to address the requirements of their domestic and export buyers. However, the cumulative requirements should inform industry of data elements to consider when developing of traceability systems and traceability pilots.
9.4.1 Fishing Vessel
1. Food business ID (Name & address of vessel owner/harvester) 2. Vessel call sign 3. Vessel ID 4. Vessel Name 5. Vessel length 6. Telephone Number 7. License # 8. License Expiration Date 9. Name of Responsible Individual 10. Veterinary Approval Number
For each trade unit created by Vessel • Identity info 11. Batch/lot # 12. Trade Unit ID • Descriptive info 13. Type of package 14. Net weight/quantity 15. Species (commercial and scientific names) 16. Age 17. Life cycle stage 18. Country of origin 19. Product Form 20. Size grade 21. Product condition • Production history information 22. Date of capture (harvest) or sailing 23. Date of landing or first sale 24. Catch area 25. Method of production 26. Fishing method 27. Wild stocks free from unexplained/abnormal mortalities in 2 previous years (Y/N) 28. Wild stocks free from bonamiosis, marteiliosis, microcitiosis, perkinsosis, haplosporidiosis, witheirng syndrome in 2 previous years (Y/N) 29. Disease record 30. Ethical aspects of fishery / Management Measures 31. Catch Certification Scheme 32. Weighing method 33. Stowage method 34. Storage temperature control method 35. Storage temperature record
For each logistic unit created • Identity Information 36. Logistic unit ID 37. Trade unit ID’s that make up the logistic unit 38. Number of trade units in logistic unit 39. Number of logistic units in shipment
133 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
For each unit dispatched (either as a logistic unit or as a separate trade unit) 40. Unit ID (either logistic or trade unit ID) • Destination Information 41. Next Food business ID (Name & address of responsible individual) • Transportation information 42. Date/time of dispatch 43. Place of dispatch 44. Mode of transport
9.4.2 Vessel landing Business and Auction
1. Food business ID (Name & address of business owner) 2. Name of Responsible Individual 3. Telephone Number 4. Landing or auction establishment ID 5. Veterinary Approval Number
For each unit received by buyer (either a logistic unit or a trade unit) • Identity info 6. Batch/lot # 7. Unit ID (Logistic or Trade Unit) 8. Trade unit Ids in Logistic Unit • Source info 9. Name of previous food business 10. Name of Responsible Individual • Transportation info 11. Date/time received • Control checks 12. Temperature of unit when received 13. Unit temperature record • Transformation info 14. Related Created Trade Unit ID
For each new trade unit created by buyer • Source info 15. Name, address & telephone of harvester • Identity info 16. Trade unit ID 17. Lot/batch # 18. ID's of received trade units contributing to created trade unit • Descriptive info 19. Type of unit / package 20. Net weight / quantity 21. Species (commercial and scientific names) 22. Primary production method 23. Area / Country of origin 24. Product Form 25. Size grade 26. Product condition • Production history information 27. Date of harvest 28. Catch area • Transformation info 29. Related Created Trade Unit ID
For each unit auctioned • Identity info 30. Unit ID
134 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
For each logistic unit created by buyer • Identity info 31. Logistic unit ID 32. Trade unit ID’s in logistic unit 33. Number of trade units in logistic unit 34. Number of logistic units in shipment
For each unit dispatched (either as a logistic unit or as a separate trade unit) • Identity info 35. Unit ID (either Logistic or Trade Unit) 36. Lot/batch # • Production history info 37. Buyer / Landing or auction temperature control method 38. Buyer / Landing or auction temperature record • Destination info 39. Next Food Business ID (Name & address of Processor • Transportation info 40. Date/time of dispatch 41. Name of transport firm 42. Vehicle Identification 43. Name & address of Responsible Individual 44. Mode of transport
9.4.3 Fish feed production
Fish Feed 1. Food Business ID (Name & address of Fish feed production) 2. Feed producer establishment ID 3. Veterinary Approval Number
For each unit created • Identity info 4. Lot or batch number 5. Unit ID 6. Trade unit ID • Source 7. Previous food business ID 8. Date and time of reception • Production history 9. Temperature record • Transformation info 10. Related created trade unit ID's 11. Unit ID 12. Fractions
For each new trade unit created • Identity info 13. Unit ID • Description 14. Net weight 15. Production date 16. Product form 17. Composition 18. GMO 19. Date of durability 20. Marine species that went into fish meal 21. Area / Country of origin
135 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Transformation info 22. Related received trade unit IDs 23. Fractions
For each new logistic unit created • Identity info 24. Unit ID 25. Trade unit ID’s
For each unit dispatched (either as logistic unit or separate trade unit) • Identity info 26. Unit ID • Production history 27. Temperature record • Destination 28. Next Fodd Business ID 29. Date and time of dispatch 30. Mode of transport
9.4.4 Breeders
1. Food Business ID (Name & address of Breeder) 2. Breeding establishment ID 3. Veterinary Approval Number
For each trade unit created • Identity info 4. Unit ID • Description 5. Species 6. Day degrees 7. Spawing date • Production history 8. Farm unit ID 9. Temperature record 10. Disease record
For each logistic unit created • Identity info 11. Unit ID 12. Trade unit ID’s
For each unit dispatched (either as logistic unit or separate trade unit) • Identity info 13. Next food business ID 14. Date and time of dispatch 15. Mode of transport
9.4.5 Hatcheries
1. Food Business ID (Name & address of Hatchery) 2. Hatchery establishment ID 3. Veterinary Approval Number
136 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
For each trade unit received • Identity info 4. Unit ID 5. Trade Unit IDs
Source 6. Previous Food Business ID 7. Date and Time of reception
Control checks (either on logistic or separate trade units) 8. Temperature check
Transformation information 9. Related created trade unit Ids 10. Fractions
For each trade unit created • Identity info 11. Unit ID • Description 12. Average weight / size • Production history 13. Farm unit ID 14. Disease record 15. Starving period 16. Temperature record 17. Oxygen record • Transformation information 18. Related received trade unit IDs 19. Fractions
For each logistic unit created • Identity info 20. Unit ID 21. Trade unit ID’s
For each unit dispatched (either as logistic unit or separate trade unit) • Identity info 22. Unit ID • Destination 23. Next Food Business ID 24. Date and time of dispatch 25. Mode of transport
9.4.6 Fish Farms
1. Food Business ID (Name & address of Fish farm) 2. Fish farm establishment ID 3. Veterinary Approval Number
For each unit received from hatchery • Identity info 4. Unit ID (logistic unit or individual trade unit) 5. Trade unit ID's (contained within logistic unit) • Source 6. Previous Food Business ID 7. Date and time of reception
137 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• Control checks 8. Temperature check • Transformation info 9. Related created trade unit ID's 10. Fractions
