Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)279 - Electronic freight transport information

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2018)279 - Electronic freight transport information.
source COM(2018)279 EN
date 17-05-2018


1. CONTEXTOFTHEPROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Technological change is touching all parts of society and the economy and transforming the lives of EU citizens. Transport is no exception to this trend. New technologies are radically changing the mobility landscape. Against this background, the EU and its industries must meet the challenge to become a world leader in innovation, digitisation, and decarbonisation. The Commission has therefore adopted a comprehensive approach to ensure that the EU's mobility policies reflect these political priorities in the form of three Europe on the Move mobility packages.

Following the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy, the Commission adopted two mobility packages in May and November 2017. These packages set out a positive agenda delivering on the low-emission mobility strategy and ensuring a smooth transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all. The European Parliament and Council should ensure the rapid adoption of these proposals.

This initiative is part of the Third 'Europe on the Move' Package, which delivers on the new industrial policy strategy of September 2017, and is designed to complete the process of enabling Europe to reap the full benefits of the modernisation of mobility. It is essential that tomorrow's mobility system is safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens. The aim is to make European mobility safer and more accessible, European industry more competitive, European jobs more secure, and to be cleaner and better adapted to the imperative of tackling climate change. This will require the full commitment of the EU, Member States and stakeholders, not least in strengthening investments in transport infrastructure.

Total freight transport in the EU has increased by almost 25 % over the last 20 years1, and is projected to further increase by 51 % during 2015-20502. All this movement of goods is accompanied by a large amount of information being exchanged among a variety of parties, in both the private and the public domain. Today, this information is mostly printed on paper, in a variety of standard format documents.

About 99 % of cross-border transport operations on the territory of the EU still involve paper-based documents at one stage of the operation or another3. Yet the digitalisation of information exchange has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of transport and therefore to contribute to the smooth functioning of the single market.

The Commission carried out an impact assessment on the barriers to digitalisation of freight transport documents and options to support wider use of electronic documents and information exchange. The main problem it identified is the authorities’ low and varying degree of acceptance of information or documents made available electronically by

Measured in billion tonne-kilometres (tkm). Source: EU transport in figures 2017.

Contents

1.

A description of developments under current trends and policies (i.e. baseline) is available in Annex 4 of the


accompanying Impact Assessment report.

2.

More specifically, they require the use of paper documents at one point or another during the transport operation. In


other words, only 1% of such operations is accompanied by a fully digital information and documentation

exchange. However, their share varies depending on the transport mode. The estimate draws on the Ecorys et al.

3

businesses, when the authorities require them to provide evidence of compliance with regulatory conditions for the transport of goods on the different EU Member States’ territory.

There are two main drivers behind this problem:

(a) a fragmented legal framework setting inconsistent obligations for authorities when accepting electronic information or documents4, and permitting different administrative practices to implement them; and

(b) a fragmented IT environment characterised by a multitude of non-interoperable systems/solutions for electronic transport information and documentation exchange, both for business-to-administration and business-to-business communication.

The two drivers are mutually reinforcing. The fragmented legislation and the resulting lack of acceptance by authorities discourage investment in digital solutions for electronic documents. The fragmented IT environment, specifically the lack of well-established or interoperable solutions, discourages authorities from trusting the use of electronic documents.

As a consequence, the large majority of freight transport operators and other transport business stakeholders in the EU continue to use paper documents. This prevents considerable gains in efficiency for the various market players, in particular in multimodal and crossborder transport, and hinders the functioning of the EU single market.

The Commission has acknowledged the need to foster acceptance and use of electronic transport documents in a number of policy initiatives: the White Paper on Transport, 20115, Digital Single Market Strategy, 20156, the ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market, 20167 and the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-20208. The

3.

the Digital Single Market Strategy, 2015 , the ICT Standardisation Priorities for the


and the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-20208. The case for intervention has also been recognised by a wide range of stakeholders.

Since 2015, participants in the Digital Transport and Logistics Forum (DTLF) — a Commission expert group formed by more than one hundred private and public stakeholders9 — have repeatedly emphasised the need for EU-level intervention to support wider uptake of electronic transport documents. In October 2017, in the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment, the Member States urged the Commission to step up efforts to achieve efficient, user-centric, electronic procedures in the EU, pointing out the significance of the eGovernment Action Plan10 and the vision of the European Interoperability Framework11.

4.

