1. Electronic Customs Coordination Group Item 16 Reporting from the PG analysing the implementation feasibility of Obj 1&2 of the RM Strategy Brussels, 3 December 2014
03/12/2014

2. 1. Context =>Working document TAXUD(2014)2233525
EU Risk Management Strategy
Multiple filing inscribed in the UCC
Joint meetings ECCG/CCC-RM/CCC-FOR/CCC-DIH on 1/07/2014 and of meeting of TCG on 3/07/2014
=>Working document TAXUD(2014)
03/12/2014

3. 1. Context CPG meeting May & July 2014
=> Need for further implementation (feasibility) analysis of approach [1-]2-3 linked to Obj 1&2 of the RM Strategy
=> Supported by a new Project Group
Call for interest to CPG in July 2014
PG Kick-off on 11 September 2014
1. Context
03/12/2014

4. 2. Mandate & role of the PG
Objective: Prepare a comprehensive analysis for the CPG Meeting of December 2014
to examine the feasibility of the implementation in terms of processes and requirements, organisational, technological, financial,…
03/12/2014

5. "PG supporting the analysis of the implementation feasibility for objectives 1 &2 of the Risk Management Strategy"
Working arrangements
Number of planned events
Plenary meetings + subgroup meetings (risk managament/customs business processes/IT)
Use of PICS for e-collaborative edition of document
From September till November 2014
Number and Profile of participants
Final composition: 25 experts from 13 MS
Trade invited on ad hoc basis
03/12/2014

6. 3. Meetings 11/09/2014 1st Plenary + 12/09 RM Subgroup
24-25/09/2014 Subgroups
8-9/10/ nd Plenary + Subgroups
29-30/10/2014 Subgroups + TCG half day
19/11/ rd Plenary
03/12/2014

7. 4. Activities Requirements definition (chapter 3)
Risk Management Requirements defined
Definition of e-screening
Definition of ENS+ lifecycle
Functional Requirements defined + what is a new requirement + merger key per transport mode
Non functional Requirements defined
03/12/2014

8. ENS+ Lifecycle ENS+ Lifecycle – Key assumptions
The “ENS+ lifecycle” is a term for easy reference to the
complex entry process starting with
an EO submitting a complete or a partial ENS to Customs; then
customs receiving, validating, processing, making the submitted data (ENS or partial ENS) available to other relevant Member States, performing collaboratively security and safety risk management, making available all the data that is being added to the (partial/complete) ENS such as risk results, decisions, control results, etc; and closing the process with
customs indicating a final state variable to the actual case of the transaction and potential controls performed.
ENS+ Lifecycle – Key assumptions
Actors for sending ENS fragments are identified per mode of transport;
Keys for the merge of fragments are identified and all the actors holds them;
Merge of fragments will be based on that common key.
03/12/2014

9. Approaches and options confirmed and completed from an IT perspective
Architecture definition (chapter 4)
Functional blocks identified to build IT landscape
SWOT analysis (volumetrics, roles, efficiency, effectiveness, etc)
03/12/2014

10. Solution architecture options
3 Approches – 6 options
03/12/2014

11. How we did it? Six IT implementation options Refinement 03/12/2014
CBA: 3 approaches
Business and functional requirements
+ Volumetric
Functional Architecture (what we need to do?)
Application Architectures (how it will work?)
Technological Solutions
(what technology can do that?)
Refinement
Costs
Planning
Six IT
implementation
+ SWOT Analysis
options
03/12/2014

12. 3 Approaches Approach 1: Peer-to-peer networking
Approach 2: Common repository for ENS+ lifecycle support
Approach 3: Adding a harmonised interface for trade
03/12/2014

13. Illustrative example of ENS Lifecycle
reception/validation
e-screening
risk analysis
reception/validation
Make available
merge
RA - results
arrival - status
presentation - status
control - results
03/12/2014

14. Functional blocks
03/12/2014

15. Expected ENS per year in million
326.9 millions of ENS parts are expected from trade per year
Expected ENS per year in million
Master
Partial
Postal
6,2
123,2
129,4
Air
Cargo
3,4
47,6 51
Express 29 58
Maritime
14,5
72,5 87
Road 1
Rail
0,5
Total
326,9
03/12/2014

16. Approach 1 – 2 options
Approach 1 – Option A: IT trader interfaces are to be operated by each and every MS. The MS architecture is fully decentralised without common IT components except CCN/CCN2 in order to streamline the exchange of data;
Approach 1 – Option B: a technically optimised version of Approach 1 – Option A. It introduces a central referential index that would help to find the required information at the right place;
03/12/2014