For each new trade unit created by the fish farm • Identity info 11. Unit ID • Description 12. Location of fish farm 13. Size (grade) distribution 14. Net weight • Production history 15. Farm unit ID 16. Starving period 17. Temperature record 18. Disease record 19. Certification scheme identifier • Transformation info 20. Related created trade unit ID's 21. Fractions
For each logistic unit created • Identity info 22. Unit ID 23. Trade unit IDs
For each unit dispatched (either as logistic unit or separate trade unit) • Identity info 24. Unit ID • Destination 25. Next Food Business ID 26. Date and time of dispatch 27. Mode of transport
9.4.7 Live Fish transporters
1. Food Business ID (Name & address of Live fish transporter) 2. Transport vehicle or vessel establishment ID 3. Veterinary Approval Number 4. Mode of Transport
For each unit received • Identity info 5. Unit ID 6. Trade unit ID's (contained within logistic unit)
Source 7. Previous Food Business ID 8. Date and Time of reception
Control checks 9. Temperature check
For each logistic unit created by the transporter • Identity info
138 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
10. Unit ID 11. Trade unit ID's 12. Lot #
For each logistic unit dispatched (either as logistic unit or separate trade unit) • Identity info 13. Unit ID • Production history 14. Temperature control method 15. Temperature record 16. Disinfecting date 17. Water parameter record • Destination 18. Next Food Business ID 19. Place of delivery 20. Date and time of dispatch
9.4.8 Processors
1. Food Business ID (Name & address) of transport business 2. Processing establishment Identification 3. Veterinary Approval Number 4. Address
For each unit received (either a logistic unit or a trade unit) • Identity info 5. Unit ID (either logistic or trade unit ID) 6. Trade units ID's within logistic unit • Source, Shipper info 7. Previous Food Business ID / Name & address of Shipping Food Business (vessel, transport or buyer) 8. Time/Date of reception • Collection info, control checks 9. Temperature of unit when received 10. Unit Temperature Record • Product history info 11. Raw material storage temperature control method 12. Raw material storage temperature record
• Transformation info 13. Related created trade unit ID's
For each trade unit created by the processor (within all logistic units) 14. Trade unit ID • Descriptive information for trade units 15. Type of Unit 16. Net weight / quantity 17. Species 18. Primary Production method 19. Area / Country of origin 20. Product composition 21. Date of durability • Further description 22. Product form • Product history info 23. Date and Time of Production • Transformation info
139 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
24. Related received trade unit ID's
For each new logistic unit created by the processor • Identities 25. Logistic unit ID 26. Trade unit ID's within logistic unit
For each unit dispatched (either as a logistic unit or as a separate trade unit) 27. Unit ID (either logistic or trade unit ID) • Product history 28. Product storage temperature control method 29. Product storage temperature record • Destination info 30. Food Business ID (Name & address) of next food business 31. Date / Time of dispatch 32. Mode of transport
9.4.9 Transporters and Storers
1. Food Business ID (Name & address) of transport business 2. Name of Responsible Individual 3. Address 4. Telephone Number 5. Transport vehicle or storage establishment Identification 6. Veterinary Approval Number
For each unit received (either a logistic unit or a trade unit) • Identities 7. Unit IDs 8. Trade Unit IDs in Logistic Unit 9. Lot / batch # • Source 10. Previous Food Business ID / Shipper info 11. Name & address of Responsible individual 12. Telephone # 13. Date and time of reception 14. Place of collection • Control checks 15. Temperature of unit when received
For each new logistic unit created by the transporter or storer 16. Logistic unit ID 17. Trade unit ID's within logistic unit 18. Lot/batch #
For each trade unit (within all logistic units) 19. Trade unit ID 20. Lot/batch # • Descriptive information for trade units within logistic unit 21. Type of packaging 22. Net weight/quantity 23. Species 24. Product description (eg. Form, grade, storage condition)
For each unit dispatched (either as a logistic unit or as a separate trade unit) 25. Unit ID (either logistic or trade unit ID) • Transportation history
140 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
26. Transporter or storer temperature control method 27. Transporter temperature record 28. Mode of transport • Destination info 29. Next Food business ID 30. Name & address of next food business ID 31. Name of responsible individual 32. Telephone number 33. Date & time of dispatch 34. Place / Location of delivery
9.4.10 Trader or Wholesaler
1. Food Business ID (Name & address) of transport business 2. Trader or Wholesaler establishment Identification 3. Address 4. Telephone Number 5. Veterinary Approval Number
For each unit received 6. Unit ID 7. Trade unit IDs in Logistic unit
Source 8. Previous food business ID 9. Date and time of reception
Control checks 10. Temperature of unit when received 11. Unit temperature record
For each new Trade Unit produced by Trader or Wholesaler • Identity 12. Trade Unit ID
For each different component part of trade unit 13. Net weight 14. Received trade unit ID
For each new Logistic Unit produced by Trader or Wholesaler • Identity 15. Logistic Unit ID 16. Trade Unit IDs in Logistic Unit
For each unit dispatched (either as a logistic unit or as a separate trade unit) 17. Unit ID (either logistic or trade unit ID) • Production history (related to the logistic or separate trade units, as appropriate) 18. Next Food Business ID 19. Trader or Wholesaler temperature record
• Desrination
141 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
20. Next Food Business ID 21. Date and Time of dispatch 22. Mode of transport
9.4.11 Retailer or Caterer
1. Food Business ID (Name & address) of transport business 2. Retail or Caterer establishment Identification 3. Address 4. Telephone Number 5. Veterinary Approval Number 6. Mode of transport
For each unit received Identities 7. Unit ID 8. Trade unit IDs in Logistic unit
Source 9. Previous food business ID 10. Date and time of reception
Control checks 11. Temperature of unit when received 12. Unit temperature record
For each new Trade held for sale Identities 13. Trade Unit ID
Production history 14. Storage / display temperature record
9.4.12 Supplies from outside Domain
1. Food Business ID (Name & address) of transport business 2. Vehicle or storage establishment Identification 3. Address 4. Telephone Number 5. Veterinary Approval Number 6. Mode of transport
For each unit received from outside the Domain Identities 7. Unit ID 8. Trade unit IDs in Logistic unit
For each Trade unit received from outside the Domain 9. Creator of Unit 10. Net weight
142 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Further description of each trade unit for all fishery products 11. Species 12. Primary production method 13. Area / Country of origin