In November 2017, during the Tallinn Digital Transport Days, several public and private stakeholders from all transport sectors concluded that it is about time to reap the benefits of


The electronic representation of the information currently contained in paper documents does not need to amount to

a document format in the sense of a standardised representation of the data. In that sense, the term ‘documents’

5.

might be misleading. An explanation of the merits of moving away from a document-centred to a data-centred


approach is provided in Annex 8 of the accompanying Impact Assessment report.

COM/2011/0144, pp. 13, 19.

COM(2015) 192, pp. 82-84.

COM(2016) 176, p. 11.

COM(2016) 179, p. 8.

The www.dtlf.eu/">DTLF was set up by the Commission in April 2015 (Decision C(2015)2259), to provide a platform where

6.

Member States and relevant transport and logistics stakeholders can exchange technical knowledge, cooperate and


coordinate with a view to supporting measures to promote efficient electronic exchange of information in transport

and logistics.

The Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment was signed at the ministerial meeting during the Estonian Presidency of

the Council of the EU on 6 October 2017.

4

10


digitalisation, including paperless data sharing12. Following up, the Council called on the Commission, in its December 2017 Conclusions on the digitalisation of transport, to continue working with the DTLF to develop ‘measures to support13 more systematic use and acceptance of e-documents and the harmonised exchange of information and data in the logistic chain’14. Back in May 2017, Parliament had also called on the Commission to ‘increase harmonisation in passenger transport and transport of goods’, and ‘speed up the mandatory use … of electronic consignment notes (e-CMR)’ in particular15.

Consistency

with existing policy provisions in the policy area

This proposal is consistent with current EU legislative provisions on the electronic exchange of information applicable in the transport sector. These legislative provisions vary significantly in: (i) their material scope — i.e. the information or documents concerned; (ii) the regulatory purpose for which the information or documents are required; (iii) whether the possibility to communicate the information electronically is established; and (iv) whether more detailed technical specifications are provided on the means of electronic communication and form of the electronic information or documents when this possibility is established. This proposal complements the existing EU legislation in this area and, in the case of certain transport sector-specific EU acts, supplements these legal acts through more detailed functional requirements and technical specifications.

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council16 provides that an electronic document shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form. It also lays down the conditions for cross-border recognition and acceptance of electronic identification means and trust services in the internal market. However, it does not oblige Member States to accept electronic documents, or information therein, as evidence in other cases than in legal proceedings. By establishing a uniform Union legislative framework requiring the crossborder acceptance of electronic freight transport information by public authorities, this proposal complements the provisions in that Regulation.

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 on the Union Customs Code17 and the Directive No 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships18 already contain provisions allowing fulfilment of reporting formalities by means of electronic information communication, including as regards the cargo and, respectively, the transport operation. This proposal aims to allow electronic communication for fulfilling regulatory information requirements also beyond the points of entry, or before the point of exit, of the EU, on the entire territory of the Union. Geographically therefore, the scope of this initiative begins where that of the Union

12

7.

13 14 15 16


The Digital Transport Days Declaration was signed in Tallinn on 10 November 2017 and is available at

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-11-10-digital-transport-days-declaration_en.

P8_TA(2017)0228.

Council Conclusions on the digitalisation of transport, 15050/17, 5.12.2017.

European Parliament resolution www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-/%2BTA%2BP8-TA-2017-0228%2B0%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN">2017/2545(RSP) of 18 May 2017 on road transport in the EU.

8.

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust


services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257,

28.8.2014, p. 73).

9.

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC); Commission Implementing


Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No

10.

952/2013; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 as


regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the UCC.

11.

Directive No 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member



7

8

Customs Code Regulation and/or the Maritime Reporting Formalities Directive the RFD ends (or, conversely, ends there where that of the latter begins).

In terms of the transport operations concerned by the information requirements, however, these scopes overlap: this initiative concerns both purely intra-EU international transport (not falling under Union Customs Code’s Regulation scope or that of the Maritime Reporting Formalities Directive), as well as international transport having its origin, destination or transiting an EU Member States territory . As a result, the combined application of this initiative and that of these two EU acts will further facilitate international freight transport having its origin and destination outside the EU, as well as intra-EU maritime traffic. It will enable the use of electronic means for transmission of regulatory information on cargo transport to the authorities not just at the point of entry and exit of the EU, but also on the entire EU territory.

