DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT
Directorate D – Logistics, maritime and land transport
D.1 - Maritime transport and logistics
Brussels, 13 October 2018
DRAFT Report
Directive 2010/65/EU
On reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports
Third eMS expert group meeting
Thursday, 10November 2011
Participants:see Annex
1. Approval of the agenda and the 2nd meeting report.
The meeting was opened by the Chair, Mrs. M. Kopczynska, Head of Unit Maritime transport and logistics. The draft agenda as well as the report from the second meeting were approved.
2. Presentation of discussion paper and Norwegian Single Window.
Mr. J. Hauge fromNorwegian coastal administration presented the discussion paper on implementing a Single Window[1]. The discussion paper follows closely the UN recommendation 33 highlighting the need of identifying standards, stakeholders and different types of implementations.
Mr Hauge also gave a live demonstration of Norwegian Single Window (NoSW) system.The system is for ship clearance, not for cargo. Currently, Norwegian ports are participating on a voluntary basis and not all ports are using the system. Both, agents and masters, can report and update the information to the NoSW. The access is controlled by a username and a password.Although it is technically possible to provide access rights for agents residing in another country some problems could arise as the access rights are link to the invoicing address which is normally in Norway. The system is not interactive as there is no feedback from the authorities. The information is available for governmental bodies by accessing the central system, i.e. it is not pushed to the users.
3. Discussion on the definition of the Single Window.
The Commission opened a discussion on the Single Window definition by explaining that having a definition as soon as possible is important as it sets more precise frame for technical and legal responsibilities for MSs when implementing the directive. Furthermore, it will set the scope for the amount work needed by the Commission, MSs and possibly by the industry before 2015.
UKexpert started the discussion by stating that due to the tight deadline and need of harmonised implementation a more centralised solution would be more practical solution.The expert from Norway suggested to get started from the core EU systems and then to harmonize everything towards the ports, and not to go the other way round. This was supported by France and NL. The German expert, however, mentioned that the directive talks about "systems", and not a single centralised system.
The expert from France underlined the issue of the transposition depending on the functional specifications: the transposition can not be done by 19 May 2012 as after the information has been identified by the subgroups in March, deadline which most of the experts consider too ambitious, there is a need for the eMS group to meet in order to agree on the specifications. The view of the transposition date being too soon was shared by the other experts.The expert from Germany warned about the possible issues on the legal implementation of the Directive if the Single Windows specification is not available. The Commission will take thesecomments under consideration.
The need of agreeing on the level of interoperability with various systems already in place, such as ICS, Schengen or port community systems was stressed by Poland,Germany, World Shipping Council and Belgium.
The UKexpert added that the SafeSeaNet system should remain focused on safety issues, since it is quite successful at performing that task; any other information added to it, such as trade data, could undermine its functioning.
EPCSA (European Port Community System Association) made a statement on proposing to use port community systems (PCS) as the single windows. Belgium, Poland and Germany emphasised the need of taking the PCS in account. The Commission stated that they recognise the importance of the PCSs and encourage the adoption of such systems by all ports as they are key elements for efficient functioning of ports and multimodal logistic corridors. Based on the Commissionthe existing reporting through PCSs can be maintained if a MS so wishesbut the MS will be responsible for these links which are outside of the scope of Reporting formalities SW and data exchange requirements. This is not only due to the tight deadline but also because of the different characteristics of the ports (public, private, big, small etc) and the obligation for the MS, not ports, to establish the harmonised SW services; the Reporting Formalities can onlydefine the specifications for a system on national level.
It was agreed that based on the Norwegian discussion document the Commission will draft a proposal for a definition of the Reporting Formalities Single Window and submit it to eMS group for comments in December.
4. Subgroups status.
An overview of the subgroups and their state of play was presented by the Commission.
Questions were raised by the expert from Germany on the relation between the MARSEC Expert Group on the ship security message and the Border Control. COM explained that the objective of the MARSEC EG is to define the business rules of the ship security message in compliance with the appendix of the Directive. The Border Control is discussed separately with DG HOME. So far there is not subgroup for this message.
The expert from NL required more information on the Health subgroup. COM specified that there is an ongoing work between DG MOVE and DG SANCO to specify how the SHIPSAN TRAINET pilot project, which has been launched by DG SANCO, could be used for the implementation of the Maritime Declaration of Health. The outcomes will be presented to the eMS Group.
The Chair stated that the Single Window subgroup is requested by Member States. BE, DK, NL, NO, and UK expressed their intention to participate.
Following a question from ESPO, the Chair specified that the Single Window subgroup will work with Member States, as they have the responsibility to set up the Single Windows. Later on, if it appears that other stakeholders are needed, then an invitation to participate will be sent to them.