Further description of each trade unit for fish prior to processing 14. Product form 15. Date of capture or sailing 16. Fishing method 17. Catch certification scheme
Further description of each trade unit of farmed fish prior to processing 18. Farm Unit ID 19. Day degrees 20. Location of fish farm
Further description of each trade unit for processed fishery products 21. Composition 22. Date of durability 23. Date and time of production
Further description of each trade unit for ingredients to be incorporated in processed fishery products 24. Composition 25. Date of durability
Further description of each trade unit for fish feed 26. Name / type of product 27. Date of durability 28. Production date 29. Composition 30. Supplier of raw material
Further description for medicine, vaccine, chemical treatment 31. Name / type of product 32. Date of durability 33. Production date 34. Composition
143 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
10 UN/CEFACT XML Profiling and Extensions for Traceability
10.1 Introduction
In chapter 6 and 7 we discussed core traceability information requirements and requirements identified in the ISO 12875 [30] and ISO 12877 [31] standards for the seafood industry. We matched those requirements against three standard sets of XML e-business document schemas and their associated libraries of reusable schema components. While many information elements can be expressed using XML components available in those standards, there are also information elements that cannot be expressed. Other elements need to be profiled. In this chapter we will address these gaps and specify a proposed set of extensions that provides a complete set of capabilities for all mandatory and recommended information elements. We will also profile some existing elements and structures.
• In section 10.2 we address extensions to the library of reusable schema components, which are used in specific business document schemas such as the Despatch Advice schema. Any (future version of an existing) business document schema that uses these components will automatically inherit these capabilities. This enables the Despatch Advice documents to support the chain of custody traceability data model (see section 4.2.2.7.3 for definition). Traceability information exchange leverages, and is fully embedded in, regular e-business document exchange.
• Section 10.3 proposes an optional simple interoperability mechanism to leverage information captured and queried using the GS1 EPCIS mechanism in UN/CEFACT XML.
• In Section 10.4 we discuss new XML business document schemas using these schema components that support specific traceability business processes, such as the "Record Traceability Data" and "Request Trace" sub-processes of the GS1 Traceability Standard (see section 4.2.2.6).
Where previous chapters also considered the UBL and GS1 eCom XML business document standards, this chapter focuses exclusively on UN/CEFACT XML. This is done to facilitate future alignment with activities in UN/CEFACT, in particular the UN/CEFACT Agriculture Problem Domain Area (PDA). Note, however, that:
• This CWA is a deliverable of the CEN Workshop Fishbizz. Ultimately, it will be up to the Agriculture PDA to decide if it will adopt any of the actual proposed extensions.
• XML schema artefacts published UN/CEFACT are derived from Business Information Entities (BIEs) which in turn are derived from Core Components (CCs). To adopt the proposed extensions, appropriate updates to the BIE and CC libraries would need to be made and the XML schema definitions generated from these libraries.
10.2 Extensions and Profiling for the XML Schema Library
This section specifies some profiling of and extensions to the UN/CEFACT reusable aggregate XML schema module to support traceability and e-business requirements.
10.2.1 Trade Products
This section defines some extensions and profiling for XML schema components for information on trade products.
10.2.1.1 Related Trade Products
Traceability requires an ability to express transformation relations between received trade products and created trade units. This relation is many-to-many: multiple (fractions of) received trade products may be inputs to (fractions of) multiple created trade products. In ISO 12877 [31], fractions can be expressed as a percentage or as a weight measure. In this CWA we propose extensions that use a mechanism similar to those provide in the ISO 12875 [30] and ISO 12877 [31] standards:
144 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• The type CITradeProductType is extended with two elements, ReceivedRelatedCITradeProduct and CreatedRelatedCITradeProduct, both of type RelatedCITradeProductType and cardinality 0..n.
• The type RelatedCITradeProductType has a required element SpecifiedCITradeProduct of type CITradeProductType and several optional elements:
• ReceivedRelatedCITradeProductSpecifiedPercent and CreatedRelatedCITrade- ProductSpecifiedPercent, both of the unqualified PercentType, encode a percentage of, respectively, the received and created trade product that may come from the related trade product.
• The optional element NetWeightMeasure of the unqualified MeasureType allows to express the same information as an absolute weight measure rather than as a percentage.
• The optional element ActualReceiptCISupplyChainEvent encodes the date and time of the actual receipt of trade product.
• The optional element ActualReceiptTemperature encodes the temperature of the unit at receipt.
• The optional element PreviousCITradeParty encodes the CI Trade Party from which the related received trade product was received. (While there is a single ShipFrom party in a Despatch Advise, in a supply chain the trade products being shipped may all have different sources).
Note that the recursion makes it possible to not just refer to received products of which parts may be included in the created product, but also recursively to the received product of which parts may be included in those included parts, etc. The following XML sample shows (part of) an XML SpecifiedCITradeProduct structure containing references to two related other products, both of which contribute 50% to the created product.
145 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 49 - Sample Trade Product with Related Products An updated version of the UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Despatch Advice document schema that uses a version of the UN/CEFACT library that includes these enhancements supports the chain of custody model of section 4.2.2.7.3.This extension both supports fractions (section 7.2.5) and unit composition (section 7.2.6.9).
10.2.1.2 Temperature Records and Other Records
The element ProductCIProductCharacteristic can be extended to record not just simple values, but a series of time stamped values. Each entry consists of a timestamp and a value. To this effect, the specified enhancement to the CIProductCharacteristicType structure provides a ValueMeasureSeries element in addition to a ValueMeasure element. The structure of this element is displayed in Figure 50. For interoperability, the date time value should be encoded as Universal Coordinated Time. Similarly, ValueCodeSeries and ValueIndicatorSeries and ValueSpecifiedBinaryFileSeries are added for the other types of values measured over time.
