10 juni 2016

1

Quick scan of implementation EU Directive 2010/65 (version 1.0)

Introduction

In the past years, PROTECT-group members shared their experiences and views on the implementation of

the European Reporting Formalities Directive 2010/65. This quick scan intends to picture several different

approaches in the implementation across the EU, so that PROTECT-group members can benefit from these

experiences and views.

Conclusions

Use of current systems and procedures, where necessary extended for the purpose of this Directive,

proves to be the basis for implementation for most of the PROTECT-group members;

The term “Maritime Single Window” is used in The Netherlands, in Belgium, in Italy, and by the EU

project ANNA (ended in December 2015). In other Member States, the term “Single Window” (often a

PCS) or “National Single Window” is used. The National Single Window communicates with

SafeSeaNet;

The MSW concept as developed by the EU project AnNa, is only applied in The Netherlands.

Examples of (intended) implementations

Belgium

The Belgium Government and Belgium ports have chosen for a pragmatic approach. Current systems are

used, and the Single Window functionality comes from (new) arrangements for information exchange

between stakeholders concerned, and from (new) interfaces between their systems.

See http://mswbelgium.be/?lang=en

All reporting formalities need to be done via the Port Community System (PCS) of the port concerned:

APICS portal for Antwerp, and the hinterland ports connected to Antwerp;

ZEDIS for Zeebrugge;

ENIGMA for Ghent; and

ENSOR for Ostend.

All PCSs are connected to a Central Broker System (CBS).

Fig. 1: MSW in Belgium

10 juni 2016

2

As shown in fig. 1, information exchange with the authorities concerned is authorized and managed by the

CBS and the Federal Service Bus (FSB). Additional functionalities (i.e. local arrangements for ordering

services and the use of port equipment) have been arranged in the port information systems.

Hence, the implementation in Belgium makes that the reporting parties (agents) can continue to use the

port systems they are familiar with, with the advantage that he has to do his electronic notification only

once.

In Belgium, ‘reporting once’ is arranged according to national legislation.

Currently, all reporting formalities need to be done per port, except the Maritime Declaration of Health

(MDH). The MDH should be reported once at national level, hence to be reported to the first port of call.

The following formalities must be reported electronically:

Notification for ships calling at and departing from ports of EU Member States and exit ports (FAL1:

General Declaration);

Port State Control: 72u- pre-application;

ANNEX 5 Crew List and the provisions of the Schengen Border Code;

FAL6: Passenger List and the provisions of the Schengen Border Code;

List of stowaways in accordance with FAL6;

Travel route of a cruise ship;

Notification of dangerous or polluting substances on board (FAL 7: Dangerous goods);

Notification of ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

Notification of security information. This is the ISPS form;

Maritime Declaration of Health (Maritime Declaration of Health, MDH)

All existing obligations required by the authorities and port authority services remain in application.

France

Also in France, Government and ports have chosen to use existing systems and procedures, and link them

to a National Single Window, based on the current Traffic 2000. This Single Window is fueled by messages

from the Port Single Windows and form the information systems of Local Competent Authorities. See fig. 2

Fig. 2: MSW in France, as intended

10 juni 2016

3

The PCS’s in the big ports Le Havre and Marseille (actually these are public-private multimodal Cargo

Community Systems) and the information systems of Local Competent Authorities are leading the

implementation. The smaller ports in France will be connected to the National Single Window directly, and

Traffic 2000 will relay their SafeSeaNet messages to EMSA.

End of 2015, work was still in progress. See fig. 3

Fig. 3: MSW in France (end of 2015), in progress.

Although a NSW as such has been developed, the connection request is not implemented yet.

Spain

Puertos del Estado is the body designated in Spain to implement the provisions of the EU Directive 2010/65

and to overseeing the setting up and operation of the National Single Window.

Actually, the existing PCS’s in the ports generate the messages for the Spanish National Single Window,

and this Single Window facilitates the connection with the SafeSeaNet system, as with several systems of

other related authorities.

Fig. 4: The concept of MSW in Spain. The actual application landscape is much more complex.

