Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Maritime Administration of Latvia (MAL)

Transcription

1 Grant Agreement number: Project acronym: EMAR Project title: e Maritime Strategic Framework and Simulation based Validation Funding Scheme: SST D4.4 emar NSW Survey Due date of deliverable:31/12/2012 Actual submission date: 23/01/2013 Start date of project: 01/02/2012 Duration: 36M Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Maritime Administration of Latvia (MAL) Revision : Final Project co funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme ( ) Dissemination Level RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) PU Public

2 EMAR D4.4 Page 2 of 65

3 EMAR D4.4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION THE CORE EMAR COMPONENTS ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT SINGLE WINDOW CONCEPT UNITED NATIONS (UN) GUIDELINES RELATED EU TRANSPORT POLICIES KEY FEATURES OF SINGLE WINDOWS SINGLE WINDOWS FOR THE MARITIME COMMUNITY/ SSN CORE COMPONENT SURVEY OF EUROPEAN MARITIME SINGLE WINDOWS BELGIUM FINLAND GERMANY LITHUANIA THE NETHERLANDS NORWAY SPAIN LATVIAN MARITIME SINGLE WINDOW LEGISLATION GENERAL INTRODUCTION OF THE SYSTEM FURTHER DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ANNEX I ANNEX II REFERENCES Page 3 of 65

4 EMAR D4.4 Document summary Information Authors and contributors Initial Name Organisation Role AG Mr. Aigars Gailis MAL Author VG Mrs. Vija Grunte MAL Author HC Mr. Hermanis Cernovs MAL Author DB Mr. Deniss Bickovs MAL Author Revision history Revision Date Who Comment Final 23/01/2013 AG Quality control Role Who Date Deliverable leader JR 23/01/2013 Quality manager JTP 23/01/2013 Project manager JG 23/01/2013 Technical manager TK 23/01/2013 Disclaimer The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not necessarily represent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services. While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the authors(s) or any other participant in the emar consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the emar Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission herein. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the emar Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein. Page 4 of 65

5 Executive Summary This deliverable reports on the best practices of National Single Windows in Europe (Task 4.2 of the project). After a general introduction to the emar (e Maritime Strategic Framework and Simulation based Validation) project as a whole, the document focuses on the development of Single Windows (SW) concept. The report first introduces the topic of single windows with an overview of the background and context from EU (European Union) and international regulatory and policy perspectives. Current Single Windows initiatives are reviewed and a number of challenges are identified for the SW applications in different countries. The final NSW (National Single Window) concept consists of a number of different merged SW deployed in each Member State and supported by central EU services. This report demonstrates, that the idea of Single Windows exists from time, when IT (Information Technology) and Internet era became widely available for public use, however ways of development varied in different countries. Reader has to admit, that SW question is like never ending story. Material published in this Deliverable most probably will be partly outdated due to fast developments in IT today. In addition to the work described above, a review of the study of existing PCS (Port Community System) and PSW (Port Single Window) systems conducted in SKEMA (Sustainable Knowledge Platform for the European Maritime and Logistics Industry) E Maritime Study is given in Annex I of this deliverable. Annex II shows the consolidated information on Single Windows Systems employed in European countries. 3 of 65 pages

6 List of Tables Table 1 PortBase services List of Figures Figure 1 EU data exchange Figure 2 Interface for customs declarations collection Figure 3 National SafeSeaNet System login page Figure 4 Messaging mechanism Figure 5 Textual interface Figure 6 Graphical interface List of Abbreviations AIS BSB CCS CVED DG efreight emar EC EC COM ECSS ECS EDI EMSA EMSF EPC EPCSA ESCWA ETD ETA EU EUROSTAT GT HAS HAZMAT HICS HLSG HTML Automatic Identification System Base System Builder Cargo Community System Common Veterinary Entry Document Dangerous Goods European e Freight Capabilities for Co modal Transport e Maritime Strategic Framework and Simulation based Validation European Commission European Commission Communications European Central SafeSeaNet Server Export Control System Electronic Data Interchange European Maritime Safety Agency e Maritime Strategic Framework Electronic Port Clearance European Port Community Systems Association Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia Expected Time of Departure Expected Time of Arrival European Union Statistical Office of the European Commission Gross Tonnage Harbour Authority System Hazardous Materials and Goods Harbour Information and Control System High Level Steering Group Hyper Text Markup Language 4 of 65 pages

7 IAPH ID ICS ICT IMA IMO IMO FAL ISPS Code IT J2EE LCA LRIT MAL MRCC MRN MS MSP MSW NCA NCTS NGNSW NGSW NSW OGA PCS PLDA PPP PSW SAD Sadbel SKEMA SOLAS SPC SSL SSN SW UN UN/CEFACT UNECE UWI XML VTM VTMIS VTS WCO International Association of Ports and Harbours Identification Data Import Control System Information and Communication Technology International Maritime Association International Maritime Organization International Maritime Organisation s Facilitation International Ship and Port Facility Security Code Information Technology Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition Local Competent Authority Long Range Identification and Tracking Maritime Administration of Latvia Maritime Rescue Centre Riga Movement Reference Number Member States Maritime Situation Picture Maritime Single Windows National Competent Authority New Computerised Transit System Next Generation National Single Windows Next Generation Single Window National Single Windows Other Government Agencies Port Community System Paperless Customs and Excise Public Private Partnership Port Single Windows Single Administrative Document System for automatic de customization in Belgium and Luxembourg Sustainable Knowledge Platform for the European Maritime and Logistics Industry International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea Single Point of Contact Secure Socket Layer SafeSeaNet Single Window United Nations United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business United Nations Economic Commission for Europe User Web Interface Extensible Markup Language Vessel Traffic Management Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information System (Directive 2002/59/EC) Vessel Traffic Service World Customs Organization 5 of 65 pages

8 1. Introduction emar is a large scale integrated project submitted in the EC s 7 th framework programme, THEME [SST ] [Upgraded maritime transport information management.] It started in January 2012 and runs until December emar has 29 partners from 15 EU Member States and Norway. Shipping is vital for Europe's international and domestic trade and remains the backbone of the maritime cluster. However, this industry will only continue to prosper if the Union keeps working to establish a high level of maritime safety and security, helping to safeguard human lives and the environment while promoting an international level playing field. In order to develop the potential of European maritime sector the simplification of administrative and customs formalities for intra EU maritime services become vital. emar proposes to provide a Maritime Single Window building on the FP 7 Project e Freight (European e Freight Capabilities for Co modal Transport) outputs addressing specifically: [European Commission Communications EC COM (2011) 144 final.] WHITE PAPER. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system; EU Directive 2002/59/EC (later amended by Directive 2009/17/EC) that established a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system EMSA(European Maritime Safety Agency)>SSN(SafeSeaNet)>National SSN Applications (operational 2009); 2010/65/EU Ship Formalities Directive in the context of Communication and action plan for European maritime transport space without barriers COM(2009) 10/2, the Blue Belt initiative and the e Maritime program. The main objectives of the emar Single Window (MSW) are to: 1. Agree in consultation with Member States (MS) a common architecture for the emar Single Window; 2. Provide a common infrastructure for interconnection between NSWs and EU Platforms satisfying security, flexibility and evolution requirements; 3. Provide facilities to assist MSs develop their own solutions: a. Making best use of existing investments; b. Offering the ship master, ship agents and other stakeholders the most efficient way to comply with reporting regulations reporting standard and the same reporting interface to all Maritime Single Windows. 6 of 65 pages