Figure 50 - Timestamped Value Series This approach could be used to encode temperature measure series. However, temperature is a critical attribute for food, like BestBeforeDateTime or SellByDateTime for which dedicated elements have been defined. For this reason a separate type TimestampedValueMeasureSeriesType is added. Two elements use this type: UnitTemperatureRecord and StorageTemperatureRecord.
10.2.1.3 Species
As explained in section 7.2.6.1, the DesignatedCIProductClassification can be used to encode species. EU Council Regulation 1005/2008 [16] and 1224/2009 [17] require this information to be expressed as an FAO alpha-3 code defined in the FAO ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes [57].
Product form is handled using the mechanism of specifying an DesignatedCIProductClassification.with a SystemID for the relevant ISO information element code and a scheme agency name of ISO TC 234, The values are to be formalized by the ISO TC, but may include codes for:
• whole
• gutted
146 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• headed
Many other classifications, such as Fishing Method, Primary Production Method, Temperature Control Method and Product Condition, are similarly handled.
Some of the ISO information elements are about product characteristics rather than a classification. An example is FFE308, GMO, which indicates whether there is any use of GMO or products from GMO in product or raw material.
Article 58 of Council Regulation 1224/2009 [17] requires products to indicate whether they have previously been frozen. This can be expressed using the ApplicableCIProductCharacteristic element.
The ISO 12875 [30] and ISO 12877 [31] standards define a number of events about which information needs to be recorded. Both production events and packaging events are recognized.
10.2.2.1 Event Types
The UN/CEFACT XML event type structure contain a TypeCode element which can be used to encode the particular type of event. The UN/CEFACT XML schema sets do not define a code list for the values of the element. Instead, a profile such as defined in this CWA can specify which code system the code value is drawn from using one of several standard attributes.
In this profile, the schemeAgencyName attribute is used with the fixed value "ISO TC 234" and the attribute listID is set to the ISO information element code. The values contained in this list are to be defined by the ISO TC, but may include:
• catch
• harvest
• transshipment
• landing
• processing
147 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
10.2.2.2 Catch Certificate
Appendix II of Council Regulation 1005/2008 [16] defines an EU Catch Certificate and Re-Export Certificate. This information is exchanged between fish business operators and regulatory agencies and is part of the EU system to prevent , deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The catch certificate may be attached to business documents in the seafood supply chain using the Additional- ReferenceCIReferencedDocument structure in SpecifiedCITradeProduct.
10.2.2.3 Event Locations
The UN/CEFACT XML ProductionCISupplyChainEvent structure has an Occurrence- CILogisticsLocation substructure to encode where the event occurred. The library definition supports locations based on postal address or as geographic coordinates.
Catch locations are commonly expressed as FAO area codes [56], which are a composite of four codes: major fishing area, subarea, division and subdivision. For example, Southern North Sea is encoded as major area 27, subarea IV, division C. To support this requirement, the OccurrenceCILogisticsLocation substructure is extended with a FAOCodedArea substructure.
Events Locations expressed as FAO Codes:
148 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 56 - Vessel Type Fishery products are brought on-shore in a port. Ports are identified in the UN/LOCODE code system [51] already widely used in UN/CEFACT messages.
As explained in section 4.3, the ECP Information Services [22] specification (EPCIS) defines a mechanism to reference uniquely identified objects and to capture and exchange event data related to those objects and their movements in a supply chain. UN/CEFACT XML provides an XML component library and XML business document schemas to support business transaction in supply chains. In this chapter we will consider ways in which EPCIS and UN/CEFACT XML may interoperate.
10.3.1 UN/CEFACT XML and EPCIS
The EPCIS model is event-based rather than business process-based, but provides a mechanism to relate events to business transactions. EPCIS is positioned as complementary to electronic data interchange. UN/CEFACT XML defines a common library of information elements and a set of business documents to support business transactions among trading partners in a supply chain. It is only concerned with information exchange, not capture. Some but not all business documents that use the common library relate to and are intended to support exchange of information about physical objects.
149 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
To address interoperability of EPCIS and the subset of the UN/CEFACT library related to physical objects and events occurring to them, the four main EPCIS event types should be considered:
• Object Events: in UN/CEFACT XML, references to trade products and logistic packages exist in various business documents (for example, a despatch advice document) that are exchanged in business transactions. The resulting disposition and lifecycle stage of the object is typically related to the type and purpose of the exchange of the document.
• Aggregation Events: in UN/CEFACT XML, structures exist to relate trade products to the logistics packages into which they are aggregated. The PackagingCISupplyChainEvent structure can encode information about the OccurrenceDateTime and the OccurrenceCILogisticsLocation. EPCIS systems also use Aggregation Events to express transformations. A proposed similar extension to the UN/CEFACT XML library is presented in section 10.2.1.1.
• Transaction Events: UN/CEFACT XML business documents are exchanged in the contexts of business transactions. Any products and packages referenced in those documents are associated with those transactions.
• Quantify Events: UN/CEFACT XML provides ways to express quantities of units in particular packages.
Organizations that use an EPCIS-based solution to monitor trade products can use the information gathered to create the corresponding UN/CEFACT XML structures in one business documents of section 10.5 exchanged in one of the transactions of section 10.4.
10.3.2 Extensibility
The EPCIS XML schema provides extensibility for industries to provide additional information not defined in the EPCIS core schema. Various EPCIS pilots and EPCIS service providers have defined such extensions. Fish traceability using EPCIS have used extension to encode information such as product batches. There is no guarantee that EPCIS implementations that use these extensions are interoperable, if those extensions are not themselves standardized.
Extensibility at XSD level is not supported in UN/CEFACT XML, where the assumption is that industry customization is addressed by:
• Applying the CCTS concepts and methodology to map core components to business information entities (see section 5.2.4);
• Using generic XML structures like ProductCIProductCharacteristic and Production- CISupplyChainEvent which can be customized using TypeCode element values.
The EPCIS WSDL and XSDs are 65 KB. The size of the D11B Reusable Aggregate Business Information Entity XML schema is 10994 KB. It is true that comparing schema file sizes is not a perfect measure of schema complexity as it does not compensate for relative use of annotation (which are very heavily used in the D11B RABIE). Nevertheless, the UN/CEFACT XML schema library is clearly vastly more encompassing than the core EPCIS library. EPCIS pilots could use standard elements and types from the XML schema library as extension content for EPCIS-based exchanges.
