european union common border crossings management project

Definition of the Core Transport Network in the Northern Dimension area, FWC COM Lot 1

F;ù

“A Study on Common Border Crossings Points Management between

Schengen Area and Russia / Belarus” Contract No. 2011/282801

STUDY REPORT

This project is funded by

the European Union

EUROPEAID/129783/C/SER/multi

Lot 1: Studies and Technical assistance in all sectors

A project implemented

by B&S Europe


Common Border Crossings Management Project – Draft Final Report May 2012

Table of contents Executive Summary Glossary Map showing major BCPs between Schengen Area and Russia and Belarus

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 2

3. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................. 3

4. SCHEDULE OF FIELD VISITS ............................................................................................. 4

5. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS RELATING TO BORDER CROSSING FACILITATION 5

6. DOMESTIC LEGISLATION IMPACTING ON BORDER CONTROL PROCESSES .............. 7

6.1 OVERVIEW OF RUSSIAN FEDERAL CUSTOMS SERVICE’S OPERATIONS AND FUTURE STRATEGIES

................................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2 OVERVIEW OF BELARUS STATE CUSTOMS COMMITTEE’S OPERATIONS AND FUTURE STRATEGIES

............................................................................................................................................... 10

7. BORDER CONTROL PROCESSES AS ACTUALLY PRACTICED .................................... 11

7.1. CURRENT SEQUENTIAL PROCESSES IN RUSSIA AND BELARUS .............................................. 14

8. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES IN ACTUAL BORDER CONTROL MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES .............................................................................................................................. 20

9. CROSS BORDER COOPERATION BETWEEN BORDER CROSSING POINTS

MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ..................................................................................................... 23

9.1 AUTOMATED EXCHANGES OF INFORMATION ON CUSTOMS MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF

OPERATIONAL LEVEL COORDINATION BETWEEN CUSTOMS SERVICES .......................................... 25

10. THE LOGISTICS OF MOVEMENTS OF PASSENGERS AND GOODS AT BORDER

CROSSING POINTS ................................................................................................................. 26

11. THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURES ON THE OPERATIONS OF

BORDER CROSSING POINTS. ................................................................................................ 30

12. THE VIEWS OF BORDER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ................................................. 33

13. THE VIEWS OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE BODIES

34

13.1 SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF EU BASED TRANSPORT OPERATORS. ....................................... 35


13.2 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF A RUSSIAN BASED TRANSPORT OPERATOR .................................... 36

14. THE VIEWS OF DRIVERS. ............................................................................................. 39

14.1 SUMMARY OF DRIVERS’ QUESTIONNAIRES .......................................................................... 41

15. THE RAIL FREIGHT SITUATION. ................................................................................... 43

16. THE RAIL PASSENGER SITUATION. ............................................................................ 45

17. CONCLUSIONS REACHED ............................................................................................ 46

17.1 ROAD FREIGHT ................................................................................................................. 47 17.2 ROAD PASSENGERS ......................................................................................................... 49 17.3 RAIL FREIGHT ................................................................................................................... 51 17.4 RAIL PASSENGERS ........................................................................................................... 52

18. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 52

18.1 HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 52 18.2 GENERIC BORDER MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................ 54 18.3 TECHNICAL ROAD FREIGHT PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 56 18.4 GENERIC ROAD FREIGHT PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 56 18.5 GENERIC AND TECHNICAL ROAD PASSENGER PROCEDURES ............................................... 57 18.6 GENERIC AND TECHNICAL RAIL FREIGHT PROCEDURES........................................................ 57 18.7 GENERIC AND TECHNICAL RAIL PASSENGER PROCEDURES ................................................. 58

19. RECOMMENDATIONS ON BORDER CROSSING POINTS REQUIRING

PRIORITISATION OF MODERNISATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW PROCEDURES ... 58

TABLE 1 BORDER CROSSING POINTS VISITED BY THE PROJECT TEAM DURING THE STUDY ............ 62 TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE BORDER CROSSING POINTS NOT VISITED DURING THE STUDY BUT INCLUDING

BCPS RECOMMENDED FOR MODERNISATION PROGRAMMES ........................................................ 63 MAP 1 LOCATION OF BCPS VISITED IN THE FIELD VISITS ............................................................. 64

20. BCP BASED TESTING OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES ........................................... 71

APPENDIX A – IDENTIFICATION OF CORE ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT CORRIDORS ...................... 74

APPENDIX B - BORDER MANAGEMENT AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ............................ 76

APPENDIX C - PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED ............................................................................. 150

APPENDIX E - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ 164

APPENDIX F – TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................... 167


Executive Summary

The Project Team (PT), composed of the Team Leader, the Logistics Expert and the Trade Facilitation Expert, together with an interpreter and translator, has completed its interviews with Border Management Agencies, Freight Forwarders Associations and Road Transport operators, and with individual drivers. The meetings with Border Management agencies, including those responsible for infrastructure development, have all been on the Schengen side of the border, with the exception of a meeting in Poland with Belarusian Customs staff. Russian Agencies have been kept informed of Project progress and contacts made. The results of these interviews and other research have been used in producing

Conclusions and Recommendations for development and modernisation of border management infrastructures and technologies and particularly of intra state and

interstate information sharing and cooperation procedures. These Conclusions and

Recommendations are summarised at the end of this Executive Summary and the appropriate sections of the Main Body of the Report with background information being included in the relevant Appendices, especially Appendix B which reproduces the Questionnaires used for Field Visits to BCPs on the EU side of the border. The required outputs of the Study were in relation to using assessments of the current status of management of road and rail BCPs as outlined in Section 2.1 (a) to (e) of the Terms of Reference as reproduced at Appendix F, in order to produce recommendations in relation to improving physical infrastructures and movement capacities, developing agency cooperation within countries and between countries and to coordinate the development of technologies and operational planning to achieve these aims. Specifically, a list was to be produced of BCPs requiring modernisation. All these issues were taken into account in the Study, but with a particular emphasis on organisational, managerial and technological (IT) issues. This approach was taken on the advice of the NDP TL Secretariat, which advised the Project Team that previous studies had tended to relate to infrastructure issues. Because the non-infrastructure modernisation issues are closely related to each other,

the Conclusions and Recommendations have been collated and presented on functional lines in relation to particular modes of transport, particularly road freight. This approach has been taken because specific capabilities and procedures have differing levels of impact on specific modes of transport. This means that specific recommendations in one transport mode ay relate to several separate output deliverables. It also means that “modernisation” has several meanings depending on the context of the recommendation. It does not simply mean expansion of rail lines or road lanes, or of parking space and shelter facilities. The Project believes that the opportunities for improving integrated BCP management within the Schengen Area and between the Schengen Area and both Russia and Belarus as Customs Union members are both technical and organizational. It is felt that


there is no single solution to the challenge of reducing delays in the movement of people and goods while maintaining the security of physical and fiscal borders. The interviews and written submissions by all parties interviewed have, however, enabled the PT to reach a number of conclusions for which there is a wide and strong consensus among the interviewees regarding what is needed to improve border crossing procedures in the four separate but also related categories of road freight traffic, road passenger traffic, rail freight traffic and rail passenger traffic. In reaching this consensus, the PT has been able to identify the major transnational transport connections between the Schengen Area and Russia and Belarus and has accordingly produced a list of those road and rail BCPs which would require particular improvements in management of border crossings. These were identified after taking into account current and expected traffic volumes and possible procedural changes such as liberalization of visa regimes. However, the Project Team noted particularly that the non-infrastructure bottlenecks apply to all BCPs to some extent, and that infrastructure issues impact on other issues and vice versa. This thinking has to be considered throughout the Report. While physical infrastructure issues are highlighted, such as the need for more bridges at river crossings, the modernization of procedural issues are seen as being of significantly greater importance, both in the short and long term. The most important issue is felt to be an organizational one. There needs to be a significant reduction in the number of processes involved in the movement of freight, where the delays are greatest. Such reductions would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the Conventions to which some or all of the Northern Dimension Partnership states are signatories. The report therefore highlights the provisions of these Conventions, together with the encouragement of moving to free flow systems for the passage of goods and commercial and passenger vehicles. Such systems are defined in detail in the Report and the PT’s calculations are that they can reduce crossing times by up to 40%. In relation to technical issues, key identity verification equipment and the operation of the Schengen Information system can be slow or unreliable or both, leading to severe entry delays. Communication networks speeds need to be increased considerably, with significant excess capacity built in. Reliability and robustness of passport readers and fingerprint readers needs to be improved significantly, especially for use in bad weather. Reflecting the desirability of saving time, fingerprint checks might be limited to the checking of just one finger. Serious consideration needs to be given to much more detailed systematic use of Advance Passenger Information (API) for both coach and rail transport. Tests between Poland, Belarus and Russian during the Euro 2012 football championships will provide experience.


There needs to be much greater systematic cross border exchanges of Customs data regarding common and separate assessments of risk in order to move to genuine implementation of the aims of the TIR Convention which aims for generally unimpeded movement. There are opportunities for improving border security and revenue protection by developing the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems on national and transnational bases, which would support tackling cigarette, alcohol and road fuel smuggling into the EU and support the effective collection of Customs duties and VAT on private cars imported into the Customs Union (CU). Reaching agreement on such mutual exchanges will be challenging as there are currently very different trading patterns with imports into the Customs Union being generally of higher value with correspondingly greater risks for frauds such as misdescription and undervaluation. However, the task should be made easier given Russian’s accession to the WTO with resulting reductions in duty rates. These measures should be accompanied by reductions in the number of sequential Customs procedures required by Russian Customs and Belarus Customs on behalf of Russian Customs, an aim recently highlighted by President Putin. The most effective measures for reducing the costs burden on freight operators would be for a major expansion in the use of queue management systems alongside the provision of off road parking at suitably equipped terminals. For maximum impact, both need to be introduced as queue management has not necessarily reduced crossing times but has reduced the amount of time (and therefore costs) incurred in unproductive waiting which is regarded as being working time for drivers. The project particularly notes that the Estonian GoSwift system, introduced on a compulsory basis in 2011, is now to be tested by Rosgrantisa on the Russian side of the Russian – Estonian border from 1

st July 2012.

The above measures are being introduced at several locations on the Schengen Area / CU border and active discussions should take place regarding harmonizing procedures on both sides of the border and on introducing queue management systems near simultaneously. Improved portable sanitation facilities need to be provided as a matter of urgency at several locations. . The Project Team proposes that these measures be considered for early introduction on at least one BCP in each of the core network corridors, together with at least one major alternative route. Consideration should be given to the long term secondment of staff between adjacent BCPs. Such deployments would provide experience which might be used as a basis for considering the introduction of joint BCPs. Capabilities for a joint BCP already exist at the Koroszczyn terminal on the Polish border with Belarus in relation to the Kukuryki (Poland) – Kozlowiczy (Belarus ) BCPs. The thinking in recommending the BCPs appropriate for early introduction of these measures is that the Norwegian / Russian border crossings will link deep water ports of


increasing importance, and the Russian / Finnish choice is the direct link between Moscow and St. Petersburg with Scandinavia. The proposals in the Baltic States are intended to ensure more effective movements of passengers and goods to and from both St. Petersburg and Moscow. The routes from Belarus to Lithuania and, especially, Poland are suggested in order the meet the wider needs of the key Europe wide transport corridor between Berlin, Warsaw, Minsk and Moscow and to assist modernization of links with the Kaliningrad region of Russia. The suggested locations are Storskog (Kirkenes) – Borisoglebsk (Norway – Russia), Valimaa – Trorfyanovka and Nuijimaa- Brusnichnoe (Finland – Russia), Narva – Ivangorod and Luhamaa – Shumilkino ( Estonia – Russia), Terehova – Burachki and Grebneva – Ubylinka ( Latvia – Russia), Kybartu- Chernyshevskoe ( Lithuania- Russia – Kaliningrad) and Medininkai – Kamenny Log ( Lithuania – Belarus) and all the Polish – Belarus crossing points in the immediate area of Terespol / Koroszczyn and Brest ( Kukuryki- Kozlowiczy and Terespol- Brest) together with Grzechotki-Mamonowo and / or Bezledy -Bagrationovsk ( both Poland – Kaliningrad). The PT recommends that the suggested modernisation measures be tested out by carrying out objectively based trials of the recommended measures under close local (BCP) regional and national supervision. Because the relationships between factors impacting upon the speed of movements are complex, it is suggested that individual factors be examined at individual BCPs, with the results being then examined alongside similar trials of other factors at other BCPs. Given the relatively fast flows of commercial freight at the Finnish – Russian border and the recent introduction of a queue management system in Estonia, it is suggested that particular attention be paid to the views of the BMAs on both sides of these particular borders.


Glossary

AEO Authorised Economic Operator ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition API Advanced Passenger Information ASMAP Association of International Road Carriers (of Russia) ATP Agreement of the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs BCP Border Crossing Point BG Border Guards BMA Border Management Agency BY Belarus CBCP Customs Border Crossing Point ? CBM Coordinated Border Management CCTV Closed Circuit Television CIS Commonwealth of Independent States COMECON Council for Mutual Economic Assistance CTN Core Transport Network CU Customs Union (Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan) EC European Commission ECICS European Customs Inventory and Chemical Substances EDI Electronic Data interchange EE Estonia EEAS (EU) European External Action Service EORI Economic Operators Registration and Identification EU European Union FCS Federal Customs Service (of Russia) FFAs Freight Forwarders Associations FI Finland Frontex Frontieres Exterieures – European Agency for the Management

of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the EU HBD Heart Beat Detector HQ Head Quarters HS Harmonized System IBM Integrated Border Management IRU International Road Users (Association) IT Information Technology ITMS Integrated Transport Management System KGD Kaliningrad oblast of Russia KZ Kazakhstan LED Leningrad oblast of Russia LT Lithuania LV Latvia MUR Murmansk oblast of Russia NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCTS New Computerised Transit System


NDP Northern Dimension Partnership NDP TL Northern Dimension Partnership for Transport & Logistics NII Non-Intrusive Inspection NORDIM Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics,

especially Final Report of 30.06.11 OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe PL Poland PSK Pskov oblast of Russia PT Project Team RU Russia SIS Schengen Information System TIR Transports Internationaux Routiers TOR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNECE UN Economic Commission for Europe VAT Value Added Tax WCO World Customs Organisation WTO World Trade Organisation

Definition of the Core Transport Network in the Northern Dimension area, FWC COM Lot 1 Page 1

Map showing major BCPs between Schengen Area and Russia and Belarus

Narva - Ivangorod

Koidulla –Kunichina Gora

Vaalimaa - Torfianovka

Nujamaa - Brusnichnoe

Terespol - Brest

Medidnkai –Kamenny Log

Terehova - Burachki

Kukuryki - Kozlovichi

Kuznitsa Bialostoka - Bruzgi

Salchininkai - Beniakoni

Silene - Urbany

Grebneva - Ubylinka

Luhamaa - Shumilkino

Imatra - Svetogorsk

Panemune - Sovietsk

Bezledy– Bagrationovsk

Storskog (NOR) - Borisoglebsk

Kybartu - Chernyshevskoe

Gronowo –MamonovoGrzhechotki –Mamonovo 2

Slawaticze - Dolmachevo

Bobrowniki - Berestovitca


1. Introduction

The Project Team (PT) hereby submits its draft Study Report for approval by the NDP TL Secretariat and its Steering Committee. The Study Report fulfils the requirements of the Terms of Reference (TOR) to provide a description and in depth analysis of current border control practices at Border Crossing Points (BCPs) between the Schengen Area (EU Member States and Norway) and both Russia and Belarus (as members of the Customs Union – CU – with Kazakhstan). The Report also analyses procedures for communicating and coordinating between agencies on both sides of the border and makes recommendations for further development of these communications and resulting operational procedures. The Report examines and assesses the logistical procedures applied at both road and rail crossing points, and for both passengers and freight. Finally, the Report proposes a list of BCPs which especially require improvements in BCP management. All these analyses, assessments, proposals and recommendations need to be seen in the context that they are all connected, and that they may well be applicable to other BCPs in the border areas within the Project’s scope, and indeed beyond. In addition, infrastructure improvements will be ineffective without accompanying changes and adjustments in BCP management procedures. On the other hand, BCP's can improve their performance in many cases by improved management, even without infrastructure investments. While physical infrastructure issues beyond the BCPs, especially regarding modernization of road and rail networks, have not been subjects for detailed study, it became clear during the Field Visits that road and rail network capacities had to be taken into account. This was especially when considering the need for vehicle terminals and traffic queue management systems.

2. Methodology

In accordance with the requirements of the TOR, the Project Team made use of multiple sources within Border Management Agencies (BMA) and the private transport sector. The main information tools were a BMA Questionnaire which was completed by members of those Agencies, mainly after the Project Team had completed a series of field visits to key road and rail BCPs in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland,

and a Driver’s Questionnaire. These are reproduced in the Appendices. The views of the private sector were recorded in separate reports which are also reproduced in Section 13. of the Study Report. In addition, the Project Team’s summary of interviews carried out with drivers at or near BCPs in the EU Member States and in Russia and Belarus is included at Section 14. Separate interviews were carried out in several EU states and in Russia and, by telephone, in Belarus with representative associations of road transport operators.


The interviews took place during or around the series of Field Visits to key BCPs previously identified in Phase One of the Project, or proposed by the host BMAs. As the Project accepted the recommendations of the BMAs regarding the BCPs which should be visited, rather than necessarily those the Project had identified as worthy of particular attention, the list of BCPs which are, in accordance with the required outputs in the TOR, particularly requiring improvements in management are not identical with the BCPs actually visited. The Project believes these differences are not material, as the

management procedures identified and which are the subject of the Conclusions and

Recommendations at sections 17, 18 and 19 are common across most or all BCPs. In all cases, the Project’s Summaries also included the views of the Project Team (PT)

as source documents for the Conclusions and Recommendations. The Summaries of the views of the BMAs are not simply accounts of the key views of the BMAs but have been used to make suggestions for future developments. As the BMAs have agreed the contents of their Questionnaires and any amendments they have made have been incorporated into the final versions of the Questionnaires, the Project is satisfied that these are accurate assessments. .

3. Constraints and Opportunities

There were a number of constraints experienced during the Project’s research and Field Visits. Partly due to time limitations, it was not possible to formally meet with the BMAs of the Russian Federation. Obviously this is a major limitation. The Border Guard Service of Belarus as lead BMA in Belarus was unable to provide the Project Team with an invitation to visit Belarus and meet BMA personnel formally, though this has partially been offset by a meeting with the Belarusian Customs. The PT is very grateful to Polish Customs for arranging for these colleagues to join the PT in Poland.

These are significant constraints, especially as all the Conclusions and

Recommendations Sections are, wholly or partly, intended to be considered on both sides of the border ideally simultaneously or near simultaneously. However, these constraints were partially mitigated by the above mentioned meeting with Belarusian customs as well as visits to selected BCP's as travellers. BMA staff interviewed in all the EU States visited included personnel with specific responsibilities for cooperation with their Russian or Belarusian counterparts. These colleagues stressed their cooperation with their Russian and Belarusian colleagues, especially from Border Guards and Customs. The PT believes that the opinions given to it are likely to be reasonable and broadly very accurate representations of the views of their colleagues, although clearly there are likely to be some differences from the actual views of their counterparts. Thanks to the assistance of the Polish Customs Service, the Belarus Customs colleagues were able to join the Project Team’s visit to the Polish – Belarus border.

Their views are represented by the Project Team in Appendix B in the polish BMA


Questionnaire and in the issues highlighted in the Conclusions (Section 17) and in the

proposals made in the Recommendations (Section 18). The PT was able, when deploying to the series of Field Visits by traveling from Lithuania to Belarus, and later from Ukraine through Belarus to Poland, to observe passenger vehicle processing procedures and systems for the arrival of EU and non EU ( Schengen visa holding) persons. A similar opportunity also has been taken at the Russian – Estonian and the Russian Finnish borders, which were crossed by the PT as well. There were also opportunities throughout the Field Visits to interview truck drivers from the EU and CU regarding their experiences in relation to freight traffic on both sides of the EU / CU border. There were some practical constraints regarding the delivery and analysis of data from drivers as the questionnaires did take far more time to be returned than anticipated. Drivers appear to be often away for more than one month and international mail, even in EU member states from the remote border areas is slow. Furthermore, some associations declined to meet the Project, and another gave only limited information, relying on the Project Team to draw its own conclusion. However, the Project does not believe that these constraints materially affect the

Conclusions and Recommendations listed at Sections 17, 18 and 19 below. There was an obvious consensus among all the EU Border Management Agencies, including regarding the views of their Russian and Belarusian counterparts. The responses from drivers and transport operators showed a similar consensus. Therefore, the Project Team believes that its findings are based on reliable evidence, obtained in sufficient quantity. The level of consensus from both the official sector and the private sector, and the congruence of the views within the EU with the imminent and longer term modernization plans of the Belarus and Russian Federation BMAs in relation to what are commonly agreed as key transport facilitation challenges give the PT a high degree

of confidence in its Conclusions at Section 17 below. We therefore believe that further information which can be expected to be available in the near future will confirm the basic validity of the Conclusions or identify where those Conclusions are incorrect or require further study. Examples of such new data might include the early and longer term results of imminent Russian Federation Customs moves towards reductions in the number of Customs procedures at import and the June 2012 introduction of a compulsory web based system for pre arrival declaration of imports of goods. Such fresh data should allow early modification of our Conclusions, with some resulting modifications of our Recommendations.

4. Schedule of Field Visits

In all the Field Visits the PT met Border Management Agencies of the Schengen Area States at BCPs proposed by the PT as being of particular significance on key transport corridors, or which the Schengen area BMAs felt had facilities and capabilities which were of particular relevance to the Study. During the Polish visit, representatives


of the State Customs Committee of Belarus crossed the border to join the meeting. These colleagues were given details of the entire schedule, as were contacts in the Customs Service of the Russian Federation, through introductions made by Finnish Customs. However, some states proposed visits to other locations. These proposals were accepted. However, the PT did not restrict its recommendations regarding the BCPs to be prioritized for modernization to the sites visited. The opportunity was taken at all Field Visits sites to issue drivers’ questionnaires and to interview drivers informally. Some transport operators were interviewed separately at around the same time. In order to ensure the maximum level of frankness, anonymity was guaranteed. The first set of BCP visits were to the Lithuanian Belarus border (Medininkai BCP with Kamenny Log 2

nd April) and the Lithuanian – Russian border (Panemune BCP with

Sovietsk 3rd April). The second visit was to the Latvian – Russian border ( Terehova – Burachki and the Latgale Rail BCP at Zilupe ) on 4

th April. The third visit was to the

Finnish – Russian Border ( Nuijamaa- Sosnovskoye / Brusnichnoe) on 16th

April. Following a meeting with Estonian BMA HQ staff in Tallinn on 17

th April, visits were

made to the Estonian – Russian border at both Koidula – Pechory / Kunichina Gora and Narva – Ivangorod on 18

th and 19

th April respectively with road and rail BCPs being

visited at both locations. The Polish – Belarusian border was visited at Koroszczyn Terminal on 25

th April in relation to the Kukuryki BCP and nearby at Terespol ( road and

rail BCP on the Polish side of the Bug river opposite Brest) on 26th

April. Members of the Project Team also carried out an informal Field Visit when travelling between deployments, i.e. at Medininkai and Kamenny Log on 8

th April and at Brest –

Terespol road on 12th

April.

5. International Conventions relating to Border Crossing Facilitation

A wide range of international Conventions provide for the regulation of the movements of passengers, goods and, inter alia, commercial and private vehicles. The most

important of them are listed in Appendix D, together with wider and more detailed descriptions of their provisions. Many of them have not been ratified by the Customs Union States or by their Schengen neighbours. However, the most important conventions such as the:

Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System.

International Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods

International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs procedures (1973 and 2006 amendments)

Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (1975 with amendments)

Convention on Temporary admission (1990)


have been ratified by all reviewed countries.

By ratifying or acceding to these Conventions, the countries committed themselves to undertake a number of commitments which can be summarised as follows:

to ensure sufficient staff and infrastructure at BCP's, taking into consideration traffic demands

1,

to carry out only those controls that are absolutely necessary as established on the basis of risk assessments

2 especially in the case of transit shipments,

to the extent practically possible, to carry out multiple controls simultaneously or with minimum delay,

to have customs clearance to take place away from the border as much as possible,

to share information with each-other that facilitates the processes at the border,

in case of rail cargo crossings, to carry out both export and import controls as much as possible at the same station near to the border (joint controls)

to give priority to vehicles carrying perishable foodstuffs and live animals,

provide facilities to create a competitive market in customs brokerage service at the border crossing points,

to use IT based systems to the extent practically possible.

In addition to the above commitments made on relation to goods transport, countries have to a more or lesser extent ratified certain conventions related to the passenger traffic. These are discussed in detail in the annex to this document.

Notwithstanding the above, the fact that a Convention has not been ratified or acceded to does not, of course, mean that the procedures required or suggested in a Convention cannot be introduced under purely domestic legislation. However, we wish to point out that in many cases there is the need for procedures to be introduced on both sides of a border. Clearly, the effectiveness of the procedure is reduced significantly if this is not the case. Throughout this Study, we have made our evaluations on this understanding, and that even if a Convention is not signed there need not necessarily be valid reasons for not introducing its provisions.

Equally, the reverse applies. Because a Convention has been ratified does not mean its provisions are necessarily implemented. This is especially the case regarding Conventions which have major impacts on cross border movements, particularly economic ones. The key Conventions here are in the view of the PT, the TIR Convention ( International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets) and the International Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods.. Many private and official sources made it clear that if the requirements of the Convention were being more fully adhered to in the Customs Union, then movements of goods would be significantly faster.

1 No specific target has been set for waiting delays or the duration of the BCP crossing process though two

hours waiting and two hours of processing should be considered as a maximum. 2 A high percentage of cargo inspected and / or X-rayed does not constitute controls based on risk assessment.


It is for this reason that the PT has highlighted in its Conclusions and

Recommendations at Sections 17, 18 and 19 below that the implementation of the TIR Convention and the international Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods should be a priority for the Customs Union states in close cooperation with their EU neighbours, especially in relation to risk analysis procedures and the logical resulting reductions in the number of physical inspections. We stress that the implementation of the letter and spirit of these conventions and the resulting reductions in the number of processes, with enhanced risk management based supplementary checks, is our number one recommendation.

It is accepted that the TIR Convention does recognise the need to qualify the provisions regarding the prevention of irregularities. Further discussion on how this might be done in the context of developing and improving cross-border cooperation is provided in

Section 9 below - Cross border cooperation between Border Crossing Points

Management Agencies.

6. Domestic legislation impacting on Border Control processes

As mentioned at Section 5. above, all of the states in the Partnership have ratified several key international Conventions for facilitating the movement of persons and goods across borders. Under common practice, this makes that the convention provisions supersede domestic law. However, much of the actual implementation of these procedures is implemented by domestic legislation or in the case of the EU Member States and Norway

3 sometimes by EU Regulations. (which also applies to

Norway in respect of the Schengen Agreement’s provisions). The practical compliance of these states with the provisions of the Agreement is subject to regular scrutiny by external evaluation teams. The introduction of the Customs Union (CU) between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus as well as the easing of border controls between Russia and Belarus for movements of persons has created a somewhat similar situation to that pertaining in the EU for customs purposes and movements of persons. Each external border state is in effect responsible for not just its own borders but the borders of the fellow members of the respective Customs Union or free movement area. Therefore domestic legislation is increasingly impacting upon the interests of those other states. Accordingly, such legislation ought to take account of common interests of all the states. It is for this reason that the PT now provides a detailed description of current and imminent Russian legislation and practice in relation to Customs operations in Russia, on the understanding that both the legislation and practice will impact on operations in Belarus too.

3 Norway, as part of the EEA is bound to the provisions of EU Regulations like a member state. Furthermore,

in case of EU Directives, Norway is also obliged to transpose their provisions in to domestic legislation.


We provide these details because we believe that the description of the current and planned situations, and the criticisms made by drivers and transport operators provide an extremely useful and important overview of current challenges and opportunities. We also believe that the challenges are consistent with similar experiences of the EU states in the past in relation to their own operations, and to their comments about areas of operations where they would like to enhance cooperation with Russian (and by extension) Belarus Customs. We also stress that the reports by private sector sources regarding scepticism about the concerns of short term negative impacts from the introduction of the compulsory electronic pre- information system scheduled for 17

th June 2012 are not unique.

Worldwide experience has shown that when new technologies are introduced, there are often problems in the introduction period. It is for this reason that the PT includes in its Recommendations a proposal to monitor the positive and any possible negative results from a very early stage and to share the findings with Schengen Area neighbouring states.

6.1 Overview of Russian Federal Customs Service’s operations and future

strategies

Russian Customs (Federal Customs Service - http://www.customs.ru) is a part of the executive branch of the Government. In 2006 the Government of Russian Federation transferred public policy decisions and development of legal regulation in the area of customs administration from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to the Federal Customs Service (Resolution #459). The Federal Customs Service (FCS) reports directly to the Government of Russian Federation. Currently, the FCS is focused on implementation of the following initiatives, strongly related to border crossing operations:

Integrated control (One-Stop control). The Federal Law #394-ФЗ (28/12/2010) fully assigned all transport control activities and documentary control on behalf of the Medical Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary control at the Border Crossing Points to Customs. Currently Customs fulfil (document) control on behalf of other Federal Control Agencies, but according to road operators, around 30% of BCP’s throughput capacity was lost due to insufficient training of customs officers in other forms of control delegated to them and low integration of Information Systems of various agencies, which requires multiple entry of the same data in several Information Systems. Further implementation of the integrated border control will focus on elimination of these gaps.

Customs clearance in near-border Logistics Terminals. According to the ‘The concept of customs clearance and control in areas close to the State Border of the Russian Federation’ customs clearance will be mostly done in the frontier Logistics Terminals. It applies to many, but not all types of goods.

http://www.customs.ru/


According to this concept, private sector will invest in construction of border Logistics Terminals, with support from the State through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mechanisms. It is planned that many terminals will be located side-by-side with BCPs. This will help eliminate transit declarations, which take several hours for opening at the BCPs and closing at the customs clearance depots. Several logistics terminals near the border have already been constructed. Logistics terminal Ubylinka was put into operation by a private investor in 2011. It is located side-by-side with the BCP Ubylinka. According to various publications in the mass-media, it does not work smoothly. Cargo still needs transit declarations and the total clearance takes days rather than hours. The investor – the local logistics company - Teco-Terminal 1 – apparently, is not happy about the work of local customs. Carriers, who know about current operational challenges in the Logistics Centre Ubylinka drive past it and do customs clearance in large towns (Moscow, etc.) or choose alternative routes through Belarus.

Remote customs clearance and electronic declarations. Remote customs clearance allows traders to clear goods, which arrived to the border logistics terminals, in their towns. This technology helps to implement the concept of customs clearance in the frontier logistics terminals. Active implementation of this technology started in 2010, when it was defined in the Customs Code of the Customs Union (Article 193-6). This technology requires that all internal and border customs are EDI or Internet connected to the server of the Federal Customs Service. According to the FCS, 100% of customs are now connected to the server and are ready to work with electronic declarations, and 90% of all declarations are submitted by traders through Internet channels. The two other countries of the Customs Union also achieved significant progress in implementing electronic declarations and remote customs clearance. The logistics community believes that although this technology gives traders certain flexibility in planning truck routes from the border to the final destination, it may cause more physical inspection at the border. This is because the trader is represented in the border terminal by a broker who may not be able to provide all answers about cargo to the customs officer. Shipments with multiple types of products will most likely go through physical inspection often.

Preliminary information According to the Decision # 899 of the Customs Union Commission (09/12/2011), preliminary information should be provided for all goods to be imported at least 2 hours before crossing the border starting from 17 June 2012. Electronic preliminary information provided by a trader or a carrier should contain information about the goods (HS codes should be in HS6 format for transit goods and in HS4 for goods cleared at the border), consignors and consignees, carriers and vehicles, declarants, planned transloading (for transit goods) and applicable transport constraints (dangerous and other goods).


Customs should review preliminary information and within 2 hours make a decision about types of control applied to the cargo. The transit declaration is automatically generated from preliminary information provided by the consignor or the carrier. Mandatory preliminary information is closely linked to the implementation of Customs Risk Management System. Requirements to the Risk Management System are provided in the Customs Code of the Customs Union (Chapter 18, Articles 128-130) and in the Federal Law #311-ФЗ on Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation (Article 162). Unlike the Kazakh Law on Customs Affairs (Article 23), which defines the key objective of their Risk Management System as the simplification of control procedures for the Authorized Economic Operators, neither the Customs Code of the Customs Union, nor the Federal Law #311-ФЗ set this goal for the Risk Management System. Readiness of Russian Customs was one of the main issues raised by international road carriers, who believe that borders crossing delays on and shortly after 17 June will increase considerably.

6.2 Overview of Belarus State Customs Committee’s operations and future

strategies

The following comments by the PT are shorter than those for the Russian Customs Service. However, our comments make it clear that the current draft Law on Customs Regulation is intended to bring national Customs legislation, introduced before the CU, into line with the requirements arising logically from the introduction of the CU. We also note that, as was clear from our Field Visits to the Lithuanian and Polish borders with Belarus, and our discussions with State Customs Committee colleagues from Minsk that Belarus’ border management procedures will become of increasing importance to Russia, given the location of key transport corridors through Belarus. An example of this was the reporting of increased use of Belarus BCPs by transport operators from and through Latvia for traffic destined for Russia, following the introduction of the CU.

The Belorussian State Customs Committee is regulated by the National Customs Code (#204-3 adopted on 4 January 2007). Additional provisions, regulating customs administration were stipulated in the Presidential Decree #228 (21 April 2008). Since 2010 most issues of customs operations and administration in Belorussia are regulated by the Customs Union Customs Code. Accordingly, Belorussian Customs is working on replacing the provisions of the current national Customs Code, not covered by the Customs Union Customs Code, by a new law on Customs Regulation. The Law on Customs Regulation is going to be introduced in 2012 subject to the approval in the Cabinet of Ministers and in the Parliament (in September). The proposed Law will cover a number of topics not regulated by the CU Customs Code, such as the organizational and administrative issues related to work of Belarusian customs. This law will also regulate work of customs representatives, customs carriers,


and customs warehouses and will also define requirements to the Authorized Economic Operators. Belorussian Customs implement similar initiatives and programs as Russian Customs. Within the concept program e-Customs (2011 – 2015) they plan to implement electronic declarations, Singe Electronic Window for traders and One Stop control at the borders. It is planned that Belorussia will follow the World Customs Organization (WCO) recommendations and will soon leave only two Border Management Agencies (BMA) on their borders – Border Guards and Customs. Two other initiatives related to logistics infrastructure and border control technologies are implementation of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment and construction of logistics terminals. Unlike Russia, which plans to build logistics terminals in close proximity to the borders, Belorussia plans to build logistics terminals in regional (oblast) centers. Belorussia achieved significant progress in implementing anticorruption measures. The base document regulating anticorruption activities in Belorussia is the Law on Anticorruption Measures (20 July 2006). The next important step was adoption of the state program of anticorruption measures for 2007 – 2010, approved by the Presidential Decree #220 (8 May 2007). Important component of the anticorruption program in Belorussia was promoting feedback from the society and mass-media. International road carriers reported that although Belorussian border control is slow and inefficient, rent seeking by the BMA was negligible for the last several years.