17. Approach 1 – Option A
03/12/2014

18. Functional IT Architecture – A1A
03/12/2014

19. Approach 1 – Option B
03/12/2014

20. Functional IT Architecture – A1B
03/12/2014

21. Approach 2 – 1 option
IT trader interfaces are to be operated by each and every MS.
The ENS parts are filed and merged in a common place; they are available from there to all MS.
A common repository containing complete ENS data provides the possibility of an effective and efficient implementation of different services such as ENS+ lifecycle services, Risk Management collaboration services and e-screening services. These services are consequently made available to all MS;
03/12/2014

22. Approach 2
03/12/2014

23. Functional IT Architecture – A2
03/12/2014

24. 3 Options for Approach 3 Option A: Filing to a selected office
Following legal rules, the EO file to a customs office which subsequently pushes data to the responsible customs office of entry.
Option B: Harmonised national interfaces
The EO has to address the MS trader interface in function of the FCOE or the presumed one.
Option C: Central Trader Interface
This option provides a central unique IT trader interface.
03/12/2014

25. Approach 3 - Option A: Filing to one MS
An Economic Operator can lodge an ENS submission to any FCOE in the EU via the IT trader interface of the MS to which it is connected to following an assignment protocol;
The receiving IT trader interface will route the messages to the FCOE or the presumed one.
03/12/2014

26. Approach 3 – Option A
03/12/2014

27. Functional IT Architecture – A3A
03/12/2014

28. Approach 3 - Option B: Harmonised national interfaces
The offered IT trader interfaces across all MS are fully harmonised from business, semantic and IT technical viewpoint;
The Economic Operator has to address the IT trader interface of the MS in function of the FCOE or the presumed one.
03/12/2014

29. Approach 3 – Option B
03/12/2014

30. Functional IT Architecture – A3B
03/12/2014

31. Approach 3 - Option C: Central Trader Interface
This option provides a shared unique IT implementation of the trader interface. One single gateway for the IT communications between traders and customs.
03/12/2014

32. Approach 3 – Option C
03/12/2014

33. Functional IT Architecture – A3C
03/12/2014

34. Estimated costs
03/12/2014

35. While EU COM costs raise, MS costs significantly drop as of A2 and A3-C
03/12/2014

36. Costs by approaches MS vs COMM
03/12/2014

37. Recommendations to CPG
CPG endorsement requested for
Approach 2 and set up a Common Repository for mandatory use by all Member States.
as an "add-on" to the Common Repository, the possibility of collaboration among interested Member States with the support of the Commission to be applied for the development, implementation and operation of a Shared Trader Interface.
as an “add on” to the Common Repository, the introduction of a shared functionality for e-screening.
03/12/2014

38. Options 3 1 2 Trader Interface National National Shared Shared
e-screening National Shared Shared National
National Risk Analysis
National Risk Analysis
National Risk Analysis
National Risk Analysis
National e-screening
National e-screening 3
Shared
e-screening
Common Repository & Services (mandatory) 1
National Trader
Interface
National Trader
Interface
Shared Trader Interface 2
Trader
Trader
Trader
Trader
03/12/2014

39. Operational responsabilities remain with MS.
The Common Repository will be a commonly shared service developed and technically operated by the Commission on the basis of commonly agreed business rules and IT compliance defined in close cooperation with the Member States.
Operational responsabilities remain with MS.
03/12/2014

40. Recommendations to CPG
Legal implications
Concerning the ENS+ lifecycle
Concerning the implementation of the recommended option
Concerning data protection and data security
Statements on Resource and Critical dependencies
03/12/2014

41. Way forward Business Case & Vision document
GO/NO GO
decision
CPG:
GO/NO GO decision
System Specifications ready
GO/NO GO decision
Solution operational
(first release)
Solution developed
2014
2015
2016
Project coordination (EU Commission in the lead)
Common repository & services (EU Commission in the lead)
Preparation of CPG document
Inception
Phase
Elaboration
Phase
Construction
Phase
Transition
Phase
e-screening (“Opt-in Member States” leading committees)
Shared trader interface (“Opt-in Member States” leading committees)
03/12/2014

42. Thank you !
03/12/2014

43. Annex slides
In Case of…
03/12/2014

44. ENS+ Lifecycle ENS+ Lifecycle – Key assumptions
The “ENS+ lifecycle” is a term for easy reference to the
complex entry process starting with
an EO submitting a complete or a partial ENS to Customs; then
customs receiving, validating, processing, making the submitted data (ENS or partial ENS) available to other relevant Member States, performing collaboratively security and safety risk management, making available all the data that is being added to the (partial/complete) ENS such as risk results, decisions, control results, etc; and closing the process with
customs indicating a final state variable to the actual case of the transaction and potential controls performed.
ENS+ Lifecycle – Key assumptions
Actors for sending ENS fragments are identified per mode of transport;
Keys for the merge of fragments are identified and all the actors holds them;
Merge of fragments will be based on that common key.
03/12/2014

45. Illustrative example of ENS Lifecycle
reception/validation
e-screening
risk analysis
reception/validation
Make available
merge
RA - results
arrival - status
presentation - status
control - results
03/12/2014