10.4 Traceability Business Transactions
To support traceability and e-business, the following business transactions can be distinguished
10.4.1 Advise Despatch
This is the classical exchange of the Despatch Advice document from the ShipFrom party to the ShipTo party. In this scenario, the Despatch Advice is used to not only provide information on the trade products shipped from the ShipFrom party to the ShipTo party, but also of the chain of custody of these trade products,
150 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
including quality attributes. The following diagram is from the UN/CEFACT Business Requirement Specification for the Cross Industry Despatch and Receipt process [55].
act AdviseDespatch «BusinessTransactionSwimlane» «BusinessTransactionSwimlane» :DespatchAdviceProvider :DespatchAdviceReceiver
Initial State
«RequestingBusinessActivity» ProvideDespatchAdvice
[Success]
[Failure] FinalStateName.Success
FinalStateName.Failure
«RequestingInformationEnvelop... «RespondingBusinessActivity» :DespatchAdvice ReceiveDespatchAdvice
Figure 58 - Advise Despatch 10.4.2 Advise Receipt
An Advise Receipt business transaction is identified in the Cross Industry Despatch and Receipt process [55] in which the Ship To party confirms receipt of goods received and notifies any discrepancies. Unfortunately, the business transaction and associated Receipt Advise document have not been elaborated yet. Therefore it is proposed that key information about the receipt of trade products, including the date and time of receipt and the temperate at receipt is expressed as elements on ReceivedRelatedCITradeProduct.
10.4.3 Request Trace
This scenario is the "Request Trace" sub-processes of the GS1 Traceability Standard (see section 4.2.2.6). The parties involved are the Trace Request Initiator and the Traceability Partner. The scenario involves the following steps:
• The Trace Request Initiator initiates the Trace Request
• The Traceability Partner receives the Trace Request
151 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• The Traceability Partner sends a reply against the requested trace, which is either a traceability information or a message that the information cannot be found.
In this scenario, a Trace Request document and a Trace Document are exchanged (see below at 10.5).
Figure 59 - Request Trace 10.4.4 Notify Trace
This scenario is a variant of the previous scenario. Rather than sending the traceability information in response to a request, the information is sent as a notification. The recipient of the information can be a third party, such as a service provider that acts as a certified data trustee [67]. In this scenario, a Trace Document is exchanged (see below at 10.5).
152 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 60 - Notify Trace 10.5 Traceability Business Documents
To support tracking and tracing, three business documents are distinguished: Despatch Advice, Trace Request and Trace Document. There is no defined UN/CEFACT XML Receipt Advice yet.
10.5.1 Despatch Advice
The UN/CEFACT XML Despatch Advice document, which imports the UN/CEFACT Reusable Aggregate Business Information Entity library of XML schema components, can be used to exchange traceability information.
10.5.2 Trace Request
The Trace Request document is a proposed new document. It is used in the Request Trace business transaction to specify the specific trade product or products for which a trace is requested. The XML schema structure of the Trace Request document is displayed in
153 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 61 - TraceRequest Schema A sample trace request document based on this schema is displayed in Figure 62 Sample TraceRequest.
The Trace Document is a second proposed new document, to be used in the Request Trace and Notify Trace business transactions. It builds on the initial approach of TraceCore XML. It is very similar in content and structure to a Despatch Advice, but:
• It may be generated after the trade products have actually been despatched.
• Its content may be filtered to match only trade products of interest, as specified in a Trace Request or otherwise.
154 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• The cardinality of SpecifiedCIDDHSupplyChainTradeTransaction is 1..n instead of 1.1. This allows the Trace Document to include information on multiple exchanges in a single document. Note that the ShipFrom and ShipTo elements are at this level, so allowing multiple transactions allows a single document to include information on multiple distinct pairs of Ship From / Ship To parties. For example, this allows the document to include a despatch from A to B and a despatch from B to C in a single document.
The XML Schema structure for Trace Document is displayed in Figure 63.
Figure 63 - TraceDocument Figure 64 shows a sample Trace Document outline.
155 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
11 Exchanging FishBizz Business Documents
11.1 Introduction
As discussed in chapters 3 and 5, successful collaboration in B2B supply chains is not just dependent on agreements on business processes, business documents and semantics of information elements. It also requires a secure and reliable way to exchange business documents and associated data with trading partners. Several options exist to support this:
• Portals, that allow fish business operators to record data using a brower client.
• Custom software connectivity solutions developed by particular communities, often at a national level.
• Standard B2B protocols, such as AS2 and (even) older messaging protocols like X.400.
• Web Services based on SOAP messaging.
The most widely deployed B2B exchange protocol is the EDIINT AS2 protocol [27]. Companies have made significant investments in setting up AS2 connectivity to trading partners, and many exchanges are operational and function to their satisfaction. AS2 requires all operators in the supply chain to operate a B2B server, which needs to be up and running whenever any of their trading partners sends them a message. This is an issue for Small and Medium-Size companies that cannot afford, or lack the skills, to operate an AS2 messaging gateway server successfully.
SOAP-based Web Services have been widely used, but have not been primarily designed to support B2B connectivity. Add-on functionality has been developed for B2B requirements like reliable messaging, non- repudiation of origin and receipt, but at great cost in terms of complexity and interoperability. Specific requirements of SMEs, such as client-only messaging and compression, have not been addressed at all.
AS4 [44] is newer B2B protocol that has been developed to provide full B2B functionality, while addressing SME requirements. AS4 is a profile of the OASIS ebMS 3.0 Standard [42] and is implemented in open source software. The GS1 eCom Technology Group has provided input to the development of the AS4 specification by providing requirements [89]. At the time of writing, the GS1 eCOM SMG group is in the process of updating its AS1/AS2 transport guidelines to refer to AS2 and AS4. The GS1 traceability and event sharing group, which maintains the EPCIS standards, is also considering adopting AS4 as a transport protocol for EPCIS.