7. Border Control processes as actually practiced

The BMAs who were visited by the PT during the Field Visits responded positively to the request to complete the BMA Questionnaire. These are listed in full at Appendix B. The Questions and Answers are intended to provide data which enable all aspects of the required Project Outputs to be delivered. The emphases were on identifying the current levels of traffic movements and delays, expected changes and how BMAs work with each other and with their counterparts across the external border. For reasons

explained at section 5. above Constraints and Opportunities the formal meetings were limited to those on the EU side of the external border, although the PT are extremely grateful to the colleagues of the Belarus State Customs Committee who participated in the Polish Field Visit. Their views and the key points of their presentation

on 25th

April are taken into account in the Conclusions and Recommendations at Sections 17, 18 and 19. During the Field Visits, the PT discussed with Border Guards and Customs jointly the past, current and expected future levels and natures of cross border traffic patterns. The PT visited the traffic lanes and examined passenger and vehicle terminals and Queue Management vehicle parks where these exist. The physical layouts of the BCPs were observed, as were the procedures for the movements of persons and of freight. The road infrastructures in the region were also noted, particularly as the PT travelled by car, typically along the major transport corridors and there was therefore considerable


opportunity to examine the road infrastructures, which inevitably impact on the levels of traffic. Particular attention was paid to the nature and levels of cross border information exchanges in all their forms, e.g. in relation to traffic management, on operational “casework” issues in the customs and immigration fields, and in opportunities for automated exchanges of customs import, export and transit data in a systematic manner. In order to discuss these matters effectively, it was also necessary to discuss and observe the working relationships and information sharing procedures between BMAs within the BCP. There was a clear consensus among BMAs regarding the key issues which needed to be considered. Improvements to the physical infrastructure of BCPs and of the nearby transport networks need to be considered together. Where BCPs and the access roads between them are in urban areas ( often connected by lane restricted bridges) there was seen to be a need to increase such lane capacity, such as by new bridges as once planned at Ivangorod – Narva / Riigikula (Russia – Estonia) and whose status is now in doubt, and as currently planned at Panemune – Sovietsk (Lithuania – Russia). Similar points were raised at non- bridge locations such as Medininkai – Kamenny Log (Lithuania- Belarus) and Terehova – Burachky (Latvia – Russia). However, these nonetheless very important points were felt to be secondary to improving the management of border crossing processing and the more efficient and flexible use existing infrastructure. The introduction of queue management systems, such as introduced on a compulsory basis in Estonia in August 2011 was felt to be a major positive development and was being examined closely by other regional states. The speed of handling of both freight (customs) and passengers (customs and border guards) can be enhanced by the proper use of such queue management systems in risk management, using the management system as a form of advanced passenger information processing and analysis. While it is crucial to note that the Estonian system does not necessarily reduce the crossing time it does allow much more productive waiting time as the vehicles and their drivers do not have to wait in a queue but can do other productive activities or at least wait in terminal vehicle parks which have more comfortable facilities, especially sanitary facilities, as was seen as Narva and Koidula in Estonia. Further explanations of the opportunities the GoSwift system offers, as well as its values are found in the joint Estonian / Russian audit of border crossing issues (March 2012), listed in Appendix C-

“Border Crossing of cargo at the land boundary between Estonia and Russia”. The impact of this Report, and of GoSwift specifically, has been demonstrated by the decision of Rosgranitsa, as the lead agency for the management of infrastructure issues in relation to BCPs, to introduce trial operations of GoSwift at Russian BCPs, including Ivangorod, from 1

st July 2012.

The fact that such management systems do not necessarily reduce the time to cross (but provide some certainty and reduce unproductive queue by allowing “ prebooking” of


the queue place) demonstrates that it is the actual border crossing processes which matter. Crossing times varied enormously despite most BCPs visited having significant numbers of vehicle processing lanes and these being well prioritized ( with special lanes for passenger coaches, perishable goods, low risk goods as identified in advance through existing (EU) or planned (Russia) web based pre arrival declaration systems, or through Queue Management Systems). Given the ranges of times reported for crossing, it is clear that other factors are more important. Crossing times from Finland to Russia are generally shorter than crossing times from Estonia to Russia, where on the Russian side there are a large number of sequential, and not simultaneous processes, which are currently required by Russian Customs. Many operators on the Finnish – Russian routes are Finnish registered, Russian owned companies, while drivers are Russian nationals employed by these companies. This suggests that there may be significant opportunities for making use of risk analysis based on greater awareness of the identities and operational and ethical standards of the operators, with more of them deemed to be low risk. These long crossing times from Estonia occur despite the queue management system there, and are consistent with the experiences of transport operators working between Latvia and Russia and Belarus and between Lithuania and Belarus. At the Russian Finnish border there were reports of relatively fast crossing times especially from Russia, whereas there were reports from drivers elsewhere (e.g. from Estonia into Russia) of delays of as much as five days in extreme cases. Factors given in relation to faster movements included the truck being empty and being subject to fewer checks outwards. Factors given as exacerbating delays were, not surprisingly, several sequential inspections (x rays, physical examination) and bad weather, delays due to shift changes and incorrect completion of import declarations, such as use of incorrect HS tariff codes. . The need to consider reductions in processes as a priority alongside the simultaneous monitoring of the management systems designed to allow significant reductions in the crucially time consuming procedure of physical inspection of goods is demonstrated by recent Latvian and Russian experience. Latvia has reported that a recent pilot scheme for submission of transit data to Russia via the NCTS SPEED platform ( the EU New Computerised Transit System for use by economic operators eligible to use Simplified Procedures) has not - yet - resulted in reductions to crossing times. This pilot cross border scheme has been carried out under an EU level project with Russia. Clearly, other factors are impacting on the apparent lack of positive results. This demonstrates the need to consider measures in the context of other developments and not in isolation. In relation to this Latvian – Russian example, the PT would therefore advise that, if adopted, our proposals be shared with the other participants in this pilot scheme. Given the great interest in shown in Estonia’s use of their GoSwift system for pre booking of vehicles’ place in BCP queues, and that system’s use in providing greater time for the carrying out of risk analysis, Estonian involvement would be logical in order to determine what the relevant additional factors might be.


All BMAs stressed close cooperation between agencies within the BCP. Staff of Border guards, customs and phytosanitary and veterinary staff were generally co located or were easily contactable. In the EU States, essential private sector providers such as insurance brokers (for vehicle insurance) and banks were generally collocated in weather protected buildings. Times spent in the open at the BCPs themselves were usually not excessive, though in urban BCPs such as at Narva passport check queues at vehicle, as opposed to pedestrians, limited terminal space meant that significant numbers of passengers in coaches and private vehicles had to queue in the open. In the EU States visited, both road and rail passengers are normally cleared through border controls and customs controls in close sequence. However, there were examples of lack of awareness among some staff regarding the practical process of carrying out of mandatory (fingerprint) checks on non EU citizens and especially those requiring visas. The sending of enquiries into the SIS and the input of suspect documents often took time and the system was not always available. The PT had noted this when travelling into Poland from Belarus when deploying to the Field Visits, and these challenges were highlighted by Border Guards. Together with wider equipment reliability issues ( such as portable passport scanners for border guards and X ray scanners for Customs) the overall issue of proper training in the use of equipment and the need to take account of higher maintenance requirements – reflecting often severe weather conditions – and the need for significantly greater communications capacity to allow for speedier transmission times now and in the future - were seen as the key technical equipment issues.

7.1. Current sequential processes in Russia and Belarus

The PT now produces in detail a diagram outlining the sequential processes applied in BCPs in Russia and Belarus in relation to freight movements. The principle of highly sequential, rather than near simultaneous processes also applies, to a lesser extent, to the movements of vehicle passengers. It is noted particularly that where batch systems are operated, with no movement until all participants in a group (e.g. of trucks) have been processed, movement is significantly slower than when continuous flow systems are applied. Different systems sometimes apply at nearby BCPs on the same border, such as at the Russian – Finnish border, where a batch system is used at Torfianovka whereas a free flow system is used at Brusnichnoe. This section leads naturally into the further comments at Section 8. below. The following Diagram shows border control process in Russian and Belorussian BCPs. The depicted process shows sequence of control procedures for trucks entering from the European Union to Russia/Belorussia. Exit from Russia and Belorussia includes the same steps, except that passport control is done first for vehicles entering to the BCP from the EU, and last – for vehicles going out to the EU.


In Russian BCPs, Customs perform transport control and documentary control on behalf of the phytosanitary and veterinary inspection. In Belorussian BCPs all controls are implemented by separate agencies (i.e. Transport control by Transport inspection of the Ministry of Transport, Phyto and Veterinary controls by inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture)


Diagram 1. Border control at Russian and Belarusian BCPs: entry from the EU

Physical Inspection Area

Document control area (Passport control line)

Entry gate, from EU

Preliminary document check (Border Guards)

Border control checklist (BCC)

Immigration card

Physical Check (by BG)

Passport control (by BG)

Suspected infection

No suspected infection (cargo, driver)

BCC stamped by BG

Transport documentary and physical

control

Medical Sanitary control

BCC stamped by MSI

Weights printed in BCC

Customs prelim document check

and vehicle examination

No infection (cargo)

Suspected infection

Exit Gate, to RU


Physical Inspection Area

Document control area (Passport control line)

Entry Gate, from EU

Exit Gate, to RU

Veterinary,Phytosanitary

control needed Veterinary or Phytosanitary

Control

BCC stamped

No infection (cargo)

Suspected infection

Veterinary,Phytosanitary control not needed

Customs documentary

control

Physical Inspection required (Customs or BG)

Physical Inspection not required

BCC stamped by Customs

Transport docs stamped

NII and Physical Inspection

BCC and docs stamped by inspecting

agency

BCC with all stamps collected

by BG

Normally trucks stop in 3 or 4 control areas, depending on the applied types of control:

Entry Gate – all vehicles

Document control area – all vehicles

Physical Inspection Area – high risk vehicles

Exit Gate – all vehicles

Entry Gate Entry to the BCP normally takes several minutes. Border Guards check driver and vehicle documents, and issue a Borer Control Checklist (BCC). This is some sort of a


runner, which needs to be filled with stamps and signatures of the control authorities. The BCC has names of controls, and fields for stamps and signatures

Example of the Belorussian Border Control Checklist :------------------------------------------------------------------: : Контрольный талон № ______ : : : :Марка, регистрационный номер транспортного средства _____________ : : : :Фамилия водителя ________________________________________________ : : : :Количество пассажиров ___________________________________________ : : (прописью) : : : :Фамилия лица, пересекающего государственную границу в пешем : :порядке _________________________________________________________ : :_______________ "__" ____________ 200_ г. : : (время) (дата) : : : : ВЪЕЗД (entry) : ВЫЕЗД (departure) : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : Зеленый канал :Красный канал:Зеленый канал : Красный канал : : Green channel : Red channel :Green channel : Red channel : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : Подпись : Подпись : Подпись : Подпись : : Signature : Signature : Signature : Signature : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : Вид контроля :Время осуществления контроля:Отметка о прохождении: : : : контроля : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : : начало : окончание : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: :Пограничный : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: :Таможенный : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: :Автомобильный : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------: : : : : : :---------------:-------------:--------------:---------------------:


Document Control After entry drivers park their trucks at the Border Guards documentary control area, pass passport control and drive to the weighbridge. This control takes several minutes, but with a queue can often take about one hour. Weights are printed on the back side of the BCC. Transport control can take more time for exit from Belorussia, because drivers often obtain driving permits to the EU countries in the BCP. Bilateral driving permits are purchased from the Transport control authority stationed at the BCP. This involves payment of the required fee in the bank (located in the BCP) and preparation of the road permit of the designated country (Poland, Lithuania, etc.) by the Transport authority. Both steps can take from several minutes (without queues) to more than an hour (with queues). Russian drivers obtain road permits outside of the BCP areas, normally through local offices of the Russian International Road Carriers Association (ASMAP). After weighting drivers park their vehicles in a designated location and arrive to the customs control terminal for documentary customs control. Phytosanitary and Veterinary certificates are checked here as well, either by customs (Russia) or by the Ministry of Agriculture inspectors (Belorussia). Documentary control and preparation of transit declaration take about half an hour. But often drivers have to spend much more time in the terminal because of queues. Waiting for 2-3 hours is considered normal, and waiting for more than 6 hours is not uncommon. The Customs documentary control zone has a number of customs inspectors. In BCP Torfianovka ( Russian – Finnish border) there are 12-14 inspectors in separate booths in for entry to Russia, and 3-4 inspectors for exit from Russia. There may be separate queues to inspectors (like in the BCP Torfianovka) or one common line (as at the BCP Brusnichnoe). The common line procedure should be encouraged everywhere. After document control, drivers can either get their documents stamped and allowed to drive to the Exit Gate, or may be required to drive to the inspection area.

Physical Inspection Area Trucks can end up in the Physical Inspection Area for a number of reasons. reasons. As shown in the diagram 1 above, any of the border control agency may want to conduct detailed control checks. Sometimes trucks can be even sent back to the Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) by Border Guards at the Exit Gate. About 25% of trucks are sent to the Non-Intrusive Inspection by x-ray stationary or mobile units. This control takes about 15 minutes, if a driver is lucky. But because of the large proportion of trucks sent to the NII, trucks have to queue for the NII for many hours. If control authorities are not satisfied by the results of the NII control, more detailed physical inspection, often with full or partial unloading can be required. When unloading


is required, this results in delays for days. To minimize delays consignors can buy unloading services of customs terminals (managed by ROSTEK).

Exit Gate After several hours (if very lucky) or several days, trucks arrive to the Exit Gate. The border guards verify that all documents have been checked and all required controls have been completed. The Border Control Checklists are collected, and the departure time is recorded.

8. Deficiencies and discrepancies in actual Border Control management

practices

This Section has reached its assessments based upon its own observations in the Field Visits, and from the data supplied by the BMAs in their answers to the Questionnaires,

presented in Appendix B.. It particularly addresses issues in 2.1. a and b and d and e. of the TOR, i.e. issues which are generic as they impact on most other BCP management issues. All BMAs were open and honest regarding the factors which limit the effectiveness of border controls in ensuring the safe and speedy cross border movements of goods and persons which maintaining proper border controls. The difficulties were made quite clear to the PT and were usually visibly obvious. While there was no single reason for extensive delays, the dramatic differences in crossing times for road freight, especially, made it clear that several factors were particularly important.

Rail issues – passengers

Rail passenger movements were generally reported as being achieved satisfactorily, without undue delay. The checking of passports on board long distance trains or in well-appointed passenger terminals which offer protection from the weather (e.g. Narva and Koidula in Estonia regarding trains from St. Petersburg and Moscow respectively, and at Terespol in Poland from Moscow and Minsk) involves processing times which are acceptable given the length of the journeys. However, Estonian Border Guards advised there concern about the risk of delays to both road and rail passengers in the event of visa relaxations between the Schengen Area and Russia and Belarus. Therefore the

Project has noted in the Conclusions and Recommendations at Sections 17, 18 and 19 below, that the introduction of more and higher reliability mobile passport readers should be actively considered and that consideration should be given to the introduction of Advance Passenger Information (API) for long distance trains and coaches. The inconvenience of this to passengers, and possible extra costs to them and the road and rail operators would be at least partially offset if such travel were able to use priority crossing procedures, reducing overall travel times.


Rail issues – freight Rail freight movements were generally reported as being achieved satisfactorily, without undue delay. The general effectiveness of rail freight procedures is described in detail at Section 15. below. In general, the nature of rail freight is well known in advance to the BMAs of export, import and transit countries. Customs clearance is normally not carried out at the border. There are therefore seen to be no major challenges in relation to rail freight, and the capacities examined at, for instance, the Polish Belarus and the Estonian – Russian and Latvian – Russian borders appeared sufficient for current and expected traffic levels. However, following the carrying out of the Field Visits, Polish colleagues did point out to the PT that there were significant opportunities for streamlining procedures through greater use of the CIM / SMGS Consignment Note, which from experience on key east west freight routes, has been a major step forward. This matter is suggested as a key issue for consideration in future phases following on from this project. This general effectiveness offers indicators as to what needs to be done in relation to improving the admittedly more challenging situations regarding movements of passenger vehicles, including coaches, and freight.

Generic road traffic issues Queues varied greatly, with there generally being little link between the levels of road network and BCP lane capacity and the levels of delays. At the risk of stating the obvious, capacity increases on one side of the border lost much of their effectiveness if there were no physical capacity increases on the other side (e.g. at Koidula – Pechory/ Kunichina Gora between Estonia and Russia, where the full benefit of the introduction of terminals and queue management on the Estonian side will be limited until the ongoing Russian vehicle park upgrades are completed). Major examples of this situation were at Medininkai – Kamenny Log (Latvia – Belarus) and Terehova – Burachky (Latvia – Russia) and Koroszczyn ( Kukuryki – Kozlowiczy) freight and Terespol – Brest passenger vehicle crossings from Poland to Belarus. The levels of delays were very severe at all these sites, with freight queues especially being in excess of 10 kilometres and crossing times being well over 24 hours in some cases. As previously mentioned, several drivers spoke not of hours but of days when describing delays. Extensive funding has delivered significant new road capacity in Poland in the Terespol and Koroszczyn area, while capacity is less extensive at Medininkai and is limited at Terehova (although upgrades have started on the regional


network). The significant on BCP terminal facilities available at Koroszczyn are of limited support to transport operators as the queues to get to the terminal are so long.

Road issues – freight These observations made it clear that the main opportunities and challenges relate to the number and effectiveness of processes required to cross. While the introduction of queue management systems such as that introduced in Estonia has, as previously noted, led to much more comfortable conditions at vehicle terminals for truck operators especially, it has not necessarily reduced crossing times. Given that the delays are much greater for trucks, it is clear that the solutions going forward need to involve the introduction of fewer and simpler processes. These need to include the reduction on the CU side in the number of physical checks ( e.g. x raying and physical examination of cargo, and to a lesser extent weighing which is more automated) and , accordingly, much greater use of Risk Analysis systems and procedures for automated clearance with post clearance audit checks away from the border. Concern was raised by several operators, and in the media, that the June 2012 introduction of compulsory electronic submission of customs preliminary information in advance of arrival would actually lead to longer delays, at least in the short term. Economic operators’ unfamiliarity with the new system might lead to increased numbers of rejections, with vehicles being turned back or subjected to higher levels of physical controls. Therefore, it is suggested that there is close cooperation between Russian and Belarus Customs and their EU counterparts in order to share views on what degree of licence can be allowed to operators for mistakes which are not felt to be significant. EU experience in relation to the introduction of its own system would be likely to be highly relevant. The use of free flow systems as opposed to batching is strongly recommended. Delays caused by batching (delays which are multiplied when applied to several processes, such as passport control followed by Customs clearance ) were stressed by several BMAs as a major cause of delays. See Section 10. below for a detailed description of the benefits of free flow systems.

Road issues – passengers in private vehicles and in coaches

On the road borders, both sides face a set of challenges that, though in themselves are only minor, accumulate to require substantial resources and therefore are a cause of delays. All countries in the Schengen zone face challenges in relation to illegal migration and the proper processing of asylum seekers and the use of false documents. There was a clear need seen to coordinate on a regional basis the sharing of subject specific information on refused persons and the use of false documents. There seem to be weaknesses here. Persons refused entry into the EU in Estonia and who were returned to Russia were identified as attempting to enter into Finland a few days later, with the inevitable result that they were refused entry there. This problem is worsened by the fact that, though these persons are attempting to cross illegally into Europe, their presence


in the CIS is fully legal and as long as they do not actually attempt to cross the border outside of BCP's, there is nothing that can stop them from moving around. Furthermore, there are also challenges for the EU states regarding smuggling of alcohol, cigarettes and road fuel from Belarus and Russia where prices are much lower. These are not risk areas for the CU but the need to carry out significant numbers of physical examinations using risk analysis and spot checks means that delays can occur at EU entry points. There are severe practical limitations to what can be done to reduce these problems. It is suggested that all the States in the Partnership consider maximizing the use of Border Guards to carry out Customs checks (i.e. first line physical checks of vehicles), as several already do. Where BCPs do not yet have access to central nationwide databases holding ANPR data, this should be introduced and considered for extension to link several states. Such access would potentially increase the effectiveness of risk analysis by identifying suspiciously frequent movements across a border, where different BCPs are used in attempts to allay suspicion. At the CU side, a major source of delays is the need for filling in a customs declaration to fulfill the requirements in relation to temporary importation of (foreign) motor vehicles. At present, the source of identification of a vehicle movement from an importation or temporary importation point of view is the Customs declaration, the completion and delivery of which does take time. Up to 10 minutes processing time by customs has been noted

4. Consideration should be given to evaluating other means of recording the

import or temporary import, perhaps taking the example of Ukraine, which has abolished the use of a manual Customs Declaration. The coordinated national and transnational use of ANPR data in relation to vehicle movements, especially passenger vehicle movements would potentially have significant benefits for the Customs Union. The centralization of movement data would also make it easier for Border Guards to cooperate with customs in identifying the passengers in, and particularly the drivers of, vehicles of potential interest from both the perspective of identifying the smuggling of goods. Such measures would also be consistent with the general viewpoint of the PT that basic customs checks be undertaken by Border Guards as improvements in passport integrity technology frees up resources for other purposes. The PT noted that at several BCPs Customs and Border Guards worked exceptionally closely together, to an extent that they might almost be regarded as one service, so such measures are considered feasible.

9. Cross border cooperation between Border Crossing Points Management

Agencies

4 At the Belarus – Poland border, when the vehicle is crossing the border at the particular crossing for the

first time.


This part of the Report addresses the requirements of Section 2.1. d and of the TOR, i.e. communication and common decisions and personnel knowledge. The PT accepts that its comments here must be considered as being largely based on the views of EU Member States BMAs. With the exception of the meeting with Belarus State Customs Committee at Koroszczyn terminal and the Kukuryki and Terespol BCPs in Poland in April 2012 the PT was not able to meet BMA representatives from the CU, although it did seek to keep them informed through the host BMAs before, during and after the Field Visits. The PT’s assessment of the situation regarding cross border cooperation between BMAs is drawn from our observations during the Field Visits and the cross border cooperation section of the Questionnaire. While the effectiveness of such cooperation is a separate issue from such internal cooperation between the BMAs of a single country, the PT believes the two need to be looked at together. There are considerable bases for developing operational and tactical (case by case) cooperation, especially regarding increasing the quantity and particularly the quality of risk analysis. The operational / organizational issue of regulating traffic flow between BCPs used by Belarus and Polish Customs should be considered for adoption elsewhere, to the extent that it is not currently adopted. There are well established 24/7 procedures overseen by senior officers and their deputies on both sides which ensure that vehicles are only released from the truck BCP when sufficient space is available for them to cross. This does not in itself speed up clearance times, but does allow drivers to rest to some extent and to make use of refreshment facilities. However, given the sheer volume of freight traffic at Koroszczyn ( Kukuryki-Kozlowiczy), even with this system there were still delays of 8 to 10 hours (and in some cases of up to 24 hours) in the area between the Polish controls and the Belarus controls, i.e. after the Polish terminal. There were no refreshment facilities in this area, which clearly demonstrates the sheer scale of the challenges on this key east – west route. There were, at all BCPs visited, arrangements whereby specific BMA staff and their deputies or replacements had direct responsibilities for exchange of information on operational and tactical matters, staff often referred to as Border Delegates. There were normally regular formal meetings on topics of mutual interest, especially on organizational issues. These were typically monthly or quarterly, with other meetings held as necessary. “Hotlines” were established at several BCPs, such as at Koidula in Estonia for contact with Pechory / Kunichina Gora BCP. In that case, given the very close cooperation between Estonian Border Guards and Customs, the link was in effect for all services. There have also been cases of short term deployments of BMA personnel between BCPS. In April 2012 Russian Border Guards were due to be based at Terehova during Operation ZAPAT, a joint exercise against illegal migration. In June 2012, there will be extended cooperation between all the BMAs of Poland, Belarus and Russia regarding ensuring speedy processing of football supporters travelling to Poland for the European


football championships. These special measures will, the PT was informed, involve some forms of API use.

The PT has noted these positive developments in the Conclusions and

Recommendations at Sections 17, 18 and 19 below, and suggested that they be developed further with more special joint cross border operations, the results of which should be shared with all other States in the Partnership and not merely within the States taking part in a particular exercise. The information exchanges through the methods of formal regular meetings, and hotline notifications on urgent organizational (traffic flow) or tactical situations do have some gaps. All BMAs and especially Customs pointed out that there was a need to coordinate cooperation in relation to the considerably different Customs risks situations for the EU states and the CU states regarding smuggling of excise dutiable goods and drugs into the EU, and the undervaluation and misdescription of consumer goods into the CU. It is the view of the PT that both automated exchanges of data enabling the accuracy of export and import valuations and regular operational meetings should take place. These operational meetings would seek to build upon the automated exchanges of core declaration data by discussing ways of dealing with particular tactical cases of mutual concern, within the context of dealing with the generic challenges, rather than simply dealing with each case as it comes. In view of the importance of this issue, it is now discussed further, immediately below.

9.1 Automated exchanges of Information on Customs movements within the

context of operational level coordination between Customs Services

The following comments seek to make proposals which strike a balance between the desirability of reducing passage times by implementing the provisions of the TIR Convention regarding the free flow of goods, while ensuring that the very real revenue and public protection issues of concern to the CU and the EU are taken into full account. This section particularly addresses the requirements outlined in the TOR at 2.1. (b) and (d). interoperability of technologies and procedures and communication and common decisions.

In relation to the clause requiring the avoidance of detailed scrutiny of goods at an external border customs post, the TIR Convention allows in accordance to Article 5 (2) of the Convention: “....to prevent abuses, Customs authorities may in exceptional cases, and particularly when irregularity is suspected, carry out an examination of the goods at such offices”

Clearly, systems need to be in place to prevent such abuse. The PT has therefore recommended that extensive and early efforts be taken to introduce long term automatic sharing of risk profiling information and the mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operators between Schengen Area states and Customs Union states.

It is recognised that there are domestic data protection issues here and that there is also the need to recognise key national interests in all states regarding the regulation of law enforcement agencies IT systems. However, the introduction of international good


practices in relation to making significant reductions in the number of Customs processes, and in reducing physical inspections is consistent with government and Customs Service policy in the Russian Federation and, by extension, with that of its Customs Union partners. A recent speech by President Putin, while still Prime Minister, highlighted the significant reduction in the number of Customs processes as a key priority for Customs to implement. Equally, the Russian Customs Service regularly publishes figures regarding the percentages of freight movements which are subject to intensive (physical) examinations. The publication of these figures implies recognition of the need to move to a more developed risk management system.

Such risk management systems inevitably benefit significantly from the timely exchange of information between neighbouring states, especially those which are the points of entry to or from their respective customs unions.

Accordingly, the PT highlights in its Recommendations the need for enhanced exchanges and the carrying out of special joint information exchange exercises, and the long term deployment of staff between states in relation to both the operational and “IT technical” aspects of information exchange.

The PT believes that the carrying out of such recommendations should be notified before, during and after the results to all Customs agencies of the Northern Dimension Partnership. While we believe that all states would benefit from the carrying out of such recommendations, we would especially suggest that there be such exchanges between Poland and Belarus in view of the volume of traffic, and between Lithuania and Belarus in relation to transit traffic between the Kaliningrad region of Russia and Russia itself.

The nature of the information to be exchanged would, of course, be matters for the BMAs themselves but we suggest that examples would include high consumer demand electronic goods imported into the CU and which are felt to be prone to serious undervaluation, as well as capital goods which may be free of Customs duties and may therefore be misdescribed, with the goods actually being different and subject to duties. In relation to exports from the CU, EU MS may be able to help regarding the verification of the integrity of the reported importers of goods which are suspected of being vulnerable to false export fraud from the CU. But we suggest that the key ways of reducing physical inspections would be to agree on criteria for mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operators and the monitoring of their future compliance.

Given that transport operators reported that clearance times were relatively short when entering or leaving Finland, there would also be opportunities for comparing the reasons for this with challenges experienced between Russia and Estonia and Latvia respectively.

10. The logistics of movements of passengers and goods at Border Crossing

Points

Introduction

This section of the Report addresses particularly the requirements of Section 2.1 c of the TOR – terminal logistics.


It is common practice to use a so called “batch” system to the flow of especially cargo vehicles through a BCP. Though not apparent immediately, this can have substantial influence on the overall throughput in a 24 hour period in comparison to a flow system due to delays caused by bottlenecks

5 caused by infrastructure. This section attempts to

explain and visualise the practical implications of the use of one or another system. The relative benefits of the “batch” system are summarised in the Table at the end of the Section.

The common process To illustrate the difference, a simplified but not completely unusual process is taken as an example. The process concerns the following processes:

weighbridge,

customs clearance The processing duration for the weighbridge is 5 minutes, while the customs processing takes 20 minutes, but there are 4 windows, allowing for 4 vehicles to be processed at the same time. For simplicity of the explanation, it is assumed that there are no time delays going from one process to the other, or there are no queue's anywhere. In addition, the calculations reflect current practice as reported by drivers, that the next batch is only allowed into the BCP when the entire previous batch has been processed and has left the BCP at the other end. We do not however make the assumption that, like in normal practice for batch systems, all vehicles in the batch will first need to clear the first process before the second process can start, but we assume instead that the every vehicle clearing the first process can immediately proceed to the second process.

5 A bottleneck process is a process of which the throughput capacity is the smallest of all processes at a BCP. Most likely, these are

processes that require specific pieces of hardware that are expensive to acquire and of which there is often only one. Managing the bottleneck, by

for example ensuring that its process is only used in particular cases when justified by identified risks is one option that comes at very little or no

cost. Alternatively, but already far more expensive is to increase the quantity of equipment available for the bottleneck process. More on

managing bottlenecks can be found in the book “the goal” from Ely Goldrat.


As can be noted from above, the application of a batch system substantially increases the waiting time for individual vehicles in the worst case scenario, in the example, it is 70 minutes for the batch processing versus 25 minutes for a continuous flow system. With regard to the duration of the total process (e.g.) from the total of 10 vehicles being processed, in this particular case, there is no difference in duration, for each situation, the total time to process 10 vehicles is 70 minutes. However, the numbers hide a more important difference, which does severely affect the total capacity to process vehicles in a certain period of time. In case of the batch processing approach, the there are several work stations that do not have any work for a certain period of time either before the first customer arrives (in case of customs) or after the last customer has left, such as in case of the weighbridge. As time dissipates when it goes forward, the lost production cannot be recovered easy. In the above example, the processing capacity of a continuous flow system would be at least 20%, but up to 40% higher than in the batch processing approach. If we once more take the example, in case of batch, the throughput in 70 minutes would be 10 vehicles, regardless what happens. In case of the continuous flow, the maximum throughput that can be achieved in the same 70 minute period at the bottleneck (the weighbridge) would be 14 vehicles, an improvement of 40%. This would then also provide for a more constant workflow at the customs posts and increase its capacity there through reducing idle time.

batch size 10 time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse

process duration

Weighbridge 5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Customs 1 20 20 20 20

Customs 2 20 20 20 20

Customs 3 20 20 20

Customs 4 20 20 20

time lapse from begin first process 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Maximum process duration for individual vehicle: 70 Minutes

Time required to process 10 vehicles: 50+20 = 70 minutes

Continuous flow time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse time lapse

process duration

Weighbridge 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Customs 1 20 20 20 20

Customs 2 20 20 20 20

Customs 3 20 20 20

Customs 4 20 20 20

time lapse from begin first process 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Maximum process duration for individual vehicle: 25 Minutes

Time required to process 10 vehicles: 50 + 20 = 70 minutes

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 8th 10th


Concluding, a critical assessment is essential of all processes at a BCP over a period of to identify the bottleneck processes

6 . There is no single process that is solely or even

very largely responsible for delays, though the PT felt that the replacement of batch systems with flow systems was perhaps the biggest step which could be taken.

Table Batch v Flow

Batch size 10 Time lapse from arrival of a truck at the BCP (from 1st

to 10th

)

Process duration, min 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

Weighbridge

5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Customs 1 20 25 45 65

Customs 2 20 30 50 70

Customs 3 20 35 55

Customs 4 20 40 60

Total time in the BCP 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Maximum duration of stay of a vehicle in the BCP is 70 minutes Time required to process 10 vehicles is 70 minutes Total number of vehicles in the BCP area at the same time is 10

Batch size 1 Time lapse from arrival of a truck at the BCP (from 1st

to 10th

)

Process duration, min 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

Weighbridge

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Customs 1 20 25 25 25

Customs 2 20 25 25 25

Customs 3 20 25 25

Customs 4 20 25 25

Total time in the BCP 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Each vehicle is processed within 25 minutes since arrival at the BCP Time required to process 10 vehicles is 70 minutes

6


Total number of vehicles in the BCP area at the same time is 5

11. The impact of physical infrastructures on the operations of Border Crossing

Points.

This section deals especially with Sections 2.1. a and c of the TOR, i.e. joint planning of infrastructures and superstructures at the BCPs, and, to some extent, terminal logistics. However, it should be noted that clear divisions between these issues and the other issues in the TOR cannot really be made as they are all closely interlinked.

As has been previously pointed out, the PT stresses that physical infrastructure issues are very important and need to be considered in relation to all other issues which are

the subject of the Study. It therefore follows that in the Conclusions and

Recommendations at sections 17, 18, and 19 below, comments and proposals which are not related to physical infrastructure matters may be relevant to such matters. The reverse is also true. The PT also repeats its view that physical infrastructure issues are secondary to the necessity to simplify border crossing procedures in reducing crossing times. Throughout the following comments the PT draws distinctions between transport infrastructure and BCP infrastructure, while again noting that they are intimately interlinked. Transport infrastructure is defined for the purposes of the Study as being the cross border road and rail networks, including the approach roads and rail lines leading to the BCPs. The BCP infrastructure refers to the building facilities and road and rail networks actually at the BCPs, including the vehicle lanes within the BCP area. Given their crucial impacts on the conditions in which persons and goods can move across, the vehicle parks and off BCP terminals are considered as being both BCP infrastructure, as well as transport infrastructure, even if they are not actually located at a BCP. Without effective queue management systems, provision of terminal parking and reductions in the number of border crossing processes, improvements to the road transport infrastructures are likely to be much less than fully effective. Without improvements to transport infrastructure, improvements in simplifying and reducing the border crossings procedures themselves are still going to be limited by physical limitations, even though the simplification of processes is felt to be the more important issue. The PT is grateful to the representatives of the Roads and Civil Aviation Dept. of the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Lithuania who met the PT during the Lithuanian Field Visit, and the representative of the State Real Estate Co. which is managing BCP upgrading in Latvia, and doing so in close consultation with counterparts in Russia, including Rosgranitsa. These colleagues gave their views on long term infrastructure proposals and ideas. Their information was broadly similar to the opinions provided by the BMAs in the other states visited, and was used extensively in producing the proposals regarding the transport corridors and BCPs which were felt appropriate


for priority modernisation and capacity enhancement. See Section 19 below and

Appendix A.

Transport infrastructures

The PT travelled extensively in South-eastern Finland and in all the Baltic States, including to the border with the eastern frontier of Kaliningrad, and in North Eastern Poland. As a result, the major road networks for traffic to and from St. Petersburg, Moscow and Minsk were observed for considerable distances. It was noted that the corridors which would logically have the greatest levels of traffic had, not surprisingly, had the longest queues. At Koroszczyn (Kukuryki- Kozlowiczy) and Terespol ( opposite Brest) on the Polish – Belarus border, queues for trucks waiting to enter Belarus were as much as 15 km in length, despite the recent significant upgrading of the Polish road network in the region to reflect the location on the Moscow – Minsk – Warsaw – Berlin corridor. At Medininkai on the Lithuanian- Belarus border they were similarly very long, reflecting the location on a major secondary route which is very close to the main St. Petersburg to Warsaw and Berlin corridor via Estonia and Latvia. They were also extremely long at Terehova in Latvia at the crossing with Burachky in Russia as that is on the key corridor Moscow – Riga. Conversely, queues were significantly shorter entering Russia from Koidula and Narva in Estonia, reflecting that these corridors are either not as long (to Tallinn) or act as alternatives to each other (St Petersburg to Riga). However, queues were of course limited at these locations due to the use of the GoSwift compulsory queue management system alongside the use of well-appointed vehicle terminals for pre booked vehicles ( Koidula and Narva city) and well-appointed truck terminals ( at Sillamae near Narva). The existence of the GoSwift system meant that the vehicle parks were not full as vehicle users had already pre booked their place so did not need to arrive “in advance”. Extensive publicity has also been given to measures to prevent abuse of the system, with extensive CCTV and resulting spot checks which can identify the booking ticket to a specific vehicle (this anti-fraud measure was stressed to the PT as being vital to ensure public confidence). It is for these reasons that the PT urges the active introduction of queue management systems and vehicle terminals along the Estonian model, which it was pointed out is intended to be self-financing in that the rents the operators pay to the state will repay the costs of introduction within a reasonable time frame. The recently announced plan to test GoSwift at Russian crossing points on the border with Estonia (from 1

st July 2012) is a major step forward.

