International Single
Window Study
Australia Department of Immigration and
Border Protection
FINAL REPORT
30 August 2016
International Single Window Study
Page 2 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................5
List of Abbreviations...............................................................................................................7
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................10
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................11
Single Window Analysis, Trends and Recommendations .....................................................12
5.1
Background ................................................................................................................. 12
5.2
Single Window Evolution and Case Study Analysis ..................................................... 13
5.3
Case Study Analysis .................................................................................................... 13
5.4
Regional Single Window and the Future Trade Environment ....................................... 14
5.5
Single Window and AEO/Trusted Trader Programmes ................................................ 15
5.6
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 16
6 Case Study – Barbados .......................................................................................................19
6.1
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 19
6.2
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 19
6.3
Country Profile ............................................................................................................. 20
6.4
Government Structure.................................................................................................. 20
6.5
Background to the Single Window ............................................................................... 21
6.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement ................................................................ 21
6.7
Legislative Framework ................................................................................................. 22
6.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................... 22
6.8.1
Services Provided ................................................................................................. 23
6.8.2
Technology used .................................................................................................. 24
6.9
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................... 24
6.10
Resource Management ............................................................................................ 24
6.10.1 Benefits ................................................................................................................ 25
6.11
Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 25
6.12
Future Plans and Innovations ................................................................................... 26
7 Case Study – Canada ..........................................................................................................27
7.1
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 27
7.2
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 27
7.3
Country Profile ............................................................................................................. 28
7.4
Government Structure.................................................................................................. 28
7.5
Background of the Single Window ............................................................................... 28
7.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement ................................................................ 29
7.7
Legislative Framework ................................................................................................. 31
7.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................... 31
7.9
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................... 32
7.10
Resource Management ............................................................................................ 33
7.11
Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 33
7.12
Future Plans and Innovations ................................................................................... 34
8 Case Study – Netherlands ...................................................................................................35
8.1
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 35
8.2
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 35
8.3
Country Profile ............................................................................................................. 35
8.4
Government Structure.................................................................................................. 36
8.5
Background of the Single Window ............................................................................... 36
8.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement ................................................................ 36
8.7
Legislative Framework ................................................................................................. 37
8.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................... 38
8.9
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................... 39
8.10
Resource Management ............................................................................................ 39
8.11
Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 40
International Single Window Study
Page 3 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
8.12
Future Plans and Innovations ................................................................................... 40
9 Case Study – New Zealand .................................................................................................41
9.1
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 41
9.2
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 41
9.3
Country Profile ............................................................................................................. 41
9.4
Government Structure.................................................................................................. 42
9.5
Background to the Trade Single Window (TSW) .......................................................... 42
9.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement ................................................................ 44
9.6.1
Programme Governance....................................................................................... 45
9.7
Legislative Framework ................................................................................................. 45
9.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................... 46
9.8.1
Lodgements and Message Formats ...................................................................... 47
9.8.2
Connectivity Options to TSW ................................................................................ 48
9.8.3
JBMS Programme Costs and Cost Recovery ....................................................... 48
9.8.4
Changes and Improvements Introduced by TSW .................................................. 49
9.8.5
Volumes and Industry Feedback ........................................................................... 50
9.9
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................... 50
9.10
Resource Management ............................................................................................ 51
9.11
Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 51
9.12
Future Plans and Innovations ................................................................................... 52
10 Case Study – Singapore ......................................................................................................54
10.1
Summary .................................................................................................................. 54
10.2
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 54
10.3
Country Profile ......................................................................................................... 54
10.4
Government Structure .............................................................................................. 55
10.5
Background of the Single Window ............................................................................ 55
10.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement............................................................. 56
10.7
Legislative Framework ............................................................................................. 56
10.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................ 57
10.8.1 TradeXchange and TradeNet Overview ................................................................ 58
10.8.2 Services provided ................................................................................................. 59
10.8.3 Technology and Standards ................................................................................... 60
10.9
Implementation Plan................................................................................................. 60
10.10 Resource Management ............................................................................................ 61
10.11 Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 61
10.12 Future Plan and Innovations ..................................................................................... 62
11 Case Study – Sweden .........................................................................................................63
11.1
Summary .................................................................................................................. 63
11.2
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 64
11.3
Country Profile ......................................................................................................... 66
11.4
Government Structure .............................................................................................. 66
11.5
Background to the Single Window ............................................................................ 67
11.5.1 Acting on behalf of other agencies ........................................................................ 67
11.5.2 SW As-Is from a business perspective .................................................................. 67
11.5.3 SW As-Is from an IT infrastructure perspective ..................................................... 68
11.6
Stakeholder Management and Engagement............................................................. 68
11.7
Legislative Framework ............................................................................................. 69
11.8
Business Model ........................................................................................................ 69
11.9
Implementation Plan................................................................................................. 70
11.10 Resource Management ............................................................................................ 71
11.11 Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 71
11.11.1
National Single Window .................................................................................... 71
11.11.2
Regional Single Window ................................................................................... 72
11.12 Future Plans and Innovations ................................................................................... 73
12 Appendix ..............................................................................................................................74
International Single Window Study
Page 4 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.1
Single Window Survey ............................................................................................. 74
12.2
New Zealand JBMS Implementation Plan ................................................................ 75
12.3
New Zealand Data Harmonisation and the WCO Data Model .................................. 76
12.3.1 Mandatory Adoption of WDM3 Messages ............................................................. 78
12.4
Sweden As-Is Activities ............................................................................................ 79
12.5
Swedish Customs National Roadmap ...................................................................... 82
12.6
About KGH Border Services ..................................................................................... 83
12.7
References ............................................................................................................... 85
International Single Window Study
Page 5 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
1
Executive Summary
A Single Window (SW) is a concept that offers the trading community a single, harmonized and
standardized interface with Customs and other related Government Agencies to fulfil the regulatory requirements when trading across borders. In this concept, KGH includes both the electronic
solutions as well as the organizational and procedural arrangements that constitute the SW concept.
For many years, the Single Window has been one of the key solutions for governments to facilitate and ease the administrative burden for international trade. Developed countries and an increasing number of developing countries have implemented a National Single Window. The objective and purpose with the Single Window is simple: facilitating trade while increasing the ability
of regulation and control. More advanced countries have developed the concept further to include
trade and logistics stakeholders in order to create a trade and logistics Single Window.
While the logic of the Single Window principle is obvious, implementation challenges include poor
stakeholder coordination, lack of consistent political support as well as delays and budget issues
due to ambitious scoping and unrealistic plans. The lessons learned in these common and recognised areas cannot be emphasized enough. These challenges are common in both developed
and developing economies.
There are three major observations that are clearly identified based on the current SW developments around the world. First, the objective to connect several national Single Windows to regional Single Windows is recognised as desirable by several countries, only Singapore has
commenced planning for this capability. Singapore has the ambition to develop the TradeNet SW
to connect with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the ten members into a
regional Single Window. This would enhance and facilitate process efficiency as a result of data
exchange between member economies and also non-members. Piloting is in progress with data
exchange of certificate of origin data between five of the ASEAN member economies.
The second observation is that, especially in the EU where the complexity of coordinating several
agencies in several countries, there is often not only one national Single Window per country to
consider for integration, but rather, differing vertical Single Windows for specific type of stakeholders and modes of transport being developed simultaneously. The Maritime Single Window,
currently being developed in Netherlands, Sweden and other EU member states, which connects
not only maritime agencies but also Customs and other related agencies, is an example of this
type of issue. Even though these vertical Single Windows are coordinated between the different
national agencies involved and rely on the same infrastructure, traders may have to interface with
several different solutions. A single window based on several solutions is, per definition, not a
single window, but many windows. A real single window offers one message in and one response
back.
Thirdly, there are few countries that have implemented Single Windows in line with the international standards, definitions and best practices – often because of cost implications or other complications like technology issues. Nevertheless, it is a myth that a successful Single Window project is very expensive. Barbados have taken a pragmatic and straightforward approach by focusing on the low-hanging fruits and using modern web-enabled technology. Instead, the reasons for
not complying with international standards, definitions and best practises are rather to be found in
a lack of political will to coordinate and restructure Government processes and too much focus on
technology solutions. KGH’s experience and these case studies show that it is a cost-efficient
reform to introduce a real Single Window, especially when such a modernization project is fully
integrated with a Trusted Trader/AEO model and a Coordinated Border Management (CBM) approach.
International Single Window Study
Page 6 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Despite the challenges, the potential of the Single Window as a trade facilitation solution cannot
be underestimated. The recommendations contained in this report are based on insights gained
from different countries and provide learnings that can reduce the risks associated with the implementation of a Single Window.
Ensuring proper and relevant scoping based on cost and benefits can reduce investment costs.
Furthermore, Single Window implementation is not just a technology project. Even though IT is a
key component, development has to start with business process re-engineering and data harmonisation based on international standards and best-practices. With this approach, the risk of automating old procedures and consequent delays in technology development can be avoided.
Common to all successful Single Window implementations is the ability to coordinate among
stakeholders. Therefore, a coordinated border management model should be considered, wherein one agency at the border (front-office) is takes on operational and Single Window responsibilities on behalf of other back-office agencies. Sweden is one of the countries that has applied this
model successfully, enabling a simplified process for the Single Window procedures.
Finally, a Trusted Trader/Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) model should be integrated into
the Single Window to provide traders with a government-wide authorisation and benefits, and to
facilitate the separation of flows in the Single Window.
Single Windows and AEO programmes can be integrated on two levels. First, the AEO programme should be extended to include authorization as a trusted trader not only from Customs,
but also from other relevant authorities. This enables extensive cross-agency benefits to be realized and further facilitate secure and efficient trade. Government-wide AEO authorization is currently being explored and developed in a few countries.
Secondly, the provision of fully integrated data to relevant regulatory authorities will allow full
benefits of expedited processing through a SW to be realised by the AEO members, particularly
when leveraging other benefits made available through the national AEO programme, for example, streamlined reporting. This approach is supported in the Canadian, Swedish and Singapore
SW models to varying levels.
For non-AEO programme members, ‘collect once – reuse often’ capability of the SW facility will
reduce over heads related to manual processes and repeated data requests.
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
2
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation
AEO
AIRI
ACCESS
ACE
APEC
ASEAN
B2B
B2G
BACC
BCP
BCS
CARICOM
CAS
CBM
CBSA
CCC
CED
CFIA
CMAA
CNSC
CO
CONOPS
CPG
DG MOVE
DG SANCO
DG TAXUD
DFO
DIBP
DIF
DMR
ebMS
ECCC
ECCG
ECS
EDEXIM
EDI
ERP
ESW
ETA
EU
EUCDM
FAL
FTA
Title
Authorised Economic Operator
Advance Interdepartmental Reporting Initiative
Advance Clearance for Courier and Express Shipment System
Air Express Companies
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Business-to-Business
Business-to-Government
Biosecurity Authority Clearance Certificate
Barbados Competitive Programme
Business Community Systems
Caribbean Community and Common Market
Chemical Abstract Service
Coordinated Border Management
Canada Border Services Agency
Customs Code Committee (EU)
Barbados Customs and Excise Department
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Certificate of Origin
Concept of Operations
Customs Policy Group (EU)
Directorate General for Mobility and Transport
Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection
Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Australia)
Document Imaging Functionality
Data Maintenance Request
ebXML Messaging Service
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Electronic Customs Coordination Group (EU)
Export Control System (EU)
European Database on Export and Import
Electronic Data Interchange
Enterprise Resource Planning
Electronic Single Window
Electronic Transaction Act (Singapore)
European Union
EU Customs Data Model
Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic
Free Trade Agreement
Page 7 (87)
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
FTP
G2G
GAC
GDP
GNC
GTIN
HC
IDA
IDB
IETF
IID
IE
JBMS
JEB
LPCO
MASP
MFEA
MLES
MNZ
MPI
MS
MSW NL
NCB
NRCan
NSW
NTP
NZCS
NZFSA
OGA
PCS
PGA
PHAC
PPP
RFP
SAFTA
SES
SGAEOS
SGSI
SHS
STB
SW
SWI
SWTT
TC
TCG
TDMS
TID
File Transfer Protocol
Government-to-Government
Global Affairs Canada
Gross Domestic Product
Globally Networked Customs
Global Trade Item Number
Health Canada
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
Inter-American Development Bank
Import Entry Transaction Fee
Integrated Import Declaration
International Enterprise (Singapore)
Joint Border Management System (NZ)
Joint Executive Board
License Permit Certificate and Other
Multi Annul Strategic Plan (EU)
Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (Barbados)
Model Law on Electronic Signatures
Maritime New Zealand
Ministry for Primary Industries
Member States
Maritime Single Window Netherlands
National Computer Board (Singapore)
Natural Resources Canada
National Single Window
National Trade Platform
New Zealand Customs Service
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
Other Government Agencies
Port Community System
Participating Government Agencies
Public Health Agency of Canada
Private-Public-Partnership
Request for Proposal
Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Secure Export Scheme
Single Government Authorised Economic Operator Status
Swedish Government Secure Intranet
Collection and Dissemination System (Sweden)
Singapore Trade Development Board
Single Window
Single Window Initiative
Single Window Trade and Transport
Transport Canada
Trade Contact Group (EU)
Trade Document Management System (Barbados)
Swedish Customs Internet Declaration
Page 8 (87)
International Single Window Study
Page 9 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
TIP
TRACES
TSN
TSW
TT
UCC
UN
UN/CEFACT
UNCITRAL
UNECE
US CBP
UUM/DS
VAS
VAT
WCO
WCO DMPT
WDM3
WTO
XML
Trade Information Portal
Trade Control and Export System
Taxonomical Serial Number
Trade Single Window
Trusted Trader
Union Customs Code (EU)
United Nations
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business
The Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United States Customs and Border Protection
Uniform User Management/Digital Signatures
Value Added Service
Value Added Tax
World Customs Organization
WCO Data Model Project Team
WCO Data Model version 3
World Trade Organisation
eXtensible Markup Language
International Single Window Study
Page 10 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
3
List of Figures
Figures
Figure 1: A Single Window roadmap in five evolutionary stages ................................................ 13
Figure 2: Single Window Network .............................................................................................. 1
Figure 3: Barbados ESW Overview (Barbados ESW, 2016) ...................................................... 23
Figure 4: Barbados ESW Design and Development Plan ........................................................... 24
Figure 5: Canada SWI Interdepartmental Governance Structure ............................................... 3
Figure 6: Canada SWI Deployment Plan (CBSA, 2008) ............................................................. 33
Figure 7: MNSW NL (Ronald van den Heuvel, 2013) ................................................................. 3
Figure 8: MSW NL Software Development Plan ......................................................................... 3
Figure 9: Connectivity Options to Trade Single Window (WCO, 2013) ....................................... 4
Figure 10: TSW Statistics (TSW Statistics, 2016)....................................................................... 5
Figure 11: TradeXchange and TradeNet overview ..................................................................... 5
Figure 12: Schematic overview of TradeXchange and TradeNet (CA’s stands for Controlling
Agencies) ................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 13: Customs and Single Window legislation .................................................................... 6
Figure 14: JBMS Implementation Plan ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 15: Data Harmonisation Process..................................................................................... 7
International Single Window Study
Page 11 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
4
Introduction
Australian Department of Immigrations and Border Protection (DIBP) has commissioned an international study on global trends and Single Window implementations around the world. The purpose is to collect insight on challenges, experiences and opportunities for the future implementation of the Australian Single Window.
There are a number of challenges and common mistakes that may delay or even jeopardize a
SW implementation (SWI). This includes scoping, nonexistence of business process reengineering, no data harmonization, and too much focus on technology at the expense of stakeholder management and programme management support, to mention a few. This study will include a number of SWI case studies featuring implementation best practices and, where challenges occurred, how these were managed.
Even though most of the SWI around the world share the same basic definition and the same
ultimate objective, the flavours and path for implementation are very different. The study covers
different characteristics of Single Windows that facilitates regulatory requirements, and how the
next generation SWIs will provide services related to trade, logistics and interoperability with other jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the report elaborates on the global trends and parallel initiatives in relation to Single
Windows, such as the combination of Single Window facilities and Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programmes as a trade facilitation arrangement. The report concludes how these
trends would provide opportunities to an Australian Single Window facility and the Australian
Trusted Trader programme.
The following Single Windows are included in the study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barbados;
Canada;
Netherlands;
New Zealand;
Singapore; and
Sweden.
Single Windows included in the study are all in different stages of their lifecycle. Barbados is currently being developed with a strong focus on permit and other document approvals and coordination of involved agencies. Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden have
been operational for quite some time but will be further developed using different approaches.
In detail, the study reviews how the different Single Window implementations have approached
and managed the following areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
policy and practice environment prior to implementation;
stakeholder engagement and management;
funding mechanisms and business models used;
management and governance arrangements;
timeframe for implementation, including phasing;
resources required;
lessons learned from implementation; and
future plans and innovations.
International Single Window Study
Page 12 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
5
Single Window Analysis, Trends and Recommendations
5.1 Background
A Single Window (SW) may be implemented in a number of different ways subject to factors including political priorities and objectives, the current situation (as-is) for border management processes, budget constraints, and the vision, ambition and engagement of different stakeholders
such as Customs, unions, government agencies. Other factors can also play a role.
The “Single Window” environment aims to expedite and simplify information flows between trade
and government and bring meaningful gains to all parties involved in cross-border trade. In a theoretical sense a “trade single window” can be described as “a system that allows traders to lodge
information with a single body to fulfil all import- or export-related regulatory requirements. In
practical terms a “single window” environment provides one entry point for the submission and
handling of harmonized data, and documents related to the release and clearance of consignments.
UN/CEFACT Recommendation 33 and the accompanying guidelines define the single window
and describe the different types of Single Windows.
1. Single Authority model
- an entity that coordinates between all relevant agencies to ensure that the logistics chain
remains unhindered.
2. Single Automated System model
- an automated information system that processes information or coordinates with a group of
systems that process the data that has to be received or sent.
3. Automated Information Transaction System
- that serves as a transaction hub and is integrated with all authorities. Declarations and licenses, permits, certificates and other documents (LPCO) are received electronically in a
single application and are processed seamlessly by the concerned individual authorities. The
response is returned electronically to the declarant.
According to the definition promoted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE), the SW concept “refers to a facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to
lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export,
and transit-related regulatory requirements. If information is electronic, then individual data elements should only be submitted once".
In practice, the Single Windows implemented around the world have not strictly followed this definition and have instead been conceived as "large interagency collaborative system/s that facilitate and automate business processes and data exchange for international trade".
International Single Window Study
Page 13 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
5.2 Single Window Evolution and Case Study Analysis
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and UN Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific’s “Single Window Planning and Implementation Guide”
(UNECE/UNESCAP, 2013), outlines five evolutionary stages of a National Single Window
(NSW). This model has been used in this report to map each of the case studies to the appropriate level of evolutionary stage.
Figure 1: A Single Window roadmap in five evolutionary stages
Starting from the mid-1980s, different types of Single Window implementations have become
operational. Most of these Single Implementations started with the objective to achieve a paperless Customs (Stage A). With paperless Customs as the starting point, the path forward may vary
to some extent, subject to the country and the factors outlined above. Additionally, some countries may cover elements of several phases but not completely fulfil the description across all
import/export processes.
As Customs is the key agency managing cross-border regulatory requirements, paperless Customs is a natural first step. Subsequent evolutionary steps may be different depending on the
government objectives, trading profile and level of challenges. The case studies countries tend to
follow this pattern and have differing implementations due to the different factors at play in each
individual country.