11.2 Using AS4 to Exchange UN/CEFACT Messages
Compared to AS2 or regular Web Services, the AS4/ebMS3 protocol has the following benefits:
• AS4 leverages both SOAP and the IETF MIME standard. It can exchange both XML documents and attachments in any format. The sample message in section 11.3 contains a UN/CEFACT XML Despatch Advice which references a Catch Certificate in PDF issued by a fisheries management organization. This certificate can be carried along the supply chain.
• AS4 has a standardized B2B header which enables routing and monitoring of messaging applications.
• AS4 can send messaging by pushing them over the network to a receiving endpoint (like AS2), but also by storing them in a kind of "mailbox", from which trading partners can pull them (more like POP3/IMAP servers).
• AS4 support non-repudiation and a light-weight kind of reliable messaging reception awareness, including message retries, duplicate elimination and receipts.
• AS4 uses Web Services and transport security and can secure messages using X.509 certificates or using a simpler username/password mechanism. The message in section 11.3 uses a secure username password token.
156 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
• AS4 endpoints can use store-and-forward intermediaries to interconnect, even when both sender and receiver are not simultaneously online.
• AS4 provides payload compression, supporting endpoints that are connected to low-bandwidth and/or expensive (mobile or satellite) networks.
AS4 is implemented in commercial and open source applications. The example in section 11.3 was created using an ebMS3 prototype that is scheduled to be release as an open source product.
11.3 Sample AS4 Message
The following sample AS4 message contains a UN/CEFACT Despatch Advise from a processor to a trader that showcases most of the enhancements and profiling introduced in section 10.
• The trade products being despatched are a combination of two seafood products acquired from two distinct landing businesses, and indirectly from two distinct shipping vessels. The document encodes the merge transformation and chain of custody.
• Products are categorized using the categories in the ISO standards and in EU regulation.
• Temperature at receipt and temperature records.
• Classification of fish products using FAO species codes.
• Supply chain events (catch, landing, processing).
• Supply chain locations (vessel, FAO area).
• Catch Certificate carried along with trading data.
POST /receive HTTP/1.0 Host: roussanne:8893 User-Agent: Turia Content-Type: multipart/related; start="<[email protected]>"; boundary="_f4dcb4fb-0164-4a2b-81d0-c5bae1842d1e"; type="application/soap+xml" Content-Length: 472639
--_f4dcb4fb-0164-4a2b-81d0-c5bae1842d1e Content-Id: <[email protected]> Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset="UTF-8"
157 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
--_f4dcb4fb-0164-4a2b-81d0-c5bae1842d1e Content-Id: <[email protected]> Content-Type: application/xml
158 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
159 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
160 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
--_f4dcb4fb-0164-4a2b-81d0-c5bae1842d1e Content-Id:
%PDF-1.4 %äüöß 2 0 obj <> stream xœí[
...... more PDF content omitted ......
/DocChecksum /F3A2E067D6C56EBC2DAC3A9C168790E3 >> startxref
161 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
437228 %%EOF --_f4dcb4fb-0164-4a2b-81d0-c5bae1842d1e-- Figure 65 - Sample AS4 FishBizz message
162 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
12 Usage of ebXML and EPCIS in Business Case
12.1 Measuring costs
These included hardware, software and consulting costs, training, ongoing support, labeling material, and compliance and auditing costs. Costs occur during implementation and as ongoing expenses for operating the system. For example, label costs may be borne at the producer and processor level but the investment will benefit all other levels using them.
Traceability cost elements:
• Implementation costs
• Hardware (PC and Tracking)
• Other capital expenses
• Software
• Consulting (Integration and Support)
• Education and training
• Label supplies
• Policy development, compliance and auditing
• Other costs
• On-going costs
• On-going maintenance and support
• Personnel costs
Traceability costs can vary widely depending on the nature of the SME and its role in the supply chain in which it operates, its main activities and current track and trace technologies and capabilities.
12.2 The Cost-Benefit Assessment
This assessment process compares the benefits from implementing traceability to the costs of putting the system in place.
A closing challenge for full chain traceability is the distribution of costs and benefits. Changes at one partner can dramatically affect costs or benefits at other partners. For example, recall costs are typically borne by manufacturing or processing firms and not by distributors or retailers further along the chain. However, accurate tracing through those organizations can dramatically reduce the recall costs passed back to the processor. In many instances the benefits will outweigh the costs for the entire chain, but not at every level. In this case a redistribution of the benefits may be necessary to secure participation of all chain members. Without an adjustment it may be impossible to implement the system throughout the chain.
163 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
The business case decision support system captures a wide range of possible scenarios and can help organizations understand the broader scope of the costs and benefits of traceability. It is the first step in moving a company and value chain toward full traceability. The next is to bring supply chain members together to discuss the impacts on their value chains and plan an overall strategy toward effective whole-chain implementation of traceability.
164 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
13 Training
Traceability comprises a system of procedures covering all steps of the fish product chain, both regarding the supply of products and the associated information about them. The CEN FishBizz Workshop addresses the eBusiness interoperability issues between various steps of the fish product chain and offers possible solutions for eBusiness applications aimed at SMEs.
Setting up an effective and efficient business process and technology infrastructure to sell fish products in the local and international markets via the Internet is a challenge for many SMEs. The knowledge and effort required to adopt automated traceability and electronic transaction systems is thought to be one of the main challenges to implement FishBizz.
Training is the first step in implementing FishBizz (excluding market awareness and promotion activities). This step is however dependent on a fish product chain actor's access to an eBusiness infrastructure and CEN FishBizz Workshop Agreement.
The existence of an eBusiness infrastructure is the pre-requisite for FishBizz implementation. It is the architecture of hardware, software, content and data used to deliver business services to customers, employees and partners. Defining an adequate e-business infrastructure will directly affect the quality of service in terms of speed, responsiveness, flexibility and traceability.
The fish product chain includes all activities concerned with taking, culturing, processing, preserving, storing, transporting, marketing or selling fish or fish products. The training needs may vary between the many actors of the fish product chain. The chain contains two distinct groups of actors characterized by the source of fish products (wild or farmed) and a third group of common actors. The common fish product chain actors are processors, 3rd party logistic providers, traders, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, foodservice operators, open markets, public authorities, and financial and insurance companies. Many of these common actors are thought to have access to a more advanced and developed eBusiness infrastructure.
