14. Belgium the Nederlands
Manual connection
Surveillance final declaration
Declared
goods
Landed
goods
Automatic
connection
15. Belgium the Nederlands
New
High expectations
22 clientmanagers
Existing
140 accountmanagers
Clientmanagement
16. Belgium The Nederlands
350 certificates
Higher standards
No lower selection
quota
2.500 certificates
Lower standards
Lower selection quota
AEO
17. Antwerp Rotterdam
APICS2
Automatical connection
Higher standard AEO
APCS
Clientmanagement
Pick-up without declaration
Pre-announcements
No lower selection quota AEO
No pick-up without declaration
Pre-announcements
Internal lane and train scan
Lower selection quota AEO
Portbase
Accountmanagement
HaMis
Manual connection
Lower standards AEO
Overview
Editor's Notes
I’m very happy to present to you my bachelor paper. I named it Baarle-Ravels, afther the historical smuggling route between the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam. I did my internship at Portmade NV, their surplus is their broad knowledge on customs. I believe that is why they asked me to do a comparison study between the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam.
PCS’ are known as data control centers between port actors. PCS’s usually thrive to re-use data in an efficient way. Antwerp developed het Antwerp Port Community System and Rotterdam developed Portbase.
There’s a different approach in introduction of new facilities. The APCS applies a bottom-up solution. This means that they will define the demand and then create their product. Portbase had a top-down approach, they will create their product and push it into the market. They can do this because government agencies have 100% of the Portbase shares, these government agencies can make the use of Portbase applications (semi-)obligated.
In my bachelor paper I defined a list of functionalities, on the nautical side antwerp scored 93% and rotterdam scored 71%. Tis is due by the connectivity of the systems. APICS2, the system of the harbour master, includes capacity planning of pilots, tugboats and boatmen.
The HaMis (Harbour Master Information management system) is not connected to that information. Rotterdam works with Royal Dirkschwager, they facilitate all communication with the ships.
What makes Antwerp unique, is that they have to take into account the locks. About 50% of the port is based behind the Locks. In Antwerp the water level behind the locks is constant. Rotterdam has no locks at all.
In Rotterdam, terminals have a status of temporary stocking facility (TSF), which means the customs have insight in stockcontrol of the terminals. They als can withhold containers from pick-up if there’s no valid customs document. In Antwerp this is possible, due to the UNAMAR-arrest the Antwerp Terminal Operators are more aware of their liabilities,
APCS (Antwerp Port Community System) is therefore developping the Customs Container Release Message (CCRM). The CCRM will enable the terminal operator to check wether there is a valid customs document for a container ore not.
In Antwerp the carrier will book a timeframe on the terminalwebsite, in which the truck driver will have to arrive for picking up a container. In The Netherlands the terminals ask more information in advance and the pre-announcement can be taken care of by Portbase or the terminalwebsite.
The Federal Food Safety Agency is also at the location of the customs inspection post, this is the so-called one stop shop. In Rotterdam there is already a location for an alike one stop shop, but not all parties have moved to the location yet.
Rotterdam has an internal lane between the inspection post and two terminals. Because of this lane containers can’t drive somewhere else than the inspection post, there is no need of a customs-related transport document, and the terminal operator will often organise the transport and take into account the costs. On the terminals which have no access to the internal lane these advantage are not valid.
The train scan in Rotterdam is also very unique and futuristic. The train drives at a speed of 60km an hour true the scanning system. The containers which are selected for scanning will be examined. It is not yet possible to look into containers which are not selected for scanning because of regulations. The train scan is a solution only for containers for export, because inbound containers can’t be stopped once on a moving train.
In Belgium there is an automatic connection between the declaration and the landed goods. In the Netherlands there’s a manual connection by the customs. The procedure in Belgium is 100% secured where this isn’t the case in the Netherlands.
In Belgium client management is rather new, actors have high expactations of the 22 clientmanagers. They are expected to answer questions and treat issues. In The Netherlands clientmanagement has existed for about 10 years. In the Netherlands the 140 accountmanagers are used for keeping the customs updated of new developments.
In Belgium there are less certificates for AEO than there are in The Netherlands. This is because the Netherlands established lower standards for becoming AEO and actors are more encouraged because they have implemented lower selection quota. Belgium had promised to lower the selection quota but didn’t apply them yet, when this wil be implemented the AEO-status will be much more desirable and more businesses will be likely to attempt for an AEO certificate.
Here is a brief overview of the elements I just discussed. In Antwerp APICS2 is more advanced then HaMis in Rotterdam. They also have a better surveillance on final declarations. They also ask for a higher standerd of AEO then the Netherlands.
In Rotterdam containers can’t be picked up without a valid customs document, they also ask more information in their pre-announcements. In Rotterdam the customs use an internal lane and a train scan. Last, Rotterdam has implemented the lower selection quota for AEO.
I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you for your attention.
