MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013 PROGRAMME … · MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013...

The Evaluation Partnership 83 Baker Street London W1U 6AG United Kingdom T +44 20 7034 7026 F + 44 20 7034 7100 evaluationpartnership.com

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013 PROGRAMME ANNEX II European Commission Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union Brussels Contract no TAXUD/2010/AO-06

Version 1.0 15 June 2011

1 The Evaluation Partnership Annex II TAXUD/2010/AO-06

Table of contents

ANNEX II.A: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE REPORT ..................................................... 2

ANNEX II.B: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WITH EU MEMBER STATES .................... 43

ANNEX II.C: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WITH PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBER OF THE EU ............................................................................. 79

ANNEX II.D: SURVEY REPORT ....................................................................................... 103

ANNEX II.E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ 127

ANNEX II.F: INTERVIEW REPORT .................................................................................. 137

ANNEX II.F: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT .......................... 146


ANNEX II.A: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE REPORT

Introduction

The evaluation questionnaire was one of the main tools used to seek the views of and to gather information from the national customs administrations in all the Participating Countries1.

The questionnaire was sent to the National Programme Coordinators (NPCs) early in January 2011 requesting their responses to be returned by 8 February. The closing date was then extended to 18 February and the last questionnaire was received on 18 March 2011. Overall, questionnaires were filled in thoroughly and the NPCs made a real effort to provide a detailed answer to many questions. However, in a limited number of multiple choice questions some national customs administrations provided two contradictory answers to one question. In such cases the answer was considered as if it was left blank in order to ensure that the opinion of each country has the same weight in the overall assessment.

The report consists of three main sections reflecting the structure of the evaluation questionnaire:

• Section 1 presents feedback from the Participating Countries (PCs) on the effectiveness of the programme in relation to each of the main objectives and related priorities as defined in the Customs 2013 Decision and the Annual Work Programme2;

• Section 2 presents opinions of national customs administrations from the EU Member States (MS) on the main trans-European IT systems and central customs applications3;

• Section 3 provides findings on the management, relevance, and added value of the programme as viewed by all PC.

1 Given the different objectives of support provided by the C2013 programme to EU Member States and non-MS Participating Countries, separate questionnaires were designed for the two groups of countries. 2 Please note that questions related to C2013 objectives and related priorities for non-MS countries were different than those for the EU MS in order to capture C2013 support for the enlargement. Therefore, feedback from customs administration in non-MS countries is presented under Objective V. 3 Please note that questions related to IT customs systems were asked to the EU Member States only.


1 Programme objectives and related priorities

The figure below gives a brief overview of how C2013 contributed to its five main objectives. Where objectives consist of different elements, they were broken down into their main components in the questionnaire (in particular objectives II and V).

Figure 1 – Extent to which C2013 helped to meet its objectives

Source: TEP, Evaluation Questionnaire (n=27)

Note: Objective I Protection of Community’s financial and economic interests Objective II Trade facilitation, cooperation and competitiveness Objective III Supporting national customs administrations to act as one Objective IV Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens Objective V Enlargement and relations with third countries

According to national customs administrations, the most significant impact of C2013 can be observed in the areas of protecting the Community’s interests (objective I), security and safety (objective IV) and acting as one administration (objective III). Almost all MS reported that C2013 contributed “a lot” or “somewhat” to these objectives.

The majority of MS concurred that C2013 has helped to increase cooperation with economic operators (EOs) (23 out of 27 MS), to facilitate trade (24 out of 27 MS) and increase the competitiveness of EU companies (18 out of 27 MS). Only 19 MS were convinced that C2013 has contributed to improving co-operation with third countries, such as the US, China and Russia and even fewer customs administrations noted C2013 support for the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) (11 out of 26 MS).

The following sections present evaluation findings on each of the five objectives in more detail, including the priorities defined in the AWP under each objective.

85

96 8

11

1

9

17

1815

12

1713

10

10

3 2

5

1

6

6

1

1

1 1 14

1 1

9

1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objectives I-V(In the experience of your administration, has C201 3 contributed to

related objectives?)

Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


1.1 Objective I

As illustrated by the figure below, responding customs administrations recognised the contribution that C2013 has made to all priorities related to protecting Community’s financial and economic interests.

Figure 2 – C2013 contribution to Objective I


Note: Priority I.A Simplification, modernisation and implementation of customs legislation Priority I.B Correct and uniform application of customs legislation and standardisation of methods Priority I.C Co-operation between customs administrations and between them and other public or private bodies

to improve security and the fight against fraud

The following sections present evaluation findings on each of the priorities in more detail.

1.1.1 Priority I.A

According to almost all MS, C2013 has helped “a lot” or at least “somewhat” to simplify and modernise customs legislation and, subsequently, to implement it. Among the most important programme actions in this area were:

• Project groups (and other activities) related to the MCCIP;

• Meetings related to e-Customs and IT systems – in the opinion of one MS “by their very nature IT actions touch on all the issues ... The creation of a pan-European electronic customs environment enables customs administrations in MS to cooperate, thus supporting the functioning of the internal market, helping to protect Union’s financial interests and increasing safety and security. They are also essential to the full and proper implementation of the MCC.”

• Project groups and events on tariff classification;

• The Working Group on Cash Controls.

The key results and outputs of these actions as viewed by MS included:

• The development of legislation (e.g. Implementing provisions for the MCC, Classification Regulation);

• The development of common guidelines, manuals and other tools (e.g. guidelines on the security and safety amendment of the CC, AEO guidelines and self-assessment questionnaire);

• Improved understanding of EU customs legislation;

• Actions and measures identified to be taken at national level.

Responding customs administrations provided numerous examples of how these actions made impacts at the national level and some of them are briefly presented below:

• The new IT systems are in place and operational and/or adjustments to the IT systems were made at national level;

• The national legislation was adjusted to reflect simplifications made at the EU level which in turn help to save time and improve the efficiency of customs procedures;


• The national guidelines were developed to reflect the changes at the EU level;

• Corrective measures were implemented as a result of monitoring visits.

1.1.2 Priority I.B

All but a few MS were of the opinion that C2013 has helped “a lot” or “somewhat” to improve correct and uniform application of customs legislation and to standardise customs methods across the EU. According to the MS, among the most important programme actions in this area were:

• Working and monitoring visits in particular those related to:

o EBTI4, AEO, SASP, REM/REC5, rules of origin, etc. This is well illustrated by the following view:

“Monitoring teams [are] made up of experts from both the Commission and the MS. Working in such teams was a great opportunity to get lot of experience from colleagues from other MS... Monitoring visits certainly contributed to the establishment of uniform practices and procedures in the field of issuing and dealing with BTIs.”

• Activities related to the classification of goods;

• Meetings of the AEO Contact Network;

• The Seminar on Under-invoicing: valuation risk, financial consequences and economic impact – schemes for controls in Rome;

• Various actions related to cash controls and drug precursors.

The above mentioned actions brought the following results and outputs:

• The differences among MS were identified through exchange of information and best practice:

o in some cases common solutions were found and measures were adopted to harmonise practices (e.g. REM/REC, BTI, cash controls). The opinion below is a good illustration of this process:

“There are some points which we have improved after these monitoring visits, e.g. we inform [an] applicant in writing that we have received BTI application and information enclosed; ... information about tariff quota request results is available for importers in the internet.”

o however, a number of other areas require further work (e.g. Customs Penalties, goods classification, etc.)

• Better understanding of specific areas of customs legislation was achieved among the MS;

• Various guidelines and training material were developed to further harmonise the practice across the EU (e.g. guidelines on AEO, SASP, MCC, cash control, post-clearance verification controls on proofs of origin, security amendments, etc.).

“The guidelines are very helpful. They provide for a uniform approach and advice. The working procedures mentioned in the Guidelines represent for us a kind of

4 European Binding Tariff Information 5 REC: decisions concerning requests for non-recovery of duties. REM: decisions concerning requests for remission or repayment of duties.


inspiration. On the basis of the European legislation as well as on the basis of the Guidelines we elaborate the internal instructions and internal regulations.”

As shown in the above opinion, these actions and their results have had significant impacts at the national level. More examples provided by the MS are listed below:

• The new IT systems are in place and operational (and/or adjustments to the IT systems were made at national level as a result of a monitoring visit);

• Amendments were made to the national legislation (e.g. in IPR field) resulting in higher efficiency;

• Corrective measures were implemented as a result of monitoring and working visits;

• Seminar conclusions were implemented (e.g. some of the methods discussed during the valuation seminar are now in use);

• The development of national guidelines and training in many areas of customs legislation.

1.1.3 Priority I.C

While practically all MS felt that C2013 has helped to improve co-operation between national customs administrations (26 out of 27 responding MS said C2013 had contributed “a lot” or “somewhat” to this priority), fewer MS concurred that C2013 has been equally helpful with regard to co-operation between them and other public or private bodies (only 21 out of 27 MS thought so).

Likewise, the vast majority of examples of the most important activities provided by MS relate to co-operation among national customs administrations. The human dimension of C2013 actions was highly emphasises and appreciated by the respondents. The most frequently repeated examples included: working visits, actions related to AEO concept, cash controls and the RAPFH project group.

Among the most important programme actions relating to the co-operation between customs administrations and other public and private bodies to improve security and fight against fraud were:

• The Working Group on Product Safety;

• The Seminar on Preventing Imports of Dangerous Products;

• A joint meeting with tax administrations.

However, the evidence shows that there is much lower level of co-operation with other public and private bodies as, “[this] is more of an issue at national level, the impact of C2013 in this regard has not been as effective and it is unlikely that it would ever be [so].”

The key results and outputs of these activities were described as:

• Better and common understanding of customs legislation and national practices;

• Strengthened co-operation between MS customs administration and subsequently, numerous seizures of cigarettes, spirits and detection of several money laundering frauds. The human dimension of the programme was much emphasised and appreciated by responding customs administration:


“The concrete results are the personal networking of such officials even after the working visit is over. The personal contacts enhance professional work to a great extent”.

Several MS provided examples of impacts of these actions at the national level, such as revising national manuals and introducing new equipment following best practice developed by other countries.

1.1.4 Objective I: summary

Practically all MS consider that the C2013 programme has served the protection of economic and financial interests of the Community:

According to national customs administrations, C2013 has helped to protect economic and financial interests of the EU by actions dedicated to improving customs legislation, and those aiming to ensure correct and uniform application of the legislation. MS were of the opinion that many project groups, as well as other types of joint actions, contributed to improving antifraud provisions and developing common guidelines which further strengthen the uniform approach of all MS (e.g. guidelines on the MCC, SASP).

The working group on the classification of goods was a frequently repeated example of how discussions among the MS and the Commission supported uniform application of the customs nomenclature with the benefit of the financial interests of the EU. The differences among the MS in classification of specific goods have been identified and common solutions have been found to problematic issues, such as new and emerging technologies which can potentially lead to divergent practices across the EU with regard to payable duties.

Some MS pointed that C2013 provided significant support in the area of valuation of goods (Seminar on Under-invoicing) and correct calculation of customs debt.

Also, national customs administrations noted the importance of IT systems (such as NCTS, TARIC, SMS, RIF, CRMS) that help to protect financial and economic interests of the EU by improving the effectiveness of customs controls. For example, C2013 supported development of national tariff systems with duty calculation modules, that help to collect import and export duties based on the Common Customs Tariff.

MS were of the opinion that most, if not all, results achieved in this area would could not have been achieved without C2013. In particular, the level of co-operation between MS would have been lower, while the implementation of the EU legislation would have taken much more time and it would have been more costly. Several MS pointed that the practice across the EU would have been more divergent making the protection of economic and financial interests of the Community less effective.

The majority of national customs administrations did not identify major difficulties and shortcomings of C2013 in the area of protecting economic and financial interests of the EU. However, individual MS noted some aspects that could be further improved, such as:

• The decision making process was said to be sometimes slow, especially when the meetings are held infrequently;

• Documents happen to be circulated too late for the delegates to allow them to prepare for a meeting

• The lack of resources within DG TAXUD as illustrated by the following opinion: “There were some cases that we have participated in ... events, and after[wards] we


have tried to apply what we have learned but as we needed help, we have asked the Commission [for] assistance but this assistance was not provided and we could not achieve some objectives.”

• The language becomes an issue, especially during very technical meetings.

Some MS suggested challenges and priorities to be addressed in the future. These suggestions included:

• The implementation and improvement of the relevant legislation and IT systems;

• Further actions aimed at:

o BTI (incl. improving current guidelines and the decision making process on the classification of certain products);

o implementing conclusions of the Seminar on Under-invoicing;

o risk analysis in the field of rules of origin;

o developing post audit controls.


1.2 Objective II

As shown in the figure below, responding MS felt that C2013 has made important contribution to trade facilitation, cooperation and competitiveness, in particular for the first two priorities.

Figure 3 – C2013 contribution to Objective II


Note: Priority II.A Understanding and interpretation of complex legislation Priority II.B Cooperation with economic operators in correct implementation of customs legislation to support the

competitiveness of European companies Priority II.C Cooperation between MS and third countries in relation to trade facilitation


1.2.1 Priority II.A

Most MS were of the opinion that C2013 has helped “a lot” or “somewhat” to improve the understanding and interpretation of complex legislation and to raise awareness of EU customs policy and legislation. Among the most important programme actions in this area MS identified the following:

• The developments of the AEO concept;

• E-learning courses on AEO, SASP and EORI – as one MS explained:

“E-learning programs such as AEO, EORI and SASP were very significant tools both for customs officers and for economic operators to understand the basics of customs legislation concerning these aspects. From our experience we know that economic operators who read these e-learning tools find them very helpful.”

139

5 5

10

1317

13

2 4 3

7

11 1 1 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective II(In the experience of your administration, has C201 3 contributed to

related priorities?)

Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


• Activities related to the “security and safety amendment”;

• Also, many MS emphasised actions where the trade community was invited to participate and have their say on the issues which were discussed (e.g. the PG on MCCIP, the Seminar on Self-Assessment in Amsterdam, consultations through the Trade Contact Group (TCG)6 etc.)

The key results and outputs of these actions were described as:

• The draft legislation produced (e.g. on AEO concept, SASP, MCCIP) which according to one MS “ensure[s] a proper protection of the financial and economic interests of the EU on one hand, and that the business and industry can comply with on the other”;

• New guidelines developed (e.g. AEO, SASP);

• The AEO Self-Assessment questionnaire developed;

• Raised awareness and better understanding of customs legislation and related issues (such as self-assessment);

• Exchange of experience and best practice leading to a closer cooperation between all relevant actors.

The MS provided some examples of impacts of these actions at the national level. These examples included changes to national IT systems, legislation and instructions made in response to developments at the EU level. Some MS organised information campaigns directed to EOs at national level and training at the national level.

1.2.2 Priority II.B

All but a few MS felt that C2013 contributed to improving co-operation and exchange of information with economic operators in particular with a view to the correct implementation of customs legislation (22 out of 26 responding MS reported that C2013 helped “a lot” or “somewhat” to this priority).

According to the responding customs administrations, the most important programme actions in this area were the activities which involved representatives of trade. The majority of MS appreciated the presence and input of the trade community to C2013 actions, such as:

• Meetings of the ECG;

• Activities related to SASP;

• Project groups on the MCCIP, etc.

The positive impact of C2013 on co-operation between customs administrations and the trade community can be well illustrated by the following opinions:

“Operation of [the] TCG is crucial to shape customs legislation and its uniform implementation to all MS. It is very important when [the] Commission and MS [draft legislation that they take] into account the opinions of traders”.

6 It should be noted that the TCG formally falls outside the C2013 management scheme and it is not funded by the programme but the members of the TCG are occasionally invited to participate in C2013 activities.


“The opportunity for businesses to participate in high level seminars that determine future strategic direction has been key to ensuring commercial practices and requirements are taken into account in planning and designing modern customs procedures. At a working group level the involvement of economic operators has been invaluable in ensuring that the introduction of new customs procedures and systems have been delivered successfully with the minimum of burden and disruption to the trade.”

Among the key results and outputs of these actions were:

• The new customs legislation drafted to better answer the needs of EOs;

• Information tools, such as leaflets, guidelines, learning material developed to inform the trade community about new developments;

• Better understanding of the legislation among the trade community.

As regards the impacts of these actions at the national level, the MS provided the following examples:

• Improved communication and cooperation between customs administrations and EOs;

• Improved compliance with the customs legislation among EOs (correct application of customs legislation);

• The higher number of electronically submitted declarations, as well as users of IT systems.

1.2.3 Priority II.C

While most MS still saw a positive impact of C2013 on co-operation with third countries in relation to trade facilitation, more than a quarter of responding customs administrations felt that C2013 has contributed only “very little” or “not at all”. The most important programme actions in this area were:

• Activities related to the mutual recognition of the AEO status between the EU and the US, China and Japan;

• The EU-Russia Working Group on Cross Border Issues;

• The Seminar on Exchange of Customs Information between the EU and Third Countries in Vilnius.

According to the MS, the main results and outputs of these actions included:

• The agreement on mutual recognition of AEO with Japan signed, significant progress made towards the agreements with the US and China;

• A better understanding between the EU and the third countries (Russia, China and the US in particular).

“The most notable successes in this area relate to the Eastern European Partnership and the initiatives to reduce delays and facilitate movement across the border. This has benefitted our importers and exporters who use road transport to move their goods across the Eastern Border on the EU. We also feel that the work has built trust and a good working relationship with our colleagues in Russian Customs and the other non-EU members on the Eastern Border.”


The responding MS did not provide concrete examples of impacts of these actions at the national level.