5.3 Case Study Analysis
The case studies included in this report have different characteristics and attributes. The two oldest and perhaps most studied Single Windows, Sweden and Singapore, both started from the
objective to implement Stage A – paperless Customs. But from there, the countries have taken
somewhat different strategies regarding scope and business model. Sweden has focused on a
Coordinated Border Management model, based on front- and back principle, where Customs is
taken a lead role both at the border and interacting electronically with the trading community,
while other competent authorities remains with the responsibility for policies and governance of
International Single Window Study
Page 14 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
their respective area. The combination of a delegated model and an efficient electronic solution
has been the key success factor for the Swedish SW. However, there are still a number of processes that remains more or less paper based in terms of applications for licenses and permits.
Singapore on the other hand, focused early on establishing electronic processes for the management of regulatory requirements such as licenses, permits and certificates. In addition, Singapore has developed the SW further in order to integrate with other private stakeholders such
as insurance companies, banks and logistics service providers.
Regarding business model and cost recovery, Singapore and New Zealand have a usage fee
while all the other case studies are funded by Government. The Singapore SW is based on a
Private-Public-Partnership (PPP) where a state-owned company is established to operate and
develop the SW. The cost recovery model is certainly a political and perhaps a cultural decision
that needs to be taken individually, but it should be advised to seek ways to minimize the costs
for the national trade community.
Netherlands and Sweden is part of EU and operates under the common Union Customs Code
which requires the EU member states to implement a Maritime Single Window (MSW) to manage
the reporting of vessels for sea and eventually air. The development within the complex EU Customs arena with several national systems, indicates that the vision and development of one, regional Single Window is a challenging task.
All of the case studies have included business process re-engineering, data standardization and
political will and stakeholder management as key lessons learned. Canada, New Zealand and, to
some extent, Singapore have been actively adopting and participating the WCO data model. Using the data model enables a standardized interface to the trading community and also to other
national and international agencies. Proper business process analysis and development ensures
that procedures are according to best practices and that all requirements are captured.
Stakeholder management, scoping and management of requirements should be carefully considered in SW implementation projects. The New Zealand Joint Border Management System
(JBMS) included both risk and intelligence as well as a Trade Single Window (TSW) in the scope,
which makes perfect sense from a logical perspective. But, in addition to frequent changes in
requirements and stakeholder involvements, the extensive scope eventually had a negative impact on the time plan and budget.
Barbados is interesting because of the relative limited budget and compressed implementation
plan which demonstrates that a SW implementation can take a pragmatic approach by using agile, benefit-driven approach and modern web-enabled technologies.
5.4 Regional Single Window and the Future Trade Environment
While national Single Windows are focused on facilitating and re-engineering the national procedures for imports and exports, significant gains can be achieved by integrating the SW into other
countries’ SW to facilitate data sharing. The SW is a major point of data collection and storage
point, and can facilitate regional trade between other countries. This not only includes the concept of Customs-to-Customs integration and the exchange of Customs declaration data, intelligence, inspection or risk management information, but also information on multiple countries’
regulatory permits and logistics information, allowing one country’s export data to become another country’s import data, enriching the information available on both sides.
Single Windows can also be integrated to other types of information networks, such as Port
Community Systems (PCS) and Business Community Systems (BCS)/trade platforms. PCSs
have been developed by private companies in cooperation with port authorities (sea) and airport
authorities (air) to facilitate the exchange of logistics related information required by the stake-
International Single Window Study
Page 15 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
holders. In many places, Customs and other regulatory agencies are connected to the PCS in
order to receive regulatory information. Business Community System covers all commercial procedures from the buy-ship-pay module, starting with the establishment of sales contract and purchase order to the payment of goods and services. The Singapore SW is a good example of a
BCS.
See the figure below for an example of interlinked information networks involving regulatory, logistics and commercial networks.
Figure 2: Single Window Network
Country B
Country A
Customs
OGA
OGA
SW
Traders
Operator
SW
Trader
Operator
Customs
Customs
Traders
Trader
PCS
PCS
OGAs
Operator
Operator
Operator
Traders
Country C
Regulatory Network
Operator
SW
OGAs
Operator
Operator
PCS
BCS
Trader
Operator
Country D
Commercial Network
Logistics Network
One of the challenges in supply chain management today is access to accurate and timely data
for enhanced security and trade facilitation. National Single Windows integrated with each other
to form a regional Single Window can provide a solution to this challenge, as shown in Figure 1,
Stage E. This development will be a critical part of the future trade environment and global supply
chains. Other challenges such as legislation, data privacy and political issues need to be resolved and experience shows that bi-lateral agreements between two countries, often through
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) or Customs Mutual Assistance Agreements (CMAA), are
the best way forward.
5.5 Single Window and AEO/Trusted Trader Programmes
The WCO designed the initial AEO instrument for Customs operations, but from the outset there
has been a discussion on how coordinated border management can be integrated into AEO programmes. Just as the Single Window is a way to coordinate the information flow between Government and the private sector, it is reasonable to assume that if a prominent Government agency such as Customs is using international standards to validate private sector companies and
grant trusted trader status, this concept should also include other agencies involved in interna-
International Single Window Study
Page 16 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
tional cross border trade. If Customs can secure the necessary level of compliance for all Government functions, then AEO status should also be available and cover other agencies to avoid
multiple competing and overlapping requirements.
The WCO recently amended the SAFE Framework of Standards with a third pillar, Customs cooperation with other agencies, with the aim to create a platform for multiagency cooperation –
including the use of AEO - throughout the entire border process.
Some countries have started the process of integrating AEO status with other agencies. There
are successful examples in several countries e.g., the Netherlands and Sweden, but also recent
examples such as Australia, Brazil and the UAE.
The aim is to create a Single Government AEO Status (SGAEOS) that provides trusted trader
status for a company valid in all (or some) of the agencies involved in international trade.
This is only possible if the AEO program has a holistic design covering both compliance and security. As such, many of the early programs have to be updated/upgraded and re-designed before an integrated AEO concept can be introduced. It is also vital that the agencies involved to
apply risk management principles, as AEO is a risk management based program.
It is essential that future Single Windows are designed with AEO, Trusted Trader and MRA
schemes in mind, so as to include support for separation of flows, procedures and simplifications
that provide authorized traders enhanced trade facilitation, one-stop-shop and fast-track solutions. Interconnectivity between national Single Windows will also be a requirement for information exchange as part of any MRA.
5.6 Recommendations
Based on the case studies included in this report, current trends in border management and
global best practices, the following analysis and recommendations should be considered prior to
implementing a Single Window implementation.
1. One lead agency coordinating all stakeholders
Case studies indicate clearly the importance of an agency that is accountable and responsible for leading and coordinating all relevant stakeholders in the development, implementation and operation of the Single Window. The lead agency needs to take a significant responsibility for ensuring that all stakeholder requirements are catered for. At the
same time strong governance and decision-making will be required.
2. High-level political commitment is crucial
As demonstrated in several Single Window implementations, including Singapore, strong
top level political commitment is required. In a situation where the implementation of a SW
project is at risk, delayed or questioned, political leadership is required to back the initiative.
3. One single national system for Trade Facilitation – owned and operated by Government
Trade facilitation is a national priority, defined and managed by the Government. It is
strongly advised that the Single Window is governed and owned by the Government. The
operations and maintenance of the system can be managed by a private actor, as a contract or as a private-public-partnership for risk- and profit-sharing, but Government must
always remain in control. The Single Window is a national asset.
4. Single Window is not a Customs Management System or Port Community System
It is important to acknowledge the driver behind the Single Window: it is a facility that provides a single and harmonized interface to government’s regulatory, logistics and financial
International Single Window Study
Page 17 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
services. It coordinates different government agencies and other stakeholders in the supply chain. The Single Window does not replace any of these stakeholders. Successful
Single Window implementations are clear in their scope and focus.
Vendors of Customs Management Systems and Port Community Systems may express
an ambition to serve as a Single Window. Instead, they should be integrated to the Single
Window in order to re-use and exchange relevant information and data.
5. Include legislation, business process re-engineering and data harmonization
A common reason for the failure of or a delay in Single Window projects is underestimating or ignoring three important components, namely legislation, business process reengineering and data harmonization. A legislative framework that supports electronic
transactions, data privacy and identification through electronic signatures is a prerequisite
for a functioning Single Window.
Business process re-engineering based on Customs and Border Management bestpractices ensures that the Single Window includes up to date and efficient processes and
that does not simply translate paper based and manual procedures to electronic ones.
One of the objectives of a Single Window is to provide a harmonized interface for the
submission of data. As several government stakeholders are asking traders to provide the
same or similar pieces of data, a data harmonization exercise is recommended in order to
create a single harmonized data repository.
6. Define a Single Window vision and scope carefully
Defining a vision and a strategy for the Single Window that can be clearly communicated
to all stakeholders to visualize the end-game is important. Develop an overarching highlevel design from the start using concept-of-operations (CONOPS) and architecture models. Scope the Single Window carefully by starting small with thin end-to-end processes
that can create an early success story.
7. Adopt a phased approach
Related to scoping, a phased approach is recommended. Prioritizing and planning thin
end-to-end functions, processes and IT solutions will improve time-to-market and product
delivery. Prioritize what is available and what brings benefits.
8. Technology is a possibility, but manage risks
Similar to large-scale IT projects, Single Window implementations may often run late and
over budget, and for similar reasons. But this can be avoided. Firstly, , the technology
used in a Single Window implementations does not have to be complex and expensive as
suggested by some vendors. Modern, web-enabled and flexible technology can deliver
solutions quicker and cheaper than ever before. Secondly, an overall IT strategy and
technical architecture/infrastructure needs to be established and aligned with the overall
design and Single Window vision. Third, solid project risk management and mitigation actions must be integrated into the implementation. Identifying and addressing risks as early
as possible can save significant time and resources.
9. Consider a Coordinated Border Management (CBM) model
Sweden is perhaps the best example of a Coordinated Border Management model where
border activities are coordinated through one agency (front-office) at the border. Operational activities are performed on behalf of several back-office agencies, which remain responsible for policy, risk management, legislation and governance within their respective
domains. Responsibility for the maintenance and delivery of services provided through the
SW should remain with the relevant agencies.
International Single Window Study
Page 18 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
10. Include AEO/TT in the Single Window design from the start
As mentioned above, the next generation of Single Windows includes capabilities to integrate AEO and Trusted Trader programs where authorised traders can enjoy enhanced
benefits from Customs and Other Government Agencies.
11. One single model for payments
Ensure that the payment of fees and duties are managed through the Single Window and
create arrangements for distribution to the relevant government agencies. Providing one
single interface for payment, including penalty payments and refunds, is a substantial
simplification for traders.
12. Change management & stakeholder relations
Single Window is about coordination, people, structures, and managing change. It is essential to keep all relevant stakeholders engaged and on board through the entire implementation. Use change management experts and different communication channels to
keep all the stakeholders informed and engaged.
13. Involve Traders
There is no one-size-fits all for trade involvement. Factors such as culture, privacy and relations between government agencies and trade will guide which approach to select.
Large trade representative and consultative groups may work in one environment, while
peer-to-peer and individual consultation may be more efficient in another case. Either
way, time and effort must be invested in trade consultation and engagement.
14. Cost / Benefit driven implementation
Related to phasing, time-to-market and identifying quick wins, the use of a cost and benefit approach has proven to be successful. The balance between benefits and costs must
always be considered when prioritizing and planning services to be implemented.
International Single Window Study
Page 19 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
6
Case Study – Barbados
Barbados Single Window Environment at a glance
Evolutionary Stage
Stage B – Regulatory
SW Coverage
Import and Export
Modes of Transport
Air, Sea, Land
Date Implemented
Planned to January 2017
Implementation Cost
US$6 million
Ownership
Public
Cost Recovery Model
Government funded
Compliance Regime
Yes
AEO Programme Integration
AEO Programme not present
6.1 Summary
Barbados has taken steps to automate and introduce electronic Customs management through
ASYCUDA World and is now in the process of implementing an Electronic Single Window (ESW)
for permits, licenses and other document approval from participating agencies. The approach is
to focus on rapid implementation of services that eases the administrative burden for traders who
must manage the regulatory requirements for imports and exports. Based on the evolution model
at Figure 1, this initiative will move Barbados from paperless Customs to Stage B – Regulatory
SW.
The case study indicates that a Single Window implementation does not have to be a large-scale
and expensive project. By taking a practical approach where current paper-based procedures are
re-engineered with realistic ambitions, and where existing documents are translated to electronic
form, significant benefits can be realized.
The Barbados ESW project is being developed with a relatively small budget. This is certainly
related to the fact that it is a small country with limited trade volumes. But Barbados also represents a new generation of Single Window projects where modern, lightweight and flexible technology can reduce the cost significantly.
As with many SW implementations, political will and stakeholder coordination are the major challenges. This is significant to all SW projects, independent of the size of the economy.
Strengths:
• Rapid implementation with a limited budget.
• A web-based solution offering a way for Government agencies and traders with low IT capabilities to use the ESW without significant investments.
Weaknesses:
• Use of the Barbados ESW will be optional, allowing importers the opportunity to still use
paper permits.
• The clearing process is dependent on a comparably outdated Customs declaration system.
6.2 Introduction
As part of the Barbados Competitive Programme (BCP) under the direction of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, the Government of Barbados is currently in the process of implementing an Electronic Single Window (ESW). The objective of the BCP is to improve Barbados
competitiveness by addressing key bottlenecks affecting the efficient movement of goods into
International Single Window Study
Page 20 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
and out of Barbados, and by supporting other trade and investment promotion activities with a
view of promoting export development and increasing private investment.
The BCP consists of four main components:
1. Ensuring a coherent framework to support business development incentives;
2. Ensuring a coherent architecture for business development;
3. Improving trade logistics and trade facilitation, and enhancing access to infrastructure;
and
4. Strengthening public-private dialogue on competitiveness.
As a major element in Component 3, the implementation of an ESW aims to facilitate trade, reduce the time taken for, and the administrative burden of import and export activities.
Australia and Barbados operates in a different trading environment in relation to trading profile
and volumes, but the Barbados SW implementation is interesting as it is a modern SW project
from a technology, methodology and stakeholder management perspective. The ESW is being
built upon new and flexible cloud technology using agile methodology. The project plan is short
and cost is relatively low, challenging the myth that SW projects have to be expensive.
The Barbados ESW implementation is also interesting as more than 30 Other Government Agencies (OGAs) and other stakeholders are involved, each with their own specific objectives and
responsibilities. The Barbados ESW will connect to existing PGA (Participating Government
Agencies) systems, and replace legacy systems and paper-based forms with a single system
(single window) utilizing electronic, paperless forms.
6.3 Country Profile
Barbados is the most developed country in the Eastern Caribbean with the highest income per
capita in the region. According to the World Bank, the GDP ranking of Barbados is 160th (4.35
BUSD) and the economy has diversified from its historic reliance on sugarcane and related activities to light industry, including assembly and tourism in addition to financial and information services. Even though Barbados is a relatively developed country in the region, global rankings indicates that there are opportunities for improvement. The close relation to United States is important in terms of both imports and exports.
6.4 Government Structure
The Barbados Customs and Excise Department (CED), under the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (MFEA), is primarily responsible for revenue collection of duties and taxes including:
•
•
•
•
Value Added Tax (VAT);
Import duties;
Excise; and
Environmental tax.
The revenue collection by CED accounts for about 50% of total government revenue. Other responsibilities of the CED includes the societal protection in areas such as national standards,
health and agriculture requirements; enforcement of foreign trade rules, enforcing restrictions and
prohibitions, including transnational criminality counter measures in areas such as illegal drugs,
illegal firearms and ammunition, commercial fraud, money laundering and terrorism; preventing
and combating of smuggling; and collection of foreign trade statistics.
A Comptroller heads the CED, with an annual budget of around US$10.5 million, and with a staff
of 476. Its structure comprises six technical units (Operations, Excise, VAT, Internal Audit, Enforcement, and Technical), and two support units: Administration and Financial Services.
International Single Window Study
Page 21 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
6.5 Background to the Single Window
The Government of Barbados strategic focus is to become the Caribbean’s regional logistics hub,
increasing Barbados’ economic competitiveness.
To realize this vision, the Barbados Competitiveness Programme (BCP) has been initiated and
jointly funded by the Government of Barbados and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
The cost of the BCP is US $11.8 million, with Government injecting US $1.8 million. One of the
core projects within the programme is the Barbados ESW. The four-year programme started in
2010 and should have been completed in March 2014. However, the programme has been extended twice in order to engage an external vendor for implementation of the ESW, which is currently due for completion in January 2017 (see section 6.8 below). The first extension was granted from March 22, 2014 – June 21, 2015 and the second extension covered June 22, 2015 –
December 21, 2016.
For traders, the current process for the import and export of regulated goods is administratively
complex and costly. The number of required import and export related paper documents reaches
190. Additionally, the Barbados Investment and Development Corporation issues more than
9,000 certificates of origin per year and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs issues in excess of 12,000 import licences per year. These are all paper-based and manual processes which require a trader to visit several Government departments and ministries to fulfil the
requirements.
The World Bank Trading Across Borders and other studies (Sheehy, 2010) have indicated that
the majority of total clearance time is spent on the application and approval of Licenses, Permits,
Certificates and Other (LPCO) documents that are required for the importation of regulated
goods. The extensive number of LPCOs required, and the number of Government agencies involved, highlights the need for an ESW.
In December 2014, interested firms were invited to submit an expression of interest for the development and implementation of the ESW in Barbados. Two months later, in February 2015, the
Request for Proposal (RFP) was distributed to nine shortlisted companies and one, a consortium
led by A-T Solutions/PAE was selected for the task.
6.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
More than 30 stakeholders in the public and private sectors, as well as trade unions, are involved
in the ESW. They include the ministries of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Water Resources;
Finance and Economic Affairs; Health; Home Affairs; and Tourism and International Transport; as
well as the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Barbados Brokers and Clerks
Association, the Barbados Shipping Association; and, the Barbados Manufacturers’ Association.
All stakeholders are represented at a senior level management in an ESW Steering Committee
that oversees the project and takes strategic and tactical decisions. The project team, known as
the ESW Project and Task Force, also includes representatives and subject matter experts from
the key stakeholders outlined above as well as representatives from the vendor.
The ESW Steering Committee meets regularly as required and all relevant documentation is circulated among the members of the committee.
Barbados is a small island and key representatives have long-term, established relationships with
each other, facilitating discussions and collaboration. These relationships are strongly trust-based
social partnerships, and are considered key to the successful implementation and future user
uptake of the ESW.
International Single Window Study
Page 22 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
PGA stakeholders will receive training in the principles and usage of the ESW through a train-thetrainer programme. This is being done prior to the launch in January 2017 and also regularly after
the launch. In addition, training materials will be available online.
The Programme Implementation Unit of the Barbados Competitiveness Programme, is in the
process of rolling out its public awareness plan for the ESW, to raise awareness about the ESW
in the trading community. Press releases, advertising and public awareness sessions are part of
the engagement plan.
6.7 Legislative Framework
It has been established that the current legal framework supports the electronic signatures and
legal validity of electronic documents. This legal framework was implemented under Part II of the
Electronic Transactions Act 2001, that covers “Legal Requirements Respecting Electronic Records”, and is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (MLES).
6.8 Business Model
The current procedure is based on papers and manual input of information to the Customs Management System, ASYCUDA. Participating agencies have varying levels of IT maturity but there
is no integration between the agencies.
In order to move to a completely paperless operation the BCP has funded the upgrade of the
Customs and Excise Department automation system from ASYCUDA++ to the ASYCUDA World
Customs Management System. The programme is also funding the deployment of a Trade Document Management System (TDMS) that will transform all regulatory and trade compliance documents from physical paper into electronic format.
The development of the Trade Document Management System (TDMS) is occurring in parallel
with the ESW, as part of the BCP. It will manage, and store inside the ESW, the digital version of
all paper-based documents.