5. Agenda of the eMS Group
COM presented the agenda of the eMS Group. The objective is to set up all the general rules for implementing the Directive by end of 2012, in order to launch the technical work in 2013 for a test phase starting in the 2nd semester of 2014, in line with the deadline of 1 June 2015.
Number of the members (NL, DE, BE, MT and FR) stated that the agenda for the implementation is too ambitious. The main problem being that as the functional specifications are going to be available only by the end of 2012 and the interoperability issues between different EU systems are unclear. It is impossible to request the budget and do the tendering for hardware and human resources in time in order to start the technical implementation by beginning of 2013, which in turn will delay the start of necessary tests.Furthermore, World Shipping Council added that the industry will need normally an additional 12-18 months to modify their processes in order to adapt to the new systems
France (supported by MT and DE) commented that the Commission has not assigned enough resources to fulfil their role as the coordinator of the implementation of the Reporting Formalities directive, which is slowing down the process. The Commission pointed out that the role of the coordinator is not to produce the working documents but to coordinate the work. The work has still to be done by the Member States as they have the obligation to implement the Single Windows. The Commission will only guide this process towards harmonised implementation. However, the Commission took a note on this and will study the possibility of obtaining more resources.
6. Transposition.
Mrs. Warnel presented an overview of questions posed by the participants concerning the transposition of the directive and its possible legal impacts. Two types of questions have been so far submitted by Member States: on the one hand questions on the interpretation of the Directive, on the other on the modalities of its transposition. The European Commission’s Legal Service will be also consulted in the framework of preparation of answers to those questions. Member States are invited to send their questions via e-mail and the answers will be provided at the same time to all questions by publishing a Q&A table.
The Chair informed the Group that a transposition meeting could be arranged after the consultation of the Legal service, if needed.
The expert from Italy expressed the need to receive a formal document from COM to come back to his legal service.
7. TEN-T
Additionally, Mr. Laranjeiro Anselmo presented an update on the TEN-T funding. The Group welcomed the COM proposal to organise informal meetings on TEN-T funding in January 2012, followed by a workshop in February.
8. AOB
The next meeting will be scheduled on the 28th or the 29th of March 2012. The date and place (in Brussels) will be confirmed six weeks before the actual date of the meeting.
Annex
Attendance
HAUGE / Jarle / NOBORHAUG / Kjetil / NO / Norwegian Costal Administration
ERVIK / Jon Leon / NO / Norwegian Costal Administration
VAN SPLUNDER / Jos / NL / NCA
VERZIJDEN / Trijntje / NL / Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
GUND / Stephan / DE / European Port Community Systems Association
MAEKELBERG / Yves / BE / Agency for maritime and costal services
BODIAUX / Pierre / BE / Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport
MICHALAK / Agnieszka / PL / Ministry of Infrastructure
ROJEK / Bogdan / PL / Maritime Office Gdynia
AHL / Martin / DK / Danish Maritime Authority
KRABBE THOMNS / Anja / DK / Danish Maritime Authority
OLSEN / Peter / DK / Danish Shpiowners association
ABELA / Charles / MT / Transport Malta
BICKOVS / Deniss / LV / Latvian Coast Guard Service
ENRIGHT / Christopher / UK / MCA
NORTH / Laura / FI / Ministry of Transport and Communications
ARKIMA / Antti / FI / Finnish Transport Agency
CALLSEN-BRACKER / Hans-Heinrich / DE / Bundesministerium, Germany
BRUNET / Werner / DE / German waterways and shipping administration
BELYOVSKI / Simeon / BG / Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure company
LAKKOTRYPIS / Ioannis / CY / Cyprus Port Authority
GIONFRIDDO / Marco / IT / Italian coast guard
PELLIZZARI / Piero / IT / Italian coast guard
STAAF / Anna / SE / Swedish Maritime Administration
RENZ / Mikael / SE / Swedish Maritime Administration
SUNDKLEV / Monica / SE / Swedish Transport Agency
DUCHESNE / Philippe / FR / Devellopement Durable
BANAS / Dimitrios / ECSA
GREGORY / Kevin / ESPO
FEIGHAN / Conor / FEPORT
TEURELINCX / Diego / FEPORT
PIAGET / Christian / World Shipping Council
LIMA GALVAO / Marta / EMSA
PIPITSOULIS / Christos / European Commission
NORROY / Patrick / European Commission
KOPCZYNSKA / Magda / European Commission
SAVO / Jukka / European Commission
SCHLEWING / Astrid / European Commission
ERHARDT / Jean-Bernard / European Commission
ILIEVSKI / Risto / European Commission
MICHALAK / Rafal / European Commission
1
[1] Distributed to the group in the last eMS meeting in June and available in the eMS CircaBC.