9 1.1 The Core emar Components To address the challenges outlined above emar will deliver: 1. An e Maritime Strategic Framework (EMSF) providing a coherent view of the way Maritime Transport could operate at a future date (say 2020) exploiting internet based solutions to support the development of an efficient and sustainable waterborne transport system fully integrated throughout Europe. EMSF will address performance imperatives such as quality, flexibility, transparency and innovation in order to meet European economic, social and safety, security and environmental needs; 2. A pilot implementation of the e Maritime Strategic Framework to facilitate its practical evaluation and determination of specific policy, standardisation and future research requirements. The pilot implementation will involve outside organisations, both from the private and public sector. These organisations will use a prototype e Maritime Software platform (based on existing technologies and outputs from on going projects) to: a. produce e Maritime Services to be available to the emar community through an emar Store; b. establish upgraded solutions by combining e Maritime Services with their own existing applications. A cornerstone for the development e Maritime is SSN as recognised by the call required outputs: Support improved information exchange between Administrations and Business (A2B & B2A) through trusted interoperability platforms and protocols (Single Windows), web based services and regulatory compliance reporting systems that will ensure the appropriate information is received only by those that need it, when they need it on a European wide basis utilising SafeSeaNet; Development of tools for generating and making available to transport stakeholders web services from distributed databases at EU and national level, particularly extending the use of SafeSeaNet. The strategic alignment between e Maritime and SSN developments and interconnections with National Single Windows, Class systems and risk management decision support systems will be investigated within the project. 7 of 65 pages

10 1.2 Organisation and Structure of the Report The report focuses on the topics laid down under the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Development and consists of 4 main sections. Chapter 2: Single Window Concept consists of 4 sub sections that give UN/CEFACT (United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business) guidelines for developing single window facility, as well as provide the references of single windows within EU Policy initiatives and regulations. It describes briefly the key features of Single Window with specific focus on SSN. Chapter 3: Best Practices of European Single Windows consists of 7 sub sections that give an overview of the National Single Windows in European countries and report on their experiences in planning and implementing single window systems. Chapter 4: Latvian Maritime Single Window addresses specifically the development and deployment of Single Window System in Latvia. It provides the legal framework, functionality of maritime single window as well as its interoperability with Governmental Authorities. Finally, Summary and Conclusions chapter will summarize the outputs of the task and draw conclusions from the document. The conclusion and recommendations at the end of this report give an insight into the awareness about obstacles that may occur during development of SW and what benefits experience countries having successfully implemented SW systems. 2. Single Window Concept 2.1 United Nations (UN) Guidelines The United Nations defines SW as: A facility that allows parties in trade and transport to lodge standardised information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all imports, export and transit related regulatory requirements. If information is electronic, then individual data elements should only be submitted once. Recommendation 33 details how Single Window facility could be established to allow parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export, and transit related regulatory requirement. Recommendations 34 and 35 deal with a data simplification and standardisation and legal issues related to the implementation of a Single Window at the national level. The new Recommendation 36 is being developed and would cover the mechanism required for the interconnectivity of two or more Single Window facilities. The 8 of 65 pages

11 recommendation would address the need for cross border trade information exchange which requires the exchange of data/information beyond the national Single Window, i.e. across the border. The pillars that make up SW are as follows: Single point of entry for data and information; Reusability of data to avoid repetition in the keying in of data; Interoperability among systems; Standardised data. The establishment of SW stems from the need for closer business collaboration within and between Governments and business enterprises, and between them and different industries such as logistics and transport. SW fosters close relations among e business organisations in a particular country and region. 2.2 Related EU Transport Policies Most notable reference on single windows is in the modernised Customs Code (entered into force on 24 June 2008, the implementing rules must enter into force between 24 June 2009 and 24 June 2013). The Single Window and the One Stop Shop concepts are defined there as follows: In the interests of facilitating business, while at the same time providing for the proper levels of control of goods brought into or out of the customs territory of the Community, it is appropriate that the information provided by economic operators is shared, taking account of the relevant data protection provisions, between customs authorities and with other agencies involved in that control, such as police, border guards, veterinary and environmental authorities, so that the economic operator need give the information only once ('single window') and that the goods are controlled by those authorities at the same time and at the same place ('one stop shop'). The Single Window will allow for the seamless flow of data between economic operators and customs administrations, between customs authorities and the Commission, and between customs administrations and other administrations and agencies, and enabling economic operators to submit all information required for import or export clearance to customs, even if it is required by non customs legislation. Communication and action plan of 21 January 2009 with a view to establishing a European Maritime Transport Space without barriers (COM 92009) 10). In order to simplify the administrative formalities applicable to intra EU maritime transport, the Commission proposes to: simplify customs formalities for vessels transporting goods between EU ports by introducing a presumption that goods on board vessels sailing between EU ports have the customs status of EU goods, through an amendment to the Regulation laying down certain provisions on applying the Community Customs Code; 9 of 65 pages

12 draw up guidelines including best practice from specific ports in order that checks on live animals and animal products arriving at EU points of entry are faster and more efficient whilst safe guarding public health; adopt Directive 2010/65/EU simplifying port reporting formalities. This directive will simplify administrative procedures through the general use of electronic means for the transmission of information and the rationalisation of reporting formalities with forms set up at international level through the International Maritime Organization s Facilitation (IMO FAL) Convention ; simplify administrative procedures for vessels sailing between EU ports, but having a call in a non EU country or a free zone; make electronic data transmission more efficient by creating e maritime systems, as announced by the Commission in its White Paper on Transport Policy. These systems must be compatible with the electronic customs systems ( e Customs ) introduced by Decision 70/2008/EC and will ease administrative and customs procedures in ports. Furthermore, the different networks for sharing information on maritime traffic between EU countries must be integrated at European level; establish national administrative single windows for port formalities by 1 June These systems will be interoperable, accessible and compatible with the SafeSeaNet system; rationalise the regulations applicable to the intermodal transport of dangerous goods, where maritime and land regulations overlap. The Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system Directive 2009/17/EC to guarantee that all Member states will be interconnected via Community maritime information exchange system SafeSeaNet (SSN), in order to obtain a complete overview of the movements of the ships and dangerous or polluting cargos in European waters. In the second meeting (October 2009) of the High Level Steering Group (HLSG) of SafeSeaNet (SSN) that was established in line with the provisions in the Directive 2009/17/EC of 23/4/2009 it is anticipated that in the time frame of will take place (quoted from the agreed by the HLSG road map) a: Progressive introduction and implementation of national legislative and technical measures on the new architecture of SNN to support Member States' operational services. And the Phase in, testing and, by the end of 2016 starting of the implementation of a new SSN as part of the e maritime concept and the integrated maritime surveillance system. Common information sharing environment for EU maritime domain COM(2009)538 final Towards the integration of maritime surveillance; a common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain ( published on ), foresees: (quoted from the text): the vast majority of monitoring and surveillance activities at sea are carried out under the responsibility of Member States. Following the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for coordinating the collection and verification of information from all their agencies, administrations and national operators, preferably via a single national coordination mechanism. Member States will also, where applicable, manage third 10 of 65 pages