Business process re-engineering efforts was done during the initial phases of the project. Current
paper based processes were reviewed and simplified before the translation of paper documents
to electronic forms. Best practices were used as far as possible, but for some of the challenging
and complex processes, involving several interdependent agencies, inefficiencies were left in.
The objective was to focus on the quick-wins first.
This is a continuous process that will reduce the number of electronic forms even further by the
time of the programme’s completion. Currently, there are no strategies or plans for a regional
integration of the ESW.
As the Barbados ESW is funded by Barbados Government and, supported by the IDB loan contract, there will be no registration or transaction fees associated to the usage of the ESW. It will
be free of charge and, operated and owned by the Government of Barbados.
The ownership of the ESW will fall under Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, but it is not
yet decided which agency or department that will take the operational responsible.
International Single Window Study
Page 23 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
6.8.1 Services Provided
The ESW is essentially a web-based portal where traders and PGAs can access the ESW services. Services that will be implemented in the ESW are illustrated below. Services included will
be focused on the normal flow, any deviations or compliance regimes will not be included in the
first phases.
Figure 3: Barbados ESW Overview (Barbados ESW, 2016)
Research Commodities
Any registered user can research and classify commodities through a tariff and classification tool
(provided by 3CE) using artificial classification intelligence. The tool will also provide information
on any LPCO required for import/export of the specific commodity.
LPCO Application and Management
A trader can apply for a LPCO through the ESW. Any previously entered data, from earlier LPCO
applications, will be re-used and pre-filled by the system. The concerned PGA can review and
approve/reject the LPCO application, either in the ESW system or through an internal system that
is integrated with the ESW. Customs and PGAs can then review LPCOs and mitigate risks.
Respond to PGA Queries
Any questions or requests for further information can be communicated through the ESW, which
provides a single point of contact. This is a manual communication channel where all correspondence is traceable and may, in the future, be used for monitoring of service levels of PGAs.
View LPCO Status
All stakeholders, including Customs Management System, can view current status of the LPCO
application process or the approved LPCO to verify its validity.
International Single Window Study
Page 24 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Payment
Through the Government created “eZpay” facility, traders will be able to perform electronic payment of any duties and fees through the ESW. There is currently no deferred payment scheme
used in Barbados, so payment will be done as part of each transaction. Reimbursements and
infringements associated with compliance regimes are not included in the ESW.
6.8.2 Technology used
The Barbadian ESW is based on modern, web-based technologies and is using cloud solutions
that facilitates a short development and deployment process. The web-based technology increases the accessibility for various stakeholders, with limited internal IT capabilities.
It is not clear how data integrity and authentication of users will be managed within the ESW.
6.9 Implementation Plan
The technical and functional implementation is expected to take 18 months and commenced in
June 2015. The official go-live date is schedule for end of January 2017. The development is
based on agile development where smaller components and functionality is released to testing
and verification. A prototype will be available in July 2016 for testing by key users. In October, a
pilot will be launched where the final acceptance testing will be performed together along with
additional training.
Figure 4: Barbados ESW Design and Development Plan
For the launch, a holistic approach is taken. All the defined services will be available at the go live
date. The use of the services will not be mandatory, enabling traders to board the ESW at their
own pace. Government of Barbados believes that, in addition to the extensive marketing and
awareness efforts, the simplification and efficiency gained for using the ESW services will attract
traders.
6.10 Resource Management
The ESW project is a part of the Barbados Competiveness Program (BCP), a project organization of the Ministry of Finance. The BCP is funded through a loan signed in 2010 between the
Inter-American Development Bank and the Government of Barbados to jointly finance the implementation of the BCP. Its estimated cost is US$11.8 million, of which the IDB is providing loan
funds of up to US$10.0 million and Government US$1.8 million. The estimated total cost for the
implementation of the ESW is US$6.0 million.
The core ESW team consist of about 12-15 full time staff, including the consultants.
International Single Window Study
Page 25 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
6.10.1 Benefits
As the ESW is under development, the realization of any benefits is difficult to assess but the
BCP expects to see the following not quantified benefits:
•
•
•
•
•
Significantly quicker goods clearance;
Increased transparency in trade procedures;
Enhanced public-private sector relations;
Lower costs for traders; and
Increase revenue collection due to improved compliance and increased volumes.
6.11 Lessons Learned
Even though the ESW is not yet operational, there are a number of challenges and lessons
learned that can be taken from the Barbadian experience.
•
Political support. Strong political will and consistent support for the establishment of the
ESW across various the government agencies is a key success factor.
•
Stakeholder Management. Initially, there have been some challenges in bringing all the
PGAs and other stakeholders together, which was anticipated as this is a new process. The
use of solid change management disciplines and practices has facilitated both stakeholder
engagement and awareness. Also, the inter-agency coordination can be challenging starting
with the initial discussions between key agencies on where the ownership and responsibility
of the ESW should reside. Once the decision is made, other agencies may lose their interest
in the project, to some extent, and take a more passive approach expecting that the lead
agency should take the full responsibility for progressing project tasks.
•
Change Management. The importance of change management and business transformation
is important in facilitating a project with many stakeholders and systems. Including Change
Management and Business Transformation Architects on the project has been appreciated by
all stakeholders.
•
Single Window and Risk Management. It is recommended that PGAs use a common risk
assessment decision support system. This will guide PGAs through a data exploitation
framework using risk-based principles tailored to their mandate and mission. In Barbados,
Customs has access to an Automated Risk Management System. By allowing access to the
other PGAs, each agency would have full visibility of all declaration filings, and an ability to
scan this information and seek out inspections where there may be violations of their controls
or mandate. If access can be provided, this represents a major step forward in having PGAs
endorse and adopt risk-based decisions at the border. This would create conditions for interoperability with Customs.
•
Coordinated Inspections. When two or more inspections are required in the import/export
process, the inspections must be coordinated in terms of time and location and agency/s.
This will reduce redundancy and unnecessary cost for the trade community.
•
Business Process Re-engineering. Business process re-engineering based on best practices and international standards for Customs and PGA processes is essential in any ESW
project.
International Single Window Study
Page 26 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
6.12 Future Plans and Innovations
After the launch, the development of additional services and functions will continue. However,
which services are not currently specified.
As both public and private sector stakeholders have significantly different levels of technology
maturity, measures will be taken to address this. To increase accessibility for the private sector
using public kiosks connected to the ESW will be placed in strategic places on the island. Raising
the capacity and level of automation among PGA is essential, but is not in the ESW project
scope.
International Single Window Study
Page 27 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
7
Case Study – Canada
Canada Single Window Environment at a glance
Evolutionary Stage
Stage B – Regulatory
SW Coverage
Import and Export SW
Modes of Transport
Air, Sea, Land
Date Implemented
March 2015
Implementation Cost
Not provided
Ownership
Public
Cost Recovery Model
Government funded
Compliance Regime
Yes
AEO Programme Integration
AEO Programme present - not
fully integrated
7.1 Summary
With the implementation of the Single Window Initiative (SWI) in 2015, Canadian importers can
provide regulatory information electronically and in advance, providing the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and nine Participating Government Agencies (PGA) the ability to make
timely border-related decisions through several interface options.
The Canadian Government agencies involved in the SWI worked closely with the trade community and its major trading partner, the United States, to harmonize reporting requirements to the
greatest extent possible based on the WCO Data Model. This was an important consideration
given the close integration of the two economies. The estimated flow of goods and services between the US and Canada in 2015 was 2.4 billion dollars a day (Trade and Investment, 2016).
The CBSA worked with PGAs to ensure that the solution chosen for each program was directly
related to the risk of the commodity being regulated. In the majority of cases, there was no need
to require an admissibility decision for a PGA’s requirement at the border. This allowed a simpler
system build at a reduced cost while meeting all PGAs’ requirements.
Strengths:
• Harmonizing requirements with a major trading partner simplifies the process for the trade
community and improves efficiency at the border.
• PGAs with comparatively low system maturity were able to increase their ability to fulfil
their respective mandates using less complicated and therefore more economical interfaces.
Weaknesses:
• Use of the SWI Integrated Import Declaration is currently optional, allowing importers the
opportunity to still use paper permits.
• There is no single portal where the trade community can access all of the regulatory information specific to a commodity, this results in them having to access individual websites of government agencies to identify the reporting requirements.
7.2 Introduction
The Single Window development experience in Canada holds many potential lessons of particular interest for Australia. The two countries share common interests in many areas including security and trade. Internationally, both governments work closely through multilateral institutions
such as the Five Country Conference, UN, APEC, the WCO and WTO.
CBSA has been offering a single window option to commercial importers since 1997. In 2008, the
CBSA and partner cross-border regulatory agencies began the process of implementing a
International Single Window Study
Page 28 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
streamlined, whole-of-government approach to the electronic collection, dissemination and use of
commercial trade data.
With the implementation of the SWI in 2015, Canadian importers can now provide via the internet
and in advance with an Integrated Import Declaration (IID) that allows for the electronic assessment of regulatory compliance. The IID is aligned to the WCO Data Model and provides the
CBSA and nine Participating Government Agencies (PGAs) the ability to make timely borderrelated decisions through several interface options.
7.3 Country Profile
Similar to Australia, Canada is an export-oriented economy with strong interests in agriculture
and resources. Canada is investing and striving for an open trade system with efficient regulatory
control. The purpose of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is to significantly improve the
trading environment for both goods and services. Canada and Australia have mutual interests in
open markets and is cooperating in several forums promoting free trade, such as in APEC and in
the WTO.
Canada has improved its ranking to 13th (from 15th) most competitive nation economically
among 144 countries ranked by the World Economic Forum (WEF).
7.4 Government Structure
Since 2003 the CBSA has been an integral part of the Public Safety Portfolio, which was created
to protect Canadians and maintain a peaceful and safe society. The President of the CBSA reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and controls and
manages all matters related to the Agency.
The CBSA provides clearance, control and examination services on behalf of other federal agencies for 1,200 entry points for air, land and sea entry. Currently the CBSA administers over 90
acts and regulations on behalf of other federal government departments and agencies with a
cross-border regulator role, encompassing 43 programs from nine agencies that also participate
in the SWI. The agencies are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA),
Health Canada (HC), Global Affairs Canada (GAC),
Transport Canada (TC),
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC),
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan),
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC),
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC),
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and
Global Affairs Canada (GAC).
Further Canadian agencies will be incorporated in the future (see 7.11 below).
7.5 Background of the Single Window
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has provided an electronic single window service
option for traders since 1997, operating at the Stage B level for SW development. The original
program included five government agencies: CFIA, GAC, EEEC,NRCan and TC.
In 2005, the CBSA received funding under the Advance Interdepartmental Reporting Initiative
(AIRI) and established the Single Window Initiative Framework (CBSA, 2008). This Framework
provided for a streamlined all-of-government approach to the collection, use and dissemination of
International Single Window Study
Page 29 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
commercial trade data required to support the mandates of participating departments. The CBSA
then assessed the needs and challenges associated with the cross-border movement of the
commercial goods regulated by government departments. Over 1800 commercial data elements
were analysed resulting in consolidation and the planned elimination of major redundancies. To
accomplish this important step, information collected on paper documents and electronically was
catalogued and mapped to the WCO Data Model. Of the nine PGAs participating, CFIA, TC, GAC
and NRCan had existing data sharing agreements with the CBSA, however the information
shared did not include all programs under their jurisdiction. The CBSA raised data maintenance
requests at the WCO for those not in the data model to ensure implementation would conform to
the WCO GOVCBR V3.3 standard.
Finally, a new delivery protocol called the SWI Pathfinder was developed which allowed government departments to access more accurate and timely information for reporting and analysis. The
Pathfinder Initiative provides PGAs access to data from existing CBSA EDI messages via an encrypted FTP batch transfer. PGA programmes are able to use this information to familiarise
themselves with the data and look for opportunities to refine their business processes.
In 2011, the “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness” (CBSA/US-CBP, 2013) was announced by Canadian Prime Minister Harper and U.S.
President Obama. This declaration identified key areas of cooperation to address threats early at
the border by developing common practices, and streamlining customs processing and regulatory
compliance. The declaration resulted in the development of a joint action plan that identified
Canada’s Single Window Initiative (SWI) as one of thirty-two joint priorities to facilitate trade and
align regulatory approaches to protect health, safety and the environment while supporting
growth.
With the identification of the SWI as a top government and trade priority, the CBSA (as lead
agency) and PGAs put forward a joint funding request in 2012 to establish an integrated solution
for the commercial import process that was implemented in March 2015.
7.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
The SWI developed a governance structure that supports the project activities and provides the
necessary level of oversight, review and contribution for all stakeholders. The structure identifies
the roles and responsibilities, decision-making structure and issue escalation procedures. The
principles follow the requirements identified by the Government of Canada Treasury Board Secretariat (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2016) as well as the CBSA’s own Project Governance Framework.
The SWI Interdepartmental Governance Structure acknowledges the importance of the contribution of the trade community; major trading partners and international standards, including the
WCO Data Model, to the success of the project. It also maintains a direct link to the CBSA Project Governance Structure responsible for delivery of other Agency priorities.
The SWI IT Director General Steering Committee and the SWI Project Manager Working Group
were all chaired by the lead agency, CBSA, with representation from all participating PGAs.
At a Cabinet level, the project sponsor was the Minister of Public Safety in his role as Minister
responsible for the CBSA, and the joint funding proposal presented to Cabinet for the project was
signed by every participating minister.
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Figure 5: Canada SWI Interdepartmental Governance Structure
Page 30 (87)
International Single Window Study
Page 31 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
7.7 Legislative Framework
From the very beginning of the project, the CBSA worked with PGAs to ensure that the proper
legal authorities to collect, share and store data were in place. The CBSA first worked with PGA
policy experts to verify data definitions and establish whether or not the information was necessary to fulfil the mandate of the particular program, and was relevant in an electronic environment. Once that important step was completed, it was incumbent on the PGA legal counsellor to
demonstrate the legislative and regulatory authority for those data existed. This information was
collected and became part of the overall project documentation. Once this legal authority was
established, the CBSA was able to leverage their existing legislation outlined in the table below to
move the project forward.
CBSA Legal References
Paragraph 5(2)(d) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act (CBSA Act, 2016) authorizes the
CBSA to implement agreements or Arrangements between the Agency and departments or
agencies of the Government of Canada to carry out an activity, provide a service or administer a
program;
Paragraph 13(2)(b) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act authorizes the CBSA to enter into
an agreement or Arrangement with a department or agency of the Government of Canada;
Subsection 107(4)(g) of the Customs Act (Customs Act, 2016) permits the CBSA to provide access to customs information if the information does not directly or indirectly identify any person;
Subsection 107(5)(b) of the Customs Act permits the CBSA to disclose customs information to a
person that is otherwise legally entitled to the information by reason of an Act of Parliament, solely for the purposes for which that person is entitled to the information;
Subsection 107(5)(c)(i) of the Customs Act permits CBSA to provide access to customs information to an official for the purpose of developing, administering or enforcing an Act of Parliament or developing or implementing a policy related to an Act of Parliament if the information
relates to goods, the importation, exportation or in-transit movement of which is or may be prohibited, controlled or regulated under that Act;
7.8 Business Model
In the context of UN/CEFACT Recommendation 33 (UN/CEFACT, 2005), the Canada SW can be
characterized as a hybrid Single Automated System in that it allows a combination of integrated
and interfaced transactions; Stage B according to the UNECE/UNESCAP evolutionary model.
This design recognises the diverse business needs of the PGAs as well as the risk posed by
specific commodities.
The SW uses government systems and the development and implementation of the SWI was
completely government funded and is available for the use of the trade community at no charge.
Clients are welcome to use their own systems and may choose to use a service and/or software
provider to transmit their data to and from CBSA. In addition, there are specific software providers that can provide clients with the required software to use the applications on their own
(CBSA, 2016). Arrangements between clients and service providers are not the responsibility of
the CBSA.
The SWI developed the Integrated Import Declaration (IID), an electronic message built to the
WCO GOVCBR standard designed to meet the regulatory requirements for the importation of
commercial goods that:
International Single Window Study
Page 32 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
•
•
Can be used for both goods regulated by PGAs and those that are not, allowing for increased interoperability and improved benefit realization for the CBSA and trade community;
Enhances the existing CBSA pre-arrival import declaration to include all PGA commercial
import data requirements required for clearance;
Includes only data that is essential for PGAs (including the CBSA) to make border-related
decisions;
Acts as the foundation for the modernization of government business processes;
Eliminates the requirement for presentation of paper documents at the border and for redundant regulatory processing; and
Enables Trade to use commodity identification methods that exist within their supply
chains.
Depending on the commodity, information collected in the IID (CBSA, 2014) can be used by
PGAs in several ways, for example:
•
•
•
•
Using the IID for the pre-arrival collection of import permit information (i.e. eliminating a
separate permitting process);
Verifying the use of pre-approved authorizations for permits and licences (i.e. validating a
permit / license / certificate number using the IID);
Making pre-arrival admissibility recommendations;
Post-border review of IID information for compliance.
All agencies came to the project with varying degrees of digital capacity. While this was identified
as a project risk, the departments with the least capacity tended to be those with smaller programs that did not require a large IT investment to support their mandate. The CBSA also worked
closely with all departments to ensure that the solution chosen for each program was directly
related to the risk of the commodity being regulated. In the vast majority of cases, there was no
need to require an admissibility decision for a PGA requirement at the border, meaning that
goods can cross the border without requiring a release decision from an officer. This would otherwise require a more complex and costly system build and significant human resources impact.
Although all efforts were made to represent all agencies’ informational requirements using data
fields within the IID itself, approximately 20% of the documents requested could not be digitized
due to inhibiting legislative requirements requiring presentation of paper documents and/or international agreements requiring hardcopy. In order to meet the SWI commitment to reduce paper,
a new Document Imaging Functionality (DIF) was developed to provide a mechanism for trade to
electronically represent, store and present these documents using the single window. As PGA
legislative requirements are modernized and international efforts develop, the expectation is
many of these documents that currently require DIF will be converted into the IID. For the time
being, however, importers and brokers can submit document images as opposed to presenting
importation documentation in original paper format at the border.
7.9 Implementation Plan
The implementation plan was developed to match the business outcomes of improved requirements, improved data and improved processes. Each of these outcomes was, in turn, translated
into work packages that could be individually tasked. Another consideration in the planning process was to make sure that there was alignment with ongoing reengineering efforts within the
Agency in order to leverage/enhance the work in progress.
The schedule for implementing the SWI comprised three phases, organised around two builds.
The first build focussed on establishing connectivity with the PGAs, delivering core IID functionality and PGA process modernization for priority PGAs. Build 2 introduced additional outreach features and extends process reengineering to all PGAs.
International Single Window Study
Page 33 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Figure 6: Canada SWI Deployment Plan (CBSA, 2008)
7.10 Resource Management
In 2005, the CBSA received funding to develop the original Single Window Framework. A core
project team was assembled at the CBSA to accomplish this task. As agencies’ involvement in
this stage was unfunded, the project team worked with the CBSA PGA policy area and existing
PGA program contacts to gather the business requirements.
In addition to the PGA program areas, the project team also relied on the input of the Agency’s
in-house IT team to design, develop and implement the Pathfinder solution that provided PGAs
with access to data for analysis and reporting purposes. The Single Window Project Team also
represented the CBSA at the WCO DMPT and the APEC Single Window Working Group to ensure conformity with international standards.
On completion of the Single Window Framework, a joint funding proposal was developed that
provided the CBSA and its PGA partners funding to complete the SWI under the umbrella of the
Beyond the Border Action Plan. The proposal was in the form of an interdepartmental business
case in which each department identified its resource requirements based on their particular
business need. As lead agency, coordination for this activity was the responsibility of the CBSA,
but the PGAs provided the content for their individual contribution to the document.
