Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)278 - European Maritime Single Window environment - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)278 - European Maritime Single Window environment. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)278  |
| date | 17-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXTOFTHEPROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Technological change is touching all parts of society and the economy and transforming the lives of EU citizens. Transport is no exception to this trend. New technologies are radically changing the mobility landscape. Against this background, the EU and its industries must meet the challenge to become a world leader in innovation, digitisation, and decarbonisation. The Commission has therefore adopted a comprehensive approach to ensure that the EU’s mobility policies reflect these political priorities in the form of three ‘Europe on the Move’ mobility packages.
Following the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy, the Commission adopted two mobility packages in May and November 2017. These packages set out a positive agenda delivering on the low-emission mobility strategy and ensuring a smooth transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all. The European Parliament and Council should ensure the rapid adoption of these proposals.
This initiative is part of the Third “Europe on the Move” Package, which delivers on the new industrial policy strategy of September 2017 and is designed to complete the process of enabling Europe to reap the full benefits of the modernisation of mobility. It is essential that tomorrow’s mobility system is safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens. The aim is to make European mobility safer and more accessible, European industry more competitive, European jobs more secure, and to be cleaner and better adapted to the imperative of tackling climate change. This will require the full commitment of the EU, Member States and stakeholders, not least in strengthening investments in transport infrastructure.
Maritime transport operators face a wide range of legal reporting requirements each time a ship arrives in or leaves a port (a port call). The fact that reporting requirements are not harmonised, either between different policy areas within Member States or between Member States, results in a heavy administrative burden on such operators. Over two million port calls are made annually in the EU. Shipping sector staff currently spend an annual total of about 4.6 million hours on reporting.
The European Council highlighted the problem in its 2017 Valletta declaration on maritime policy1 and in the Council Conclusions of 8 June 20172 on the priorities for the EU’s maritime transport policy up to 2020. It underlined the need to reduce the administrative burden on maritime transport by providing for simplified, digitalised and harmonised reporting procedures for ships. It reiterated this message in its Conclusions of 5 December 2017 on
Valletta Declaration: Priorities for the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2020: Competitiveness, Decarbonisation, Digitalisation to ensure global connectivity, and efficient internal market and a world-class maritime cluster, Valletta, 29 March 2017,
www.eu2017.mt/en/Documents">https://www.eu2017.mt/en/Documents f
Council conclusions on Priorities for the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2020: Competitiveness, Decarbonisation, Digitalisation to ensure global connectivity, an efficient internal market and a world-class maritime cluster, adopted by the Council at its 3545th meeting held on 8 June 2017, data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document
2
transport3. Maritime
digitalising transport . Maritime transport operators also voice strong concerns about the situation.
The problem was analysed in an evaluation of the 2010/65/EU Reporting Formalities Directive, conducted as part of the fitness check on EU maritime transport policy carried out in 2016-2017. This evaluation confirmed the analysis of the problem.
The purpose of this proposal is to address the current non-harmonised reporting environment for ships. The proposed new European Maritime Single Window environment brings together, in a coordinated and harmonised way, all reporting associated with a port call. This, in turn, will also improve interoperability and interconnection between the relevant systems, thus enabling data to be shared and reused more efficiently, as appropriate.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal complements and supports the overall objectives of EU transport policy. It provides significant input into the initiative for a European maritime transport area without barriers, and supports both EU policy on reducing transport sector emissions and the EU transport social agenda.
It is closely linked and consistent with the Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information Systems Directive4. The proposal is also consistent with the Electronic Freight Transport Information initiative as regards acceptance of freight transport-related information and certificates in digital format by authorities performing transport-related inspections in the EU hinterland.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal supports the European Commission’s REFIT programme objectives of administrative burden reduction and simplification. It is consistent with the Commission’s overall objectives of increased competitiveness, the smooth operation of the internal market, and greater efficiency through digitalisation.
Specifically, the proposal complements to the digitalisation efforts brought in by the Union Customs Code by providing a step towards a more interconnected reporting environment for transport and customs formalities.