13.1 eBusiness infrastructure
The access to eBusiness infrastructure and level of its sophistication varies greatly between the distinct groups of actors characterized by the source of fish products: fish farms, fishing vessels, fish landing businesses and auction markets. The common thread between all these actors is the prerequisite to master the collection, storage, processing and communication of the following data:
• Food Business Operator Information o Business and Establishment Identification o Certification • Traceable Unit Information o Source o Destination o Control Checks on Received Trade Items o Transformation Relations o Trade Item Description Records o Production History
There is a wide range of technology from Open Source to advanced IT systems that can support the many standards used in the fish product chain, such as UN/CEFACT, OASIS, ISO and GS1. The aim of the CEN FishBizz Workshop is to map the inter-relationships between these standards, and provide interoperable solutions that take full account of the differences between them, rather than picking one isolated standard that is strong in some areas but very weak in others. Access to the CEN FishBizz Workshop Agreement is the pre-requisite for training and implementation activities.
165 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
13.2 Training Needs Analysis
A Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is a review of learning and development needs for staff, managers and owners within a business organization. It is designed to consider the skills, knowledge and behaviors that are needed, and how to develop them effectively. A TNA should ideally be undertaken at three levels:
1. Organizational level 2. Team/departmental level 3. Individual level
These three levels are inter‐linked, and using this structure will help ensure a balanced analysis that takes into account the big picture as well as the specific needs of individuals. The outcome of the TNA should be a robust learning and development plan, based on research and linked to organizational, team and individual objectives.
13.2.1 Organizational Level
Training needs analysis at this level should start with a review of the organization's strategic and operational plans. If an organization does not already have a strategic planning process in place, it is recommended that it carries out one using a tool such as a SWOT analysis. This looks at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the organization. The more people that are involved in identifying this data the better: managers, staff and owners can all bring a different perspective and contribute to a deeper analysis. Once we have a strategic picture of the organization's objectives, performance and future direction, we can review this from the perspective of the knowledge, skills and behaviors that can help the organization to build on its strengths and address weaknesses.
Strengths • How can you capture the good practice and expertise that already exists? • How can you build on the strengths, skills and knowledge already in the organization?
Weaknesses • What skills, knowledge or behaviors could help address the identified weaknesses?
Opportunities • What skills, knowledge or behaviors that could help your organization make the most of the available opportunities?
Threats • What skills, knowledge or behaviors could help your organization manage and overcome the identified threats?
13.2.2 Team/Department Level
Analysis of learning needs should also be undertaken at department/team level. If you are in a line management role, this means reviewing the skills needs within your team, against the team’s own objectives. It will involve taking into account both the needs of individuals, but also anything that can help your department or team to work together as effectively as possible. A key tool for identifying learning needs at this level are appraisals or performance reviews. Normally undertaken annually, appraisal provides an opportunity to review work objectives for the previous year, and agree objectives for the year ahead. Appraisal form design should include a section dedicated to learning and development. This can be kept separate from other areas of the appraisal form, so that information on training requirements can be included in the training and development plan, without making confidential information from the appraisal available to whoever is working on the plan.
166 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
In order for training needs analysis to be effective, line managers will need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to work with staff to help them identify their needs and how to meet them. Organizations might consider using a competency framework as a basis for job design, appraisal and training needs analysis. Competencies are statements of effective behavior in meeting a particular outcome.
13.2.3 Individual Level
Appraisal and supervision meetings allow individuals to reflect on their own learning needs in relation to their work objectives. Identifying learning needs at individual level is not just about what needs to be learnt, it is also about how best to do it. The outcome of training needs analysis at an individual level should be a Personal Development Plan which outlines personal learning objectives, linking them to the agreed work objectives.
13.3 Methods of Meeting Learning Needs
FishBizz should consider to commission an external trainer to develop and deliver the FishBizz training course, or ask members of the project team to develop and deliver the training. In the latter case, we could develop a “train the trainer” training to ensure that the project team members can communicate their knowledge effectively.
• External Training Course
Attending external training courses has the advantage of allowing staff to network and learn from people in other organizations. This networking element is one of the reasons classroom based training remains so popular.
• E‐learning
E‐learning is increasingly being used to supplement traditional courses. With the developments in technology, structured E‐learning is becoming more sophisticated and can be tailored to individual and small groups of learners. It can be used to provide large groups of people with the same material whilst still allow individuals to learn in their own time.
• Publication or Manual
Sometimes the learning need can be met simply by studying a publication or manual. Such training tools may be offered on-line.
13.4 Audiences
The FishBizz training course(s) will have to take into account the needs of various audiences:
13.4.1 Non-technical audience
The decision to adopt FishBizz could be made by business managers and driven by cost/benefit rather than purely technical considerations. A training module should focus on the business context and drivers for FishBizz adoption, cost/benefit analysis and implementation roadmap.
13.4.2 Technical audience
Access to an eBusiness infrastructure and implementation of a fish traceability system are the prerequisites
167 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
for successful FishBizz implementation. There may be two types of training modules required to meet the learning needs of this audience. The training topics do not specifically address the content of the CEN FishBizz Workshop Agreement. Instead they address its critical enablers.
The first module could focus on eBusiness in terms of the infrastructure for managing electronic transactions and automatic identification & data capture. This module is aimed at the staff managing and maintaining technical processes and tools.
The second module could focus on the minimum requirements for designing and implementing a fish traceability system. This module is aimed at the staff managing business processes and related tools.
13.4.3 Solution provider and IT integration audience
Interoperability between various software applications and enterprise solutions will require knowledge on how to integrate various systems and sources of data into them using FishBizz. This training module will specifically address the content of the CEN FishBizz Workshop Agreement.
168 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Annex A Document History
Version Author Date Changes Reason for changes
0.1 Pim van der 13/09/2011 Template Created Eijk
0.2 Zoltan 15/09/2011 First version with Bibliography Patkai and Pim van der Eijk
0.3 Pim van der 11/12/2011 Initial version of ebXML chapters Eijk added in
0.4 Pim van der 04/01/2012 ebXML chapters consolidated Eijk
0.5 Zoltan 31/01/2012 All sections consolidated Edits from Pim Patkai van der Eijk
0.6 Zoltan 27/01/2012 Definitions and comments Input from Svein- Patkai Tore Johnsen
0.7 Pim van der 18/03/2012 Reordered ebXML section; Allow back- Eijk updated B2B infrastructure section references. in Business Case.