In relation to Union legislation regulating the conditions of transport on the territory of the Union, this proposal does not amend existing provisions in existing relevant legal acts, but rather seeks to ensure:

• a) the establishment of a uniform legal framework for the acceptance, including specific requirements, of electronic information or documents containing this information, in the case of legal acts which:

• either do not provide at all for the possibility to present the information/documents electronically, namely:

• Regulation no 11/1960 on concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions ;

• Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for combined transport of goods between Member States; and

• Regulation (EC) No 107 2/2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market; or

• include such possibility, but do not indicate, or provide very limited indication, on how this information should be presented electronically, namely:

• Directive 2008/68/EC on dangerous goods in rail, road and inland waterways;

• Commission Regulation 2015/1998 implementing Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 on common rules for aviation safety;

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste;

• the proposals, currently under consideration by the European Parliament and the Council, for the revision of Directive 92/106/EEC (Proposal No 2017/0290 (COD)) and, respectively, of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (Proposal No 2017/0123 (COD)).

• b) the interoperability of the different IT systems currently used for those legal acts which:

• already provide very detailed technical specifications: on the format of the electronic data and message exchange for acceptance by authorities for certain goods related and transport operation related information, regardless of the transport mode concerned, namely Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 on the Union Customs Code and

its implementing and delegated acts, and the Directive 2010/65/EU on maritime reporting formalities;

• contain detailed but transport mode-specific specifications, namely Commission

Regulation No. 164/2010 on the technical specifications for electronic ship reporting in inland navigation referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2005/44/EC on harmonised river information services (RIS) and Commission Regulation EU No 1305/2014 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematics applications for rail freight (TAF TSI).

Consistency with other Union policies

The general objective of the initiative is to enable wider use of digital technologies to contribute to: (i) removing barriers to the smooth functioning of the single market; (ii) the modernisation of the economy; and (iii) the greater efficiency of the transport sector. By establishing uniform conditions for the further development and deployment of digital technol ogies for electronic exchange of freight transport information, it will also contribute to the development of the Digital Single Market.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Legal basis

The legal basis is provided by Article 91, 100(2) and Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). .

Articles 91 and, respectively 100(2), which must be understood in light of Article 90 requiring Member States to pursue a common transport policy, set out the requirement that common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States and, respectively, appropriate provisions for sea and air transport, be laid down by the European Parliam ent and the Counci l.

Article 192(1), which must be understood in light of Article 191, establishes that the European Parliament and the Council shall decide on the action to be taken by the Union in order to achieve the objective for protecting inter alia human health and the environm ent.

Subsidiarity (for non - e xcl usive competence)

Unilateral initiatives by Member States to facilitate the uptake of electronic transport documents and information exchange would have limited effect if similar action was not taken in other Member States whose territory is also concerned by the transport operations in question.

At the same time, even if most EU Member States were to enact legislation facilitating the use of electronic documents, there is a high risk that by legislating unilaterally, each Member State would adopt different requirements for the acceptance of electronic documents, and the communication of regulatory information more generally, as valid and authentic. In practice, electronic documents and regulatory information communication which fulfilled the requirements for acceptance in one Member State would not be accepted in the other(s), thus creating

barriers

in the EU single

market.

The most appropriate level to address the problem and its drivers is therefore the EU level, where a uniform approach to the acceptance of electronic documents, and common standards for this, can be set. In that respect, this initiative takes further and complements measures already taken at EU level to ensure uniform conditions for acceptance of electronic freight transport information and documents, including by ensuring trust in the electronic means used to communicate them19.

• Proportionality

The proposal contains measures intended to achieve three distinct specific policy objectives that directly address the two main problem drivers identified.

To address the main problem driver, namely the diverging and limitedly specified current legal framework, this proposal contains measures to:

ensure the establishment, in all EU Member States, of the obligation of acceptance of electronic freight transport documents/information by all relevant public authorities;

ensure that the authorities implement the obligation of acceptance in a uniform manner;

To address the second problem driver, which derives from the current co-existence of multiple and non-interoperable systems, the proposal contains measures to:

ensure the interoperability of the IT systems and solutions used for the electronic exchange of freight transport information, and in particular for business-to-administration (B2A) regulatory information communication.

None of these measures go beyond what is necessary to address the problems. The first set of measures establish the obligation for authorities to accept electronic information/documents, but do not impose an obligation on businesses to use the electronic form, neither in B2A nor in B2B (business-to-business) relations. Imposing such an obligation on B2B exchanges would ensure full digitalisation of freight transport information and document exchanges, but it is not necessary in order to ensure acceptance on the part of the authorities. Furthermore, most industry associations argued that businesses are ready and will move towards full digitalisation when the authorities eventually allow it.