13 party access rights, qualify the information and data security levels, and approve and control the selective dissemination and data security mechanisms. According to the same document: The Community system SafeSeaNet should be used by all relevant user communities and be developed further to function as the main platform for information exchange in the EU maritime domain with regard to port arrival and departure notifications, notifications on dangerous goods, maritime security notifications, incident and accident information, AIS (Automatic Identification System), LRIT (Long Range Identification and Tracking) and pollution monitoring 2.3 Key Features of Single Windows According to the UN/CEFACT Recommendation, a Single Window facility should allow: Parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export, and transit related regulatory requirements. If information is electronic, then individual data elements should only be submitted once. The sharing of all information in respect of international trade transactions, which is supported by a legal framework that provides privacy and security in the exchange of information. The addition of facilities to provide trade related government information and receive payment of duties and other charges. Such a single entry point to disseminate, or provide access to, the relevant information to participating governmental authorities or authorised agencies Coordination of the controls and inspections of the various governmental authorities A SW primarily addresses the need for efficient and collaborative electronic transactions between governmental and business entities; however the co coordinating SW authority and the core functionality may differ, thus there are typically a customs centric, import and export oriented approach, a port and ship oriented (maritime focus), and a safety and security centric approach. In both cases pertinent SW service design aspects include the SW owner ship model (public, private or public private partner ship PPP), and the SW cost model (e.g., free use, membership or transaction fee). The organizational level of the SW competent authority, e.g., international, national, regional, or local is an important differentiating factor, as well. Often, vested interests and policy choices dictate the dominance of one model implementation over the other. Secondly, the idea of a Single Window at the national level has challenged the conventional compartmentalized approach to regulatory control of the movement of goods. For example Recommendation 33 states that a Single Window should represent a close cooperation between all involved governmental authorities and agencies, and the trading community. However, it is a challenge to involve all the relevant governmental authorities and agencies as well as the trading community. Many different government departments and agencies hold legislative powers and control and manage various levels of regulation e.g. health, plant and animal quarantine, sanitary and phyto sanitary, food and drug safety, and 11 of 65 pages

14 defence. Agencies other than Customs that are involved in the regulation of cross border trade are termed Other Government Agencies (OGAs). There are often between 20 and 40 of these involved, but the number varies among countries. Single Window implementation on a countrywide scale is an extremely complex and costly undertaking. Creating a national Single Window requires tremendous efforts, cost, changes of mind set and more importantly, strong political will. Therefore, most governments choose an incremental step by step rather than a big bang approach to their Single Window projects. Some start with a limited form of the Single Window, for example to cover either a specific procedure such as export declarations or a specific area such as the port Port Single Window or Port Community System while others focus on exports only. Each country is unique, depending on their readiness and priorities, countries have implemented very different forms of SW, ranging from integrated Customs solutions to sophisticated PCS. Single window systems aim to simplify border formalities for traders and other economic operators by arranging for a single electronic submission of information to fulfill all cross border regulatory requirements, and it is thus preeminently a tool for trade facilitation. The Research Paper No.17 A Survey of Single Window Implementation, summarizes the results of a WCO (World Customs Organization) survey and offers an overview of Customs cargo clearance systems that are the basis for a single window environment to outline the implementation of single window in its practical and operational dimensions; to shed light on technical tools for data harmonization such as the WCO Data Model as well as security frameworks (as an enabler of information exchange between border agencies); and to present challenges in developing and advancing a single window system. One of the core findings is that Customs administrations worldwide generally operate automated cargo clearance systems, enabling economic operators electronic reporting and lodgment of Customs declarations. The survey also confirmed that Customs administrations generally take the initiative in providing single window service either alone or in collaboration with other government agencies, most notably, using government finance. According to the World Bank s Trading Across Borders 2012 report, out of 150 economies surveyed, 49 have introduced a Single Window, of which only 20 have a Single Window system that links all relevant government agencies. The remaining 29 have a Single Window that hasn t yet linked the government agencies. World Bank Trading Across Border Report 2013 shows that already 71 Economies have SW. There is no universal single window model to copy that guarantees success: each country will find its own route to the most appropriate national solution. Also, the report of the Regional Training Workshop on Requirements for the Establishment of Single Windows for Handling Export/Import Procedures and Formalities in the ESCWA Region, pointed out that there is no such thing, yet, as best practice single windows. There is a range of more mature and experienced single window examples as well as examples of non performing single windows. 12 of 65 pages

15 2.4 Single Windows for the Maritime Community/ SSN Core Component From the e Maritime perspective a Single Window system must achieve the following functions to accomplish the increase of the competitiveness of maritime transport: Simplifying administrative procedures for co modality, providing interoperability between this Single Windows platforms and regulatory compliance reporting systems; Improving the utilization of maritime transport resources by supporting maritime transport stakeholders to establish and manage competitive business networks; Supporting improved efficiency of shipping services (cost/ton km) and enhancing the attractiveness of short sea shipping for efficient door to door supply chains (improved service reliability, environmental impact and ease of use); Supporting the development of European Ports as key logistics hubs these systems; Developing a competitive technology supplier industry in this field, There are two basic systems, PSW and PCS, but their names, running, functions, procedures achieved etc., depends on the port that uses these systems. Likewise each port gives a different name to their system so the PSW is called National Single Window or Single Point of Contact, depending on the port, but in essence, it is the same system. - Port Single Window (PSW): System which provides local level information about the vessel to the authorities on a port level, that has B2G (Business to Government) character. Examples of Port Single Windows include: Finland s PortNet System, which was first developed in 1993, and is owned by Finland Customs, the Finnish Maritime Administration and 20 of the largest ports in Finland. France s e Maritime Port Single Window, which is a public private partnership between Le Havre Port Authority, the French Customs, and SOGET. - Port Community System (PCS): A tool to exchange messages in port environment, having a commercial and logistic nature that has B2B (business to business) character. It can be characterized as a centrally operated system for transferring data and providing other services with the help of this data, which can be used by any party who is interested in information concerning sea borne transport. A Port Community System avoids bilateral data transfer. Europe has a long history of Port Community Systems, in particular Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Spain. These systems have been established in many European ports and airports since the 1960s. Only a general definition can be given to port electronic data system, such as an entity delivering information to supply chains operating in the port, but that definition could be given to both systems. The main difference between both systems is that some ports use PCS for commercial/merchant transactions and the PSW for administrative transactions, but other ports use both system indistinctly for commercial and administrative transactions. A review of the study of existing PCS and PSW systems conducted in SKEMA E Maritime Study is given in Annex I. 13 of 65 pages

