Directorate D - Logistics, maritime & land transport and passenger rights
D.1 - Maritime transport & logistics

Brussels, 11 June, 2012

MOVE D1/JS D(2012)


Directive 2010/65/EU
On reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports
Fourth eMS expert group meeting

Wednesday, 21March 2012

Participants:see Annex

1. Approval of the agenda and the 3nd meeting report

The meeting was co-chaired by, Magda Kopczynska, Head of unit "Maritime Transport and logistics" in DG MOVE and Lazaros Aichmalotidis, Head of Unit in EMSA.

The draft agenda and the report of the third meeting (10 November 2011) were approved.

The group agreed to continue with the report presentation format where the persons or nationalities making comments are not named. There is no need to change the Rules of Procedure for the group.

2. Draft road map / organisation of work

The Chair presented a draft roadmap[1] for the implementation of the reporting formalities directive and the share of works between DG MOVE and EMSA. EMSA will take a prominent role to facilitate the implementation of the reporting formalities directive 2010/65/EU. The implementation is expected to happen in number of phases.

Phase 0: Inception phase (during 2011)

During this phase the draft general plan, the core organisational structures, communication channels and mandates for the coordinated implementation are established.

Phase 1: Functional specifications (during 2012)

The Functional specifications shall describe what is needed by the stakeholders (authorities and industry) and the processes as well as requested properties of data submitted and shared. Specifications will help to avoid duplication and inconsistencies, and will allow for more accurate estimates of necessary work and resources. They will provide a precise idea of the problem to be solved so that the system architects can efficiently design the system and estimate the cost of design alternatives. Furthermore, the specifications will provide guidance to testers for verification of each technical requirement.

Phase 2: Technical specifications (during 2013)

The technical specification will define the interface between the Single Window and related network connections including the system architecture, interfaces and performance requirements.

Phase 3: Technical implementation (during 2014)

During the technical implementation phase, the central and national systems have to be tendered (where necessary, by MS and EMSA) and implemented following the functional and technical specifications agreed in phase 1 and 2.

Phase 4: Testing phase (end 2014 -beginning 2015)

During this phase functional and non-functional tests will be performed. Functional testing will verify actions or functions specified in the functional specifications. Functional tests tend to answer the question of "can the user do this" or "does this particular feature work." Non-functional testing refers to aspects such as scalability or other performance, behaviour under certain constraints, or security.

Phase 5: Initial operational phase (1 June 2015-)

During this phase the national implementation will be reviewed against legal and technical requirements.

National experts were invited to comment during the meeting and afterwards in writing as the draft road map will provide them a guideline for their own implementation.

Based on the comments received during the meeting, the guidelines were seen useful even if a MS already has a Single Window as the existing system has to be extended to comply with the directive.

It was considered by some experts that the final objectives should be better clarified, notably the objectives of the eMaritime initiative. The Commission considers that the roadmap can be modified accordingly if and when there is any policy initiatives which have an impact to the implementation of the Reporting formalities directive.

It was emphasised that the general architecture of the system has to be clarified before the end 2013 in order to meet the 2015 deadline. Furthermore, there was a suggestion that the testing phase should be longer.

EMSA active role was welcomed and there was a suggestion that EMSA could develop the software which can be used by the Member States thus ensuring the harmonisation and reducing the costs of the implementation.

Lazaros Aichmalotidis underlined that Phase 1 is the most critical for an efficient implementation of the directive. Time is needed to meet the requirements of the directive as well as the users' needs.

One of the experts emphasised on the need to give consideration to the works carried by IMO on Single Windows and electronic transmission of FAL forms.

Furthermore, the interface with customs has to be carefully discussed and specified as customs data cannot be shared in general.

3. Trade procedures in ports

"Richard Morton, general manager (probably better to say Secretary General) of EPCSA presented[2] the survey realised by EPCSA in relation with directive 2010/65/EU. In particular, the survey carried in seven Member States identified what are the messages which are requested, notably the FAL forms and how there are transmitted. It put a stress on the role of Port Community Systems for the electronic transmission of administrative data, which are not used only to collect data for port operation but often have in addition a clearing function. to identify

EPCSA advised that this is an ongoing survey but the current results will be available during May 2012. In addition EPCSA are carrying out a further survey on what messages are used across Europe including customs messages by all of its members in order to develop and recommend possible message standards for the future.

To the question if PCS also accept forms provided in XML EPCSA gave an affirmative answer.

The Commission recognised that Port Community Systems are playing an important role in the logistic and port business operations. The PCS will continue to facilitate the business and logistics in ports. However, as it is linked to the business operations it is not part of the scope of this directive and therefore the Commission will leave the link between national single windows and PCS to the national consideration, though would recommend discussions with PCS operators where a PCS or PCS's are operating within a Member State.