It is accepted that such measures will face greater challenges along routes which experience very high traffic volumes, and that the building of terminals (essential for the fully effective use of queue management systems) also takes time. It was stressed to us by Lithuanian Transport Ministry colleagues and BMA agencies at the BCPs in Latvia and Lithuania that while transport corridors were scheduled to be upgraded, with more lanes, current budget limits meant that these were some years away, with completion


typically not before 2020. However, we note that while queue management systems will not necessarily reduce the crossing time (a point openly admitted ) it will greatly reduce the uncertainty about the length of time and enable the waiting time to be either more productive or more comfortable, or both. For example, the excellent BCP terminal facilities at Koroszczyn ( for the Kukuryki BCP) in Poland cannot be fully used to drivers’ advantages due to the absence of a queue management system linked with terminals located before the BCP itself. It was noted that at Nuijamaa – Sosnovskoye/ Brusnichoe on the Finnish – Russian border ( visited as a proxy for the main Finnish – Russian BCP at Vaalimaa, queues were much shorter which the PT believes is linked to the reported much faster movement of trucks from Finland to Russia, which further suggests that the cooperation between Finnish and Russian BMAs on risk evaluation is actually a key factor here. The experiences of all BMAs on both sides of the border should be shared throughout the Partnership States. In conclusion, the PT believes that where possible road networks should be upgraded on both sides of the border at all the locations listed in Section 21. As priorities for modernisation, but that these should be supported by the introduction of off BCP terminals and queue management systems, as even higher priorities. As an interim but very important measure, portable and reasonably weather proof toilet facilities should be established at regular intervals along the approach roads to BCPs subject to long queues. These would have considerable psychological impacts, especially if they could be heated in winter, although this may not be practical..

BCP infrastructures

Within the narrow definition explained earlier, the BCPs visited had generally good infrastructures. This statement has to be qualified as the PT did not visit the BCP buildings on the CU side. The number of traffic lanes was generally adequate, with flexibility in their use so that vehicles could be diverted to a “faster” lane if needed. This enhanced the effectiveness of lanes which were normally designated for specific use ( e.g. commercial perishable goods, passenger coaches, and EU or CU citizens). The issues limiting effectiveness were organisational, rather than physical. The on- BCP terminals were in all cases reasonably well appointed with proper protection against weather conditions and good sanitary facilities. Several BMAs felt that physical limitations in the number of traffic lanes between the BCPs were a major limiting factor. However, as other BCPs were able to process traffic reasonably quickly while still subject to limitations on the number of lanes, the PT was reinforced in its view that that the reliability of technical equipment such as mobile passport readers, document and identity verification systems ( as required in the Schengen area and of


similar interest to CU States) are more important, alongside the need to reduce physical checks for road freight. That said, the PT particularly notes the views of Lithuanian BMAs regarding the need to increase lane capacity between Medininkai and Kamenny Log, and the concerns of Latvian BMA staff regarding the age of the facilities at Terehova and elsewhere, which, given the financially driven delays to the national transport infrastructure upgrade are increasingly needed. The PT believes that any external physical upgrades plans, whether to the BCPs themselves or to the regional transport infrastructures, should be discussed in advance with the neighbouring EU or CU state, as coordination of efforts are likely to be more effective. It is accepted that in the case of road network upgrades, which in the short term can cause disruption, mutual upgrades should be carried out in sequence in order to minimize disruption. Further details of the physical infrastructure situations at the BCPs themselves are given

in the BMA Questionnaires, reproduced at Appendix B.

12. The views of Border Management Agencies

The issues in this Section are related to all of the specific aspects of border management listed in Section 2.1. of the TOR, i.e. a to e. These need to be in both individual and collective contexts, so this section of the Report and the related Appendix are key to overall understanding of the descriptions, conclusions and recommendations made. The views of the Border Management Agencies (BMAs) regarding how they operate

their BCPs are listed in the Questionnaires at Appendix B. The Questionnaire has been written in order to maximise the expression of views which enable the PT to assess current and future situations in relation to meeting the key Output Objectives of the study. These include evaluations of current and future capacities of the BCPs in the context of overall movements of persons and goods by road and rail between the Schengen Area and the CU. The identification of recent qualitative and quantitative changes and expected future developments has also been sought. Specifically, the Questionnaires have sought to identify areas for particular cooperation in relation to exchanging information and sharing operational practices between BMAs within a country and across the Border. The Questionnaires were, in several cases, actually written by the PT based on the discussions held with the representatives of the BMA's and then amended by the BMAs as required to provide a full refection of their views. In other cases, the BMAs completed the questionnaires. Where the PT produced the original versions, all amendments were included in the final version. The PT believes that there are high degrees of correlation


between these versions, which is evidence of common appreciations of the current situations, opportunities and challenges. The PT did, in completing the Questionnaire responses, seek to imply responses which would enable the Study’s objectives to be achieved, by suggesting issues which were particularly important opportunities and challenges, and to go beyond the present situations towards expected future needs.

The PT noted a high degree of consensus regarding the challenges ahead, regardless

of the locations visited. These are highlighted in the Conclusions and in the

Recommendations at Sections 17 and 18. below, and in the managerial action Recommendations at Section 19. The PT therefore believes that there considerable opportunities for future cooperation between all the countries of the partnership, especially in relation to the reduction in the number of border crossing processes and the corresponding need for much use of risk analysis and information sharing, and mutual recognition of risk priorities. Such exchanges would need to involve automated continuous real time systems, and exchanges of staff for both short term and extended periods. In relation to technical equipment, ANPR systems need to be fully accessible on a national, and not just BCP basis, and the results shared across the EU / CU external border. Given the priority to consider the likelihood of significant increases in movements of persons if the CU or its members reaches a visa free agreement with the EU more and more reliable portable passport readers were commonly seen as a priority, as were document and identity verification systems. The significance of the PT’s interest in calculating fingerprint identity verification times for Schengen visa holders was fully understood by BMAs who have concerns about delays in the systems, including periods of unavailability. There was less consensus regarding the issue of vehicle terminals in the context of introduction of queue management systems. Several agencies did not see the introduction of terminals as a priority which was achievable in a realistic time frame, while accepting that a queue management system itself was needed. While the PT understands this, it remains of the view that such a system, combined with the creation of vehicle terminals near the BCP is an absolute priority, behind only the introduction of fewer and simplified border crossing procedures. The two are connected in that an effective queue management system can be linked to API systems and thereby to more effective risk management systems.

13. The views of Transport Operators and their representative bodies

This Section of the Report is deliberately placed immediately after the Section relating to the collective views of BMAs, as it gives the private sector operators’ outlook. As such, the section largely relates to the specific aspects of border management outlined in section 2.1. a and c. of the TOR – infrastructure of BCPs and terminal logistics, but in reality relates to all of them, a to e.


13.1 Summary of the views of EU based transport operators.

As the views expressed in this immediate section have many similarities with those of a Russian based operator as given in 13.2, the PT has felt it necessary to produce summaries of both points of views, despite the risk of duplication. The PT believes that these views, from both sides of the Schengen area / CU external border, are extremely important as they are consistent with the PT’s view that while no single measure or even set of measures would solve the major border crossing delays problems, the need to reduce the number of procedures required for freight movements, and to simplify those procedures, are crucial. To obtain the views of transport operators, meetings have been held with the Finnish, Estonian, Latvian road haulage associations as well as those in the Russian Federation. Due to the fact that they did not respond to any correspondence or were available for a phone call, the Lithuanian association has not been met. The Polish association could not be met due to time constrains, as they are based far outside the project area and a meeting would involve substantial travel. In summary, the concerns of the companies are different depending on which country they are based. Finnish registered companies that are involved in transport to Russia are mostly Russian owned and employ Russian drivers. The association did not report significant problems recently on the Russian - Finnish border, though this may well be due to the substantial drop in traffic since the crisis, combined with the reduction of import of new motor vehicles as a result of the increase in local manufacturing of western brands. The reduction in motor vehicle transport reduced the number of journeys by perhaps as much as 100.000 on an annual basis. In addition, the use of Russian ports has been made more attractive, further reducing the transit traffic though Finland. With regard to the borders more southward, the associations there reported substantial problems with BCP performance, leading to long queues, both virtual

7 and physical. The

waiting times may be as long as 60 – 70 hours for both passenger and freight vehicles, depending on the specific location. The delays have significant cost to exporter and transport operators alike, the direct cost at the Latvian – RU/BY borders alone has been put on around 25 million Euro in 2011 alone. . The associations expressed their frustration on the inability of the EU and Russia to agree on the exchange of customs data. Right now, in cases of export they first must provide this to the EU and after that the entire process is repeated for Russia / Belarus with related cost and time delays. Though possibly a temporary phenomenon, the Baltic transport operators complained of their borders being clogged up by Polish trucks returning from Russia / Belarus loaded with cheap fuel from Russia and Belarus. This has been caused by the restriction in

7 Such as the Estonian Go-Swift system.


Poland that no more than 600 litre of fuel can be carried into the EU, regardless the size of the fuel tank of the truck. As this takes place through border crossings that were not designed to handle such traffic, it is causing additional delays at the border. Most operators are sceptical of the prospects of any changes in the near future, not in the least due to the fact that constrains are not caused by physical infrastructure or even the need to carry out particular procedures, but as several representatives on both sides of the border put it, there are “beyond the border” factors at work at several locations. They see queue parking areas at the borders as long overdue, together with the need for more of a terminal model for the BCP's though they acknowledge that these will not be a complete solution. The terminals and queue parking arrangements will help to avoid the fines now caused by exceeding the driving hours regulations during queuing and reduce the cost of crossing a border somewhat. The companies identified issues with incompatible customs and other information systems that make the border crossing process very slow at most BCP's leaving the EU. There are on the Russian side 8 different IT platforms in use, which all need to be supplied with some information. The process is time consuming and would benefit of unification of systems. There is the feeling that since the entry into force of the Customs Union, things have gone worse rather than better. Corruption, either small scale (opportunistic) or large scale (institutionalised) has been identified at nearly all border crossings in both directions.

13.2 Summary of views of a Russian based transport operator

The following comments are a summary by the PT, based upon the views expressed by a Russian based transport operator during a face to face interview. with a PT member. All the views and opinions expressed are those of that operator. The PT regards these views as potentially very significant and this is reflected in the large number of recommendations made which are based upon these comments, and those of the EU based associations as described above. However, the PT stresses that it is suggesting that operational exercises be carried out in order to test out the validity of the current and expected concerns expressed by the operator. One main concern is the new Russian Customs requirement for pre-arrival information for crossing RU border. It will go into effect on 17 June 2012. Cargo owners or carriers will be required to submit information to customs several hours before crossing the border. This information contains 45 fields, which is deemed to be excessive amount of information. The EU SPEED project tried to make information about cargo and which is available in the EU, also available in the Federal Customs Service portal. But the FTS portal requires additional information about cargo and drivers. Information about cargo should be provided in HS6 format (other sources talked about HS10). Currently, the FTS portal is available only in Russian and works with Cyrillic letters only. North Western customs tries to promote and educate users before the deadline on 17


June. In the end of 2011 7% of carriers provided preliminary information, now it is about 12%. Probably much more information gets into FTS server directly from consignors. Drivers are already provided with computer access for 2 hours to key-in required information. But it is unlikely that the number of computers provided by RU customs will be sufficient, especially taking into account driver’s lack of experience in using the system. ASMAP will provide additional laptop access points with mobile internet at and after 17 June. The FTS portal is created according to the Order #52 of the Federal Customs Service. The Order is put in such a way that only ROSTEK and its affiliates can meet its requirements for customs representative Currently, only the consignor, carrier or ROSTEK can put the preliminary information into the system. Drivers said that when they arrived at the BCP with proof of preliminary information upload (a printout with a bar code), inspectors claimed that they did not have information in their system and could send drivers to ROSTEK. ROSTEK (North West) would input preliminary information for a driver but at fee. It is already agreed between RU customs and the Association that after 17 June ROSTEK will not be involved in provision of preliminary information, because this causes a conflict of interest. It is not unlikely that the FTS portal idea will fail and FTS will have to return to the usage of data from TIR-EPD system, which has better interface and data formats and proved to be accurate and dependable. There is a risk that preliminary information will slow down control procedures, because inspectors will have to compare information in the FTS portal with paper documents. Any discrepancies will result in thorough inspection (x-ray, physical) RU customs often apply unreasonable penalties and procedures to carriers, who have minor discrepancies in their documents. This is probably because they are motivated to register more violations of any kind without considering risk impact. E.g. in Torfyanovka, customs stopped a road carrier who carried the Boeing flight simulator worth of million dollars. Its real weight differed by 400 kg from the documents. Although customs duties do not depend on weight, customs decided to stop the cargo. Its owner decided not to pay and the cargo remained stuck at the border. Meanwhile Russian airlines cannot get this equipment for training of their pilots. A new development in Russia is the setting up border terminals, where goods should be cleared before moving any further into Russia. There were far-fetched justifications that these terminals will reduce risks of smuggling, eliminate congestion in big towns and create employment opportunities in border areas. This is a political decision and such terminals are being set up at the borders.


One additional argument for setting up these terminals from RU customs was that they do not trust their own customs terminals (SVH) inside Russia. Many ancillary operations at the border are conducted by ROSTEK and its affiliated companies. Loading-unloading during physical inspection was supposed to be done free of charge (according to the RU Customs Code). But this might result in long waiting time, thus carriers had to use ROSTEK terminal services. It is not clear how it works now, according to Customs Union Customs Code One day of waiting at the border costs approximately between 200 Eur (Euro 0, 1) and 300 Eur (Euro 3,4,5 trucks). These figures are normally used in carriers’ claims to the controlling authorities. One day of work is 500-700 Eur. 600-700 km international trip (across 1 border) costs 1000 EUR (domestic rate in RU is 1$/km - http://www.della-ru.com/price/ http://www.della-ru.com/price/) In the Finnish destination, the workload between RU and EU carriers is shared 50 to 50. In Pskov destination – RU-30/EU-70, mostly because of constraints with bilateral road permits. In Pskov oblast Russian drivers work alongside LV, LT, EE drivers, and every country has bilateral quotas with Russia. Finns do not limit number of permits, because they are interested to keep their ports working at full capacity and Finnish road operators are not interested to carry cargo to Russia. Russian authorities recommend using alternative routes when Torfianovka is congested. But freight forwarders fix routes with consignors in contracts. Prices are based on distances through Torfianovka. The road through Nuijamaa-Brusnichnoe is longer (from southern ports - Kotka, Hamina, etc), and in addition it is narrow, and often gets icy because of the fog from Saimen channel. In addition, it has a step ascent between FI and RU BCPs ( around 8% slope according to Google Earth). ASMAP proposed building a new passenger vehicles terminal between Konvenranta and Kondratievo (60°42'05" N, 28°03'05" E, leaving Vaalimaa – Torfianovka for freight traffic only. Torfianovka has sufficiently large area – 32 hectares (25 ha in Vaalimaa), but inefficient procedures. It has all chances to increase throughput capacity considerably. Russian carriers are facing new challenge. Soon they will have to pay for usage of roads. The fee is 3.5 RUR/km for usage of all roads in Russia. It is estimated that this new fee will be equivalent to 1000 USD/month, or 20% of revenue. It is not clear if (or how) foreign carrier will pay for road usage.

http://www.della-ru.com/price/




14. The views of drivers.

This Section provides comments which are largely related to Section 2.1 c and d. of the TOR, i.e. terminal logistics and common planning and procedures (agency interoperability).

Drivers’ interviews

As part of the information gathering effort, a two pronged approach has been taken. First, drivers have been interviewed “on site”, e.g. at BCP waiting queue's. Secondly, questionnaires have been handed out to those drivers that have indicated to be prepared to spend the time and effort to fill one and return it to the team.

The interviews were held on the roadside in the queue by the translator and the logistics experts and were based on some base questions that were used to guide the discussions. The guiding questions were as follows;

Time use

How long have you been waiting in the queue?

Is this normal or is it often much more?

Are you often crossing this border?

Destination

Where are you coming from and going to?

How long will it take to drive there?

Border Crossing process

What kind of customs documents you have most of the time? (TIR / T1 / other)

Does it work properly or are there any specific problems with the documents?

If you have perishable goods such as fruit and vegetables, do you get priority?

Empty trucks, do they wait in the queue or does that go faster?

What about the transport inspection at the other side? Are they giving you a hard time?

Can you tell us a little more about the process of crossing the border here from your perspective? What is good and what is bad?

What about corruption?


It should be noted that these questions are guidance for the discussion, but many other subjects were covered along the way. Generally, drivers were, despite having sometimes spent many hours, up to days in the queue, very friendly and responsive. The drivers interviewed were Latvian, Russian, Belarusian, Polish, Lithuanian and Estonian and the interviews took place mostly at Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian borders as well as the Polish – Belarus border. In summary their replies are as follows:

Drivers spend anywhere between three hours (for perishable goods) and three days waiting at the border. The border crossing process itself can be easy on the (outgoing) EU side, but takes a minimum of 5 – 8 hours

8 on the other (Belarus, Russia) side,

though this also depends on the location of the crossing. This delay is despite the use of TIR Carnets for nearly all cargos, which are supposed to make the crossing process simple and easy. Processing TIR carnets on the outgoing side is generally easy, though at some BCPs, it may be a problem or not possible at all

9. The total crossing process

10,

including the waiting process “between borders”, can be as long as 12 to 24 hours just at the border between Poland and Belarus. If time spent on the approach roads to the BCP are considered, crossing times can be much higher, with drivers reporting the delays as being “days”.

Contrary to the Russian Customs practice, the Belarusian customs does not apply an additional seal to the cargo travelling under a TIR carnet but leaves the seal earlier applied as sufficient proof of closing. However, Belarus customs requires goods with a value of over 135.000 Euro (about 60.000 Euro of taxes to be paid) to travel escorted convoys across the BY territory. The cost of this is about 300 – 400 USD and convoys depart only once per day. This is during the winter in early morning and during the summer (when asphalt is hot and driving restrictions apply

11), during the night. The

convoy services are provided by the police.

There are no separate queues for TIR / Empty on either side of the border, but as most vehicles are using a TIR carnet, the queue is in fact a TIR queue.

Crossing into Belarus involves up to 10 different controls, even with a TIR carnet. The control processes sometimes involve X-raying the truck. To detect contraband and also the mandatory radiological checks (for further on steps, see the summary of the driver questionnaires). Though controls themselves do not take that much time, there is a lot of waiting between the different control steps, which is the cause of the accumulation of delay. Partially, this is also caused by the use of a batch system for controls at the BY side.

There is no corruption on the Belarusian side of the border, though several drivers reported that at the Polish side minor problems with the documents can be solved for a

8 Perishable goods, for general cargo, it can take up to 24 hours.

9 Problems were reported at the PL-BY border, while Narva crossing does not open TIR carnets. In Narva, a

terminal some 25KM from the border must be used to open carnets. 10

The time from entering the outgoing BCP to leaving the other side. 11

In Belarus, heavy vehicles are not allowed to be in the road when the temperature of the asphalt is over 30

degrees centigrade. This has been imposed to reduce damage to the generally excellent roads that the country

possesses.


small fee. Given the randomness of the process of assigning controls to customs officers, this appears to be an opportunistic event rather than a structured, institutionalised problem.

Drivers are aware of the Estonian E-queue system, though many are not exactly certain how it works. It should be noted that many drivers expressed their frustration with the borders and the delays, but also were rather cynical about the prospect of improvements. In effect, no one believes that there will be any improvement any time soon in the process of crossing the border. Most drivers indicated that the largest issue that they would like to see solved as soon as possible is the absence of a queue parking with facilities such as toilets and showers. This absence of a parking affects their ability to continue their journey after crossing the border but also is uncomfortable, as they cannot even sleep without a break as long as they are in the queue.

14.1 Summary of drivers’ questionnaires

The team distributed questionnaires to drivers through associations as well as in direct face to face meetings with drivers on the roadside at or near the BCPs visited, such as in the queue depicted below at Medininkai (Lithuanian side of the Lithuania – Belarus border). Interviews were also held at these locations.


In many places, especially on the CU side, batch systems are used for entry into the BCP area, batches can be between 10 and 15 vehicles, according to reports,

Routing slips are reported for every BCP,

Queue lengths are reported between 0 and 10 Km,

Waiting times in the queue are anywhere between half an hour and one day for the best performing borders (RU-FI), up to 60 hours for other borders,

Drivers have to move their vehicles generally once per hour when they are in the queue in order not to lose their place, though cases of up to 4 times per hour are reported,

Parking was reported to be both sufficient and insufficient, though this may be due to the different crossings and the different crossing times,

Typical Controls reported by nearly all drivers are:

passport control,

customs control

sanitary control

phytosanitary control,

traffic inspection

weight controls for vehicles that are not empty

The duration of controls, depending on the type, has been reported to be between “fast” (one minute) and up to 5 hours, generally though, most controls themselves last between a few minutes and up to half an hour, in extreme cases controls are reported to last several hours,

waiting time between controls can be between 1 minute and one hour. Drivers reported in a substantial number of cases waiting for up to one hour for a one minute inspection

12.

Most noteworthy are the consistent reports of long waiting times between controls despite the fact that some of these controls are minor. This is consistent with the use of a batch system, but also of the fact that there are bottlenecks in the processes at the BCP. Furthermore, it may point at unnecessary controls that are in practice no more than “going through the motions”.

12

This was reported several times and most likely refers to situation where drivers actually do not have any

business at a particular department (for example when empty), but simply need to go through the entire cycle to

collect their stamps on the routing slips.


15. The rail freight situation.

This Section by its nature covers all parts of Section 2.1. of the TOR regarding specific

aspects of border management which are to be addressed.

Rail Crossings in general between the EU and Russia and Belarus

The Rail Crossings between the EU and Russia / Belarus pose their own, unique problems though they are not as severe as the delays faced at the road crossings. The team has analysed the process of both passenger and freight transportation by rail and the findings are discussed below.

The EU and Former Soviet Rail system

Rail systems in the EU differ substantially as a result of the soviet legacy of the wide gouge railway. Where for example Latvia and Lithuania were equipped with 1435mm (normal European) rail tracks at the turn of the 19

th century, during the Soviet time these

were converted to the Russian 1520mm track. Thus, trains travelling from Poland to Belarus / Ukraine and from Poland to Lithuania need to change their boogies (wheel sets) to be able to continue their journey. Finland uses a track width of 1524mm, though this is within the tolerances that are allowed for track construction, so trains can drive from Finland to Russia without problem.

The above differences in rail profile have significant implications for train speeds. It implies that on the border (or near to the border) there will always be significant delays due to re-loading or change of boogies.


The border crossing process for cargo trains.

Most, if not all, cargoes on the trains are travelling under customs seal to and from their station of departure or arrival, mostly ports or large inland railway terminals. There are no customs clearance procedures at the borders themselves though a document check is / may be carried out. To illustrate the process, an example is taken from one of the border crossings between Estonia and Russia.

Entry to the EU

The railway crossing itself is a single track which crosses from Estonia into the Russian Federation. The track is served by two designated locomotives, one from Estonia and one from Russia. These locomotives shuttle between the two countries over a relative short distance and provide the actual crossing. If available, a radiation scanner and an X-ray are applied to the train. The x-ray is used to determine potential inclusions in the cargo of illegal goods. Mostly, smuggled goods are cigarettes and alcohol, which are even when purchased in Russia legally, much cheaper than in any EU country. The locomotives are, upon arrival searched for illegal goods which may be carried by the locomotive driver (again cigarettes and alcohol). The drivers are subject to passport control and need visas, even though they are only a few hundred metres into the territory and the area is a closed customs territory. Where no X-ray is available, cameras are used to monitor the train (especially open bulk carriages) for persons attempting to cross illegally.

The customs post receives approximately one hour advance notice of arrival of a train, but not necessary of the cargo it is carrying. The balance of goods however is as such that trains to the EU carry;

Liquid Fuels (crude oil as well as diesel and petrol)

bulk goods such as coal and various ores

Wood (mostly unprocessed)

Empty containers

From the EU into Russia, mostly trains carry:

Liquid Fuel (Jet Fuel)

Containers with consumer goods

empty bulk wagons

The trains stop at the nearest terminal from the border (this can be a station or a designated terminal) and here the locomotive is changed to one that provides the long distance transport to either an inland cargo station or to its final destination. Trains stay from one hour to up to a day at the border terminal / near station. Customs clearance is carried out at either the cargo station or the final destination, depending on need. In case X-ray is present and something is noticed on the pictures of the scan, action can be taken immediately or at the final destination.

During the change of locomotive, customs check is limited to a check that wagon and container numbers correspond to the documentation.


Furthermore, in the case of Poland and southward, e.g. the countries which are not directly connected to the Russian railway system such as the Baltic States and Finland and are not party of the SMGS, the consignment notes must be changed from SMGS

13

to CIM14

and the other way around as appropriate. This process takes place on the cargo station close to the border. Polish colleagues have stressed that effective use of their common SMGS / CIM consignment note is a major step forward for ensuring speedy and accurate clearance and subsequent monitoring of goods and therefore the Project recommends that best practice in this procedure be used as a model for clearance of goods.

In addition, in the case of trains crossing from Poland to Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic States, there is the need to reload the cargo at the point where the railway track changes from European Gauge to the Russian wide track. This process is in itself is a significant delaying factor, which would only be solved if one of the tracks were converted to another gauge.

Main conclusions

There is not much to be improved in relation to the process of crossing and clearing

cargo trains. The crossing process is relatively straight forward and does not involve long delays that relate to the border management itself. Border security and customs efficiency in stopping illicit goods could be improved by the installation of X-Ray equipment at all rail Border Crossings. Considering the cost of this equipment, both in acquisition and operation, it would be advisable to consider an agreement in sharing the raw scans between countries.

15 Unification of the types of consignment notes would

also improve cargo flows, though this is largely unrelated to the border crossing process itself, and therefore, as mentioned previously, Polish experience in introducing the common SMGS / CIM consignment note should be considered as a model for such unification.

16. The rail passenger situation.

This Section of the Report largely addresses parts c, d. and e of Section 2.1 of the TOR, namely terminal logistics, communications and common decisions and personnel knowledge.

Transport of passengers does not fundamentally differ from the transport of goods, though it is worth noticing the differences between the countries and its implications for speed of crossing now and in the future. In effect, two main approaches of rail crossing are found in the region:

- Passport and customs control on a driving train,

- the train is stopped and held for a certain period to complete passport and

13

SGMS: Agreement on International Railway Freight. Communications 14

CIM: International Agreement International Carriage of Goods by Rail 15

It has been noted that a lot of duplication in equipment takes place, all to be paid by taxpayers. A typical

BCP seems to need two of everything, even in the case of very expensive equipment.


customs formalities.

The first process, passport control on a moving train is currently only applied only on the Finnish – Russian border. All other crossings have passport control on a stationary train. When the train is stopped for passport control, this results in a delay of from 40 up to 55 minutes

16 at both sides of the border. This time is also used to change locomotive.

The control, regardless of if this takes place on a driving or stationary train also involves extensive search of all spaces in the train to ensure nothing is hidden. Portable passport scanners are used to scan passports and visas. The equipment works fine in the warm confinements of the train, but less good in the cold.

In the case of trains travelling to / from Belarus (for example the Paris to Moscow train), there is the need to change the boogies (wheel sets) of the train to / from the European gauge. This process can take several hours and mostly takes place at the Brest (Belarus) train station.

Alternatively, the passport and customs control takes place on the driving train (Finland), which removes a factor that causes lengthened journey times. The process is the same, but its viability depends on the distance from the departure station to the border and the number of stations between departure and border.

In most cases, such as the stations visited during the assessment (Narva, Zilupe (near Terehova), Koidula

17), the last station before the border (where the train stops for the

passport control) is a border control post in itself and passengers departing from that station are checked before entering the train. Passengers arriving from the other side of the border are also checked on arrival at the particular border station.

Passenger trains are subject to relatively long stoppages at borders that could be avoided or reduced by for example joint controls (in case there is a control on a stationary train, or controls on a driving train. However, the benefit / cost of this must be considered in the light of the length of the train journey. For example, in the case of the slow moving overnight sleepers travelling between Riga / Minsk, Moscow and St. Petersburg and some of the other Baltic Train lines, it does not really matter to passenger if journeys take 15 hours instead of 16.

17. Conclusions reached

The PT’s Conclusions need to be considered together with the Recommendations which follow on naturally at Sections 18 and 19. They are subject to the qualification that it was not possible to actually visit BMAs in Russia and Belarus, although drivers and transport operators were interviewed in Russia and PT members did observe operations on the Belarus side of the Lithuanian and Polish external border. The PT also met Belarus Customs colleagues when at the Polish BCPs. As with the recommendations, the Conclusions reached address all specific aspects of border management, as outlined in the TOR, especially at 2.1. They also address the

16

The Riga – Moscow time spends 55 minutes at the Russian side of the border for incoming passenger control 17

Koidula has currently no passenger traffic, but has been constructed in such way that this is possible.


findings which are used in the Recommendations to deliver the required outputs of the Study, as listed in Section 3.1 of the TOR ( deliverables a to d). However, the findings and recommendations do, by their nature, cover multiple aspects of border management. The categories in Sections 2.1. and 3.1. of the TOR are not exclusive. They need to be examined together with other categories, especially as recommendations in relation to one aspect usually impact on several other aspects. . The Project has therefore produced both its Conclusions and Recommendations along transport category and functional lines, with an emphasis on road traffic and particularly road freight. That section immediately below at 17.1 provides several examples where the categories interact, such as the use of the Estonian GoSwift traffic management system which impacts on both terminal logistics and communications and common decisions. The Conclusions are as follows.

17.1 Road freight

1. There is a lack of implementation of both the letter and spirit of international conventions on the speedy and efficient movement of goods, especially in relation to the TIR Convention, and the International Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods. This lack of implementation is seen by the PT as the most important issue in relation to cross border delays, even above the need to introduce queue management systems and to build vehicle terminals.

2. This lack of implementation is demonstrated by the excessive level of physical checks on consignments of goods.

3. The lack of implementation is also demonstrated by a lack of effective use of risk management systems in several states, which is a reason for the excessive level of physical checks.

4. These limitations are made more severe by a lack of sufficient staff for examination and risk analysis purposes.

5. There is a lack of flexibility in determining which errors in the supply of data and documents are material or not. Many drivers and several transport operators found their declarations rejected due to spelling errors.

6. There is a lack of vehicle terminals at several BCPs. This leads to long queues on public roads in conditions which lack proper sanitary facilities and, crucially, require truck and passenger coach drivers to be on duty for working time purposes, only to move their vehicles a few metres forward at a time. . This situation is particularly serious at borders which are on rivers (as many are) as the scope for physical expansion of the number of traffic lanes between BCPs is limited by bridge size or the additional cost of building bridges.

7. The use of batch systems for movements of trucks (and to a lesser extent for passenger vehicles ) is time consuming and inefficient, and greatly reduces the actual capacity of the BCP in relation to its design capacity. The situation


becomes even more problematic when batching is used for separate sequential processes, as no vehicles can proceed until all work on the batch of vehicles is completed. This is also inefficient in the use of processing booths which are not fully utilized as once the booth is clear it is not in use again until all the vehicles in the batch have been processed at the other booths.

8. The levels of delays within BCPs in Russia and Belarus are also substantive, as a result of what drivers feel are excessive levels of examinations of documents and of cargos, especially those in transit under Customs seal. There is often insufficient use of pre arrival information, where available, for risk management purposes, resulting in more vehicles being examined, and in greater depth, than international good practice suggests. However, the challenges here are understood by all parties consulted.

9. The limitations on use of pre arrival information in assessing risk have impacts on processing times in a number of ways. Russian Customs carries out physical inspections on a significantly higher proportion of freight consignments than do EU states. These checks have significant impacts on processing times. Physical inspections which use specialized equipment such as X ray scanners take much time due to the limited numbers of such expensive equipment which are available. Because of such limitations, large scale use seriously limits the daily capacity of BCPs by creating a bottleneck that cannot easily be enlarged. This is a clear example of the Project’s belief that procedural issues are key to improving border management. While physical infrastructures such as lane capacity – especially on bridges – are obviously important, these are seen as secondary to processing and management matters issues.

10. The lack of integration of IT systems, especially in the Customs Union, requiring the entry of the same data in several different systems is a major factor that increases the duration of the actual processing without adding value to the process.

11. There is limited use of continuous or automated risk profile information sharing between the Schengen Area and the CU. While generic risk profiling information is exchanged, all parties consulted stressed that the needs and priorities of the Schengen Area and the CU are different, with the CU placing much greater emphasis on fraud risks through undervaluation of goods. There is a need to coordinate and enhance the quantity and especially the quality of operational risk assessment information between the Schengen Area and the CU, taking into account the greater dependence of the CU on import duties and that the true unit values of goods imported into the CU tend to be significantly higher than goods exported to the EU. This obviously leads to greater opportunities for valuation fraud.

12. The EU electronic pre arrival data input system is not always as reliable as had been hoped for and electronic documents often need to be matched with paper ones. While the individual processing times are not great, the numbers of data are such that the delays mount up. The PT has noted the persistent concerns of all BMAs about the reliability of availability to databases, particularly information heavy ones. These concerns have potential implications for the Russian electronic pre arrival data input system due to be introduced in June 2012. The


transport operators’ community has suggested that the introductory period after 17

th June 2012 may lead to increases in levels of physical inspections due to the

electronic declarations being improperly submitted. This poses considerable risks and is consistent with common experiences throughout the world that new technologies often take some time to be perfected. This situation is therefore a risk, but is also an opportunity to examine any weaknesses or to make early and maximum use of successes

13. There is insufficient use of queue management systems such as the Estonian GoSwift system which has been compulsory in Estonia since 1

ST August 2011.

These systems are typically linked with the introduction of vehicle parks and are used by both freight and passenger vehicles. They are also key components of introducing Advance Passenger Information and Risk Management systems. They are under active consideration across the states studied, including in the CU. While such systems do not necessarily reduce the length of the queue they make it virtual rather than physical , or reduce crossing times, which are also dependent on the other factors identified as causing delays, they do make the use of the waiting time more productive, reducing costs, and enable drivers to wait without being deemed to have been driving, which is crucial for working time directive purposes.

14. There are delays travelling beyond the border into the CU as a result of differing approaches to the treatment of goods travelling under TIR status, where special arrangements have to be made if the universal value limit of 60,000 euros of duties ( Customs duties and VAT combined) if exceeded. Truck operators report that it is often difficult to arrange national guarantees in Russia and Belarus. As a result, they often have to travel in Customs arranged convoys (as they have no guarantees) and this causes significant delays.

15. There are insufficient rest and refreshment facilities near a number of key BCPs. This is compounded by the lack of sufficient highway lanes, leading to long queues of up to and exceeding 15 km. There is a serious lack of temporary mobile sanitary facilities in some locations. All parties consulted pointed out that while there are long term infrastructure upgrade plans, the current and expected near future financial situation means that highway capacity will not increase for many years.

16. There were reports from truck drivers of corruption among some BMA staff, (e.g. into or from Poland, and into Russia). However such claims were not made universally and some drivers specifically said that bribes were neither sought nor offered.

17.2 Road passengers

1. Several EU Border Guard Services expressed concern about the need to consider

all aspects of passenger processing modernisations together, rather than in isolation. Such an approach would be more likely to maximize the speedy but secure processing of passengers’ details and of their movements. The agencies made these comments in the context of their expectations of significant increases in


passenger traffic following any introduction of a visa free travel agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation or the CU as a whole.

2. Given that many road crossings are inherently capacity limited because they are in urban areas, thus limiting the number of lanes, delays to private and commercial passenger movements will inevitably limit the number of lanes available to freight traffic and vice versa. Several crossings in both urban and rural areas have considerable numbers of processing lanes and indeed terminals nearby (Koidula in Estonia and its counterpart Pechory in Russia, and at Koroszczyn in Poland on the Belarus border) but suffer severe delays due in part to lack of lanes. However, as previously mentioned, the management of processing of movements does remain the key to reducing these delays.

3. In the Schengen Area the processing of passengers is broadly effective given current levels of passengers. The limitations are more due to road capacity. However, in some urban locations such as Narva on the Estonian – Russian border there was limited capacity for the reception of coach passengers, leading to travellers waiting in the open before passport control. While an EU funded programme is increasing such capacity, simultaneously on both sides of the border, and will provide more weather proof indoor facilities for passport checks, these increases will still be challenged to deal with expected increases in movements.