7.11 Lessons Learned
Although it is still early to evaluate the full impact of the SWI on the government and trade community, there is a significant amount of information that was uncovered over the life of the project
that would be of interest to Australia when considering a SW facility. Some of the major items
include:
International Single Window Study
Page 34 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
Identified as a government priority. To ensure the backing required to implement a single
window as a priority, accountability need to be established at the appropriate level within
government and trade participation in the consultative process encouraged.
•
Lead Department and Project Sponsor. A strong lead agency with experience in the delivery of major projects is important to maintain control over project deliverables.
•
Establish legal and regulatory authority to collect, share and store information early.
By doing so, the transparency of the overall project for the trade community and all participating agencies increases. This step will also help the project team lay the groundwork for the
necessary step of consolidating data and eliminating redundancies.
•
Use international standards for data elements (WCO Data Model) and data collection
(GOVCBR). Canada’s use of the WCO Data Model not only increases the interoperability potential of the SWI but provides access to a large repository of best practices related to single
window implementation.
•
Provide PGAs access to data as soon as possible. Prior to implementation of the IID, the
CBSA set up the Pathfinder Initiative that provided PGAs access to data from existing CBSA
EDI messages via an encrypted FTP batch transfer. PGA programmes used this information
to familiarise themselves with the data and look for opportunities to refine their business processes. Using data, it received in its Pathfinder extract, Global Affairs Canada was able to
eliminate the requirement for Steel Import Permits, a saving to trade estimated at CAD 10 million.
•
Work closely with major trading partners. With the Beyond the Borders Action Plan, the
CBSA and US CBP worked closely to align data elements for import processes. A study
done by the two agencies showed that there was a 92% match when comparing the data requirements of the two countries (CBSA/US-CBP, 2013). Aligning requirements to as high degree as possible helps to reduce the impact on trading community of supplying information to
government.
7.12 Future Plans and Innovations
The CBSA is continuing to on-board PGAs and convert border processes to an electronic format
in 2016 in recognition that some agencies will need longer lead times to develop their systems
and associated business practises. Also being planned are stakeholder consultations to look for
opportunities to improve trade outreach and to work towards a possible integrated model for
providing information to the trade community.
The CBSA and the PGAs have also been exploring product/goods identification codes and the
benefits they could bring to the import process since accurate identification of products and
goods entering Canada is a critical success factor for improving trade facilitation and enabling a
modernised border. The IID currently collects identifiers like the Global Trade Item Number
(GTIN), the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number and the Taxonomical Serial
Number (TSN) for certain PGA regulated goods. The CBSA is looking for sector-specific proofsof concept that supports the inclusion of these identifiers in the IID. The proofs-of-concept will
determine whether their use could eventually further reduce the amount of information that has to
be sent.
International Single Window Study
Page 35 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
8
Case Study – Netherlands
Netherlands Single Window Environment at a glance
Evolutionary Stage
Stage B – Regulatory
SW Coverage
Import and Export SW
Modes of Transport
Sea (phase 1), Air (planned)
Date Implemented
Scheduled summer 2016
Implementation Cost
Information not provided
Ownership
Public
Cost Recovery Model
Government funded
Compliance Regime Present
Planned
AEO Programme Integration
AEO present - not integrated
8.1 Summary
Netherlands will soon be implementing their Maritime Single Window (MSW NL), streamlining the
current process for vessel reporting to the relevant authorities in that country. Future plans include expanding this system to collect information for all modes of transport.
Since the SW is not yet implemented, it is too early to draw final conclusions. However, some
observations about the approach taken by the Netherlands can be made.
• Like many countries, the impetus for the SW in the Netherlands was linked to a major policy decision, in this case the EU Directive to simplify maritime reporting. This type of linkage provides the necessary profile to ensure the project is seen as a national priority.
• By concentrating on a single mode of transport, it is possible to limit project risk and contain scope, while still developing the services required to expand the system at a later
date.
• Goods declarations are common to all modes of transport. Including them in the Maritime
Single Window should reduce the development timeframes for the future all-mode Single
Window for Trade and Transport.
• Experience gained in the MSW NL project around project management, governance and
stakeholder management can be used to improve future arrangements.
8.2 Introduction
In the Netherlands, current government single window efforts are focussed on the marine environment, in particular, and streamlining of vessel, crew and goods reporting formalities. The catalyst for the Single Window was the adoption of Directive 2010/65/EU, the European Union (EU)
Directive mandating the simplification and harmonization of maritime transport administrative
procedures by making the electronic transmission of information standard across the EU and
rationalizing reporting formalities. Software development for the Maritime Single Window (MSW
NL) system was completed in June 2015 and is currently undergoing testing.
The lead agency responsible for the MSW NL is the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, supported by Dutch Customs.
Once the MSW NL is operational, the plan will be to expand the functionality to include air
transport and re-brand the MSW NL as the Single Window Trade and Transport (SWTT).
8.3 Country Profile
The Port of Rotterdam is Europe’s largest port, with an annual freight throughput of some 465
million tonnes. Approximately 30,000 seagoing vessels and 110,000 inland vessels visit the port
of Rotterdam each year (Port of Rotterdam, 2016).
International Single Window Study
Page 36 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
The Netherlands has been one of the top five foreign investors in Australia for a number of years.
The value of Dutch exports to Australia – mainly machinery and medical equipment – exceeded
€1.7 billion in 2013. Imports from Australia totalled €0.6 billion in the same year and mainly comprised raw materials. The Netherlands is Australia’s second most important market in Europe,
after the United Kingdom. Many Australian products – primarily coal and iron ore – pass through
the Netherlands on the way to other European destinations (Government of Netherlands, 2016).
8.4 Government Structure
The MSW NL currently reflects Netherlands legislation and will ultimately support the enforcement of both national and European regulations making it a regional SW, although this requirement is not currently within the project’s scope.
Participating government departments in the MSW NL include:
• Customs;
• Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat);
• Immigration;
• The Port Authorities of Alblasserdam, Papendrecht and Zwijndrecht;
• The Port Health Authority of Rotterdam;
• The Health Authority (“GGD”);
• The Netherlands Hull Database and Netherlands Reference Data Management Service
8.5 Background of the Single Window
Dutch Customs has information systems for import (Sagitta Invoer), export (Sagitta Uitvoer),
outgoing manifest (Uitgaan), and entry manifest (Binnenbrengen). With the implementation of
MSW NL, none of these port community systems, or those of participating agencies will be superseded. The major change will be that the trade community will only have to send the information once and the MSW NL will send it to the proper authority for processing.
As noted previously, the impetus for the development of MSW NL was the adoption by EU Member States of EU Directive 2010/65/EU (DIRECTIVE 2010/65/EU, 2010) on Reporting Formalities
for Ships Arriving in and/or Departing From Ports of Member States. The Directive is aligned with
UNECE/UNESCAP and other recommendations and guidelines, and calls for:
•
•
•
•
•
Facilitation of marine transport by reducing the administrative burden;
Simplification of reporting formalities;
International harmonization;
Reporting in an electronic format via a single window; and,
Exchange of information between competent authorities
Adoption of the Directive will allow the Netherlands to move from a situation where vessel operators and agents are required to send duplicate information to multiple agencies in various formats
to one where WCO-compliant messages are sent to a single MSW “post office” where they will
be distributed to interested national and, eventually, European authorities.
The MSW NL software development was completed on 18 September 2015 and is currently being tested. Once testing is completed, industry will be given a minimum three months to make
the necessary transition to the new system (Maritime Single Window Nederland, 2016).
8.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
As lead agency, the responsibility for stakeholder management and engagement is ultimately the
responsibility of the Ministry of Transport and the Environment. However, as 95% of the reports
that will be sent through the MSW NL relate to Customs formalities, the majority of consultations
are led by Dutch Customs. Consultations for trade and government participants cover both policy
and technical matters.
International Single Window Study
Page 37 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
The governance structure that was put in place at the start of the project included representation
from all agencies directly involved in the project as well as maritime industry interests. Project
information was also made available to the public on the Ministry of Transport and Environment
website 1, including status bulletins, FAQs and meeting notifications, including a link to Dutch
Customs where information on connecting to the MSW NL and access to message implementation guidelines.
Despite the fact that this structure had been developed, it was reported to KGH that at times
there was confusion as to who was responsible for specific deliverables. In recognition of the fact
that clear governance is vital to the success of a multi-agency project, the planning that is underway for the next phase of single window in the Netherlands will include a more robust governance structure to avoid problems going forward.
8.7 Legislative Framework
EU Directive 2010/65/EC provides the legal framework for the implementation for the MSW NL.
The Directive outlines three categories of reporting formalities that carriers must in order to fulfil
their legal obligations, including (General Implementation MNSW NL, 2013):
A) EU information requirements:
• Port – Notification of ships arriving in and departing from ports of the Member States:
o Article 4 of Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
dated 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system.
• Border – Border checks on persons:
o Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council dated 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).
• Dangerous or Polluting Goods – Notification of dangerous or polluting goods carried on
board:
o Article 13 of Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
dated 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system.
• Waste – Notification of waste and residues:
o Article 6 of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
dated 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and
cargo residues.
• Security – Notification of security information:
o Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council dated 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security.
• Customs – Entry Summary Declaration:
o Article 36a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 87 of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the
Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code)
B) FAL forms and formalities resulting from international legal instruments in accordance with the
Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL):
• FAL Form 1: General Declaration;
• FAL Form 2: Cargo Declaration;
• FAL Form 3: Ship’s Stores Declaration;
1
https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/verkeersmanagement/scheepvaart/scheepvaartverkeersbegeleiding/
maritime-single-window/index.aspx (Dutch)
International Single Window Study
Page 38 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
•
•
FAL Form 4: Crew’s Effects Declaration;
FAL Form 5: Crew List;
FAL Form 6: Passenger List;
FAL Form 7: Dangerous Goods Manifest;
Maritime Declaration of Health; and,
FAL Form SEC: Ship’s Security Information.
C) Member States may include information requirements in accordance with national legislation:
• Notification of the arrival of ships eligible for expanded inspection:
o Article 9 of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on port State control.
• Notification of the actual time of arrival and actual time of departure:
o Article 24, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control.
8.8 Business Model
The MSW NL is government initiative, funded by government and made available to the trade
community at no charge, however industry is responsible for changes to their own systems. Government funding for the project was allocated to the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment as the responsible agency for the implementation of EU Directive 2010/65/EU.
Trade will connect to the MSW NL using their choice of Port Systems or Non-Port system via
Digipoort, an existing e-government portal that was designed as a “one stop shop” for business
and private citizens to connect to the government. Digipoort will function as a mailbox/post office
to direct messages to the relevant authorities and back to the trader.
The MSW NL will recognize two types of systems currently in use by the maritime sector, provided they use the newly defined WCO compliant electronic messages:
• Port systems: systems managed by the port authorities that are used for reporting information to that respective port authority.
• Non-port systems: other systems such as those owned by a carrier or agent, on-board
systems used by the captain/crew or third party systems supplied by service providers.
The following Public Authority systems will be connected to the MSW:
• Customs;
• Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat);
• Immigration;
• Port systems:
o Portbase;
o NHIS;
o Portaal;
o PortXcs.
The MSW NL will also connect to the following public organisations automatically via email:
• The Port Authorities of Alblasserdam, Papendrecht and Zwijndrecht (ISPS Data);
• The Port Health Authority of Rotterdam (Maritime Certificate of Health);
• The Health Authority (“GGD”) (Maritime Certificate of Health); and
• The Netherlands Hull Database (information on vessels) and Netherlands Reference Data
Management Service (information of code tables).
One of the more important interfaces will be the connection to the national SafeSeaNet system.
This system is the gateway to the European SafeSeaNet which is an exchange platform for maritime information about vessels and their cargo between member states. In the future, the plan is
that this connection will become the conduit to share vessel information throughout the EU.
International Single Window Study
Page 39 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Figure 7: MNSW NL (Ronald van den Heuvel, 2013)
8.9 Implementation Plan
The implementation of the MSW NL is being carried out incrementally:
•
•
Increment 1 - Requirements related to vessels and crew.
Increment 2 - Requirements related to cargo, including customs clearance.
Remaining work post 2015 is covered in Section 8.12.
Figure 8: MSW NL Software Development Plan
8.10 Resource Management
MSW NL is a cooperative effort with the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment being assigned the ultimate responsibility for the MSW NL. The Directors General of Customs and Infra-
International Single Window Study
Page 40 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
structure and the Environment are the contractors for the delivery of the project (General
Implementation MNSW NL, 2013).
Overall project management is the responsibility of Infrastructure and the Environment, which
also works with Customs on the design and functional requirements of the MSW NL. Logius, a
division of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, is responsible for the development
of government-wide e-services and standards and for providing technical assistance and will also
the system. For business and government participants, any changes to existing systems, and the
cost of making those changes, is the responsibility of the owners of those systems.
8.11 Lessons Learned
With the MSW NL ‘go-live’ imminent, the following three items were considered important lessons
learned to ensure the success of the project:
•
•
•
Use of standardized data. There was joint agreement between government and industry to
use the WCO Data Model.
Use a Coordinate Border Management approach. Obtain approval from government agencies at the highest level to implement coordinated border management to manage controls at
the border.
Reuse data. Maximize the reuse of data by distributing it back to industry so that they may
use the information to improve their operation in a manner that they see fit.
8.12 Future Plans and Innovations
The implementation of SWTT for air transport is the next step in single window development in
the Netherlands. Using lessons learned from the MSW NL project, the SWTT will include:
•
•
•
Single electronic submission of data using the WCO Data Model Version 3.5
Multiple use of data across a common IT platform to facilitate coordinated border management.
Two-way communication with industry including status updates and a pre-completed declaration service.
Benefits foreseen by the government include lowering the administrative burden for industry, saving time and increasing competitiveness, and reducing costs for government (Dutch Customs
Administration). Currently, this is not measured and specified to any further level of detail.
International Single Window Study
Page 41 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
9
Case Study – New Zealand
New Zealand Single Window Environment at a glance
Evolutionary Stage
Stage C
SW Coverage
Import and Export
Modes of Transport
Sea and air
Date Implemented
First release in August 2013
Implementation Cost
Budget is US$75 million 2
Ownership
Public
Cost Recovery Model
User fee
Compliance Regime Present
Yes
AEO Programme Integration
AEO present – not integrated
9.1 Summary
The New Zealand Trade Single Window (TSW) went live in August 2013 and development is
ongoing with a second tranche to be delivered by the end of 2016. The services deployed so far
have been successful in terms of volumes and simplification for trade. Customer satisfaction has
been very positive.
The fact that TSW is part of a joint programme, Joint Border Management System (JBMS) where
risk and intelligence is included in the scope, has created issues. Ambitious scoping and planning
has been one of the largest challenges for the project, in addition to challenges in stakeholder
and resource management, causing delays in the initial phases. The complexity of introducing
additional requirements at an early stage in a Trade Single Window implementation should not be
underestimated.
The New Zealand project clearly indicates that a Single Window implementation can be challenging from an IT-perspective, but there has to be a strong focus on business change, phasing and
stakeholder coordination. A clear Single Window vision, a business transformation plan for coordination of business and IT developments and phased implementation where smaller components are delivered based on cost-benefit analysis, will reduce risks and support the project to
achieve the objectives within the budget and time constraints.
9.2 Introduction
Over the past five years, the New Zealand Customs Service (NZCS) and the Ministry for Primary
Industries (MPI), have been developing a Joint Border Management System (JBMS) to modernise and integrate border clearance processes for people, goods and craft, as well as improving
data and technology sharing between the NZCS, the MPI and other agencies with an interest in
border security. This initiative supports the government’s objective for improved public services
offering more comprehensive and efficient online services to the trade. The Trade Single Window
(TSW) is a key component of this joint initiative.
9.3 Country Profile
New Zealand is a wealthy Pacific nation with an open economy that works on free market principles. Over the last 30 years the economy has gone from being one of the most regulated in the
OECD to one of the least regulated and most free-market based economies. New Zealand is
highly dependent on international trade. The economy has traditionally been based on a foundation of exports from its very efficient agricultural system: dairy products (New Zealand is one of
the top five dairy exporters in the world), meat, forest products, fruit and beverages. A sizeable
manufacturing and services sectors and growing high-technology capability complement the agri2
According to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11369088
International Single Window Study
Page 42 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
cultural economy. Tourism, film production, and winemaking are also significant exporters. Exports account for about 30% of GDP. New Zealand imports mainly vehicles, machinery
and equipment, petroleum, electronics, plastics and aircraft.
9.4 Government Structure
Unlike Australia, the UK, USA, Canada or many other countries, New Zealand does not have
state or provincial governments, making their system of government more compact and straightforward. There are two tiers: the central government, which makes decisions affecting New Zealand as a whole, and local government, which looks after the interests and needs of specific
communities.
New Zealand has a divided border management structure with separate agencies responsible for
customs, immigration and biosecurity. New Zealand’s border management is characterised by
close collaborative working arrangements between the government agencies with a specific role
or key interests at the border. These agencies are the NZCS, the Ministry of Primary Industries,
the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Internal Affairs and the
New Zealand Food Safety Authority.
NZCS is the oldest government agency in New Zealand, protecting New Zealanders from economic, social, and environmental harm. Each year the NZCS facilitates trade volumes in excess
of NZD 150 billion, deals with 50 million mail items, processes approximately 10 million travellers
and collects over NZD 12 billion in Government revenue. The Ministry for Primary Industries
(MPI) manages the biosecurity risks posed by cargo, mail items, craft and passengers.
9.5 Background to the Trade Single Window (TSW)
To respond to the increasing volume of border movements and manage the risks without impacting businesses, New Zealand Customs and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) have embarked on the development of the Joint Border Management System (JBMS) with the Trade Single Window (TSW) as a major component. Implementing the TSW, and adopting the new international standards for cargo and craft messages, also positions New Zealand to participate in country-to-country data exchange - a key trade facilitation concept being progressed by the World
Trade Organisation and APEC.
The JBMS initiative was undertaken to introduce a new information management system able to
handle all of New Zealand’s border management needs. The agencies’ computer systems (CusMod and Quantum) are more than 15 years old, and their solution platforms and functionality lack
the flexibility to respond to the complexity of evolving demands (e.g. managing new risks introduced by the increased flow of people, goods and craft over New Zealand’s border). CusMod and
Quantum operate in different environments, thereby contributing to higher compliance costs for
industry and inefficiency in the supply chain.
CUSMOD is the Customs Modernisation Programme, developed in 1995 and supports three
business areas:
• Goods Management – the processing of Entry and Electronic Cargo Information (ECI) transactions
• Air and Marine - the processing of Passenger transactions
• Intelligence – Strategic, Tactical and Operational intelligence support
QUANTUM is the suite of applications that supports MPI border operations. The scope includes
cargo, passengers, mail and ships. In relation to SW evolution, Cusmod would fall into Stage C
and Quantum into Stage B.
The JBMS programme builds on previous work carried out separately by Customs and MPI and
comprises of two key components:
International Single Window Study
Page 43 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
1. The development and implementation of the New Zealand Trade Single Window (TSW)
and other craft and cargo processing components providing connectivity to existing systems; and
2. Establishing the foundation for advanced risk and intelligence (R&I) capability.
All people, goods, and craft entering and leaving New Zealand must be reported to Customs and
other appropriate border agencies. Prior to the implementation of TSW, reporting to agencies
featured:
• Use of mainly electronic messages in different formats.
• Airlines and shipping lines submitting information about the aircraft or ship, and its cargo,
crew and passengers in a form attached to an email which was shared with MPI, Maritime
New Zealand and the Ministry of Health’s port health officers.