4.eMAR research support

Christos Pipitsoulis, DG MOVE, presented the eMAR research project launched in February 2012 under the 7th Research Framework Programme. This project aims at supporting the eMaritime initiative and can be used to facilitate the implementation of the reporting formalities directive. The eMS group can request the eMAR research consortium to execute studies on topics relevant to the implementation.

5. Draft Single Window definition

Dr Phanthian Zuesongdham, from Hamburg Port Authority, presented[3] a discussion paper[4] on definition of Single Window, which is based on the work of the German working group established for the implementation of German Reporting formalities SW.

The SW definition document is divided to four parts. The Chapter 3 is the definition itself. Other chapters are rather to help the reader to understand the general concept.

The draft definition has two parts:

  1. The General EU level definition which should be respected by all Member States, and
  2. The optional National extension which allows each Member State to introduce their own national strategies going outside of the scope of the directive. In the discussion paper the one of Germany was given as an example.

The German discussion paper was also presented earlier in the eMS Single Window subgroup which met March 7th.

Number of experts expressed their support for discussion paper as it is while some stated that the paper seems to be going into the right direction but they will need more time to fully assess it.

It was also emphasised by some that the definition should be limited to the implementation of directive 2010/65/EU and not look beyond.

The Commission invited participants to express their position on writing on the presented document, particularly on the chapter 3. Deadline for the comments is 8 June, 2012. The Commission will attempt a consolidated version for further discussion.

6. Subgroups activities

General Maritime subgroup

Patrick Norroy (MOVE) presented the activities of the general maritime subgroup which held two meetings, a kick-off meeting on 9 November 2011 and a second meeting on 25 January 2012. The general maritime subgroup looked at the use of data provided by four documents, the general and the Hazmat notifications, the FAL form 1 "general declaration" and FAL form 7 "dangerous good manifest". Prior the meeting DG MOVE sent to the members of the subgroup a template for each of the four forms in order to assess what information are used and what are the users. From the eight answers received, DG MOVE prepared statements, which have been reviewed and amended during the meeting. At this occasion France also presented a study on the use of FAL forms in French ports, which shows the diversity of use. The activities of the general maritime subgroup will be taken over by EMSA. Half of the January meeting has been devoted to answering questions on transposition of directive 2010/65/EU.

Customs subgroup

Jukka Savo (MOVE) presented the findings[5] collected during the two Customs subgroup meetings.

Cargo manifest is commonly used to replace FAL 2 – Cargo declaration which does not contain all the information, such as community status of the goods, needed by customs. However, there is no standardised electronic cargo manifest but commonly the information is submitted on a proprietary format or as scanned PDF file. This is not in line with the requirements of the directive. Developing standardised electronic cargo manifest would be very ambitions objective but should nevertheless be considered.

FAL 3 - Crew effects is not commonly used in the Member States even though some are asking it to be submitted. It should be considered if, instead of introducing it to the NSWs, the ship would maintain on-board records which could be made available, upon request, at arrival.

FAL 4 – Ship Stores there is no harmonised presentation guidelines for these items available. Such guidelines should be developed if/when the information is to be presented electronically.
The MS are recommended to study an option of requiring only on-board records. If this can be agreed in all the maritime MS then no electronic submission needs to be introduced.

The identified topics are very complex and will require extensive discussions with DG TAXUD, customs authorities and shipping before any decision can be taken.

Waste and Security subgroups

Lazaros Aichmalotidis, EMSA, presented the work done on the business rules[6] for the waste and security[7] notifications. The business rules are already approved by the MARSEC committee and presented to COSS committee. The rules will be discussed and, if there are no objections, validated in the next general eMS meeting. There are still some issues, such as exemptions for the waste message, which have to be clarified.

Health notification, Shipsan project

Mr Aichmalotidis continued with a presentation on the health notification. The legal basis for the health notification is a bit different than with the other notifications as, rather than FAL or EU legislation, it is based on agreements signed in the IHO.

There has been already some work done by DG SANCO, notably under the ongoing Shipsan project. The EMSA has evaluated the possible synergies between Shipsan and RF directive health notification. The use of web application developed by Shipsan was found difficult but co-operation on developing the business rules for the health message would be desirable. MOVE, with the help of EMSA, will coordinate this work with DG SANCO.

7. Transposition

Questions linked to the transposition of the directive 2010/65/EU before 19 May 2012 were addressed by Joanna Warnel, legal expert in DG MOVE. The table[8] with questions and answers has been uploaded to CircaBC.