1.2.4 Objective II: summary

The majority of MS consider that the C2013 programme has contributed to trade facilitation:

According to the MS, the most valuable feature of C2013 in this respect was the possibility to involve the trade community in the variety of joint actions. The engagement of economic operators in the work of the project groups, workshops and seminars was mutually beneficial, as viewed by the customs administrations: “The active participation of EOs in C2013 projects ... increased ... co-operation between customs authorities and EOs [and] allowed for increasing trade facilitation and the competitiveness of EU companies because it brought together both stakeholders (customs authorities and EOs) in the discussions and thus increased the knowledge of the concerns of both parties”.

In particular, the AEO concept and system based approach (SBA) were often repeated as examples how C2013 added value in this area. The following opinions serve as a good illustration of the C2013 impact on trade facilitation and improving the competitiveness of European companies:

• “The AEO program contributed to trade facilitation – authorized economic operators are examined companies, “good and proven” partners of customs administrations within all MS. This program helped the economic operators to increase their competitiveness, because AEO is in some way competitive advantage and a sign of prestige and a good credit.”

• “PG SBA furthered co-operation with economic operators by inviting them to discuss the possible pro and contras of SBA, like the potential savings of costs, less administrative burden and the changing relationship with customs authorities”.

There was a consensus among the responding customs administrations that without C2013 MS would not have been able to remove barriers for traders and to facilitate trade flows to the same extent. The progress in this area would have been most likely much slower, and due to budgetary constraints many MS feared being excluded from the process. Also, the majority of MS felt that the level of co-operation between them and EOs in this area would have probably been lower.

It can be concluded that MS do not observe any major difficulties of C2013 under the trade facilitation. Only individual customs administrations identified minor shortcomings of C2013 and they were mainly related to individual events, such as non-satisfactory results of the EU-Russia Border WG, problems with calculating savings for trade and customs administrations at the project group on the SBA, etc.

However, it is not to say that the objective of trade facilitation and increasing the competitiveness of companies was fully met. On the contrary, there is a general feeling that the work is far from completion and the benefits for trade are yet to be reaped. The main challenges and priorities for future are briefly summarised below:

• Full implementation of the MCCIP and preparation of all stakeholders to comply with the legislation;

• Further development of the AEO concept, including finalising agreements on mutual recognition;


• The right balance between trade facilitation (with increasing trade flows) and ensuring security for trade and citizens;

• Further and more serious involvement of EOs in C2013 activities.


1.3 Objective III

The figure below gives an overview of how, based on the questionnaire responses, C2013 contributed to supporting customs administrations to act as one.

Figure 4 – C2013 contribution to Objective III


Note: Priority III.A (Inter)operability, maintenance and upgrading of the existing communication and information

exchange systems; deployment, maintenance and evolution of systems related to the 'safety and security initiative'

Priority III.B Preparation and implementation of new IT projects as outlined and prioritised in the MASP following the decision on a paperless environment for customs and trade, the MCC, and possibly other legislative acts, administrative agreements and joined agreements with third countries

Priority III.C Management of a common training approach, training infrastructure, e-learning modules and other customs related information

Priority III.D Define the future direction of customs in the EU in partnership with the trade community and ensuring consistency between all future activities

The following sections present evaluation findings on all priorities in more detail.

1.3.1 Priority III.A and Priority III.B

As shown on the figure above, the responding customs administrations have a very similar view on how C2013 has contributed to Priority III.A and B. Also, the examples provided in the responses to the evaluation questionnaire were also alike, therefore, feedback on these two priorities is presented in one section.

According to the MS, C2013 had a very significant impact on the customs IT systems and applications. Over three quarters of national customs administrations believed that C2013 has contributed “a lot” to the (inter)operability of the existing IT systems, as well as to the

21 21

118

118

5 6

4 5

1314

13 16

1416

1 3 5 3 1

64

1 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective III(In the experience of your administration, has C201 3 contributed to

the related priorities?)

Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


implementation of new IT projects. Almost all remaining MS felt that that C2013 has contributed “somewhat” to these priorities.

According to the MS, the most important programme actions in this area were:

• Meetings of the Electronic Customs Group (ECG) and its technical working groups, in particular related to the ECS and ICS;

“The use of C2013 programme to resource the ECG and its various sub groups has been instrumental to the successful delivery of IT systems... In particular the work of these groups to ensure interoperability between MS systems/processes and the exchange of messages via the common domain cannot be underestimated.”

• Evaluation workshops for conformance testing of IT systems and applications (e.g. for NCTS, ECS, ICS);

• Activities related to IT training;

• The Project Group on CRMS;

• Working groups and workshops on BPM;

• The Working Groups on IT Architecture and Security.

The key results and outputs of these actions as reported by MS were:

• The production of agreed user requirements, as well as functional and technical specifications for IT systems;

• The development of new IT systems and applications at the EU level;

• Better understanding of IT systems;

• Help desk facilities and an agreement on the operational fallback arrangements.

In terms of impacts at the national level of these actions, responding customs administrations provided several examples:

• Drafting a roadmap for MS to develop their national user requirements, IT systems, instructions and training;

• Modifications of national systems based on best practice examples and solutions used elsewhere;

• Improved (quality) communication among and between Member States and the Commission;

• Improved efficiency of customs procedures and risk analysis.

MS provided some examples of indicators to illustrate the progress made in this area, such as increased number of messages issued, decreased rate of errors, number of EOs connected to trans-European systems. In the opinion of one MS: “The medium time release is for imports: 35min and for exports: 16min. The maritime summary declarations are processed electronically, which eliminates more than 2,000,000 sheets of paper per year. All of these systems are time saving for customs but mainly for economic operators.”

1.3.2 Priority III.C

24 out of 27 customs administrations concurred that C2013 has contributed “a lot” or “somewhat” to a common core of high quality training of customs officials and other stakeholders and, to the same extent, it helped to provide customs officials with a common


set of skills and knowledge. Somewhat fewer but still most MS were of the opinion that the common platform to share training courses has been a valuable tool to improve national training. This situation was explained by the fact that most MS still need to translate the training courses in their national languages before they can be used on a broader scale. However, this is costly and poses some challenges to their national budgets.

According to MS, the most important programme actions in this area were:

• E-learning courses both directed to customs officials, such as the modules on “Car search” and “Container examination”, and those aimed at EOs (e.g. AEO);

• The launch of the Tax and Customs Training Interactive Campus platform (TACTIC);

• Various training activities, for instance those related to CRMS, CS/RD, CS/MIS, etc.


• High quality training programmes have been developed and disseminated;

• The growing number of TACTIC users across the EU (from 10 up to 143 customs officials are using the platform in MS);

• Common understanding and knowledge of using relevant systems and/or procedures.

In terms of impacts at the national level of these actions, responding customs administrations provided several examples:

• E-learning modules translated in some national languages and launched online;

• The “cascade” system of national training delivered;

• The increasing number of participants who underwent training and upgraded their professional skills resulting in their improved performance.

1.3.3 Priority III.D

The Future Customs Initiative (including High Level Seminars in Prague and Ruka) and the Measurement of Results (MoR) project were considered as the most important actions in this area.

Almost all responding MS concurred that C2013 has contributed “a lot” or at least “somewhat” to defining the future direction of customs policy. While most of them felt that C2013 ensured coherence between all future activities, it should be noted that one fourth of national administrations saw “very little” of this contribution.

The MoR project has been generally useful to measure performance of participating countries, as viewed by the majority of customs administrations. However, many responses suggest that the MS feel that there is still some room for further improvements, especially in terms of the quality and comparability of data.

Among the key results and outputs of these actions reported by MS were:

• The Prague declaration adopted at the High Level Seminar on the Future of Electronic Customs;

• The Ruka declaration adopted at the High Level Seminar on Customs future;

• The development of the Future Customs Initiative (FCI) implementation plan.


There were very few examples of impacts at the national level of these actions, provided by the responding customs administrations. This is mainly because the MS feel that in terms of the FCI efforts should be now moved into implementation phase, as illustrated by the following opinion: “Because the [Future Customs Initiative] implementation plan is until now more a report than a plan there is no visible impact yet at a national level. The FCI implementation plan is a good start but has to be transformed from a paper report into an instrument for governance steering.”

With regard to the MoR project, individual MS reported having used the results of this project to set their national strategic objectives.

1.3.4 Objective III: summary

The majority of MS consider that the C2013 programme has contributed to supporting customs administrations to act as one through various activities that provide customs administrations with a platform to exchange information, develop common guidelines, IT systems and training, therefore helping MS to perform their duties more homogeneously. However, it was also acknowledged that the work is far from finished and the differences across the EU still exist. Thus, further actions in this area are required.

MS almost uniformly responded that without C2013 support national customs administrations would perform their duties less efficiently and consistently mainly because the central IT systems and applications make their work easier and faster. It would be also more difficult, if possible at all, to ensure comparable level of skills and knowledge among customs officials and other stakeholders across the EU.

According to the MS, the major challenge and the priority for the future is to eliminate or at least minimize the differences among the EU countries. Some customs administrations also pointed the implementation of IT systems and electronic exchange of information with other public bodies as other challenges to be tackled in the years to come.


1.4 Objective IV

The figure below gives an overview of how national customs administrations rated the contributed of C2013 to strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens.

Figure 5 – C2013 contribution to Objective IV


Note: Priority IV.A Supply chain security Priority IV.B Increased effectiveness of customs controls Priority IV.C Development of a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support, if necessary also on the

field or online Priority IV.D Protect society by applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and

prohibited drugs


1.4.1 Priority IV.A

As shown in the figure above, nearly all responding MS felt that C2013 has contributed either “a lot” or “somewhat” to improving supply chain security. According to MS, the most important programme actions in this area were:

• Actions related to the safety and security aspects of EU customs legislation, in particular common risk management, such as the PG on Security Risk Rules, or actions related to CRMS;

• Actions related to the implementation of AEO, including the AEO Network and the Regional Workshops on Mutual Recognition of AEOs;

• The EU-China Smart and Secure Trade Lanes (SSTL) Project;

• The development of IT systems, in particular ICS and ECS.

9

14

8 7

13

11

11 10

32

3 3

3 2

1 2 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective IV(In the experience of your administration, has C201 3 contributed to


Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot



• A common risk management framework and a better understanding of and ability to implement this in the MS;

• Ability to grant reliable traders who should have better control of their supply chains AEO status;

• Testing the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards in an operational environment, identifying issues and suggesting changes;

• Effective computerised systems for import and export.

MS provided various examples of how these results and outputs have been incorporated into national rules and procedures, in particular as regards risk management and AEO.

1.4.2 Priority IV.B

There was near consensus among MS that C2013 has helped to improve the effectiveness of customs controls (in particular with a view to detecting and combating fraud and other security and safety risks). More than half of all MS responded that C2013 has contributed “a lot”, while only two MS held the view that the programme only contributed “very little” in this area. The most important programme actions according to respondents were:

• Actions related to risk analysis and management, in particular the PG on Security Risk Rules and the Workshops for targeting officers;

• The PG on Convergence of Customs Controls;

• The WG on Cash Controls.

Key results and outputs of these actions included:

• Common rules and tools to effectively target the most high-risk consignments for controls, and enhanced ability of national customs officials to use and apply these;

• Dissemination of best practices in customs controls and development of common standards (ongoing);

• Harmonisation of the implementation of Regulation 1889/2005 on cash controls and sharing of information between MS on new trends and threats in this area.

In terms of concrete impacts at the national level of these actions, MS provided a number of interesting examples. One noted that the ongoing work of the PGs and other actions keeps the national administration focussed on exchanging risk information and ways of further developing its enforcement approach and techniques. Another reported that the effectiveness of cash controls has been increased, as evidenced by the number of successful cash controls, and the number of customs officials trained.

1.4.3 Priority IV.C

19 MS responded that C2013 has helped “a lot” or “somewhat” to develop a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support to national customs administrations. The remaining eight MS were not sure whether the programme has made a significant contribution in this respect. The most important programme actions in this area as indicated by questionnaire respondents were:


• The Customs Laboratories Steering Group and the different activities set up under its aegis. Specifically, MS highlighted:

o The 4th European Customs Chemists Seminar (Helsinki, June 2010);

o The ECICS-2 working group / workshop / training;

o Working visits of experts to customs laboratories in other MS.

According to MS’ responses, the most important results and outputs of the increased collaboration between national customs laboratories relate to the exchange of scientific and product information, analytical methods (e.g. Meursing codes), quality system elements, second opinions, scientific support in the field, etc.

In terms of impacts at the national level, several MS reported that as a result of C2013 activities, their laboratories were able to improve their working methods, introduce new techniques, and standardise / harmonise their methods with those of other MS in various fields, and thus provide a better service to national customs administrations. One MS reported that the number of Meursing code samples in its laboratory has increased by about 200% in the last two years. It was also noted that more MS now have mobile laboratories that can perform safety analyses at the border.

1.4.4 Priority IV.D

17 MS felt that C2013 has contributed “a lot” or “somewhat” to applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and prohibited goods. Five deemed that its contribution in this area has been “very little” or “none at all”; the remainder had no view. According to those MS who did detect an impact in this area, the most important programme actions were:

• The PG on Drugs Precursors and actions launched within it, including the e-learning modules on drugs precursors for customs and economic operators;

• The PG on Common Priority Control Areas (CPCAs), and in particular two CPCAs implemented to date, namely MEDI-FAKE (2008) and ALCHEMIST (2010).

The main results and outputs of these actions were described as:

• Exchange of information between MS and third countries about smuggling techniques and seizures of drugs precursors, current trends in source and transit countries;

• Better training for national customs officers;

• Strengthened contacts between ports of entry as a result of the CPCAs, and opportunity to focus on key threats.

Several MS mentioned concrete impacts at the national level, in particular an enhanced awareness of and better capacity to detect illicit, restricted and prohibited goods, including drugs precursors and counterfeit medicines. A few MS pointed out concrete seizures as evidence of this.


1.4.5 Objective IV: summary

Following the questions on the priorities (IV.A – IV.D) that fall under objective IV, respondents were asked to rate to what extent C2013 has contributed to this objective (strengthen safety and security for citizens and trade) as a whole. As shown in the graph in section 1 of this report, nearly all MS agreed that the programme has helped to achieve this objective either “somewhat” (13 MS) or “a lot” (11 MS). In their open responses, MS emphasised updates to relevant legislation related to the security amendment and guidelines for their consistent application; activities in the areas of risk management and AEO, awareness raising among customs officials of various security threats and how to deal with them through training, networking and exchange of information; and useful exchange of information with certain third countries.

MS were adamant that most if not all of the actions and outcomes in this area could not have been achieved without C2013. The result would be slower progress on legislative updates and related projects, less coordination and information sharing, and a less common (and in many cases less advanced) approach to risk management and other safety and security related issues. According to several MS, this would accentuate the gaps between the standards applied by different MS, and open up opportunities for criminals or terrorists to exploit, which in turn would imperil the safety and security of EU citizens.

Most MS did not see any major difficulties or shortcomings in the area of safety and security, but many did highlight the need to press on with the implementation of the rules, tools and concepts that have been developed, and monitoring and addressing any issues that may arise as the practical experience grows.


1.5 Objective V

The figure below gives a brief overview of how C2013 contributed to relations with third countries.

Figure 6 – C2013 contribution to Objective V


Note: Priority V.A Sharing of experience and knowledge on customs legislation and procedures and their

implementation Priority V.B Exchange of experience and cooperation between customs administrations of the Community,

(potential) Candidate Countries, ENP countries and other third countries Priority V.C Cooperation with third countries on security and safety related risks by international trade as well as

on the facilitation of trade flows

The following sections present evaluation findings on how C2013 supported co-operation with Candidate Countries (in particular with a view to their accession to the EU), ENP countries and other third countries, including co-operation on security and safety related risks and trade facilitation.

1.5.1 Priority V.A and B: Co-operation with Candida te Countries (and enlargement)

Two thirds of the MS felt that C2013 has helped them “a lot” or “somewhat” to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with (potential) Candidate Countries (CC) through different activities, such as seminars, workshops and working visits.

On the other hand, the evaluation sought feedback from those participating countries that are not members of the EU (i.e. Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey) on how C2013 has supported them in their preparation to the accession to the EU. It should be noted that CC joined the C2013 programme at different points in time, and their views are determined by

5 4 36

1311 13

14

4 87

65 4 3 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective V(In the experience of your administration, has C201 3 contributed to


Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


the length of time they have participated in C2013: generally, the longer their membership in the programme, the more benefits they note. The evaluation findings are briefly listed below:

1. C2013 support for the CC in protecting economic and financial interests of the Community:

• Nearly all CC felt that C2013 has helped them “a lot” or “somewhat” to adjust their customs legislation to the acquis communautaire;

• Most CC were of the opinion that C2013 has helped them to adjust national working methods in line with the EU standards to some extent;

• According to the majority of the CC, C2013 has been of little or no help for them in terms of improving co-operation with relevant public or private bodies in the EU other than national customs administrations.

2. C2013 support for the CC with regard to trade facilitation, increasing co-operation, and improving competitiveness:

• Approximately half of the CC thought that to some extent C2013 has helped them to raise awareness of EU customs policy and legislation among EOs in their countries;

• In terms of how C2013 has helped the CC to facilitate trade with EU Member States the opinions were evenly split between those who felt that C2013 played some role and those who saw no such support at all.