10 juni 2016

4

Harbourmasters of all Ports are included in MSW.

The Spanish MSW will process current type of messages (Berman, Wasdis, Hazmat, Paxlst etc.), all of

them have been amended according RFD. The Berman message includes the additional security

information.

Italy

The implementation of Directive 2010/65 in Italy is prepared by the EU project MIELE, aiming to establish a

Single Point of Contact for the authorities involved. This “Italian SPOC” should distribute all mandatory

reports from the shipping sector to the authorities concerned. The reports for SafeSeaNet are then relayed

to the VTMIS system of the Italian Coastguard, and the other reports to systems of Customs, Border

Control, Health and Port Authorities.

Fig 5: The Italian National MSW.

For smaller ports, which do not haven or make use of a PCS, PMIS should provide for a web-interface to

their agents. PMIS is a web platform that allows Port Authorities operators to perform management of

information (arrivals and departures), services provided, administrative documents and monitoring of the

maritime traffic (when connected to their VTS system).

Sweden

MSW is a national reporting portal developed by Swedish Customs, the Swedish Maritime Administration,

the Swedish Coast Guard and the Swedish Transport Agency in collaboration. The aim is to simplify

maritime reporting formalities by introducing a single window where all information is reported only once,

regardless of which authority will use the information. The national portal is administered by the Swedish

Maritime Administration.

The introduction of MSW involves quite extensive changes to the reporting arrangements. The main

changes are as follows:

1. All data must be transmitted electronically through the joint national portal Maritime Single Window

(MSW);

2. New time limits will apply for filing the report;

3. Arrival and departure must be reported for each individual port;

4. The reporting obligation applies to more operators than before June 2015; and

10 juni 2016

5

5. Customs decisions will be communicated in several steps1.

See also http://www.sjofartsverket.se/en/News/Ships-report-arrangements-from-1-June-2016/

United Kingdom.

The UK's National Maritime Single Window (NMSW) has been launched in January 2016 as a pilot2.

Throughout the pilot existing reporting arrangements will remain available with the pilot NMSW running

alongside these, until the NMSW is fully operational.

During this pilot stage, only General Declarations (FAL 1), and Passenger/Crew manifests (FAL 5 &6) can

be submitted. The information provided will be available only for Customs and Security/Immigration

purposes, by Border Force and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

The NMSW pilot deals with the reporting formalities in the following manner:

FAL 1 (General Declaration): Mandatory on pilot NMSW;

FAL 2 (Cargo Declaration): Not to be used;

FAL 3 (Ships' Stores Declaration): Not required;

FAL 4 (Crew Effects Declaration): To be retained on board;

FAL 5 (Crew List) / FAL 6 (Passenger List): Mandatory on pilot NMSW;

FAL 7 (Dangerous Goods Manifest): Send to Port if required;

ISPS Security Declaration (Pre-Arrival Notification): Send to Port if required;

Health Declaration: Send to Port Health Authority, if required; and

Waste Declaration: Send to Port if required.

Fig.3: A UK solution

Fig. 6: The UK National Maritime Single Window pilot.

1 From 1 June 2016, all data reported to Swedish Customs regarding arrival and departure of ships should be

submitted through Maritime Single Window (MSW). As from that date, documents should no longer be faxed to Swedish Customs. 2 Co-sponsored by the TEN-T program of the Commission.

10 juni 2016

6

CERS3 is MCA’s Consolidated European Reporting System. A previous developed system to meet,

amongst other things, the UK reporting obligations under the provisions and dates indicated in the

2002/59/EC Directive. CERS3 is connected to SafeSeaNet..

Finland

Finnish Customs has developed the notification procedure for vessel traffic together with the Finnish

Transport Agency, ship agents, shipping companies, other government agencies, harbours and other

maritime operators.

The result of this cooperation is the electronic Portnet system, through which the notifications related to

arrival and departure that are required by authorities can be submitted electronically to Customs. In its

current form, Portnet has been in use since the beginning of 2000.

