180 likes | 477 Views
The e-Freight Multimodal e-Waybill Tom Cane (BMT Group Ltd) 2 nd e-Freight Conference, Delft 9 th -10 th May, 2012. Challenges: “Multimodal”. Patchwork of liability regimes International conventions, national legislation, contractual agreements, professional practices…
E N D
The e-Freight Multimodal e-Waybill Tom Cane (BMT Group Ltd) 2nd e-Freight Conference, Delft 9th-10th May, 2012
Challenges: “Multimodal” • Patchwork of liability regimes • International conventions, national legislation, contractual agreements, professional practices… • Strong modal distinctions • Liability • Documents • Lack of harmonisation and clarity Barriers to efficient, flexible and sustainable multimodal freight transport
Challenges: “Electronic” • Still predominantly paper based • Need for signature • Requirement to accompany cargo • Technology limitations: operational environment vs. back office • Technology mismatch: Sophisticated electronic booking and invoicing systems vs. Paper waybills and consignment notes • Inefficiencies and inaccuracies • e.g. long invoicing cycle
e-Freight Project Developments “Standardised multimodal electronic waybill” • Specification for content and structure of information • Necessary and sufficient • Implementation (software) independent • Reference implementation using e-Delivery Infrastructure • Business Case evaluation
Existing Paper Documents • CMR Consignment Note (Road) • CIM Consignment Note (Rail) • Sea Waybills (e.g. BIMCO Non-negotiable Sea Waybill) • Air Waybills (e.g. IATA AWB) • FIATA Non-negotiable Multimodal Transport Waybill • BIMCO Multimodal Transport Waybill • House/Line Waybills (in-house waybills) • …
Information Model “Necessary and Sufficient” House Waybills
Added Value • Flexible support for multimodal chains • Individual transport legs or whole chain • Designed from “first principles” • No bias (modal, sectoral…) • Optional additional parties • e.g. handling agents, warehousers • Compatible with UBL, WCO, UN/CEFACT, UN/ECE… • Well-structured, electronic data – not just PDF files
Bills of Lading • Documents of Title – negotiable/tradable • Handled through banking system • Not originally included in project scope But… • Information content often identical to waybill • Can be declared “non-negotiable”
Existing “Solutions” • “Multimodal” • Still need separate (paper) document for each leg • Often, one leg has to be maritime • “Electronic” • PDF documents, FTP, e-mail vs. XML and Web Services • Involvement of banks (e.g. Bolero Open4Trade platform) • Centralised, closed access/community systems
Main Technical Requirements • Distributed platform • Security, authentication and privacy • Electronic signature • Cross-platform • Backward compatibility • Low cost • Efficient and flexible information sharing
e-Freight Approach Extend the e-Delivery Infrastructure • Efficient information exchange infrastructure • Robust, distributed architecture • Security mechanisms “built in” • “Connect once” principle • Integration with e-Freight and other standards
A Flexible Solution Sea Multimodal e-Waybill (MWB) Rail Road Inland Waterway Unimodal “Necessary and Sufficient” Con. Car. 2 … Car. 1 Multimodal e-Waybill (MWB) MWB Multimodal e.g. CMR … CIM
e-Freight Reference Solution e-Delivery Infrastructure Internet Consignor Consignee Carrier Create Sign View View INVOICING SECURITY – AUTHENTICATION – OWNERSHIP ACCESSIBILITY– COMMUNICATION
e-Freight Reference Solution Internet Carrier Carrier Carrier MTO / FF
Remaining Hurdles • Liability • multimodal liability regime • “single European transport document”? • Legal and cultural acceptance • paperless environment • electronic signatures
Impacts • Fully integrated transport management systems • e-Proof of Delivery faster invoicing time • Integration with ITS services improved monitoring, automated declarations… • Support for multimodal chains • Harmonisation and standardisation
Thank You Questions & Discussion tcane@bmtmail.com