• Commercial importers and exporters submitting detailed information for Customs clearance
purposes electronically, often through the services of a Customs broker or freight forwarder.
• Importers submitting Biosecurity Authority Clearance Certificate (BACC) applications for inbound shipping containers either electronically, or by fax, with a Customs broker or freight
forwarder often submitting on behalf of importers with supplemental data being passed from
Customs’ systems.
• A requirement that importers of certain foods needing an import permit email documents to a
central processing office.
• A requirement that exporters seeking export certificates for animal and plant products applied
for these through MPI’s export certification systems.
• The use of paper forms to submit information on imported prescribed foods to MPI.
• Connectivity to agency systems for submission of information and receipt of agency responses via a Customs’ mandated ‘messaging gateway’ provided by an external company. This
meant Customs’ electronic messages and MPI’s electronic BACCs could only be sent
through this system-to-system messaging gateway or online submission websites (CusWeb
and BioWeb).
• A separate system-to-system and online gateway for animal product and phytosanitary export
certification applications operated by MPI.
The JBMS with TSW benefits are expected to include:
• The ability to leverage state-of-the-art technologies, enhance inter-agency interoperability and
respond to a constantly evolving international border management environment.
• Improved intelligence, risk management, data sharing and information management capabilities, enabling an enhanced people, goods and craft targeting capability.
• Facilitating faster clearance whilst shifting resources to non-compliant entities.
• More efficient and competitive supply chains as a consequence of streamlined processes,
reduced compliance costs, greater certainty regarding border requirements and reduced
complexity.
• The ability to manage border service requirements of other agencies, such as the NZ Food
Safety Authority and Department of Labour.
• Improved coordination across NZ border agencies, with TSW also contributing to improved
supply chain logistics management.
• The ability for clients to submit craft and goods information through a single channel via new
electronic messaging shared across border agencies, and to receive agency responses
through the same channel.
• Simplifying future software and system development (after initial upgrade investment) of
messaging clients through the agencies’ use of common international standard messages.
• Through the new international craft and cargo messages, allowing industry members to submit richer information to support more accurate risk assessments. With information submitted
in advance, border agencies can provide earlier confirmation of the clearance status of consignments, reducing dwell time and enhancing logistics planning.
International Single Window Study
Page 44 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allowing online registration with both Customs and MPI, and self-maintenance of client details, with agency processing automated as far as possible, thereby reducing the time spent
submitting applications and waiting for responses.
Enabling “bulk updating” of import and export clearances where there are changes to vessels
or ports of call that have been triggered by a shipping company request. This will automatically generate Customs and MPI clearance responses and instructions to the new port of discharge or loading, reducing disruption and delays for importers, exporters and port companies.
Allowing those who submit import and export clearance messages to identify additional parties they wish to receive clearance responses and instructions, for example, transporters.
Providing port companies with more information from import and export clearance messages
to help them plan logistics e.g. goods classifications.
Enabling supply chain parties to leverage the TSW to communicate with each other, rather
than operate multiple, separate interfaces.
Enhancing New Zealand’s international reputation as a highly sought after trading partner and
tourist destination.
These benefits are being realized progressively as system functionality and services are introduced incrementally.
9.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
From the outset, support from central government agencies and industry has been essential to
the success of the JBMS programme. Internal and external stakeholders have been involved
throughout the design and development phases and the use of a select group of pilot partners
enabled the JBMS team to work closely with industry and other stakeholders. Participating government agencies comprise those that actively participate in the TSW processes (those that are
involved in approvals and status updates), and those that are passive recipients of information
via TSW.
In addition to NZ Customs, there are three active participating agencies:
•
Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) – for import functions only at this stage. Export functions such as sanitary and phytosanitary certification of export consignments (of food and ingredients for ultimate human consumption, plants and plant products, organics, wine etc.) are
not currently included in the TSW. This is because of the complex range of importing country
requirements for the various commodities. The degree to which TSW should cater for these
will be consulted with industry over time, based on the cost benefit.
•
Ministry of Health – MoH’s Port Health Officers around NZ are responsible for issuing pratique for arriving vessels. They will receive Advance Notice of Arrival notifications from TSW
at set intervals prior to the arrival of commercial vessels, and will access TSW via the web to
check crew health declarations and other information, and issue instructions and/or pratique.
•
Maritime NZ - MNZ officers working in Customs’ Integrated Targeting and Operations Centre
will access electronic Advance Notice of Arrival and Advance Notice of Departure data that
ship agents submit via TSW for commercial vessels to carry out their functions relating to
maritime security risks, vessel safety inspections and crew welfare. Advance Notice of Departure data will also be sent to MNZ daily for billing of levies to ships’ agents.
There are also a number of agencies and industry organisations that, in the first stage of solution
deployment, passively receive some of the information submitted via TSW with the expectation
that they will have further active involvement in subsequent stages. The majority of these agencies received information from Customs prior to TSW implementation and include Statistics New
Zealand, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, and the Ministry of Fisheries. Industry stakeholders include freight forwarders, cus-
International Single Window Study
Page 45 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
toms brokers, shipping agents, cargo terminal operators (port companies and air cargo handlers
such as Air New Zealand), freight software developers, commercial importers and exporters.
9.6.1 Programme Governance
A Joint Executive Board (JEB) whose role responsibility and authority are specified in a Terms of
Reference approved by the NZCS Comptroller and the MPI Director General governs the JBMS
programme.
On behalf of the Chief Executives of Customs and the Ministry for Primary Industries, the JEB
ensures the overall alignment of the JBMS programme with the strategic direction, requirements
and participating agencies’ expectations. It also provides the interface with, and oversight of,
other programmes of work within the businesses that are accountable for supporting the JBMS
business benefit realisation.
Stakeholder Management is under the remit of a Joint Executive Board (JEB) that is accountable
for:
• Managing relationships with government, other agencies’ suppliers, stakeholders, staff and
unions;
• Managing dependencies between business areas, partner agencies and JBMS;
• All Trader/Industry on-boarding & engagement activities; and • Ensuring all partner/vendor relationships are healthy in order to ensure the success of the
programme.
9.7 Legislative Framework
In November 2009 Cabinet agreed to the Joint Border Management System (JBMS) being completed in two tranches as set out in the JBMS Stage 2 Business Case [CAB Min (09) 39/22]. In
March 2010, Cabinet agreed in principle to some of the costs of Tranche 1 being recovered from
third parties via existing transaction fees [EGI Min (10) 5/7]. Budget 2010 provided the capital
funding, and increased baseline funding for Customs and MPI for implementing Tranche 1 of
JBMS (CAB Min (10) 13/4, 2010). The components of Tranches 1 and 2 are outlined in section
9.8 below.
In order to implement the cost recovery increases, amendments to the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 and to the Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Order 2010 were required by February
2013 in order to meet the 28-Day Rule for regulations. For Customs, fees for moving goods across New Zealand’s border are set in the Customs and
Excise Regulations 1996, made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The transaction fees
made under the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 are reviewed every three years in accordance with Government guidelines. An amendment to the regulations was needed to increase
the fees to recover a share of Tranche 1 costs from 2 April 2013. For MPI, fees for biosecurity requirements for imports are set by the Biosecurity (Import Entry
Levy) Order 2010 and the Biosecurity (Costs) Regulations 2010 made under the Biosecurity
Act
1993. Levies made under the Biosecurity Act 1993 must be reviewed annually. Under the Biosecurity (Import Entry Levy) Order, the levy is adjusted to reflect the annual budget and estimated
transaction volumes. The levy order required amendment to allow for the levy rate to include a
share of Tranche 1 costs from 2 April 2013. In April 2012, amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993
were passed to enable information sharing between Customs and MPI. Amendments to the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993 were necessary to fully enable
International Single Window Study
Page 46 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
TSW. These amendments would require all parties to register as users for TSW purposes and to
provide information in the new form and manner required.
9.8 Business Model
All people, goods, and craft entering and leaving New Zealand must be reported to NZCS. Information on exported and imported cargo that is required to manage biosecurity and food safety
risks is also sent to MPI. Importers of certain foods need to send documents to a central processing office to obtain an import permit, and most animal and plant products exported from New
Zealand must be accompanied by an approved export certificate which exporters apply for
through MPI’s export certification systems. The JBMS initiative modernises the two agencies’
border systems and brings a fundamental change to the way NZCS and MPI operate at the border. It enables the agencies to work more collaboratively, with shared processes, data and technology.
The richer information available in new messages introduced by the TSW will be shared by
NZCS and MPI to support New Zealand’s border and revenue protection, and management of
biosecurity and food safety risks. The country’s maritime safety agency and port health officers
will also access information about craft and crew, and give directions to ships via the TSW.
TSW functions are grouped into two categories - Transactional and Informational.
Transactional functions enable a bi-directional exchange of transaction data between industry
and border agencies. In general, all registration and lodgement functions follow a similar process
whereby TSW accepts the submission, validates the syntax, engages JBMS to validate the appropriate content and then routes applicable parts of the submission content to participating
agencies based on specific routing rules. Participating agencies have the ability to submit status
updates and notifications to TSW, which then forwards this information to the submitter and any
other nominated party.
Informational functions although not included in Tranche 1 of TSW, these are functions that will
provide an extensive reference library with comprehensive search functions to enable easy access to border agency requirements and information (e.g. fact sheets, new regulations, permit
requirements, forms and procedures), and automated proactive dissemination of content updates
to interested parties based on subscriptions or their activities or areas of interest (e.g. Tariff code
amendments; new regulations and procedures). Transaction history (reporting) services providing
the ability to review historic transactions (e.g. past lodgements and registrations) will also be provided.
The initial implementation of TSW is geared for domestic business-to-government (B2G) transactions. The design of TSW supports future business-to-business (B2B) and government-togovernment (G2G) information exchange.
The JBMS was designed based on the following principles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish a solid architectural foundation for Tranche 1 based on proven enterprise technologies and one that is extendable to support Tranche 2; Leverage the existing software and hardware footprint that currently exists within Customs
to lower both implementation risk and costs; Minimise number of business rules in the initial implementation of TSW;
Integrate the commercially available packages to deliver the required core Risk & Intelligence functionality; Where bespoke software is contemplated, use proven tools and technologies to reduce
implementation effort and risk;
Mitigate delivery risk; International Single Window Study
Page 47 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
Utilise business led design, with a consistent primary User Interface that can be used by
business staff and not technical staff only; Post-production 24x7x365 supportability is a key criterion; Ability to implement within a 12-18-month timeframe; and An iterative approach to delivery
of functional content so that Customs and MPI can have
an early view of core content, prior to any release into a production environment. 9.8.1 Lodgements and Message Formats
Information about cargo and craft entering and departing New Zealand must be reported to Customs, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Maritime NZ and port health officers. Importers,
exporters and their agents; freight forwarders; airlines and shipping lines; ship agents and port
companies generally submit this information as electronic messages, collectively called ‘lodgements’.
These lodgements include:
• Import and export entries or declarations;
• Biosecurity Authority Clearance Certificate (BACC) applications;
• Single and multiple use permit applications for importing prescribed foods;
• Inward and outward cargo reports; and,
• Cargo movement requests and arriving and departing craft notices.
TSW uses new lodgement message formats based on WCO Data Model version 3 (WDM3).
Some of the new WDM3 lodgements replace existing messages, such as import and export entries, while others are new lodgements.
For imports, the new messages combine Customs and MPI information requirements in one
lodgement. This means traders or other stakeholders do not have to send an import entry to Customs, and a separate Biosecurity Authority Clearance Certificate Application, or permit information for prescribed foods, to MPI.
For exports, a new message format combining Customs’ data requirements and MPI food and
phytosanitary data requirements is planned for a later TSW project. In the meantime, export certification applications continue to be managed via MPI’s food and phytosanitary systems.
International Single Window Study
Page 48 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
9.8.2 Connectivity Options to TSW
To offer clients flexibility and in response to feedback from industry consultations, TSW provides
new options for clients to submit lodgements. The options available are illustrated in the following
diagram.
Figure 9: Connectivity Options to Trade Single Window (WCO, 2013)
9.8.3 JBMS Programme Costs and Cost Recovery
Ownership of TSW will rests solely with the New Zealand government. The life-cycle costs of
JBMS Tranche 1 are estimated to be $204.4 million over an 11-year period to 2020/21. The NZ
Government agreed in principle that around 50% of these costs will be met by industry through
increasing existing Customs and MPI biosecurity transaction fees.
A number of cost recovery options were proposed including:
1. A top-up of the import entry transaction fee (IETF) and the biosecurity levy only;
2. A top-up of all seven Customs transaction fees and the biosecurity levy by way of a fee
increase for JBMS; 3. A top-up of all seven Customs transaction fees and the biosecurity levy by way of a percentage increase for JBMS; or, 4. A top-up as per Option 2 and an increase in some fees for “food-related” border activities
(i.e. border functions associated with import and export that were previously carried out by
the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), which was amalgamated into the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)). Consultation with industry identified that the cost recovery proposal was broadly accepted and
that a top-up of the seven Customs transaction fees made under the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 and the MPI biosecurity levy, made under the Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Order
2010, was the most practical approach. A change was made to the proposal following industry
feedback with respect to the estimated volumes of export entry transactions made under the Customs Secure Export Scheme (SES) and new fee and levy rates were established on the following
basis:
International Single Window Study
Page 49 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
A start date 2 April 2013 when industry could start to adopt the new JBMS functions delivered
in Tranche 1;
No changes to the annual cost recovery budgets for the Customs transaction fees and the
MPI biosecurity levy, excluding JBMS Tranche 1 costs - that is, Customs imports (NZD 29.3
million), Customs exports (NZD 8.4 million), and MPI biosecurity levy (NZD 13.5 million); Costs calculated over an initial cost-recovery period of 3.25 years (2 April 2013 to 30 June
2016). During this period only the costs allocated to industry for the period will be costrecovered; and,
JBMS costs allocated to industry in accordance with the new functionality created in Tranche
1, that is, Customs imports (NZD 20.8 million), Customs exports (NZD 5.9million) and MPI biosecurity levy (NZD 19.3 million) over 3.25 years (48.2% of Tranche 1 costs to 30 June 2016)
From 1 July 2016 there will, however, be ongoing costs for industry for Tranche 1.
9.8.4 Changes and Improvements Introduced by TSW
Tranche 1 of the TSW introduced changes and enhanced service offerings including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New craft and cargo reporting and clearance messages based on the WCO’s latest international data model (version 3.2) replacing the previous craft arrival and departure notices, inward and outward cargo reports and import and export entries, and MPI’s BACC messages.
A new requirement for submitting messages for international and domestic transhipment cargo.
Sharing of messages by the border agencies (commencing with Customs, MPI, Maritime New
Zealand and port health officers).
Earlier confirmation of the clearance status of traders’ consignments to inform subsequent
actions where required information is provided in advance.
Joint registration of premises (Customs controlled areas, transitional facilities and approved
food premises) by Customs and MPI officers in TSW, rather than via separate systems.
The opportunity for other messaging gateway providers to compete with the previous sole
Customs mandated “messaging gateway” provider.
The ability of clients on system-to-system messaging to connect directly to TSW for submission of electronic cargo and craft reporting messages without going through a messaging
gateway provider (this will result in cost savings, depending on the client’s volume of messages and set-up costs).
A facility for submitting messages online through a website operated by Customs and MPI, as
an alternative to the websites provided by the previously Customs mandated messaging
gateway provider. The ability for brokers to apply for, and receive, client and supplier codes online via an automated, registration facility.
Increased sharing of electronic information with industry parties such as ports and transporters, thereby contributing to improved logistics planning.
In the longer term, the TSW provides the foundation for better trade facilitation through countryto-country data sharing, an objective of both the WCO and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) bloc. It also meets the WCO’s ‘Customs in the 21st Century’ challenges concerning
Coordinated Border Management (CBM) and the Globally Networked Customs (GNC) concept.
International Single Window Study
Page 50 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
9.8.5 Volumes and Industry Feedback
Since its launch in August 2013, over 3.3 million inward transactions from traders have been processed via the TSW. By June 2015, 60 per cent of industry’s inbound transactions and 100% of
outbound messages were being processed through the TSW.
Figure 10: TSW Statistics (TSW Statistics, 2016)
A recent stakeholder survey indicated that 88% of commercial customers (importers and exporters) were satisfied or very satisfied with the service provided by NZCS.
9.9 Implementation Plan
JBMS was originally intended to be a programme of work in two tranches over four years. In April
2010, budget approval was given for funding of Tranche 1. This included an increase in on-going
third party revenue in the form of increased cost recovery fees to fund industry’s share of JBMS
operating costs. The procurement and prime vendor (IBM New Zealand) contract negotiations
processes followed and the program development commenced in mid-2011. The original go live
date was November 2012 and rescheduled to August 2013.
JBMS is being delivered in phases with multiple releases per phase to allow each part of the system to be thoroughly tested before release to industry. There have been several releases adding
new functionality and messages to TSW since it went first went live in August 2013. JBMS was
originally envisaged to be delivered in two tranches:
•
•
Tranche 1 covered TSW and new risk and intelligence and capability.
Tranche 2 was to focus on retiring existing systems CusMod (not yet shut down) and
Quantum, further enhancing risk and intelligence capability and targeting tools, introducing new passenger processing functionality, and the provision of information access and
retrieval services for the industry and the public, including information on border requirements provided by border sector agencies.
The functionality expected out of Tranche 2 will be delivered as needed through ongoing IT development.
The JBMS implementation plan highlighting TSW milestones is illustrated in appendix 12.2.
The phased implementation of TSW commenced in January 2013 using a select group of pilot
partners, including AEO and non-AEO companies. The first successful live clearance through
International Single Window Study
Page 51 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
TSW was completed on 17 January 2013. By mid-May 2013, more than 10,000 entries were
submitted to TSW by a major freight forwarding company. TSW went live in August 2013.
Self-service online registration was made available to all brokers from early July 2015. As they
have registered, they have commenced managing some of their own and their clients’ information
and supplier code applications. This has reduced what was a 24-hour service for brokers down to
a matter of minutes in many cases.
9.10 Resource Management
NZCS and MPI continue to manage resource pressures in order to maintain their existing border
management systems while implementing the replacement JBMS in a series of smaller phases.
There is no specific information available regarding the manpower resources for the development
of the TSW. However, the following should be considered:
•
•
•
The TSW was developed as a component of the JBMS and therefore resources were engaged on activities common to JBMS as well as TSW;
Staff from NCZCS and MPI comprised the internal TSW team. These were primarily resources from the business side of the agencies rather than IT; and
IT resources assigned to TSW from NZCS and MPI were outsourced. The NZCS IT personnel shadowed the supplier team for overall JBMS design, including architecture and integration services.
The original budget for the JBMS was US$55 million, but the newspapers (Savage, 2014) reported that the budget was increased to US$75 million in June 2014.
9.11 Lessons Learned
The introduction of a large IT system is a challenging initiative and border agencies considering
undertaking similar initiatives may benefit from the experience gained and lessons learned in
New Zealand.
•
•
•
Government funding. The effort and time to secure government funding through various
business cases, including negotiation with affected government chief executives to obtain
their support and securing the support of Treasury, relevant government ministers and major
industry groups, should not be underestimated.
Stakeholder engagement. Support from industry and central government agencies has
been essential for the implementation of TSW, and this commitment was actively sought. Early consultation with major industry stakeholders indicated that there was general support for
the JBMS programme and internal and external stakeholders have been involved throughout
the design and development phases of the TSW. The New Zealand cargo industry has been
very supportive of the TSW. A key part of this has been piloting the TSW with a range of industry partners, including a large freight forwarder, a multi-national express courier, Customs
and freight software vendors, and TSW Online users.