4. There are generally sufficient traffic lanes for processing passengers, both private vehicles and in coaches. The challenges generally lie in between the BCPs, especially where bridges are used The latter vehicles are generally prioritized through use of specific lanes for particular types of traffic, especially passenger coaches. However, these prioritization procedures are sometimes abused by private cars and, as is the case with truck lanes, offer scope for corruption with priorities being given in return for payment..

5. There is generally a lack of lanes which are capable of being used in both directions. Where these are present, such as in Estonia (Narva, where lane capacity is crucial as it is a built up area) they contribute to speeding up the throughput of vehicles, and contribute to the ability to react quickly to the movement of emergency service vehicles and high priority traffic such as trucks with perishable goods, or for in lane customs and border guard inspections of private cars, typically in relation to cigarette smuggling.

6. The general lack of off BCP (terminal based) parking and, separately, of a queue management system also impacts on the movement of passenger vehicles, though to a lesser extent than for trucks. There is a limited amount of risk management used in selection of vehicles for detailed examination of personal documents and for use in Customs checks. The risk management profiles are complex to create as widespread differences in process of consumer goods and especially of excise goods (cigarettes, alcohol and road fuel) mean that large numbers of vehicles and users would meet the risk profiles. The use of queue management systems and separate but related Advance Passenger Information (API) systems would go some way towards improving profiles and thereby traffic flows, while protecting revenues.

7. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and, additionally closed circuit TV (CCTV) are generally widely available. These are used in relation to traffic management and to an extent in risk management. Some countries have


ANPR systems which are linked nationally, so that checks can be made automatically or instantaneously manually to identify BCP movements of the same vehicle through other BCPs. Such capabilities are extremely useful. Other states use centralized systems where BCPs have to manually check vehicle ownership. While these systems are available 24/7, the time required to do this puts pressure on staff and would cause processing delays and be likely to lead to less complete and effective prioritization of traffic.

8. There was widespread and deeply felt concerned expressed by BMAs that some equipment was unreliable, especially in cold weather or in severe rain. This was particularly the case regarding portable passport scanners which would be, and are, invaluable for checking passengers in vehicle queues and to avoid or reduce the need to leave coaches.

9. A connected, but separate issue, was the equally widely expressed view that the examination of documents and other special identification checks carried out under Schengen requirements, such as yearly fingerprint checks and resulting uploads and downloads in relation to visa holders, and for the transmission of identified suspect documents and data on the persons involved. These processes are often very slow indeed, particularly at peak times which are not that different across the entire Schengen Area. Such delays cause significant onward delays in processing persons and are compounded by access to the databases being down. This has very major implications in the context of visa liberalization.

10. There was, generally, a missed opportunity to carry out combined passport (border guards) and Customs checks while in the often long queues, when vehicles are stationary or semi stationary for considerable periods of time, and when vehicles were irrevocably committed to crossing as there was no room to turn back easily.

17.3 Rail freight

The situation regarding rail freight is generally satisfactory. Traffic is normally well within capacity, and crossing points generally have adequate capacity for shipping goods. There are at the rail BCPs sidings enabling trains to be divided and combined. Most goods entering the EU from the CU are actually cleared at the first cargo station beyond – not at – the border , or at the final destination, or at a modal transloading station. Advance notification of import declarations was considered acceptable, enabling document checks to be carried out together with physical inspections of trains on a 24/7 basis and, where available, X ray examination. The latter, such as at Koidula in Estonia or Zilupe in Latvia, are mainly used to detect smuggling of goods under the train or hidden in cargos and to identify illegal migrants hiding on freight trains. The major crossing point of Terespol in Poland is due to receive an X ray scanner in 2013. The Project was informed by Belarusian colleagues that there were currently no X ray scanners for rail freight in Belarus. The installation of such equipment would obviously be desirable. However, given the considerable costs involved in purchase and maintenance, it may be worth EU and CU states considering an agreement to share “raw” scans of cargos.


As described at Section 15. above, the Polish introduction of a common CIM /. SMGS Consignment Note ( SMGS being used by countries with direct access to the Russian rail system, i.e. the Baltic States and Finland, with CIM being used by Poland and other states without such access) should be considered as a model for clearance procedures and subsequent monitoring.

17.4 Rail passengers

The systems for the processing of rail passengers by Customs and Border Guards are well established at all locations visited and generally work well. Passenger checks are carried out on the train itself using mobile passport readers (Russia – Finland) or at railway stations which are themselves BCPs (e.g. at Narva and Terespol) where many passengers leave or board, going through controls in so doing. There are currently no formal API systems and these would in any case be mainly effective on long distance, often overnight. However Estonian Border Guards have an arrangement with their national rail operator which provides long distance passenger services to and from Russia. Information about passengers who are felt to be suspicious at the time of booking is notified to the Border Guards in advance. Such a system might for the basis of an API system, although it is accepted that there are practical difficulties compared with API use for air passengers.

18. Recommendations

The Recommendations follow on logically from the Conclusions. They are not necessarily given in order of priority, because such priority is difficult to define and if offered might lead to an excessively rigid response. Prioritisation will inevitably be an issue best decided by operatives in HQs and at BCPs and on transport routes. As was mentioned in Section 17. the Recommendations are given in largely functional categories, which nonetheless do address all categories which are specifically required to be addressed in the TOR ( reproduced at Appendix F, with specific subjects to be addressed and required outputs being listed at Sections 2.1 and 3.1).

18.1 High priority issues

Urgent consideration should be given to the introduction of queue management systems and the creation of vehicle terminals, ideally on both sides of the border simultaneously. Several states are looking actively at the recently introduced Estonian scheme, and which has been made compulsory in Estonia, and which Russia has recently announced it will test on the Russian side of the Estonian border at all the major BCPs including Ivangorod, from 1

st July 2012. Such systems are intended to be self-financing

which would free up scarce funds for road infrastructure enhancement, especially the building of more bridges. It is accepted that this is a long term challenge.


The Customs Services should cooperate more closely in providing data (sanitized if necessary to comply with data protection legislation) between each other to assist in creating more detailed and relevant risk profiles for the importation and export of goods. The profiles will differ significantly between the CU and the EU / Schengen Area. There would therefore be differences in the data provided. We place this recommendation so highly as this point was made very strongly by many border management agencies and by private sector operators. The recent joint report by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and the National Audit Office of Estonia ( Border crossing of cargo at the land border between Estonia and Russia – March 2012- see Appendix C) highlighted that while there was very close cooperation between the Border Guard services of Russia and Estonia, the cooperation was significantly less so between the two customs services. This is a major and complex task and consideration should be given to the secondment of staff between BCPs at the same crossing for significant periods of time, to ensure that the actual implementation of simplified procedures takes place, based upon the proactive use of complete and relevant data. Key Performance Indicators should be created to ensure early monitoring of results, simultaneously on both sides of the border, and in agreeing on what data categories are material and which are less material in that errors can be tolerated, at least in relation to allowing immediate crossing without return or the obtaining of wholly correct documents. Such deployments should also be developed further by Border Guards, noting the very recent planned exchange of staff between Lithuania and Belarus in relation to illegal migration. In the longer term, consideration should be given to the manning of joint BCPs where most or ideally all relevant procedures are carried out at one site. The practice by both Border Guards and Customs of processing vehicles and their drivers and passengers in batches should be ended wherever practicable. Truck drivers have reported extra delays when leaving Russia by a different crossing from the one that they have been “ booked” for, after diverting due to excessive delays at the originally intended crossing. This may be because the diversion may be deemed suspicious, but – whatever the reason- the diversion of a vehicle to a less congested crossing should not, in itself, be a reason for delay. The communications network capacities between computer systems, and thereby the resulting transmission speeds and system reliabilities of both Customs and Border Guards systems should be increased significantly, with wide margins built in for future rapid growth in demand. This is especially important in relation to ensuring the maximum effectiveness of any visa liberalization agreement. Similar attention should be given to sharing experiences between all the States regarding the performance and reliability characteristics of their current or planned portable passport readers and mobile X ray scanners, in order that protection and maintenance good practice may be shared.


Serious consideration should be given to the introduction and expansion of the use of API for both motor coaches and passenger trains. The costs of this to transport operators might be partly offset by the attraction of reduced passenger clearance times and resulting faster journeys. It is accepted there are practical challenges here. The experience of Russian, Belarusian and Polish (and, indeed, Ukrainian) Border Guards Services during the trial operations of such systems during the Euro 2012 football championships offers opportunities for a model. The degree of compliance with both the letter and spirit of international conventions such as the TIR Convention should be reviewed by all states in the NDP, in relation to a jointly agreed list of Key Performance Indicators measuring compliance and non- compliance.

18.2 Generic Border Management procedures

The establishment of joint BCPs manned by personnel from both sides of the border should be considered. There should be long term secondments of staff between adjacent BCPs while the question of joint BCPs is being considered.

New IT based technologies for improving the receipt of data enabling earlier identification of freight and passengers for prioritized swift movement should be introduced.

Such systems often involve complex technologies so they must be thoroughly tested before introduction.

The demands on IT systems are and will be very high so there should be significant extra capacity built in to allow for increasing demands and use which, without extra capacity, will significantly reduce data transmission times.

The impact of the new Russian web based pre arrival Customs information system, scheduled to be introduced on 17th June 2012, should be notified as soon as possible and on a regular on-going basis to neighbouring states regarding both the effect on clearance times, levels of physical inspections and on identification of risk. Neighbouring states should agree with Russian Customs on how they might publicise these impacts to economic and transport operators in their countries in order to maximize the levels of compliance and reduce the levels of non-compliance required by the new system.

The international conventions which the EU and CU States have ratified should be implemented in letter and spirit, especially the provisions of the TIR Convention requiring the unimpeded passage of goods unless there is good reason to carry out further checks.

Queue management systems such as the Estonian GoSwift system introduced in 2011 should be introduced as a matter of high priority. With the results, positive and negative, to be notified on a regular and formal basis to neighbouring states within the EU and the CU

Such queue management systems should be supplemented by the introduction of off BCP Vehicle terminals where road freight and passenger traffic can wait in reasonably comfortable conditions. Evidence from Estonia is that such queue management systems and the provision of the associated terminals can be self-


financing. Such terminals are felt to be particularly desirable at the Polish – Belarusian border at Koroszczyn ( Kukuryki – Kozlowiczy) and Terespol - Brest.

As a short term measure, more portable sanitary facilities should be introduced on approach roads which are subject to long queues, and this should be done as a matter of urgency.

The use of batch systems for the movement of goods and persons from and into Russia and Belarus should be replaced by flow systems. Project Team calculations show that such systems might reduce the capacity of any BCP by at least 20% and possibly by 40. Similar arguments apply to a lesser extent to passenger vehicles. Such systems would also offer opportunities to reduce alleged corruption regarding queue jumping. Drivers and transport operators made clear their views that such bribery occurred at Russian BCPs (e.g. Ivangorod) and in Poland (Koroszczyn/ Kukuryki).

The number of Customs procedures in the CU should be reduced significantly, with more procedures being carried out inland or through Post Clearance Audit. Such a need has already been recognized by the Russian government and is now national policy, as highlighted in a recent speech by then Prime Minister Putin.

Long term cross border cooperation between Border Management Agencies in the Schengen Area and the Customs Union should be increased, with consideration being given to automatic transmission of generic Risk Management criteria material which identifies the “risk status” of goods from the point of view of the transmitting agency, (though not necessarily person or company specific material).

Such information exchanges should be used to create a joint understanding of the common risk criteria used by BMAs, and of the separate risk criteria and priorities used in the Schengen Area and in the Customs Union. For reasons explained earlier in the Report, it is suggested that such work should especially take place between Poland and Belarus, Lithuania and Belarus together with Russia in relation to Kaliningrad traffic, and between Russia and Latvia using experiences of Estonia and between Russia and Finland. The results should be shared with all the other states participating (and with Ukraine in view of the similarity of the risk challenges there).

Such exchanges should be supplemented by regular short term secondments of staff between Schengen Area BMAs and Russian and Belarusian BMAs in order. These should be used in joint special exercises on high risk or high priority border management issues, and to review the effectiveness of previous special exercises such as the Russian / Belarus / Polish plans to use road and rail API data during the Euro 2012 Football championships, and Estonian plans to use a form of API to process passengers on the new increased rail passenger schedules between St Petersburg and Tallinn from May 2012. The June 2012 introduction by Russian Customs of a compulsory electronic pre arrival data input system in June 2012 would make such secondments of staff very timely.

The possibilities of greatly increasing the use of API for road and rail traffic should be considered. It may be possible to consider the further prioritization of prioritized movements of road passenger vehicles whose passengers have been


recorded under API. This may be commercially viable if higher fares and the inconvenience of submitting API information are offset by faster movement across borders.

Consideration should be given to something similar regarding the movements of goods supplied from, to or by Authorised Economic Operators (AEOs) with the States involved agreeing on mutual recognition of AEO lists, subject to strict safeguards. Views given in Finland showed that transport times for road freight into Russia are significantly reduced due to the operators being well known to, and verified by, Russian Customs.

Given the views expressed by truck drivers about corruption all agencies should consider training their staff in a wider range of tasks. This would enable them to be deployed at short notice (ideally at the beginning of a shift) to a range of tasks. This would reduce the capability to offer bribes, as those making the offer would be much less likely to know that a corrupt person was on duty.

18.3 Technical road freight procedures

As many technical procedures as possible should be moved away from the BCP. An example would be drive through vehicle weighing which could be done at a vehicle terminal and recorded in conjunction with recording of movement through the BCP via queue management systems and ANPR recordings.

There should be mutual recognition of all states’ Customs seals, with compulsory notification electronically if the seals are subsequently found to be tampered with.

More X ray machines should be made available on, ideally, a fixed and mobile basis, together with suitably heated facilities for their use. These would enable simultaneous as opposed to sequential examination of vehicles.

There should be closer cooperation between all states in this severe winter weather region regarding the technical specifications of X ray machines and their maintenance schedules. The need for reduced times between maintenance, due to severe weather demands, was highlighted during the Field Visits.

Russian and Belarusian Customs should liaise with Polish Customs regarding the possibility of joint training sessions in use of X ray scanners at Polish Customs’ training facility in Gdynia.

18.4 Generic Road freight procedures

1. There needs to be much greater publicity, including on websites, regarding the

key requirements for the submission of accurate import, export or transit documents. Mistakes or omissions which will result in the rejection of the documentation should be described clearly. Many drivers and operators explained that minor errors resulted in them having to get new documentation and a result their place in the queue was lost. Such events also create opportunities for corruption.

2. There should be a reduction in the number of trucks which are required to use escorted convoys in the CU. Given that convoys are required for high value consignments, there need to be simplifications of procedures for providing


national guarantees where the value of duties and taxes on the goods exceeds 50,000 euros. The June 2012 electronic pre arrival system will offer opportunities for such simplifications.

3. Given that there are often rest and recreation facilities within BCPs, BMAs should cooperate with each other in assisting truck drivers by not releasing vehicles to cross until they receive notification from counterparts that the route is clear. This is particularly important where the crossing is at a bridge which is inevitably limited regarding the number of lanes.

18.5 Generic and technical road passenger procedures

1. More use should be made of mobile passport readers, with consideration being

given to using them in vehicle queues. 2. The Schengen Area and CU states should cooperate on agreeing common technical

standards for weather proof portable passport readers. 3. Staff training should be reviewed regarding the processing of identity checks

required under Schengen procedures for verifying visas, such as fingerprint scans. Delays due to staff lack of familiarity were noted at the Polish – Belarus border.

4. The EU and CU states should highlight the severe pressures on the Schengen Information System and its reliability problems at peak times. Border Guards made clear that the slow upload and download times caused queue backlogs at peak times.

5. All BCPs should have direct access to vehicle registration and ownership data and to ANPR derived data regarding movements of vehicles across all a country’s BCPs. This is vital for improving risk profiling and reducing the number of physical checks required to be carried out. It is accepted that both the Schengen states and the CU face particular challenges regarding the smuggling of fuel, cigarettes and alcohol.

6. API systems should be introduced or extended based on experience in the June 2012 Football Championships ( Russia- Belarus – Poland) and consideration should be given to allowing passengers on API coaches to remain on the coaches with their documentation being checked using mobile scanners or collectively at the passport counter after having been delivered by the driver.

7. Where queue management systems and API are not made compulsory, system users should be able to use priority lanes and priority passport counters.

18.6 Generic and technical rail freight procedures

1. X ray scanners should be introduced at all rail BCPs which currently do not possess

them. 2. There should be secondments of staff between rail BCPs regarding joint training in

use of X ray scanners, e.g. between Brest and Terespol when the latter receives a scanner in 2013.

3. The EU States which supply high value goods to the CU (e.g. aviation fuel) should be invited to supply data to the CU Customs Services regarding the latters’


requirements in relation to the introduction of the electronic pre arrival declaration system in June 2012.

4. All States should consider the exchange of staff on special exercises in relation to revenue protection and especially security. Exchanges in relation to heroin smuggling and illegal migration risks from rail convoys of NATO equipment being withdrawn from Afghanistan from 2013, or from a deterioration in domestic security situations in Afghanistan after that date, may provide experience which may be useful in making security preparations for the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

5. All States should consider studying Polish practices in relation to the creation of the common CIM / SMGS consignment note.

6. The joint Russian / Estonian audit services’ report of March 2012 on border cargo procedures (road and rail) between Estonia and Russia has highlighted the need to consider building veterinary inspection facilities for live animals imported into the EU by rail at Narva.

18.7 Generic and technical rail passenger procedures

1. All states should consider the introduction of passport checks on the train while

moving or, in severe weather, while at the BCP ( where the rail gauges change, delays are required anyway so checks on board at the BCP do not result in significant delays to the journey).

2. In order to enable more effective and less disruptive Customs and Border Guards checks on board, API systems should be set up for long distance trains. As such trains are typically likely to include asylum seekers, such information would provide significant advance warning and enable extra resources to be deployed to process such persons.

3. Special exercises should be carried out jointly by the Schengen Area and CU Customs and, especially, Border Guards, regarding joint risk profiling and in developing with rail operators current Memoranda of Understanding regarding the advance notification of suspect passengers by the train operator to the Border Guards in the country of destination. Such a system is currently used by Estonian Border Guards in relation to long distance trains from Russia.

19. Recommendations on Border Crossing Points requiring prioritisation of

modernisation and introduction of new procedures

The suggested BCP locations for implementation of the Recommendations are presented here in order of geographical location, from north to south. The BCP locations are listed in Table 1 below ( those BCPs which were visited) and in Table 2 ( those not visited but deemed appropriate for inclusion in modernisation programmes).


The recommended locations are not listed in order of priority, as the PT believes that the states which are members of the Partnership would wish to have at least one BCP in their country considered for prioritization of modernization.

1. Storskog (Kirkenes) – Borisoglebsk (Norway – Russia) 2. Vaalimaa – Trorfyanovka and Nuijimaa- Brusnichnoe (Finland – Russia) 3. Narva – Ivangorod and Luhamaa – Shumilhino ( Estonia – Russia) 4. Terehova – Burachki and Grebneva – Ubylinka ( Latvia – Russia) 5. Kybartai - Chernyshevskoe ( Lithuania- Russia – Kaliningrad) and Medininkai –

Kamenny Log ( Lithuania – Belarus) 6. All the Polish – Belarus crossing points in the immediate area of Terespol /

Koroszczyn and Brest ( i.e. Kukuryki- Kozlowiczy and Terespol – Brest) in relation to the introduction of queue management systems and more freight and passenger terminals, in order to reduce currently extremely long queues.

7. Grzechotki-Mamonowo and / or Bezledy -Bagrationovsk (both Poland – Kaliningrad)

During the final selection of Border Crossing points for field visits, the Project Team took into account such factors as:

Location of BCPs on main regional transport corridors

Traffic volumes

Reported length of queues and other problems

Implementation of new systems and technologies (e.g. GoSwift electronic queuing system, etc.)

Reasonable geographic coverage, i.e. visiting at least one BCP in every border segment

Support from BMA authorities of selected host countries

Close proximity to railway border crossings There were a number of factors which led to these decisions. Volumes of current and expected future traffic were important factors, but not the only ones. Each Schengen Area country was considered in order that current practices regarding border management and ideas and plans for the future would be shared across all the states in the Partnership. As the situation on one side of an external border is inevitably related to the circumstances on the other side, it follows that there would need to be consideration of the equivalent BCPs in Russia and Belarus. Where there is reasonable geographical proximity or the relative absence of other or BCPs, the proposed BCPs are recommended in order to act as examples where good practice in implementing modernisation would be cascaded in order to be in neighbouring states or in current or future alternative routes in the same state. It was also taken into account that a particular border should not be neglected. It was for this reason that crossings between Russia (Kaliningrad) and Poland were proposed. It is admitted that these choices were somewhat speculative as although the PT wished to visit BCPs in the region it was not possible to arrange such visits and during the visit to Koroszczyn (Kukuryki BCP opposite Kozlowiczy, and Terespol opposite Brest) all time


was allocated to discussion of challenges and opportunities at these very high volume crossing points. The proposed Kaliningrad – Poland BCPs are therefore suggested in relation to modernisation of border management procedures, rather than infrastructures as such, as the PT has been told, subject to the completion of the Field Visits, that modernisations have been carried out. The choice of the (only) BCPs on the Norwegian – Russian border was also chosen for the reason that each border had to be represented, and also as good practice experience tested out there would be of use in relation to any future expansion of capacity in the far north of the Russian – Finnish border. The selection of BCPs was also linked to the layout of the road and rail networks (although in the case of rail routes the PT found that procedures were efficient and that the methods used in relation to rail freight and rail passenger movements such as the very beginnings of movements towards API systems and especially the clearance of commercial freight at inland clearance depots would serve as examples for road freight). During its travelling between BCPs to carry out the Field Visits, the PT observed traffic movements along main road corridors and the major alternatives, such as at Kukuryki – Kozlowiczy on the main Berlin – Warsaw – Brest - Minsk – Moscow corridor, and at Medininkai in Lithuania which is both an alternative route for that corridor and the most direct routing from Moscow to Kaliningrad. The desirability of ensuring that routes, and related BCPs, to both Moscow and St Petersburg were supported was also a factor. The inclusion of the Finnish routes from Russia and related crossings reflects the fact that these routes relate to movements to and from both St. Petersburg and Moscow, and the potential impact of the introduction of a visa free regime between Russia and the EU, given the relative proximity of Helsinki and St Petersburg to each other. There was also the need to consider the importance of freight links between Sweden, Denmark and Norway and St Petersburg and Moscow, given the lack of realistic alternatives through northern Finland or via Denmark or Germany. The decision regarding the Estonian and Russian locations was to encourage the widest possible sharing of best practice in relation to Estonian implementation of their GoSwift queue management system and to also take account of the potential impact of a visa free agreement given the proximity of Tallinn and St. Petersburg. The selection of Narva – Ivangorod is made in order to demonstrate the impact of recommended changes in the context of locations where physical expansion of capacity is currently limited due to the BCPs being in the centre of the cities. That location is also proposed in order to place the effectiveness of queue management systems in their full context, i.e. in physically restricted areas and also in locations where there is room for physical expansion such as at Luhamaa – Shumilkino in Estonia and Russia. There would also be particular scope for linking the use of the queue management system in Estonia with the impact on freight clearance times resulting from Russia’s introduction of the compulsory electronic pre arrival declaration system to be introduced in June 2012. As there are plans for physical expansion of BCP capacity at Narva – Ivangorod through building a bridge north of the city centres, to be linked with new terminal capacity on the


Russian side and the existing terminal capacity in Estonia, this would also enable preparations to be made in advance for the most effective use of that capacity. This could be useful for the planned capacity increases between Kaliningrad and Lithuania through the building of a new bridge between Sovietsk and Panemune. The recommendation in relation to the Latvian – Russian crossings at Terehova – Burachki and Grebneva – Ubylinka (Latvia – Russia) are to reflect the locations as relating to Moscow and St Petersburg traffic respectively and also that these routes are to some extent alternatives to each other. Terehova is felt to be in need of physical refurbishment while Grebneva has recently received extra equipment. Their needs and opportunities thereby complement each other and both face similar challenges given the limited transport infrastructure in the approaches to the BCP. As previously mentioned, in relation to Lithuanian – Belarusian crossings, the Medininkai – Kamenny Log route is the main alternative to the Moscow- Minsk – Warsaw – Berlin corridor, and on the direct route (Kybartai) and indirect route ( Panemune) to Kaliningrad. Medininkai faces considerable challenges because of the high demand on this route, with very long queues. However, its relative proximity to Vilnius offers opportunities for terminal based queue management systems, using existing parking facilities in the Vilnius area. The PT noted the effective use of existing parking spaces in Narva city as well as the building of a new facility outside at Sillamae. The proposal regarding Kybartai - Chernyshevskoe reflects the location of the BCPs on the most direct route between Kaliningrad and Moscow. In relation to the Polish – Belarus border, the PT highlights that the location of Koroszczyn ( Kukuryki) and Terespol road freight and road passenger BCPs on the main Berlin – Moscow corridor is reflected in the sheer volumes of traffic and the wide variety of that traffic. The testing out of the recommendations regarding non-physical infrastructure methods of simplifying crossings is felt by the PT to be crucial for determining what will work and what will not, either with or without modifications. While there are alternative routes for very long distance traffic ( it was stressed to the PT that there was a lot of this) there are fewer alternatives for short haul traffic, without incurring proportionately serious delays. The situation there demonstrates how excellent and modern onsite terminal facilities (including space for a joint BCP if this could be arranged) is of limited effectiveness because of delays in crossing into Belarus. These delays are linked to the need to carry out clearance checks on behalf of the CU as a whole and the continuance of relatively high numbers of physical checks on movements of passenger vehicles and, especially, trucks. There is also a clear need to consider the early testing of queue management systems in connection with the introduction of nearby but off BCP vehicle terminals. Some sites were seen which appeared to the PT to be suitable for such terminals, although it is accepted that much of the surrounding area is marshy or restricted in use. The proposal to include Grzechotki-Mamonowo and / or Bezledy -Bagrationovsk (both Poland – Kaliningrad) is made in order to maintain the principle of including routes which would act as alternatives to other proposals. Introduction of new management


procedures at Grezchtoki – Manonowo is more likely to be cascaded to the nearby Gronowo – Manonowo BCP than to Bezledy – Bagrationovsk so the latter is suggested as an additional or alternative BCP to Grezchtoi – Manonowo. These proposals are also made to ensure modernisation between Poland and Kaliningrad in order to avoid excessive pressure on the more direct routes to St Petersburg and Moscow through Lithuania. Table 1 below shows major BCPs between (EU) Schengen Area and Russia and Belorussia which were visited during the Field Visits. (Source: Project Team Consultant, based on map of http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/map-europe.htm. It will be noted that these are on major transport corridors.

Table 1 Border Crossing Points visited by the Project Team during the study

BCP EU BCP CU Roads Visited on

Medininkai

(LT)

54°32'50" N

25°41'25" E

Kamenny Log (BY)

54°32'35" N

25°42'15" E

A3 (E28) – M7:

Vilnius – Minsk

2 April

2012

Panemune

(LT)

55°05'10" N

21°54'30" E

Sovietsk (RU-KGD)

55°04'55" N

21°54'15" E

A12 (E77) / A216:

Klaipeda – Kaliningrad

3 April

2012

Terehova

(LV)

56°21'20" N

28°11'10" E

Burachki (RU-PSK)

56°21'20" N

28°11'50" E

A12 (E22) / M9:

Riga - Moscow

4 April

2012

Zilupe (LV)

56°23'30" N

28°07'05" E

Posin’ (RU-PSK)

56°20'35" N

28°16'10" E

Railway Crossing 4 April

2012

Nujamaa (FI)

60°57'40" N,

28° 32' 50" E

Brusnichnoe (RU-

LED)

60°56'00" N,

28°33'40" E

13 / A127:

Lappenranta – Vyborg

16 April

2012

23 April

2012

Koidula (EE)

57°50'10" N

27°35'40" E

Kunichina Gora

(RU-PSK)

57°49'55" N

27°35'50" E

63 / A212:

Tartu – Pskov

18 April

2012

http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/map-europe.htm



Koidula (EE)

57°50'14" N

27°35'05" E

Pechory-Pskovskie

(RU-PSK)

57°50'15" N

27°37'55" E


2012

Narva (EE)

59°22'40" N

28°11'45" E

Ivangorod (RU-LED)

59°22'35" N

28°12'40" E

1 / E20:

Tallinn – St

Petersburg

19 April

2012

Narva (EE)

59°22'07" N

28°12'00" E

Ivangorod (RU-LED)

59°22'04" N

28°14'03" E


2012

Vaalimaa (FI)

60°36'20" N,

27°51'10" E

Torfyanovka (RU-

LED)

60°35'40" N,

27°54'30" E

E18 / M10:

St Petersburg – Kotka

– Helsinki

23 April

2012

Kukuryki

52°06'40" N

23°33'40" E

Kozlovichi

52°07'15" N

23°34'15" E

68 / M1 (E30):

Warsaw – Minsk –

Moscow

25 April

2012

Terespol

(PL)

52°04'15" N

23°38'35" E

Brest (Varshavski

Most) (BY)

52°04'25" N

23°39'35" E

2 / H450 (E30):

Warsaw – Minsk –

Moscow

26 April

2012

Table 2 Alternative Border Crossing Points not visited during the study but

including BCPs recommended for modernisation programmes

Table 2 shows BCPs which were considered for visiting but were not visited for various reasons (no timely approval from national BMA or very strong similarity to alternative

BCPs visited during the Study. Those BCPs which are not listed in bold text are included in the proposals for modernisation prioritization.

BCP NOR BCP RU Roads

Storskog (NOR)

69°39'30" N 30°12'15" E

Borisoglebsk (RU-MUR)

69°39'20" N 30°12'15" E

E105:

Kirkenes – Murmansk

Luhamaa (EE)

57°38'30" N

Shumilkino (RU-PSK)

57°38'40" N

7 / A212 (E77):

Tartu – Pskov


27°22'25" E 27°23'15" E

Grebneva (LV)

56°52'10" N 27°49'50" E

Ubylinka (RU-PSK)

56°52'25" N 27°50'00" E

A13 (E262) / A116:

Pskov - Daugavpils

Kybartu (LT)

54°38'35" N 22°44'40" E

Chernyshevskoe (RU-KGD)

54°38'30" N 22°44'30" E

A7 (E28) / A229:

Kaunas - Kaliningrad

Bezledy (PL)

54°22'10" N

20°39'40" E

Bagrationovsk

(RU-KGD)

54°22'20" N

20°39'35" E

51 / A195:

Warsaw - Kaliningrad

Gronowo (PL)

54°26'00" N 19°53'45" E

Mamonovo (RU-KGD)

54°26'20" N 19°54'05" E

54 / A194:

Gdansk - Kaliningrad

Grzhechotki

(PL)

54°25'10" N

20°03'45" E

Mamonovo 2 (RU-

KGD)

54°26’ N

20°05’ E

S22 / P156:

Berlin – Elblag - Kaliningrad

Bobrowniki

(PL)

53°07'25" N

23°53'25" E

Berestovica (BY)

53°07'20" N

23°53'55" E

65 / P99 (to M1):

Warsaw –Minsk – Moscow

Slawaticze

(PL)

51°46'00" N

23°35'10" E

Domachevo (BY)

51°45'45" N

23°36'05" E

63 / P94:

Warsaw – Minsk – Moscow (35

km from E30)

Map 1 Location of BCPs visited in the Field Visits Source: Consultant, based on map of http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/map-europe.htm




Narva – Ivangorod

Koidula – Kunichina Gora

Vaalimaa – Torfianovka

Nujamaa – Brusnichnoe

Terespol – Brest

Medininkai –Kamenny Log

Panemune – Sovietsk

Terehova – Burachki

Kukuryki - Kozlovichi

Photos of BCPs

The following photos are reproduced in order to demonstrate key findings, Conclusions and Recommendations in the Study Report


Picture 1. Russian Finnish border. Truck waiting area in Torfianovka (Russia), facing towards the BCP (in further left side of the picture) in direction of Vaalimaa (Finland).

Note that the waiting area is certainly not full, demonstrating that movements are fairly quick into the BCP.

Picture 2. Truck waiting area before at BCP Vaalimaa (Finland)

Note that the waiting area is busy, indicating longer waiting times for entry into Russia.


Picture 3. Truck waiting area at BCP Vaalimaa (Finland)

This further photograph confirms the view that the waiting area for entry into Russia is rather full, on the most direct route between Helsinki and St. Petersburg.

Picture 4. Layout of Russian BCP Brusnichnoe opposite Finnish BCP Nuijamaa

Duty Free Shop

Cargo Customs Terminal

Cargo Passport Terminal

Passenger Passport and Customs Terminal

FI

RU


The two step approach for trucks will be noted (Customs, then passport) whereas for passenger

traffic these are at the same terminal.

Picture 5. Passenger transport waiting area in Narva (Estonia)

The waiting area is relatively empty, as a queue management system is in operation meaning people have already pre booked before arriving at the waiting area. This means their time can be spent more productively. Facilities are fairly limited, but this is because the waiting area is in a built up area. Facilities at a rural area like Koidula are more extensive (nearing completion as of April 2012).

Figure 5. Road Border Crossing Point Koidula (Estonia) opposite Kunichina Gora

(Russia)

The relatively large number of traffic lanes into Russia will be noted, together with the categorisation of their use.


Picture 6. Koidula car park with GoSwift queuing system (Estonia)

The traffic light system is used to notify the registration number of the vehicles (s) which should proceed to the BCP itself, which is located on the same site.

Picture 7. Passenger border crossing in Narva (Estonia)

The BCP is obviously in the city centre and is receiving coach passengers from Russia. Customs and Border Guards processing is co-located. More sheltered waiting space is being built in both Narva and Ivangorod using EU funding.


Picture 8. Queue of passenger cars between Narva bridge and Border Crossing

Point (Estonia)

This photo taken in the direction of movement after crossing the bridge from Russia and on approach to the BCP at Picture 7 shows the limits imposed by geography.


20. BCP based testing of recommended measures

As outlined in the Executive Summary there is no single measure, or even set of measures, which the PT believes would largely resolve the problems faced in ensuring significantly reduced crossing times for persons, vehicles and goods. However, there are some measures which are felt to be more important than others and the PT now presents proposals for testing out their effectiveness. It is felt to be essential for the testing exercises to be objective and fair that individual issues are tested first, before moving on to the testing of several issues simultaneously at the same place or places. It is felt to be equally important that local (BCP), regional and national managers are involved in evaluating all steps of the testing process. This is because the tests would need to be known to all participants as being experimental. Any lack of impact would not necessarily mean that the participants had been less than effective in implementing the measure. It might be that the measure was in itself inappropriate, or external events had had an impact on the outcome. A measure appropriate in one set of circumstances might be inappropriate in another. The results, with all the qualifying circumstances taken into consideration, would then need to be shared with other BCPs, including where appropriate those across the border. Further steps would then need to be taken, such as abandoning the measure, repeating it at a different time of year, at a different location or a combination of these. Decisions would need to be reached regarding which measures should be combined. This would all take considerable time. This list is not given in order or priority, and is certainly not exhaustive. The term “implement” means in this context implementing on a temporary and experimental basis.

1. Repeat the special measures being introduced between Russia, Belarus and Poland for movements of passenger coaches during the Euro 2012 Championships. How were crossing times impacted? Were like for like detections of violations increased or decreased. Such exercises would obviously be of relevance for planning for the 2018 World Cup.

2. Implement the undertaking of both BG and customs duties by BG staff regarding persons and non-freight vehicles, as was implemented until a few years ago in Belarus. What is the impact on crossing times, and on detections of smuggled goods (on the understanding that the detections are then handed over to Customs). Does the freeing up of Customs staff for more in-depth checks on freight have a positive effect on Customs work. Do suspected smugglers suddenly stop using the BCPs using such experimental systems, and go elsewhere.

3. Implement the current Estonian system whereby the train operator on long distance passenger routes from Moscow and St Petersburg notifies Estonian BG of suspect persons. Is this reducing the processing time for these persons, and do enquiries confirm or dismiss the suspicion? There are obvious common


interests here for the CU and EU / Schengen Area in relation to travellers from Afghanistan should there be an upsurge of refugees.