At the same time, the authorities are not required to accept just any electronic source of information provided by businesses. Rather, the measures take into account the authorities’ need for the information/documents presented to be authentic and for assurances about their integrity. The measures also require the authorities to accept the information/documents if the electronic means used to present them comply with a determined set of requirements.

The second set of measures requires Member States to cooperate in order to align their (future) digitalised processes for checking information/documents communicated electronically. This includes cooperation over the set of data elements Member State authorities require as necessary for fulfilling the information requirements established in the relevant EU and national legal acts. These measures will ensure uniform rules for electronic information/document verification, and will contribute to reducing administrative compliance costs (and therefore burden) for businesses. However, the measures do not require uniformity

Including the framework for the cross-border use of eIDs and electronic signatures as established by the eIDAS

19

of the information requirements themselves as established in the respective EU and Member State legislation.

The third set of measures establishes the functional requirements for the electronic means that businesses could use to provide authorities with the requested regulatory information. These measures also provide for the development of technical specifications to implement the requirements. These requirements and the related technical specifications will ensure that the IT systems used by the different Member State authorities are interoperable with each other and with the solutions used by businesses. The requirements and specifications will also facilitate interoperability across the (currently highly transport mode-specific) B2A and B2B solutions.

Choice

of the instrument

The impact assessment established that binding, regulatory measures are necessary to achieve the objectives. A regulation is the more appropriate instrument to ensure uniform implementation of the measures envisaged. A directive would establish the obligation to accept electronically presented information, with common functional requirements to be complied with by the electronic means by which the information is made available, but it would not impose common binding technical requirements.

Current developments, including in the context of the implementation of the Reporting Formalities Directive, indicate that having no guidelines or voluntary guidelines for technical specifications would result in the introduction of multiple and non-interoperable systems by the different Member States20. That would increase compliance costs for businesses, as they would need to invest in different systems responding to different Member States’ requirements. As a result, businesses might prefer to continue carrying paper, severely hampering the attainment of the objective.

The initiative is highly technical, and there is a high likelihood that it will have to be regularly adapted to technical and legal developments. To respond to this, a number of implementing measures are also planned. These will focus particularly on the technical specifications to implement the functional requirements.

3. RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

Stakeholder

consultations

The Commission actively engaged with stakeholders and conducted comprehensive consul tations throughout the impact assessment process. The consul tation activities included:

• an open public consultation (OPC) organised by the Commission, running from 25 October 2017 to 18 January 2018;

• an SME panel survey organised by the Commission, running from 24 November 2017 to 22 January 2018;

12.

Differences in requirements between the different authorities, both within and between Member States, are to be



20

• a legal survey of private and public stakeholders organised by the consultant responsible for the impact assessment support study, running from 23 October 2017 to 1 January 2018;

• a targeted survey of private and public stakeholders organised by the consultant responsible for the impact assessment support study, running from 27 October 2017 to 7 January 2018;

• 50 interviews with stakeholders, including industry representatives and national authorities, conducted by the consultant responsible for the impact assessment support study and its partners between 20 October 2017 and 15 January 2018;

• stakeholder meetings and workshops at several different events;

• five case studies examined by the consultant responsible for the impact assessment support study between 6 Nove m ber 2017 and 15 Janua ry 2018.

13.

These consultation activities provided significant input that helped validate and elaborate the definition of the problem and estimate its size, and map stakeholders preferences for the


possible policy options. Input in this area came primarily from the OPC, the SME panel survey and from the other stakeholder engagem ent tool s used

The large majority of the stakeholder consulted ----- i.e. more than 90 % of the 265 SME

respondents to the SME panel survey , and 88 of the 100 respondents to the OPC survey, indicated significant or at least some expected benefits from adopting electronic information exchange.

90 % of the private companies and associations responding to the OPC indicated the non-acceptance of electronic transport documents/information by Member State authorities as a significant driver of the problem. For the smaller companies, the SME panel survey found that the main reason for not using electronic transport documents was that their clients and business partners do not use transport documents in an electronic format. The next most widely cited reason for this group (following closely behind) was non-acceptance by the authorities. At the same time, respondents to the targeted surveys and interviews highlighted that the main reason why businesses do not accept electronic documents is uncertainty as to whether the authorities will accept them. More than 70 % of the respondents to both the OPC and the SME panel also cited the lack of interoperability of current B2A and B2B IT systems and sol utions.