3. C2013 support for the CC in preparing them to act as one:

• The majority of the CC concurred that C2013 has helped them to take steps for setting up IT systems between them and EU MS;

• Also, most CC felt that the common training approach and materials developed under C2013 have helped them to improve and harmonise training of customs officials in their countries with that of EU MS.

4. C2013 support for the CC in strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens:

• Approximately half of the CC noted that, to some extent, C2013 has helped to improve supply chain security in their countries;

• The majority of the CC felt that C2013 has helped them to improve the effectiveness of customs controls, and to take steps to ensure future participation in and compliance with EU’s risk management framework.

5. Overall, C2013 support for the enlargement and relations with third countries:

• All CC were of the opinion that C2013 supported customs administrations in (potential) Candidate Countries (including the majority of CC who felt this contribution was significant);

• In terms of sharing relevant information and exchange experience with the EC and customs administrations from EU MS, the CC felt that C2013 played a significant role as illustrated by the opinions below:

o “especially training activities and workshops helped our administration to transmit relevant information from [the] EC, in terms of both IT and legislative matters”;

o “C2013 has greatly assisted us in establishing communication with colleagues from other countries - through seminars and project groups [and] working


visits... Through presentations, discussions and practical examples we exchanged our experiences and gained insight into how individual MS [designed] the organizational structure and organization of work in specific fields, such as TARIC systems for management of quotas. This has significantly helped the development of our system.”

• Overall, all CC believed that co-operation with other customs administrations helped them either “a lot” or at least “somewhat” to prepare for the accession to the EU.

1.5.2 Priority V.A and B: Co-operation with ENP cou ntries

Almost half of responding customs administrations felt that C2013 has helped them “very little” (four MS) or “not at all” (eight MS) to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Among few the most important actions in this area were:

• The High Level Forum on Customs Cooperation at the Eastern Boarder of the EU in Vienna;

• The Seminar on Strategies for the Exchange of Customs Information between the EU and Third Countries in Vilnius.

According to the MS, these actions resulted in adopting a declaration and conclusions. In terms of impacts of these actions at the national level individual MS stated that they helped to improve co-operation between customs administrations in the EU and some ENP countries.

1.5.3 Priority V.A and B: Co-operation with other t hird countries

While almost two thirds of MS were of the opinion that C2013 has helped them to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with other third countries, the remaining ten MS noted very little of such contribution or not at all.

Among the most important programme actions identified by the MS in this area were:

• Activities related to the mutual recognition of AEO status with Japan, the US and China;

• Joint activities between the EU and Russia (including the SPEED project);


The key results and outputs of these actions were:

• Exchange of best practice and experience among participating countries;

• Better understanding between the EU and the third countries (Russia, China and the US in particular).


1.5.4 Priority V.C: Co-operation with third countri es on security and safety related risks by international trade as well as on the facilitation of trade flows

The majority of MS reported that C2013 has helped either “a lot” or “somewhat” to improve co-operation and reach agreements with the EU’s key trade partners to facilitate trade and tackle security and safety related risks.

Among the most important programme actions identified by the MS in this area were:

• Activities related to the mutual recognition of AEO status with Japan, the US and China;

• The EU-Russia Working Group on Cross Border Issues;

• The SPEED Project;

• Activities related to customs and the enforcement of the intellectual property rights;

• The High Level Forum on Customs Cooperation at the Eastern Boarder of the EU in Vienna;


According to the MS, the main results and outputs of these actions included:

• A better understanding of the relationship between risk analysis and AEO benefits;

• The agreement on mutual recognition of AEO with Japan signed, significant progress made towards the agreements with the US and China.

1.5.5 Objective V: summary

Following the questions on various aspects of the relations with different groups of countries, respondents were asked to rate to what extent C2013 has contributed to objective V as a whole. In their open responses MS emphasised the developments of EU relations with China and Russia, and progress towards mutual recognition of the AEO status.

Both the MS and CC were certain that without C2013 they would have not been able to ensure the same level of co-operation with customs administrations from other countries. In particular, the CC reported that C2013 had been crucial for the enlargement, as illustrated by the opinion below:

“We believe that we would not be able to prepare for accession to the EU to the same extent without C2013. Without sharing relevant information and exchanging experience with the EC and MS’ customs administration, it would be much more difficult to estimate the scope of work that needed to be undertaken in order to meet accession requirements. We would be deprived of the possibility to catch up with the latest developments in the areas of customs [IT] systems, security and safety, protection of financial interests and modernisation of working methods, procedures and processes.”

Most responding customs administrations, both from the EU and candidate countries did not see any major difficulties or shortcomings in the area. However, most of them felt that this is still an early stage and further work in this area is required.


2 IT systems

2.1 Trans-European IT systems

The MS’ questionnaire responses indicate a very high degree of satisfaction with NCTS, as almost all customs administrations agree that the system has achieved most of its objectives (including at least one thirds who felt that it has done so “fully”). MS had somewhat less positive views on whether NCTS has supported more efficient handling of goods and helped traders and customs officers with handling the procedures (only 20 MS felt these objectives have been met either “fully” or “mostly”).

Figure 7 – NCTS


In contrast, while the questionnaire responses show that there is a relatively high degree of satisfaction with ECS, the proportion of those MS indicating that objectives of the ECS have been achieved “fully” is quite low across the board. One of the reasons for more critical views on the ECS is the fact that NCTS has been operational for far longer, which has given more time to resolve initial “teething” problems). In the case of ECS, only a small minority of MS feel that at the present time, ECS provides them will “full control” of the export/exit of goods, or that it gives greater flexibility for economic operators in their connection with the customs authorities (see the figure below).

9

7

9

14

16

14

11

13

14

10

9

12

7

3

3

2

2

1

4

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Help both traders and customs to know exactly how to handle the procedures

More efficient handling of goods at the offices of transit

Improved transit discharge, enquiry and recovery procedure

Time and cost savings for economic operators

Enable full and effective control of the "core" transit procedure

Faster and more effective control

Extent to which the NCTS has achieved its objectiv es

Fully Mostly Partly Not at all Don’t know


Figure 8 – ECS


In their open responses, MS raised the following main reasons why ECS has so far failed to contribute significantly to the objectives listed above:

• A significant number of export movements are currently not correctly closed at the office of exit, meaning that the offices of export (and the exporting traders) are not notified when the goods leave the EU customs territory. ECS needs a functional extension, and/or the handling of movements at offices of exit needs to be improved, in order to resolve this problem;

• Risk rules for export have yet to be implemented, meaning that a more rational use of resources for control is not yet possible;

• Technical limitations continue to lead to failure to receive messages;

• When traders fail to discharge their obligations in terms of export declarations correctly, the system cannot function properly.

Overall, there was almost a consensus among MS that the trans-European systems contribute to the four main objectives of the C2013 programme (with at least one third of MS who felt that they contributed “a lot”).

8

8

3

5

5

3

11

11

18

16

17

21

7

5

5

2

4

3

1

1 2

1

4

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Better control of movements and a more rational use of resources for control

EOs benefit from early confirmation of the operation

Greater flexibility for EOs in their connection with the customs authorities

Faster reception and treatment of the pre-departure declarations

More efficient handling of exiting movements at the offices of exit

Give customs administrations full control of the export/exit of goods

Extent to which the ECS has achieved its objective s



Figure 9 – Contribution of the trans-European system s to C2013 objectives


In their open responses MS emphasised the following benefits of these systems:

• Introducing standardised procedures;

• Faster handlings of operations;

• Traceability of movements;

• More effective customs controls and risk analysis.

129 9 9

14

15 1613

12

2

11 1

3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective I Objective II Objective III Objective IV

Overall, the trans-European systems (NCTS, ECS) ha ve contributed to C2013 objectives

Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


2.2 Central customs applications

There is consensus among responding customs administrations that TARIC has met its all objectives, with approximately half of the MS who felt that the objectives have been “fully” met.

Figure 10 – TARIC


In their open responses, responding customs administrations concurred that TARIC helps them to ensure uniform application of the nomenclature and tariff measures across the EU by providing fast and up-to-date information on the changes in the legislation. However, several MS noted types of data and information still missing in the system that would further improve its usefulness. These included:

• EU legislation on prohibitions and restrictions;

• CN preliminary notes and special provisions, section and chapter notes;

• Phyto-sanitary and veterinary measures;

• Tariff and control measures currently managed at national level, in order to guarantee uniform controls carried out by all EU Member States, thus avoiding any traffic distortions.

While approximately two thirds of the MS were of the opinion that SMS achieved its objectives, only some MS felt that the objectives have been “fully” met (see the figure below).

15

12

13

10

14

14

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Help to ensure the consistent application of legislation throughout the EU

Help EOs by providing information on the EU tariff and commercial legislation

Provide data needed for automated customs clearance

Extent to which the TARIC has achieved its objecti ves



Figure 11 – SMS


In their open responses individual MS noted that SMS provides them with up-to-date information and thus allowing them to detect forgery and fight fraud. However, MS also reported the limited number of users of this application in their countries and indicated that SMS provides poor quality data which makes it more difficult for them to use it.

According to virtually all responding customs administrations, AEO enabled central management of the AEO applications and certificates (including two thirds of MS who felt this objective has been “fully” met). However, much fewer MS shared the same opinion on how AEO enables due recognition for EOs of their status. This is mainly because due recognition is dependent on the interface between EORI /AEO and other customs systems.

7

7

6

7

11

11

12

13

5

6

6

4

1 2

2

2

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provide MS with timely and up-to-date specimen information

Contribute to the improvement of customs procedures and controls

Help customs administrations to detect forgery and fight fraud

Provide MS with accurate specimen information

Extent to which the SMS has achieved its objective s



Figure 12 – AEO


Figure 13 – EORI


In their open responses MS noted that a benefit of AEO/EORI is two-fold:

4

11

18

14

14

8

7

2

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Due recognition for EOs of their status

Provide reliable management support for the authorisation procedure

Enable central management of the AEO applications and certificates

Extent to which the AEO has achieved its objective s


2

8

10

12

11

8

11

11

13

11

5

4

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Simplification and higher security of the customs operations

Allow the recognition of all the authorisations granted to the EOs

Connection between a single traders' registration and identification system and other customs systems

Enable EOs to have a single registration number

Extent to which the EORI have achieved their objec tives



• On one hand a trader does not have to apply for an identification number in several MS but the EORI number can be used throughout the EU which is a significant trade facilitation appreciated by economic operators;

• On the other hand, the EORI number helps MS’ customs administrations to unambiguously identify economic operators.

However, some weaknesses of the EORI application were identified, as illustrated by the following opinion: “the wide variety of different solutions employed by MS relating to the registration procedures has somewhat lessened impact [of EORI]. Our opinion is that the system can’t reach its full potential unless some common data quality indicators are introduced into EORI records that can be considered in the risk analysis process.”

MS provided a few suggestions on how the system can be improved. These included:

• Some clarification on how to register:

o private persons;

o non-EU operators (different language interpretation, “non-latin” letters, no unique ID number, which can be used to prevent multiple registration, etc.)

• Additional EU wide IT system storing authorisation details, in particular with regard to non-EU operators.

With regard to CRMS, the majority of MS agree that it enables rapid, direct and secure disseminate information on EU-wide threats but over a quarter or customs administrations felt that it only “partly” helps to better focus customs controls on higher risk consignments (see the figure below).

Figure 14 – CRMS


In their open responses individual MS noted that even more rapid exchange of information would be welcome, as well as the development of a new security module.

13

10

14

16

5

9

10

9

1

7

3

2

1 6

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Generate no additional costs for traders

Better focusing of controls on higher risk consignments

Allow the rapid, direct and secure exchange of risk information

Enable the EC to disseminate information concerning EU-wide threats

Extent to which the CRMS has achieved its objectiv es



Overall, the central customs applications made a significant, although varied, contribution to the four main objectives of the C2013 programme, as illustrated in the figures below.

Figure 15 – Contribution of TARIC and SMS to protecti ng Community’s economic and financial interests


129 9 9

14

15 1613

12

2

11 1

3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Objective I Objective II Objective III Objective IV

Overall, to what extent has the implementation to date of the trans-European systems contributed to C2013 objectives?

Don’t know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


Figure 16 – Contribution of AEO and EORI to trade fa cilitation


Figure 17 – Contribution of central customs applica tions to supporting customs administrations to act as one


8

16

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AEO and EORI

Objective II(Overall, to what extent has the implementation to date of IT systems

contributed to facilitating trade...?)

Don't know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot

19

108

9

8

1215

10

0

3

30

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TARIC CRMS AEO and EORI SMS

Objective III(Overall, to what extent has the implementation to date of IT systems helped national customs administrations to perform their duties as if

they were one administration?)

Don't know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


Figure 18 – Contribution of CRMS to strengthening se curity and safety for trade and citizens


12

9

3

2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CRMS

Objective IV(Overall, to what extent has the implementation to date of IT systems

contributed to helped to strengthen safety and secu rity ..?)

Don't know

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

A lot


3 Management, relevance and added value

The following section presents PC’s views on the management, relevance and added value of the C2013 programme.

3.1 C213 Management

Responding customs administrations felt that most types of joint actions are “very” or “quite” effective. However, only about half of the countries had a similarly positive view on benchmarking (see the figure below).

Figure 19 – Extent to which C2013 makes use of the m ost effective tools


In terms of the resources available to effectively manage C2013, participating countries were most concerned about their human resources: only two thirds of responding administrations agreed that they are sufficient in their countries.

5

10

11

14

12

19

13

18

17

10

16

15

13

16

9

16

12

13

5

4

1

4

2

1

1

3

2

1

6

1

1

1

2

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Benchmarking

Steering Groups

Monitoring Activities

Seminars

IT Training Meetings

Project Group Meetings

Training Activities

Workshops

Working Visits

Based on the experiences of your customs administra tion with C2013 joint actions, please rate the below listed t ools regarding

their effectivenessVery effective Quite effective Not very effective Not effective at all Don’t know


Figure 20 – Human and financial resources of C2013


Overall, participating countries were satisfied (or even very satisfied) with the processes and structures currently in place (see the figure below).

Figure 21 – Effectiveness of management procedures a nd structures


4

6

13

15

16

21

17

15

9

4

1

1

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HR in my country are sufficient

HR at the EC level are sufficient

Financial resources are sufficient

C2013 funding is provided in a timely and efficient manner

Please rate the following statements

Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don’t know

6

7

7

12

7

17

11

13

18

20

20

15

20

12

18

17

4

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The interaction of the C2013 Committee with the CPG

The work of the five Steering Groups

The work of the C2013 Communication Network

The work of the network of National Programme Coordinators

The co-ordination and planning (in co-operation between the EC and MS)

The work of the C2013 management team in DG TAXUD

The work of the C2013 Committee

The objective-based approach of C2013

Please rate your administration’s level of satisfac tion with the current C2013 management procedures and structures

Very satisfied Quite satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all Don’t know


In terms of the tools supporting the management and monitoring of the programme, all responding administrations greatly appreciated guides for specific actions (approximately two thirds of them were “very satisfied” with these tools). On the other hand, almost a third of customs administrations were not particularly happy with CIRCA (see the figure below).

Figure 22 – Effectiveness of tools and instruments


Participating countries were asked to identify strengths of the current C2013 management and its structures. In their open responses MS indicated the following features:

• Good cooperation of all involved stakeholder;

• The clear planning process and objective based approach;

• Good structures7 and activities, especially project groups found to be effective;

• The flexibility in the management and financing area;

• Information sharing and transparency of the processes;

• The supportive programme management team at DG TAXUD;

• Clear and useful guides.

Among the weaknesses of the current C2013 management and its structures were:

• Too many presentations at the Committee and Steering Group meetings do not leave sufficient time for strategic discussions, e.g.: “The overall impression given is that of notifications given by the EC rather than consultations and exchange of ideas and views”;

7 One MS noted a minor lack of clarity between the mandates of the Committee and the Training Steering Group in terms of defining training priorities was mentioned by one MS, as well as an overlap between the roles of the WMG and the CCC, section Risk Management.

7

11

8

21

14

17

18

10

8

3

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CIRCA

AWP

ART2

Guides for specific actions

Please rate to what extent your administration is s atisfied or dissatisfied with the following tools

Very satisfied Quite satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all Don’t know


• Some steering groups do not give enough guidance to reach the objectives of the programme;

• Sometimes a slow reaction from the EC on the difficulties and requests from the MS which arise in their daily work;

• Insufficient human resources at the national level;

• The failure to implement new customs IT systems and related difficulties to effectively plan, manage IT contracts and budgets;

• The lengthy application process;

• Different eligibility rules for participants of the programme;

• Insufficient support from the various IT systems, in particular CIRCA which was considered to be time-consuming, non-interactive and not user friendly;

• With regard to joint actions:

o The invitation letters for events are often issued late, which makes the organisation of the travel more difficult and costly

o Language problems stemming from the almost exclusive use of English

o The burden of hosting activities is not equally distributed among MS (some MS are not willing to organise activities, accept incoming working visits

o Sometimes the work programme prepared by the home country does not fit the expectations and desires of the visitors

Several customs administrations suggested further improvements to the management system, including:

• improving interactions between the CPG and the C2013 Committee (e.g. by putting C2013 management issues on the CPG agenda, as well as using practical experiences from the C2013 activities in shaping the broader Customs policies). In the view of PC, this valuable work should be given more exposure at the highest levels.

• more effective coordination of all thematic areas to avoid overlapping and also to share the relevant information with all necessary partners;

• strengthening the role of the steering groups, and the C2013 Committee. This can include setting a formal link between the management level of the SG and the Committee itself, in order to provide regular, timely and up-to-date information;

• introducing regular meetings for the NPC;

• development of one IT system to manage and monitor the programme (PICS);

• providing early notifications on the forthcoming activities;

• improving communications, including a better use of:

o video conferences and online communication

o written reports which could be issued in advance of a meeting to free up time for strategic discussions.