16 Initially, Port Single Windows were implemented to facilitate Port State Control reporting and to provide a national maritime traffic database. More recently, National Single Window (NSW) implementations provide a single national interface for mandatory reporting by ships in European waters in compliance with the "VTM (Vessel Traffic Management) Directive". These National SSN applications are regarded as a kind of maritime National Single Window. Safe SeaNet is based on internet technologies and allows the relay and exchange of information related to vessel traffic monitoring, dangerous cargo details, vessels prearrival/arrival and departure notifications, information related to incidents etc. SafeSeaNet current architecture involves a number of systems that are operated by competent Authorities at national, regional and local level. Finland is a pioneer in the deployment of this kind of national infrastructure implementing the Single Window concept: the Finnish system PortNet has been operational since PortNet provides direct input to SSN without involving any other actors. The system receives 40,000 port call notices and 70,000 cargo notices annually. All countries in EU and Associated countries are connected to the central SSN system that is under the responsibility of the European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA. Development pathways of NSWs for maritime transport differ from country to country but invariably are linked to Port Single Windows which in turn are increasingly linked with Port Community Systems (PCSs). The following two electronic submission scenarios are currently used: 1. Ship formalities information is submitted to Port Community Systems from which the information is passed to a National Port Authority for authorising entry or exit. The information is then passed to a National maritime application from which the SSN notifications are handled; the PCS also handles intercommunications for Customs clearance; 2. Ship formalities information is submitted to a National Maritime Single Window or National SSN application acting as a Single Window for communications to both SSN and Customs. While the landscape in Europe is characterized by a network of existing Port Community Systems and Customs Single Windows, the challenge for Europe is to build upon these longestablished existing systems and turn them into the fuller national Single Windows that correspond to the single entry point criteria. This means that they should cover all government agencies and fulfil all import, export, and transit related regulatory requirements. 14 of 65 pages

17 3. Survey of European Maritime Single Windows This chapter gives an overview of the National Single Windows in European countries that have provided their studies about the establishment of Single Window system to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and is available in the UNECE Repository of Single Window implementations. The data given on the experiences in planning and implementing Single Window systems is picked up from these studies ( ), supplemented with the information gained from our experts that have visited several European ports working within SKEMA and efreight projects and demonstrate the evolution of different national approaches, SSN, e Customs and Single Window developments, as well as on going research project outputs. Annex II shows the consolidated information on Single Windows Systems employed in countries mentioned below. 3.1 Belgium One of the world s largest and busiest maritime shipping facilities, the Port of Antwerp is a major international gateway for cargoes moving to and from Belgium and other European Union countries. Seagha is the electronic commerce service organization operated by the Port of Antwerp serving direct importers and exporters, transportation, forwarding and logistics organizations in Belgium and the European Union. Seagha provides network management and clearinghouse services for electronic data interchange of shipment messages, customs and trade declarations and notifications, as well as Internet connectivity, software applications, and B2B implementations supporting the port community system. On 18th October 2007, Porthus, a leading On Demand IT solutions provider reached agreement to acquire the Seagha activities with respect to electronic data transmission. As a result of this acquisition, Porthus covers over 80 % of all electronic customs declarations currently submitted in Belgium and gains an installed base of nearly 500 customers, mainly large international organizations shipping agents, forwarders, terminal operators and logistic companies whereas the majority of customers can be found in retail, telecoms and media. Seagha offers customers a single point of entry to access multiple electronic communications and global value added network. Companies that are electronically linked to Seagha, through Seagha Bridge or Seagha Connect, are able to use Seagha services, such as EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) communication between the various parties in the complete business flow, software packages for the declaration of dangerous goods, boarding clerk messages, electronic bill of lading and also Sadbel (System for automatic decustomization in Belgium and Luxembourg), NCTS (New Computerized Transit System) and PLDA (Paperless Customs and Excise) customs messages. To avoid confusion between operational activities transferred to Porthus and new strategic ICT (Information and Communication Technology) policy activities of Alfaport Antwerp, it was decided that Seagha should change its name to Port I Com. 15 of 65 pages

18 3.2 Finland At the beginning of the 1990s freighters, transporters had seven different forms to fill in, on arrival of a ship into a Finnish port % of the content was the same, only the layout was incompatible. The content was rather basic, containing information on identification, expected time of arrival (ETA) or expected time of departure (ETD), cargo and dangerous goods details on a statistical level. Thus there was a lot of work done which was felt to be largely unnecessary and expensive. The first task was to try to convince the different authorities that reform was urgently needed and to realize one common paper form. The process started in 1991, but the first electronic system was set up in The present PortNet system is running since 2000, which replaced the old mainframe based system. PortNet is a national maritime traffic database, not a port community system (operating within one port only). The user logs on to the system using the given user name and password and may provide the information using an Internet browser (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.) or file transfer (XML (Extensible Markup Language) or UN/EDIFACT) using dedicated data communication. Portnet has hundreds of daily users and there are thousands of user accounts. Users are divided into following user groups: Data providers, which are mainly ship agents or ship managers. There are about 300 registered ship agencies in Finland; Data managers, Finnish customs reviews all information that is provided to Portnet as part of the integrated customs declaration process; On daily basis there are about 110 port calls in Finland. This makes annually approximately port calls; Data utilizers, Port authorities receive port call related data as XML messages; Forwarder agents retrieve Portnet reference numbers and ship id information for customs clearance purposes; Coastal stations are supplementing their maritime situation picture (MSP) by information that is retrieved from Portnet via message based interface; Transport security agency maintains SHIP database for Portnet that contains information of vessels plus a distinct Ice class register. The access is restricted by the user management system into user profiles. Agents only have access to their own data, port authorities have access only to data within their own port, and governmental authorities have access to all information. PortNet system is maintained and developed by Finnish Transport Agency in collaboration with Finnish Customs. Finnish Transport Agency is acting as system operator in technical issues and Finnish Customs as helpdesk for Single Window users. The ports in Finland are receiving their port call information via XML interface Ship brokers and ship managers are obliged to send either by using Portnet User Web Interface (UWI) or message based 16 of 65 pages

19 interface (XML/EDI) all port call related notifications regarding vessels in foreign trade according to Directive 2002/6/ > to be replaced by Directive 2010/65/EC by June It has already been stated that all the players in the port environment are involved in using the system. Since 2007 the PortNet system is financed by the Maritime Administration and the Customs Office. Due to the added emphasis on security and the ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) code, the system is now state owned. No user charges have been charged at any time and there are no plans to change this. PortNet is connected to a portal, where information on important issues is promulgated. Information on more long term issues and trends are promulgated at an annual user conference. The greatest obstacle has been establishing the co operation between authorities and real commitment. There are major barriers between these authorities that have to be pulled down: some of the authorities are not used to/do not like to share information with other authorities. There are also matters of authority (who will take the lead?), how will financing be shared and what about federal borders? The authorities may also be located under different ministries. Often there seems to be no one responsible for an application covering this large an area of jurisdiction. Benefits. In the old times agents submitted separate paper documents to all the authorities either by fax or by hand. There is a documented case where the number of annual faxes was reduced from 50,000 to 365. The old regime did not encourage agents to correct mistakes by sending new faxes or manual documents. It just wasn t done. The data about the ship had to be accurate even if the agent did not have the information. So, the agents invented what they did not know. For line vessels there is the obvious benefit of copying the old notice into a new notice just modifying the changed parts. Ports may and frequently do import PortNet information into their invoicing systems for automatic invoicing. The Customs earlier stored enormous amounts of notices and even distributed copies of the notices within the Customs organisation. That is all gone now, nothing is stored on paper. The existence largely governs the way the Customs work. It is used as a daily task list. The new regime has also affected the data quality in a very positive way. Customs also may import PortNet information into their invoicing systems for automatic invoicing. The reduction of work phases has a profound effect on both cost and accuracy. Revenues are improved, as the invoice cycle is faster. The key success factor is the co operation between the parties that are responsible for the maritime safety, maritime security, cargo logistics and environmental issues. In particular it has to be stressed that a system that works well is just a minor enabling factor. PortNet system target towards a National Single Window is along with implementing Directive 2010/65/EC, renew the NSW system to become an integral part of the future National Maritime Traffic Management and Information System in Finland. Main goal towards an enhanced national single window (NSW) is to integrate all port call related information into just one single window interface. To achieve this goal Finnish Maritime Agency need to collaborate with all maritime stakeholders in public and private sector that are dealing with this information. 17 of 65 pages