Mirroring this assessment, around 90 % of the respondents of the OPC considered ensuring acceptance by Member State authorities, while 88% found a legally binding approach to ensuring such acceptance more effective than a non-binding one. 90% of all OPC respondents also indicated as important the interoperability of B2A and B2B communications. Similarly, 75% of the SME panel respondents indicated ensuring acceptance by authorities as a very im portant policy objectives, and another 13% as moderately im portant.

More than 70 % of both the OPC and SME panel respondents would also welcome standardised technical specifications for sharing data between logistics operators and the public administration, with 88 % of OPC respondents considering a legally binding approach

21 The summary below is based on the responses received to the OPC and SME panel surveys. For a more detailed description of the consultation results, including input received in the interviews and case studies undertaken by the external consultant, see Ecorys et al. (2018) Impact Assessment support study, Annexes VIII-XI.

22 The number of respondents who answered the benefits-related questions in the SME panel survey varied between

more effective than non-binding measures. For B2B communication, 67 % of all 100 OPC respondents considered the legally binding approach more effective, while 84 % preferred voluntary measures. 77% of the SME panel survey respondents indicated as very important (65%) or moderately important (22%), the ability to use one IT application/system to exchange electronic transport documents with the authorities, on par with the ability of use such a single application/system for electronic exchange with all other companies (68% indicating it as very important, and the additional 19% as moderately important).

Collection

and use of expertise

The proposal is based on fact-finding and consultation with experts, particularly for the estimates of costs and benefits, including modelling of the indirect effects and modal shift impact. External consultants prepared a support study on costs and impacts. External consultants have also been used for modelling the indirect effects and assessing the modal shift impact.

Experts from all main stakeholder categories, both from the industry and from Member State authorities, were closely involved, particularly in the Digital Transport and Logistics Forum. This helped to ensure a comprehensive and multimodal perspective on the issues at stake.

Impact

assessment

The policy measures included in this proposal are informed by the results of an impact assessment. The mpact assessment report [ SWD(2018) 184] received a positive opinion from the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board [SEC(2018) 231]. In its opinion, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board provided a number of recommendations about the presentation of the arguments in the impact assessment report. These recommendations have been addressed; Annex 1 to the impact assessment report provides a summary outline of how this was done.

A long list of policy measures addressing the two main problem drivers was considered after extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research and the Commission s own analysis. The list was subsequently screened based on the following criteria: (i) legal, political and technical feasibility; (ii) effectiveness; (iii) efficiency; and (iv) proportionality. Based on this initial screening, a number of policy measures were discarded.

The selected policy measures were grouped into four distinct policy options:

• Option 1: Full obligation for Member States to comply with the current legal framework as regards acceptance of electronic transport contracts, with voluntary har m onisation of implementation

• Option 2: Full obligation for Member State authorities to accept electronic transport contracts, with minimum harm onisation of implementation

• Option 3: Full obligation for Member State authorities to accept regulatory cargo transport information or documentation, with partially harmonised implementation

• Option 4: Full obligation for Member State authorities to accept regulatory cargo transport information or documentation, with fully harmonised implementation

All options contained, for the most part, the same set of policy measures. These measures could be implemented either in non-binding form, as support measures promoting voluntary action by the Member States, or regulatory form, such as the adoption of a new dedicated EU


legal act and the signature of bilateral agreements with third countries. The logic of the policy options building followed a combination of these measures, with variation along two axes: the material scope of the policy initiative, on the one hand, and levels of regulatory strength of the intervention, on the other.

A comparative analysis of the effectiveness, efficiency, costs and benefits of the four options was then conducted. This analysis showed that: (i) the implementation of policy options 3 or 4 would produce very similar cost and benefit ratios; and (ii) both options would significantly contribute to solving the identified problems, with significantly higher effectiveness in achieving the specific and overall policy goals than options 1 or 2.

The high effectiveness of options 3 and 4 results, on the one hand, from the wider scope of information coverage in the obligation of acceptance and, on the other hand, from the higher degree of specification of the binding requirements for acceptance of electronic means. The obligation of acceptance is not defined in terms of specific documents, as is the case of options 1 and 2, but in terms of ‘information’ required by EU and national legislation regulating the conditions of international freight transport on the territory of the EU Member States. As such, not only electronic contracts of carriage are covered, but also any electronic information rendition formats, provided there is compliance with: (i) the information content requirements of the applicable legislation; and (ii) the requirements for the electronic means by which this information can be made available, established in the framework of the new legal act proposed.