3.2 Relevance of the programme

There is a consensus that Programme’s objectives and priorities correspond with the needs and problems of national customs administrations.

Table 1 – Programme relevance to the needs of PCs

Programme’s objectives and prior ities correspond with the needs and problems of your national administration No of responses

Agree strongly 8 Agree 23 Disagree 0 Disagree strongly 0 Don’t know 0 Total 31

Following the question on the relevance of the objectives and priorities of the programme, national customs administrations were asked to identify those that are the most important and relevant for them in the coming 3-5 years. The analysis of open responses indicates that the most important are:

• objectives I, III, and IV; • priorities I.A- C, II.A-C, III.A and B, IV.A-B, V.A-B.

Among the most important topics noted by the responding customs administrations were:

• including former third pillar issues in the AWP; • implementation of e-Customs and the MCCIP.

In terms of any additional needs that C2013 should address, individual countries suggested:

• providing sufficient flexibility in the regulatory frameworks for exploring and investing in innovative methods of customs supervision and control;

• providing a possibility to for groups of MS’ Customs administrations to develop between them common IT solutions and share cost and effort in order to ease the burden on smaller countries;

• establishing a European Customs Academy that would be accredited to provide training at tertiary level in areas relevant to Customs.

According to the responding customs administrations, the main focus for the future of C2013 and/or a possible successor programme should be:

• To transpose the Future Customs Initiative into concrete proposals • To enhance co-operation between DG TAXUD other DG’s and agencies in order to

stimulate topics like Single Window and co-operation in the field of the internal security (former 3rd pillar);

• Greater flexibility in legislation and in the programme to enhance possibilities to adapt to the constantly changing logistic environment;

• To provide a possibility to restructure customs administrations so they can better fulfil their function;

• To further develop the best EU standards (Customs Blueprints) and promote them worldwide;

• To create Common Excellence Centres; • To support customs controls at the external land borders.


3.3 EU added value

The responding national customs administrations were unanimous that C2013 effectively facilitated the exchange of information with the EC, as well as with other participating countries. Moreover, all countries but one declared that they have been able to use information shared by the EC or another PC and apply it at the national level.

Figure 23 – Information sharing


Similarly, all countries but one were able to transfer good practices from other countries and implement them at home, as illustrated in the table below.

Table 2 – Transfer of good practice

The cooperation with other countries through C2013 has allowed my customs administration to transfer and i mplement good practices from other countries No of responses

Agree strongly 15 Agree 14 Disagree 1 Disagree strongly 0 Don’t know 0 Total 30

Without C2013, many of the activities that were necessary to achieve progress towards programme objectives would not have happened at all, or would have only happened much later and/or at a higher cost: almost all PCs “agree” or “agree strongly” that C2013 has

8

11

14

11

21

19

16

20

1

1

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Your administration was able to use information shared by national customs administrations of other PCs

Your administration was able to use information shared by the EC

As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information and co-operates with other PCs more often

As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information and co-operates with the EC more often

Please rate to what extent your administration agre es or disagrees with the following sentences



allowed national customs administrations to implement measures more quickly and at lower costs (see the figure below).

Figure 24 – EU added value

Source: TEP, Evaluation Questionnaire (n=31) 8

There is a near consensus among the Participating Countries (PCs) that thanks to the C2013 programme, progress has been made towards a better functioning of the Customs Union. In their open responses, the majority of PCs also agree that in doing so, the C2013 programme has contributed to protecting financial and economic interests of the EU, removing barriers for traders and taking steps to facilitate trade flows, helping national customs administrations to perform their duties as if they were one administration, ensuring the safety and security of citizens and traders, enlargement and co-operation with third countries.

8 Question : Please rate the following statement:

• Thanks to C2013, progress has been made towards a better functioning of the Customs Union that would not have been possible without an EU programme.

• C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures more quickly than would have been possible without an EU programme.

• C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures at a lower overall cost than would have been possible without an EU programme.

1816

14

1112

12

11 1

3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Better functioning of the customs union.

Saved time. Reduced overall cost.

Additional benefits of C2013

Don’t know

Disagree strongly

Disagree

Agree

Agree strongly


ANNEX II.B: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WITH EU MEMBER STATES

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Customs 2013 programme Evaluation Questionnaire for Customs 2013 National Contact Points in

EU MEMBER STATES The European Commission (DG TAXUD) has contracted The Evaluation Partnership (TEP) to undertake the mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2013 programme (C2013). As part of this evaluation, we would like to hear from the national customs administrations of Participating Countries (and in particular from the C2013 national contact points) about how you have used C2013 so far and how it has helped you in your work. Your input and feedback on C2013 is important for this evaluation exercise. The questionnaire will require a significant amount of time to fill in, but this reflects the importance of your role in the management and operation of C2013. Please note that this evaluation questionnaire is considered to fulfil the legal requirement of Participating Countries to submit a mid-term evaluation report (as stipulated in Decision 624/2007/EC, Article 22). The questionnaire is structured around three main sections:

1. Programme objectives and related priorities: Please rate the effectiveness of the programme in relation to each of the main objectives and related priorities (as defined in the Customs 2013 Decision and the Annual Work Programme), and provide concrete examples of if and how the programme has helped to make progress in each of these areas

2. IT systems: Please rate the effectiveness of certain key customs IT systems, namely NCTS, ECS, TARIC, SMS, AEO, EORI, and CRMS)

3. Management, relevance, and added value of the progr amme: please provide your feedback on these issues.

For your convenience, the questionnaire includes an automatic table of contents that should help you to identify the main themes under consideration. You can provide answers to the open questions in one of the following languages: English, Français, Deutsch, Español, Italiano, Polski . The responses to the questionnaire should reflect experience of the customs administration in your country. Thus, we recommend consulting your colleagues, senior management, and other departments prior to submitting your responses in order to include their input to the relevant questions. Please coordinate feedback from your administration and return the questionnaire by 4th February (please send the electronic version to the email address indicated below). At any moment during your work on this questionnaire, you can ask TEP for advice. In case you need assistance, please feel free to contact: Joanna Hofman Phone: +44 20 7034 7673 e-mail: [email protected]


Descriptive information: Name of the Country:

Main contact person for additional information request:

Phone:

E-Mail:


Contents

Section 1: Programme objectives and related priorities ....................................................... 46

1 Objective I: Protection of Community’s financial and economic interests ..................... 46

2 Objective II: trade facilitation, increasing co-operation, and improving competitiveness 50

3 Objective III: AS one single administration ................................................................... 54

4 Objective IV: Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens ......................... 58

5 Objective V: enlargement and relations with third countries ......................................... 62

Section 2: IT Systems ......................................................................................................... 66

1 Trans-european it systems (NCTS, ECS)..................................................................... 66

2 Central customs applications (TARIC, SMS, AEO/EORI, CRMS) ................................ 68

3 Added value of customs IT systems and applications .................................................. 71

Section 3: Management, Relevance, and added value of the programme ........................... 72

1 Management of the programme ................................................................................... 72

2 Relevance of the programme ....................................................................................... 76

3 Added value of the programme .................................................................................... 77


Section 1: Programme objectives and related priorit ies

Objective I: Protection of Community’s financial an d economic interests

1.1 Simplification, modernisation and implementation of customs legislation (Priority I.A) 47

1.2 Correct and uniform application of customs legislation and standardisation of methods (Priority I.B) ....................................................................................................... 48

1.3 Co-operation between customs administrations and between them and other public or private bodies to improve security and the fight against fraud (Priority I.C) .................. 48

1.4 Overall impact on protecting financial and economic interests (Objective I) .......... 49


In the following, please rate the progress made during the three years of the programme’s existence (2008-2010) towards each of these priorities.

1.1 Simplification, modernisation and implementatio n of customs legislation (Priority I.A)

(1) Priority I.A A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to simplify and modernise customs legislation?

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 assisted in the implementation of new customs legislation?

If you think C2013 has contributed to this priority, please specify of what this contribution has consisted.

• What were the most important programme actions in this area (from the point of view of your customs administration)?

• What were their concrete results and outputs? • How were these results / outputs used or implemented in your country? • Are there any (quantitative) indicators to illustrate / confirm the impacts in your country?


1.2 Correct and uniform application of customs legi slation and standardisation of methods (Priority I.B)

(2) Priority I.B A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve correct and uniform application of customs legislation?

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to standardise or harmonise customs methods across the EU?




1.3 Co-operation between customs administrations an d between them and other public or private bodies to improve security and the fight against fraud (Priority I.C)

(3) Priority I.C A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve co-operation between national customs administrations to improve security and the fight against fraud?

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve co-operation between customs administrations and other public or private bodies to improve security and the fight against fraud?





1.4 Overall impact on protecting financial and econ omic interests (Objective I)

Overall, and based on your answers to the above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on protecting the following EU interests.

(4) Objective I A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 helped protecting the Union's financial and economic interest of the EU (through an effective and efficient collection of import duties)?

Please elaborate on your answers above: Why and how has C2013 contributed to the above objective?

Have there been any major difficulties or shortcomings of C2013 with regard to the above objective? What are the main challenges and priorities to be addressed in this area in the future?

Please try to imagine what would have happened in this area if C2013 did not exist.

• Without C2013, would Member States (individually or collectively) have been able to take steps to protect the EU’s financial and economic interests to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your customs administrations and other Member States in this area have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Without C2013, would the level of resources required to implement the EU legislation in the area of customs have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (protection of the EU’s financial and economic interests) would be different without C2013.


Objective II: trade facilitation, increasing co-ope ration, and improving competitiveness

2.1 Understanding and interpretation of complex legislation (Priority II.A) ................... 51

2.2 Co-operation with economic operators in correct implementation of customs legislation to support the competitiveness of European companies (Priority II.B) ............. 52

2.3 Cooperation between MS and third countries in relation to trade facilitation (Priority II.C) 52

2.4 Overall impact on trade facilitation, co-operation and competitiveness (Objective II) 53



2.1 Understanding and interpretation of complex leg islation (Priority II.A)

(5) Priority II.A A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve the understanding and interpretation of complex legislation by all relevant actors (including economic operators)?

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to raise awareness of EU customs policy and legislation among economic operators?





2.2 Co-operation with economic operators in correct implementation of customs legislation to support the competitiveness of European companies (Priority II.B)

(6) Priority II.B A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to improving co-operation and exchange of information with economic operators (in particular with a view to the correct implementation of customs legislation)?




2.3 Cooperation between MS and third countries in r elation to trade facilitation (Priority II.C)

(7) Priority II.C A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to enhancing cooperation between MS and third countries in relation to trade facilitation?





2.4 Overall impact on trade facilitation, co-operat ion and competitiveness (Objective II)

Overall, and based on your answers to the above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on facilitating trade, co-operation and competitiveness.

(8) Objective II A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 contributed to increasing co-operation with economic operators?

To what extent has C2013 contributed to trade facilitation ?

To what extent has C2013 contributed to increasing the competitiveness of EU companies?

Please elaborate on your answers above: Why and how has C2013 contributed to (some of) the listed objectives?

Have there been any major difficulties or shortcomings of C2013 with regard to (some of) the listed objectives? What are the main challenges and priorities to be addressed in this area in the future?


• Without C2013, would Member States (individually or collectively) have been able to remove barriers for traders and take steps to facilitate trade flows to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your customs administration and economic operators in this area (trade facilitation, co-operation and competitiveness) have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (trade facilitation, co-operation and competitiveness) would be different without C2013.


Objective III: AS one single administration

3.1 (Inter)operability, maintenance and upgrading of the existing communication and information exchange systems; deployment, maintenance and evolution of systems related to the 'safety and security initiative' (Priority III.A) ................................................ 55

3.2 Preparation and implementation of new IT projects as outlined and prioritised in the MASP following the Decision on a paperless environment for customs and trade, the MCC, and possibly other legislative acts, administrative agreements and joined agreements with third countries (Priority III.B) ................................................................. 55

3.3 Management of a common training approach, training infrastructure, e-Learning modules and other customs related information (Priority III.C) ......................................... 56

3.4 Define the future direction of customs in the EU in partnership with the trade community and ensuring consistency between all future activities (Priority III.D) ............. 56

3.5 Overall impact on the ability of national customs administrations to act as one (Objective III) ................................................................................................................... 57



3.1. (Inter)operability, maintenance and upgrading of the existing communication and information exchange systems; dep loyment, maintenance and evolution of systems related to the 'safety and security initiative' (Priority III.A)

(9) Priority III.A A lot Somewhat

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to fostering interoperability between the existing communication and information exchange systems?




3.2 Preparation and implementation of new IT projec ts as outlined and prioritised in the MASP following the Decision on a paperless environment for customs and trade, the MCC, and possibly other legi slative acts, administrative agreements and joined agreements wit h third countries (Priority III.B)

(10) Priority III.B A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to preparation and implementation of new IT projects related to the eCustoms initiative?





3.3 Management of a common training approach, train ing infrastructure, e-Learning modules and other customs related informat ion (Priority III.C)

(11) Priority III.C A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to a common core of high quality training of customs officials and other stakeholders?

Has the common platform to share training courses and related information been a valuable tool to improve national training?

In the experience of your administration, have C2013 training courses and modules provided customs officials in the MS with a common set of skills and knowledge ?




3.4 Define the future direction of customs in the E U in partnership with the trade community and ensuring consistency between al l future activities (Priority III.D)

(13) Priority III.D A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to defining the future direction of customs policy?

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 ensured coherence between all future activities?

In the experience of your administration, has the Measurement of Results project been useful to measure Participating Countries’ performance?





3.5 Overall impact on the ability of national custo ms administrations to act as one (Objective III)

Overall, and based on your answers to the above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on the ability of Member States’ administrations to interact and perform their duties as though they were one.

(14) Objective III A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 helped MS administrations perform their duties as efficiently and uniformly as if they were one single administration?




• Without C2013, would national customs administrations across the EU perform their duties less efficiently and uniformly? If so, what would be the reasons for such a situation? What would be the results of this for EU citizens and traders?

• Without C2013, would Member States (individually or collectively) have been able to take steps to ensure comparable level of skills and knowledge among customs officials and other stakeholders across the EU?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (performing duties as one single administration) would be different without C2013.


Objective IV: Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens

4.1 Supply chain security (Priority IV.A) ...................................................................... 59

4.2 Increased effectiveness of customs controls (Priority IV.B) ................................... 59

4.3 Development of a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support, if necessary also on the field or online (Priority IV.C).......................................................... 60

4.4 Protect society by applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and prohibited drugs (Priority IV.D) .................................................................. 60

4.5 Overall impact on security and safety for trade and citizens (Objective IV) ........... 61



4.1 Supply chain security (Priority IV.A)

(15) Priority IV.A A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve supply chain security?




4.2 Increased effectiveness of customs controls (Pr iority IV.B)

(16) Priority IV.B A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve the effectiveness of customs controls (in particular with a view to detecting and combating fraud and other security and safety risks)?





4.3 Development of a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support, if necessary also on the field or online (Priority IV. C)

(17) Priority IV.C A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to develop a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support to national customs administrations?




4.4 Protect society by applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and prohibited drugs (Priority IV.D)

(18) Priority IV.D A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 contributed to applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and prohibited goods?





4.5 Overall impact on security and safety for trade and citizens (Objective IV)

Overall, and based on your answers to the above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on security and safety for trade and citizens. (19) Objective IV A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 helped to strengthen safety and security for European citizens and trade?




• Without C2013, would Member States (individually or collectively) have been able to take steps to ensure the safety and security of citizens and traders to the same extent?

• If C2013 did not exist, would this have any impact on Member States’ ability (individually or collectively) to effectively control the movement of illegal goods and transborder activities?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (security and safety for trade and citizens) would be different without C2013.


Objective V: enlargement and relations with third c ountries

5.1 Sharing of experience and knowledge with third countries (Priority V.A and V.B) . 63

5.2 Co-operation with third countries on security and safety related risks by international trade as well as on the facilitation of trade flows (Priority V.C) ..................... 64

5.3 Overall impact on enlargement and relations with third countries (Objective V) .... 64



5.1 Sharing of experience and knowledge with third countries (Priority V.A and V.B)

(20) Priority V.A and V.B A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 helped your administration to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with (potential) Candidate Countries ?

To what extent has C2013 helped your administration to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy ?

To what extent has C2013 helped your administration to share experience and knowledge and improve co-operation with other third countries ?





5.2 Co-operation with third countries on security a nd safety related risks by international trade as well as on the facilitation of trade flows (Priority V.C)

(21) Priority V.C A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve co-operation and reach agreements with the EU’s key trade partners to facilitate trade and tackle security and safety related risks?




5.3 Overall impact on enlargement and relations wit h third countries (Objective V)

Overall, and based on your answers to the above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on preparation for accession.

(22) Objective V A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 supported customs administrations in partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy (in Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East)?

To what extent has C2013 contributed to improving co-operation with other third countries (including the US, China and Russia)?

Please elaborate on your answers above: Why and how has C2013 contributed to (some of) the listed objectives?

Have there been any major difficulties or shortcomings of C2013 with regard to (some of) the listed objectives? What are the main challenges and priorities to be addressed in this area in the future?


• Without C2013, would Member States (individually or collectively) have been able to ensure co-operation between their national customs administrations and those of third countries (CC, potential CC, EU neighbouring countries, and other third countries) to the same extent as is currently the case?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (enlargement and relations with third countries) would be different


without C2013.


