UN/CEFACT Symposium on Single Window Standards and Interoperability Geneva, 3-5 May 2006 Palais des Nations Single Window Implementation Experience of Finland Rolf Bäckström, Finnish Maritime Administration

UNECE UN/CEFACT Background  There were 6-8 mandatory forms to be completed manually at ship port arrivals and departures in the beginning of 90’ies  Form content was identical to about 80%  Forms were largely distributed by letter, fax or courier to the Custom’s, Maritime, Ports Administration, Port Authority, etc.  About 50 relevant actors from the port environment were invited to participate to develop a new scheme

UNECE UN/CEFACT  The first lead agency was the Ministry of Telecommunication  The first step was to develop a single paper form, accepted by all actors  A study was conducted to determine the actual benefits of an electronic solution  FMA already had two ongoing parallel SW projects for pilots and for icebreakers, supporting a similar concept Design and development process 1(3)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  The first PortNet, to collect notices into a common database, was developed in 1993  PortNet was operated with VT100 dumb terminals into an IBM mainframe with a RDBMS database – a massive overkill!  There were about 200 daily data providers, with no useful feedback from PortNet  PortNet use was voluntary but encouraged by a 1% discount in charges of some ports Design and development process 2(3)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  Y2K problems, as well the extremely high cost of any changes, brought about a total redesign of PortNet  In 2000 a XML & web user interface based new PortNet was taken into use  PortNet 2 is now in the works, planned to be introduced in late 2008  FMA is the lead agency since year 2000 Design and development process 3(3)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  Advance notice on the arrival of a ship given 24 h before the arrival: EU ship monitoring directive 93/75/EEC, Custom’s decree (national) THT 194/2003,  Security notice given by the ship before arrival (ISPS): IMO, Finnish law /485  IMO general declaration regarding the arrival of a ship into port (IMO/FAL Form 1): EU Directive 2002/6/EU Structure and services 1(4)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  Fairway tax notice as a consequence of the port call: Finnish law on fairway taxes, 2006  Cargo declaration notice for arriving or departing cargo attached to the port call (cargo manifest that meets regulations issued by the Custom’s concerning the presentation of the cargo to the Customs): EU Customs code (EU) Nr 2913/92 Structure and services 2(4)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  Notice on the arrival and the departure of dangerous cargo: Regulations from IMO as well as the EU directive 2002/59/EC.  Cargo information for official import and export statistics: Finnish law regarding the Maritime Administration, 939/2003  PortNet issues a Custom’s reference ID code to be carried along throughout the port call Structure and services 3(4)

UNECE UN/CEFACT  Terminal notices regarding imports and exports. The notice regarding exports is based upon the Custom’s decree THT 182/2004  DG notification to the port, enabling the port to issue an official dangerous goods reception permission into that particular port  Waste notification regarding ship generated waste: EU Directive 2000/59/EC  Many other services available Structure and services 4(4)

UNECE UN/CEFACT Technology  COTS equipment, tailored software, Oracle  Data may be sent by the ship agent either by a the web interface or by XML/EDI file transfer  Handling legacy systems:  There were no other potential legacy systems than EDI  Standard EDI messages are accepted: CUSCAR, CUSREP and IFTDGN  The PortNet Web GUI

UNECE UN/CEFACT Participants  The principal data providers are the ship agents  VTS, lines men, pilots, ports, etc. update the timetable information during the process  Terminal arrival data are provided by transport companies

UNECE UN/CEFACT Clients  The principal data users are the authorities: Custom’s, FMA, Border Guard and the ports  Ship agents may also re-use the data to provide reports, statistics or simply as a base for creating new similar notices  Data is used by numerous other actors

UNECE UN/CEFACT Business model  The Custom’s, FMA and the 20 largest ports presently own the system and pay for it  The total accumulated cost is about 1,2 mill. €  Annual development cost is about €/a and running cost is about €/a  No user fees are carried, costs are embedded in the fairway tax  PortNet is considered to be national infrastructure