Option 3 was the preferred policy option on the basis of which this proposal has been developed. The choice between options 3 and 4 took account of the views of stakeholders, as well as considerations about proportionality. Industry stakeholders in the maritime, aviation and rail sectors in particular clearly made the point that while a multimodal approach is necessary, the Commission should avoid proposing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution23. The main considerations relate to the investments in related solutions already made in these sectors. These solutions have been developed on the basis of current provisions in international conventions and EU law which, as the legal analysis in this report has also highlighted, are mode-specific and differ significantly.

The imposition of fully common technical specifications for interoperability, for all solutions used for B2A regulatory information communication and in all transport modes, as proposed in option 4, would require higher upfront investments by businesses in these sectors to adapt to the new requirements.

Under option 3, the extent to which such cross-modal common technical specifications will be established would be determined on the basis of a specific impact assessment. The purpose of this impact assessment would be to more accurately establish the minimum necessary common cross-sectoral technical specifications that would ensure interoperability between all related systems used by authorities and with the solutions used by businesses, while achieving the best cost-benefit ratio for compliance costs by businesses and future benefits.

The assumption, based on industry stakeholders’ arguments, is that a sufficient level of interoperability can be ensured without requiring full harmonisation of requirements across all transport modes. More specifically, according to most industry stakeholders, interoperability

See for e.g. ECSA and WSC (maritime), as well as CER (rail) position papers sent in reaction to the inception impact assessment (IIA). IATA has been actively participating in almost all stakeholder consultation seminars


23

dictionary24. Technical

14.

would require, as a minimum, a common multimodal data


specifications implementing other requirements, such as those related to authenticity or integrity, may be developed specifically for the different transport modes, should a separate, dedicated impact assessment analysis conclude that such an approach would be most cost-efficient for some of the (common) requirements.

The main expected benefits of the preferred policy option are of an economic and environmental nature. The industry is expected to make savings worth EUR 20-27 billion over 2018-2040, compared to a scenario where no policy intervention at EU level is made (the baseline), thanks to reduction in administrative costs (i.e. costs related to the management and exchange of transport information and documentation). This is equivalent to 75-102 million hours saved yearly (or 36-49 thousand full-time employees equivalent). Road transport operators, 99% of which are SMEs, are expected to benefit of about 60% of all industry administrative costs savings.

Positive environmental impacts are also expected, due to a decrease in road transport’s modal share in 2030 relative to the baseline. In cumulative terms, CO2 emissions savings are estimated to be cut by at above 1,300 thousand tonnes over 2018-2040, relative to the baseline, equivalent to €74 million external costs savings. Congestion costs are projected to be reduced by almost EUR 300 million relative to the baseline over the same time period. In addition, with an average of 1-5 copies of each document per shipment not printed anymore about 2-8 billion sheets of paper would be saved, or the equivalent of 180-900 thousand trees annually.

The main expected costs, are related to investments necessary to comply with the new policy requirements. The costs for public authorities are estimated at around EUR 268 million over the full deployment horizon of electronic transport documents, relative to the baseline, of which EUR 17 million related to the certification of solution providers and EUR 251 million to enforcement. In addition, national administrations will be expected to invest in new IT systems, or to adjust the existing ones; these costs are unlikely to be significant. For businesses, the compliance costs are expected to be in the range of EUR 4.4 billion.

Employment impacts can be slightly negative in case personnel made redundant by reduced documentation management activities is not redeployed to other tasks. This negative impact is expected to be offset to a large extent by the overall sector growth. Greater demand for IT solutions and systems is likely to bring more opportunities for the IT providers, leading to an increase in high-skilled employment.

Slight negative externalities may occur from the increase of air pollution from waterborne transport, estimated at around EUR 41 million over the full deployment horizon of electronic transport documents, relative to the baseline.

Regulatory

fitness and simplification

The proposal offers significant simplification and improved efficiency by reducing the administrative burden for economic operators when fulfilling regulatory information requirements in connection with the transport of goods on the territory of the Union.