Ship agents can submit the required notifications electronically to Portnet as web declarations or as Edifact

or XML messages. Certain information concerning ships and port calls can also be uploaded to Portnet

from the declarant’s own files.

The Portnet procedure meets the requirements concerning the processing of notifications related to port

calls laid out in directive 2010/65/EU. It is based on the so-called single window principle, which means that

the customer, that is, the ship agent, submits information to a single place where it is available to, for

example, different authorities and harbours.

The ship’s arrival number issued by Portnet is required for the presentation notification at arrival or exit. The

arrival number can be easily obtained from the PortTraffic service in the Portnet portal, see www.portnet.fi

Fig. 7: The Finnish solution

10 juni 2016

7

Germany

Fig. 8: The German solution.

10 juni 2016

8

Cargo declaration to customs.

There are hardly any common data elements in the cargo declarations to be sent to customs in comparison

with the other notifications required from a ship for a port call. Therefore, declarations to be sent to customs

are submitted by the reporting party via a PCS directly to the customs system, without involvement of the

NSW Core System.

The local competent authorities and the national competent authority (NCS/ZMGS) have agreed to

harmonize the reporting formalities in all German ports, including:

The time/moment upon which a specific report should be received by the authority concerned;

For each report, the information provided;

The meaning of this information (each data element);

The validation of the data; and

The interface type.

See https://www.national-single-window.de/info/#docs

The Netherlands

The Dutch Government has chosen to use current port systems (PCS, port management systems) for

reporting to port authorities, and to introduce a new Maritime Single Window for reporting to the other

authorities concerned. This Maritime Single Window is connected to 1) the national Single Point of Contact

for the SafeSeaNet system, the gateway to the European SafeSeaNet system of EMSA, 2) the national

Customs’ system, and 3) the national system for Border Control.

Fig. 5: The Dutch solution.

The messages from non-port systems and from port systems to MSW (front-end), and those from MSW to

the connected authorities need to conform to a new message structure (named B2MSW and MSW2G),

derived from the GOVCBR-message and based on the WCO data model version 3.5.

10 juni 2016

9

In providing their mandatory reports to the authorities concerned, Vessels, Carriers and Agents are free to

choose between using their own systems (non-port systems) or PCS (port systems), as long as their

messages provided to the public post-box for MSW comply with the new B2MSW standard.

Same type of message is used for response messages from MSW to the reporting parties (MSW2B).

MSW will copy part of the data, in order to share this data with Customs and Border Control.

In this way, MSW implemented the ‘reporting once only’ principle.

For notifications to Port Authorities however, the PCS concerned delivers the information to the applicable

Port Authority system;

The PCS of Portbase (Ports of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Groningen Seaports, Harlingen and

Scheveningen) offer to the reporting parties the necessary conversion service for all messages.

The PCS of Enigma+ (Zeeland Seaports and Westerschelde) offer to the reporting parties the

necessary conversion service for port related messages, for the purpose of forwarding these to SSN.

The HMS Portaal (port of Den Helder) offer to the reporting parties the necessary conversion service

for port related messages, for the purpose of forwarding these to SSN.

The information from the Port Authorities to NCA SSN is converted in PCS, routed via MSW to the national

SafeSeaNet system and then converted back to satisfy the reporting requirements from EMSA (IFCD);

The legal framework of the Dutch MSW:

With MSW, no new legal entity is introduced; The Authorities concerned hold their “legal say” in the

processing of “their” data in MSW;

o The Authority concerned remains the body determining the purpose of processing “its” data;

o Data management in MSW is carried out under instructions from the Authorities concerned;

o As soon as data flows into MSW, the data processing is under the responsibility of the

Authority to whom this data is intended for;

MSW does not provide community services, as in the PCSs;

Data in MSW is only validated on syntax. Other validations are carried out in the systems before or

behind MSW.

At this moment the Dutch MSW is expected to be partly3 operational before end of 2016.

3 End of 2016, MSW should fully support the port- and immigration formalities, but for Customs formalities, only

the general declaration and arrival/departure details are processed.