Section 2: IT Systems

Please consult with the IT experts in your customs a dministration to answer the following questions

Trans-European it systems (NCTS, ECS)

1.1 New Computerised Transit System (NCTS – Phase 4) ......................................... 66

1.2 Export Control System (ECS – Phase 2) ............................................................... 67

1.1 New Computerised Transit System (NCTS – Phase 4 )

Please rate to what extent NCTS (including recent u pdates in phase 4) has achieved the following specific objectives:

(23) Statement

Fully Mostly Partly Not at all

Don’t know

Enable full and effective control of the "core" transit procedure

Faster and more effective control/discharge of transactions involving goods in transit in the customs territory of the EU

More efficient handling of goods at the offices of transit

Improved transit discharge, enquiry and recovery procedure

Time and cost savings for economic operators

Help both traders and customs to know exactly how to handle the procedures (in particular through the definition and publication of the procedures in the Transit Manual)

If you feel that NCTS has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.


1.2 Export Control System (ECS – Phase 2)

Please rate to what extent ECS (phases 1 and 2) has achieved the following specific objectives:

(24) Statement


Don’t know

Give customs administrations full control of the export/exit of goods from the customs territory of the EU

More efficient handling of exiting movements at the offices of exit

Faster reception and treatment (notably, risk analysis) of the pre-departure declarations

Better control of movements and therefore a more rational use of resources for control

Economic operators benefit from early confirmation of the operation (allowing for faster accounting of VAT deductions, export refunds, etc.)

Greater flexibility for economic operators in their connection with the customs authorities

If you feel that ECS has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.

Overall, to what extent has the implementation to d ate of the trans-European systems (NCTS and ECS)... (25) Statement to what extent has the implementation to date of the trans- European systems (NCTS and ECS)...

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

... helped to protect the EU’s financial interests?

... contributed to facilitating trade and enhancing the competitiveness of European companies?

... helped national customs administrations to perform their duties as efficiently as if they were one administration?

... helped to strengthen safety and security for EU citizens and traders?

Please specify of what such contribution of NCTS and/or ECS consisted, if at all.


Central customs applications (TARIC, SMS, AEO/EORI, CRMS)

2.1 TARif Intégré Communautaire online database (TARIC) ....................................... 68

2.2 Specimen Management System (SMS) ................................................................ 69

2.3 Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) and Economic Operators’ Registration and Identification System (EORI) ........................................................................................... 69

2.4 Community (Customs) Risk Management System (CRMS) ....................................... 70

2.1 TARif Intégré Communautaire online database (TA RIC)

(26) Statement Please rate to what extent TARIC has achieved the following specific objectives:


Don’t know

Help national customs administrations to ensure the consistent application of tariff and commercial legislation throughout the EU

Provide to the Member States the Community data needed (interpretation, integration and codification) for automated customs clearance

Help economic operators by providing immediate and up-to-date information on the EU tariff and commercial legislation

If you feel that TARIC has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.

(27) Statement To what extent has the implementation to date of TARIC...

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know



Please specify how TARIC contributed to these objectives, if at all.


2.2 Specimen Management System (SMS)

(28) Statement Please rate to what extent SMS has achieved the following specific objectives:


Don’t know

Provide the Member States with timely and up-to-date specimen information

Provide the Member States with accurate specimen information

Contribute to the improvement of customs procedures and customs controls

Help customs administrations to detect forgery and fight fraud

If you feel that SMS has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.

(29) Statement To what extent has the implementation to date of SMS...

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know



Please specify how SMS contributed to these objectives, if at all.

2.3 Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) and Economi c Operators’ Registration and Identification System (EORI)

(30) Statement Please rate to what extent EORI has achieved the following specific objectives:


Don’t know

Enable economic operators to have a single registration number that can be used for all customs operations throughout the EU.

Allow the recognition of all the authorisations granted to the economic operators

Simplification and higher security of the customs operations

Connection between a single traders' registration and identification system and other customs systems

If you feel that EORI has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.


(31) Statement Please rate to what extent AEO has achieved the following specific objectives:


Don’t know

Enable central management of the AEO applications and certificates

Provide national administrations with reliable management support for the authorisation procedure and the management of the authorizations issued and a "master file" to control the identification of AEOs during the customs operations

Due recognition for economic operators of their status throughout the EU and in those countries with which mutual recognition has been agreed

If you feel that AEO has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.

(32) Statement To what extent has the implementation to date of EORI and AEO...

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

... contributed to facilitating trade and enhancing the competitiveness of European companies?


Please specify of what such contribution of EORI and/or AEO consisted, if at all.

2.4 Community (Customs) Risk Management System (CRM S)

(33) Statement Please rate to what extent CRMS has achieved the following specific objectives:


Don’t know

Allow the rapid, direct and secure exchange of risk information to all customs offices

Enable the Commission to disseminate information concerning EU-wide threats

Better focusing of controls on higher risk consignments

Generate no additional costs for traders

If you feel that CRMS has so far failed to make a significant contribution to any of the objectives listed above, please explain why.


(34) Statement To what extent has the implementation to date of CRMS...

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know


... helped to strengthen safety and security for EU citizens and traders?

Please specify how CRMS contributed to these objectives, if at all.

Added value of customs IT systems and applications

(35) Please try to imagine what would have happened in this area if C2013 did not exist.

• What would be the impact on your administration and work if there were no trans-European IT systems and common central customs applications?


Section 3: Management, Relevance, and added value o f the programme

Management of the programme

(36) Extent to which C2013 makes use of the most ef fective tools (joint actions): Based on the experiences of your customs administration with C2013 joint actions, please rate the below listed tools regarding their effectiveness: Tools Very

effective Quite

effective Not very effective

Not effective

at all

Don’t know

Project Groups

Seminars

Workshops

Benchmarking


Working Visits

Training Activities


Steering Groups

(37) Sufficiency of human and financial resources for implementation of C2013: Please rate the following statement: Statement Agree

strongly Agree Disagree Disagree

strongly Don’t know

In the view of my administration, the human resources at national level in my country are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, the human resources of the programme management team at the EC level are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, the total financial resources are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, C2013 funding is provided in a timely and efficient manner


(38) Extent to which C2013 overall management proce dures and structures are effective: Please rate your administration’s level of satisfaction with the current C2013 management procedures and structures:

Level of satisfaction with C2013 management procedures:

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not satisfied

at all

Don’t know



The interaction of the C2013 Committee with the Customs Policy Group for strategic orientation and planning

The work of the five Steering Groups (eCustoms, Working Methods, Laboratories, MCC, and Training) in managing specific areas of their work




The way the co-ordination and planning of activities related to the C2013 are managed in co-operation between the EC and the MS

Please elaborate on your answers above: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the current C2013 management and its structures?

If you have any specific comments or suggestions relating to work of any of the main C2013 policy and co-ordination bodies, please make use of the box below to provide your input.


(39) Extent to which C2013 management tools and ins truments are effective: Please rate to what extent your administration is satisfied or dissatisfied with the following tools Level of satisfaction with C2013 management tools

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not satisfied

at all

Don’t know

Annual Work Programmes (implementing schemes for the programme)

Activity Reporting Tool (ART2) (IT system to support the management of the programme)

CIRCA (IT platform to facilitate communication and access to the key documentation)

Guides for specific actions (seminars, workshops, etc.)

If you have any specific comments or suggestions relating to any of the C2013 tools, please make use of the box below to provide your input.


(40) Extent to which information sharing through C2 013 is effective: Please rate to what extent your administration agrees or disagrees with the following sentences Statement Agree



As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information, networks and co-operates with national customs administrations of other Participating Countries more often

As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information, networks and co-operates with the Commission more often

Your administration was able to use information shared by national customs administrations of other Participating Countries

Your administration was able to use information shared by the Commission

If you think C2013 has contributed to increased information sharing, networking and co-operation please specify of what this contribution has consisted.

• What were the concrete results and outputs of these information sharing, networking and co-operation?

• How were these results / outputs used or applied in your country? What impacts have they had?

• Are there any (quantitative) indicators to illustrate / confirm the impacts in your country?


Relevance of the programme

(41) Please state to what extent the objectives of C2013 correspond with the needs of your customs administration, and to what extent the impacts of C2013 have been able to address those needs. Objectives of C2013 programme Agree



The programme’s objectives and priorities (as defined in the C2013 decision and the AWP) correspond with the needs and problems of your national administration.

Please elaborate on your answer above: - Which of the objectives and priorities are most important and relevant for your national administration in the coming 3-5 years? - Does your administration have any additional needs or problems that C2013 should address?

(42) In view of your administration’s main problems and needs, what should be the main focus for the future of C2013 (and/or a possib le successor programme)?


Added value of the programme

(43) Extent to which C2013 brought additional value . Please rate the following statement: Statement Agree



Thanks to C2013, progress has been made towards a better functioning of the customs union that would not have been possible without an EU programme.

C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures more quickly than would have been possible without an EU programme.

C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures at a lower overall cost than would have been possible without an EU programme.

(44) Extent to which C2013 has contributed to the t ransfer of good practice: Please rate the following statement: Statement Agree



The cooperation with other countries through C2013 has allowed my customs administration to transfer and implement good practices from other countries.

If you think C2013 has contributed to transfer of good practice, please specify of what this contribution has consisted.

• What were the concrete results and outputs of this transfer of good practice? • How were these results / outputs used or applied in your country? What impacts have they

had? • Are there any (quantitative) indicators to illustrate / confirm the impacts in your country?


(45) Additional impacts of C2013: Are there any additional (positive / negative) impacts of C2013 on the working methods and procedures of your customs administration?

Thank you very much for your

cooperation!


ANNEX II.C: EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WITH PARTICIPA TING COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBER OF THE EU

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Customs 2013 programme Evaluation Questionnaire for Customs 2013 National Contact Points in PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EU

The European Commission (DG TAXUD) has contracted The Evaluation Partnership (TEP) to undertake the mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2013 programme (C2013). As part of this evaluation, we would like to hear from the national customs administrations of Participating Countries (and in particular from the C2013 national contact points) about how you have used C2013 so far and how it has helped you in your work. Your input and feedback on C2013 is important for this evaluation exercise. The questionnaire will require a significant amount of time to fill in, but this reflects the importance of your role in the management and operation of C2013. Please note that this evaluation questionnaire is considered to fulfil the legal requirement of Participating Countries to submit a mid-term evaluation report (as stipulated in Decision 624/2007/EC, Article 22). The questionnaire is structured around two main sections:

1. Programme objectives and related priorities: please provide your feedback on the effectiveness of the programme in relation to each of the main objectives and related priorities (as defined in the Customs 2013 Decision and the Annual Work Programme), and provide concrete examples of if and how the programme has helped your administration to make progress in each of these areas

2. Management, relevance, and added value of the programme: please provide your feedback on these issues.

For your convenience, the questionnaire includes an automatic table of contents that should help you to identify the main themes under consideration. You can provide answers to the open questions in one of the following languages: English, Français, Deutsch . The responses to the questionnaire should reflect the experience of the customs administration in your country. Thus, we recommend consulting your colleagues, senior management, and other departments prior to submitting your responses in order to include their input to the relevant questions. Please coordinate feedback from your administration and return the questionnaire by 4th February (please send the electronic version to the email address indicated below). At any moment during your work on this questionnaire, you can ask TEP for advice. In case you need assistance, please feel free to contact: Joanna Hofman Phone: +44 20 7034 7673 e-mail: [email protected]


Descriptive information: Name of the Country:

Main contact person for additional information request:

Phone:

E-Mail:


Contents

Section 1: Programme objectives and related priorities ....................................................... 82

Objective I: Protection of Community’s financial and economic interests ..................... 82

Objective II: trade facilitation, increasing co-operation, and improving competitiveness 85

Objective III: AS one single administration ................................................................... 87

Objective IV: Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens ......................... 90

Objective V: enlargement and relations with third countries ......................................... 92

Section 2: Management, Relevance, and added value of the programme ........................... 95

Management of the programme ................................................................................... 95

relevance of the programme ...................................................................................... 100

Additional value of the programme ............................................................................. 101


Section 1: Programme objectives and related priorit ies

Objective I: Protection of Community’s financial an d economic interests

The Customs Annual Work Programme 2010 lists three priorities under Objective I:

- I.A Simplification, modernisation and implementation of customs legislation

- I.B Correct and uniform application of customs legislation and standardisation of methods

- I.C Co-operation between customs administrations and between them and other public or private bodies to improve security and the fight against fraud


(1) Priority I.A

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration to adjust your customs legislation to the acquis communautaire with a view to your possible future membership in the EU?

If so, can you explain how and provide examples?

(2) Priority I.B A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration to adjust your customs working methods in line with the EU standards?


(3) Priority I.C A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration or other relevant actors in your country to improve co-operation with relevant public or private bodies in the EU other than national customs administrations (e.g. tax administrations, border agencies, ports, airports...)?



(4) Have there been any major difficulties or shortcomings of C2013 with regard to the listed priorities? What are the main challenges and priorities to be addressed in this area in the future?


• Without C2013, would your administration have been able to prepare for protecting the EU’s financial and economic interests after the accession to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your customs administrations and customs administrations of other Participating Coun tries and the EU in this area have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (protection of the EU’s financial and economic interests) would be different without C2013.


Objective II: trade facilitation, increasing co-ope ration, and improving competitiveness

The Customs Annual Work Programme 2010 lists three priorities under Objective II:

- II.A Understanding and interpretation of complex legislation

- II.B Co-operation with economic operators in correct implementation of customs legislation to support the competitiveness of European companies

- II.C Cooperation between MS and third countries in relation to trade facilitation


(6) Priority II.A A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to raise awareness of EU customs policy and legislation among economic operators in your country?


(7) Priority II.C A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration to facilitate trade with EU Member States through improved co-operation with the EU and national customs administrations?




• Without C2013, would your administration have been able to remove barriers to trade and take steps to facilitate trade flows between your country and the EU to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your administration and economic operators in this area (trade facilitation, co-operation and competitiveness) have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (trade facilitation, co-operation and competitiveness) would be different without C2013.


Objective III: AS one single administration

The Customs Annual Work Programme 2010 lists four priorities under Objective III:

- III.A (Inter)operability, maintenance and upgrading of the existing communication and information exchange systems; deployment, maintenance and evolution of systems related to the 'safety and security initiative'

- III.B Preparation and implementation of new IT projects as outlined and prioritised in the MASP following the Decision on a paperless environment for customs and trade, the MCC, and possibly other legislative acts, administrative agreements and joined agreements with third countries

- III.C Management of a common training approach, training infrastructure, e-Learning modules and other customs related information

- III.D Define the future direction of customs in the EU in partnership with the trade community and ensuring consistency between all future activities


(10) Priority III.A and B A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration to take steps for setting up IT systems and/or infrastructure for the communication and information exchange systems between your country and EU MS?


(11) Priority III.C A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has the common training approach and materials under C2013 helped to improve and harmonise training of customs officials in your country with that of EU MS?





• What would be the implications for your administration and work if there were no trans-European IT systems and central customs applications?

• Without C2013, would your administration have been able to take steps to provide customs officials and other stakeholders from your country with comparable level of skills and knowledge to those officials from EU Member States?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (performing duties as one single administration) would be different without C2013.


Objective IV: Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens

The Customs Annual Work Programme 2010 lists four priorities under Objective IV:

- IV.A Supply chain security

- IV.B Increased effectiveness of customs controls

- IV.C Development of a scientific customs force that can rapidly give support, if necessary also on the field or online

- IV.D Protect society by applying effective measures against the movement of illicit, restricted and prohibited drugs


(14) Priority IV.A A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve supply chain security in your country?


(15) Priority IV.B A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

In the experience of your administration, has C2013 helped to improve the effectiveness of customs controls in your country?


(16) Priority IV.D A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has C2013 helped your administration to take steps to ensure future participation in and compliance with EU’s risk management framework ?




• Without C2013, would Participating Countries (individually or collectively) be able to safeguard their citizens’ and traders’ safety and security to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your administration and MS, and between your administration and the EU, on security and safety related issues have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (security and safety for trade and citizens) would be different without C2013.


Objective V: enlargement and relations with third c ountries

The Customs Annual Work Programme 2010 lists three priorities under Objective V:

- V.A Sharing of experience and knowledge on customs legislation and procedures and their implementation

- V.B Exchange of experience and cooperation between customs administrations of the Community, (potential) Candidate Countries, ENP Countries and other third countries

- V.C Co-operation with third countries on security and safety related risks by international trade as well as on the facilitation of trade flows


(19) Has C2013 helped your administration to share relevant information and exchange experience with the European Commission ? If yes, can you explain how and provide examples?

(20) Has C2013 helped your administration to share relevant information and exchange experience with customs administrations of EU Member States ? If yes, can you explain how and provide examples?

(21) Has C2013 helped your administration to share relevant information and exchange experience with other (potential) Candidate Countries ? If yes, can you explain how and provide examples?

(22) Overall, and based on your answers above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on the enlargement.

A lot Some-

what Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

Has the co-operation with other customs administrations listed above helped you to prepare for the accession to the EU ?

If so, please elaborate on your answers above and explain what form of co-operation / sharing information was most helpful in this respect and why?


(23) Overall, and based on your answers above, please try to estimate the impact of C2013 on relations with third countries.

A lot Some-what

Very little

Not at all

Don’t know

To what extent has C2013 supported customs administrations in (potential) Candidate Countries ?