20 NSW system in Finland should comprise at least the following ICT systems: Portnet; AREX (Customs general declaration system for cargo); Port Community/Data Systems); National SHIP database (incl. Ice class register) maintained by Finnish Transport Safety Agency ; Lloyd s register (regular updates); VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) system; Ibnet system; EU/EMSA: SafeSeaNet, LRIT, Thetis, CleanSeaNet. NSW concept requires also single point of contact (both physical and operational) Finnish Customs has concentrated all ship declaration related activities to Electronic Service Center in Turku (SPAKE/MEKE); If a ship is in regular traffic between EU member states it can apply for a certificate for regular route traffic. This certificate relieves the ship from providing the following information to Finnish customs in connection to ships calling at Finnish ports: entry summary declaration; proof of community status; permit to unload. In 2015 also all IMO/FAL forms plus cargo declarations that are entered into customs AREXsystem should be integrated to this SW system resolved in Finland as Portnet. Future challenges: Challenges that arise from implementation of new Directive on reporting formalities 2010/65: Portnet is compiling all the basic information that is presented in IMO/FAL form 1 General notification and Pre arrival security notification as 24 h advanced port call notification; Portnet is using as cargo declaration customs Entry summary declaration ; Portnet is collecting DG (Dangerous Goods) cargo declaration as presented in Directive 2002/59/EC; Finnish customs is collecting electronically information on the IMO/FAL forms onboard the ship and when needed, in pdf format; o Ships trading in regular schedule based traffic within the Community, do not have to report their cargo manifest to Customs AREX system but their cargo is reported on aggregate level to Portnet; Ships trading in non EU ports and in non scheduled based traffic are obliged to report their cargo manifest in imports to Customs AREX system within SafeSeaNet and EUROSTAT context; Finnish customs is collecting fairway dues by Portnet system: there needs to be a data connection link between Portnet and Finnish transport safety agency s Ship register plus Ice class register; there needs to be a communication link to customs taxation system. 18 of 65 pages

21 3.3 Germany The Port of Hamburg is a "paperless port". All companies and authorities involved in the export, import and transit processes can handle their transport processes rapidly and with electronic assistance by using the B2B services and applications of DAKOSY. The export relevant transport and (transit) processes have been supported for many years by the communication services of DAKOSY, which were summarized under the term "EMP Export Message Platform". All documents that are necessary for the transport handling (e.g. transport orders, customs applications, hazardous goods notifications and other official documents, harbour orders, bills of lading, manifests, delivery notifications through to status information for everyone involved), are transferred in internationally standardized message formats. In April 2010, the last loophole in the import relevant communication processes was closed after the launch of the "IMP Import Message Platform". The IMP supports the individual sector requirements of the carriers, terminals, haulage and transport companies and all relevant authorities, while optimizing the overall process from the ship's entry to the Port of Hamburg through to delivery of the goods at the customer in the hinterland. The Port Community System DAKOSY can look back on a long history. Already 27 years ago, on July 1, 1983, a harbour order (known as a "ship's note" at the time) was sent electronically for the very first time from a haulage company via the DAKOSY data centre to the Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG (HHLA). The launch of "Dakosy" caused a quiet revolution in maritime and logistic business transactions. The shareholders of Dakosy, who are also the main user groups of the services (1/3 each of the shares belong to the Hamburg haulage companies, line agents/ship owners and transhipment terminals) continuously promoted the development of the Port Community System. Over the course of the years, the number of participants involved and B2B services offered has grown along with the rapid technological development. Today DAKOSY is the "single window" of the Port of Hamburg. All logistics companies and authorities involved in the export and import processes communicate their business data via the data centre. Its more than 2000 customers include haulage companies, line agents/ship owners, rail transport companies, trucking companies and feeders as well as all involved authorities (customs, harbour police, fire service etc.) along with internationally prestigious trade firms, branded companies and industrial enterprises. The International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) recently put 13 port communication systems to the test in a wide ranging analysis. Among these was Hamburg s DAKOSY Datenkommunikationssystem AG. The findings were summarized in the Port Community Systems Benchmark Survey. For a considerable time the quality of parallel IT service provision has been regarded as being of the same significance as cargo handling itself or hinterland connections. In addition to such basic criteria as the length of time in operation and hence experience of system suppliers, a whole series of additional points were considered in the survey. These included corporate structure, annual revenue, type of use (whether optional or obligatory for port customers), production cost of the core application, or number of companies integrated. All operators in the Port of Hamburg benefit: In addition, DAKOSY won credit for the number of smaller firms that have been able to connect with the platforms made available. None of the other port communications systems covered in the survey possess such a large, 19 of 65 pages

22 additional range of software catering for forwarding and Customs. Hamburg is also up among the leaders for the integration and tracking of hinterland services. Apart from the Hanseatic port, only Marseilles and Barcelona offer this facility. 3.4 Lithuania Klaipėda port has integrated, tested and is completing preparatory works for launching the Freight and Goods Information System (hereinafter referred to as KIPIS). KIPIS is designed for transferring and processing information on freight movement via the port of Klaipeda. At the moment, required amendments to legislation are being made that will constitute official legal preconditions for using this system. On April 15, 2005 the State Enterprise Klaipeda State Seaport Authority in conjunction with Information Society Development Committee under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Public Enterprise Central Project Management Agency under the Ministry of Finance entered into an agreement on assistance for the project Development and Implementation of Information System for Freights and Goods Transported through the Port of Klaipeda (KIPIS). This was the first assistance agreement under the EU Structural Funds signed in the area of electronic services development in the country. The purpose of the Project is to develop and implement a freight and goods movement information system, which would enable companies and agencies operating within the port to share electronic data while conducting freight transportation via the port. Essentially, the aim is to replace huge amounts of paperwork related to freight processing and handling and to streamline freight transportation. It is expected that KIPIS will strongly accelerate freight movement via the seaport of Klaipeda and enhance its attractiveness and competitiveness. The momentum for the KIPIS Project was given by the agreement signed in November 2003 by the Port Authority, the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, the Lithuanian Shipbrokers and Agents Association and the Association of Lithuanian Stevedoring Companies. This agreement envisaged that the integrated port information system would be implemented by the Port Authority at its own expense, while the parties of the agreement would provide consulting and assistance in developing and engineering the technical requirements and standards; agreement members would also participate in working groups under the Project. 11% of the cost of KIPIS implementation is funded by the Klaipeda State Seaport Authority and 89% by the European Regional Development Fund. The total budget of the Project amounts to 5,670,000 Litas. Functions of KIPIS Striving to comply with the requirements of the port companies, the concept of KIPIS was developed in close cooperation with the companies and associations operating in the port and the state authorities responsible for inspecting freight and ships. The system will be available for a wide range of users, including freight forwarding and shipping companies, stevedoring companies, AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai (public limited company Lithuanian Railways), the Lithuanian Customs Department, the Border and Transport State Veterinary Service, the State Plant Protection Service, Klaipeda Public Health Centre, and the Border Guard units of the State Border Guard Department. The freight and goods information system will be included in the integrated port information system. SIS 20 of 65 pages