0.8 Miodrag 31/03/2012 Added Executive Summary Mitic
0.85 Zoltan 11/04/2012 Document consolidation Patkai
0.9 Pim van der 13/04/2012 Some edits to conform to the CWA Eijk template.
0.10 Pim van der 16/09/2012 New chapter 9 Cleanup and New Eijk Minor editorial cleanup in various Content. sections. Updated TBG 18 reference to Agriculture PDA. New chapter 10 0.11 Zoltan 16/09/2012 4.2 updated Cleanup and New Patkai Content. 11. Regulatory Requirements updated Standards mapping updated with
169 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Version Author Date Changes Reason for changes
Regulatory requirements
12. Key data elements determined and described per each business actor
0.12 Miodrag 17/09/2012 Updated training section Mitic
0.13 Zoltan 21/09/2012 Updated chapter 11 and formating Patkai
0.14 Pim van der 22/09/2012 Reverting to 0.12 to fix formatting Eijk error.
0.15 Zoltan 22/09/2012 Inserting chapter 11 Patkai
0.16 Pim van der 23/09/2012 Fixed Figure Captions; Eijk UML diagrams added. Moved the chapters on UN/CEFACT XML profiling and AS4 messaging. Removed the placeholder for Introduction and Scope; the Executive Summary is the Introduction. Added regulatory references to references section. 0.17 Zoltan 24/09/2012 Amended content list on Ch 8 Patkai Figure 26 (EPCIS) replaced Numbering of Ch 13 (Training) aligned w. Other chapters Ch 14. Implementation Guide is taken out 0.18 Zoltan 25/09/2012 Updated Executive Summary Finalising for Patkai based on Miodrag’s and Pim’s Public Review recommendations
0.19 Zoltan 01/12/2012 Updated entire document based Public Review Patkai on Public Review Resolution
0.20 Zoltan 18/12/2012 Annex D: Excel table as an Annex D: Excel Patkai attachment table
170 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Annex B List of Figures
Figure 1 - CBP ...... 21
Figure 2 - Porter Value Chain ...... 22
Figure 3 - Business Process Metamodel ...... 22
Figure 4 - Layers in eBusiness ...... 23
Figure 5 - Development Level and Development Procedure ...... 24
Figure 6 - From Planning to Implementation ...... 25
Figure 7 - B2B Conceptual Model ...... 27
Figure 8 - Producer Countries ...... 29
Figure 9 - Actors in Fish Distribution Channels ...... 30
Figure 10 - Traceability across the Supply Chain...... 47
Figure 11 - Standards Costs and Profits ...... 48
Figure 12 - GS1 Visibility Standards ...... 50
Figure 13 - GS1 Traceability Standard Package ...... 51
Figure 14 - GS1 Traceability Process ...... 52
Figure 15 - Actors ...... 53
Figure 16 - Traceable Item Hierarchy ...... 54
Figure 17 - GS1 Traceability Standards ...... 55
Figure 18 - Data and Information depending on Product Type and Contractual Relationship ...... 56
Figure 19 - GS1 Traceability Sub-Processes ...... 58
Figure 20 - Eighteen Traceability Steps ...... 59
Figure 21 - One up, One down ...... 60
Figure 22 - Central Database ...... 61
Figure 23 - Pedigree ...... 62
Figure 24 - Traceability Network...... 63
Figure 25 - EPC Architecture ...... 64
Figure 26 - EPCIS and other EPC Standards ...... 66
171 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 27 - E-Trace Overview ...... 72
Figure 28 - Swedish Pilot-Processor ...... 73
Figure 29 - Icelandic Pilot ...... 74
Figure 30 - ebMS 3.0 Message Structure ...... 80
Figure 31 - Core Components and Business Information Entities ...... 82
Figure 32 - ebXML Discovery and Retrieval ...... 87
Figure 33 - TraceCore XML TraceDocument ...... 89
Figure 34 - TraceUnit Element ...... 90
Figure 35 - Traceability Relation ...... 90
Figure 36 - Aggregation Relation ...... 90
Figure 37 - Item and ItemInstance (UBL 2.0) ...... 93
Figure 38 - IncludedCIDDLSupplyChainTradeLineItem (UN/CEFACT XML) ...... 95
Figure 39 - CIReferencedDocumentType and IndividualCITradeProductInstance (UN/CEFACT XML) ...... 96
Figure 40 - ProductCIProductCharacteristic and CISupplyChainEventType (UN/CEFACT XML) ...... 97
Figure 41 - transactionalTradeItem (GS1 eCom XML) ...... 99
Figure 42 - transactionalItemData (GS1 eCom XML) ...... 99
Figure 43 DesignatedCIProductClassification ...... 109
Figure 44 - Catch Certificate ...... 125
Figure 45 - Fish Supply Chain Process ...... 129
Figure 46 - Criticial Tracking Events ...... 130
Figure 47 - Distributed EPCIS Architecture ...... 131
Figure 48 - Determination of Cumulative Data Elements ...... 132
Figure 49 - Sample Trade Product with Related Products ...... 146
Figure 50 - Timestamped Value Series ...... 146
Figure 51 - Species ...... 146
Figure 52 - Product Condition ...... 147
Figure 53 - ApplicableCIProductCharacteristic ...... 147
Figure 54 - Landing Event ...... 147
Figure 55 - AdditionalReferenceCIReferencedDocument ...... 148
172 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Figure 56 - Vessel Type ...... 149
Figure 57 Ports ...... 149
Figure 58 - Advise Despatch ...... 151
Figure 59 - Request Trace ...... 152
Figure 60 - Notify Trace ...... 153
Figure 61 - TraceRequest Schema ...... 154
Figure 62 - Sample TraceRequest ...... 154
Figure 63 - TraceDocument ...... 155
Figure 65 - Sample AS4 FishBizz message ...... 162
173 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Annex C List of Tables
Table 1 - High level information requirements to be recorded according to ISO 12875 ...... 36
Table 2 - High level information requirements to be recorded according to ISO 12877 ...... 37
Table 3 - Other Traceability Pilots in Place ...... 75
174 CWA 16597:2013 (E)
Annex D Cumulative Data Elements required per Business Actor
ftp://ftp.cen.eu/PUBLIC/CWAs/Fishbizz/ Mapping_Fishbizz.zip
175