Please elaborate on your answer above: Why and how has C2013 contributed to this objective?

(24) Have there been any major difficulties or shortcomings of C2013 with regard to this objective? What are the main challenges and priorities to be addressed in this area in the future?


• Without C2013, would your administration have been able to take steps to prepare for your possible accession to the EU to the same extent?

• Without C2013, would the level of co-operation between your customs administration and other Candidate Countries in this area have been higher, lower, or the same?

• Please try to provide concrete examples (related to the points above or any others) of how the situation in this area (enlargement and relations with third countries) would be different without C2013.


Section 2: Management, Relevance, and added value o f the programme

Management of the programme

(26) Extent to which C2013 makes use of the most ef fective tools (joint actions):

Based on the experiences of your customs administration with C2013 joint actions, please rate the below listed tools regarding their effectiveness: Tools Very

effective Quite

effective Not very effective

Not effective

at all

Don’t know

Benchmarking Meetings

Seminars

Workshop Meetings

Project Group Meetings

Steering Groups

Working Visits

Training Activities



Others, please give examples: - -


(27) Sufficiency of human and financial resources f or implementation of C2013:

Please rate the following statement: Statement Agree



In the view of my administration, the human resources at national level in my country are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, the human resources of the programme management team at the EC level are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, the total financial resources are sufficient for implementation of C2013.

In the view of my administration, C2013 funding is provided in a timely and efficient manner .


(28) Extent to which C2013 overall management proc edures and structures are effective:

Please rate your administration’s level of satisfaction with the current C2013 management procedures and structures:

Level of satisfaction with C2013 management procedures:

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not satisfied

at all

Don’t know



The interaction of the C2013 Committee with the Customs Policy Group for strategic orientation and planning

The work of the five Steering Groups (eCustoms, Working Methods, Laboratories, MCC, and Training) in managing specific areas of their work




The way the co-ordination and planning of activities related to the C2013 are managed in co-operation between the EC and the MS

Please elaborate on your answers above: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the current C2013 management and its structures?

If you have any specific comments or suggestions relating to work of any of the main C2013 policy and co-ordination bodies, please make use of the box below to provide your input.


(29) Extent to which C2013 management tools and in struments are effective:

Please rate to what extent your administration is satisfied or dissatisfied with the following tools Level of satisfaction with C2013 management tools

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not satisfied

at all

Don’t know

Annual Work Programmes (implementing schemes for the programme)

CIRCA (IT platform to facilitate communication and access to the key documentation)

Guides for specific actions (seminars, workshops, etc.)

If you have any specific comments or suggestions relating to any of the C2013 tools, please make use of the box below to provide your input.


(30) Extent to which information sharing through C 2013 is effective:

Please rate to what extent your administration agrees or disagrees with the following sentences Statement Agree



As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information, networks and co-operates with national customs administrations of other Participating Countries more often

As a result of C2013 actions, your administration shares information, networks and co-operates with the Commission more often

Your administration was able to use information shared by national customs administrations of other Participating Countries

Your administration was able to use information shared by the Commission

If you think C2013 has contributed to increased information sharing, networking and co-operation please specify of what this contribution has consisted.

• What were the concrete results and outputs of these information sharing, networking and co-operation?

• How were these results / outputs used or applied in your country? What impacts have they had?

• Are there any (quantitative) indicators to illustrate / confirm the impacts in your country?


Relevance of the programme

(31) Please state to what extent the objectives of C2013 correspond with the needs of your customs administration, and to what extent the impacts of C2013 have been able to address those needs.

Objectives of C2013 programme Agree strongly

Agree Disagree Disagr ee strongly

Don’t know

Programme’s objectives and priorities correspond with the needs and problems of your national administration.

Please elaborate on your answer above: - Which of the objectives and priorities are most important and relevant for your national administration in the coming 3-5 years? - Does your administration have any additional needs or problems that C2013 should address?

(32) In view of your administration’s main problem s and needs, what should be the main focus for the future of C2013 (and/or a possib le successor programme)?


Additional value of the programme

(33) Extent to which C2013 brought additional valu e.




Thanks to C2013, progress has been made towards a better functioning of the customs union that would not have been possible without an EU programme.

C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures more quickly than would have been possible without an EU programme.

C2013 has allowed national customs administrations to implement necessary measures at a lower overall cost than would have been possible without an EU programme.

(34) Extent to which C2013 has contributed to the transfer of good practice:




The cooperation with other countries through C2013 has allowed my customs administration to transfer and implement good practices from other countries.

If you think C2013 has contributed to transfer of good practice, please specify of what this contribution has consisted.

• What were the concrete results and outputs of this transfer of good practice? • How were these results / outputs used or applied in your country? What impacts have they

had? • Are there any (quantitative) indicators to illustrate / confirm the impacts in your country?


(35) Additional impacts of C2013:

Are there any additional (positive / negative) impacts of C2013 on the working methods and procedures of your customs administration?

Thank you very much for your cooperation!


ANNEX II.D: SURVEY REPORT

Q1. Which participating country do you work for?

Country Frequency Percent

‘Austria’ 43 3,6

’Belgium’ 23 1,9

‘Bulgaria’ 18 1,5

‘Croatia’ 23 1,9

‘Cyprus’ 21 1,8

‘Czech Republic’ 55 4,6

‘Denmark’ 1 0,1

’Estonia’ 31 2,6

‘Finland’ 33 2,8

’France’ 13 1,1

’Germany’ 97 8,2

’Greece’ 3 0,3

’Hungary’ 23 1,9

‘Ireland’ 83 7,0

’Italy’ 125 10,5

‘Latvia’ 15 1,3

‘Lithuania’ 11 0,9

’Luxembourg’ 12 1,0

‘Malta’ 26 2,2

‘Netherlands’ 34 2,9

‘Poland’ 44 3,7

‘Portugal’ 52 4,4

’Romania’ 41 3,5

’Serbia’ 9 0,8

‘Slovakia’ 29 2,4

‘Slovenia’ 43 3,6

‘Spain’ 37 3,1

‘Sweden’ 56 4,7

‘Turkey’ 35 2,9

‘United Kingdom’ 19 1,6

Total valid 1055 88,8

‘No answer’ 133 11,2

Total 1188 100,0


Q.2 How would you describe your job?

Job description Frequency Percent

A management position 256 21,5

An operational/technical function 450 37,9

An administrative or support function 295 24,8

My tasks are mainly policy oriented 78 6,6

Other 85 7,2


No answer 24 2,0

Total 1188 100,0

Chart: How would you describe your job?

n=1164

Q.3 In which area of customs do you work?

Customs area Frequency Percent

Customs Legislation 396 33,3

Customs Working Methods 189 15,9

Scientific Customs 223 18,8

eCustoms 34 2,9

Origin 108 9,1

Tariff 19 1,6

IT 96 8,1

21.5%

37.9%

24.8%

6.6%

7.2%

A management position

An operational/technical

function

An administrative or support

function

My tasks are mainly policy

oriented

Other


Other, specify 90 7,6


No answer 33 2,8

Total 1188 100,0

Chart: In which area of customs do you work?

n=1155

Q.4 Have you ever participated in any of C2013 acti vities?

Frequency Percent

Yes 1017 85,6

No 143 12,0


No answer 28 2,4

Total 1188 100,0

Q.5 In which of the following types of C2013 Activi ties have you participated?

C2013 activities Frequency Percent

Project Group 352 35

Seminar 281 28

Workshop 329 32

Benchmarking 36 4

33%

16%19%

3%

9%

2%

8%

8%

Customs Legislation

Customs Working Methods

Scientific Customs

eCustoms

Origin

Tariff

IT

Other


Monitoring activity 59 6

Working visit 431 42

Training activity (not IT related) 88 9

IT training meeting 119 12

Steering Group 54 5

Chart: In which of the following types of C2013 Act ivities have you participated?

n=1017

352

281

329

36

59

431

88

119

54

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project Group

Seminar

Workshop

Benchmarking

Monitoring activity

Working visit

Training activity (not IT related)

IT training meeting

Steering Group


Q.6 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Pr oject Group meeting?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 134 13,2

Yes, more than once 304 29,9

No 529 52,0


No answer 50 4,9

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Project Group meeting(s) you took part in. Frequency Agree



Total valid No answer

Total

The project group meetings were organised and executed well.

145 250 9 1 1 406 32 438

The project group produced (or is likely to produce) concrete outputs.

114 273 10 3 5 405 33 438

The issues treated in the project group are relevant to my work.

196 204 4 0 0 404 34 438

The project group meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

156 226 13 3 5 403 35 438

Overall, the project group was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

113 253 18 1 18 403 35 438


The co-operation with other countries during the project group has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

113 253 18 1 18 403 35 438

My participation helped to create a (formal or informal) network of customs officials from different countries that will continue to be useful for my work.

168 204 16 2 16 406 32 438

Percent Agree




Total

The project group meetings were organised and executed well.

33,1 57,1 2,1 ,2 ,2 92,7 7,3 100,0

The project group produced (or is likely to produce) concrete outputs.

26,0 62,3 2,3 ,7 1,1 92,5 7,5 100,0

The issues treated in the project group are relevant to my work.

44,7 46,6 ,9 0 0 92,2 7,8 100,0

The project group meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

35,6 51,6 3,0 ,7 1,1 92,0 8,0 100,0

Overall, the project group was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

25,8 57,8 4,1 ,2 4,1 92,0 8,0 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the project group has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

38,4 46,6 3,7 ,5 3,7 92,7 7,3 100,0


29,0 52,7 5,0 ,2 4,8 91,8 8,2 100,0


Q.7 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Se minar ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 178 17,5


No 607 59,7


No answer 83 8,2

Totall 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Seminar(s) you took part in.

Frequency Agree




Total

The seminar was organised and executed well. 164 155 1 0 0 320 7 327

The seminar has provided me with new information and knowledge.

115 199 7 0 0 321 6 327

The issues treated in the seminar are relevant to my work.

125 183 7 1 2 318 9 327

The seminar was a worthwhile investment of my time. 127 180 7 2 1 317 10 327

Overall, the seminar was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

82 210 16 2 9 319 8 327

The co-operation with other countries during the seminar has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

107 180 11 3 19 320 7 327



102 182 20 1 13 318 9 327

Percent Agree strongly

Agree Disagree Disagree strongly

Don’t know


Total

The seminar was organised and executed well. 50,2 47,4 ,3 0 0 97,9 2,1 100,0

The seminar has provided me with new information and knowledge.

35,2 60,9 2,1 0 0 98,2 1,8 100,0

The issues treated in the seminar are relevant to my work.

38,2 56,0 2,1 ,3 ,6 97,2 2,8 100,0

The seminar was a worthwhile investment of my time. 38,8 55,0 2,1 ,6 ,3 96,9 3,1 100,0

Overall, the seminar was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

25,1 64,2 4,9 ,6 2,8 97,6 2,4 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the seminar has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

32,7 55,0 3,4 ,9 5,8 97,9 2,1 100,0


31,2 55,7 6,1 ,3 4,0 97,2 2,8 100,0


Q.8 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Wo rkshop ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 196 19,3


No 576 56,6


No answer 96 9,4

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Workshop(s) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The workshop was organised and executed well. 139 199 3 0 0 341 4 345

The workshop has provided me with new information and knowledge.

114 219 5 1 2 341 4 345

The issues treated in the workshop are relevant to my work.

121 214 2 0 3 340 5 345

The workshop was a worthwhile investment of my time.

120 206 5 2 5 338 7 345

Overall, the workshop was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

84 235 12 10 0 341 4 345

The co-operation with other countries during the workshop has led / will lead to results that could not

97 197 17 1 27 339 6 345


have been achieved by one country alone.


89 205 30 2 13 339 6 345



Don’t know


Total

The workshop was organised and executed well. 40,3 57,7 ,9 0 0 98,8 1,2 100,0

The workshop has provided me with new information and knowledge.

33,0 63,5 1,4 ,3 ,6 98,8 1,2 100,0

The issues treated in the workshop are relevant to my work.

35,1 62,0 ,6 ,0 ,9 98,6 1,4 100,0

The workshop was a worthwhile investment of my time.

34,8 59,7 1,4 ,6 1,4 98,0 2,0 100,0

Overall, the workshop was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

24,3 68,1 3,5 2,9 0 98,8 1,2 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the workshop has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

28,1 57,1 4,9 ,3 7,8 98,3 1,7 100,0


25,8 59,4 8,7 ,6 3,8 98,3 1,7 100,0


Q.9 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Be nchmarking meeting?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 34 3,3


No 870 85,5


No answer 99 9,7

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the benchmarking meeting(s) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The benchmarking was organised and executed well. 16 29 0 0 1 46 2 48

The benchmarking has allowed us to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.

18 26 1 0 1 46 2 48

The issues treated in the benchmarking are relevant to my work.

17 26 1 1 0 45 3 48

The benchmarking was a worthwhile investment of my time.

21 23 2 0 0 46 2 48

Overall, the benchmarking was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

18 22 2 0 4 46 2 48


The co-operation with other countries during the benchmarking has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

17 18 5 1 5 46 2 48


16 21 5 1 3 46 2 48

Percent Agree




Total

The benchmarking was organised and executed well. 33,3 60,4 0 0 2,1 95,8 4,2 100,0

The benchmarking has allowed us to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.

37,5 54,2 2,1 0 2,1 95,8 4,2 100,0

The issues treated in the benchmarking are relevant to my work.

35,4 54,2 2,1 2,1 0 93,8 6,3 100,0

The benchmarking was a worthwhile investment of my time.

37,5 45,8 4,2 0 8,3 95,8 4,2 100,0

Overall, the benchmarking was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

43,8 47,9 4,2 0 0 95,8 4,2 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the benchmarking has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

35,4 37,5 10,4 2,1 10,4 95,8 4,2 100,0


33,3 43,8 10,4 2,1 6,3 95,8 4,2 100,0


Q.10 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 M onitoring Activity ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 47 4,6


No 836 82,2


No answer 102 10,0

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Monitoring Activity(is) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The monitoring was organised and executed well. 32 45 0 0 1 78 1 79

The monitoring contributed to the correct application of EU legislation and/or procedures in the country or countries that were visited.

29 46 1 0 2 78 1 79

The issues treated in the monitoring are relevant to my work.

35 41 1 0 1 78 1 79

The monitoring was a worthwhile investment of my time.

33 41 1 1 1 77 2 79

Overall, the monitoring was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

26 46 2 0 4 78 1 79


The co-operation with other countries during the monitoring has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

22 46 8 0 2 78 1 79


32 35 7 0 2 76 3 79



Don’t know


Total

The monitoring was organised and executed well. 40,5 57,0 0 0 1,3 98,7 1,3 100,0

The monitoring contributed to the correct application of EU legislation and/or procedures in the country or countries that were visited.

36,7 58,2 1,3 0 2,5 98,7 1,3 100,0

The issues treated in the monitoring are relevant to my work.

44,3 51,9 1,3 0 1,3 98,7 1,3 100,0

The monitoring was a worthwhile investment of my time.

41,8 51,9 1,3 1,3 1,3 97,5 2,5 100,0

Overall, the monitoring was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

32,9 58,2 2,5 0 5,1 98,7 1,3 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the monitoring has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

27,8 58,2 10,1 0 2,5 98,7 1,3 100,0


40,5 44,3 8,9 0 2,5 96,2 3,8 100,0


Q.11 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 o utgoing Working Visit ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 281 27,6


No 520 51,1


No answer 104 10,2

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Working Visit(s) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The working visit was organised and executed well. 244 144 3 0 0 391 2 393

The working visit has allowed me to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.

173 201 9 2 5 390 3 393

The issues treated in the working visit are relevant to my work.

205 180 4 1 1 391 2 393

The working visit was a worthwhile investment of my time.

245 140 1 1 1 388 5 393

Overall, the working visit was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

133 226 19 2 9 389 4 393


The co-operation with other countries during the working visit has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

111 184 41 3 52 391 2 393


165 184 24 2 13 388 5 393



Don’t know


Total

The working visit was organised and executed well. 62,1 36,6 ,8 0 0 99,5 ,5 100,0

The working visit has allowed me to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.

44,0 51,1 2,3 ,5 1,3 99,2 ,8 100,0

The issues treated in the working visit are relevant to my work.

52,2 45,8 1,0 ,3 ,3 99,5 ,5 100,0

The working visit was a worthwhile investment of my time.

62,3 35,6 ,3 ,3 ,3 98,7 1,3 100,0

Overall, the working visit was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

33,8 57,5 4,8 ,5 2,3 99,0 1,0 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the working visit has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

28,2 46,8 10,4 ,8 13,2 99,5 ,5 100,0


42,0 46,8 6,1 ,5 3,3 98,7 1,3 100,0


Q.12 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 T raining Activity ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 87 8,6


No 760 74,7


No answer 103 10,1

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Training Activity(is) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The training activity was organised and executed well. 70 75 4 2 0 151 3 154

The training activity has contributed to enhancing the quality of training for customs officials across Europe.

64 81 2 1 2 150 4 154

The issues treated in the training activity are relevant to my work.

73 76 1 1 0 151 3 154

The training activity was a worthwhile investment of my time.

65 81 2 1 1 150 4 154

Overall, the training activity was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

51 93 2 1 3 150 4 154

The co-operation with other countries during the training activity has led / will lead to results that could

38 85 16 1 9 149 5 154


not have been achieved by one country alone.


40 81 17 2 9 149 5 154

Percent Agree




Total

The training activity was organised and executed well. 45,5 48,7 2,6 1,3 0 98,1 1,9 100,0

The training activity has contributed to enhancing the quality of training for customs officials across Europe.