An individual approach is recommended, instead of solely working with large industry groups.
Selection of key members from SMEs will further increase the understanding of their challenges and line of business.
Partnership. Although the NZCS is the lead organization for the JBMS, dual ownership of the
programme with the MPI has led to a unique acquisition of knowledge. It was important for
each side to understand their shared attributes and their own unique features, to enable them
to mutually recognize each other’s contribution. The impact of differences in organizational
culture was underestimated and not identified until the JBMS programme was well underway.
The MPI and the NZCS will continue their partnership with joint ongoing management of the
JBMS when it is in full operation. It will thus be important to have clarity and agreement regarding the management model for joint services between all the agencies involved.
International Single Window Study
Page 52 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Executive management. Continued executive sponsorship, management and project oversight is never static and will be impacted by changes in the operations of government and the
elapsed time to deliver the planned outcome and satisfy expectations. This is compounded
further by incessant change requests in the initial stages of the project (thereby lengthening
the time) further impacting commitment by executive management. A relative short period for
the initial delivery will retain effective sponsorship, governance and executive oversight. With
subsequent programme phases becoming largely technical, the demands on executive management and oversight will be reduced.
Resource commitment. The ability of government agencies to commit appropriate resources to design new business processes, including joint project governance and oversight,
should feature as potential risks and appropriate contingency planning put in place as mitigation.
Functional scope. Scope of the TSW was initially too wide and ambitious, hitting too many
critical system processes in one bang, which created complex interdependencies – TSW delivery and benefits were dragged by the risk and intelligence project. This increased complexity and overall risks of the project. It is recommended to break down the programme into a
more manageable series of projects, even if it seems like re-work and throw-away – it’s a better cost benefit in the long run.
Programme schedule. Common to virtually all “change” programmes are the ubiquitous
over-ambitious schedule predicated by various factors with political factors figuring quite highly. This intrinsic “time pressure” is passed on to suppliers who, in responding to the demands
imposed in a procurement process, may compound the schedule-triggered risks by proposing
commensurate over-ambitious delivery schedules in their eagerness to secure the business.
It was anticipated that the JBMS would be built and implemented in two phases (tranches)
over a four-year period with TSW to be deployed in Tranche 1. This ambition proved somewhat optimistic given the complexity of the overall JBMS programme. In establishing a realistic schedule, all dimensions must be considered, from the political through to the technical. It
is also imperative that all stakeholders are ready to commence the programme at the appointed time, with the appropriate resources and experienced personnel ready for deployment.
Requirements specifications. On the Risk and Intelligence side, for a long time the business was unable to sufficiently articulate its requirements to enable a tangible solution to be
designed, and many requirements were very complex making them difficult to systematise.
The vendor and programme management were too slow to call time on this, so a lot of effort
was spent pursuing an ideal solution that could have been revisited later, after delivery of the
core functionality.
Rapid deployment. The first iteration of a TSW implementation should be very quick and
focus of the establishment of a scalable platform with as much functionality as possible to
deem it workable. Additional functionality should be added incrementally through subsequent
iterations. Long delivery times will impact commitment and support by senior management.
This is compounded further by incessant change requests during the initial delivery period
that in turn increase the delivery time.
Data Harmonisation. Adequate time should be allocated to establishing a realistic schedule
for completing this task so that the data models and messaging standards are made available
to stakeholders in the supply chain in a timely manner to enable them to build or adapt their
systems whilst minimising business impact. Senior management should ensure that Data
Maintenance Requests (DMR’s) for the WCO Data Model are kept to an absolute minimum
by providing adequate oversight to avoid unnecessary delays. All relevant stakeholders
should be involved in review and sign-off of the single window data model to secure their buyins during implementation.
9.12 Future Plans and Innovations
Future plans for the TSW include the following topics.
•
Benefits study will be undertaken to further investigate the economic benefits of the TSW.
International Single Window Study
Page 53 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
•
•
Customs-to-Customs integration as part of a future trade environment based on FTA, MRA,
AEO/Trusted Trader programmes with Australia or other trading partners.
Subject to demand and cost benefit, introduce competitive connection options through the
TSW for connecting TSW and trader’s operating systems between trading community and
government.
Online shopping clearance. TSW facility for private importers to easily self-clear their off
shore purchases, especially online shopping – this is subject to evidence of demand and the
cost benefit, and may involve interfacing with private sector systems/solutions. While private
importers can use TSW Online now, the current need for TSW user set up, client codes and
physical ID checks is an obstacle.
Investigate and facilitate for reduced clearance and registration time for traders
Potentially interface with other agencies that manage licences/permits/registration for certain
goods (such as Police for firearms and parts; Ministry of Health for certain drugs and medicines; Foreign Affairs and Trade for strategic goods, hazardous waste and other goods covered by conventions) to preclude the need for issuing such documents. TSW could be the
application point, then validate and track and such approvals via as the shipments occur. This
is subject to cost benefit and prioritisation.
In addition, Customs is undergoing a significant modernization programme (Customs 2020)
aimed at modernizing our border management systems, enhancing our capability, improving our
customer focus and strengthening intelligence. Major changes as part of this programme include
an Operations Transformation Programme (which changes our operating structure) and a Review
of the Customs and Excise Act. Whether and how these will leverage TSW is not yet determined.
International Single Window Study
Page 54 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
10
Case Study – Singapore
Singapore Single Window Environment at a glance
Evolutionary Stage
Stage D with elements of
Stage E
Date Implemented
1989
Cost Recovery Model
User fee
SW Coverage
Import and Export
Modes of Transport
Sea, air, land
Implementation Cost
Not available - Initial budget
1988 was US$ 14.3 million
Compliance Regime Present
Yes
Ownership
Private-Public-Partnership
AEO Programme Integration
AEO present – integrated
10.1 Summary
Singapore was one of the first national Single Windows (SW) in the world with a clear strategy to
use ICT as an enabler for simplifying the regulatory process by implementing TradeNet, which
later was incorporated into TradeXchange, the national trade SW. Singapore followed the SW
evolution model illustrated earlier, starting with electronic Customs and is now at Stage D, integrated Single Window involving trade and logistics communities.
One of the most important criteria for success in Singapore was the strong political support from
the highest level. Political leadership and commitment needs to be consistent and provide a
strong mandate to a lead agency.
Singapore was also successful in coordination and involvement of stakeholders from the start,
fostering a collaborative approach with both public and private sector. A clear Single Window
vision has been absolutely vital, creating a clear view and strategy to reach the objective of establishing a competitive trading environment.
The use of a private actor for development and operations of the TradeXchange is interesting
and can be considered in environments where the practice and culture permits this approach. In
Singapore, the private actor is refunded through registration and usage fees.
10.2 Introduction
Singapore is arguably the first and leading operational Single Window in the world. It is often referred to as a success story that has enhanced trade facilitation measures significantly and
helped the nation to improve its competitiveness. Other aspects such as approach, operational
and business model and the fact that it is about to be transformed to a National Trade Platform
(NTP), makes Singapore a very interesting case study, even though the details of the new solution are yet to be revealed.
10.3 Country Profile
Singapore has a strategic geographic location as a major hub for trade, logistics and manufacturing. The container port is the second largest in the world managing 34.8 million TEUs 3 in 2014,
and is the busiest transhipment hub in the world.
Singapore is Australia’s largest trade and investment partner in South East Asia. Imports from
Singapore represent 5.4% (UN, 2016) of Australian trade, and the Singapore-Australia Free
3
‘TEU’ means ‘twenty-foot equivalent unit’, an inexact unit of cargo capacity often used to describe the
capacity of container ships and container terminals
International Single Window Study
Page 55 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Trade Agreement (SAFTA) provides further trade facilitation benefits and ease of trade measures
between the two countries.
In 2016, the World Bank ranked Singapore as number one in its overall Doing Business ranking.
This makes Singapore a preferred location in South East Asia for the headquarters and operations of many multinational companies. Singapore was for several years ranked as number one
in the subcategory Trading Across Border but due to changes in the World Bank methodology
(World Bank, 2016), the country ranking is now 41.
10.4 Government Structure
Since its reconstitution in 2003 in response to global trade and security trends, Singapore Customs has changed its focus from a border and revenue collection agency to an overall trade regulator responsible for facilitating and securing trade. Customs is responsible for trade documentation, trade enforcement and revenue functions. These tasks were formerly performed by the former Customs and Excise Department (CED) and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore. Control
at the border is the responsibility of Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
There are 12 key Controlling Agencies, including Singapore Customs, with a total of 35 controlling units involved in the trading across borders procedures, all with specific assignment and responsibility. The 12 Controlling Agencies are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agri-food & Veterinary Authority;
Singapore Police Force;
Building & Construction Authority;
Central Narcotics Bureau;
National Environmental Agency;
InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore;
International Enterprise Singapore;
Media Development Authority;
Ministry of Health;
Health Sciences Authority;
Singapore Civil Defence Force; and
Singapore Customs.
10.5 Background of the Single Window
Before the implementation of the Single Window, the regulatory procedures were cumbersome,
paper based and time-consuming for traders. The process for managing permits was manual and
there was no overall IT-system. Different agencies had different level of ICT capability. At the
same time, IT was identified as one area where Singapore could increase its global competitiveness. A recession in 1985 and the fact that Hong Kong announced the introduction of a trade
facilitation messaging system, further stressed the need for modernization and trade facilitation.
The Singapore Government decided to re-engineer and streamline the regulatory trade procedures for external trade using IT and enhancement of business processes. The political commitment was strong and the former Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong (the current
Prime Minister) was heavily involved and supportive of the development. The development started in 1986 and the first operational part of the Single Window, called TradeNet, was launched in
1989.
The use of TradeNet became mandatory 1991, boosting the trade volumes and facilitation significantly. By the end of 1989, 850 users were registered and the system managed 45% of permit
documentation for non-dutiable and non-controlled goods.
In 2007, the TradeNet became the core application of TradeXchange, a platform that provides
information exchange between users in logistics and trade, while TradeNet provides connectivity
International Single Window Study
Page 56 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
to government agencies. TradeNet and TradeXchange are two separate systems, even though
they are extensively integrated through the same platform.
10.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
Singapore Trade Development Board (STB), now known as International Enterprise Singapore
(IE), is a statutory board that is responsible for trade facilitation and was given the task of coordinating private and public sector stakeholders in the development of the Singapore Single Window, called the TradeNet. IE is comparable to Australian Trade Commission (Austrade).
In the beginning of the development, a core team with representatives from concerned agencies
and the private sector was established to conceptualize and create a vision for the SW system.
Private sector representatives were representing traders, freight forwarders, air cargo agents and
shipping agents. A TradeNet Steering Committee, chaired by STB, governed and monitored the
process, and three sub-committees based on different trade perspectives were created to specify
the functional requirements. These were:
-
Air Shipping;
Sea Shipping; and
Government Agencies.
The National Computer Board (NCB), now merged into the Infocomm Development Authority of
Singapore (IDA), was represented in each group to capture and harmonize the requirements and
data standards from each of the sub-committees.
Throughout the lifecycle, all relevant stakeholders have been continuously involved through the
sub-committees in addition to training and awareness programs. Training is an ongoing process
including both internal and external stakeholders. The internal stakeholders, Customs officers
and ICA staff, receive training on TradeNet through the Customs Academy. The Customs Academy is also responsible for external training and special outreach sessions for upcoming changes
and updates of TradeNet. This is delivered through classroom training as well as e-learning
courses and information.
TradeNet and TradeXchange has separate helpdesk functions available 24/7. Each of the Controlling Agencies have dedicated backend helpdesks for more complex enquires, with various
opening hours.
In addition, starter kits and guides are available online for customers that assist them in understanding and preparing for the commercial, technical and administrative requirements of connecting to and using TradeNet/TradeXchange.
10.7 Legislative Framework
The legal basis for the TradeNet Single Window was established early on in the project. Legislative provisions for electronic documents, transactions and signatures were addressed in several
acts including the Electronic Transaction Act (ETA), Customs Act, Regulations of Imports and
Exports Act (RIEA) and the Goods and Services Tax Act.
The Electronic Transactions Act (ETA), introduced 1998 and then re-enacted 2010, ensures the
equal acceptance of the creation, filing or storing of electronic documents as required by any
Government department or statutory corporation as would be the case for paper documents. This
includes permits, licences or approvals in the form of electronic records.
The ETA is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996), and provides
that electronic communications are equivalent to communications in paper form, and that an electronic document or transaction shall not be denied validity in electronic form.
International Single Window Study
Page 57 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
The Customs Act, RIEA and Goods and Services Tax Act all include provisions to provide for the
establishment and operation of a computer service where documents such as declarations, manifests, permits, notices and receipts can be submitted or received electronically.
Information submitted through TradeNet is protected for privacy purposes through contractual
agreements with system users. Access to information is restricted to authorized users amongst
private actors and Controlling Agencies. Technical measures such as encryption have been implemented to secure the information from unauthorized access.
10.8 Business Model
The Singapore government decided that the development and operation of TradeNet and
TradeXchange should be based on a Private-Public-Partnership (PPP) in order to leverage the
best IT capabilities and to minimize operation and maintenance costs for. A government-owned
company called Singapore Network Services Pte Ltd (SNS), later renamed CrimsonLogic Pty Ltd,
was formed for this purpose. The shareholders of CrimsonLogic are:
•
•
•
•
IE Singapore;
PSA Corporation Ltd (former Port of Singapore Authority);
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS); and,
Singapore Telecommunications Ltd.
TradeXchange/TradeNet is fee based. These fees have financed the development, operations
and maintenance of the system. The fee structure is:
-
One-time account registration fee is S$50 per company;
Monthly account subscription fee is S$20 per company;
Monthly user subscription fee is S$20 per user ID; and,
Transaction fees may vary but it is generally S$2.88 per transaction.
Payments for each transaction are made via direct debit from company bank accounts.
International Single Window Study
Page 58 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
10.8.1 TradeXchange and TradeNet Overview
TradeNet provides the connectivity between Business sector and Government (B2G) and
TradeXchange connects the various business actors. The ecosystem enables value-added solution providers to offer services and integration to various logistics management systems and other internal systems.
Figure 11: TradeXchange and TradeNet overview
TradeXchange and TradeNet can be accessed by the trading community through a web-based
application, Front-end (FE) Value Added Service (VAS) provider or integration to end-user systems. The trading community involves:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traders (importers, exporters, buyers, sellers);
Freight forwarders;
Carriers;
Shippers;
Warehouse operators;
Port operators;
Insurance companies; and
Banks.
Front-end VAS provider solutions provide integration capabilities to ERP-systems facilitating efficient data exchange and re-use of the logistics and regulatory data required for different reporting. Instead of sending copies of paper documents through e-mail or fax that must be manually
keyed in, data will be pre-populated from the source before submission to Customs or any controlling agency.
International Single Window Study
Page 59 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Figure 12: Schematic overview of TradeXchange and TradeNet (CA’s stands for Controlling
Agencies)
10.8.2 Services provided
TradeNet provides the connectivity to government and Controlling Agencies while TradeXchange
offers services between trade and logistics stakeholders.
Services offered to private the sector in 2016 include:
• ACCESS Return – TradeXchange can provide users with data from the ACCESS (Advance Clearance for Courier and Express Shipment System) system used by the Air Express Companies (AECs). ACCESS is used by the AECs to provide regulatory agencies
with cargo information.
• eBL Registry – the Electronic Bill of Lading Registry provides the capability to upload the
bill of lading to TradeXchange. This is normally done by the carrier. The document can
then be accessed by relevant stakeholders such as the shipper, consignee and banks.
• eCO Preparation – the service enables shippers and agents to re-use data from approved trade permits in order to populate and apply for non-preferential Certificate of
Origin (CO) electronically. Ten out of thirteen data elements is re-used from trade permits
and the Authorised Organisations (AO), such as Singapore Chamber of Commerce, performs the endorsements.
• Customs Declaration Submission – authorised users can submit declarations to be
processed by Singapore Customs through TradeXchange (TradeNet).
• Marine Cargo Insurance – customers of TradeXchange can re-use shipping information
available in TradeXchange to purchase and pay for marine cargo insurance.
• Permit Report – provides a single report from ACCESS consisting of all declarations
submitted to Customs.
• Permit Return – provides shippers with immediate access to Customs approved permits
that have been applied for by a declaring agent on behalf of the shipper.
• Repository Service – enables the collecting and consolidation of supporting documents
at shipment level from various stakeholders.
• Trade Finance – the trade finance module facilitates the administrative process for financing services such as payments. Electronic exchange of documents through the
TradeXchange creates a more efficient process.
International Single Window Study
Page 60 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
Trade Permit Preparation and Application – trade permit applications are submitted to
TradeNet through a Frontend by the forwarder. With Trade Permit Preparation,
TradeXchange provides the integration and interconnectivity with the shipper and the
shipper’s business systems, enabling auto population of the trade permit declaration.
Additional services include:
• Attaching supporting documents to applications;
• Submission of amendments, cancellation and refund of permit applications;
• Self-printing of valid paper copies of permits;
• Enquiry to check status of applications;
• Download code tables such as country codes, port codes etc.;
• Invoicing and payments integrated to banks.
10.8.3 Technology and Standards
TradeNet and TradeXchange use Java and J2EE technologies and a range of XML standards
and tools. In terms of international standards for data exchange, TradeXchange uses
UN/EDIFACT, UN/LOCODE, UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Component Technical Specifications
(CCTS).
10.9 Implementation Plan
The implementation started in 1986 and initial development was expected to take two years. To
minimize risks, the implementation plan was phased with several deliveries, starting with a pilot of
50 companies for permit applications on non-dutiable and non-controlled goods. On 1 January
1989, the first service was deployed.
Some of the major releases are described in the table below.
Year
1989
Implementation
First release
1990
1994
1999
2003
Version 1.4. Certificate of Origin service included.
Version 1.7. Goods and Services Tax (GST) service included.
Y2K compliance
Version 3.1 included a major system resizing and web-enabled.
2007
Version 4.0 (TradeXchange) comprises major enhancements, providing
a more simplified permit structure, with less declaration fields and offers
a full suite of permit services. Other than declaration of imports and exports, traders can also amend permit details, cancel unused permits and
submit claims for refund of duty and GST (Goods and Services Tax) erroneously paid. The new version also had other new features; for example, traders bringing in goods for re-export can use the “import for reexport” permit to cover the entire shipment.
Version 4.1. Alignment to regional and international standards such as
WCO HS amendments, ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature
(AHTN) 2012 and WCO Data Model for permit fields. Additional trade
facilitation and simplifications was introduced.
2012
International Single Window Study
Page 61 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
10.10
Resource Management
The budget for implementation of TradeNet was US$20 Million and the implementation project
was within this budget. Operational costs are confidential. Some of the benefits for the trade
community are illustrated in the following table.
Permit processing time
Submission of document
Before TradeNet
4 hours up to 4-7 days
Multiple submissions
Number of documents
Trade documentation fees
3 – 35 documents
S$10 per document
TradeNet
1 min or less
Single document through
a single interface
1 document
S$2.88
In overall, TradeNet has enabled businesses to save almost $4 million a year from reduced trade
declaration fees.
10.11
Lessons Learned
Extensive lessons learned can be gained from the Singapore TradeNet and TradeXchange journey, experiences that still are valid despite the long operational period. These include:
•
Clear mandate and committed support from Government. The high-level political commitment and support was strong from the initiation of the project. Also, the mandate for IE
Singapore to coordinate the stakeholders and ensure progress is regarded as crucially important.
•
One lead agency: In many countries, a regulatory agency like Customs is often mandated to
lead the Single Window implementation. Assigning a lead agency is good practice. What is
interesting in the Singapore SWI experience is that the lead agency, IE, focus was on trade
facilitation. Nowadays, Customs and other government agencies tend to have a better balance between the regulatory and trade facilitation roles.