4. Test out the revenue impact from a major reduction in the proportion of physical checks on freight consignments into the EU. Are declared values reduced, and if so, how soon and by how much. Are there suspicious changes to the types of goods declared or to the volumes declared?

5. Deploy customs officers to the adjacent BCP across the border on a mutual basis for an extended period of time with a specific set of instructions on a small number of important activities, in order to share best practice. What are the results? Such deployments might well be carried out simultaneously at a wide range of BCPs.

6. In relation to BCPs with particularly severe delays for freight, and with high levels of rejections of pre arrival information entries, carry out tests involving relaxations of the information requirements, by accepting that omissions or mistakes in certain information categories are not considered material for the purposes of the test exercise. Comparisons of crossing times could then be made with crossing times at the same BCP when there is no relaxation of document completion criteria. Such tests would in effect act as tests of the effectiveness of the introduction of the new Russian pre arrival system to be introduced in June 2012. This should be accompanied by measures to ensure that trucks which decide to change their exit BCP due to congestion are not delayed unless there are other grounds for suspicion.

7. The PT has highlighted what it sees as the potentially very significant impact introducing free flow systems for the movement and processing of passenger vehicles and freight, whereby vehicles move continuously rather than in small groups which only move on to the next process after all persons or vehicles in the group (the “batch”) have been processed. Where batch systems are in use, the PT suggests that experiments be carried out simultaneously at several BCPs to determine what changes in processing times occur, both. The resulting analysis would examine comparative changes at the BCP alongside comparable data from similar test exercises at other BCPs.

8. Consideration should be given to carrying out several medium term exercises in sharing operational and numerical risk analysis criteria between the EU States and Russia and Belarus, in relation to a list of risk priorities provided by the other State (i.e. each State is assisting the other state by sharing ideas on how it would identify the risks which are seen as priorities by that other state, rather than merely requesting information to assist itself). Has such sharing resulted in reductions in physical checks and thereby in reduced crossing times? Has it resulted in higher or stable detection rates of irregularities? Has it resulted in revenue receipts remaining as high as would have been otherwise expected, or higher?

There is a specific reason for proposing that each state provide a regular exchange of information in relation to the revenue protection and public safety responsibilities of the BMAs on the other side of the external border. While there are common interests, there are also, especially in relation to Customs matters,


many differences in emphasis. The EU states face challenges in relation to the smuggling of excise goods such as cigarettes and road fuel. The CU states face challenges in relation to the gross undervaluation of imported consumer goods. In both cases the sheer volumes of transactions mean that case by case notifications of information of interest may well not be enough to enhance the effectiveness of risk analysis systems on a significant and sustainable basis.


Appendix A – Identification of Core road and rail transport corridors

This Appendix should be examined in relation to Section 19 of the main body of the

Study Report - Recommendations on Border Crossing Points requiring

prioritization of modernization.). and the Map showing major BCPs between

Schengen Area and Russia and Belorussia, presented at the beginning of this Report. Particular attention is drawn to Table 1 in Section 19, which lists major BCPs located on what the PT has identified as being core transport corridors. The identification of these routes and related BCPs is based upon the traffic volumes identified during research for the Study’s Inception Report, and the descriptions of the Core Transport Corridors as outlined in reports such as Preparing the Northern

Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics, (Final Report, as updated 30th

June 2011). The core corridors are seen as including in practice, the road and rail links between Moscow and St Petersburg through Finland to Scandinavia, and through Latvia and to some extent Estonia. They also include the road and rail routes between Moscow and Minsk to Warsaw and Berlin, and finally Rotterdam and Paris. Other routes within the Northern Dimension Partnership in the proximity of those corridors are seen as being supplementary to the main corridors, e.g. between Minsk and Vilnius to the Baltic Coast and Poland, reflecting the extreme pressures on the Moscow – Minsk – Brest – Warsaw Corridor. The PT also felt it needed to take account of each Partnership state’s interest in ensuring that its own access to any modernisation is assured. The PT has also considered the desirability of regarding routes between the EU states and both Moscow and St Petersburg as priorities. It is for these reasons that routes between Tallinn and St Petersburg and between Riga and St Petersburg (via Estonia) as well as between Riga and Moscow are considered.

The PT’s Recommendations at Sections 19 and 20 of the Main Report are made in

this light. Where appropriate, the Recommendations relate to transport infrastructure beyond the immediate area of the BCPs. In particular, the PT has placed great emphasis in creating off- BCP vehicle terminals to be used together with effective queue management systems and, even more importantly, alongside the introduction of improved logistical systems such as free flow movement and much reduced numbers of border crossing processing procedures. Such terminals and related systems will not be fully effective without upgrades to the road networks nearby. However, the PT saw several examples where road network upgrades had not prevented the persistence of very long queues, indicating that modernisation issues need to be looked at together, and not in isolation. It was not possible to carry out a Field Visit to the Norwegian – Russian border. However, the PT has recommended that the direct road links between northern Russia and Northern Norway be prioritised in cooperation with the proposed recommendations for other BCP combinations in the other Partnership states. This is because the


geographical distance from more populated areas far to the south means that are far fewer alternative corridors, so this border needs to be looked at directly. Also, the wider transport infrastructure needs are likely to be new, rather than upgrades of existing systems. In relation to the BCPs between Russia (Kaliningrad) and Poland visits were proposed in the Inception Report. However, it was not subsequently possible to carry out these proposed visits. Therefore, the decision to include the two suggested BCPs as suitable for early prioritised introduction of border management procedures modernisation was somewhat speculative, but was made to ensure that all borders were included. These BCPs have recently undergone partial infrastructure modernisation, which is a major reason for emphasising modernisation of procedures. .


Appendix B - Border Management Agency Questionnaire Responses

These are listed in the chronological order in which the Field Visits took place.

Lithuania – Belarus Border: Medininkai – Kamenny Log 2nd

April 2012

Infrastructure and logistics 1. What are the current capabilities for processing freight vehicles (and their crews),

commercial road passenger vehicles and private passenger vehicles? Do you have multiple manned clearance and passage points (e.g. Border Guard desks)?

There are multiple lanes for exit and entry of private vehicles, buses and separately freight vehicles (5 each inwards for cars and buses and freight vehicles, and 5 and 4 outwards). There is a special lane inwards for vehicles subjected to closer checking (“level 2”), together with a vehicle park for such vehicles arriving from Belarus. This has limited capacity. There are multiple document checking lanes. Rail freight traffic with Russia / Belarus is largely transit traffic to and Kaliningrad and therefore Lithuanian resources are concentrated on other transport routes under the terms of the Lithuanian – Russian agreement on such transits. Broadly, the capacity situations at all of Lithuania’s core international BCPs with Russia and Kaliningrad are at full capacity. The current and planned transport strategies recognise this and increases in traffic lanes are seen as priorities. Prognoses of transport flows are available and the Border Crossing Management Strategy to 2017 is a cross government programme. 2. What are your current capabilities for processing freight trains? And for passenger

trains? Do you have sidings on the line or lines? Nearest railway BCP near Medininkai is Kena railway BCP and nearest railway from Panemune is Pagegiai railway BCP. There are 9 train lines in Pagegiai railway BCP (7 spare lines that can be used for examination). There are visual control possibilities including overlooking passing train carloads from pedestrian overpass above and physical control possibilities in sidelines. Main Russian transit flow on railway crosses Kena railway BCP and Kybartai railway BCP. In Kybartai railway BCP there are 17 train lines. Kybartai railway BCP Customs post territory coincides with Kybartai railway station, that is owned by government railway company AB “Lietuvos geležinkeliai“. There are multiple ways to examine passing trains with passengers or cargo in Kybartai railway: 1) overlook passing trains from pedestrian overpass above train lines; 2) passengers are examined when train is halted at a train station for a period of time, that is set by railway company, but coordinated with the


customs; 3) suspicious passengers may be detrained for further examination in customs room; 4) train carloads with cargo can be examined more closely in train sidelines; 5) if customs officers suspect, that particular carloads are of a great risk but are not able to inspect them thoroughly in Kybartai, then these suspicious trains (carloads) are redirected to Vilnius Vaidotai train station, where customs have very good equipment to perform necessary examination of a carload. In Kybartai BCP as well as in Kena and Panemune BCP‘s there are State Veterinary Service. In both Kybartai and Kena BCP‘s radiation gates are also located. Stream capacity in Kybartai - from 10 to 20 trains (500 to 1000 carloads) per 24 hours. In Kena BCP there are 9 train lines. Possibilities for examining passenger and cargo trains are practically the same as in Kybartai BCP. In Kena BCP there are also static carload scales and powerful x-ray designed specifically to inspect carloads. In all railway BCP Licence plate recognition system is in use (able to read all carloads licence plate numbers).

3. Are your facilities manned at the same levels at all times (24/7)? If not, how do they

differ, and at what times? Yes in the case of road crossings. For rail, manning is for periods immediately before, during and immediately after scheduled crossings. Customs staff work 24 hour shifts, Border Guards 12 hour shifts. Customs staff at major BCPs often have to travel long distances to work. 4. Are your facilities affected by particular weather conditions? If so, by which

conditions and how? Have there been any changes in the last 10 years to deal with these situations, and to what extent have they been effective? Are any further changes planned?

Yes. Some scanners are not effective in very cold conditions. Equipment does age faster. Examination facilities are generally protected from the weather, but heating is a big challenge.

5. What changes have occurred in the last five years to the volumes of traffic (road

freight, commercial road passenger traffic, private passenger traffic, and rail freight and rail passenger)?

Figures have fallen since the 2008 economic crisis but previously higher figures indicate potential volumes in future. Currently 60% of lorries inwards from the Customs Union are empty. If these figures fell significantly, there would be serious implications for waiting times and examination procedures. There have been big increases in Polish lorries (15% of total) since Poland imposed capacity limits on diesel fuel being carried as own vehicle fuel. 33% of inwards freight vehicles are Russian, 28% Lithuanian, 14% Belarusian. Inwards freight figures show 36% of lorries arrive without TIR carnet. Outwards 3% are empty and 72% are under TIR. There have been no material changes


in status or volume figures since the introduction of the Russian, Belarus and Kazakhstan Customs Union. But there have been regarding processing times. For exports / transits into Belarus itself export procedures are simplified. All figures are for 2011. Freight traffic levels through Belarus from Russia and East Asia are expected to increase significantly in the immediate and long term. This is recognised in the Border Management Strategy to 2017 and in Belarus’ similar Strategy but it is felt that Belarus feels it needs a programme coordinator similar to Rosgranitsa in Russia (where all agencies liaise together regarding Lithuanian-Kaliningrad BCPs). A meeting regarding the common planned capacity increases at Medininkai and Kamenny Log (Belarus) for late April / early May 2012. The EU has recently discussed with Belarus authorities their proposals for upgrades at Kamenny Log.

6. What impacts have the changes at 5. had to staffing levels of border guards,

customs, police and other regulatory agencies? Customs Staffing levels have remained the same, but new facilities for veterinary and phytosanitary inspections have been built. As reflected in the need for Customs staff to work 24 hour shifts, Lithuania has significantly fewer customs staff per head of population than Latvia or other comparable size EU States. Border Guards have 25% more staff than in past, enabling more shifts to be worked with staff available for peak time needs and as Mobile Teams.

7. What changes have occurred in relation to the provision of essential privately

provided services ( e.g. duty free shops and insurance agencies) ? Have these had positive or negative impacts on traffic flows?

These facilities are provided closely together in the main BCP building, which is located directly next to the traffic lanes. There are negative impacts on traffic flows compared to the situations if off site terminals were used together with electronic queuing systems.

8. What changes are in progress or are planned regarding the transport routes to or

from your crossing point (s), such as upgrades of rail lines to double track, or increasing the number of highway lanes? What qualitative and quantitative impacts do you expect these to have?

All planned changes are subject to the National Transport Strategy to 2017. Funding has recently been cut heavily. However the Strategy is still in force and prioritises (a) physical capacity increases, (b) improvements to equipment and their use, particularly IT based information systems, and (c) electronic queue management and terminal based parking. All Ministries and

9. What changes are in progress regarding increases to the physical capacity of your

crossing point (s)? What impact do you expect these to have?


An outwards off BCP lorry park is planned with electronic queue management which reflects Estonian experience. Recent changes mean that there is earlier on site presentation of import and transit documents, with automatic Risk assessment being carried out. This enables empty vehicles to be prioritised. See also 8. above. There are new more powerful relocatable scanners in Medininkai, Kybartai and Panemune road BCP as well as a new upgrade of Licence plate recognition system scheduled. At Panemune terminal systems are in operation for freight vehicles, with the terminal being several kilometres from the bridge crossing BCP. A new bridge is planned alongside construction of a new Russian BCP / terminal, which will substantially increase capacity and flow rates as the physical limitations of the current bridge and the town centre Russian BCP counter act the benefits of the terminal system on the Lithuanian side. This terminal is used for all key facilities in a similar manner to Medininkai.

10. What changes have occurred to the volumes and types of traffic in recent years

which have been expected? What changes have occurred which have been unexpected?

Volumes are now rising after the economic crisis. Passenger car and buses traffic has risen significantly for cross border shopping reasons. Smuggling of tobacco products for personal use and small to medium scale resale has risen significantly, with serious revenue impacts.

11. Do you have the facilities to change the movement flows directions in order to meet

changes in direction of high volume traffic? No, but outward bound vehicles subject to special examination can be diverted to inward bound examination facilities, thereby avoiding bottlenecks. The main limitations leading to queues are the situation on the other side of the border and the lack of access roads infrastructures, including terminals.

12. Did the introduction of the Russian and Belarus Customs Union (2010/11) lead to

changes in volumes and nature of traffic, and what impacts, if any, did these changes have?

Yes. There are delays as Belarus agencies are now carrying out checks for the Customs Union as a whole, equivalent to Lithuanian checks on behalf of the EU (Customs) and the Schengen Area (persons).

Organisational Systems and Procedures 13. Which government agencies are based at crossing points? Do such arrangements

apply at all crossing points, or only some?


All Border Management Agencies are based at all international full capacity BCPs. Where BCPs are limited to non-commercial traffic or movements of local residents only, representation is limited to the respective agencies. The Agencies are Border Guards, Customs, Veterinary Service and Phytosanitary Service. 14. If the presence of agencies differs between crossing points, what criteria are used in

deciding which agencies should be placed at which crossing points? Are such decisions taken in cooperation with neighbouring states?

See 13. Levels of staffing also take account of volumes of traffic and BCP capacity. In effect, the decisions are taken with the views of the neighbouring state taken into account as the status of the BCP is common on both sides.

15. How do the agencies present at the crossing points cooperate with each other and

with representatives of transport operators? Are they located in common premises or in different locations at the same site? Are there any common coordination centres, and if so at which sites? Are there plans for such centres, and if so where?

Freight forwarders and insurance providers are based in the main BCP terminal building, usually right next to Customs. Border Guards checking points and Customs document presentation points are normally right next to each other, with Risk Management checks being done in close proximity. There are no common coordination centres as such. Border Guards will introduce a new Movements Management system from 2013, with a new Single Window system from 2015.

16. Do the agencies use risk management systems (whether automated or non-

automated) in selecting persons, vehicles or cargo for detailed examinations? If so, is this done using pre arrival information and to what extent is it done? What types of systems and procedures are used? Are there any differences in availability of such systems depending on the nature of the border crossings?

Yes, with extensive sharing of operational material between staff of the Border Management Agencies who are located very closely together. Pre arrival information is used extensively through a document presentation facility before the arrival at the traffic lanes. The aim is that if cleared, goods will go through within one hour. Operational information can be immediately checked against the various RM systems, including the Schengen Information System. These systems are available at all the full status BCPs, with other BCPs being manned and equipped as appropriate to their status.

17. Are the necessary procedures carried out by the border crossings agencies carried

out simultaneously or in sequence? What changes, if any, are in progress or intended in relation to simultaneous checking?

They are in sequence, but these are in very close proximity. Full Single Window / One Stop Shop status is due from 2015. Particular care will be needed for phytosanitary and


veterinary examinations in order that the new Medininkai examination facilities can be fully used to examine suspect goods while allowing free flow of other products.

18. What systems are used in relation to use of pre arrival data (road freight and rail

freight)? What systems, if any, are used in relation to pre arrival data for passengers (rail and motor coach)? Is such data shared with other agencies? How is the data accessed?

All freight road importers submit EDI declarations, but the NCTS availability is often limited. Reliability needs to improve. Rail freight data is provided electronically in advance by the rail operator. There is currently no pre arrival data for bus / coach passengers. There is no direct access to the data of one agency by another, but staff from each agency are in close proximity and share as necessary.

19. What procedures apply to the access to, and use of, data from private sector

transport operators at or in the immediate vicinity of the crossing points? This is done as necessary by operational staff based at the BCP. However, this is mainly limited to Customs Brokers and insurers and not the transport companies or their associations.

20. What changes are planned for the next few years in relation to the procedures

referred to in Q. 13-19? See also 15 and 17 above. Changes are as always subject to budget limitations, especially regarding the impact of BCP transport infrastructures including introduction of terminals and automated queuing systems. The new Single Window system from 2015 is a key priority.

21. What key requirements would be needed to ensure that procedural changes would

be most effective? Are these being planned, or considered? See 15, 17 and 20. Introduction of a Terminal with electronic (email, mobile phone) queuing systems are vital. More reliable NCTS. New Single Window System from 2015. All are planned and are in the national Border Management Strategy which is very similar to those of neighbour EU States. However, to be effective, comparable physical and procedural modernisations are required on the Belarus and Russian sides. Systems such as the Estonian Go Swift which records bus passenger API (Advance Passenger Information) needs to be introduced. Terminal facilities are planned for Medininkai by end 2012. Is this correct? See also 9. above.


Technical Capabilities 22. What are the most significant systems you have for recording movements of

vehicles? Are they linked to recording the movements and clearance of freight? Closed circuit TV and ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). These can be cross checked with Schengen Information System and national vehicle registration databases and national criminal intelligence databases on a 24/7 basis. These can be linked to freight recording systems (e.g. EDI and NCTS). 23. What systems do you have for the processing of people? Do you have automatic

scanners for the checking of passports? Where such systems have been introduced, what impact have they had on the processing times?.

See 22. There are radiation and metal detectors. Passports are scanned, not, keyed in. These have reduced processing times, but movements through the BCP are still dependent on the situation on both sides of the border. There are multiple checking booths. Bus passengers’ passports are checked collectively on submission by driver. Passports are scanned.

24. Are extra staff deployed at periods of peak activity for movements of people? Yes, new shift systems and increases in staff for Border Guards mean that more staff can be deployed for secondary checks.

25. What equipment do you have for dealing with EU customs entry systems such as

the New Computerised Transit System and the mandatory pre arrival / pre departure electronic declaration systems ( EU States Border Crossing Points only)?

See 18. NCTS availability reliability needs to be improved ( this also applies for Border Guards to SIS). 26. What impacts have such systems had on clearance times and on the detection of

serious violations of Customs and Tax regulations? Clearance times have improved on the Lithuanian side but there is room for improvement. There is a need for more mobile x ray scanners which can be deployed across the country according to need to detect smuggling (e.g. cigarettes). These would enable faster clearance while protecting revenues.

27. Are the findings from use of such systems shared with Russia and Belarus? If so,

what impacts have such sharing had on clearance times and detections of serious violations in Russia and Belarus?


Yes, with agencies on both sides appointing “Border Delegates” tasked to exchange operational case information and ideas on procedural and technical progress. These do need to be developed into a continuous process.

28. What equipment is available for scanning of cargo containers? Are these available

for rail containers as well as for road containers? What impacts have they had on examination times and resulting clearance times? What impact have they had on the detection of violations?.

There are extensive facilities for weighing vehicles and thereby also containers. There are x ray scanners for containers but these need to be made more mobile and easy to use. They make examinations quicker and more effective, as shown by big increases in detections of cigarettes in often elaborate concealments including in vehicle panels. However clearance times are largely related to the number of vehicle lanes throughout the BCP. Lack of these prevent staff capacity being fully used. 29. Is extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times? If so,

what impact do they have on clearance times? See 28. More, and more reliable, equipment is needed.

30. What equipment, if any, is affected by severe weather? Are there any plans to deal

with such challenges? See 4. In addition to scanning equipment requiring certain level of heat to operate, some inspection areas are not heated though they are covered. Equipment also wears out faster. There are no specific plans to deal with these situations as funding is a challenge.

National Cooperation and Cross Border Cooperation

31. Is there an overall coordinating Agency for operations of official agencies at the

crossing points ( e.g. equivalent of the Border Authority in Russia)? What responsibilities does any such agency have, especially in relation to cooperation with the other official agencies at the crossings?

Ministry of Transport is responsible for BCP and road infrastructure management. It coordinates with Belarus counterparts where Border Guards are in effect the lead agency for BCPs, and with Rosgranitsa for Russia. Among the Border Management Agencies, each agency cooperates with its counterpart, but after very close consultation with other BMAs so often the consultation is joint. On some operational procedures at the Kaliningrad – Lithuanian border (Panemune and Kybartai) the individual border management agencies had some flexibility in cooperating


with Lithuanian counterparts, but there is now less flexibility as Rosgranitsa is in control of BCPs and requests needed to be cleared with it. 32. How the official agencies cooperate in relation to the receipt, processing and

evaluation of pre arrival data? Nationally, by close coordination among co located staff with indirect access to each other’s databases. Internationally, by series of meetings between the “Border Delegates” as needed on operational matters and several times per year on strategic and long term matters. Staff at Medininkai were informed about BCP use restrictions in Belarus, but Lithuanian Border Control agencies are not informed about long term modernisations within Belarus. Closer mutual consultation is vital, including regarding Lithuanian plans. See also 41.

33. How do the official agencies cooperate in relation to carrying out simultaneous or

sequential processing of vehicles, passengers, freight and rail freight and passengers?

Nationally, see earlier answers, especially 17. and 32. While checks are currently sequential, there is very close proximity cooperation. Internationally, there is a need to improve automated and non - automated processing, especially of road and rail passengers to free up extra resources (transport lanes) for freight.

34. Do the official agencies share common coordinating centres at crossing points? If

not, are they linked with regional or national multi-agency coordinating centres? Nationally, no at the BCPs themselves, but they are all directly linked with their agency national HQs, which do share information including by access to national law enforcement agency information centres. Internationally (cross border) no. There are no officers based on the other side of the BCP. 35. Do the official agencies have direct access on site to each other’s databases ? If not,

do they have easy indirect access ( e.g. by contacts with representatives of the other agencies located at the same crossing, especially if located in the same room as part of a multi-agency coordinating team)?

Nationally, no to direct access, but yes to easy indirect access. Internationally, no.

36. Is relevant automated or non-automated data from one agency entered onto the

databases or other records of the other agencies?


Nationally, yes, as required, as it often is.

37. Are there formal or informal multi-agency teams involved in processing of

passengers and examination of goods or vehicles? If so, are they available 24/7, or at peak times of day, or at peak periods of the year?

Nationally, in practice, yes and on 24/7 basis. However, BCPs such as Medininkai are operating at physical capacity so demands on staff time on their specific duties are high ( note shift lengths).

38. Are there any joint crossing points operated with staff from the official agencies of

the neighbouring state or states? If so, where are they and which agencies are present? How effective have they been in improving traffic flows? How effective have they been in detecting serious violations of immigration and customs laws, or in detecting other criminal or administrative violations?

No. Staff in all agencies and in Belarus and Russia are well aware of the values of such jointly manned BCPs.

39. What information is exchanged between the agencies on one side of the crossing or

another? See 32. Border Delegates with formal responsibilities are used.

40. How such information is exchanged, e.g. agency to agency or via central

coordinators, face to face exchanges, landline to landline, mobile to mobile, or by email or electronic special alert systems?

Dedicated phone calls, with immediate follow up by email, fax.

41. What procedures are in place for management level cooperation between the

agencies on both sides in relation to pre notification of procedural changes or of special circumstances which may impact on operations?

Border Delegates and respective regional managers meet at least 4 times per year to discuss such matters. See also 32. While general advanced information is good, there is room for improvement on both operational outcomes and capacity and procedural developments and improvements.

42. Are any changes planned to the ways of exchanging operational information

between crossing points on both sides of the border? If so, when? Not immediately, but staff on both sides of the border are well aware of ways of improving the situation, including by the use of joint special exercises.


The Border Crossing Management Strategy to 2017 has improved internal IT systems use of them as a priority and this offers opportunities for better cooperation with counterpart agencies.

43. Are there any changes planned to the national organisational and information

structures of the official agencies at the border crossings (e.g. common access to information databases)?

Nationally, all staff are preparing for increased use of national databases as the quantity and quality of information improves and staff become more familiar with use of information sources.


Mini Questionnaire

Infrastructure /

Logistics

Yes No Planned (when?) Other Comments

Room to expand X Limited capacity to increase lanes. Not actively planned yet but included in 2017 Strategy.

Rail sidings X Not applicable at Medininkai. Yes at Panemune.

Lorry Parks away from traffic lanes

X X No outwards. Vitally needed. Yes inwards, but only to limited extent. Needs clearly understood.

Numbered queuing system in parks

X In current plan. Recent active studies carried out.

BCP manned 24/7

X

Traffic lanes capable of use in both directions

X Capable of modification to do this.

Weather proof inspection areas

X However, heating required in some areas. Weather does impact on inspections and equipment.

Organisational

Systems /

Procedures


Are there Joint Agency offices on site (Coordination Centre)

X Not currently planned. There is close cooperation by very close proximity personnel.

Are Automated Risk Management Systems used?

X Effectiveness limited in reducing clearance times due to lack of Advance Passenger Information.

Are such systems integrated with other agencies’ systems?

X However, operating personnel work closely together.

Are checks done simultaneously for all agencies?

X Currently sequential, but in close cooperation. If physical control of goods is decided by customs it is performed simultaneously for all agencies

Do Freight Forwarders

X Yes, through Customs Brokers, located in secure and weather proof facilities.


Associations or major transport operators have representatives at BCPs?

Do Customs staffs have access to New Computerised Transit System data and Customs Union wide data systems?

X Yes for Lithuanian staff (NCTS) though availability reliability needs improving. Neither country has access to the other system.

Does rail management staff have access to the same data as road management staff?

X Staff responsible for rail freight monitoring do receive manifests in advance. Border Guards do not receive rail or road passenger data in advance.

Technical

Capabilities

Are closed circuit TV cameras in operation at BCPs?

X

Are Passport scanners available?

X

Are Passport scanners used

X

Do staff have direct access to Vehicle registrations data? (Automated Vehicle Registration scanning)?

X No, only to ANPR data (Automated Number Plate Recognition). However, this can be followed up with near immediate access to registration details and automatically highlights vehicles of interest.

Do staff have direct access to Customs e – declarations?

X


Are freight (container) scanners available (road / rail, mobile)?

X Yes in all cases, though numbers are limited and reliability can be affected by severe weather. There are reliability issues with mobile scanners.

Are there major systems upgrades or introductions in progress or planned within next five years?

X However, these are very much subject to funding and may well be delayed by several years.

Cross Border

Cooperation

Are any BCP Coordination Centres jointly manned by both countries?

X

Are any non BCP based Coordination Centres jointly managed by both countries?

X There are liaison officers from both Customs and Border Guards based in Lithuania from Russia and Belarus, and vice versa. Additionally, liaison officers on 3 levels – Local (head of the post), Regional (head of territorial customs house), and National (deputy head director general and Customs communication centre).

Are Customs declarations shared automatically with neighbour BCPs?

X No.

If so, is this done simultaneously (real time or near real time)?

X Not applicable.

Is vehicle, driver or passenger information shared automatically or by immediate telephoning?

X Yes, by immediate telephoning in cases of operational need.

Are lists of suspects or

X This is done as needed.


persons of interest shared on a regular and timely basis?

Are persons specifically designated for information exchanges available 24/7?

X Yes. The designated persons are “Border Delegates”. The Head of the Post is one, and when absent the head of the shift deputises.

Latvia – Russia Border: Terehova – Burachki 4th

April 2012

Infrastructure and logistics

1. What are the current capabilities for processing freight vehicles (and their crews), commercial road passenger vehicles and private passenger vehicles? Do you have multiple manned clearance and passage points (e.g. Border Guard desks)?

At the road BCP Terehova – Burachki there are multiple lanes for exit and entry of private vehicles, buses and separately freight vehicles. There are 8 entry lanes for freight, buses and private cars and 9 exit lanes. The Russian side of the BCP has 10 lanes into Russia, and 9 out. There are facilities for detailed checking of passengers in the BCP terminal directly next to the checking booths. There is a separate Customs building for detailed examinations of vehicles. Located on inwards section, this can be accessed from the outwards sections without disrupting traffic. Outward practical capacities to Russia are somewhat higher than inward capacities due to capacity limits on Russian side. Planned capacities for freight vehicles is 300 per day outwards and 200 inwards Current average daily freight movements are 260 outwards and 240 inwards. There have been significant increases in quarter 1 of 2012 over 2011.

2. What are your current capabilities for processing freight trains? And for passenger trains? Do you have sidings on the line or lines?

The rail BCP Zilupe (Latgale) is a few kilometres north of the road BCP. There are two passenger trains per day and 8 freight trains. Both Customs and Border Guards man the crossing 24/7. There are no API (Advanced Passenger Information) facilities or automated passport checking equipment for use on board. Freight traffic manifests are supplied in advance for documentary checking. Scanners are used to check freight trains, but, if necessary, control is carried out in the next intermediate rail BCP Rezekne most detailed examination with unloading and physical checking of goods is done on arrival at final destination (normally Riga inwards).


3. Are your facilities manned at the same levels at all times (24/7)? If not, how do they differ, and at what times?

Yes in all cases. Both Customs and Border Guards staff work 12 hour shifts,

4. Are your facilities affected by particular weather conditions? If so, by which conditions and how? Have there been any changes in the last 10 years to deal with these situations, and to what extent have they been effective? Are any further changes planned?

Yes. Some mobile scanners are not effective in very cold conditions. Equipment does age faster. Detailed vehicle examination facilities are protected from the weather in a large dedicated building, but heating is a challenge. Baggage X ray ( functional since 1998) and metallic scanners are located in the main BCP building for bus and private car passengers. A portable metal detection device is used in the rail BCP.



Volumes are now rising significantly after falling during the first years of the economic crisis. Outwards freight vehicle levels have risen significantly in Q1 2012 over Q1 2011 to 21, 650 from 15,000 and combined inwards and outwards movements now exceed capacity. This is fully recognised in the national transport strategy and is reflected in the installation of toilet facilities in highway side booths located at regular intervals on the approaches to the BCP. The number of freight trains is constant at about 3,800 per year, with rail passenger numbers being stable at about 80,000 per year.


customs, police and other regulatory agencies? Staffing levels for both Customs and Border Guards have remained basically the same, but with increased specialisation of tasks and concentration of Border Guards manpower at the BCP itself (including rail), such as an expert on detection of forged or suspicious personal identity documents. There are in effect no green border staff.

7. What changes have occurred in relation to the provision of essential privately provided services ( e.g. duty free shops and insurance agencies) ? Have these had positive or negative impacts on traffic flows?

These facilities are provided closely together in the main BCP building, which is located directly next to the traffic lanes (Customs Brokers and Insurance Agencies). Due to the physical location of the BCP, there are no duty free shops on the Latvian side.


8. What changes are in progress or are planned regarding the transport routes to or from your crossing point (s), such as upgrades of rail lines to double track, or increasing the number of highway lanes? What qualitative and quantitative impacts do you expect these to have?

All planned changes are subject to the National Transport Strategy. This Strategy is being coordinated with Belarus and, especially, Russia (Rosgranitsa) with the emphasis being on improving access roads on both sides. A major upgrade of the main immediate access routes on the Latvian side (towards Rezekne) is underway now. Funding is a challenge and it will not be possible to upgrade all BCPs simultaneously. Plans to upgrade the lateral roads north of Terehova on the Latvian side, together with changes in Russia, will mean that Terehova – Burachki need to be seen as BCPs for Latvian – Moscow traffic and BCP Grebneva – Ubilinka for Latvian St. Petersburg traffic.

9. What changes are in progress regarding increases to the physical capacity of your crossing point (s)? What impact do you expect these to have?

There have been planned upgrades agreed five years ago but funding has prevented implementation. The intergovernmental monitoring report of 2011 has in Latvia been used to create the March 2012 Latvian Government BCP Infrastructure Report. The proposed roads widenings will not be effective increase of BCP throughput capacity from both the Latvian and Russian sides. While the BCP infrastructure at Terehova is in general need of refurbishment, this is especially the case for the veterinary and phytosanitary examination areas. refurbishment.



See also Q1. Volumes are now rising after the economic crisis. Passenger car and buses traffic has risen significantly for cross border shopping reasons. Smuggling of tobacco products for personal use and small to medium scale resale has risen significantly, with serious revenue impacts.

11. Do you have the facilities to change the movement flows directions in order to

meet changes in direction of high volume traffic? No, but outward bound vehicles subject to special examination can be diverted to inward bound examination facilities, thereby avoiding bottlenecks. The main limitations leading to queues are the situation on the other side of the border and the limited capacity of access roads, and obsolete infrastructures of BCPs, including terminals.


12. Did the introduction of the Russian and Belarus Customs Union (2010/11) lead to changes in volumes and nature of traffic, and what impacts, if any, did these changes have?

Yes. Since RU-BY-KZ customs union was established, a part of traffic flow shifted to Belarusian BCPs – Patarnieki (LV)- Grigorovshchina( BY), Silene (LV) – Urbani (BY).

Organisational Systems and Procedures

13. Which government agencies are based at crossing points? Do such arrangements apply at all crossing points, or only some?

All Border Management Agencies are based at all international full capacity BCPs, i.e. on RU border – BCP Terehova, Grebneva, and on BY border – BCP Paternieki, Silene). Where BCPs are limited to non-commercial traffic or movements of local residents only, representation is limited to the respective agencies. The Agencies are Border Guards, Customs, Veterinary Service and Phytosanitary Service.

14. If the presence of agencies differs between crossing points, what criteria are used in deciding which agencies should be placed at which crossing points? Are such decisions taken in cooperation with neighbouring states?

See 13. Levels of staffing also take account of volumes of traffic and BCP capacity. In effect, the decisions are taken with the views of the neighbouring state taken into account as the status of the BCP is common on both sides.

15. How do the agencies present at the crossing points cooperate with each other

and with representatives of transport operators? Are they located in common premises or in different locations at the same site? Are there any common coordination centres, and if so at which sites? Are there plans for such centres, and if so where?

Customs brokers and insurance providers are based in the main BCP terminal building, usually right next to Customs. Border Guards checking points and Customs document presentation points are normally right next to each other, with Risk Management checks being done in close proximity. There are no common coordination centres as such.

16. Do the agencies use risk management systems (whether automated or non-automated) in selecting persons, vehicles or cargo for detailed examinations? If so, is this done using pre arrival information and to what extent is it done? What types of systems and procedures are used? Are there any differences in availability of such systems depending on the nature of the border crossings?

Yes, with extensive sharing of operational material between staff of the Border Management Agencies who are located very closely together. Customs pre arrival information is used extensively through a document presentation facility before the


arrival at the traffic lanes. Operational information can be immediately checked against the various RM systems. These systems are available at all the full status BCPs, with other BCPs being manned and equipped as appropriate to their status.

17. Are the necessary procedures carried out by the border crossings agencies

carried out simultaneously or in sequence? What changes, if any, are in progress or intended in relation to simultaneous checking?

They are in sequence, but these are in very close proximity. Simultaneous checking is recognised as a priority need and discussions with Estonian and Lithuanian colleagues on their experiences is close (e.g. re Estonian GoSwift system at Narva –Ivangorod).



All Customs data is submitted electronically, including pre arrival and pre departure information and transit data via NCTS. Rail freight data is provided electronically in advance by the rail operator. There is currently no pre arrival data for bus / coach passengers. There is no direct access to the data of one agency by another, but staff from each agency are in close proximity and share as necessary.


transport operators at or in the immediate vicinity of the crossing points? This is done as necessary by operational staff based at the BCP. However, this is mainly limited to Customs Brokers and insurers and not the transport companies or their associations.


referred to in Q. 13-19? See also 15 and 17 above. Changes are as always subject to budget limitations, especially regarding the impact of transport infrastructures, especially of BCP infrastructure and competent services’ control facilities and equipment, impact of BCP transport infrastructures including introduction of terminals, improvement of access roads and automated queuing systems.