41,6 52,6 1,3 ,6 1,3 97,4 2,6 100,0

The issues treated in the training activity are relevant to my work.

47,4 49,4 ,6 ,6 0 98,1 1,9 100,0

The training activity was a worthwhile investment of my time.

42,2 52,6 1,3 ,6 ,6 97,4 2,6 100,0

Overall, the training activity was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

33,1 60,4 1,3 ,6 1,9 97,4 2,6 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the training activity has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

24,7 55,2 10,4 ,6 5,8 96,8 3,2 100,0


26,0 52,6 11,0 1,3 5,8 96,8 3,2 100,0


Q.13 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 I T Training ?

Frequency Percent

Yes, once 85 8,4


No 759 74,6


No answer 111 10,9

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the IT Training you took part in.

Frequency Agree




Total

The IT training was organised and executed well. 52 84 10 1 0 147 0 147

The IT training has provided me with new information and knowledge.

55 88 4 0 0 147 0 147

The issues treated in the IT training are relevant to my work.

61 83 3 0 0 147 0 147

The IT training was a worthwhile investment of my time.

62 74 8 0 0 144 3 147

Overall, the IT training was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

50 83 6 1 5 145 2 147

The co-operation with other countries during the IT training has led / will lead to results that could not have

31 82 18 1 15 147 0 147


been achieved by one country alone.


30 80 23 2 12 147 0 147

Percent Agree




Total

The IT training was organised and executed well. 35,4 57,1 6,8 ,7 0 100,0 0 100,0

The IT training has provided me with new information and knowledge.

37,4 59,9 2,7 0 0 100,0 0 100,0

The issues treated in the IT training are relevant to my work.

41,5 56,5 2,0 0 0 100,0 0 100,0

The IT training was a worthwhile investment of my time.

42,2 50,3 5,4 0 0 98,0 2,0 100,0

Overall, the IT training was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

34,0 56,5 4,1 ,7 3,4 98,6 1,4 100,0

The co-operation with other countries during the IT training has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

21,1 55,8 12,2 ,7 10,2 100,0 ,0 100,0


20,4 54,4 15,6 1,4 8,2 100,0 ,0 100,0


Q.14 Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 S teering Group meeting?

Frequency Valid Percent

Yes, once 16 1,6


No 854 84,0


No answer 106 10,4

Total 1017 100,0

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Steering Group meeting(s) you took part in. Frequency Agree




Total

The SG meetings were organised and executed well. 18 35 2 0 1 56 1 57

The SG provides effective coordination and guidance to C2013 activities in its specific area.

17 34 3 0 1 55 2 57

The issues treated in the SG are relevant to my work. 20 34 0 0 2 56 1 57

The SG meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

15 32 3 1 4 55 2 57

Overall, the SG was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

11 39 3 1 2 56 1 57

The co-operation with other countries in the SG has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

13 37 3 0 3 56 1 57



14 34 5 0 3 56 1 57

Percent Agree




Total

The SG meetings were organised and executed well. 31,6 61,4 3,5 0 1,8 98,2 1,8 100,0

The SG provides effective coordination and guidance to C2013 activities in its specific area.

29,8 59,6 5,3 0 1,8 96,5 3,5 100,0

The issues treated in the SG are relevant to my work. 35,1 59,6 0 0 3,5 98,2 1,8 100,0

The SG meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

26,3 56,1 5,3 1,8 7,0 96,5 3,5 100,0

Overall, the SG was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

19,3 68,4 5,3 1,8 3,5 98,2 1,8 100,0

The co-operation with other countries in the SG has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

22,8 64,9 5,3 0 5,3 98,2 1,8 100,0


24,6 59,6 8,8 0 5,3 98,2 1,8 100,0

Q.15 Overall Impact Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements regarding the impact towards the main objectives of the C2013 programme: The results of the action(s) I participated in will ultimately…


Frequency Agree strongly


Don’t know Total valid No Answer Total

...contribute to protecting the EU’s financial and economic interest

198 554 43 3 85 883 134 1017

...contribute to facilitating trade and enhancing the competitiveness of European companies

164 498 80 8 129 879 138 1017

...contribute to help national customs administrations to perform their duties as if they were one

263 525 43 6 54 891 126 1017

...contribute to strengthen safety and security for European citizens and traders

219 485 64 7 113 888 129 1017

…contribute to supporting the countries preparing for accession to the and/or other neighbouring countries

157 419 109 11 182 878 139 1017



Don’t know Total valid No Answer Total

...contribute to protecting the EU’s financial and economic interest

19.5 54.5 4.2 .3 8.4 86.8 13.2 100.0

...contribute to facilitating trade and enhancing the competitiveness of European companies

16.1 49.0 7.9 .8 12.7 86.4 13.6 100.0

...contribute to help national customs administrations to perform their duties as if they were one

25.9 51.6 4.2 .6 5.3 87.6 12.4 100.0

...contribute to strengthen safety and security for European citizens and traders

21.5 47.7 6.3 .7 11.1 87.3 12.7 100.0

…contribute to supporting the countries preparing for accession to the and/or other neighbouring countries

15.4 41.2 10.7 1.1 17.9 86.3 13.7 100.0


Chart: Overall impact

n=878

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Objective V (n=878)

Objective IV (n=888)

Objective III (n=891)

Objective II (n=879)

Objective I (n=883)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with th e following statement:The results of the action(s) I participated in will ultimately contribute to…



ANNEX II.E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Have your say on Customs 2013 joint actions and provide your feedback!

The European Commission (DG TAXUD) invites you to have your say on joint actions financed under the Customs 2013 programme (C2013). We would like to hear your feedback about the action(s) you took part in the last three years and how it has helped you in your work.

Your input and feedback on C2013 joint actions is very important to us and the survey should not take you more than 10 minutes to reply.

Please click Next to start the survey.

Please note that this survey is anonymous.

Descriptive Information: 1) Your Country: Which participating country do you work for? Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom


2) How would you describe your job? O A management position O An operational / technical function O An administrative or support function O My tasks are mainly policy oriented O Other 3) In which area of customs do you work? O Customs Legislation O Customs Working Methods O Scientific Customs O eCustoms O Origin O Tariff O IT O Other (please specify) ____________________________________________________ 4) Have you participated in any of C2013 activities ? O Yes O No (close survey) 5) In which of the following types of C2013 Activit ies have you participated: (multiple responses possible) O Project Group O Seminar O Workshop O Benchmarking O Monitoring activity O Working visit O Training activity (not IT related) O IT training meeting O Steering Group

Assessment of specific action types

In the following sections, we’d like to ask you to provide specific feedback on the action(s) that you have taken part in. 6) Customs 2013 Project Groups: (Project groups usually consist of around 5-10 participants who meet a certain number of times during a fixed period. They are established to achieve specific predefined objectives.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Project Group meeting? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Project Group meeting(s) you took part in.

Statements Agree strongly


Don’t know

a) The project group meetings were organised and executed well.


b) The project group produced (or is likely to produce) concrete outputs.

c) The issues treated in the project group are relevant to my work.

d) The project group meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the project group was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the project group has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.

g) My participation helped to create a (formal or informal) network of customs officials from different countries that will continue to be useful for my work.

h) Do you have any comments on the project group meeting(s) you participated in?

7) Customs 2013 Seminars (Seminars are formal one-off events, such as forums or conferences, to bring the administrations of all Participating Countries together to examine specific topics, mainly at a strategic level.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 seminar? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Seminar(s) you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The seminar was organised and executed well.

b) The seminar has provided me with new information and knowledge.

c) The issues treated in the seminar are relevant to my work.

d) The seminar was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the seminar was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries


during the seminar has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the seminar(s) you participated in?

8) Customs 2013 Workshops (Workshops are one-off events that bring the administrations of Participating Countries together to examine specific topics. Workshops are similar to seminars, but tend to deal with more operational matters; they are also less formal and more flexible regarding aspects such as the duration, participants, organisation etc.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Workshop? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Workshop(s) you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The workshop was organised and executed well.

b) The workshop has provided me with new information and knowledge.

c) The issues treated in the workshop are relevant to my work.

d) The workshop was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the workshop was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the workshop has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the workshop(s) you participated in?


9) Customs 2013 Benchmarking (Benchmarking consists of a comparative analysis between two or more countries to identify best practices in other administrations or work areas, and then implement those best practices in the participating administrations.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Benchmarking meeting? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Benchmarking action(s) you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The benchmarking was organised and executed well.

b) The benchmarking has allowed us to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.

c) The issues treated in the benchmarking are relevant to my work.

d) The benchmarking was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the benchmarking was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the benchmarking has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the benchmarking action(s) you participated in?

10) Customs 2013 Monitoring Activities: (In monitoring activities, EU-MS joint teams visit selected administrations to provide guidance and ensure the correct understanding and application of EU legislation and administrative procedures.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Monitoring Activity? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)


Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Monitoring Activity / Activities you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The monitoring was organised and executed well.

b) The monitoring contributed to the correct application of EU legislation and/or procedures in the country or countries that were visited.

c) The issues treated in the monitoring are relevant to my work.

d) The monitoring was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the monitoring was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the monitoring has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the monitoring activity / activities you participated in?

11) Working Visits: Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 outgoing working visit? (Working visits are visits of an official of a Participating Country to another Participating Country in order to realise a predefined objective. They can last up to one month.) O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the outgoing working visit(s) you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The working visit was organised and executed well.

b) The working visit has allowed me to identify good practices that can be implemented in my country.


c) The issues treated in the working visit are relevant to my work.

d) The working visit was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the working visit was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the working visit has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the working visit(s) you participated in?

12) Customs 2013 Training Activities: Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Training Activity? (Training activities are a form of structured co-operation between national training bodies and officials responsible for training in national administrations, with a view to providing a common core of training relating to customs rules and procedures, as well as to provide infrastructure and tools for common e-learning in the field of customs.) O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Training activity / activities you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The training activity was organised and executed well.

b) The training activity has contributed to enhancing the quality of training for customs officials across Europe.

c) The issues treated in the training activity are relevant to my work.

d) The training activity was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the training activity was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the training activity has led / will


lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the training activity / activities you participated in?

13) Customs 2013 IT Training: Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 IT Training? (The Commission organises training sessions related to the information exchange systems to ensure that the officials of Participating Countries are prepared to secure the operability and interconnectivity of the applications.) O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the IT Training you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The IT training was organised and executed well.

b) The IT training has provided me with new information and knowledge.

c) The issues treated in the IT training are relevant to my work.

d) The IT training was a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the IT training was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries during the IT training has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the IT training you participated in?


14) Customs 2013 Steering Groups: (Steering groups are established to perform activities of a coordinating nature under specific areas of the work under C2013.) Have you ever participated in a Customs 2013 Steering Group meeting? O Yes, once O Yes, more than once O No (Go to next question)

Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements about the Steering Group you took part in.



Don’t know

a) The Steering Group meetings were organised and executed well.

b) The Steering Group provides effective coordination and guidance to C2013 activities in its specific area.

c) The issues treated in the Steering Group are relevant to my work.

d) The Steering Group meetings were a worthwhile investment of my time.

e) Overall, the Steering Group was useful for improving the work of my national customs administration.

f) The co-operation with other countries in the Steering Group has led / will lead to results that could not have been achieved by one country alone.


h) Do you have any comments on the Steering Group you participated in?


Overall impact 15) Overall impact Please rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements regarding the impact towards the main objectives of the C2013 programme: The results of the action(s) I participated in will ultimately...



Don’t know

a) ... contribute to protecting the EU’s financial interests.

b) ... contribute to facilitating trade and enhancing the competitiveness of European companies.

c) ... help national customs administrations to perform their duties as if they were one.

d) ... strengthen safety and security for European citizens and traders.

e) ... contribute to supporting the countries preparing for accession to the EU, and/or other neighbouring countries.

16) Do you have any comments you would like to make on the ultimate impact of the

action(s) towards the main objectives of the C2013 programme? Please do so in the following box.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation!


ANNEX II.F: INTERVIEW REPORT

1. Introduction and key findings

The evaluation team carried out 30 in-depth telephone interviews9 with members of the various bodies, organs and mechanisms involved in the management of C2013. This included national customs officials in the C2013 Committee, the Customs Policy Group (CPG), the Customs Code Committee (CCC), the Ad-hoc High Level Steering Group for the MCCIP (AhHLSG), the Working Methods (Steering) Group (WMSG), the Customs Laboratories Steering Group (CLSG), the Electronic Customs Group (ECG), the Training Steering Group (TSG), and the C2013 Coordinators Steering Group and Communications Network (CN), as well as representatives of the trade community involved in the Trade Contact Group (TCG), National Programme Coordinators (NPC), and members of the Customs Programme Management Team in DG TAXUD (CPMT) involved in different aspects of coordination and programme management. The figure below uses the C2013 management scheme to depict the bodies and number of their members consulted during the interview programme.

Figure 25 – C2013 management scheme and number of i nterviews conducted with respective bodies

* Interviews conducted during the inception phase

The objective of these interviews was to gain a better understanding of how the programme’s management scheme work and to gather the opinions and perceptions of interviewees concerning specific aspects of the programme’s management. These issues included transparency, decision-making, priorities, coordination, involvement of stakeholders, action plans and guidelines, monitoring and follow-up, etc. The interviews

9 This included four interviews with members of the CPMT and coordinators conducted during the inception phase.

Customs 2013 Committee (9)

ECG (1)

CPG (2)LEV

EL 1 P

olicyLE

VE

L 2 Coordination

LEV

EL 3 A

CT

IVIT

IES

TCG (2)

WMSG (2) CLSG (1) TSG (1) CN (1)

CCC (2)

AhHLSG (2)

CPMT (3+1*)

NPCs (3*)

C213 activities:project groups, working groups, seminars, working & monitoring visits, benchmarking, etc.


aimed to assess what has worked well and what has not worked as expected, with a view to identifying the main areas for improvement. Finally, the interviews helped to identify the added value of a programme in the field of customs at the European level. The report structure follows the main evaluation issues: relevance, effectiveness, management, and EU added value.

The key findings from the interviews are briefly outlined below:

• All interviewees felt that programme objectives cover all relevant areas and C2013 is wide enough to address current and future challenges. However, several managers noted that C2013 could address some additional areas, such as former third pillar issues;

• C2013 has had a positive impact in each of the programme objectives, with the most evident contribution to Objective III and Objective I. But the work in all areas should be continued, and some managers felt that the balance between safety and security on the one hand and trade facilitation on the other should be improved;

• Overall, the interviewed programme managers were pleased with the general management of the C2013 programme, and they particularly appreciated the work of the DG TAXUD Management Team. However, the results of the interviews suggest that there is still some room for improvements, in particular with regard to:

o the role that some bodies play in the overall management of the programme could be further strengthened with a view to ensuring a more participatory process of “steering” and strategic orientation of the programme, rather than performing mainly an informative function;

o communication between different bodies should be further improved or their work should be better documented, as there is often insufficient information or feedback provided to various groups and committees involved in the same or similar subject matters;

o the role of different bodies and how they relate to each other was perceived as very complex and often not crystal clear. Thus, the governance of the 2013 programme could be reviewed and clarified in the sense that various groups and committees work in silos and many members do not see how different bodies relate to each other, take decisions, and what impact they have on others;

o finally, the management and implementation of the C2013 programme would also benefit from a better co-ordination of customs related issues within DG TAXUD and the Commission in general.

• Among the future priorities and challenges for C2013 management were: 1) the development of Programme Information and Collaboration Space (PICS), and 2) ensuring the same level of participation of national customs officials in future programme activities;

• The interviewed programme managers concurred that co-operation, information sharing, and networking are one of the main advantages and strengths of the programme and an area where the added value of an EU programme in the customs field is the most visible;

• A significant number of interviewees noted that without C2013 many actions would not have taken place and it would not have been possible to obtain the same results, in particular those relating to e-Customs and harmonisation of practices across the EU.


2. Relevance

Asked about how C2013 reflects the key needs and problems facing the European customs administration, practically all interviewees felt that the current programme objectives cover all relevant areas and C2013 is wide enough to address current and future challenges. In this context several programme managers pointed to the flexibility of C2013 as one of its main strengths, allowing it to quickly react to emerging issues and provide responses to new challenges.

However, individual interviewees indicated additional areas which C2013 could address in the future:

• former third pillar issues (such as fight against organised crime);

• expanding the scope of C2013 funding due to austerity measures at the national level (examples included funding special equipment for border controls, reimbursing visas, allowing for translation services);

• providing better training and continuous professional development for customs officials;

• ensuring more visibility of C2013 activities;

• opening up more C2013 activities for participating candidate countries and potential candidates.

3. Effectiveness

Overall, the interviewed programme managers concurred that C2013 addressed and had a positive impact towards each of the programme objectives, with the most evident contribution to helping customs administrations to act as one (Objective III) and protecting the financial and economic interests of the EU (Objective I). Having said this, interview partners were unanimous that C2013’s contribution has been mostly indirect and it is therefore difficult to measure. Among the few examples provided to illustrate the impact of C2013 interventions were:

I. Protection of the financial and economic interests of the EU (Objective I):

• Uniform collection of duties across the EU;

II. Trade facilitation, cooperation and competitiveness (Objective II):

• Electronic handling of customs declarations leading to time and cost savings for EOs;

III. Act as one single European Customs administration (Objective III):

• Implementation of IT systems enforcing the uniform procedures among all MS;

IV. Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens (Objective IV):

• Improvement of the effectiveness of customs controls through harmonising risk analysis;

V. Enlargement and relations with third countries (Objective V):

• Participation of CC and potential candidates in C2013 activities;

• Mutual recognition of AEO.