•
Dedicated committees working together: Engaging stakeholders in the Single Window
development is regarded as an important best-practice. The approach taken by the Singapore Government, where both Government and Private stakeholders were significantly involved in the requirements specification and design of the solution, should be further encouraged.
•
Scoping: Singapore started from the automation of Customs requirements and addressed
the most common and time-consuming procedures as the initial scope. When these procedures were implemented by TradeNet, other services were developed. With the introduction
of TradeXchange, the scope was widened to trade related procedures.
•
Overall SW visions and conceptualization: Based on the project scope, development of a
clear vision and concept of operations for the SW provided all stakeholders with a common
understanding of the future state solution. This approach reduced confusion, avoided duplicated solutions and components overlaps.
•
Phased implementation: A phased approach is highly recommended for several reasons.
Related to the scoping, a phased implementation must be adopted. The phased implementation enables early identification of risks and facilitates agile delivery of operational services.
•
Corporate Vehicle: Using a Corporate Vehicle (CrimsonLogic) enable the government to
share risks as well as investments and operational costs with the private sector through a fee
model.
International Single Window Study
Page 62 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
10.12
Future Plan and Innovations
To drive longer-term economic transformation and take Singapore to the next phase of development, the Government will set aside S$4.5 billion for firms and industries under a new Industry
Transformation Programme (ITP).
A National Trade Platform (NTP) with an estimated cost of US$74 million will be developed to
support firms, particularly those in the logistics and trade finance sectors. The NTP will be developed as an open innovation platform, and will eventually replace the existing TradeNet and
TradeXchange systems. The original Request for Information (RFI) was issued 2013 and, after
subsequent tender process, Accenture was awarded the development and operation of the NTP
and the TradeNet/TradeXchange in March 2016.
It has not been publically revealed what specific services the new platform will offer, but even
though TradeNet/TradeXchange offers a highly efficient and electronic solution, the business-togovernment process can be further streamlined by increasing the reuse of already existing data
and integrating with various overseas platforms/solutions. This includes a preparation for development and integration with the ASEAN regional SW (ASEAN Single Window, 2016).
Singapore has, together with Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, performed pilot testing
on the data exchange of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) form D (certificate of
origin). The integration is using a common technical infrastructure which will be expanded to
more members. In addition, an ASEAN Single Window (ASW) Project Management Office (PMO)
will be established to manage and implement ASW projects in the long-term.
International Single Window Study
Page 63 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
11
Case Study – Sweden
Sweden Single Window Environment at a glance.
Evolutionary Stage
Various stages
SW Coverage
Import and Export
Modes of Transport
Sea, air, land
Date Implemented
1989
Implementation Cost
Not available
Ownership
Public
Cost Recovery Model
Government funded
Compliance Regime Present
Yes
AEO Programme Integration
AEO present and integrated
11.1 Summary
The EU and Sweden have established multiple single windows primarily based on the type of
trader (importer/exporter, maritime carrier, road carrier etc.). Swedish Single Window services
have been operational since the beginning of the century but some formalities are still paper
based.
The EU’s complex environment has resulted in a solution where many different national systems
and EU common systems are integrated to provide Single Window Services. The principle is that
each agency or body (national or central) provides services within their area of responsibility.
Common services that are prerequisites for this type of integrated approach - technical services
for integration, communication and digital signatures - and common business services - are delegated to either national agencies or EU/regional bodies.
Swedish Single Window services were built on the principle of Coordinated Border Management
and having one agency at the border performing activities on behalf of all other Government
agencies. The Customs Management System was developed to include the verification of permits and licenses from other agencies by integrating IT systems with these agencies.
Strengths:
• The principle of Coordinated Border Management has meant the Single Windows has
more limited requirements and has also meant streamlined procedures at the border.
• The approach where each agency is responsible for providing services within their business domain makes it clear who is responsible for issues such as budget, operations,
maintenance etc.
• Dedicated Single Windows for specific types of traders limit the disadvantages of harmonisation.
• Well established solutions for authentication, e-payments and electronic signatures facilitate e-services and limit the disadvantages of multiple single windows.
Weaknesses:
• Some formalities are still paper based.
• There is not one Single Window in Sweden, i.e. there are specific Single Windows for
maritime stakeholders, rail/road/air stakeholders, Customs stakeholders, tax stakeholders
etc. Sometimes this makes it more complicated for traders to be compliant.
• There is no specific governance body that is currently responsible for goals, strategies
and overall planning and governance of a Single Window. Different EU bodies, such as
DG MOVE, DG SANCO and DG TAXUD, but also different national agencies, are responsible for their own goals, strategies and planning. There are many risks associated
International Single Window Study
Page 64 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
with this absence of governance such as long implementation times and complex and expensive solutions.
Traders that are involved in different aspects of trade must sometimes interact with more
than one Single Window.
Multinational traders sometimes need to interact with different Single Windows in different
member states.
11.2 Introduction
Swedish Customs has a long-standing tradition as being the main public service at Swedish borders performing several tasks for other agencies such as the National Board of Trade and the
Swedish Board of Agriculture.
The Swedish Electronic Single Window for trading across borders was established in 1989. At
that time the electronic export declaration was introduced, followed by transit and import. The
trader used EDI/EDIFACT for transferring information. Many companies used brokers if their own
IT-systems couldn’t interact with the Electronic Single Window.
Since the establishment of the Swedish Electronic Single Window it has been incrementally developed with interactive services (web interfaces) as well as new services such as simplifications
for AEOs and services where economic operators can find customised information such as statistics, permits, invoices etc. For citizen’s pets may be declared electronically fulfilling the requirements from the Swedish Board of Agriculture and a similar solution is provided to declare firearms and weapons fulfilling requirements from the Swedish Police. The Single Window is connected with other national government back-end IT-systems as well as other Customs ITsystems within the European Union (EU).
IBM has in its study (Cohen, Baida, & Kouwenhoven, 2013) named the Swedish Single Window
solution as one of most successful and leading examples, especially through its connected facilities with Authorized Economic Operators and coordinated Border Management. Also the World
Bank has on numerous occasions publicly (World Bank. McLinden, 2014) about the unique processing model of the Swedish Single Window and they are continuously sending country Government and Trade delegations to the Swedish-Norway border to display the solution in use. Today the system is entirely paperless in core functions, but has not been full optimized in some
procedures for different reasons.
The major success criteria’ of the Swedish Single Window is the integrated operational model.
Sweden is using a front-/back office model where there is only one single agency operating at the
border, Customs. Customs has the operational front office responsibility for the release of goods.
Other Government agencies have maintained responsibilities for e.g. legislation, policies and risk
management as back-office agencies, while they have delegated powers of responsibility for release of the goods to single agency at the border (in this case, Customs). Customs is financially
compensated for the inspections carried out for other agencies in the yearly budget. There is
common cross-agency training and advanced exchange of information between the agencies to
make integrated risk management work more efficiently through the Single Window and Customs
processing system. Some agencies offer in the model second level of more branch specific controls when necessary, like veterinary inspections and laboratory controls. This is done on decision by Customs at the border based on risk management and intelligence in the Customs systems provided by back-office agencies. This front-/back office operational model has proven to be
highly cost efficient producing better results for all KPIs. There are numerous of benefits of using
a delegation of power operating model by the border in relation to speed, predictability, security,
trade facilitation, efficiency and cost. This model also makes the application and use of Authorised Economic Operators/Trusted Trader Programmes more efficient by the border, which has
been proven in the Swedish example.
International Single Window Study
Page 65 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
An identified challenge for Sweden is that some of the potential of the model has not been fully
exploited due to early success and later less political will to invest more in procedures and agencies with the minor transaction volumes. The system was primarily developed before Sweden
joined the European Union and has later had to be adjusted to the common framework and legislation of the European Union Customs Code. It is clear that the innovative approaches that created the foundation for the model, later has not been used and/or developed to its full potential,
while still being considered by international institutions as one of the leading examples.
Other agencies involved in trading across border activities has developed electronic services for
their respective responsibilities such as license/permits/certificate applications. In addition, a national single window for maritime reporting formalities is available. See appendix 12.4 for details
regarding the Swedish Single Windows present state.
The Swedish Single Window Services can be described using the model of five evolutionary
stages elaborated in chapter 4. The Swedish services are partially compliant with most stages as
elaborated below:
•
•
•
•
•
Stage A – Customs Single Window
Customs Single Window is operative and services for managing all reporting requirements for export, import, transit as well as deferred payments, electronic invoicing and epayments are available. There are still some paper based procedures such as applying
for licenses/permits/certificates.
Stage B – Regulatory Single Window
Information exchange regarding permits and certificates with other national government
back-end systems is operative.
Stage C – Port Community System
The Maritime Single Window is recently made available for the maritime actors for interaction with Customs, Coastguard, Maritime administration and the Swedish Transport
Agency. Arrival and Departure procedures for the other modes of transport are still paper
based.
Stage D – Integrated Single Window
Not implemented.
Stage E – A regional information-exchange environment
Regional integration with all other EU member states and the EU Commission making
transit and export movements paperless. Safety and security information is shared between EU member states and a few neighbouring countries.
Swedish Single Windows Services is not accessible in one single web site and the economic
operator needs to visit different web sites for different services. A scenario would be visiting the
web site of the authority responsible for a specific license, then Swedish Customs services filing
electronic declarations. Information regarding licenses/permits/certificates are transferred electronically to Swedish Customs from the license authority to make it possible for Customs to manage the process at the border. The use of common infrastructure such as solutions for secure
electronic communication, authentication, e-signatures, electronic mail boxes etc. facilitates for
the economic operators to comply with legal requirements even if multiple web sites must be
used.
Swedish single window services are financed, owned, developed and maintained by each agency
using public allocations. Services for e-payments, authentication and electronic signatures, provided by commercial actors like banks and telecommunication companies, are used by Single
Window Services.
In Sweden, the current single window efforts are focussed on license application/grant via a single window, as well as electronic reporting for arrival/departure for land and air modes transport
that are still pending (sea is implemented).
International Single Window Study
Page 66 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
The existing single window services for import, export and transit will be further developed to be
compliant with the new Customs legislation that went into force 1st of May 2016 (transitional regulations still applies). The objective is to achieve a fully electronic environment by the end of year
2020.
From a Single Window perspective similarities between the two countries of Australia and Sweden can be found:
•
•
•
•
•
Trade Facilitation is a priority of both countries and both score well in World Bank Group
index “Ease of doing business”
National authorities/agencies are already promoting many e-services;
Both countries have a fairly longstanding Customs Management System, that is in-house
developed with the ambition to serve as a Single Window;
Legal framework and infrastructure for electronic signatures exists in both countries; and
Both score well in the Transparency Internal Corruption index which means that fighting
corruption is not the main target of the Single Window.
One difference is that Sweden is a member state of the European Union, where coordination of
national and regional objectives with existing domestic priorities and programmes are necessary.
For this reason, the lessons learned chapter is split into two subchapters one that may be considered for an Australian National Single Window and one that may be considered if Australia
were to implement a regional single window in the future.
11.3 Country Profile
Sweden is an economy with strong export performance that has generated a positive trade balance for many years. Key export commodities include refined petroleum, pharmaceuticals, cars,
vehicle parts and communications technology. Imports are dominated by crude petroleum, cars,
vehicle parts and computers.
11.4 Government Structure
Sweden is a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (Swedish Institute, 2016). The King
has only ceremonial and representative function and the Government is headed by the Prime
Minister. Legislative power is vested in the unicameral “Riksdag” with 349 members. Most of the
State administrative authorities report to the Government, including but not limited to Swedish
Customs, Swedish Police, Swedish Tax Agency and Swedish Board of Agriculture. Trading
across borders related procedures are national or EU wide.
The agencies report to the ministries and the ministries formulates directives that the agencies
must implement. Each agency is responsible for their planning, delivery and implementation. Coordination of e-services and Single Window Services is managed both on ministry level and at
the agency/operational level as well in collaboration forums elaborated below.
Between year 2009 and 2015 an e-services coordinating body was operative in Sweden. The “Edelegation” should lead and coordinate efforts to meet the goal to make it as easy as possible for
citizens and businesses to exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations. The body consisted of
heads of government from the largest and most IT-intensive agencies. The E-delegation is now
superseded by a unit at the Ministry of Industry, Unit for e-government. In addition to the egovernment unit an “E-collaboration program” is established where 14 agencies and Local Authorities coordinates further digital interaction. The Pension Authority is responsible for the program's secretariat and is staffed with a handful full-time employees.
Unlike the “E-delegation”, which was a committee on behalf of the government, the ECollaboration Program is an independent member-driven supplement. E-Collaboration Program's
purpose is the same as the E-delegation: to meet government targets around a simple, transpar-
International Single Window Study
Page 67 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
ent and efficient e-government where the citizen is at the center. Members are from government
and include: Employment Service, Swedish Companies Registration Office, Central Student
Board, Social Security Agency, Board of Agriculture, Land Survey agency, Migration Board, Pensions Agency, Police, National Archives, Tax authority, Swedish Office for Regional Growth,
Transport Agency, Swedish Customs and Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.
Swedish Customs is responsible for planning and implementation of the Single Window for all
customs formalities. This is done in close cooperation with transport regulating authorities that
are involved in planning and implementation of arrival and departure services. The agencies responsible for application management of licenses/permits/certificates are also responsible for
providing their respective single window services to the economic operators. Issued LPCOs are
then electronically transferred to Swedish Customs from the following agencies: Medicines Agency, Inspectorate of Strategic Products, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, National Food
Agency, National board of Health and Welfare, Board of Agriculture, Swedish Civil Contingencies
Agency, Radiation Safety Authority, National Board of Trade, Government.
11.5 Background to the Single Window
The Swedish Single Window is incrementally developed and below is a timeline for when eservices was introduced:
1989-1992
2000
2001
2003
2009
2016
2016
Electronic Export, Transit and Import declarations (EDI/EDIFACT).
Web based declarations (TID)
Additional services for AEOs such as reduced data sets, periodic declaration,
lower risk scoring
Services for citizens such as pet and weapon declaration
Pre-arrival and pre-departure declarations for safety and security
Maritime Single Window
Customs Warehouse (limited implementation available)
11.5.1 Acting on behalf of other agencies
The front- and back Office Operating model, mentioned also under section 11.1 above, which
was created through business process re-engineering and delegation of legal powers from involved agencies to a single border agency is the backbone and key success criteria of the Swedish model. This model with delegated power to make decisions on behalf of other agencies
(when applicable) is a recommended cost-efficient Border Management model in relation to Electronic Single Windows. Whenever not very specific competencies are required, consider to delegate the power to make official decisions to the authorities present in the flow of goods. This obviously makes Single Window implementation easier and often results in more limited Single
Window requirement.
11.5.2 SW As-Is from a business perspective
Fulfilling all reporting requirements importing or exporting goods in Sweden may, depending on
the type of goods and the mode of transport, require visiting different agency websites and also in
some cases the use of paper based applications and procedures. See appendix 12.4 for an overview of the as-is situation.
The Importer and Exporter mainly interacts with Customs using EDI (XML and/or EDIFACT) or
TID (Customs Internet Declaration), but some importers and exporters need to apply for licenses
with other agencies such as Swedish board of agriculture. Nevertheless, most goods related
transactions run fully electronically but declaring the arrival and departure of goods is still paper
based for all modes of transport except sea.
International Single Window Study
Page 68 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Pets may be declared electronically fulfilling the requirements from the Swedish Board of Agriculture and a similar solution is provided to declare firearms and weapons fulfilling requirements
from the Swedish Police.
The Single Window is connected with other national government back-end IT-systems as well as
other Customs IT-systems within EU.
11.5.3 SW As-Is from an IT infrastructure perspective
EU/Commission and Sweden has established technical services that facilitates integration of
agencies. The following services are considered important:
SGSI
SHS
Swedish Government Secure Intranet (MSB, 2016)
Secure Network for agencies
Dissemination and collection System. (Verva, 2007)
Secure messaging for Swedish National authorities/agencies
CCN/CSI
EU/Commission Common Communications Network/Common System Interface (DG TAXUD, 2012).
Secure messaging member state to member state and member
state to EU/Commission.
Electronic Signatures
National Infrastructure for Electronic Signatures (The Swedish Eidentification Board, 2016) but also coordinated on EU regional level
making Electronic Signatures valid in all EU member states.
My Messages
Infrastructure and portal that lets authorities communicate with economic operators and citizens.
Reporting Requirement
Service
Government authorities survey what information is required in the
Reporting Requirement Register. The objective is coordination of the
reporting requirements of all Swedish authorities/agencies.
Composite Basic Service
Government authorities coordinate the information received about
businesses in conjunction with the information collection. The intention is single entry and maintenance of company/trader basic data.
11.6 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
Up to 2012, Swedish Customs used economic operator representative forums to gain the import/export industry’s perspective on different types of questions, among them Single Windows
implementation issues. These fora considered strategic, tactical and operational matters.
These forums were used to “recruit” approximately ten economic operators, drawn from different
modes of transport. The primary objective was to establish how information could be harmonized
and how to reduce the administrative burden of providing information to customs.
Since 2012, these forums are no longer active and have been replaced with a number of working/reference groups where economic operators and agency officials are participating.
Swedish Customs prepared and planned E-Customs, Single Window and UCC implementation
between 2008 and 2015 (see section 11.12, future planning). Swedish Customs made a number
of study visits to other EU member states looking at different customs and national single window
International Single Window Study
Page 69 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
implementations. Sweden and EU/Commission have also been working together with WCO to
have their insight on how WCO-DM and other WCO recommendations can be used to assist Single Window Implementation.
11.7 Legislative Framework
Electronic Customs Initiative is the basis for the Electronic Single Window Services in Sweden.
The initiative is essentially based on the following three pieces of legislation (see also Error!
Reference source not found.:
•
•
•
The Security and Safety Amendment to the Customs Code (European Union, 2005),
which provides for full computerisation of all procedures related to security and safety;
The Decision on the paperless environment for customs and trade (Electronic/E-Customs
Decision (European Union, 2008)) which sets the basic framework and major deadlines
for the electronic customs projects; and
The Union Customs Code (UCC) (European Union, 2013)which provides the legal basis
for the completion of the computerisation of customs.
Figure 13: Customs and Single Window legislation
All three legislative frameworks are adopted by Sweden and is the basis for the national Customs
legislation. In addition, there is national legislation in the form of the Swedish Customs law, Swedish Customs regulation and Swedish Customs arrangements that further specifies how governmental bodies, legal and physical persons must act.
11.8 Business Model
When the Swedish Single Window commenced in 1989 it was initially financed using dedicated
funds from the Swedish Government. When new services are designed and implemented today,
it is financed under existing or extended budgets allocated to each public service respectively.
The services under the Single Window of Swedish Customs are free of charge. However, some
investments may be necessary for customers to be able to use the more advanced services, i.e.
submitting electronic declarations by means of EDI.
Each operator obligated to declare goods must apply to Swedish Customs to be granted rights to
submit electronic declarations. Detailed instructions and conditions for the use of the Single Window are available at the Swedish Customs Website.
International Single Window Study
Page 70 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
11.9 Implementation Plan
There is not a single integrated Electronic Single Window implementation plan in EU and/or in
Sweden. The Multi Annual Strategic Plan (MASP), Annex 2 (European Commission, 2014) includes the EU single window program planning, but is very limited from an overall regional and
national perspective. Not either nationally there is a single coordinated plan for all Single Windows initiatives. Each agency is then responsible for their own planning in coordination with respective ministry/s.
Swedish Customs has a significant role in the Swedish Single Window Services and the target is
that all information exchange between the economic operators and Customs shall be fully electronic in year 2020.
