Danube Ports Network D 5.3.5 Prefeasibility Study for Port Community System (PCS) in Constanta Port (Constanta, Midia, Mangalia) WP5 Portaferent Development proiectului ,,DAPhNE - Activity 5.3. PortDanube IT Community PortsSystem Network” PP:Maritime Port Administration Constanta Date:(Programul 10/12/2018 Transnaţional Duna rea 2014Version: 12 –final 2020) ) Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 1 Document History Version Date Authorised 1.0 09.11.2018 1.1 26.11.2018 1.2 10.12.2018 Contributing Authors Name Organisation Email Gabriel Raicu CMU [email protected] Remus Zăgan CMU [email protected] Acomi Nicoleta CMU [email protected] Vasile Draghici CMU [email protected] Liviu Danilă CMU [email protected] PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 2 Table of Contents A. Written Components Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 2 1 General information on the investment objective ........................................................... 5 1.1 Name of the investment objective ............................................................................... 5 1.2 The main financing authority ....................................................................................... 5 1.3 Contracting authority /investor .................................................................................... 5 1.4 Beneficiary of the investment ...................................................................................... 5 1.5 Developer of the pre-feasibility study ......................................................................... 5 2 The existing situation and the need to achieve the investment objective ..................... 7 2.1 Context presentation: project area, policies, strategies, legislation and relevant agreements, institutional and financial structures; .................................................................. 7 2.2 The analysis of the existing situation and deficiency identification ....................... 27 2.3 Demand analysis, medium and long-term prognoses; ............................................ 39 2.4 Necessity of the investment. ...................................................................................... 50 3 Identification of possible scenarios/options /technical and economic alternatives for achieving the investment objective ......................................................................................... 55 3.1 Technical and functional data of the investment objective ..................................... 55 3.1.1 Destination and functionalities .................................................................................. 55 3.1.2 Features, modules, parameters, equipment level and facilities, forecast specific technical data ............................................................................................................................ 63 3.2 Institutional issues for implementation ..................................................................... 81 3.3 Expected results ......................................................................................................... 84 3.4 Investment costs estimated by reference to similar investment objectives ........... 86 PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 3 3.5 Exploitation and maintenance costs estimated by reference to similar investment objectives .................................................................................................................................. 88 3.6 Preliminary analysis on economic and financial issues .......................................... 89 4 Feasible solutions for achieving the investment objective ........................................ 100 4.1 Proposing a limited number of scenarios/options to be analysed in the Feasibility Study phase (minimum two) .................................................................................................. 100 4.2 Identification of potential sources for public investment financing: own funds, bank loans, state budget/local budget, external guaranteed or contracted state loans, non- reimbursable external funds, other legally constituted sources ......................................... 105 4.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 106 4.4 Recommendations for the development of feasible technical economical scenarios/options selected for further analysis in the Feasibility Study ............................ 115 B COMPONENT DRAWINGS .................................................................................................. 120 PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 4 Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition Back-end entities The authorities and IT systems receiving data via the National Single Windows CMU Constanta Maritime University DEM Data Exchange Mechanism EC European Community (obsolete) ECSA European Community Shipowners’ Association EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency EMSWe European Maritime Single Window Environment ESPO European Sea Ports Organisation ENS Entry Summary Declaration EU European Union FAL Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic Front end users The shipping operators providing data into the National Single Window in connection to a port call ICT Information and Communication Technologies IMO International Maritime Organisation IPCSA International Port Community Systems Association ISC Inter-Service Consultation MOVE Directorate General for Mobility and Transport NSW National Single Window PCS Port Community System - an electronic platform connecting the systems operated by the organizations and entities making up a seaport community. The Port Community System facilitates exchange of operational or administrative information between different actors in the port; it can also include systems for optimization of processes (e.g. “smart port” systems). The PCS can be operated and maintained either by a public, private or public/private organization. RFD Directive 2010/65/EU on Reporting Formalities for ships Shipping operator Subject to specific reporting requirements set in the EU legal acts and international agreements, the operator may be a shipping company, a ship master or the representative of the shipping company/ship master SSN SafeSeaNet SSS Short Sea Shipping VTMIS Vessel Traffic and Monitoring Information System WCO World Customs Organisation PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 5 1 General information on the investment objective 1.1 Name of the investment objective An analysis of the existing situation and the necessity of implementing a Port Community IT System in the Port of Constanta, identifying the objectives to be achieved by implementing this system, identifying the estimated costs for such a project and the steps to be followed for the successful implementation of such an IT system. 1.2 The main financing authority National Company “Maritime Port Administration” Co. Constanţa Address: Incinta Port Constanţa, Gara Maritimă, Constanţa; Secretariat Registered with the Register of Commerce under no. J13/2308/1998, single ID no. 11062831, VAT no. RO 11062831 Tel: 0241. 601123 Fax: 0241 649512 Email: [email protected] Website: www.portofconstantza.com 1.3 Contracting authority /investor National Company “Maritime Port Administration” Co. Constanţa 1.4 Beneficiary of the investment National Company “Maritime Port Administration” Co. Constanţa 1.5 Developer of the pre-feasibility study The developer of the pre-feasibility study is the Constanta Maritime University PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 6 The Table of Content of this pre-feasibility study is imposed by Romanian law under HG907/2016 Difference between pre-feasibility and feasibility studies Pre-feasibility study is a preliminary study undertaken to determine, analyse, and select the best business scenarios. In this study, we assume we have more than one business scenarios, then we want to know which one is the best, both technically and financially. In pre-feasibility stage we select the best idea among several ideas. It will be hard and takes time if we explore each scenario deeply. Therefore, shortcut method deems acceptable in this early stage and can be used to determine minor components of investment and production cost. If the selected scenario is considered feasible, it is recommended to continue the study to feasibility to get deeper analysis of the selected project scenario. Feasibility study is an advanced study based on test work and engineering analysis, which presents enough information to determine whether or not the project should be advanced to be final engineering and implementation stage. This is a “go/no-go” decision point, thereby implying that sometimes the answer is NO. However, once a project is advanced to the feasibility study stage, companies often have committed considerable capital and professional reputation and therefore assume the answer will be that the project is feasible. That is also the second difference between feasibility study and pre-feasibility study. PCS Technical Specification Overview Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 7 2 The existing