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 1(6)  Dependency is very high and PortNet outages cause massive user response  Custom’s has combined Single Window and One Stop Shop concepts successfully  Custom’s does not store documents anymore on field level, as opposed to min. one fax + 8 copies per ship call before - a huge reduction  Custom’s clearance can be made fully electronic (trusted clients only)  PortNet covers 99% of the traffic (1% = domestic ship traffic)

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 2(6)  Fairway tax is calculated on the basis of the received ship and cargo data and the decision is promulgated using PortNet  Data for official port import and export statistics are provided with 1 month turnaround time  The port call specific Custom’s reference code has proved very useful

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 3(6)  Major ports use data as input for port charge invoicing  One major shipping company declared that their annual fax count fell from to 360, relieving three persons to other duties  PortNet provides direct input to the EMSA SafeSeaNet system without involving any other actors  port call notices are received annually  cargo notices are received annually

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 4(6)  A single cargo notice may contain up to 900 cargo lots  Dangerous cargo notices are received annually  70% of the data, however, is sent from a handful of users, using XML file transfer  The amount of cargo to/from Finnish ports is close to 100 million tonnes  Nearly one million TEUs are handled

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 5(6)  PortNet has about 2000 registered users and 1000 daily users  Even if notices are sent by file transfer, all notices have to be addressed using the web- interface as well - the actor issuing the notice has to confirm the correctness of the notice which the Custom’s formally acknowledges  We are prepared to implement the planned new EU Custom’s implementation provisions and the planned new EU Customs code

UNECE UN/CEFACT Results 6(6)  The port security procedure ISPS is easy to implement using PortNet  The quality of data has improved considerably with data editing facilities and the provision of a ship and dangerous cargo code lookup database within PortNet

UNECE UN/CEFACT Data Exchange  EDI CUSCAR, CUSREP, IFTDGN messages  XML messages, generically developed from the above, have identical content to EDI  Numerous other XML message types are developed by us, but free for common use  Cross border data exchange is implemented through the ship agents, required by law to reside in Finland – PortNet is a national system

UNECE UN/CEFACT Legal issues 1(2)  The collection and distribution of this data is partly based upon existing law  The only real legal issues we have dealt with concern the legal ownership of PortNet - the problem is that there are public as well as municipal and private ports as partners  Having unofficial status, the PortNet community cannot own PortNet, hence it is temporarily owned by the operator

UNECE UN/CEFACT Legal issues 2(2)  Data is strongly compartmented by user management procedures:  An agent can access only his own data  A port can access only his own traffic to/from his port  Authorities may see all data, partly only in read- only mode  Time table data is open for all  The advent of ISPS will ultimately make PortNet solely government owned

UNECE UN/CEFACT Lessons learned  We strongly feel that we are on the right track  Commit all the major actors financially  Establish and streamline collection and storing of data, only then start to refine the services  The key success factors:  Cooperation between authorities  Agreement on the process to be implemented  Legislation or statutes to enforce and support mandatory reporting  Shared financing

UNECE UN/CEFACT What are your future plans for the Single Window?  Realise the new PortNet 2  Develop the terminal notice feature further  Implement the new EU Custom’s requirements including the new electronic standard manifest  Connect to PortNet-like services in other countries, if and when they develop (EU BaSIM and EU TEN- T MOS projects)  Develop multimodal extension features with the advent of the new EU Customs directive  Develop an implementation of the container security initiative (CSI) in the feeder ports

UNECE UN/CEFACT The biggest challenges for Single Window Interoperability  Overarching telematic architecture - at least two levels, including the logical level?  What data sets should be exchanged, in which format and using which interfaces?  The concept should be developed into standards and enforced at e.g. EU level  It concerns many otherwise unconnected actors, even on EU level, but who should take the initiative and the lead?

UNECE UN/CEFACT