Box 14.3
Coordination at the regional level: the implementation of the New Computerised Transit System in Europe
The New Computerised Transit System (NCTS) is a paperless electronic system extending to 23 countries—19 European Union countries, the European Free Trade Association countries, and Liechtenstein—and linking over 3,000 customs offices. It covers transit procedures based on the European Union Single Administrative Document, mainly for road transport. Since 1 July 2005, transit declarations must, as a general rule, be lodged electronically. A subsequent phase, completed in January 2006, included computerized handling of guarantees and enquiries. European Commission statistics show a rise in the number of NCTS transit movements, from around 5.5 million in 2004 to more than 7.5 million in 2005. To realize the electronic network, the European Commission took the lead by developing a standard NCTS software application—the minimum common core (MCC)—and ensuring its maintenance. Adopted by 15 out of 25 members states (the others have developed their own application), the MCC was funded by the Customs 2000 program budget (23 percent of the total budget). This harmonization of the basic software architecture has been challenging, encountering compatibility problems with most national customs ICT systems. A second part of the NCTS reform is the codification of transit procedures in a manual, published in 2001, and offering guidelines for aligning the implementation of transit policies. However, the European Court of Auditors finds widespread divergence in implementation. Similarly, simplified measures for transit (authorized consignor and consignee status, comprehensive guarantee) were not demonstrably in place in a majority of member states. The European Court of Auditors found that the European Commission had successfully assumed its coordination role for the implementation of the NCTS—but it outlined shortcomings in the lack of operational agreement between the European Union and member states, and in the fact that monitoring of implementation was yet to be done and had been left to the member states. Numerous discrepancies were found in the application of legal provisions at the country level, and implementation has been defective in several areas: • The status of authorized consignors was not properly checked in several countries. • Enquiries in case of nonarrival were conducted with delays and subject to imperfect communication between customs agencies. • Recovery proceedings were slow (in case of nonarrival, debt can be recovered from the country which had to collect the duties). • The accounting of noncollected duties was also slow and inconsistent because of divergent interpretations. Another general issue noted by the European Court of Auditors was unsatisfactory data collection. Finally, automated risk analysis using information generated by the NCTS was only applied in a few member states surveyed—and in most member states checks on transiting goods were nearly nonexistent, because they were not considered a priority. Source: Adapted from the European Court of Auditors (2007).
14 Regional integration and customs unions
One stop posts have proved challenging, for several reasons. First, joint controls are incorrectly perceived to reduce the efficacy of enforcement. Second, concern arises around sovereignty and jurisdictional issues when two countries’ border officers work together in the territory of one. Third, there is likely no common vision for joint operation at the various agencies that conduct border controls. One stop posts bring various border functions— immigration, customs, and other border controls— closer together. For example, customs officers from two bordering states conduct import and export procedures in adjacent offices or rooms. The country on whose territory this occurs must give foreign customs officers jurisdiction on its territory—a 242
B O R D E R M A N A G E M E N T M O D E R N I Z AT I O N
requirement that can raise sensitive issues of national sovereignty. However, international experience has demonstrated that these issues are easily solved through bilateral negotiation and national enactment.17 Issues requiring attention in the establishment of one stop border posts include: • The legal framework. • Mapping current controls, procedures, and documentation. • Agreeing on the one stop controls, procedures, and documentation. • A traffic flow system. • Facilities and infrastructure ICT issues. • Human resources. • Monitoring.