23 (Ship Information System) and APVTKS (port gate technical control system for vehicles and pedestrians) are already in operation at the port. Furthermore, KIPIS will be integrated with the customs information systems. The system KROVINYS (CARGO) used in the Lithuanian Railways Company will also have interface ensuring efficient sharing and exchange of data with the KIPIS system. The main functions of KIPIS include a) provision of information required by customs and other state authorities via internet connection; b) data exchange amongst the system users to conduct procedures such as temporary storage of goods, import, export and transit, or any other customs formalities; c) electronic data exchange with the stevedoring companies for the purpose of placing and executing orders for handling operations. The use of information and communication technologies will provide for the means to facilitate, improve, and accelerate the process of freight traffic moving through the port. The system will be able to operate on a par in Lithuanian, English and Russian. Multi layer Internet architecture will be used to create the system. The software layer will be created by applying the open standard technology J2EE (Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition), and the user interface modules will be based on HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) format. KIPIS operation will be based on Workflow Technology. To identify data and users an electronic digital signature subsystem will be implemented. Use of the system will ensure a single window principle in the seaport of Klaipeda. Businessmen will be able to simultaneously produce all the information and documents required for the procedures of import, export and transit of goods to all the authorities involved in verification and inspection, while the state authorities responsible for verification and inspection will be able to manage the risks in an integrated manner. The institution in charge of coordination inspections will inform about the decision by means of KIPIS. Following evaluation of the procedures of other countries and the amount of information and documents received by the customs service, the decision was made to appoint the customs department as the authority responsible for coordinating inspections and verifications in the system. Another innovation is that the customs department (instead of a variety of permits issued for different types of handling operations) will inform about any restrictions, thereby streamlining and speeding up the freight transportation process via the port. Benefit of KIPIS The project is primarily focused on economic and social benefits instead of financial ones. The KIPIS system will accelerate exchange of data and information between various participants in the logistics chain, and will provide for the conditions to enhance the competitive capacity of the port of Klaipeda. The Port Authority will obtain statistical information, which it is obliged to provide to the Statistical Office of the European Commission (EUROSTAT) pursuant to the European Council Directive 95/64/EC on statistical returns in respect to carrying goods and passengers by sea. KIPIS will also generate other reports and accounts needed for the Port Authority to make decisions related to strategic port management. The system s benefits for the port companies will consist of facilitation and acceleration of freight/goods movement through the port by way of exchanging electronic data. The system will eliminate about 30 various paper documents going between the ship agency, forwarding, stevedoring companies, customs offices and other state authorities controlling freight and goods traffic. This paperwork includes a variety of permits to import, export, handle and reload goods, handling operations reports, quality certificates and so 21 of 65 pages

24 on. Forwarders, agents, and stevedoring companies will be able to submit and receive electronic documents through a single access point to each other and to the state authorities and institutions without wasting time like the old method. KIPIS will allow the customs services and other inspection authorities both to receive preliminary information and documents for risk assessment and operative, real time and statistical information on the freights and goods at the port. The features provided by the system will help control the port operations in a simpler and easier manner and render better quality public service. 3.5 The Netherlands Dutch government and business (shippers, consignees and logistic service providers) are keen to develop and implement a Single Window solution for all procedures, comprising data sharing between (1) government authorities in different countries and (2) companies and government authorities in the Netherlands. Each authority gradually automated its processes, also depending on international developments and legislation, which led to a different start for IT implementation at a different pace for those authorities. Integration over authorities as required for a Single Window requires that the maturity level of all organizations involved needs to be similar. Maturity is not only IT maturity, but also involves strategy, organization, processes, personnel and finance. Dutch Customs was the first to automate electronic procedures for goods flows. Initial development started in the late 1980s until the beginning of this century. Furthermore, they perform certain tasks on behalf of other authorities, e.g. visual inspections of containers. Later on, other authorities like the Port Authority, veterinarian and phyto sanitarian inspections decided to automate their processes and the communication with business. Internationally, Port Authorities came to an agreement for dangerous goods declarations (PROTECT project). The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture has now the Client IT s incoming system operational for veterinarian and phyto sanitarian declarations, including international data exchange regarding the Certificate of Origin on a bilateral basis. Data harmonization of the Client system and the customs system for outgoing cargo has taken place, which means that common terminology and data formats are in use. There have been various efforts to develop a SW. One of the first has been the Electronic Government Office (ELO: Electronisch Loket Overheid) for the development of one point of contact of business with government authorities (late 1990s). The project was driven from business and coordinated with research, but lacked sponsors within the government. The second project, sponsored by the CEO of Dutch Customs for the Rotterdam port and various port authorities, Electronic Government File (EDO: Electronisch Dossier Overheid, ) also lacked sufficient support of sponsoring within the responsible departments. In parallel with EDO, the Rotterdam Port Authority initiated the development of a port system that is currently implemented by the major Dutch ports (Portbase). At the same time, The Dutch Government installed one point for communicating with government authorities (OTP, now called Digipoort), which is used by all relevant authorities. The Schiphol airport has another community system, Cargonaut, which is also used for data sharing between business and customs. Both the main ports, Rotterdam and Amsterdam use Portbase. Portbase was created by the merger between Rotterdam Port infolink and Amsterdam PortNet. The new organisation was set up in of 65 pages

25 by the Port of Rotterdam authority and port of Amsterdam and enjoys wide support among the port business community. Using the Portbase port transcending Port Community System, companies can benefit from a multitude of intelligent services for simple and efficient information exchange, both between companies and between the public and private sector. Portbase belongs to and serves the community and is non profit organisation. It forms a neutral hub between port related companies and government authorities and brings together port knowledge and ICT know how. A port is no longer only judged by its (cost) efficient port operations but also by - Easy to do business with; - One stop shop, one single window, enhanced by superb IT applications. The Netherlands have taken an evolutionary approach to the development and implementation of Single Window. Business documents are still required by certain government authorities, but it is the objective to replace them with electronic data sharing, which can only be done when reaching global agreement. Furthermore, the Single Window efforts have been and are affected by the EU, in particular through the legal framework set at the EC level regarding procedures and requirements for the systems. The Dutch Single Window developments are currently being driven by business requirements, both of the economic operators and the government. Both share the objective for improving logistic flows by coordinating inspections and reduction of administrative burden by sharing data between all stakeholders in logistic chains. Furthermore, the government authorities are driven by internal cost reduction to share data and coordinate processes. The Port Community System currently consists of 37 different services, which are used by about users to send approximately 50 million electronic messages a year (Table 1). Below you will find an overview of all the services that are currently available. The diagrams on the back show the subdivision of the services according to target groups and market segments. All PortBase services from A to Z Barge planning Service for the pre announcement of inland barges and cargo to sea terminals. Cargo declaration export EDI Service for shipping companies/shipbrokers to submit exit manifests (ECS (Export Control System) obligation). Cargo declaration export Internet Service for the bulk and general cargo sectors that allows clients to efficiently submit exit manifests (ECS obligation). Cargo declaration import EDI Service for submitting brief cargo declarations to Customs via the client s own in house computer system. Cargo declaration import Internet Service for submitting summary cargo declarations to Customs over the Internet. Cargo declaration status report Service that offers timely insight into summary cargo declarations for which no (correct) follow up declarations have yet been submitted. Cargo information Service for easily consulting the cargo information of containers on board an incoming 23 of 65 pages