2. LEGALBASIS, SUBSIDIARITYAND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis for action is Article 100 (2) of the Treaty: ‘The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may lay down appropriate provisions for sea and air transport.’
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The single market is extremely important to maritime transport; only 9% of seaborne trade within the EU is national, while 25% falls into the category of intra-EU trade and 66% into
3 Council conclusions on the digitalisation of transport, adopted by the Council at its 3581st meeting held on 5 December 2017 data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document
4 Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10)
that of extra-EU trade. Moreover, ports are not the final destination of seaborne goods. Via hinterland connections, a large proportion of the goods passing through ports come from or continue to another Member State. It is therefore in the EU’s interest to ensure that port calls run smoothly, both for the sake of the wider internal transport market and to improve the profitability of the considerable economic investments and cross-border business interests linked to the sector.
The EU reporting environment for shipping operators in connection to a port call is unlikely to be harmonised through action taken solely at either national or international level. There is no international forum to enable the adoption of such broad and binding provisions.
Past experience also shows the inadequacy of voluntary harmonisation measures. Existing non-binding guidelines and regular interaction between Member States have not improved the situation, nor have they resulted in harmonised interfaces, data formats or reporting procedures.
The EU is therefore the appropriate level at which to address this problem. The problem is of a cross-border nature, and substantial results can be efficiently achieved only through a coherent shared framework that addresses pan-European needs.
• Proportionality
The proposal is designed to avoid any disproportionate burden on shipping operators. It builds on the existing structure of National Single Windows and on international and EU standards and data formats. Costs to Member States and industry stakeholders will therefore be limited; such costs will clearly be exceeded by the direct and indirect benefits of reduced administrative burden and more efficient information exchanges. The impact assessment of the cost efficiency, effectiveness and proportionality of the proposal concluded that the proposal brings significant added value.
The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives; it addresses the main sources of the problem and provides a decentralised, yet harmonised solution. The EU and the Member States will share responsibility for the reporting environment.
• Choice of instrument
The impact assessment has established that Directive 2010/65/EU needs to be revised to achieve its objectives. A regulation is a more appropriate instrument for ensuring that interfaces, data formats and reporting procedures are harmonised efficiently and that these measures are implemented in a consistent and transparent fashion.
Implementing measures are also proposed, given the technical nature of the initiative and the likelihood that it will need to be adjusted regularly in the light of technical and legal changes.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
Contents
ANDIMPACTASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations of/fitness checks on existing legislation
The evaluation conducted in 2016-2017 as part of the fitness check on the Maritime Transport Policy found that Directive 2010/65/EU was not sufficiently effective or efficient, although its objectives remained very relevant. The conclusion was that there was considerable scope for further simplification and for reducing the administrative burden on shipping operators.
Three problems were identified. First, there is a lack of harmonisation between the maritime National Single Windows for ship reporting. Interfaces, data formats and reporting procedures differ between Member States, and sometimes even between ports. Directive 2010/65/EU did not provide for any binding specifications for National Single Windows. The resultant reporting environment is therefore diverse and fragmented.
Second, the current system for coordinating reporting via National Single Windows only brings together some of the legal reporting obligations faced by ships. National and local reporting requirements are often requested to be submitted via other channels than the National Single Windows. Other EU reporting formalities, such as most customs formalities, go via a dedicated national and trans-European customs IT systems.
Third, there is an inefficient data-sharing environment in most Member States and within the EU as a whole. Shipping operators are therefore often requested to submit the same information more than once for the same port call. If information exchanges between authorities were more efficient, such duplicated reporting could be avoided, in line with the EU goal of abiding by the ‘Reporting only once’ principle.
• Stakeholder consultations
These consultations were held in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines. There was a public online consultation from 25 October 2017 to 18 January 2018. The questionnaire was available in all official EU languages. A total of 91 respondents replied. This public consultation was complemented by more specific, targeted consultations held through workshops, interviews and other events, and through a more detailed online questionnaire to the main stakeholder groups. 418 stakeholders contributed to the consultation process.