There was a question if the ban of paper forms from 1st June 2015 onwards shall only be imposed to EU flagged ships or to all ships, despite the obligation made to the contracting parties to the FAL Convention to accept paper forms. A suggestion was made that the use of paper forms should be accepted in case of failure of the electronic data exchange system, as it has been decided for the customs systems.

The Commission considered that the ban of paper forms should applied to all vessels. Nevertheless it will check in with circumstances derogations would be allowed. Update: the reply[9] of the Commission legal service is now available on the CircaBC.

One of the experts asked if landlocked countries shall transpose the directive. The Commission answered that the provisions applying to the fleet (e.g. Article 4) shall be transposed. If it is already the case, Member States shall indicate to the Commission which legislation contains the provisions.

There was also a commentthat there is a need to give the possibility for the national parliaments to scrutinise the transposition law. Based on an expert, the way to address the ban of paper forms in the legislation is important in the context of this consultation, and may delay the completion of the transposition.

8. Update on the possible TEN-T call

The RF directive requests the COM to explore funding possibilities for the implementation of the directive. The TEN-T programme, managed by DG MOVE, is one of the possible financial instruments. There is a need to identify which kind of pilot project could derive results which would best benefit all the MSs obliged to implement the directive.

Number of Member States have expressed their interest to participate to the up-coming TENT call.

The chair emphasised the project needs to be clearly aligned with the eMS work. The eMS group will remain as the official coordination forum where the specifications are agreed. The project should give regular updates in the general eMS meetings in order to ensure that whatever is conceptualised in this project is serving its purpose.

Furthermore, EMSA should be connected to the work. How this is done has to be investigated as involving a regulatory agency to a TEN-T project is not common.

Jose Laranjeira Anselmo, from DG MOVE, informed that this project would not be a first one on the field of Single Windows, four such projects have been completed or are on-going. ICT and ITS are now considered as key elements parts for the development of the core networks and therefore a funding this kind of projects is normal.

Update: The call is now foreseen for the second half of 2012.

9. AOB and Time-table for the next meetings – Chair

DG MOVE will organise a dedicated Info Day meeting on the on-going projects such as MIELE or eMAR, which can provide models and other input. Update: Due to the availability of the meeting rooms and with aim to reduce the burden of travel for the experts, the info day meeting is now organised back-to-back with the next eMS meeting in the 11 July.

Update: The next general eMS group meeting will be on 12 July, 2012.

ZUESONGDHAM / Phanthian / DE / Hamburg Port Authority
HAUGE / Jarle / NO / Norwegian Costal Administration
BORHAUG / Kjetil / NO / Norwegian Costal Administration
VERBAKEL / Pieter / NL / Ministry of Finance - Customs
VERZIJDEN / Trijntje / NL / Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
VAN BOCKEL / Roeland / NL / Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
SIHT / Alar / EE / Estonian Maritime Administration
MAEKELBERG / Yves / BE / Agency for maritime and costal services
BODIAUX / Pierre / BE / Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport
MICHALAK / Agnieszka / PL / Ministry of Infrastructure
ROSICKI / Pawel / PL / Transport Attaché
CARVALHO / Joao / PT / IPTM Ministry of Economy
AHL / Martin / DK / Danish Maritime Authority
ABELA / Charles / MT / Transport Malta
BICKOVS / Deniss / LV / Latvian Coast Guard Service
KAUPAS / Aleksandras / LT / Klapeida State Seaport Authority
READ-LEAH / Michael / UK / Department for Transport
BARRY / Thomas / UK / Department for Transport
HOULIHAN / Greg / IE / Irish Maritime Administration
NYMAN / Sirkka-Heleena / FI / Ministry of Transport and Communications
ARKIMA / Antti / FI / Finnish Transport Agency
CALLSEN-BRACKER / Hans-Heinrich / DE / Bundesministerium, Germany
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
DI GUARDO / Daniele / IT / Italian Coastguard
DOGLIANI / Mario / IT / Ministry of Transport – MIELE project
STAAF / Anna / SE / Swedish Maritime Administration
KARLSSON / Sofia / SE / Swedish Transport Agency
DUCHESNE / Philippe / FR / Devellopement Durable
PASZTOR / Andrea / HU / Ministry of National Development
MISPINAS / Ioannis / GR / Transport Attaché
LUEZAS / Jaime / ES / Puertos del Estado
FRAILE / Javier / ES / Portel
ZABUKOVEC / Ales / SI / Transport Attaché


[1] Available in CircaBC:

[2]Available in CircaBC:

[3] CircaBC:

[4] CircaBC:

[5] CircaBC:

[6] CircaBC:

[7] CircaBC:

[8] CircaBC: