OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Port Community Systems Association

IPCSA

IPCSA’s mission is to: “To act in the common interest of IPCSA members to influence public policy at the International level, in order to promote digital transformation and the electronic exchange of information to enable seamless, efficient and sustainable trade logistics processes. This will be achieved through lobbying, practical initiatives and projects as well as engagement with the global, regional and national logistics communities and relevant public bodies”.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Detailed specifications regarding functional requirements for eFTI platforms

8 Jul 2025

As a port communication system (PCS), DAKOSY has been supporting digitalization in the transport and logistics sector since 1982. And together with other PCS around the world we formed the association IPCSA to foster the exchange within the transport chain - of course also cross border. In 1982 and today, digitalization requires standardization of processes and interfaces, the willingness of participants to share data, and, last but not least, the reduction of entry barriers (conceptual, technical, and financial) to enable all participants to participate in data exchange. A particularly positive aspect of the eFTI approach is the reversal of the obligation: for the first time, authorities are required first to accept digitally available documents. However, this does not mean that the other fundamentals can be neglected. It is probably harmful if regulations stipulate certain technical requirements and thus fail to take into account possible future technical advances. It would also be unfortunate if the technical conditions and day-to-day usage (e.g., RESTAPI) in the transport and logistics sector were not taken into account. To re-event the wheel or to force already willing data-sharer to invest anew would be very harmful regarding the acceptance of the eFTI-approach. To welcome the new and always be downwards compatible is a strong believe of all PCS.Experience shows that networks can be expanded in this way. There are existing hubs/networks/nodes or communication systems like PCS through which data streams are already channeled today. These natural partners offer themselves as so-called eFTI platform providers. As PCS we would welcome a certification process. And of course associated publication for certified service providers (similar to, for example, the National Single Window Customs Germany ATLAS https://www.zoll.de/DE/Fachthemen/Zoelle/ATLAS/Voraussetzungen-Teilnahme/Softwareanbieter/ATLAS-101/atlas_101_node.html#vt-sprg-1) - essential in order to build trust in the respective service providers among users and for complete market transparency. A reliable set of rules for data exchange between platforms is needed as already mentioned, technology-neutral. This as well as a standardised data base is essential for future service provider to start the invest. The icing on the cake would of course be a reliable list of existing digitised and standardised documents such as customs forms, FAL forms, eCMR, etc. . Only fully digitised documents open the way to further services and make participation in the process attractive for the industry.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Union Customs Code

14 Sept 2022

IPCSA - International Port Community Systems Association would like to thank EU COM for the opportunity to provide the views and further comments and ideas of our industry through this public consultation. We have done this in good conscience. Our members see themselves as a reliable partner in the future of the Customs Union for the upcoming tasks around digitalisation of the supply chain. Our industry hopes that further modernisation of the Customs Union will lead to even closer cooperation with the authorities in the future and, in certain parts of customs legislation, as well as the organisational design of processes, to a fundamental rethink and reassessment under the angle of modern possibilities.
Read full response

Response to Action Plan on the Customs Union

6 Apr 2020

First and foremost, it should be noted that the current status of the Customs Union and its basic functioning deserve the highest recognition and respect. This also means that not everything is perfect and that further development is logical and is of course also encouraged by business. Especially with a view to current situation, the more effective and efficient use or further development of the existing infrastructure and resources is welcome. With regard to the statements in section B of the Roadmap document (Ref. Ares(2020)1728247 - 24/03/2020) please allow us to make a fundamental remark = Under “B. What does the initiative aim to achieve and how” a list of priorities of the initiative is included (a to e). The several points are immensely important and should be fully supported. The only aspects not mentioned here are the further development of closer cooperation with business and further enhancement of the involvement of business in activities to jointly improve the Customs Union. We would be glad if these aspects could also be defined as important items for the priority consideration and if they could be included as well. We think that further effort around digitalisation and improvement of orgainisational processes should be at the top of the list of key elements. We as Port / Cargo Community Systems and Single window operators are happy to continue to contribute with our experience and ideas. We would like to propose the following points for the further development and improvement of cooperation in the Customs Union from our perspective = • stronger focus on of cross-border data exchange - both through closer cooperation with authorities from third countries and greater involvement of business opportunities • further constructive expansion of the "Trusted Partnership" concept and the AEO environment • expansion and comprehensive integration of the Single Window approach for EU customs clearance + related matters • more harmonisation in capacity building (training standards; equipment; electronic system landscapes; etc.); this should be achieved through continued EU coordination and support • Centralised Clearance - this initiative, which is already in the process of implementation, must prove whether the 24/7 principle, transparent control activities and uniform application of the common rules will work - particular attention should therefore be paid to this • efforts for further simplification in the field of VAT (also in view of the increase in the volume of e-commerce) should be intensified
Read full response

Response to Reporting formalities for ships (European Maritime Single Window environment)

16 Aug 2017

IPCSA Comments on Reporting formalities for ships Inception Impact Assessment 16th August 2017 Executive Summary – The summary below highlights the key elements of the IPCSA comments on the Inception Impact Assessment. Detailed comments have are attachment to this summary. General Comments • The terms Harmonization and Standardization should be defined to ensure there is a common understanding of the terms • Focus should be on Standardisation to ensure administrations received standardised information in formats currently used by the industry where as current RFD implementation uses EMSA standards that deviate from industry standards. • It has been mentioned that there are 22 different reporting environments. The impact analysis should cover three levels Port - National - EU level, and currently it does not clearly state which of these the revised IIA covers. • Each and every port has deviations from the basic reporting environment and therefore it would be valuable to do an analysis of common processes (and data set). A full analysis of all ports legal and safety requirements is critical to ensure the burden of administrative reporting is limited. • Business to Business processes should also be excluded from any policy on “reporting for ships” as this is outside the remit of the EU and Administration. B. Objectives and Policy Options • The policy objectives should specifically state that “data formats and semantics” should follow international recognised standards currently used. • Interface harmonisation should be accessible for external systems such as Port Community Systems to enable a smooth flow of information between regulatory and operational processes and where by data could be re-used for both purposes. • A maximum data set would be of benefit to the industry however clarity is needed in the “re-use of data and information”. It should be clear what data will be used for and how and by whom, this also ensures that it complies with the future GDPR of the EU. • The re-use of data should be enabled for both operational and administrative processes and thus future legislation should include for sharing and exchanging data, where appropriate, with external third party systems such as Port Community Systems. C. Measures • 1a) The facilitation of the voluntary EU interface specifications and maximum data set should take into account international standards currently in use including UN/EDIFCAT, ISO 28005 and WCO data model • The word “voluntary” provides a lot of freedom and the phrase “standardisation at EU level” will thus become irrelevant as there would be no standardisation if actions are voluntary. • 2a) Interfaces should be open to third parties including Port Community Systems to enable a smooth transition between administrative and operational processes • 2b) Specific data models and formats should be those in use by industry. D. Data Collection and Better Regulation • The heading for the roadmap is “reporting formalities for ships”, however this includes landside elements which could be considered beyond the scope of “reporting formalities for ships”. Policy Scenarios • The preliminary policy options should all be considered against an economic impact assessment of the industry. • The policy options indicated under item 7 would provide the most flexibility and ensure that each Port / national authority would be able to adapt and change to it’s local circumstances. • Where a Port Community System is available this should be an option as PCS already re-use data for both administrative and operational purposes. Conclusion • The RFD has seen some positive effects of enabling the closer collaboration between government departments and agencies who are responsible for Ships • The negative effects are the lack of data harmonisation using accepted standards already in use in the trade which has led to a negative limited beneficial impact to the trade.
Read full response