24

73% of the respondents in an interactive feedback session during the workshop on e-docs in Tallinn were in favour of the establishment of standardised technical specifications for sharing data between logistics operators and public administrations. Likewise, the TLF Union proposed the establishment of a single data set at EU level. According to the targeted interviews (source Ecorys et al.) the group of freight forwarders stressed the importance of a common data set enforced through EU legislation. The need for a common data set was also specifically indicated in the


Reduced administrative burden is expected to be achieved by: ensuring that economic operators can make regulatory information available to authorities electronically; and aligning the procedures used by Member State authorities to check regulatory information made available electronically. As highlighted earlier, administrative costs for the industry are expected to fall significantly.

SMEs and micro-enterprises will especially benefit from being able to provide authorities with the required regulatory information in a simplified and aligned manner regardless of the Member State or competent authorities. This is because SMEs and micro-enterprises are proportionally more vulnerable to inefficient administration and lost staff hours.

Fundamental

rights

The proposal has an impact on the protection of personal data guaranteed in Article 8 of the Charter. Any processing of personal data under the proposal shall be done in accordance with the EU legislation on the protection of personal data, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation.

4. BUDGETARYIMPLICATIONS

The preferred option does not have budgetary implications.

5. OTHERELEMENTS

Implementation

plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The Commission will follow the progress, impacts and results of this initiative through a set of monitoring/evaluation mechanisms. The Commission will measure progress towards achieving the specific objectives of the new proposal.

Requests for information (reports, survey replies) will be carefully balanced so as not to put an additional burden on stakeholders by creating disproportionate new reporting requests.

Five years after the end of the implementation date of the legal proposal, the Commission will initiate an evaluation to verify whether the initiative’s objectives have been reached. The evaluation will be based on Member States’ reports, stakeholder surveys and other inputs (such as complaints) from shipping operators. Subsequently, the evaluation will inform future decision-making processes to ensure the necessary adjustments for reaching the set objectives.

Detailed

explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

15.

The proposal is divided into five chapters. The first and last chapters introduce the general scope and some horizontal provisions, while Chapters II-IV provide the more detailed


instruments.

Article 1 lays down the scope of this Regulation.

Article 2 contains provisions on powers delegated to the Commission to amend non-essential elements in the Annex 1 to this Regulation, where the regulatory information requirements falling under the scope of the Regulation are listed.

16.

Article 3


contains the definitions.


Article 4 lays down requirements relative to the electronic format in which regulatory transport information (eFTI) should be made available by the economic operators concerned.

Article 5 establishes the obligation of the Member States’ competent authorities of regulatory information made available electronically by the economic operators concerned in compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 4.

Article 6 requires the competent authorities, eFTI services providers and economic operators concerned to take measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information processed and exchanged in accordance with this Regulation.

Article 7 establishes the obligation of the Commission to adopt implementing acts establishing a common data set and subsets in relation the regulatory requirements under the scope of this Regulation, and laying down common procedures and rules for access to and processing by the competent authorities of regulatory information provided electronically. This should ensure uniform implementation by Member States’ authorities of the measures implementing the obligation to accept regulatory information made available electronically.

Article 8 sets out the functional requirements for the eFTI platforms by the means of which the regulatory information could be made available by the economic operators concerned, and empowers the Commission to adopt implementing acts laying detailed rules for their implementation. These requirements aim to ensure that management of data by means of these platforms can be done in a manner that ensures essential aspects such as the availability, authenticity, integrity, confidentiality and security of data. These requirements are general, and the detailed rules for their implementation are also envisaged to be drawn such that they remain open to any current or future technology that would be able to ensure these functionalities.

Article 9 sets out requirements for the eFTI services providers that would provide regulatory information services to the economic operators concerned on the basis of eFTI platforms.

Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12 establish the rules for a certification system of the eFTI platforms and the eFTI services providers.

Article 13 establishes the conditions for the conferral of delegated powers to the Commission under this Regulation.

Article 14 establishes the committee procedure for the exercise by the Commission of the power to adopt implementing acts under this Regulation.

Article 15 requires the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the implementation of this Regulation, in order to assess performance of this Regulation against the objective it has been set out to pursue. It also requires the Member States to assist the Commission in gathering the necessary information to prepare the evaluation report.

Article 16 establishes the obligation of the Member State to provide every two years, on a yearly basis, specific information aimed at monitoring the impacts of the implementation of this Regulation.

Article 17 contains provisions related to the date of entry into force and, respectively, of application of this Regulation.