All interviewees agreed that C2013 activities in all abovementioned areas need to be continued as the work is far from completed. Several interviewees also emphasised the importance of improving the balance between security and safety (which has received more


attention so far) and trade facilitation and competitiveness (which should become the focus in the years to come).

With a view to the definition of the future directions of customs in Europe, the majority of interviewed programme managers agreed that C2013 provided significant support in this area, mainly through the high level seminars engaging decision makers in the common debate and ensuring their support for new developments. However, it is also important to note that several interviewees felt that C2013 could be better used to address these issues. In the words of one manager: “C2013 should be the engine to make sure that the vision [the Future Customs Initiative] is supported by practical initiatives... There should be a connection between the strategic level and the operational activities within the programme to guide the implementation.”

4. Management

4.1 Specific bodies and committees

The majority of interviewees agreed that the role of the bodies and committees in which they participate are well defined, either by the Customs Decision (as is the case for the C2013 Committee) or by internal guides. Just a few recently appointed national representatives were not familiar with the actual mandate of the C2013 Committee, but they could well describe what the committee does in practice. For examples, the interviewed members of the C2013 Committee pointed out that the most important task of this body is to approve Annual Work Programmes which are developed in a participatory process between the EC and PCs. In the view of interviewees, the remaining role of the C2013 Committee is limited to passing information from the EC to national customs administration providing no other opportunity to support the management of the programme in any other way (see more on the organisation of the meetings below).

C2013 groups and committees consist of national customs officials at different levels depending on a body concerned: they range from top policy makers (like in the case of the CPG) to communication experts (e.g. CN). The vast majority of interviewees were of the opinion that the composition of the committee or body they are a part of is at the appropriate level. This was particularly true for the C2013 Committee where the national representatives were said to have a comparable level of experience and occupy similar positions, which in turn facilitates the process of decision making.

In this respect most interviewees felt that decisions at various groups and committees are taken in a transparent way. While most interviewees reported that the decision making process is by and large effective, there were several members from across a number of different bodies who thought that this process could be further improved by better managing the agendas of the meetings and providing more time for “steering” and strategic discussions. Individual interviewees wished to see the EC to be more sensitive towards initiatives or suggestions voiced by PCs.

The average number of meetings varies between different bodies: from two meetings per year in the case of the C2013 Committee to more than one per month for the CCC or ECG. The interviewees presented mixed views on the frequency of meetings: just over half of the interviewed national customs officials felt that the number of meetings per year is sufficient, since many of these officials also meet on other occasions. Many interviewees had a feeling that the number of meetings of existing committees and bodies is not adequate and the meetings do not leave enough room for in-depth discussions. This was voiced particularly loudly by the NPCs, who do not have a separate forum to meet and discuss more technical


issues related to programme co-ordination. Yet other interviewed programme managers who meet very frequently pointed that the meetings they attend are very exhaustive.

Almost all interviewees were satisfied with interactions between members of the same committee or group and the personal contacts and networking opportunities were particularly appreciated. The frank and open atmosphere at the meetings was emphasised and very welcome. However, it was noted by several interviewees that these interactions take place mainly at the meetings and cease in the periods between them.

In terms of the organisation of meetings most of the interview partners appreciated how the meetings are prepared and executed. Members of the C2013 Committee mentioned the process of drafting the AWP as a good example of co-operation between the EC and PCs, although not all national interests can be equally well reflected in the final document. On the other hand, several interviewees noted that meetings of the C2013 Committee were often loaded with information presented by the EC to PCs and left little time for strategic discussions.

Among the main strengths of different groups and committees reported by the interviewees were:

• co-operation and personal contacts with other members of the bodies (incl. economic operators);

• possibility to speak directly with all people concerned;

• informal way of working.

Generally, interviewees expressed mainly positive opinions about the bodies of which they are members. The very few weaknesses mentioned during the interviews included:

• a mostly “passive” role of some bodies (notably C2013 Committee) in supporting the management of the programme;

• a low level of interaction between different bodies, which leads to problems in understanding the whole process and providing feedback to different groups working on the same issues;

• organisational issues:

o some meetings lack interpretation and documents and e-learning courses are available only in certain languages (mainly English, French, German);

o occasionally, the documents discussed are not up-to-date;

o limited/insufficient time to provide comments on draft documents;

o slow process of developing minutes after the meetings.

4.2 General programme management

Practically all interviewed national customs officials felt that the programme is managed effectively. A number of interviewees from national customs administrations emphasised and strongly appreciated the fact that they are involved in programme management and they can express their views. It was also noted that the programme is well structured and flexible both in how it is providing funding and opportunities for co-operation. Many interviewed customs officials emphasised the role and were grateful for the work delivered by the CPMT. In their opinion the Management Team is “very approachable, friendly, and helpful” despite being overloaded with work.


In terms of co-ordination between different bodies, the majority of interviewees thought that the structure of the programme is very complex, and even for many managers it was difficult to see how they fit in the whole picture. In this context some participants reported incremental improvements introduced by the EC. For example, the development of the C2013 management scheme (see above) was welcome as it provided a much needed overview of different groups and committees and how they are related to each other. However, this picture is still not crystal clear to many interviewees who indicated a few shortcomings such as:

• a proliferation of project groups posing a challenge for PCs to participate in all activities and making the governance of the programme more and more difficult;

• an insufficient dissemination of information and communication between different (and often interrelated) bodies which do not provide enough feedback on their activities;

• a sub-optimal steering of C2013 – a few programme managers felt that links between different steering groups and also between them and other bodies such as the C2013 Committee or the CPG are not fully satisfactory and they could be further improved. The WMSG was most often quoted as an example of a body that could work more effectively, but the scope for improvement was noted for all steering groups in general.

For these reasons, some interviewees would welcome a discussion on the governance issues within C2013; this would also be beneficial for those who are still not fully aware of the internal structures and their functions in the C2013 management. Finally, individual interviewees noted that co-ordination between DG TAXUD and other Commission DGs and services could be improved and sometimes a stronger position of DG TAXUD on customs issues during the internal consultations would be welcome.

Asked about the co-ordination between the EC, PCs, and EOs the interviewed programme managers were unanimous that relations between the EC and PCs are very effective and transparent. With a view to EOs and programme management most interviewees (incl. traders) agreed that this issue is not a top priority for the trade community. In fact the EOs find the management structure very complicated and it is difficult for them to follow. On the other hand, they are much more interested in taking part in consultations through the TCG and in C2013 activities. In this respect the co-operation with trade was perceived as mutually beneficial by almost all interviewed partners.

4.3 Programme administration and monitoring

As mentioned earlier, the participatory process of developing Annual Work Programmes in co-operation between the PCs and the EC was highly appreciated, and programme managers were unanimous that the AWP is a very useful tool in the management of C2013. For the national customs officials, the AWP helps in their daily work to identify programme priorities, and allocate budgets and national customs officials to relevant programme activities.10

Practically all interviewed programme managers were satisfied with the application process for setting up new joint actions which is currently in place11. While many managers highly

10 It should be noted that questions on administration and monitoring issues were asked only those programme managers who were familiar with these procedures. 11 Any joint action can be initiated by a MS or the Commission by putting forward a proposal in ART2. It is then verified by the Management Team if it is in line with C2013 objectives and the consultation


appreciated the transparency of the process and the fact that they can always count on receiving an answer from the Management Team, a few national customs officials reported that particularly complex or controversial initiatives might take a long time to be accepted (with the longest proposal waiting four months for the final approval). The main reason for these delays is that the Management Team needs to wait for professional units to accept the proposal, and this can be time consuming.

Programme managers concurred that that funding levels are sufficient and often excessive for the national administrations to consume. The funding was perceived as easy to obtain and disbursed in a timely manner12. Several interviewees wished that they had more human resources available to participate in programme activities and make better use of the funding. On the other hand, a few managers noted that the financial crisis and austerity measures pose challenges to maintaining their level of participation in C21013 actions. For example, instead of sending two representatives from their customs administrations to participate in a meeting, they are able to send only one delegate. Some managers went as far as to suggest that the scope of the EU funding should be expanded to other domains, such as specific equipment, follow up activities implementing C2013 outputs at national levels, translation services, etc.

With a view to IT tools supporting C2013 management, the majority of customs officials were generally satisfied with ART213 and CIRCA14. While several managers admitted that the process of familiarising themselves with the tools was time consuming (as they are not always intuitive), the systems are perceived as providing necessary and sufficient information. In particular, some interview partners noted improvements introduced to ART2, but they also expressed their hopes that a single communication platform will be developed in future. This is particularly acute with a view to some critical comments towards CIRCA, which was said by many to be slow and not very user friendly.

4.4 Future challenges and priorities for improving the management of C2013

With a view to the future challenges for the management of C2013, most interviewees pointed to the development of PICS which is a new platform for online communication within C2013. With the increasing costs of physically participating in the meetings (in terms of time and human resources available) this was perceived as an important step to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of communication and co-operation within the programme.

In fact, ensuring the same level of participation in C2013 meetings and events was frequently quoted as one of the challenges for the management of the programme (with the austerity measures and cuts in national customs administrations being the main reasons for this situation).

process is launched. After this process is concluded, the proposal receives a financial code and it becomes a joint action. The entire process can take from two days up to one month, depending on the complexity of the proposal. There have been 45 proposals in 2010 only (and 180 proposals in total from the beginning of the programme). 12 The interviewed members of the Management Team reported that funding arrangements have been adjusted to the newly introduced grant scheme and in its early days the process of making money available to PCs was time consuming and resulted in some delays. It should be noted however that there were no complaints on this issue from the interviewed national customs officials. 13 ART2 is the upgraded version of the Activity Reporting Tool which supports the management of C2013 activities and monitoring of their budget. 14 CIRCA is a portal of collaborative workspace for partners of the European Institutions. See: http://circa.europa.eu/


Among other priorities for C2013 management, individual programme managers indicated that:

• the governance of the programme can be further improved by “making a distinction between the various activities on operational, tactical, and strategic level – which will result in more oversight and a better steering of the programme”

• more co-ordination is needed at the Commission level (within DG TAXUD and between DG TAXUD and other DGs and services of the Commission).

4.5 Co-operation, information sharing, and networki ng

Overall, the co-operation, information sharing, and networking was perceived by interviewees as excellent and a real essential element of the programme helping them to harmonise their activities and increasingly “act as one”. This applies for the relations between national customs administrations, as well as between them and the EC.

The interviewed programme managers were unanimous that the C2013 programme contributed to enhanced co-operation between national customs administration and DG TAXUD. Several examples were provided to illustrate how informal contacts with the EC helped with the implementation of the programme or initiated some changes. These included: 1) smooth completion of conformity tests and launching IT systems within the time given; 2) additional funding granted by the EC to some applicants; 3) discussions on the minimum requirements for special equipment at the external border control posts currently under way; 4) clarification on several issues (incl. BTI) received from the EC; 5) contact details in other MS obtained from DG TAXUD; etc. These examples show how responsive the EC is and how this helps to reinforce ‘two-way’ communication related to the implementation of the programme.

According to several interviewees, developing friendly relations with colleagues at DG TAXUD was very helpful in their daily work not only in the implementation of C2013 but also beyond the programme. For example, with the new regulations and decisions entering into force, it is important for national administrations to maintain frequent communication with the EC, be up-to-date and responsive to the EC’s requests and requirements, organise their audit visits and follow up their recommendations. Contacts made and relations developed through C2013 assist in these processes and help to solve any issues that might arise. This is well illustrated by the following opinion: “When we joined the EU the Commission seemed so far away. Now we are in touch with them all the time.”

Interviewed managers also highlighted that C2013 facilitates contacts between different customs administrations and provides opportunities to network, share information and experience. This is particularly useful for them to quickly get in touch with their counterparts in other national administrations and request their support or contact details of other officials in these administrations. These professional contacts often extend beyond the programme. For example, a C2013 seminar on cigarette smuggling gathered officials from several PCs which continue to work together on this increasingly important problem in Eastern Europe. Another example included an informal meeting arranged between experts in illegal substances for sportsmen organised as an aftermath of C2013 activities.

While the growing online communication was noted by most respondents, they strongly emphasised the importance of maintaining the face-to-face contacts that prove more effective and sustainable. This personal dimension of the programme was perceived as extremely valuable, as illustrated by the following opinions: “Without personal contacts it is difficult to get in touch with a relevant person in a different administration.” “Sometimes there


is no official response from another MS in which case you can pick up the phone and ask someone you met personally to push a little bit.”

In sum, this particular feature of the programme (i.e. providing a platform for co-operation, information sharing, and networking) was considered as one of its main advantages: “C2013 is a vehicle for co-operation – you could not have it at the same level without the programme”.

5. EU Added Value

In general, programme managers felt that C2013 provides necessary support to develop complementary measures and tools (such as detailed rules or IT systems) in order to turn the EU legislation into practice and ensure the implementation of the customs law and the proper functioning of the Customs Union.

The Commission was seen as a facilitator of this process and this role was considered as important with a view to the overall progress made towards the C2013 objectives. It can be well illustrated by the following opinion: “With such a big community it wouldn’t work if we tried to do it ourselves. When we all meet... we are working together on a common purpose. And we have common problems and help each other. This couldn’t happen without C2013, the legislation wouldn’t be implemented... Someone has to be there to pull this together, and C2013 is an engine.”

A significant number of interviewees noted that without C2013 many actions would not have taken place and MS would not have been able to work to the same degree of harmonisation as is currently the case. The IT systems and the progress made towards the paperless customs environment were frequently quoted as good examples of such an additional value of an EU programme. Several interviewed programme managers also pointed to trade facilitation and a faster movement of goods that would not have been possible without C2013 support.


ANNEX II.F: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PROGRAMME MANAGEMEN T

Name of interviewee:

Country / Organisation / Unit:

C2013 management body part of:

Date of interview: Name of interviewer:

Introduction

1. Please give a brief overview of your position and role in your organisation, time in service, and involvement in the C2013 programme.

Management processes, structures and tools

Interviewee’s committee

2. Please summarise the role of the body or committee you are a member of in the management, co-ordination and decision making process of C2013. Is this role clearly and appropriately defined?

3. Is the body or committee’s mandate, composition, interaction between members, organisation and regularity of meetings conducive to effectively playing the role that it is intended to play?

4. What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the work of your body or committee? How could its effectiveness be improved?

General programme management, decision making and co-ordination

5. From your point of view, how effectively and efficiently is C2013 managed? What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the structures and bodies that are charged with co-ordination and decision-making?

6. What level of coordination is there between the work of different actors (EU / MS / EOs), groups, committees and networks? To what extent is such coordination effective and transparent? (show diagram, focus on policy and coordination levels)

7. To what extent do you feel that decisions taken in these bodies (i.e. Steering groups, committees etc) are taken in an effective, transparent and timely manner?

8. To what extent are the strategic planning documents (in particular the AWP) useful to enhance programme management and co-ordination?

Programme administration and monitoring – interviewer: ask if the interviewee is familiar with the topic.


9. Question for programme coordinators only: What are your views of the C2013 application and funding process? To what extent are new proposals/initiatives assessed in a co-ordinated, timely and transparent manner?

10. Question for programme coordinators only: Are current funding levels sufficient to allow for the achievement of C2013 programme objectives? Is the funding disbursed, in a timely and transparent manner?

11. Question for those involved in joint actions (not IT): Is sufficient information available (e.g. through ART2, CIRCA) to support programme management and monitoring? Is the information of sufficient quality and quantity, and made available in a timely fashion?

12. Are you familiar with the overall number of participants in the C2013 activities / meetings? Is it increasing/decreasing and what are the reasons for such a situation? How does this look for your country?

Co-operation, information sharing and networking

13. To what extent have the actions of the Customs 2013 programme contributed to increased co-operation, information sharing, and/or networking between the customs administrations and the Commission? What impact has this had on programme implementation? Please provide concrete examples.

14. To what extent have the actions of the Customs 2013 programme contributed to increased co-operation, information sharing, and/or networking between the national customs administrations? What impact has this had on programme implementation? Please provide concrete examples.

Effectiveness / relevance / added value

15. Overall, do you think Customs 2013 has had a positive impact in any or all of the following areas? Has its impact been more significant in some areas than in others? If so, why is this the case?

• Protection of the financial and economic Community interests • Trade facilitation, cooperation and competitiveness • Act as one single European Customs administration • Strengthening security and safety for trade and citizens • Enlargement and relations with third countries (i.e. CC, potential CC and ENP

countries)

16. In your opinion, do the areas mentioned above reflect the key needs and problems facing European customs administration today and in the foreseeable future (both in the shorter and longer term)? What other areas should C2013 address?

17. To what extent has Customs 2013, through its instruments, supported the definition of the future direction of customs in Europe?

18. To what extent has action at the EU level (through C2013) added value over and above what would have been possible at national level and/or had you been acting on your own? Please provide concrete examples.


Prompt: Imagine a situation without an EU customs programme: What impact would this have on customs administrations and traders across Europe?

19. To what extent does C2013 contribute to achieving the goals of the wider EU policy agenda? Are there any clear examples of synergies and/or conflicts with other policies?

Concluding questions

20. Summing up, what do you perceive as the key future challenges and priorities for improving the management of the Customs 2013?

21. Is there anything which we have not discussed which you would like to draw our attention to?

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013 PROGRAMME … · MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013...

Documents

Transcript of MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013 PROGRAMME … · MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE CUSTOMS 2013...