26 vessel. Customs scan process Service that optimizes logistics around Customs inspections. Discharge confirmation report Service that allows quick access to an overview of any discrepancies between preannounced containers and containers that were actually discharged. Discharge information Service for all the necessary data exchange surrounding a bulk carrier that is yet to be discharged. Discharge list Service for easily submitting discharge lists to sea terminals. Discrepancy list Service which allows Customs to see the actual number of containers discharged from a sea going vessel (shortlanded and overlanded) for each shipping company/shipbroker. ECS notification Service with which exporters/forwarders can submit five basic items of information about their cargo in compliance with Customs Export Control System. IMA (International Maritime Association) notification EDI Service which offers a company to send IMA numbers to the terminal quickly and correctly. Loading list Service for easily submitting loading lists to sea terminals. MRN (Movement Reference Number) notification EDI Service for sending and receiving MRNs using the client s own in house computer system. Vessel notification Service for dealing with the entire procedure for first notification to Harbour Master. Declaration Food & Consumer products EDI Service for submitting CVEDs (Common Veterinary Entry Document) to the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority via the client s own in house computer system. MRN notification Internet Service for sending and receiving Movement Reference Numbers (MRNs) over the Internet. Notification dangerous goods Service for reporting dangerous substances on board an incoming vessel to the Harbour Master. Notification local clearance Service used by forwarders and bonded warehouse holders to easily inform Customs which goods coming in from overseas are to be placed in bonded warehouses. Notification of arrival ECS containers Service for container terminals to send arrivals at exit to Customs (ECS obligation). Notification of arrival ECS cargo Service for bulk and general cargo that facilitates sending arrivals at exit to Customs (ECS obligation). Notification waste disposal Service for reporting waste on board a sea going vessel to the Harbour Master. Pre arrival cargo declaration import (4h) Service for shipping companies, forwarders and agents in the feeder, shortsea, bulk and general cargo sectors to submit Entry Summary Declarations (ICS obligation). Pre arrival cargo declaration import (24h) Service for deep sea container shipping companies to submit Entry Summary 24 of 65 pages

27 Declarations (ICS (Import Control System) obligation). Rail planning Service for the pre announcement of rail cargo to rail terminals in the port. Road planning EDI Service for clients to pre announce containers to sea terminals and empty depots using their own in house computer system. Road planning Internet Service for pre announcing containers to sea terminals and empty depots over the Internet. Statement harbour dues Service for providing the Port of Rotterdam Authority with statements of harbour dues. Track & trace ECS Service which allows the user to track export containers online: from the moment they arrive at the terminal to their departure on board a vessel. Transit declaration Service for electronically providing Customs with transit declarations (link up with NCTS). Transport order Service for the uniform handling of transport orders. User management Service which allows a company to keep all the user administration related to participation in the Port Community System up to date itself. Declaration Food & Consumer products Internet Service for submitting CVEDs to the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority over the Internet. Veterinary inspection process Service for optimally planning appointments for inspections with inspection stations in the port. Table 1 PortBase services 25 of 65 pages

28 Technical details of each service are available on Portbase Homepage at: Norway Ships entering Norwegian waters and ports are required to report arrival and departure information to several national governmental agencies. The execution of these reporting requirements is time consuming both for mariners as well as for shore based personnel. In 2002, a Community wide vessel traffic monitoring and information system called SafeSeaNet (SSN) was established in Europe through the European Union. The Norwegian Government appointed the Norwegian Coastal Administration to coordinate the development and implementation of the national component of this EU wide system. Accordingly, the SafeSeaNet Norway ship reporting system was established in The establishment of SafeSeaNet Norway as a national ship reporting system was the first step towards simplifying reporting and information flow between ships and shore based facilities in Norway. 26 of 65 pages

29 The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has described "single window" as "a system that allows traders to lodge information with a single body to fulfil all import or export related regulatory requirements" (ECE/TRADE/324). The development of SafeSeaNet Norway has been implemented as closely as possible to the above mentioned definition. However, current implementation emphasizes regulatory reporting requirements (Electronic Port Clearance2) more than fulfilling information requirements related to international trade. Arrival, departure and HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials and Goods) reporting requirements are applicable to all SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) ships (passenger ships and cargo ships of 300 GT (Gross Tonnage) and upwards) entering Norwegian territorial waters with the intention of crossing the Norwegian baseline or entering a Norwegian port. Currently the system handles on average over 7,000 ship reports every month. SafeSeaNet Norway enables Norwegian governmental agencies to receive, store, retrieve and exchange information reported by SOLAS Convention ships in national waters. In broader terms the system contributes to maritime safety as well as port security and logistics. Since the establishment of SafeSeaNet Norway, a process of replacing traditional, nonelectronic national reporting schemes, such as those related to customs, border control and port State control, has been initiated in order to make ship reporting more seamless and smooth for all stakeholders involved. The inclusion of notifications relating to customs and border control also requires non SOLAS ships to report through SafeSeaNet Norway. Figure 1 EU data exchange Figure 1 illustrates the information flow between ship and port via SafeSeaNet Norway and the information distribution to other Norwegian governmental agencies. There is international consensus that there is a need to set up national maritime single windows, taking into account and building upon existing standards. The development of 27 of 65 pages

30 SafeSeaNet Norway takes into account the European Union's efforts to progress and align development of single windows within European Union countries, including the exchange of reported data between countries. These efforts are primarily concerned with the Electronic Port Clearance (EPC) of the ship as a transport means, and less with the trade and cargorelated issues. Norway views single window systems as future components of the IMO e navigation concept. Thus the development of SafeSeaNet Norway will take into account the IMO e navigation process. The involvement of governmental agencies Since the national reporting system was established, NCA (National Competent Authority) has continuously encouraged other governmental agencies to participate in the NSW, and to implement their reporting requirements using SafeSeaNet Norway. Through SafeSeaNet Norway, information reported by ships is distributed to the relevant governmental agencies according to their mandatory reporting requirements. Mandatory pre arrival declarations to Norwegian Customs were launched in SafeSeaNet Norway in January Prior to the transition, Norwegian Customs annually received and processed approximately 180,000 paper based pre arrival declarations. The integration of electronic reporting into SafeSeaNet Norway eases the administrative burden for Norwegian Customs personnel, mariners and agents. Electronic notifications also provide Norwegian Customs with relevant vessel information at an earlier stage, giving the agency more time to organize and plan operations in Norwegian waters. An example of the reporting interface is shown below in Figure 2. This shows the interface for the collection of customs declarations where the users have an option to upload a prepared file containing crew information or enter the same information manually. Figure 2 Interface for customs declarations collection 28 of 65 pages