A special effort was made to contact small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) in the maritime transport sector via the SME network, to inform them of the opportunity to take part in the consultation process. The Commission also contacted the relevant European social partners (maritime transport professionals and trade unions in the maritime sector5) to invite them to take part in the consultation.
The stakeholder consultations confirmed the analysis of the problem and clarified which groups of stakeholders preferred the various policy options. Stakeholders of most categories said they preferred an integrated, comprehensive reporting environment including both customs and transport reporting. 82% of respondents taking part in the open public consultation said it would be most efficient to address these issues at EU level. Most stakeholders gave their main priority as EU-level harmonisation, as this could bring considerable benefits and reduce the administrative burden. Other priorities highlighted were clarity in data protection, and more efficient data flows and data sharing.
Shipping companies and ship/cargo agents preferred a centralised solution to harmonisation, whereas Member State authorities and ports preferred a solution based on the existing National Single Windows.
Having carefully considered and analysed this input, the Commission proposes a compromise solution that will ensure harmonisation on the basis of decentralised but interconnected National Single Windows.
ec.europa.eu/social
5
Gathering
and using
information/expertise
The proposal is based on fact-finding and information provided by relevant experts and on economic models for estimation of costs and benefits including modelling of indirect effects and projected shift of transport mode from road to waterborne transport. A team of external consultants drew up a support study on costs and impacts.
Commission experts from a range of policy areas were closely involved, to ensure complementarity and consistency between the reporting environment initiative and other EU policy (e.g. eGovernment building blocks, customs policy, data protection issues).
• Impact assessment
After two options were discarded in a first round of assessment, the impact assessment dealt with a further six main policy options in detail. The options are based on two main policy
choices: the tool for achieving harmonisation and the scope of data/reporting
to be included in
the harmonised data set.
Three realistic options for the harmonisation architecture were analysed:
(a)
(b)
Binding technical specifications for achieving harmonised reporting gateways as front-end to the National Single Windows (full responsibility for which rests on
Member States);
reporting gateways as front-end to the
on a common
IT
solution module developed at
National Single Windows, based EU level and plugged into each
National Single Window (joint EU/Member State responsibility); or
(c) A central EU-level reporting gateway (EU responsibility).
As regards scope, it may be either 1) comprehensive or 2) limited. Comprehensive scope includes both customs and transport reporting, whereas the limited option would keep the transport reporting environment separate from the customs formalities environment.
| A: Harmonised NSW gateways: technical specifications | B: Harmonised NSW gateways: common IT solution | C: Central reporting gateway | D: Mandatory PCS (discarded) | |
| 1. Comprehensive single entry point solution | Option A1 | Option B1 | Option C1 | Option D1 |
| 2. Separate entry points customs / maritime | Option A2 | Option B2 | Option C2 | Option D2 |
The option of basing harmonisation on a system of mandatory port community systems (commercial platforms) was discarded early in the analysis, as fewer than half of all EU ports have such systems today. Making port community systems mandatory was considered disproportionate and inconsistent with the subsidiarity principle. It would also have incurred high additional costs for both Member States and industry.
The main impact of the options analysed is to reduce the administrative burden on shipping operators. This will in turn boost the efficiency and competitiveness of maritime transport, with a slight shift between transport modes (from road to waterborne transport) as the likely result. It will also improve ship masters’ job quality and make the profession more attractive. The benefits are substantially higher in a comprehensive scope scenario than in the limited scope option.
The costs arise primarily from the need to adapt and maintain the technical specifications and IT systems on which the harmonised reporting gateways will be based. Compared with the baseline costs of running the National Single Windows today, both Member States and the EU will need to make a one-off investment, and annual operational costs will be slightly higher. The cost to shipping operators is estimated to be largely negligible.
Acceptance of the centralised options C1 and C2 is low among Member States, but high among shipping operators. Member States preferred the options based on the National Single Windows, but shipping operators were concerned that decentralised options might not be compatible with the aim of harmonisation. Although option B1 was not the first choice of any stakeholder group in consultations, it thus represents a suitable compromise option that is acceptable to all main stakeholder categories, combining the decentralised approach with a fully harmonised front-end towards the shipping operators.