21. What key requirements would be needed to ensure that procedural changes

would be most effective? Are these being planned, or considered? See 15, 17 and 20. The priority of customs is to link various customs IS and IT tools, for example ANPRS with x-ray, scales data and ECS. Introduction of a Terminal with electronic (email, mobile phone) queuing systems would be beneficial. However, to be


effective, comparable physical and procedural modernisations are required on the Belarus and Russian sides. Systems such as the Estonian Go Swift which records bus and railway API (Advance Passenger Information) need to be introduced.

Technical Capabilities

22. What are the most significant systems you have for recording movements of vehicles? Are they linked to recording the movements and clearance of freight?

Closed circuit TV (CCTV) for Border Guards and ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition for Customs). These can be cross checked with Schengen Information System and national vehicle registration databases and national criminal intelligence databases on a 24/7 basis. However, CCTV needs to be extended to the entire BCP area, and there needs to be much closer integration of both surveillance and entry and exit data. At present, coordination of these relies very much on person to person contact.

23. What systems do you have for the processing of people? Do you have automatic scanners for the checking of passports? Where such systems have been introduced, what impact have they had on the processing times?

Passports are scanned, not, keyed in. These have reduced processing times, but movements through the BCP are still dependent on the situation on both sides of the border. There are multiple checking booths. Bus passengers’ passports are checked collectively on submission by driver. Passports are scanned.

24. Are extra staff deployed at periods of peak activity for movements of people?

Yes, for Border Guards, who no longer feel need to carry out green border activities . This frees up some staff for Border Guards meaning that more staff can be deployed for secondary checks. However, the numbers of extra staff for both services are limited. Customs does not have the capacity to increase staff levels.

25. What equipment do you have for dealing with EU customs entry systems such

as the New Computerised Transit System and the mandatory pre arrival / pre departure electronic declaration systems ( EU States Border Crossing Points only)?

The computers at BCP are obsolete and in fact their data storage capacity is not appropriate for dealing with various/ many IS simultaneously.

26. What impacts have such systems had on clearance times and on the detection of serious violations of Customs and Tax regulations?


Clearance times have improved on the Latvian side but there is room for improvement. There is a need for a more reliable fixed x ray scanners as currently a mobile scanner is overused, leading to reliability problems which are also related to the damaging impact of the weather and the cold.

27. Are the findings from use of such systems shared with Russia and Belarus? If

so, what impacts have such sharing had on clearance times and detections of serious violations in Russia and Belarus?

Yes, with BGs on both sides contacting each other Agency to Agency. Each incoming BG shift is briefed about information received from counterparts. Designated BG contacts do alert each other about suspicions which would be of interest to the other country, or both. While Russian agencies do ask particularly about information on persons they deem suspect (currently having no equivalent of the Schengen Information System for the CIS or the Customs Union) they do supply data of interest to Latvia and the EU. There are 4 management level meetings per year, a useful procedure which needs to be developed. Latvian customs is involved in an EU level pilot project on information exchange/ submission to Russian customs on transit freight via NCTS SPEED platform. In practice it has proved that the clearance time for cargoes with transferred data to Russia has not been shortened.

28. What equipment is available for scanning of cargo containers? Are these

available for rail containers as well as for road containers? What impacts have they had on examination times and resulting clearance times? What impact have they had on the detection of violations?

There are facilities for weighing vehicles and thereby also containers. However, at Terehova the axial scales are out of order, and the platform scales date from 1998. There is a mobile x ray scanner for vehicles it is overused and there is a need for fixed x-ray (appropriate for weather conditions). They make examinations quicker and more effective, as shown by big increases in detections of cigarettes in often elaborate concealments including in vehicle panels. There is a scanner at the rail BCP Zilupe which is actively used in relation to both cargo examination and to detect illegal migrants.

29. Is extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times? If so, what impact do they have on clearance times?

See 22, 28 and especially 26. No extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times. More, and more reliable, equipment is needed.


30. What equipment, if any, is affected by severe weather? Are there any plans to deal with such challenges?

See 4. In addition Customs inspection areas are not heated well enough. Equipment also wears out faster. Better weather proof conditions would assist for severe weather months. There is a need for a more reliable fixed x ray scanners as currently a mobile scanner is overused, leading to reliability problems which are also related to the damaging impact of the weather and the cold.





Ministry of Interior is responsible for BCP operational; management and the Ministry of Transport for road infrastructure management. They coordinate with Belarus counterparts where Border Guards are in effect the lead agency for BCPs, and with Rosgranitsa for Russia. Among the Border Management Agencies, each agency cooperates with its counterpart, but after very close consultation with other BMAs so often the consultation is joint.

32. How the official agencies cooperate in relation to the receipt, processing and evaluation of pre arrival data?

Nationally, by close coordination among co located staff with indirect access to each other’s databases. Internationally, by regular contact by designated liaison staff at each BCP as needed on operational matters and several times per year on strategic and long term matters (see also 27). Closer mutual consultation is vital, including regarding Russian and Belarusian plans. See also 41.

33. How do the official agencies cooperate in relation to carrying out simultaneous or

sequential processing of vehicles, passengers, freight and rail freight and passengers?

Nationally, see earlier answers, especially 17. and 32. While checks are currently sequential, there is very close proximity cooperation. Internationally, there is a need to improve automated and non - automated processing, especially of road and rail passengers to free up extra resources (transport lanes) for freight.

34. Do the official agencies share common coordinating centres at crossing points? If

not, are they linked with regional or national multi-agency coordinating centres? Nationally, no at the BCPs themselves, but they are all directly linked with their agency national HQs, which do share information including by access to national law enforcement agency information systems (e.g. for one call 24/7 access to national Vehicle Registration Details). Internationally (cross border) no. There are no common coordination centre at the BCPs.


35. Do the official agencies have direct access on site to each other’s databases ? If not, do they have easy indirect access ( e.g. by contacts with representatives of the other agencies located at the same crossing, especially if located in the same room as part of a multi-agency coordinating team)?

Nationally, no to direct access, but yes to easy indirect access. Internationally, no.


databases or other records of the other agencies? Nationally, yes, non -automated data is available, if required.



Nationally, in practice, yes – the daily work of BCPs on 24/7 basis could be evaluated as informal multi-agency team work. However, BCPs such as Terehova are operating at physical capacity so demands on staff time on their specific duties are high. No extra multi-agency teams involved at peak times of day, or at peak periods of the year.

38. Are there any joint crossing points operated with staff from the official agencies of

the neighbouring state or states? If so, where are they and which agencies are present? How effective have they been in improving traffic flows? How effective have they been in detecting serious violations of immigration and customs laws, or in detecting other criminal or administrative violations?

No. Staff in all agencies and in Russia and Belarus are well aware of the values of such jointly manned BCPs.

39. What information is exchanged between the agencies on one side of the crossing

or another? See also 32. For BGs, there are also a number of joint special exercises on mutual risks, e.g. Operation Cordon in 2011 and imminent April 2012 Operation ZAPAT where Russian Border Guards will be based at Terehova as part of an illegal migration exercise (one week). An agreement has been reached with the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation on level of BCPs’ shifts managers to exchange information (by phone) on unplanned traffic interruptions and their causes. As well it is agreed on exchange of information on weight indicators of railway containers and wagons running through BCP Zilupe (Latvian side) and BCP Posenj (Russian side).


Previous warning agreement on emergency situations on the Belarusian-Latvian border has signed and used to ensure a coordinated actions of the officials of Belarusian and Latvian customs authorities at the Belarusian-Latvian BCPs if an emergency situation occurs.

40. How is such information exchanged, e.g. agency to agency or via central


Dedicated phone calls, with immediate follow up by email, fax.



Border Delegates and respective regional managers meet at least 4 times per year to discuss such matters. See also 32. While general advanced information is good, there is room for improvement on both operational outcomes and capacity and procedural developments and improvements.


between crossing points on both sides of the border? If so, when? Staff on both sides of the border are well aware of ways of improving the situation, including by the use of joint special exercises such as Condor and ZAPAT (see 39) The Latvian Customs authorities together with Russian customs colleagues are improving and developing ways and methods of exchanging operational information between crossing points on both sides of the border.



Nationally, all staff are preparing for increased use of national databases as the quantity and quality of information improves and staff become more familiar with use of information sources.


Mini Questionnaire

Infrastructure /

Logistics


Room to expand X Limited capacity to increase lanes. Reasonable space in area for an off BCP terminal.

Rail sidings X Most clearance is done in Rezekne. .


X X No. Vitally needed. This is clearly understood as shown by awareness of waiting times often exceeding 24 hours. Basic toilet facilities are available on approach road but with no weather protection.


X In current plan. Recent active studies carried out.

BCP manned 24/7

X


X Capable of some modification


X However, heating required in some areas. Weather does impact on inspections and equipment.

Organisational

Systems /

Procedures



X Not currently planned. There is close cooperation by very close proximity personnel.


X Effectiveness limited in reducing clearance times due to lack of Advance Passenger Information.


X However, operating personnel work closely together.


X Currently sequential, but in close cooperation.

Do Freight X Yes, through Customs Brokers, located in


Forwarders Associations or major transport operators have representatives at BCPs?

secure and weather proof facilities.


X Yes, Latvian customs staff has access to NCTS, ITMS, EORI, ECICS and SMS.


X Staff responsible for rail freight monitoring do receive manifests in advance. Border Guards do not receive rail or road passenger data in advance.

Technical

Capabilities


X However, cover is not total and needs extending.


X


X


X No, only to ANPR data (Automated Number Plate Recognition). However, this can be followed up with near immediate access to registration details and automatically highlights vehicles of interest.

Do staff have direct access to Customs e –

X


declarations?


X Yes in all cases, though numbers are limited and reliability can be affected by severe weather. There are reliability issues with mobile scanners.


X However, these are very much subject to funding and may well be delayed by several years.

Cross Border

Cooperation


X No. However Russian Border Guards do deploy to the Latvian BCP for special exercises.


X There are Law Enforcement liaison officers ( based at Embassies) exchanged between Russia and Latvia.


X No.


X Not applicable.


X Yes, by immediate telephoning in cases of operational need.

Are lists of suspects or

X This is done as needed.


persons of interest shared on a regular and timely basis?


X There are specially nominated persons on both sides.


Finland – Russian Border Nuijamaa- Sosnovskoye ( Brusnichoe) 16th April 2012



Passenger and cargo traffic are separated into two terminals. Due to the Nuija Coordinated Border Management Model Customs officials conduct border and customs checks in the Cargo Traffic Centre (freight vehicles and their crews). In passenger traffic the Finnish Border Guard conducts border checks and Customs checks. Vehicle checks on lanes can be conducted jointly. In passenger traffic there is a total of 14 checkpoints on the entry side (4 in the lane inspection building, 4 in two fast lane booths, 6 in the passenger traffic centre) and 10 on the exit side (4 in the lane inspection building, 2 in one fast lane booth, 4 in the passenger traffic centre). There are a total of four customs clearance booths in passenger traffic. During peak seasons i.e. Christmas holidays, an additional customs booth (primarily for invoice stamping) is set up in the exit side lane inspection building to improve traffic flow.

2. What are your current capabilities for processing freight trains? And for

passenger trains? Do you have sidings on the line or lines? Only road traffic at BCP Nuijamaa.

3. Are your facilities manned at the same levels at all times (24/7)? If not, how do

they differ, and at what times?

At BCP Nuijamaa the majority of the traffic is passenger traffic consisting of Russians travelling to the Lappeenranta-Imatra-Kouvola area on short shopping trips. Therefore traffic from Russia to Finland is most intensive in the morning and respectively returning traffic in the evening. During the night time traffic volumes are low. Peak hours on the entry side are between 09:00-14:00 and on the exit side between 13:30-19:00. The most intensive day of the week is Saturday. Checkpoints area manned flexibly according to the prevailing traffic situation. There are approximately 20 border guards in each shift; Customs has 12 officers per shift.

4. Are your facilities affected by particular weather conditions? If so, by which



Local climate & weather conditions affect the conduct of border checks so that checks are conducted indoors (temperatures below -0°C in 2009-2010: 88 days, 2010-2011: 52 days, snow cover ca. 75 cm for both winters). Working conditions in fast lane booths may deteriorate in harsh weather conditions (rain, snow) as checks are conducted through a small window. Customs has not even tested mobile connection to carry out customs clearance.


freight, commercial road passenger traffic, private passenger traffic, rail freight and rail passenger)?

The total passenger numbers have increased significantly in the past three years following a small slump in 2009 due to the global economic situation. In the first three months of 2012 passenger numbers have increased by 16%.

- 2009: 1 910 715 - 2010: 2 315 601 (+21%) - 2011: 3 153 596 (+36%) Truck traffic has changed as follows:

- 2009: 137 229 - 2010: 171 001 (+25%)

- 2011: 192 886 (+13%) During the first quarter 2012 truck traffic has increased 2%.


customs, police and other regulatory agencies? In practice the number of border guard personnel has remained the same for the past years. In 2012 five new border guards graduated from the Border & Coast Guard Academy and in 2013 an additional 23 new border guards will be deployed to BCP Nuijamaa. Number of Custom officers has risen from 97 to 103 during these three years.


provided services ( e.g. duty free shops and insurance agencies) ? Have these had positive or negative impacts on traffic flows?

The only privately provided service is the Global Blue tax free refund point which is located after the exit side border checks near the physical border with Russia. The number of tax free customers has increased dramatically with the increasing passenger traffic. However there have been no developments so far to improve the refund point’s infrastructure. Future developments are likely to focus on increasing parking space and facilities for tax free refund procedures.


from your crossing point (s), such as upgrades of rail lines to double track, or


increasing the number of highway lanes? What qualitative and quantitative impacts do you expect these to have?

The most significant developments that are currently in progress (planning phase) focus on the actual BCP area. The aim is to construct more lanes and border control points to meet the demands of the increasing passenger traffic. Preliminary plans have been drafted to upgrade the Nuijamaa-Lappeenranta highway and the Saimaa canal road from Brusnitsnoje to Vyborg, however only the upgrade of highway Lappeenranta-Nuijamaa has got financing and the construction work will start probably during the spring 2013.


The physical capacity of the BCP will be increased in the near future in various development phases. The first phase will concentrate on the exit side, where more lanes will be added to existing control points, the queuing lanes will be extended and 1-2 completely new control points will be constructed. The second phase will concentrate on the entry side, where two new lanes will be added to the lane inspection building, queuing lanes will be extended and widened and 1-4 completely new control points will be constructed. The construction plans for the new control points are still “works in progress” and have not been finalized. These above mentioned plans are to improve the fluency of personnel traffic.



Traffic was estimated to increase more steadily and especially the increase of passenger traffic turned out to be more dramatic than was originally expected. The effects of the prospective visa freedom between Russia and the EU on border crossing traffic will be considered in future development projects.


meet changes in direction of high volume traffic? Entry/exit side control points are permanently separated and cannot be utilized in both directions. However there are other options that allow us to control traffic flows in a flexible manner i.e. the Cargo Traffic Centre can also be opened for passenger traffic during peak times.

12. Did the introduction of the Russian, Kazakhstan and Belarus Customs Union

(2010/11) lead to changes in volumes and nature of traffic, and what impacts, if any, did these changes have?


Customs Union launched the heavy increase in passenger traffic due to changes in regulation of tax free import of passengers.



The Finnish Border Guard and the Finnish Customs.

14. If the presence of agencies differs between crossing points, what criteria are

used in deciding which agencies should be placed at which crossing points? Are such decisions taken in cooperation with neighbouring states?

15. How do the agencies present at the crossing points cooperate with each other and with representatives of transport operators? Are they located in common premises or in different locations at the same site? Are there any common coordination centres, and if so at which sites? Are there plans for such centres, and if so where?

The Nuija Coordinated Border Management Model is implemented at BCP Nuijamaa. The model means enhanced co-operation between Customs & Border Guard in the following four aspects:

Regulation of traffic flow

Customs & Border checks on lanes

Control of driver’s sobriety & right to drive

Border Checks for Cargo Traffic In practice the model means:

further training for both authorities (cross-training of officials)

shared equipment, databases & facilities (e.g. vehicle inspection building)

joint field checks o statutory tasks of both authorities are carried out during lane-

inspections o physical checks can be conducted by both authorities and exposed

violations are directed to the responsible authority for further measures

common briefing in the beginning of each shift to determine use of resources and focuses for shift

Customs carry out first line border checks in cargo traffic on behalf of BG Cooperation with transport operators is conducted primarily with Lappeenranta Airport Authorities and Saimaa Canal cruise operators. In addition training sessions are organized for national bus operators regarding carrier sanction regulations.


Customs has signed a memorandum of understanding with local Finnish bus company to reveal cross border criminality.



Tailored profiles and requests for measures can be inputted into the national Border Check Application RATAS on national-regional-local levels. Alerts pop up at border control points when personal details, document details or travel motives are inputted. In addition further intelligence information is provided by the District’s Crime Prevention Unit. The Customs Licence Plate Recognition System gives alerts that are linked to vehicles by Customs, Border Guard or Police. Customs has also Tiedis and Arex systems that includes pre information concerning vehicle and cargo traffic.



Border and customs checks are conducted in sequence, on after the other. However due to the Nuija-model lane checks can be conducted simultaneously and in cargo traffic customs officials carry out first line border checks and customs clearance procedures with a “one stop shop principle”. All passengers can be subjected to additional II-line checks when necessary; these checks are conducted in separate facilities away from I-line activities.

18. What systems are used in relation to use of pre arrival data ( rail freight and rail


Advanced passenger information is received electronically in the form of passenger lists or crew manifests by email on flights to and from Lappeenranta Airport and on cruises, pleasure boats and cargo ships sailing through the Saimaa Canal. The lists are processed manually by border guards at the BCP. In cargo traffic pre arrival information has to be given by Arex.


transport operators at or in the immediate vicinity of the crossing points.

According to national legislation the Finnish Border Guard may demand passenger details from operators on external traffic. Basis for pre info on cargo traffic is based on EU legislation.


20. What changes are planned for the next few years in relation to the procedures referred to in Q. 13-19?

The further deepening of the Nuija Coordinated Border Management Model is planned for the near future. New cooperation modes may include extending invoice stamping, vehicle insurance and microchip checks for pets to Border Guards from Customs. Border Control processes are being evaluated critically in order to prepare for the increase of traffic and ensuring the high quality of checks. Tactical level changes may be implemented in the new future. Technical capabilities related to the conduct of border checks and the systems used are constantly being developed. The procedural and technical requirement set by the VIS Regulation (i.e. finger print checks) will be implemented by 2014. The functions of RATAS (i.e. regarding advanced passenger information checks) are also being developed.


would be most effective? Are these being planned, or considered? Functioning infrastructure and adequate and professional personnel are in a central position in the effective implementation of procedural changes.



RATAS, LIPRE and AREX 23. What systems do you have for the processing of people? Do you have

automatic scanners for the checking of passports? Where such systems have been introduced, what impact have they had on the processing times.

Border check equipment consists of work stations, BGIII document scanners and a number of fingerprint scanners. The BCP also has two mobile border check appliances which can be utilized at airport and harbour patrols. Automated border check systems are not yet available at Nuijamaa.


Yes. The number of personnel in each shift is planned according to traffic estimates and other operational requirements. Passenger numbers and traffic estimates are made jointly once a month with Russian counterparts.


25. What equipment do you have for dealing with EU customs entry systems such as the New Computerised Transit System and the mandatory pre arrival / pre departure electronic declaration systems ( EU States Border Crossing Points only).?

Normal working stations 10 pcs in cargo traffic centre, three in passenger traffic centre.


Since there still are paper document in use, for example TIR Carnet, handling time has doubled after getting these computerized systems.

27. Are the findings from use of such systems shared with Russia and Belarus? If so, what impacts have such sharing had on clearance times and detections of serious violations in Russia and Belarus?

In monthly meetings with our Russian counterparts information has been changed, but only in special cases. This change of information has not had any significant impact on clearance times generally. In certain case may have happened so.


available for rail containers as well as for road containers? What impacts have they had on examination times and resulting clearance times? What impact have they had on the detection of violations?.

The BCP’s heart beat detector can used to scan cargo containers and large passenger vehicles i.e. busses. The HBD’s use is determined by risk analysis. Customs has a mobile x-ray unit for all kinds of vehicles. It has reduced the need of unloading trailers or containers.

29. Is extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times? If so,

what impact do they have on clearance times? Mobile border check devices are available but not efficient due to local weather conditions. The HBD can be set up on lanes to be used from a vehicle. Mobile x-ray unit can be basically used in two shifts but it is also working in other customs posts. Roughly half of the working hours it stays in Nuijamaa.

30. What equipment, if any, is affected by severe weather? Are there any plans to

deal with such challenges?


Use of technical devices outdoors is limited due to weather conditions (rain, snow, frost).



crossing points (e.g. equivalent of the Border Authority in Russia)? What responsibilities does any such agency have, especially in relation to cooperation with the other official agencies at the crossings?

The responsibilities of different agencies are clearly outlined in national legislation and cooperation contracts. No agency is solely responsible for overall coordination. All functions are carried out in cooperation.

32. How the official agencies cooperate in relation to the receipt, processing and

evaluation of pre arrival data? There is one custom officer in Nuijamaa Customs who is responsible for doing risk analyse of cargo traffic together with national RAC.

33. How do the official agencies cooperate in relation to carrying out simultaneous

or sequential processing of vehicles, passengers, freight and rail freight and passengers?

See Q.15

34. Do the official agencies share common coordinating centres at crossing points?

If not, are they linked with regional or national multi-agency coordinating centres?

No. The regional Police-Customs-Border Guard unit is located in Hamina near BCP Vaalimaa.

35. Do the official agencies have direct access on site to each other’s databases ? If

not, do they have easy indirect access ( e.g. by contacts with representatives of the other agencies located at the same crossing, especially if located in the same room as part of a multi-agency coordinating team)?

All PCB-authorities have direct access to most of each other’s databases. Limitations may apply due to the respective duties of individual staff.


databases or other records of the other agencies?


All databases are used flexible and the input of information is determined by the function of the database itself, not the agency.



See Q.15

38. Are there any joint crossing points operated with staff from the official agencies

of the neighbouring state or states? If so, where are they and which agencies are present? How effective have they been in improving traffic flows? How effective have they been in detecting serious violations of immigration and customs laws, or in detecting other criminal or administrative violations?

We do not have joint posts.

39. What information is exchanged between the agencies on one side of the

crossing or another? Information is exchanged on the following topics - ad hoc joint investigations to deal with cases at hand - traffic situation and flow - information of persons refused entry from the previous month - other contemporary issues



Face to face meetings once a month, contact phone and fax between BCPs across the border. Customs authorities have also mobile phone and email connections.



Cooperation with the Russian Border Authorities is conducted in the Border Delegate framework. On the tactical level information may be shared by the BCP’s command or acting shift leaders. Plus that customs has working groups in certain matters and director general level meetings.


between crossing points on both sides of the border? If so, when? No changes are evident.




See Q.20


Mini Questionnaire

Infrastructure /

Logistics


Room to expand X 2013

Rail sidings X


X Third lane on highway 13 for parking of trucks, est. 2013-14


X New system for departing trucks, est. 2013

BCP manned 24/7

X


X


X X Passengers are directed indoors for checks.

Organisational

Systems /

Procedures



X


X


X


X X Lane-checks can be conducted simultaneously.

Do Freight Forwarders Associations or major transport operators have representatives at BCPs?

X



X NCTS


X If you mean Customs officers?

Technical

Capabilities



X


X


X


X


X Those who do customs clearance work.


X Road



X

Cross Border

Cooperation



X


X


X


X


X Joint investigations to deal with unclear cases are an exception.

Are lists of suspects or persons of interest shared on a regular and timely basis?

X

Are persons specifically designated for

X


information exchanges available 24/7?

Estonia

There were visits to two groups of BCPs on the Estonian – Russian border, to Koidula

– Pechory / Kunichina Gora on 18th

April and Narva – Ivangorod (all crossing points in that area) on 19

th April 2012. The Questionnaire relates to both visits and to a

meeting with national HQ staff of the Police (Border Guards) and Customs in Tallinn National Police HQ on 17th April.



Estonian road BCPs use Terminal Parking systems for cars, buses and small commercial vehicles and separately for trucks. These have been recently introduced or upgraded at Narva and Koidula, with terminals being located at the BCP (Koidula) or at available spaces some distance away (Narva and Sillamae). The operations of these systems and the related GoSwift electronic booking and management system are key to understanding Estonian vehicle border crossing procedures. GoSwift’s electronic booking system has been compulsory since 1

st August 2011

(www.estonianborder.eu and www.eestipiir.ee). In relation to actual vehicle lanes at BCPs, these are divided into use by cars / small commercial vehicles, trucks and risk management systems identified vehicles. Lane use can be varied according to priorities and needs 9e.g. perishable goods). Border Management Agency staff have wide discretion within regulations to prioritise movements. Tourist coaches are not prioritised compared with fixed schedule buses. Capacity is currently well within present levels of road traffic but geographical limits at the bridges at Koidula and Narva (the latter in the city centre) limit overall movements into Russia. Should Russia expand its own movements outwards including by use of terminals and equivalents of GoSwift, Narva inwards capacity would be exceeded ( note that Rosgranitsa in cooperation with GoSwift in Russia is from 1

st July 2012 testing out the GoSwift system at all major crossing points with

Estonia, i.e. at Ivangorod – Narva, at Shumilkino- Luhamaa and at Kunichnaja Gora – Koidula). Construction of a new bridge crossing 10 km north of the city centre at Riigikula had been considered since the 1970s but at present the Russian Federation has indicated that funds are not currently available.

http://www.estonianborder.eu/

http://www.eestipiir.ee/


Facilities for separate or joint second phase checking by Customs and Border Guards exist at both Koidula and Narva though parking space is limited at Narva.

2. What are your current capabilities for processing freight trains? And for

passenger trains? Do you have sidings on the line or lines? A new rail terminal has been introduced at Koidula (August 2011) with capacity limited only by line capacity. Facilities for passenger train passenger processing exist. At Narva there are similar facilities though without X ray equipment (unlike Koidula). In practice, freight is cleared in Tallinn or outside Estonia at final destination. Strict timetables are laid down at Narva for processing passengers (Tallinn – Moscow – 45 minutes on Estonian side and 60 minutes on Russian side) and these are met unless specific border management incidents occur. A new Tallinn – St. Petersburg passenger train starts in May 2012 which will increase passenger throughput significantly, and this has shorter processing times (30 minutes on Estonian side and 45 minutes on Russian side). There is currently no equipment for processing passports on board but such kit is due to arrive in late April 2012 although extensive checks are required to ensure it works. There is considerable siding space at both Koidula and Narva.


they differ, and at what times?

Yes. An exception is a pedestrian only BCP at Narva pedestrian bridge where no crossings take place at night, although possibilities are being discussed to extend opening hours and to allow other nationalities to use it. Under an EU funded trilateral programme involving Russian Estonia and Latvia, this will be extended to 24 hours. At peak periods, 24/7 Customs coverage can be supported by more staff from regional mobile teams who are diverted from inland Customs work.

4. Are your facilities affected by particular weather conditions? If so, by which


Yes. Portable passport scanners lose battery power in extreme cold and become less effective in rain. Mobile Customs X ray scanners can become unreliable at -35 degrees. Maintenance schedules for all affected equipment have been increased, with maintenance being carried out at twice the frequency of manufacturers’ recommendations.


5. What changes have occurred in the last five years to the volumes of traffic (road freight, commercial road passenger traffic, private passenger traffic, rail freight and rail passenger)?

See also 10. below. Detailed statistics are available. Falls seen since 2007 due to economic situation have now stabilised and some categories have increased significantly. Movements of persons at Narva have risen to 3.42 million per year from 2.8 million in 2007. There were some falls since 2010 following restrictions on personal imports of cigarettes from Russia, with 2009 being the highest at 3.8 million, which is well above the 2007 figure. There have been big increases in movements of tourist buses, which are used as road fuel carriers / smugglers. At Narva – Ivangorod truck movements fell significantly from 2007 but have now stabilised. Due to increasingly detailed checks by Russian Customs on inwards lorries to Russia waiting times have increased considerably. Movements into Estonia have therefore fallen by less than exits. At Koidula rail traffic (freight only) has risen from 16 per day to 22 (total in both directions). The terminal can handle 30 per day. 6. What impacts have the changes at 5. had to staffing levels of border guards,

customs, police and other regulatory agencies? Staffing levels are sufficient at present. The years of traffic decline have been used to improve traffic management and introduce or plan extra capacity (currently available at Koidula, with pressure on vehicle passenger traffic at Narva to be eased by another EU funded joint passenger terminal upgrade at Narva and Ivangorod). However, growing tourist traffic from the St Petersburg Region would put great pressure on staff resources, particularly when any visa waiver agreement would be reached with Russia.


provided services (e.g. duty free shops and insurance agencies)? Have these had positive or negative impacts on traffic flows?

The terminal management procedures for passenger vehicles and trucks are all managed by private companies under long term contracts which require provision of necessary services by law. These include delivery of advance vehicle registration detail which can be accessed by law enforcement agencies, as can related surveillance cameras.


The truck terminal at Sillamae (Narva) has extensive rest and recreation facilities. These are due to be introduced at Koidula where the terminal building is in final stages of construction. Advance delivery of import entry documentation to Russian Customs can be made via offices of a Russian company (Rostek, associated with Russian Customs) at both Narva and Koidula terminals.


from your crossing point (s), such as upgrades of rail lines to double track, or increasing the number of highway lanes? What qualitative and quantitative impacts do you expect these to have?

See also answers above, especially re the proposals for a new bridge crossing at Narva- this is key to addressing the physical capacity of the Narva crossing, as the bridge capacity is a the crucial limiting factor. However, increased passport checking booths inwards at Narva will assist by speeding passage of buses. For Customs movements, greater cooperation on exchange of risk information will be required to enable reductions in Russian clearance times, especially outwards from Estonia. On railway crossings (passenger) on board passport checking equipment will, if reliable, assist in coping with expected significant increases in passengers through both Koidula and Narva.

9. What changes are in progress regarding increases to the physical capacity of

your crossing point (s)? What impact do you expect these to have? See 8. The key elements for road traffic are the imminent upgrades of facilities for refreshments and recreation ( but not yet on site overnight accommodation) to the freight and passenger vehicles terminal at Koidula to match those available for trucks at Narva (Sillamae). For passenger vehicles at Narva the terminal is located within travelling time of facilities in the city. It is crucial to note that while the terminal system does save a lot of waiting time, it does not necessarily reduce the time required to cross a border, particularly where customs clearances are required. It does however enable time limited drivers to remain within their hours as they can wait off BCP or off terminal, resting or doing other activities. At Koidula (Pechory) Russian Customs are developing a semi- terminal system which should reduce the amount of waiting time, though parking spaces themselves are still fairly limited.




See also 5. above. The 2010 restrictions on carriage of tobacco products has led to smuggling using cars as well as by other means across the river at Narva. This has led to delays due to need for Customs to examine passenger vehicles in detail, and for Border Guards to devote considerable resources from passport checking to green border patrols at the Narva River. There have also been increasing cases of highly organised people smuggling where false documents are used with detected and refused persons (e.g. from Cameroon or DR Congo) being returned to Russia and then being detected a few days later attempting to enter Finland, methods which suggest high degrees of support and organisation. Traffic was estimated to increase more steadily and especially the increase of passenger traffic turned out to be more dramatic than was originally expected. The effects of the prospective visa freedom between Russia and the EU on border crossing traffic will be considered in all future development projects.


meet changes in direction of high volume traffic? No at both Narva and Koidula, due to the capacities of the bridges. However, at both BCPs there are either lanes (Koidula) or prioritisation procedures (Narva and Koidula) enabling priority traffic to move more quickly, including through accelerating their location in the queue management system. Examples include for fixed schedule buses and the carrying of perishable goods. Use of traffic management at the vehicle parks stages is particularly important at Narva / Sillamae as the capacity to remove vehicles to parking spaces immediately at the BCP is limited in Narva as the BCP itself is in the city centre, as it is in Ivangorod.

12. Did the introduction of the Russian, Kazakhstan and Belarus Customs Union (2010/11) lead to changes in volumes and nature of traffic, and what impacts, if any, did these changes have?

Yes. The Customs Union launched the heavy increase in passenger traffic due to changes in regulation of tax free import of passengers. This is reflected in the statistics from Russia and back into it. Freight checks have increased significantly on the Russian side.




At Koidula Border Guards and Customs are present, with Customs delegated to carry out the work of veterinary and phytosanitary staff. Facilities are on site. At Narva, both facilities and staff are available from these agencies. Where Customs are not immediately available (e.g. due to being involved in examinations) Border Guards are authorised to carry out Customs checks until Customs arrive. Radiological detection equipment is available at all crossings including foot passenger crossings.

14. If the presence of agencies differs between crossing points, what criteria are used in deciding which agencies should be placed at which crossing points? Are such decisions taken in cooperation with neighbouring states?

See also 13. The decisions are based on known and expected operational needs with, wherever possible, equipment and training being provided before a need is confirmed. Operational cooperation issues, including forward looking ones, are discussed at both formal (mandatory) and informal meetings with Russian authorities (Customs to Customs, Border Guards to Border Guards, and jointly). A recent (March 2012) joint report by the respective government auditors of Estonia and Russia has made recommendations for improving cooperation between the Customs Services of both states. It is hoped that these recommendations will become instructions. Therefore this document is seen as critically important. -



The operations are extremely close at all points (road and rail) where both or all are present. Staff have their own radio channels as well as common ones. Staff are co-located and have indirect immediate access to databases through their colleagues from the other service. They are located in common premises so although there are no formal common coordination centres in practice the arrangements mean there are. The Border Guards and Customs have access to the GoSwift traffic management system used to support the effective operation of the vehicle parks, and this is used for Risk Management purposes and in effect for Advance Passenger Information purposes.




See 15. and also 18. below. Yes, extensively. The GoSwift system is used for Risk Management checks. Suspect rail passengers’ details are provided by the rail operator (Estonian railways) in advance for passengers originating in Russia or at Tallinn. Over 75% of GoSwift vehicle bookings are made in advance of arrival at the terminal, but the figure is about 25% for lorries which reflects that their actual wait for crossings is still considerable. There is also extensive CCTV surveillance which can be used, and queue space is lost if the vehicle registration plates are not kept visible. For passenger vehicle traffic advance passenger information details are not yet available, other than for private car driver / person making the booking. There are currently differences in the availability of bookings for trucks ( not cars or vans) at Narva – Ivangorod due to capacity limitations for arrival on the Ivangorod side.Bookings cannot currently be made for the periods 0500-0800 and 1700-2000. There is a Russian company (Rostek) with offices at Koidula and Narva (Sillamae) truck terminals for the purposes of receiving pre arrival documents for use by Russian Customs. The benefits are felt to be limited, as Russian Customs still operates a batch system at import and export. No vehicles can move until all vehicles in the batch ( normally 10) complete import or export procedures.

At the both CBCP-s the risk management systems are based on the several internal

and external databases. Internal are:

TOTS (Customs irregularities and physical checks results)

- X-Ray reports - PIRE, COMPLEX and other customs systems

- RIHO (national risk profiles system)

- Videorecords database (video recording system in CBCPs )

- ANTS (Automated Numberplate Recognizing System)- ANTS is very useful system. It supports traffic and risk analysis by organizing and producing an enormous traffic database. It remote maintenance with automated administrative alarms, there is a possibility to search archived recognized plates with image. ANTS sends automatically alarms and information to mobile phones and workstations.

External databases: • KAIRI (police information gathering database, connections between different

subjects)


• Central Commercial Register (online service based on the central database of Estonian registration departments of the courts. This central database includes digital data from the commercial register, the register of non-profit associations and foundations and the commercial pledge register)

• Estonian population register (personal data about citizenship, addresses, relations)

• CRMS-RIF, CIRCA • X-Tee (vehicles owners and users)

• Traffic Insurance Fund (administers the information system of traffic insurance and register of traffic insurance

• Phone numbers (request from cell operators)

• Internet sources (Google)

17. Are the necessary procedures carried out by the border crossings agencies carried out simultaneously or in sequence? What changes, if any, are in progress or intended in relation to simultaneous checking?