31 In January 2011, NCA and the Norwegian Maritime Directorate launched electronic port State control (PSC) pre arrival notifications in SafeSeaNet Norway. Inclusion of PSC notifications represents another step towards more efficient ship reporting and information flow between ships and shore based facilities. SafeSeaNet Norway further development At present, NCA cooperates with the Norwegian Police Directorate to include border control reporting requirements, containing crew and passenger information, in SafeSeaNet Norway. Also, in cooperation with Norwegian Defence Forces, NCA is now finalizing the implementation in SafeSeaNet Norway of ship reporting requirements prior to entry into Norwegian waters. SafeSeaNet Norway is now being utilized beyond its original intended purpose because of its ability to receive, store, retrieve and exchange information. This is exemplified by the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency, which currently uses derived information to monitor for the potential illegal transport of hazardous waste in 160 port terminals. Also, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority and the Norwegian Coast Guard are utilizing SafeSeaNet Norway for accident prevention and maritime safety and security within the Norwegian waters. Statistical functions have been established to meet both national and international needs and demands for specific types of information. Experience during the past few years indicates that SafeSeaNet Norway has become an important information platform for several governmental agencies by removing paperwork, simplifying information flow and reducing the need for telephone and facsimile exchanges. Norway intends to continue developing SafeSeaNet Norway until all maritime ship reporting required by all relevant Norwegian agencies is fully consolidated and electronic. The development will be based on the needs of on board and onshore users as well as mandatory reporting requirements. 3.7 Spain Portel was incorporated in 1995, with capital from the State Ports Public Body (51%) and from Telefónica (49%) to serve the Maritime and Port Community, driving new initiatives necessary to be undertaken by emergent businesses in a continuously changing environment. To facilitate the exchange of information among all the agents involved in a transportation operation, Portel has its own BSB (Base System Builder) service Platform called Portel SCE (e Portel Services) and has signed cooperation agreements with customs offices, Port and Airport Authorities to implement the "single administrative window" for document reception. However, and due to the needs and requirements of other stakeholders within the transportation and logistics chain, the company is today also present in the areas of air and overland transport, warehousing and distribution. More than 800 companies use the Portel SCE platform with more than 10 million transactions. Below are some of the types of transactional lists provided by the Portel SCE services: 29 of 65 pages

32 Loading and Unloading Maritime/Air Manifests; SAD (Single Administrative Document) Customs Declarations Sea/Air/Land; Reception of Goods in Transit and Changes of Location; Hazardous Materials Notification; Para customs Inspection Request; Boarding instructions (rail and road); Boarding instructions (sea); Bayplan; Special treatments; Message sending/reception facilities; Stopover and Berthing/Docking Request and sanctions a year. Portel can be found in Madrid, Algeciras, Barcelona, Gijón, the Canary Islands, and through two participated companies in Vigo (Portel Eixo Atlántico) and Tangiers. Portel also participates in Infoport Valencia and Serviport Andalucía S.A. Valencia Port Authority has set up a system which could cover all the documentary flows arising between the members of the Port Community in export, import and transhipment cycles. This system is known by the name of Community Information System (S.I.C in Spanish). INFOPORT was created in 1998 by the Valencia Port Community, to act as a tool in electronic information exchanges on logistics, through the Port of Valencia, and to facilitate the use of new information technologies. 4. Latvian Maritime Single Window 4.1 Legislation Latvian National SafeSeaNet system was developed as a Maritime Single Window system for the exchange of information between vessels and responsible Authorities. The Legal basis of the Latvian National SafeSeaNet system is: Maritime Administration and Marine Safety Law; Regulation No. 857 of Cabinet of Ministers adopted 04/08/2009 Procedures for Ensuring Operation of Communications Networks within the Scope of the Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Data Exchange System ; Regulation No. 339 of Cabinet of Ministers adopted 15/05/2012 Regulations of Port Formalities ; Regulation No of Cabinet of Ministers adopted 21/12/2010 Procedures for Port State Control. The benefits of the SSN are interactive communication with information provider and information receiver. System is automatically checking the uploaded data. The core of the national SafeSeaNet architecture is built on the SafeSeaNet XML Messaging System. Contractor of this system is polish company Sprint. 30 of 65 pages

33 4.2 General introduction of the system Before user can start working with the system, he has to authorize himself. All users are registered in Latvian Coast Guard Service database. Figure 3 National SafeSeaNet System login page After successful logging in, information provider enters the necessary information to be reported. This information is further sent by system to responsible institutions i.e. authorized users of the system: Coast Guard Service, Border Guard, Customs, Port Authorities, Maritime Administration of Latvia (MAL), Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Marine and Inland Waters Administration, Ministry of Transport, Security Police, Food and Veterinary Service, Health Inspection, State Fire and Rescue Service, Waste receiving companies, Port Facilities Security Officers, Transport Accident and Incident Investigation Bureau. 31 of 65 pages

34 The officials of the following institutions have to approve or reject received information. Also they have a possibility to comment on the event: Coast Guard Service, Customs, Border Guard, Port Authorities, Food and Veterinary Service. The NCA compiles the message and forwards it to the EU SafeSeaNet system. On receipt the ECSS (European Central SafeSeaNet Server) determines whether the notification is correct: If correct, the notification is indexed in the server; If not, the notification is rejected by the ECSS system and the NCA should resend the adjusted information. Information to MAL is sent when vessel has departed from the port and NCA operator has submitted the notification. Figure 4 Messaging mechanism Figure 4 demonstrates messaging mechanism schema between National Competent Authority (NCA) and national/international institutions and industry. On line web, fax, e mail messages: Ship Masters, Ship/Cargo Agents, Ship Owners/Operators, State Border Guard, Customs, Port Authorities, Terminals. 32 of 65 pages

35 On line web and XML format data exchange mechanism: EMSA European Index Server (SafeSeaNet) National Competent Authority (NCA) has planned to establish data exchange mechanisms with XML format by the end of 2013 with the following national institutions and industry: Ship/Cargo Agents, Ship Owners/Operators, State Border Guard, Customs, Port Authorities, Terminals. SafeSeaNet supports the exchange of the following information: Ship pre arrival security information form (SOLAS regulation XI 2/9 and article 6.3 of regulation (EC) No. 725/2004); FAL 1 form (IMO General Declaration); FAL 2 form (International Dangerous Cargo Manifest); FAL 3 form (IMO Ship s store declaration); FAL 4 form (Crew s effect declaration); FAL 5 form (Crew list); FAL 6 form (Passenger list); Dangerous Goods Manifest; Maritime Declaration of Health; Ballast Management Information; Waste Declaration. National SafeSeaNet provides a number of additional functions which are not mandatory. The additional system functions are related but not limited to: International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) module; Secondary or reference data sources Data Base (e.g. location codes, SSN users contact details, ship particulars, black list, banned vessels); Cargo agents can fill special form to receive permission from Customs to start loading/unloading; Information on departing vessel submitted by the Waste receiving companies. The National SafeSeaNet Web browser based mechanism offers two interfaces: Textual interface: provides direct access to SafeSeaNet system using a textual layout: 33 of 65 pages

36 Figure 5 Textual interface Graphical interface: uses geographical information system technology to provide access to ship positions enriched with the data in national SafeSeaNet system. Figure 6 Graphical interface The National SafeSeaNet system supports LCA (Local Competent Authority) users to use: all vessel related information; port logistics information; monitoring of the ships having potential risks to safety, security and environmental issues; efficient and timely response to maritime incidents at sea including search and rescue operations. The system confidentiality service ensures that information is not disclosed to unauthorized users when transmitted inside the system. The confidentiality is guaranteed by Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and 2 ways SSL with ECSS. The Latvian Coast Guard Service and information provider sign the agreement and according to this agreement each user receives his unique user identification data (ID). Issued ID is like electronic signature and the users can be monitored and held accountable for their actions. National SafeSeaNet users have access only to the information they have been authorized to use in accordance with the roles and access rights. 34 of 65 pages