Options B1 and C1 are expected to be the most effective, as they address all the issues giving rise to problems and are the options most likely to achieve full harmonisation of interfaces and data formats. Options B1 and B2 entail fewer risks than options C1 and C2.
While option B2 would be the cheapest to implement, it would also yield substantially lower benefits for shipping operators (trade-off). Option B1 had the best cost-efficiency ratio. The cost-benefit results are clearly positive for all options.
The preferred option, based on the cost-benefit ratio, stakeholder acceptance and expected effectiveness and risk rating, is therefore option B1. This entails a total expected additional cost of EUR 29.4 million between 2020 and 2030 and expected new benefits of 22-25 million staff hours saved over the same time period. This option yields the greatest benefit at an acceptable cost. It will ensure a harmonised reporting environment, while respecting the existing set-up of National Single Windows and making use of the investments already made. The burden on Member States is minimised by providing the same software package, developed at EU level, to all.
The impact assessment report has been discussed with the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board who issued a positive opinion with comments6.
ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc
6
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
As this is a revision of an existing piece of legislation falling under the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme REFIT, the Commission has looked at opportunities to simplify and reduce burdens. The analysis shows that significant simplification and improved efficiency is possible by reducing the administrative burden for shipping operators obliged to meet legal requirements in connection with a port call.
The administrative burden is expected to be reduced thanks to 1) harmonised interfaces, procedures and data formats; 2) the provision of a single reporting entry point; 3) more efficient reuse of data, enabling reporting to be done only once and double reporting to be eliminated. A comprehensive coordination mechanism for all port-call-related reporting for a shipping operator, together with fully harmonised data formats, reporting procedures and interfaces, will free up a large amount of time for staff to spend on other tasks, especially those relating to core business, safety and security.
The simplification elements are quantified to an estimated amount of 22-25 million staff hours in the time period 2020-2030 equivalent to a value of EUR 625-720 million for shipping operators.
The simplified and harmonised reporting will especially benefit small and medium-sized businesses and micro-enterprises, which are proportionally more vulnerable to inefficient administration and lost staff hours.
The proposal also contributes to digitalisation and better information flows, consistent with the ‘Digital Check’.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal has an impact on the right to the protection of personal data guaranteed in Article 8 of the Charter. Any processing of personal data under the Proposal shall be done in accordance with the EU legislation on the protection of personal data, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation.
4. BUDGETARYIMPLICATIONS
The preferred option will have budgetary implications for the Commission. The expected costs of IT services and IT system development are up to EUR 13.5 million over the 11 years from 2020 to 2030. The Commission proposes that its costs be covered by the budget line Support activities to the European transport policy and passenger rights including communication activities (budget reference 06.02.05).
No additional budget or staff resources will be required from the EU budget under the current Multiannual Financial Framework. This initiative does not intend to prejudge the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
5. OTHERELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The Commission will follow the progress, impacts and results of this initiative through a set of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. These will measure progress towards the new proposal’s specific objectives.
Requests for information (reports, survey replies) will be carefully balanced so as to avoid placing additional burdens on stakeholders by creating disproportionate new reporting requests.
A monitoring report, based on the indicators identified in the impact assessment should provide a first step. This should be followed by an evaluation phase. Five years after the date on which the legal proposal is to be implemented, the Commission will initiate a check on whether the initiative’s objectives have been met. This will be done on the basis of Member State reports, stakeholder surveys and other types of input (e.g. complaints) from shipping operators. Subsequently, the evaluation will feed into future decision-making processes, to ensure that the adjustments needed to reach the objectives set are made.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The proposal falls into six chapters, the first and last of which introduce the general scope and some cross-cutting provisions. Chapters II - IV provide more detailed information on the scope and technical instruments, while Chapter V sets out the general governance for the European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe).
II. EMSWe data set
III. Provision of information
IV. Common services
V. Coordination of the EMSWe activities
VI. Final provisions