Border and customs checks are conducted in sequence, on after the other. However checks can be and are conducted near simultaneously and in cargo traffic customs officials carry out first line border checks and customs clearance procedures with a “one stop shop principle”. All passengers can be subjected to additional II-line checks when necessary, these checks are conducted in separate facilities away from, but immediately nearby, I-line activities.

18. What systems are used in relation to use of pre arrival data ( rail freight and rail


See 16. Customs get every day pre- information about Tallinn-Moscow passenger train staff. It is a list of the staff´s data, which can be used in risk analysis.


transport operators at or in the immediate vicinity of the crossing points?.

According to national legislation the Estonian Customs Service may demand passenger details from operators on external traffic ( air, ferry, bus and rail operators, including on passengers). Currently, Border Guards can obtain details from air and ferry passengers. Negotiations are at an early stage to extend this to bus and train information for API purposes. Data is also used from the GoSwift system, which is now compulsory for all vehicle traffic. There are checks by national HQ and external auditors to ensure that data protection legislation is complied with.


See 16.for rail traffic, although this early warning of suspects is not a full API system.


referred to in Q. 13-19? Border Control processes are being evaluated critically in order to prepare for the increase of traffic and ensuring the high quality of checks. Tactical level changes may be implemented in the new future. Particular priorities are the effective implementation of within the required time passenger checks at Narva rail BCP (new route from St. Petersburg), possible passenger rail traffic at Koidula, hopefully rail X ray at Narva, and successful testing from April 2012 of on train passport checking equipment. Particular challenges are seen as being big increases in all kinds of movements due to any visa agreement with Russia, and special events such as the 2018 World Cup. Technical capabilities related to the conduct of border checks and the systems used are constantly being reviewed and developed, e.g. the procedural and technical requirement set by the VIS Regulation (i.e. finger print checks) will be implemented by 2014.


would be most effective? Are these being planned, or considered? See also Technical Capabilities section immediately below. Computer capacity demands for effective required operation of Schengen Information System checks (e.g. fingerprint checks) and the sending of data on suspect persons are very high. The checks are sometimes slow, leading to significant processing delays. Downtime due to technical problems outside Estonia can be considerable. These are major concerns.



GoSwift. Yes, they are linked to pre entries for Customs purposes (Risk Management and NCTS)- and especially ANTS and PIRE for trucks. 23. What systems do you have for the processing of people? Do you have

automatic scanners for the checking of passports? Where such systems have been introduced, what impact have they had on the processing times.


Border check equipment consists of work stations, BGIII document scanners and a number of fingerprint scanners. There are no automated passport scanners at land BCPs (i.e. passport checking without the presence of a Border Guard). However, all BCPs have scanners for recording and checking personal details and validity of documents. Entry processing times are normally only seconds, unless supplementary checks are required such as finger print verification.


Yes. The number of personnel in each shift is planned according to traffic estimates and other operational requirements, including in cooperation with Russian counterparts.. Customs deploys additional staff from mobile teams.


as the New Computerised Transit System and the mandatory pre arrival / pre departure electronic declaration systems ( EU States Border Crossing Points only).?

These are fully installed and manned at all BCPs., and used in close cooperation with GoSwift and Customs own Risk Management Systems and intelligence databases. .


Since there still are paper document in use, for example TIR Carnet, handling time has doubled for these paper declarations after getting these computerized systems However, most of documentation work is done in advance, not in the CBCP. That gives a chance to make quicker risk analysis of the declaration before the vehicle will come to the CBCP. This pre arrival system therefore makes the border crossing faster due to the ability to prioritise movements according to risk. .



Yes. There are regular meetings by both BG and CU with their Russian counterparts. Persons in charge of cooperation from agencies on both sides (“Border Delegates”) have each other’s phone contacts, as do their deputies. However, most exchanges are on operational matters rather than strategic ones such as goods prioritisations. This change of information has not had any significant impact on clearance times generally. In certain case may have happened so. Lorries are sometimes sent back due to technical infringements.


A crucial point is that Russia’s Customs priorities differ from those of EU states, with valuation of goods for import duties and VAT purposes being of particular Russian concern.



Full radiological and X ray scanners are available at all vehicle crossing points, together with mobile scanners. An exception is Narva rail BCP where there is currently no X ray scanner. The scanners are effective in making detections, especially of deep consignments, typically of cigarettes, and therefore do improve clearance times for second tier (deep search) examinations. Given the nature and scale of private car smuggling, some checks are done by x ray but others by physical examination. The nature of most inwards rail cargo traffic (raw materials, especially oil) is such that smuggling risks within cargos are low. However, the scanners do provide reassurance as unexpected items can be detected and eliminated as being risks. Rail crews are subject to selective in depth checks in relation to cigarette and alcohol smuggling. The mobile X ray units are useful for increasing the speed of checking of freight. They are reliable in all but the most severe cold weather conditions.

29. Is extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times? If so,

what impact do they have on clearance times? Yes. They do have positive impacts on clearance times but most examinations are in any case done outside the normal flow of traffic as the checks are based upon risk analysis.


deal with such challenges? Use of technical devices outdoors is limited due to weather conditions (rain, snow, frost). This is partly limited by regular maintenance in excess of manufacturers’ recommendations.



crossing points (e.g. equivalent of the Border Authority in Russia)? What


responsibilities does any such agency have, especially in relation to cooperation with the other official agencies at the crossings?

The responsibilities of different agencies are clearly outlined in national legislation and cooperation contracts. No agency is solely responsible for overall coordination. All functions are carried out in very close cooperation. The operators of the private and passenger terminals and the freight terminals are required to meet strict regulatory conditions (e.g. establishing sufficient numbers of surveillance cameras 24/7 and providing data access to Border Management agencies) that in effect their facilities are agreed in advance with the needs of BG and Customs.

32. How the official agencies cooperate in relation to the receipt, processing and

evaluation of pre arrival data? There is the very closest cooperation with all Border Guards and Customs at the same locations working together. Intelligence Officers / Risk Analysis staff have particularly close links. In addition to separate BG and Customs radio networks, there is a joint network.

33. How do the official agencies cooperate in relation to carrying out simultaneous

or sequential processing of vehicles, passengers, freight and rail freight and passengers?

See previous answers, especially 15. Checks are sequential, but where risk management information is available to one agency and is relevant to the other (e.g. from GoSwift, NCTS) the checking is in effect nearly simultaneous. This is mainly for freight or vehicles identified with owners / users.

34. Do the official agencies share common coordinating centres at crossing points?

If not, are they linked with regional or national multi-agency coordinating centres?

Not formally. However, the relationships are so close that they act as common coordinating centres and as regional centres, liaising closely with their similarly close linked agency HQs in Tallinn. .

35. Do the official agencies have direct access on site to each other’s databases ? If

not, do they have easy indirect access ( e.g. by contacts with representatives of the other agencies located at the same crossing, especially if located in the same room as part of a multi-agency coordinating team)?

No, but much of the data is common to both services (e.g. from GoSwift). Intelligence Database and Risk Management Systems data is freely shared subject to data protection legislation. Limitations may apply due to the respective duties of individual staff. Customs can sometimes use the Border Guard database PKIS, but it is based on the personal connections with border guard officers.


36. Is relevant automated or non-automated data from one agency entered onto the databases or other records of the other agencies?

All databases are used flexibly and the input of information is determined by the function of the database itself, not the agency. So much relevant data is found on several databases across the Agencies.



See Q.15 and 33. Such teams are created according to need. As mentioned, where Customs personnel are not present, Border Guards can carry out their duties (e.g. green / blue border on the Narva river for illegal entrants and cigarette smugglers using rafts or wet suits). Both Services have the same shift patterns, which encourages team building.

38. Are there any joint crossing points operated with staff from the official agencies

of the neighbouring state or states? If so, where are they and which agencies are present? How effective have they been in improving traffic flows? How effective have they been in detecting serious violations of immigration and customs laws, or in detecting other criminal or administrative violations?

No. Cooperation is achieved through formal and informal meetings ( formal ones being required at regular intervals by regulation) and by dedicated hotline phones at both rail and road BCPs. Regional Heads also have formal Border Delegate responsibilities as part of their duties.

39. What information is exchanged between the agencies on one side of the

crossing or another? Information is exchanged on the following topics - ad hoc joint investigations to deal with cases at hand - traffic situation and flow - Priority traffic (e.g. fixed schedule buses, perishable goods) - information of persons refused entry and about to be sent back 40. How such information is exchanged, e.g. agency to agency or via central


See 38. These links include email but not special alert systems. There are grounds for improvement.




Cooperation with the Russian Border Authorities is conducted in the Border Delegate framework. On the tactical level information may be shared by the BCP’s command or acting shift leaders. Similar systems are operated by Customs.


between crossing points on both sides of the border? If so, when? Not formally, but the need for changes are recognised, especially in order to deal more effectively with current and future challenges, such as: 1. (Narva) the plans for a new bridge crossing north of the city centre 2. The need for more systematic exchanges of Customs information based on each

country’s needs 3. Effectiveness of new on train passport scanners in Estonia from April 2012 4. Possible rapid increases in passenger movements after any relaxation of the EU

visa requirements for Russian citizens

43. Are there any changes planned to the national organisational and information structures of the official agencies at the border crossings (e.g. common access to information databases)?

See various replies, especially regarding 21. ( lack of spare computer capacity ahead of anticipated increases in data transfers within acceptable time limits and with acceptable reliability). There are no significant organisational agencies planned as all staff are familiar with current structures.


Mini Questionnaire

Infrastructure /

Logistics


Room to expand X X Yes (Koidula) although overnight accommodation is nearby, not on site. No in Narva city, though new vehicle bridge is proposed which would have space. GoSwift system limits queuing on site so terminal capacity is adequate (Koidula and Sillamae).

Rail sidings X Sidings capacity is adequate at Narva, and especially at new Koidula terminal.


X At both Sillamae and Koidula. This limits but does not eliminate queues out at Narva. No such systems at Ivangorod but with limited system at Pechory.


X Separate park in Narva for cars / buses vans. For trucks, outside at Sillamae.

BCP manned 24/7

X


X Traffic management system partially reduces need for this. Physical limitations at Narva also apply.


X X Passengers are directed indoors for checks. Facilities are limited at Narva though some extra space is scheduled for 2014 under joint EC Russia programme which includes Ivangorod.

Organisational

Systems /

Procedures



X However, inter agency cooperation within Estonian BCPs is exceptionally close.


X These make extensive use of pre arrival information from GoSwift, compulsory for all vehicles since 01.08.2011. Key Customs systems making such use are ANTS,PIRE, COMPLEX, NCTS.

Are such systems integrated with

X All Estonian agencies make use of them.


other agencies’ systems?


X X Lane-checks can be conducted simultaneously. While most others are sequential, there are carried out immediately afterwards.


X


X NCTS


X Yes, for freight. No for passengers, though Estonian Railways in Estonia and Russia does supply information about persons of interest, on request and proactively.

Technical

Capabilities



X On a large scale, and at GoSwift terminals.


X


X

Do staff have direct access to Vehicle registrations data?

X Automatic barriers prevent movement if vehicle plates are dirty and do not allow ANPR recording.


(Automated Vehicle Registration scanning)?


X Those who do customs clearance work.


X Road, mobile and rail ( Koidula only for rail, not yet at Narva).


X Automatic on train passport scanners to be tested from April / May 2012.

Cross Border

Cooperation



X Coordination is done on the spot by appropriate BG and CU would have a need, closely supervised by each service’s Border Delegate for the Region / location. All Regional Heads have specific formal responsibilities, including for carrying out mandatory liaison meetings.


X No. see immediately above.


X No. This is an area requiring careful further development.


X Not applicable.

Is vehicle, driver X There are dedicated hot line telephones


or passenger information shared automatically or by immediate telephoning?

readily available,, as well as the special responsibilities of the Border Delegates.


X This is done as required.


X Yes. The Border Delegates and their Deputies have specific responsibility.

Poland – Belarus Border – Koroszczyn and Terespol – Brest 24th

to 26th

April 2012



Koroszczyn ( Kukuryki) handles freight traffic. is designed to clear up to 2,000 vehicles during one twelve-hour shift - in both directions., Current optimal capacity is 500 trucks each way per 12 hour shift. Number of 500 vehicles has been agreed as the optimal to be cleared during one shift and included as reference in the concluded System of Early Warning on crisis situations at the border BCPs on the common border. If that number is not cleared and there are still more vehicles waiting for clearance, the system is launched – Customs of the neighbouring country is notified about it and requested to undertake necessary steps to improve the situation. But the number of 500 does not reflect the real, designed capacity of the BCP. Capacity of the BCP in Kukuryki depends on the smooth admittance of the vehicles by the Belarusian side (export direction). At the moment Polish Customs is able to clear 700 vehicles during one the twelve-hour service. Terespol BCP a few kilometres south handles private vehicles, small vans and coaches. There are multiple lanes at both road crossings, with special lanes inwards and outwards for priority traffic ( diplomatic and perishable goods). Terespol has lanes which


can be used in both directions, and also direction signals diverting traffic outwards into the most suitable lane. However, delays are often caused because drivers frequently ignore these instructions.

2. What are your current capabilities for processing freight trains? And for passenger trains? Do you have sidings on the line or lines?

The Terespol rail BCP processes both cargo and passengers, as does the equivalent Belarus rail terminal. Both are equipped for changing carriages from narrow gauge ( Poland and other EU) to wide gauge ( Belarus and other CIS states), but carriages are not changed at the BCP in Terespol, and the goods are transhipped to the respective coaches in Miedzyrzec and adjacent loading terminals. There are extensive sidings and a separate freight clearance terminal about 15 km beyond the border at Miedzyrzec.


they differ, and at what times? Both road crossing points and the Rail BCP have high traffic levels. Border Management Agencies staffing levels reflect this. At peak times extra staff can be brought in from Regional HQs ( e.g. Biala Podlaska for Customs). Special measures will apply during the Euro 2012 Championships in June as passenger movements by road and rail are expected to be high in both directions on both Belarusian / Russian and Ukrainian routes. These measures will be used as tests for future high volume period operations.

,

4. Are your facilities affected by particular weather conditions? If so, by which conditions and how? Have there been any changes in the last 10 years to deal with these situations, and to what extent have they been effective? Are any further changes planned?

Facilities inside the Koroszczyn (Kukuryki) terminal are extensive for recreation, though they do not have overnight sleeping accommodation. The facilities were built in the late 1990s and still have much life in them. They are not affected by weather conditions though queue delays extending to the approach roads mean that drivers cannot use the terminal facilities next to the truck park. Clearance of passengers takes place on trains or at the control hall in the building of the railway BCP so the weather conditions have no substantial effect on carrying out of checks Rail BCP facilities mean that passengers are not affected by weather as they are either on the train or inside the heated terminal.




Following downturns at height of the economic crisis, there have been significant increases with Koroszczyn showing 18% increases in movements in 20111 over 2010, with import movements up 24% and export movements up 15%. However, especially since the start of the Russian / Belarusian and Kazakh Customs Union in 2010, the total number of export movements is significantly higher than the number of imports. Koroszczyn lies directly on the main transport corridor Moscow – Minsk – Warsaw – Berlin- Rotterdam / Brussels / Paris. See also 10. below. The following table shows the figures for recent years, and that numbers of exporting vehicles are significantly higher than numbers of importing vehicles, a significant proportion of the latter being empty.

2009

Import Export

Number of vehicles crossing the border

Number of vehicles crossing the border

114776 209295

2010

Import Export

Number of vehicles crossing

the border

Increase as compared to previous year


the border


136994 19% 261265 27%

2011

Import Export


the border



the border


166925 22% 295423 13%

Significant increases have been seen on crossings in the region with Ukraine.


customs, police and other regulatory agencies? Staffing levels are adequate though extra numbers are always welcome. Both Customs and Border Guards, and the equally 24/7 deployed veterinary and phytosanitary staff can be supported by staff deployed by their regional commands from other duties (e.g. from regional Customs Offices – HQs – such as at Biala Podlaska).

7. What changes have occurred in relation to the provision of essential privately provided services ( e.g. duty free shops and insurance agencies) ? Have these had positive or negative impacts on traffic flows?


These are well accommodated at the relevant terminals, especially at Koroszczyn. Tax free shopping does involve the deployment of significant staff to stamp VAT refund claims for shoppers from the CU leaving the EU, as does the need to check for smuggling of cigarettes from Belarus. This is a major impact on flows inwards at Terespol road as despite extensive use of risk analysis much traffic is classified as high risk and is directed accordingly by traffic signals.

8. What changes are in progress or are planned regarding the transport routes to or from your crossing point (s), such as upgrades of rail lines to double track, or increasing the number of highway lanes? What qualitative and quantitative impacts do you expect these to have?

There has been extensive EU funding of roads on the main corridor from Koroszczyn. However, due to the sheer length of queues, traffic often tails back for 15 km onto the approach roads and on to the main corridor roads. Traffic demands therefore exceed the Koroszczyn capacity of 500 trucks per 12 hour shift. See 1. above for further comments on actual and theoretical capacity, and for the detailed procedures used for communicating between Polish and Belarus agencies regarding regulating such traffic flows at Koroszczyn.


There are no immediate plans for upgrading capacity. While significant space exists in the area for introduction of more traffic parks for trucks alongside a queue Management System, there are limitations due to the wetland nature of much of the land around the Bug river, and also the need to protect wildlife there. Expansion would also need to be coordinated with Belarus which faces similar challenges. See 1. above re the systems currently in use regarding regulating the flows, especially regarding traffic waiting to cross from Koroszczyn into Belarus.



See also 5. above. The unusually high levels of increases in movements of trucks between Poland and Belarus is probably due to the introduction of the Belarus / Russian / Kazakhstan Customs Union as well as Poland’s strong economy. Traffic increases at Koroszczyn have been greater than the still significant increases at crossings to Ukraine. These increases continue, despite the limitation of 600 litres of road fuel imposed on trucks into Poland, which has led to some drivers filling up with cheaper fuel


in Belarus and returning to Poland via Lithuanian crossings. Traffic would otherwise have been expected to be even higher. Terespol rail BCP, which also serves as a departure and arrival point for long distance h passengers ( e.g. Prague and Paris), has seen a significant increase in genuine and bogus asylum seekers. Border Guards have a team permanently available at the rail terminal, which has suitable interviewing and holding facilities.

11. Do you have the facilities to change the movement flows directions in order to meet changes in direction of high volume traffic?

See 1. above. Yes, at Terespol where 5 lanes used in the central part of the BCP on immediate approaches to the passport controls are reserved for official vehicles. However, they can be and are used frequently as extra checking lanes in both directions. Ability to switch directions at Koroszczyn is limited as the actual crossing by bridge over the Bug is several km away from the terminal and access is by a secure Customs road which has high fencing along its whole length.

12. Did the introduction of the Russian and Belarus Customs Union (2010/11) lead

to changes in volumes and nature of traffic, and what impacts, if any, did these changes have?

See 5. and 10. above. Belarus now has to deal with clearances of goods for both Russia and Kazakhstan. This has increased their workloads significantly.



All major crossing points have full representation. Customs, Border Guards, Phytosanitary and veterinary services are all based 24/7 at Koroszczyn and Customs and Border Guards at Terespol rail BCP. There is also an extensive support from the police which supports traffic safety at the approach roads, where queues in excess of 15 km can occur. Border stations only of the veterinary and phytosanitary branches are located only in Koroszczyn. In disputable cases of controlling animals accompanying passengers Customs Branches in Terespol (road and rail ones) contact the County veterinarian. Similar arrangements apply at other BCPs outside the Terespol region.


14. If the presence of agencies differs between crossing points, what criteria are

used in deciding which agencies should be placed at which crossing points? Are such decisions taken in cooperation with neighbouring states?

The decisions are reached according to past, current and expected demand. Neighbouring states are informed through specific liaison officers or other Polish Embassy staff in the relevant state ( e.g. Border Guard Liaison Officers in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine).



The Agencies have their own premises, very closely located together in the terminals at Koroszczyn and Terespol rail. Border Guards have their own building on the Terespol road site. There are no formal coordination centres, but unit heads are responsible for coordination and regular meetings take place on matters of specific and common interests, with staff alerting counterparts to urgent operational issues as and when they arise.

16. Do the agencies use risk management systems (whether automated or non-automated) in selecting persons, vehicles or cargo for detailed examinations? If so, is this done using pre arrival information and to what extent is it done? What types of systems and procedures are used? Are there any differences in availability of such systems depending on the nature of the border crossings?

Yes, extensively. The nature of the large cross border “shopping” traffic between Poland and Belarus and Ukraine means that Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are used extensively. Non automated passenger profiling is also crucial and this involves close Border Guard – Customs liaison, especially regarding cigarette smuggling in private cars and small vans. The joint recognition by Belarus and Poland (EU) of the accuracy of TIR carnet data and partial exchanges of data between the EU pre arrival e declarations system and its imminent Customs Union equivalent would be a vital




In sequence, but in cooperation with each other. Increased use of each other’s databases and the entry of common information onto these is occurring.



Freight: NCTS for EU transit arrivals, EDI for importers and TIR carnet for exports as well. There is currently very little API data for passenger traffic. However, special exercises are planned for the June 2012 European football championships, especially for motor coaches from Russia and Ukraine. The results will act as test beds for possible wider use. There is no direct data sharing / access where staff can access other agencies’ databases. However, this is done indirectly by close personal consultation with members of other agencies.


transport operators at or in the immediate vicinity of the crossing points? There are many customs brokers and freight forwarders ( or their associations) based at the Koroszczyn terminal, including on 24/7 bases. Passenger travel operators are also based at the rail BCP (including long distance coach operators)., Their presence enables close liaison.


referred to in Q. 13-19? Greater coordination of use of pre arrival information (freight). Possible extension of API enabling block presentation of passports inwards to EU, and faster processing of passengers on long distance through trains. Currently these checks are carried out on board, but the train is stopped for about one hour, even when the gauge changeover has occurred.


would be most effective? Are these being planned, or considered? See 20. re API.


The biggest step forward on speeding up movements of freight trucks would be mutual pre arrival clearance and recording and mutual recognition of Customs seals, thereby greatly reducing the number of physical checks, which are currently very high inwards into Belarus. There would also need to be mutual recognition of degrees of tolerances of technical errors such as discrepancies between the TIR carnet details and electronic declarations, where these mistakes are not material. Advance sharing of systematic pre arrival information would also be a big step forward, including in recognising validity of export from the EU or from the CU. These are obviously major steps, which would involve much discussion and consideration. The Russian Government’s recently (April 2012) announcement of reductions in the number of customs procedures would, if also implemented by Belarus as they would logically be, lead to significant reductions in BCP processing time both inwards and outwards, with beneficial impacts on Polish BCPs. The use of a batch system by Belarus for movements of vehicles causes delays. No movements are made from each procedure until all vehicles in the batch have been processed. This causes significant delays and resulting tail backs into Poland. See also 26.



ANPR for all vehicles. They are not directly linked, but are indirectly. The ANPR data is used as a key risk management tool, and for monitoring vehicle progress which is essential for ensuring the effectiveness of cross border queue management telephone calls. .

23. What systems do you have for the processing of people? Do you have automatic scanners for the checking of passports? Where such systems have been introduced, what impact have they had on the processing times?

Scanners are available and used. Mobile passport scanners are widely available at freight, and road and rail passenger terminals. Reliability of passport scanners in very cold weather is not as big as problem as in other countries as checks are done on board trains or in heated terminals. They have reduced waiting times. Mandatory identity checks required on the validity of passports and the genuineness of EU visas and their link with the person carrying the passport can be very time consuming, and the equipment is not always reliable, nor are the databases always available. This can on occasion cause severe delays.


24. Are extra staff deployed at periods of peak activity for movements of people? Yes. See 6. above.


as the New Computerised Transit System and the mandatory pre arrival / pre departure electronic declaration systems ( EU States Border Crossing Points only)?

See 21. above.


These have improved clearance times inwards and the access to pre arrival information before TIR carnet inspection has led to more focused and effective risk management. However, much smuggling has been and is carried out in small vans and passenger vehicles, which are not subject to delivery of pre arrival information. Traditional profiling based procedures are used here. Given the scale of the smuggling problem, queues cannot be avoided.



Discussions have taken place and continue to do so. However, as the risk profiling and nature of traffic are very asymmetric, much work still needs to be done here. Export movements to the CIS are much greater and import movements, and values are significantly higher. Many trucks returning from the CU are empty.



X ray scanners are available and widely used with considerable effect. They have significantly increased detections and deterred smuggling. Delays into Belarus are partly caused by the very extensive use of x rays there. Polish Customs has an X ray use training centre in Gdynia and Belarus Customs, which currently lacks rail BCP scanners and recognises that X ray use is a skill requiring careful training, would be interested in cooperating with this centre.


Rail freight is x rayed at the inland clearance terminal but there is no x ray yet at Terespol for rail transit traffic - this is expected in 2013. Rail passenger traffic is subject to x ray examination for regional trains which run between Terespol and Brest.

29. Is extra equipment such as mobile scanners made available at peak times? If so, what impact do they have on clearance times?

Yes, with some beneficial effects. Demand is however high across the whole border region.


deal with such challenges? The extensive use of equipment inside terminals limits the impact. But mobile passport scanners and to some extent mobile x ray scanners can become unreliable in cold weather.




No, but there is close cooperation with the Transport Ministry which leads on the physical infrastructures. There is close cooperation between agencies at the BCPs and the Heads of each Service, and their Deputies, have specific responsibilities for ensuring proactive cooperation.

32. How the official agencies cooperate in relation to the receipt, processing and evaluation of pre arrival data?

This is done on an as needed basis, as currently pre arrival data held is a Customs matter as there is no API data. The Euro 2012 tests of API for passengers will be used to draw up future operating procedures for cooperation.

33. How do the official agencies cooperate in relation to carrying out simultaneous or sequential processing of vehicles, passengers, freight and rail freight and passengers?

These are largely sequential, but with profiling and selection of passengers and suspect passenger vehicles being done in close cooperation. Road and rail freight is


largely a Customs only responsibility, but suspect drivers and operators are alerted to border guards. See also 15.

34. Do the official agencies share common coordinating centres at crossing points? If not, are they linked with regional or national multi-agency coordinating centres?

See 15. Regional centres do also share operations and plans, such as regarding deployment of staff at periods of high activity.

35. Do the official agencies have direct access on site to each other’s databases ? If not, do they have easy indirect access ( e.g. by contacts with representatives of the other agencies located at the same crossing, especially if located in the same room as part of a multi-agency coordinating team)?

No, but see 18. for description of how this is done indirectly.


databases or other records of the other agencies? Yes, following contact by the originating agency and evaluation of its relevance by the receiving agency. Vehicle registration and usership data obtained from ANPR CCTV systems is an example of data held by several services.

37. Are there formal or informal multi-agency teams involved in processing of passengers and examination of goods or vehicles? If so, are they available 24/7, or at peak times of day, or at peak periods of the year?

Yes. See 3. above. The number of staff available in normal conditions ( i.e. staff already on site) means they are available 24/7. Border Guards has enabled this availability as it does not now do continuous green border checks in the Terespol region as Belarus maintains patrols and the nature of the area around the river Bug discourages illegal crossing.

38. Are there any joint crossing points operated with staff from the official agencies of the neighbouring state or states? If so, where are they and which agencies are present? How effective have they been in improving traffic flows? How effective have they been in detecting serious violations of immigration and customs laws, or in detecting other criminal or administrative violations?

No. However, the truck BCP terminal at Koroszczyn was designed for such use, including by private sector operators such as brokers and freight forwarders, so such structures could be set up quite quickly. .


39. What information is exchanged between the agencies on one side of the crossing or another?

Data is exchanged on an as needed basis on operational matters. A key duty of BCP heads and their deputies is to maintain real time contact by phone with their Belarus counterparts regarding the level of queues building up on the Polish side, especially as the BCP’s lorry park fills up.



This is done on an as needed basis. Operational staff do contact their counterparts to discuss areas of common interest in operational cases.



See 39. Especially. Agencies on both sides treat the need to minimise delays in the immediate BCP area and on the crossings in between to a minimum.


between crossing points on both sides of the border? If so, when? Consideration is being given to sharing the impressions of how EDI (goods) and API (persons) procedures are working.

43. Are there any changes planned to the national organisational and information structures of the official agencies at the border crossings (e.g. common access to information databases)?

There are active plans whereby Polish agencies will have access to relevant parts of each other’s databases through their own databases. In effect, such data would be common, and commonly available.


Mini Questionnaire

Infrastructure /

Logistics


Room to expand X Truck and passenger vehicles BCPs: yes, with several potential sites for vehicle parks. Situation complicated by wetlands nature of surrounding area and restrictions due to wildlife protection. Rail: Yes for freight using nearby clearance terminals. Current passenger facilities are adequate.

Rail sidings X Sidings can be used by carriages of either gauge.


X Existing parks are next to lanes, but note comments above regarding suitable nearby sites.


X

BCP manned 24/7

X All crossing points have considerable numbers of Customs and Border Guards staff.


X Yes at passenger vehicle BCP Terespol. Five such lanes.


X Areas are all well protected.

Organisational

Systems /

Procedures



X However, agencies are very closely co- located. Truck BCP terminal building Koroszczyn also has significant space originally intended for use by Belarus agencies as a joint BCP.


X Automated Number Plate Recognition Systems are used in supplying the Risk Management Systems, as well as for selective checking by both Customs and Border guards based on non-automated Risk Profiling.


X However each maintains and uses their own systems too.



X No, but in close proximity in location and time.


X The truck terminal at Koroszczyn has well equipped facilities which these organisations use.


X X Polish staff have access to NCTS. They do not have access to Belarus / Customs Union systems. There is a need to enhance cooperation both ways between the two services.


X This is a major information tool for both Customs and Border Guards.


X


X X Yes, and at the passenger vehicle BCP at Terespol. They are key items. A rail freight X ray machine is due in late 2013. However, a scanner exists at the rail clearance terminal at Miedzyrzec.


X . The Russian government has announced plans for major simplifications of the number of Customs Procedures in Russia with the specific aim of reducing clearance times, including compulsory electronic pre arrival declaration. This ought to lead to similar reductions by Belarus acting as the Customs Union’s external border.


Cross Border

Cooperation


X There is specific space provided at Koroszczyn for this capability. It was originally designed as a joint terminal.


X


X


Not applicable.


X This is done when needed on operational risks issues. It is also done on a very regular basis between designated counterparts in order to keep queues to minimum levels. This need often arises.


X


X See above re queue management issues. Each contact person has deputies to ensure 24 / 7 coverage.


Appendix C - Publications Consulted

Preparing the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics, Final

Report, updated 30th

June 2011

This Report establishes the managerial and organizational framework and conceptual base for the current Project and parallel and near parallel projects. It presents detailed data on expected growth in trade volumes within and across the Northern Dimension area to 2030. These figures and the associated scenarios have been taken into account throughout the current Project.

UNECE and OSCE: Handbook of Best Practices at Border Crossings: A trade and

Transport Facilitation Perspective ( 2012) – www.osce.org/eea/88200 This is a very detailed publication which covers the whole range of subjects to be considered in relation to road and rail BCP practices in relation to the transport of goods on a commercial scale. The Project’s own Report may be considered as review of operational procedures supplementing the more strategical and organizational views of the Handbook.

UNECE: Study on the Standards and Codes for Interagency Exchange of Data and

Documents for International Trade - Moscow March 2011.

This report covers in considerable detail the ways and means of cross border exchanges of import, export and transit data for a wide range of purposes, including for ensuring the proper collection of Customs duties and VAT.

Federal Law 311 – 03 (of 28th

December 2010) on Customs Regulation in the

Russian Federation. This law lays down that the Federal Customs Service is the lead service for the border control responsibilities of the Medical Service and the Phytosanitary and Veterinary Services. It also laws down in Article 18 the three main functions of the Customs Service. These are ensuring the speed of operations and reduction of non-physical barriers, the full and timely collection of customs duties, and fighting crime and administrative offences. The Service publishes annual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in relation to these functions.

Border crossing of goods and cargo at the land border between Estonia and

Russia (a parallel report by the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation and the Estonian Audit Commissioners- March 2012). This Report lays out the common interests and needs of the Russian Federation and Estonia in speeding up the movements of goods, especially by standardisation and simplification of procedures.

http://www.osce.org/eea/88200


It is regarded by the BMAs of both countries as a key basis for future joint and separate developments and the PT urges the closest attention to the report by all NDP TL partner agencies. The recent ( 1

st July 2012) introduction of trials of the GoSwift traffic

management booking system by Rosgranitsa and GoSwift Russia at the Russian – Estonian border crossings highlights the intention to proceed to early implementation of the Report’s recommendations. Estonian and Russian initiatives which are described or proposed in the March 2012 are the source of a significant number of recommendations made in the main body of the report, and referred to in the closing sections of the Executive Summary. .

Estonian Ministry of Economic affairs and Communications: Need for Secure and

Safe Truck Parking Areas ( 25th

October 2010). This Presentation outlines the principles and practices behind the establishment of secure and safe parking areas, which, together with the introduction of Queue Management Systems, are seen as essential for enabling the crossing of borders, especially by freight vehicles, to be made less demanding.


Appendix D – International Conventions relating to Border Crossing Facilitation:

Further Review

See also Section 5. of the Main Report: International Conventions relating to Border

Crossing Facilitation .

Review of international agreements for border crossing facilitation.

Borders serve two purposes for countries. On the one hand, they are to ensure the territorial integrity of a country by marking where one country ends and another country starts. On the other hand, by means of border crossings, they are to serve as points to facilitate the movement of persons and goods, and thereby improving relationships through people to people contacts, as well as facilitating trade. The function of supporting the movement of passengers and goods across the border must be executed while ensuring the said border security as well as protecting revenues from trade taxation by ensuring that smuggling is kept under control.

The two functions of the border, security and facilitation are, though not mutually exclusive, somehow at odds with each-other. Though a 100% secure border probably does not exist, lots of controls can make the border as secure as possible, though at the cost of long delays and inconvenience.

To strike the balance between security and facilitation, countries have sought to agree on certain standards of control, most importantly by reducing the number of duplications of checks as well as through risk management. These have been embedded into international conventions and agreements. By its nature, the crossing of national borders, weather it is as a private person or a professional transporting cargo, is an affair affected by the environment on both sides of the border. To ease the process of crossing, there are international agreements or conventions that aim to facilitate some of the processes. To function proper, each agreement needs to be signed up to and implemented by both countries sharing a border. Below a non-exhaustive list of agreements that are of relevance for the Schengen zone – Russia / Belarus borders. It should be noted that, in general the conventions are superseding domestic legislation and are applicable for the signatory countries without further legislation and prevail when domestic legislation would contradict any of the provisions.


C

ou

ntry

/ Ag

ree

me

nt

Inte

rnatio

nal C

onventio

n to

facilita

te th

e

cro

ssin

g o

f frontie

rs fo

r passengers

and

baggage c

arrie

d b

y ra

il

Conventio

n o

n in

tern

atio

nal c

usto

ms tra

nsit

pro

cedure

s fo

r the c

arria

ge o

f goods b

y ra

il

under c

over o

f sm

gs c

onsig

nm

ent n

ote

s (n

ot

in F

orc

e)

Inte

rnatio

nal C

onventio

n to

Facilita

te th

e

Cro

ssin

g o

f Fro

ntie

rs fo

r Goods C

arrie

d b

y

Rail

Inte

rnatio

nal C

onventio

n o

n th

e H

arm

oniz

ed

Com

modity

Descrip

tion a

nd C

odin

g S

yste

m

Inte

rnatio

nal C

onventio

n o

n th

e H

arm

oniz

atio

n

of F

rontie

r Contro

ls o

f goods

Conventio

n o

n C

usto

ms T

reatm

ent o

f Pool

Conta

iners

used in

Inte

rnatio

nal T

ransport

Inte

rnatio

nal C

onventio

n o

n th

e S

implific

atio

n

and H

arm

oniz

atio

n o

f Custo

ms p

rocedure

s

(1973 a

nd 2

006 a

mendm

ents

)

Euro

pean C

onventio

n o

n C

usto

ms T

reatm

ent

of P

alle

ts u

sed in

Inte

rnatio

nal T

ransport

Custo

ms C

onventio

n o

n C

onta

iners

, 1972

Custo

ms C

onventio

n o

n th

e T

em

pora

ry

Importa

tion o

f Priv

ate

Road V

ehic

les

Custo

ms C

onventio

n o

n th

e T

em

pora

ry

Importa

tion o

f Com

merc

ial R

oad V

ehic

les

Custo

ms C

onventio

n o

n th

e In

tern

atio

nal

Tra

nsport o

f Goods u

nder C

over o

f TIR

Carn

ets

Conventio

n C

oncern

ing C

usto

ms F

acilitie

s fo

r

Tourin

g (T

ouris

m)

Agre

em

ent o

n th

e In

tern

atio

nal C

arria

ge o

f

Peris

hable

Foodstu

ffs a

nd o

n th

e S

pecia

l

Equip

ment to

be U

sed fo

r such C

arria

ge

(AT

P)

Conventio

n o

n T

em

pora

ry A

dm

issio

n (1

990)

Belarus x x x x x x x

Estonia x x x x x x

Finland x x x x x x x x x x x

Latvia x x x x x x

Lithuania x x x x x x x x x x x

Norway x x x x x x x x x x x

Poland x x x x x x x x x x x

Russian Federation

x x x x x x x x x

European Union

x x x x x x

Short summary of the content of the conventions. International Convention to Facilitate the Crossing of Borders For Passengers and Baggage by Rail. (1952)

The convention aims to promote the speediness of the crossing of border passengers by rail through two measures that may be taken together or separately, namely;

joint controls at one designated station on the railway line between two countries,

envisaging the establishment of joint controls (or controls by one country) on a moving train with the aim to reduce the wait at border stations.


The document provides for the broad procedures to carry out both types of border controls as well as the order in which they must be carried out. It also establishes that, in case of joint controls at border stations, there must be an equal number of stations designated on each side of the border, insofar possible.

Convention on International Customs Transit procedures for the carriage of

goods by rail under cover of SMGS consignment notes (not in Force).

The SMGS consignment note is a document mostly in use by the countries that were part of the Soviet Sphere of Influence. Relevant for this publication is that the SGMS note is used in the Russia – Belarus – Kazakhstan customs union. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia became signatories as separate Republics during their incorporation in the USSR and unless revoked, they are committed to the convention. In addition, Poland as part of the COMECON has signed up to the convention as well, though it is not clear what the status of the agreement is at this moment.

The convention, to date only ratified by Ukraine establishes the liability for taxes and duties of railway companies for goods in transit under the SMGS consignment note. In fact, when goods are in transit the railways are fully responsible for any taxes and duties (until discharged), though unless otherwise stipulated, there is no need to furnish a guaranty for the potential tax liability.

International Convention to Facilitate the Crossing of Frontiers for Goods carried

by rail.

The convention is very similar in structure as the earlier discussed convention on Passenger Traffic by rail. The aim once more is to ease the process of crossing and to reduce double checks. To this end, the convention envisages joint controls at designated border stations along main railway lines. The number and location of stations is to be agreed bilaterally, but in general the aim should be to have a similar number of stations designated at each side.

If, for whatever reason it is not possible to use one station, the conventions envisages that in each direction both outgoing and incoming controls are carried out at the same station. This is understood to be in practice that outgoing controls are carried out on the territory of the receiving country.

Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System.

The Harmonised System (HR) replaces the old “customs nomenclature” that was in place earlier and served to provide reference for the purpose of calculating customs duties and quota use. The old system was fragmented with different countries using their own codes and international traders were forced to reclassify the products when crossing borders. The HS participants

18 committed themselves to use the agreed codes

18

There are territories that, though not being a signatory are in practice applying the HS for their customs and

statistical operations.


without modification or addition for the purpose of both customs operations as well as statistical reporting.

The HS is in principle a 6 digit code of headers and subheaders, though the convention allows countries to go beyond this in the level of detail by adding additional digits, but only as long as the main 6 digit code is not affected.

Countries undertake to incorporate the use of the HS in their domestic legal framework both for tariff and for statistical purposes.

International Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods.

The most important convention for the movement of freight is the convention on the harmonisation of frontier controls of goods. It is also the agreement that, if implemented in the letter and spirit has the largest possible impact on the flows of cargo through BCP's. As there are a lot of commitments in relation to this agreement made by the participants, some of the main provisions of the convention are discussed in detail below. This may be either as a quotation from the original English text, or summaries of specifically the annexes to outline what their relevance is in the process of trade facilitation.

On the organisation of controls in general the convention text reads;

…..........“Article 5 -

Resources of the services To ensure that the control services operate satisfactorily, the Contracting Parties shall see to it that, as far as possible, and within the framework of national law, they are provided with:

(a) qualified personnel in sufficient numbers consistent with traffic requirements;

(b) equipment and facilities suitable for inspection, taking into account the mode of transport, the goods to be checked and traffic requirements;

(c) official instructions to officers for acting in accordance with international agreements and arrangements and with current national provisions.

Article 9 - Documents.

1. The Contracting Parties shall endeavour to further the use, between themselves and with the competent international bodies, of documents aligned on the United Nations Layout Key.

2. The Contracting Parties shall accept documents produced by any appropriate technical process, provided that they comply with official regulations as to their form, authenticity and certification, and that they are legible and understandable.

3. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that the necessary documents are prepared and authenticated in strict compliance with the relevant legislation.

Article 10 - Goods in transit

1. The Contracting Parties shall, wherever possible, provide simple and speedy treatment for goods in transit, especially for those travelling under cover of an


international Customs transit procedure, by limiting their inspections to cases where these are warranted by the actual circumstances or risks. Additionally, they shall take into account the situation of land-locked countries. They shall endeavour to provide for extension of the hours and the competence of existing Customs posts available for Customs clearance for goods carried under an international Customs transit procedure.

2. They shall endeavour to facilitate to the utmost the transit of goods carried in containers or other load units affording adequate security”.............

In addition, countries undertake to provide facilities such as sanitation and communication to drivers at the BCP.

More specifically, the annexes provide for some more detailed information on arrangements that shall be put into place, more precisely;

…........“ANNEX 1

Article 3 - Organization of Controls

1. When several controls have to be carried out at the same place, the competent services shall make all appropriate arrangements to carry them out simultaneously, if possible, or with the minimum delay. They shall endeavour to co-ordinate their requirements as to documents and information.” ..........

In addition, further annexes related to other than Customs controls provide for;

ANNEX 2 - MEDICO-SANITARY INSPECTION, ANNEX 3 - VETERINARY INSPECTION, ANNEX 4 - PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTION

Principles

Wherever carried out, (Medico-Sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection shall comply with the principles laid down in this Convention, and particularly in annex 1 thereto.

1. The control services shall see to it that the necessary facilities at frontier points where medico-sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection may take place are provided.

2. (Medico-Sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection may also be carried out at places in the interior of the country, if it is clear from the certificates produced and from the transport techniques employed, that the goods cannot deteriorate or cause contamination / infestation during carriage.

3. Within the framework of Conventions in force the Contracting Parties shall endeavour to reduce, as far as possible, the physical controls of perishable goods en route. Goods in transit Within the framework of Conventions in force the Contracting Parties shall, as far as possible, dispense with the (Medico-Sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection of goods in transit in those circumstances where there is no risk of contamination / infestation.


Co-operation

1. (medico-sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection services shall co-operate with the corresponding services of other Contracting Parties so as to expedite the passage of perishable goods subjected to (Medico-Sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection, inter alia, through the exchange of useful information.

2. When a consignment of perishable goods is intercepted during (Medico-Sanitary, Veterinary, Phytosanitary) inspection, the competent service shall endeavour to notify the corresponding service of the country of exportation within as short a time as possible, indicating the reasons for the interception and the measures taken concerning the goods.

Furthermore, in particular in relation to road border crossing procedures, the convention parties are committed to facilitate the reduction of pressure on the border by ensuring that most customs clearance can take place away from BCP at inland customs terminals, both in transit but also import / export traffic.

In addition, to avoid weighing procedures that are repeated over and over again, the countries agree to accept the “International Vehicle Weight Certificate”, conditions for which issue are established in the convention.

With regard to the BCP's in particular, parties are by means of Annex 8, Article 6 committed to;

….........”In order to ensure that the required formalities at border crossing points are streamlined and accelerated, the Contracting Parties shall meet, as far as possible, the following minimum requirements for border crossing points open for international goods traffic:

(i) facilities enabling joint controls between neighbouring States (one-stop technology), 24 hours a day, whenever justified by trade needs and in line with road traffic regulations;

(ii)separation of traffic for different types of traffic on both sides of the border allowing to give preference to vehicles under the cover of valid international Customs transit documents or carrying live animals or perishable foodstuffs;

(iii) off-lane control areas for random cargo and vehicle checks;

(iv) appropriate parking and terminal facilities; (v) proper hygiene, social and telecommunications facilities for drivers;

(vi) encourage forwarding agents to establish adequate facilities at border crossings with the intention that they can offer services to transport operators on a competitive basis.

The parties also undertake to give priority to vehicles carrying perishable goods, specifically those carried in ATP approved units.


Container Convention (1972) - (for countries that signed the 1990 convention,

these are bound by the latest convention)

The convention aimed to facilitate the transport of goods by container and for that purpose, it stipulates that containers shall be given access to a customs territory for a period of up to three months free of duties and taxes. This period can be extended if necessary. The convention allows that containers brought into a territory in the context of an international journey are used for maximum one domestic journey, after which they must be re-exported. Containers that are owned or leased to legal or natural persons based in the territory are not subject to the provisions of the convention and must pay taxes when importing containers that have been purchased abroad.

In addition to providing the tax regime on the container itself, it also provides for the certification requirements and the model of the certificate (the certification plate) to be affixed on the container for the purpose of transport of goods under customs seal.

The convention can be acceded also by customs unions on behalf of its members.

Convention on the customs treatment of pool containers. (1974)

Pool containers are used when shipping lines, forwarders and container owners agree to make the containers they own available to each-other at different locations. This is to alleviate the problem that it is difficult to predict where demand for a container from a specific owner will come from. The ultimate purpose is to ensure that the containers need not be moved empty over a long distance, while empty containers are available nearby owned by another company in the pool.

The agreement on pool containers envisages the same customs treatment as the container convention (discussed above) but allows members of the pool to use containers from the pool available on the territory to be used for domestic transportation as far as the operator has made available containers to the pool. This is to avoid having to return an empty container from abroad to carry out domestic transport, while a field of empty containers is available for use but owned by other pool members.

International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs procedures (1973 and 2006 amendments)

The convention deals with customs procedures rather than with BCP procedures, though there are some important commitments that the convention contains. In addition, the convention contains annexes that are serving the purpose of providing guidance as to how the commitments under the convention can be achieved. The commitment are summarised as follows:

8. the implementation of programmes aimed at continuously modernizing Customs procedures and practices and thus enhancing efficiency and effectiveness,

9. the application of Customs procedures and practices in a predictable, consistent and transparent manner, the provision to interested parties of all the necessary information regarding Customs laws, regulations, administrative guidelines,


procedures and practices,

10. the adoption of modern techniques such as risk management and audit-based controls, and

11. the maximum practicable use of information technology, co-operation wherever appropriate with other national authorities, other Customs administrations and the trading communities,

12. the implementation of relevant international standards, the provision to affected parties of easily accessible processes of administrative and judicial review,

European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International

Transport

The pallet convention provides for the same treatment as container to pallets in a pool. In other words, (multiple use) pallets can be temporary imported free of taxes and duties or the need to provide guaranties, provided that a similar number and value of pallets is re-exported from the country. In case of a pallet pool, the ownership of the pallets is of no relevance.

Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles

(1954)

The convention reflects the time when it was draw up 1954, when motor vehicles were relatively far more expensive and rare than they are today and cross border travel was less common than it is today. To facilitate travel the convention envisages the duty free temporary importation of road vehicles into a territory by persons that are not normally resident in that country for private use. To control this, customs organisations of receiving countries may require a “carnet de passages en douane”, which is a document issued by an authorised organisation that provides for a financial guaranty covering the possible taxes in case of failure to re-export the vehicle within the prescribed period. (up to one year)

In addition, the convention allows countries to require proof of authorisation to cross the border with a vehicle in case the user is not the registered owner of the vehicle.

Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Commercial Road Vehicles

(1956)

The convention was aimed to extend the benefits of relatively easy “temporary importation” of commercial vehicles along the same line as earlier was done with private vehicles. This was to facilitate international road transport and the convention envisages the duty free temporary importation of commercial road vehicles into a territory by (legal) persons that are not normally resident in that country for professional use. To control this, customs organisations of receiving countries may require a “carnet de passages en douane”, which is a document issued by an authorised organisation


that provides for a financial guaranty covering the possible taxes in case of failure to re-export the vehicle within the prescribed period. (up to one year)

In addition, the convention allows countries to require proof of authorisation to cross the border with a vehicle in case the user is not the registered owner of the vehicle. In case not sufficient proof has been furnished of authorisation, the vehicle may be rejected entry.

In addition, the vehicle maybe refused access in case it is driven by a person who has been involved in serious infringements of customs or fiscal legislation or has broken the terms of temporary importation regimes.

Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR

Carnets (1975 with amendments)

The most important convention, together with the International Convention on the Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods is the TIR convention. Its key aim has been to facilitate transit of goods in their way to a third country as well as reducing the need for frontier customs clearance of goods in the receiving country. Its main principles can be summarised as follows:

If transported by road vehicle or container that is approved for transport under customs seal and covered by a TIR carnet goods;

“(a) shall not be subject to the payment or deposit of import or export duties and taxes at Customs offices en route,

(b) Shall not, as a general rule, be subjected to Customs examination at such offices

However, in order to prevent abuse, the Customs authorities may, in exceptional circumstances and particularly when irregularity is suspected, carry out a full or summary or full examination of the goods”.

A “Customs Office en route” is defined as:

“........ any frontier Customs office of a contracting party where a road vehicle merely passes through ….............”

Under this interpretation, a frontier Customs office at the country of destination which is not indicated on the TIR carnet as being the “Customs office of destination” is expected to let the cargo pass through without further examination.

The guarantor (the issuer of the TIR carnet) undertakes to pay the duties and taxes in case these become payable and the customs administration of the claiming country is not able to obtain payment from the person first responsible (the one that controlled or received the goods). According to the TIR handbook (version 2010): “The monetary limits to the guarantee are determined for each country separately. The maximum recommended amount to be claimed from each national association is at present limited to $US 50,000 for each TIR Carnet (US $ 200.000 for Tobacco/Alcohol TIR Carnets)”.

There are special provision for “bulky goods”, such as motor vehicles carried on specialised car transporters and other heavy and indivisible goods.


Convention Concerning Customs Facilities for Touring (Tourism) – (for countries

that signed the 1990 convention, these are bound by the latest convention)

The Touring convention, concluded in 1954 aimed to promote the development of tourism by clarifying and unifying what travellers can carry across border without having to pay duties. The convention is old and items described in it as “personal effects” have long become obsolete. However, the spirit of the convention is that travellers can carry personal effects such as clothes but also camera's, portable TV sets and other items used for recreation such as sport equipment across borders without duties provided these are used (not new). In practice, there is limit of one item of each under the convention. (e.g. one camera, one TV set, one radio etc.)

In addition, the convention provides for a small quantity of alcoholic beverages to be imported free of duties.

Most important is to note that the convention does not automatically apply when:

substantially more is carried (imported) than envisaged under the convention,

in the case of frontier traffic,

to persons not yet at the age of 17 years,

Convention on Temporary Admission (1990)

Some of the conventions above, related to temporary admission are also covered in the

“Convention on Temporary Admission” of 1990. The Istanbul Convention, as it is called covers a far broader area in its annexes such as:

1. Goods for display or use at exhibitions, fairs, meetings or similar events,

2. professional equipment for the press or for sound or television broadcasting,

3. containers, pallets, packings, samples and other goods imported in connection with a commercial operation,

4. goods imported in connection with a manufacturing operation,

5. goods imported for educational, scientific or cultural purposes,

6. travellers' personal effects and goods imported for sports purposes,

7. tourist publicity material,

8. goods imported as frontier traffic

9. goods imported for humanitarian purposes annex,

10. means of transport,

11. animals

12. goods imported with partial relief from import duties and taxes

The convention is a modernised version of some of the acts that are however still valid


and cover the same subjects. Though most of the countries reviewed have ratified the 1990 convention most did not ratify the conventions of the 1950's such as the container convention, the convention on temporary admission of motor vehicles etc. However, for those countries that did ratify two conventions covering the same subject, the latest (the 1990) convention replaces the

Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and on the

Special Equipment to be Used for such Carriage (ATP) (1970 with revisions up to

January 2011)

The ATP agreement covers the carriage of perishable foodstuffs across borders and is largely a technical document that prescribes the equipment to be used, the temperatures on which foodstuffs are to be carried, the methods of recording values and the measurement tolerances. The agreement requires the equipment used to be tested and certified for different classes of foodstuffs, which are carried at certain temperatures. The certificates are expected to be mutually recognised under the agreement.

Other legal issues affecting border controls.

Apart from the above mentioned conventions and agreements, road BCPs are also affected by the different weights and sizes of heavy goods vehicles across Europe. Generally, within Europe the maximum vehicle weight of an articulated vehicle (tractor + semi trailer) is 40 metric tons, provided it has at least 5 axles. In case of the carriage of a 40' container, the weight limit is in many places 44ton.

The Russian Federation (as well as Ukraine) has an exceptionally low weight allowance of 38

19 metric tons, resulting in frequent overloading as well as substantial loss of

carriage capacity for freight. The two tons difference represent a loss of nearly 10% of possible cargo weight.

What the Countries have signed up to in relation to goods transportation in

summary;

The conventions are wider ranging, but if we consider those that are signed up to by all parties, the following commitments have been made;

1. to ensure sufficient staff and infrastructure at BCP's, taking into consideration traffic demands

20,

2. to carry out only those controls that are absolutely necessary as established on the basis of risk assessments

21 especially in the case of transit shipments,

19

Only Armenia has a lower limit with maximum 36 metric ton. 20

No specific target has been set for waiting delays or the duration of the BCP crossing process though two

hours waiting and two hours of processing should be considered as a maximum. 21

A high percentage of cargo's inspected and / or X-rayed does not constitute controls based on risk

assessment.


3. to the extent practically possible, to carry out multiple controls simultaneously or with minimum delay,

4. to have customs clearance to take place away from the border as much as possible,

5. to share information with each-other that facilitates the processes at the border,

6. in case of rail cargo crossings, to carry out both export and import controls as much as possible at the same station near to the border (joint controls)

7. to give priority to vehicles carrying perishable foodstuffs and live animals,

8. provide facilities to create a competitive market in customs brokerage service at the border crossing points,

9. to use IT based systems to the extent practically possible.

The commitments in relation to passenger transport;

The situation in the field of passenger transport is somehow more complicated than the above discussed commitments related to goods transport. With regard to the control of rail passengers, countries have agreed as much as possible to:

1. carry out controls in moving trains in order to reduce the delays for passengers,

2. if this is not possible, to carry out joint controls at border stations,

3. the time to carry out the controls is envisaged not to be more than 40 minutes for a passenger train,

With regard to movement of tourists, the Convention text sets the allowances for tourist as to what they can carry in their luggage. This reflects the state of technology at the time and, if applied today would negatively influence tourism or international travel in general. Items identified in the convention for example are:

one camera with twelve plates or five rolls of film;

one miniature cinematograph camera with two reels of film;

The 1990 Convention on Temporary Admission, which applies to those countries that have ratified both the 1950's and the 1990 convention, envisages allowing the same equipment for tourists, but provides for the modern versions.

Furthermore, with regard to the temporary importation of private motor vehicles, the (1954) convention related to this foresees the use of the “carnet de passage en douane” providing a guaranty for the re-export of private vehicles after the expiry of the period. The 1990 Convention introduces the A.T.A carnet for all items, including motor vehicles. In practice however, most countries allow vehicle onto their territory without customs or other declaration for those not resident.


Appendix E - Acknowledgments

The Project Team gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance of the following persons in the preparation of this report, before, during and after the carrying out of the Field Visits. They, and other colleagues, were invaluable in providing information and in reviewing the proposals of the Project Team. The Team accepts full responsibility for the views expressed in its Study Report.

Belarus ( meeting during Polish Field Visit 25th

and 26th

April 2012) Mr. Aleksandr Adereiko, Head of Legal Dept., State Customs Committee HQ Minsk, and Mr. Andrei Planin, Deputy Head of Department for Organisation of Customs Control, State Customs Committee HQ Minsk, who both attended the meetings with Polish Customs and Border Guards on 25

th and 26

th April.

Estonia (Field Visit 17th

to 19th

April 2012)

From the Border Guard Department of the Police and Border Guard Board: Capt. Helen Neider-Veerme, Head of the Border Guard Cooperation Bureau, Capt. Tarmo Normak, leading border official of the Border Security Bureau, Lt Col Priit Järvpõld, Head of the Border Security Bureau. From the international Cooperation of the Tax and Customs Board: Vello Valm and Jaanus Rand participated at the meeting. , Maj. Valmar Hinno, Head of the BG Koidula BCP, Customs and Border Guards representatives at Koidula road and rail BCP, Col. Aimar Koss, Head of BG Bureau, at East Prefecture., Narva Customs and BG representatives at Narva road and rail BCP.

Finland (Field Visit 16th

April 2012)

Kimmo Sainio, Head of BCP BG detachment, Nuijamaa. Petri Kukkonen, Head of Nuijimaa Customs. Lt. Col Jaakko Ritola, Finnish National Police (Border Guards) HQ, Helsinki. Pirjo Kotro, Finnish Customs Service International Cooperation Dept., Helsinki.

Latvia (Field Visit 4th

April 2012) Sabine Dubulte Latvian Customs with regional and BCP Customs and BG staff Latgale road (Terehova) and rail (Zilupe) BCPs. Lasma Bogdane, Customs HQ Riga. Jurijs Kondratenko State Real Estate Co, Riga.

Lithuania ( Field Visit 2nd

and 3rd

April 2012) Vitalis Vareikis, Karolis Braudaskas (both Customs HQ Vilnius) and Heads and Staff of BCP Customs and BG (inc. Mr. Getosas, Customs Head).Mr. Majauskas Head of Customs, Panemune. Mr. Rimantas Satkauskas ( Unit Head) , Mr. Tomas Pilukas, Mr.


Ramunas Rimkus, Road and Civil Aviation Dept., Ministry of Transport and Communications, Vilnius.


Poland (Field Visit 24th

to 26th

April 2012) Marek Newiadomski, Polish Customs International Cooperation Dept. Warsaw, Mr. Waldemar Micewicz, Deputy Director of Customs Chamber (Regional Customs HQ) in Biala Podlaska, Mrs. Marzena Pawlonka, Deputy Chief of Customs Biala Podlaska Had of Regional Customs Biala Podlaska, Mr. Jerzy Kowerda, Head of Customs at Koroszczyn (Kozlowiczy) BCP, Mr. Artur Barej, Head of Border Guards Terespol, Mr. Jaroslaw Nestorowicz, Chief of the Veterinary Service at Koroszczyn BCP, Mrs. Barbara Gromysz as Head of Customs for railway BCP Terespol and Mr. Jan Zyszozczuk, Head of Road BCP. Polish Phytosanitary Service were also met on 25

th April. Mr. Jaroslaw

Chywc, collaborator of customs supervision of the Customs Chamber in Biała Podlaska, attended throughout the meetings and also acted as Interpreter.

Russia

The Project Team has, on the advice of Finnish Customs, informed Mr. V Alekseyev in the St. Petersburg HQ of Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation informed of the Field Visits, and especially of the meetings with Belarus colleagues.

Private Sector operators

In agreement with the various transport operators and representative organisations interviewed, their identities remain anonymous.


Appendix F – Terms of Reference

Specific Terms of Reference

A Study on Common Border Crossing Points Management between Schengen

Area and Russia/Belarus.

FWC COM 2011 - LOT 1

1. BACKGROUND

The Northern Dimension policy The Northern Dimension (ND) is a common policy of the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland, with Belarus also playing an increasingly important role in the cooperation. The Northern Dimension was first initiated in 1999, and it gained new momentum after the adoption of a revised Action Plan in 2006. The Northern Dimension aims to promote security and stability in and around the wider Baltic Sea region and to address the special regional development challenges of the region such as long distances, wide disparities in the standards of living, cold climatic conditions and insufficient transport and border crossing facilities.

The Northern Dimension is based on the principle of equal partnership among the partner countries. The cooperation takes place in the form of meetings of senior representatives from the participating countries as well as in the four partnerships: the Environmental Partnership (NDEP), the Partnership for Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS), the Partnership for Transport and Logistics (NDPTL) and the Partnership for Culture (NDPC). The Partnership for Transport and Logistics (NDPTL) is one of the newest partnerships. It was established in October 2009. The NDPTL activities are supervised by the Steering Committee, which is composed of senior officials of all the participating countries. The Secretariat of the NDPTL, which provides administrative and technical support to the Steering Committee, became operational in January 2011, and it is hosted by the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) in Helsinki. With the general aim of promoting international trade in the Northern Dimension geographical area, the specific aims of the NDPTL include:

Facilitating improvements in the major transnational transport connections between the partner countries with the view of stimulating sustainable economic growth at the local/regional and global levels;

Accelerating the implementation of transport and logistics infrastructure projects along the major transnational connections, and facilitating the approval of projects of mutual interest;


Accelerating the removal of non-infrastructure related bottlenecks, affecting the flow of transport in and across the region, and facilitating the improvement of logistics in international supply chains;

Providing effective structures to monitor the implementation of the proposed projects and measures.

Border management, transport and logistics issues in the Northern Dimension

region

The Northern Dimension geographical area spreads from Denmark and Germany in the South West to the Russian North Western federal district in the North East.

One of the hurdles for transport in this region is related to the crossing of the Schengen borders with Russia/Belarus, in particular when the borders are crossed physically by road or rail. Carriers and passengers are still facing long queues and waiting times at the BCPs between Russia/Belarus and the bordering Schengen countries. One of the reasons for these delays is that institutional efforts are mainly concentrated on higher country levels, while the results at particular BCPs at large extent are dependent from local planning, organization and internal logistics at each individual ВСР.

There is a need to address these hurdles because the effective functioning of the border crossing points (BCP) is an essential factor affecting the overall success of the interaction between the transport systems of the countries in Northern Dimension area.

Best practices testify that successful results along the external borders of Schengen countries may be best achieved through an integrated approach, coordinated planning and harmonized working methods of the BCPs on both sides of the border.

Some efforts have already been taken to analyse the problems, to make improvements and to achieve an integrated approach at the BCPs:

A dialogue is taking place between the EU and Russia in relation to the matters of customs cooperation. The EU-Russia Strategic Framework for customs cooperation agreed by Commissioner Šemeta and the Head of Russian Customs A. Belyaninov in December 2010 is being implemented by EU-Russia Customs Cooperation Sub-Committee and EU-Russia Customs Working Group on Customs Border Issues.

Also, the Russian Federation has established a special agency in October 2007 to develop and maintain Russia's border-crossing points - the Federal Agency for the Development of the State Border Facilities of the Russian Federation (Rosgranitsa).

Some earlier studies have been carried out as regards customs and border management bottlenecks, e.g. Technical Assessment of the Border Control Infrastructure at selected Border Crossing Points in the St. Petersburg/Pskov Region performed recently (July 2010) by the International Organisation for Migration under the EU funded project Enhancement of Management of the RF Border Checkpoints.


Further efforts are however still needed to make the crossing of borders smoother at the Russian/Belorussian – Schengen borders. The Northern Dimension area needs a clear roadmap and expedient, harmonized and complex guidelines and recommendations, which may be applied at every BCPs in uniform way on both sides of the border.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

Global objective The overall objective of this action is to carry out a study of opportunities for integrated BCP management between the Schengen area and Russia/Belarus.

Specific objective(s) The specific objectives of the action are: - to analyse the current situation of traffic flows and border management rules,

methodologies and practices at selected BCPs between the Schengen area and

Russian Federation and Belarus;

-to assess the opportunities for integrated BCP management between the Schengen

area and Russia/Belarus;

- to identify a list of road BCPs on the Schengen countries - Russia/Belarus border that

are vitally requiring improvements.

Requested services, including suggested methodology

1. Assessment of the current status of management of road BCPs For implementation of this task the consultant will visit a number of BCPs, at least one road and one rail (except Norway- Russia border) BCP on the borders between the Schengen area and Russia/Belarus. These BCPs will be selected and agreed with NDPTL Secretariat, which will coordinate the selection with the member(s) of the NDPTL Steering Committee in close cooperation with institutions, responsible for the management and operations of BCPs in the Partnership countries (Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia). The consultant will interview forwarding companies from every of ND countries to indicate problematic in border crossing from point of view of the BCP client. The assessment shall address specific aspects of the border management as listed below:


a. Joint planning of infrastructure and superstructure at the BCPs. The consultant will analyse the current practices of planning of the BCPs and accesses on both national sides of the BCPs. Special attention should be given identification of potential means of improvement of cooperation between institutions responsible for development of border crossings infrastructure. b. Interoperability of technologies and procedures. The consultant will analyse and assess the level of correspondence of the technologies and procedures used on the two national sides of the BCPs. c. Terminal logistics. The consultant will analyse and assess the practice of movement of persons, passenger cars and freight vehicles through the BCPs, including remote access. d. Communication and common decisions. The consultant will analyse the practices of communication and coordination between institutions, operating at the two national sides of the BCPs in the process of making decisions regarding procedures to be applied to passengers and vehicles. Possibilities to arrange one-stop-window and integrated IT system of all control bodies at BCP, as well as joint border controls (where feasible) will also be estimated. e. Personnel’ knowledge The consultant will analyse the personnel’s knowledge about technologies, procedures, terminal logistics and other organizational details concerning the opposite national part of the BCP and will propose measures to keep necessary and equal level of personnel’ knowledge at the BCP.

3. The conclusions and recommendations

The Consultant will draw up conclusions and recommendations for the improvement of BCP management basing on the findings of the screening study performed under this assignment.

Required outputs

The required output of this assignment is a Study on Common Border Crossing

Points Management between Schengen Area and Russia/Belarus that shall contain

at least the following information (see also "specific objectives" above):

A description and in depth analysis of the current practices of BCPs

management;


Analysis and assessment of the current practice of communication and

coordination between two national parts of the BCP. Recommendations for

communication and coordination between institutions, acting in each of two

national BCPs in the process of decision making regarding procedures to be

applied to individuals, passenger' cars and trains, freight vehicles and trains;

Analysis and assessment of the terminal logistics: practice of movement of

persons, passenger' cars and trains, freight vehicles and trains through BCPs

including accesses to the BCPs. Measurement of the time needed to cross the

border and to complete procedures with the help of surveys;

A proposed list of road and rail BCPs on the Schengen countries -

Russia/Belarus border that would require improvements in management of

border crossing.

The study output is expected to support the actions of the NDPTL and promote partners' cooperation on removal of bottlenecks and improvement border crossing management in the ND region. The Contracting Authority reserves the right to disseminate the report to the interlocutors of the NDPTL and other interested parties, as well as to publish the report or parts of it.

3. EXPERTISE REQUIRED

Number of requested experts per category

Senior expert(s): maximum 3 persons

Number of man-days per category:

Senior expert(s): maximum160 man-days

Expertise required

In order to successfully complete the assignment expertise is required on management of road and rail border crossing points. The minimum requirements for the team of experts are the following: Qualifications and skills

At least one of the experts must have a University degree, preferably in transport and logistics, business, economics, or equivalent professional experience;


At least one of the experts must have a University degree in spatial planning or equivalent professional experience;

At least one of the experts must have good knowledge of the legal environment, related to the border crossing issues;

The team members shall have strong analytical capacity and excellent communication and presentation skills;

Skills and experience in ICT would be an advantage. General professional experience

1. All the experts in the team must have at least 10 years of general professional experience in their respective fields (transport and logistics, traffic planning and engineering, spatial planning, management of border crossing points, ICT)

Specific professional experience

2. One of the experts must have at least 3 years of professional experience relating to the international operations in road and rail transport and logistics, carriage of passengers;

3. At least one of experts should have experience in border crossing management issues in Schengen are countries;

4. At least one of the experts must have at least 3 years of professional experience relating to services related to the organisation of border crossing point in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and/or the CIS countries. Direct experience of working with Russian and/or Belorussian institutions responsible for development of border management procedures, planning and operations would be an advantage;

5. One of the experts must have at least 3 years of professional experience relating to planning of territories for logistic operations, road and rail infrastructure. Good knowledge of technologies being used at the BCPs including ICT is compulsory.

Language skills

All experts in the team should be fluent in written and spoken English.

At least one of the experts in the team must be fluent in written and spoken Russian.

4. LOCATION AND DURATION

Starting period The provisional starting date for the project is Monday 21 November 2011. The actual starting date shall be agreed with the Project Manager once the specific contract has been signed.

Foreseen finishing period or duration

6 months from the starting date.


Planning (including the period for notification for placement of the staff) The assignment shall be implemented in three phases as follows:

Objective

Approximate

duration

Estimated

timing

Phase 1

Inception phase including a desk study on the available resources on BCPs management issues in RF and Belarus

25 working days November – December 2011

Phase 2

Field visits to the selected border crossing points and forwarding companies, analysis of acquired information, writing a draft output report.

85 working days January -March 2012

Phase 3

Finalisation of the report following feedback from the NDPTL' working group members and the Secretariat of the NDPTL

50 working days April - May 2012

The Contractor shall agree with the Project Manager on the actual starting date of the assignment. Later on, the Contractor / experts shall notify the Project Manager about the planned dates of the field visit(s).

Location of the assignment Phases 1 and 3 may mainly be carried out at the home base of the experts with potential visits to relevant institutions in Russia/Belarus and Schengen zone. Phase 2 of the assignment, field visits to selected road BCPs, shall be carried out in the Russian Federation, Belarus and countries of the Schengen zone in line with the agreement of the consultant with stakeholders.

5. REPORTING

Content

In addition to the actual project output (the Study on Common Border Crossing

Points Management Between Schengen Area and Russia/Belarus) presented in the section 2 above, the consultant shall provide the following administrative reports relating to the implementation of the contract:

An inception report shall be submitted to the Contracting Authority 6 weeks after the project start (by e-mail only). It shall contain an updated work plan, including a list of the BCPs selected for the screening study, and a timetable for the implementation of the


project. It is assumed that the Consultant will establish during the inception phase working contacts with the Secretariat of the NDPTL and with relevant national (or regional) authorities of the countries of BCPs selected for the study. The report should not exceed 5 pages. A final report shall be submitted to the Contracting Authority at the end of the project implementation (by e-mail only). It shall contain information on the services provided under the contract, any problems encountered and lessons learned, as well as other relevant information, including on financial implementation. The report should not exceed 5 pages.

Language All reports shall be submitted in English.

Timing for submission and comments, when relevant, for approval

The actual project output - the Study on Common Border Crossing Points

Management Between Schengen Area and Russia/Belarus – presented in the section 2 above, shall be submitted separately from the administrative inception and final reports. A draft of the study report must be submitted to the Contracting Authority by e-mail at

least 6 weeks before the end of the project, so that the stakeholders (including the NDPTL Steering Committee) have sufficient time to discuss the recommendations and give their feedback before the study is completed. The study shall be presented in English and it shall not exceed 100 pages.

Number of report copies The final version of the study shall be submitted to the Contracting Authority in two paper copies as well as in electronic format.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

- Interviews if necessary indicating for which experts/position No expert interviews shall be concluded during the evaluation of offers.

Request for a succinct methodology A short methodology for implementing this assignment shall be part of the offer.

Management team member presence required or not for briefing and/or

debriefing


Briefing and de-briefing sessions shall be carried out between the representatives of the Contracting Authority and the expert. No Management team presence is required.

Other authorized items to foresee under ‘Reimbursable’ N/A

Operational conditionality for intermediary payment if any No intermediary payment is foreseen.

Tax arrangements N/A


The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of B&S Europe and can in no way be

taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

european union common border crossings management project

Business

border control processes

border crossing facilitation

cross border cooperation

summary of views

views of transport operators

road passengers

rail freight situation

views of drivers