The Swedish roadmap for providing e-services for paper based procedures is:
Activity/process
License Permit
Certificate and
Other (LPCO)
To-Be (trading across borders)
New EU legislation (UCC) makes most “customs LPCOs” common for all
member states (Swedish Customs, 2016) but the legislation does not
restrict member states from keeping national LPCOs. The legislation also
defines the legal provisions for signing LPCO applications using digital
signatures.
At present EU is developing a central LPCO IT-system that economic
operator will use to apply for all common LPCOs. The system is planned
to go live 2017 (Swedish Customs, 2016) and will be integrated into the
Swedish customs web site where the economic operators are registered.
In parallel Swedish customs develops a system that will manage national
LPCOs. Using the new Unified User Management/Digital Signature solution from EU-Commission the economic operator will seamless use central systems and national systems from one national single window interface.
Arrival and Departure
UCC legislation requires electronic solutions for notifying arrival/departure and presentation of goods at the latest in 2017.
Sea: Maritime Single Window (IMO-FAL 1-4) is operational since of 1st
of June.
Air: Will be made available in a single window. Work is ongoing that will
define how economic operators can access services. Planning is not
official yet.
Rail: Will be made available in a single window. Work is ongoing that will
define how economic operators can access services. Planning is not
official yet.
Road: Will be made available in a single window. Work is ongoing that
will define how economic operators can access services. Planning is not
official yet.
Coordination of
inspections
At the moment coordination of inspections among authorities/agencies is
not in the roadmap.
International Single Window Study
Page 71 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
In addition to initiatives listed above, section Error! Reference source not found. lists Swedish
E-customs/UCC related initiatives that will ensure legal compliance and target harmonised procedures. Implementation projects will also evolve existing single window services.
11.10
Resource Management
Basic technical services for the integrated Single Window has been assigned to a few agencies
and all other agencies are supposed to provide their specific services to the common Single Window.
The basic principle is that each agency needs to apply to Swedish Government for their specific
needs of funds.
The following technical services are available for all Swedish agencies and the agencies listed
below are responsible for implementation and maintenance:
Service
My Messages
SHS Secure Messaging
SGSI Secure Communication
CCN/CSI Messaging
Specific web sites
Agency
Tax Agency
Social Security Agency
Swedish Military Agency
EU-Commission
Each agency
The main Single Window Services are implemented and maintained by the agencies listed below
(services are commonly integrated with other agency backend IT-systems):
Service
Custom Formalities SW
Maritime Single Window
License/permits/certificates applications
Agency
Customs agency
Maritime administration
Each agency (information forwarded to Customs backend system)
Due to many years of incremental development and the integrated and complex set up of the SE
single window services it is not possible to make any conclusions about the cost and quantify
benefits of the single windows. Global indexes measuring doing business and trading across
border performance positions Sweden among the best trading environments in the world. This is
probably due to many factors like low corruption, trade facilitation central to everyone, AEO programs, e-services for all volume transactions, stable business environment etc.
11.11
Lessons Learned
The incremental implementation of the Swedish Single Window Services can be divided into lessons learned for implementation of a national single window as well as lessons learned for implementation of a regional single window.
11.11.1 National Single Window
For national Single Window implementation, the following lessons learned are identified.
•
•
Targeted phased development. Establish a business/service, information and technology
roadmap where initial deliveries are focused on mainstream and large volume processes giving high return of investment.
Stakeholder involvement. Involve economic operators in the design and development
phase by using forums and working groups where economic operators and agency officials
are invited.
International Single Window Study
Page 72 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
•
•
•
Business Process Re-engineering and Data Modelling. Electronic Single window requires
harmonised and sometimes reengineered cross agency business processes and data models. EU has defined a common data model (EUCDM) having its roots in WCO Data Model
(WCO DM). National work is ongoing aligning new IT-systems/Single Window service with
EUCDM and WCO Data Model. This will facilitate collection of data, integration of agencies
and will make it less burdensome for the economic operators to be compliant. Using WCO
DM is best practice for ensuring data applicable not only for customs but also for OGAs.
Governance. The Swedish Single Windows gets complex and the overall planning is sometimes not obvious due to the fact that each agency is responsible for developing their services. Strong governance, architecture, planning etc. is important in a complex Single Window environment, and a coordinated Single Window plan with the focus on the economic operator should be considered.
Delegation of Power. Delegated power to make decisions on behalf of other agencies (when
applicable) is a recommended Border Management model in relation to Electronic Single
Windows. Whenever not very specific competencies are required, consider to delegate the
power to make official decisions to the authorities present in the flow of goods. This obviously
makes Single Window implementation easier and often results in more limited Single Window
requirements.
11.11.2 Regional Single Window
National single window lessons learned applies also for regional single windows and in addition
some matters are even more important in the case of regional single windows:
•
•
•
•
•
Governance. The Swedish Single Windows gets complex due to the central/national organization of EU and the lack of a single body being responsible for coordination and governance.
In EU and in Sweden many stakeholders are involved and the Single Window architecture
and roadmap is not always obvious. Strong governance, architecture, planning etc. is even
more important in a complex regional Single Window Environment.
Integrated services/single windows. National Single Windows will probably develop into
regional single windows in the future. When this occurs countries that has developed a single
window composed of integrated e-service where each government agency is responsible for
specific services are most likely to be able to accommodate and integrate.
Infrastructure Services. Uniform User Management/Digital Signatures that will make integration of EU central systems and national systems feasible. In the near future some services
will be developed by EU and hence there will be an option to use a central system and integrate this with the national Single Window. In case of a regional Single Window common services and harmonised processes is crucial for a cost effective implementation and may be
considered.
Regional business process reengineering and data models. Harmonised processes and
harmonised data models is maybe even more important from a regional single window perspective. It creates the basis for traders to centralise processes and it creates the basis for efficient development and maintenance of common services. Though the complexity of development and maintenance of common services shall not be underestimated.
Integrated e-services. The as-is environment in SE is complex and many agencies already
provides electronic services. The strategy that each member state and each agency should
be responsible for their own Single Window initiatives seems to be the only feasible option for
a single window in Sweden. The national Single Window strategy, creating basic services and
infrastructure for an integrated national Single Window where each agency is responsible for
their own business services is the only feasible option even if it will take some time before a
trader may experience a Single Window.
In our view, all other options in an environment such as EU and Sweden, will be difficult to
implement. The strategy that EU/Commission develops common services and that each
member state may be integrated with the national single windows can minimise costs and
International Single Window Study
Page 73 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
avoid duplications of IT-services. The positive effects of a Single Window are most obvious
when human interaction is the case (web based interaction). When the trader uses their own
IT-system to submit the information (e.g. XML/EDIFACT) it might be preferable not to use a
single window. The overhead for sending the same/similar information to many agencies is
low in this case. In this scenario, it is important for the trader that all agencies use the same
technical protocols. Keeping national authorities continuously responsible for their main business also for e-services/single windows is the only way forward in a complex environment
(might prolong implementation compared to a very specific implementation). This requires
well designed technical services to support e-services integration.
11.12
Future Plans and Innovations
The new customs legislation (UCC) implies harmonisation of customs procedures, processes and
IT-systems. The details can be found in the MASP (European Commission, 2016) and in the
Swedish National Planning (Swedish Customs, 2015), but some general pre-requisites for further
Single Window development are:
Year/s
2016
Development initiatives
• Arrival and presentation notifications
• New Tariff (Taric) system
• Customs warehousing
2017
•
•
•
Arrival and presentation notifications
Authorisations and Customs Decisions
UUM/DS Access Control Solutions Central Systems
2018-2020
•
•
•
Re-engineering of the import procedure
Export
Update arrival & presentation, temporary storage and customs warehousing
ICS (Import Control System) including Air Cargo Security
Common EU wide guarantees/bonds
•
•
Swedish Customs national roadmap for adopting existing and creating new systems IT-systems
to be compliant with the new EU-legislation and planning. Most of the projects will incrementally
change the Single Window Services. There are no plans announced for developing a Single
Window website, even though there are websites that acts as a portal or starting point for Business-to-Government services. Verksamt.se 4 is one example of this.
4
https://www.verksamt.se/en/web/international/home
International Single Window Study
Page 74 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12
Appendix
The Appendix contains information that supports the report but does not necessarily form part of
the main body of the report as outlined above.
12.1 Single Window Survey
In order to capture required information about the case studies, the following survey was used as
a base for discussions in live meetings, teleconference calls and e-mail communications.
Questionnaire
Question 1: Political and Operational Environment
At the time your administration made the decision to implement a single window system, what
specific policy and/or operational issues were present that led you to move forward?
•
•
Include perspectives from Customs, PGAs and trade community
Influence of domestic agenda and international commitments
Question 2: Stakeholder Engagement and Management
Single window projects require the participation of a large number of stakeholders, many with
diverse expectations and requirements. Please describe your approach to stakeholder engagement and management throughout the different stages of your project
Kindly include information on:
• Governance structure
• Communication strategy
• Working Groups (industry, legislative, risk management, ICT, etc.)
Question 3: Business Model and Funding Mechanisms
Please describe the process used to determine the necessary funding for the project and the
mechanism by which the funding was made available.
Specifically, provide information regarding:
• Government funded, PPP, Other?
• Single funding envelope for lead agency, or multi-agency effort?
• Standalone funding request, or participation in a larger modernization scheme?
Question 4: Timeframe for Implementation / Phasing
Please describe the work packages that made up the overall project schedule and the timeframe
for implementation.
•
•
Planned versus actual schedule?
Pilot projects and/or proofs of concept?
Question 5: Resource Requirements
For the single window project lifecycle described in Question 4, please describe the number and
type of resources that made up the project team.
Please include budget and actual costings.
Question 6: Lessons Learned
Looking back post-implementation, please provide some specific “lessons learned” that you feel
would assist any administration embarking single window efforts.
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.2 New Zealand JBMS Implementation Plan
Figure 14: JBMS Implementation Plan
Page 75 (87)
International Single Window Study
Page 76 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.3 New Zealand Data Harmonisation and the WCO Data Model
The TSW uses electronic craft and cargo reporting and clearance messages based on Version
3.2 of the WCO Data Model (WDM3), with New Zealand border agencies having been closely
involved in its development (see Figure 15 below). The relationships established, and the
knowledge gained with New Zealand’s thematic experts’ participation at meetings of the WCO
Data Model Project Team (DMPT), were invaluable in assisting with problems and gaining
knowledge and tools to undertake the data harmonisation activity.
As the first Customs agency to fully adopt the WDM3, New Zealand identified flaws and provided
feedback to the WCO on improvements to the Data Model. However, the ‘maintenance requests’
raised delayed the implementation of New Zealand’s own programme until the WCO completed
resolved these requests. Although these delays were unavoidable, it does highlight the risks of
being the first to use a new model.
Use of the new WCO Data Model and implementing the WDM3 message standards in their entirety allows New Zealand to improve border security data collection and its ability to integrate
with its partner countries. It also facilitates the collection of higher quality and richer data, which,
in turn, allows more targeted and accurate risk and intelligence interventions as well as better
business analysis.
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Figure 15: Data Harmonisation Process
Page 77 (87)
International Single Window Study
Page 78 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.3.1 Mandatory Adoption of WDM3 Messages
The overwhelming feedback from consultation with industry on the mandatory 1 November 2016
and 2017 dates for adopting the WDM3 messages was that the dates are reasonable and
achievable.
•
•
•
•
The mandatory date for Import Declaration, Export Declaration, Cargo Report Export (CRE),
and Outward Cargo Report (OCR) is 1 November 2016. These messages have been live
since 1 August 2013, and the 18-month transition period provides time for the range of software providers and customers to develop, test and finalise software, and roll out it out to clients.
The Excise Declaration, Advance Notice of Arrival (ANA) and Advance Notice of Departure
(AND) will also be mandatory as of 1 November 2016. They are planned to go live in early
2016 and industry representatives will continue to be consulted on detailed design and piloting.
The Inward Cargo Report (ICR), including International and Domestic Transhipment Requests (ITR and DTR), has a target mandatory date of 1 July 2017. A testing environment for
system-to-system messaging will be available in mid-2015, and this message is planned to
go live in early 2016.
ICR is a complex message requiring significant changes in associated operational processes,
and a wide range of industry members’ involvement. 1 July 2017 is a “target” date and the
mandatory date will be confirmed as the message completion, testing and pilot phases progress.
The WDM3 messages can currently be submitted to TSW in XML format. Consultation with industry has confirmed very low demand for the EDIFACT format (GOVCBR), and given the disproportionate effort involved in maintaining EDIFACT versions for a few customers, processing of
WDM3 messages in the EDIFACT format will be discontinued. EDIFACT format messages must
therefore be transformed into XML prior to transmission to TSW. Alternatively, messages can be
submitted using TSW Online.
International Single Window Study
Page 79 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.4 Sweden As-Is Activities
Fulfilling all reporting requirements importing or exporting goods in Sweden may, depending on
the type of goods, still require visiting many agency websites and also in some cases the use of
paper based procedures. The following table provides an overview of this.
Activity
Planning for importing/exporting
goods
Electronic/
SW
Yes
As-Is
Trade Information Portal (TIP) functionality:
The trader finds information regarding formalities and procedures
on the integrated business portal (verksamt.se). Here information
about import and export requirements and procedures is published. Similar and extended information can also be found at the
Swedish Customs website.
The EU and national tariff is published and searchable on the
Swedish Customs web site.
License Permit
Certificate and
Other (LPCO)
Partly
The trader needs to visit the agency responsible for a specific
LPCO. Some agencies support fully electronic applications and
some agencies still requires signed paper based applications.
National legislation for Swedish Customs imply that the Company
authorized signatory signs an application in writing. The reason is
that the national solution for electronic signatures does not include an attribute service where the authorized signatory can be
verified. The applicant may use an electronic service to create
the application but finally the applicant needs to print the application and the authorized signatory needs to sign. The application
is then sent by mail to Customs.
The national integrated business portal (verksamt.se) makes it
possible to fulfil many formalities but applications for permits related to importing and exporting goods is still not available. Application needs to be done using (e-) services provided by each
agency, such as Swedish National Board of Agriculture and other
competent authorities/agencies.
When importing and exporting most LPCOs are then validated
using back-end integration of customs and licensing agency systems. Sometimes the validation occurs through nationally integrated systems, sometimes through national-central (EU) integrated systems. One example of national-central integration is
that all consignments of animals, semen and embryo, food, feed
and plants, has to be accompanied by health certificates and/or
trade documents. The National Board of Agriculture makes all
certificates available in TRACES/CVED system (European
Commission, 2016), an EU common system for all member
states. The SE national Customs Declaration Management systems can then access and validate the declaration using this system.
Some types of LPCOs can be electronically applied for and issued at the time of submission and acceptance of the Customs
International Single Window Study
Page 80 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
Declaration (SAD), examples are temporary import and outward
processing.
Entry/Exit Summary Declaration
(pre arrival/pre
departure)
Yes
Pre Arrival Declaration
Yes
Electronic filing using Swedish Customs Website (TID) or EDI for
all modes of transport.
Exit summary information in sometimes provided in the export
declaration (ECS).
Sea: Maritime Single Window (IMO-FAL 1-4).
Air: N/A (not required)
Rail: N/A (not required)
Road: N/A (not required)
Arrival
Partly
Sea: Maritime Single Window (IMO-FAL 1-4). The Maritime SW
is regulated in the EU Ship Reporting Directive (European Union,
2016) and the Swedish Maritime Agency is responsible for the
Single Window (all EU member states manage their own Maritime Single Window). The declarations filed in the Single Window
will be made available to customs, coastguard and maritime authorities. Decisions and feedback are coordinated amongst involved agencies using the secure communication backbone and
the response is communicated back to the declarant from the
SW. The Single Window supports both web based declarations
and EDI/XML exchange of information.
Air: Arrival is notified by submission of paper based declaration
for the aircraft and the goods.
Rail: Transit is used crossing the border and all rail actors are
authorized traders and authorized to close the transit procedure.
This means that papers are not used and there is no electronic
arrival declaration/notification for rail.
Road: Paper based vehicle notification presented to the Customs
office at the border crossing point.
Customs Declaration
Yes
Customs: EDI and web based declarations (TID) – 100% electronic and digitally signed using customs specific solution.
Customs Bill
Yes
Vast majority of traders, AEOs and non-AEOs, have their goods
cleared and released prior to payment if they have been granted
credit. Payment can be made up to one month after the release
of goods.
The Customs bill is made available to the trader using four different solutions:
• customs web site (TID/My Pages)
• public MyMessages service (common service used by
many agencies in Sweden)
• E-bill (electronic bill using ebMS).
• Paper based
International Single Window Study
Page 81 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
The trader then uses bank services for electronic or manual
payment.
Coordination of
Inspections
No
Swedish Customs has the right to carry out inspections on behalf
of many other national agencies. This has reduced the need for
coordination of controls.
At present there is no Single Window electronic services that
assist and coordinates inspections.
Misc.
Yes
In addition, the Trader has access to the following services at the
Swedish Customs web site:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
View export shipments
View/download proof of export.
View export data in aggregated listing
View basis for imports accounting
View summary of the company's tariff bills
View customs bill
View transits
View trader Import and Export Statistics
View and change company details
View valid and non-valid permits
View guarantees/bonds
View LPCO application status
Request clearance for specific 2-step procedures
View quota applications
View Customs Declarations
International Single Window Study
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.5 Swedish Customs National Roadmap
Page 82 (87)
International Single Window Study
Page 83 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.6 About KGH Border Services
KGH Border Services AB is an independent Swedish consultancy company, assisting government agencies all over the world with Strategies, Tactical Planning, Business Process Reengineering, Reform/Modernization projects and Capacity Building.
We are experts on Customs Processes and Procedures including areas such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trade Facilitation;
Accreditation of Economic Operators (AEO)
Single Window;
Trade Information Portals;
Risk Management;
One-Stop-Shop;
Enforcement and Control Techniques including NII;
Information and Communication Technology;
System Integration;
Education/Training;
Change Management;
Human Development; and
Implementation of Modernized Border Management.
We operate with an extensive global network of partners and associated experts active internationally as well as in the region giving us a unique position to offer the latest state-of-the-art Customs solutions based on international standards and global best practices.
Our experts use the latest technology, international standards and best practices from all over the
world, combined with their extensive experience of working in Governments as well as in international development projects. We are always focused on implementation and results. We know
what works and we have a strong track record of leading and participating in successful customs
development projects covering all continents. In addition, several of our experts have been involved in the development of international standards as well as implementing the leading models
on the ground.
We work with Governments, Customs administrations and the Public Sector in countries all over
the world. We also work with international institutions like e.g. the United Nations, the World Bank
the European Union/European Commission, the World Customs Organization, the World Bank,
IMF, OECD and the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
We offer knowledge, skills and experience based on full scale modern Customs and trade solutions for the future. Our team has the skills, experience, networks and capacity to deliver state-ofthe-art solutions. We will be your guide to the future of excellence. We have operational capacity
tested in a real time operational environment, for all areas of Customs modernization and trade
facilitation. Additionally, we are experienced in how to adjust and translate international standards
and global best practices to the environment of a specific country, and how to integrate already
existing systems with new solutions.
With more than 50 years of experience, KGH Border Services, with its Head Office in Gothenburg
Sweden, and offices in all the key ports and border crossings in Europe, is today one of the leading companies in Europe facilitating border crossing activities for business and trade. KGH em-
International Single Window Study
Page 84 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
ploys a total of more than 600 customs experts, serves more than 13,000 clients, including 50
Governments, across and outside Europe.
Together with our clients and partners, we deliver results. Some people say that implementation
is a challenge. We say this is what we do well. Together we are ready to build the future. Nothing
is impossible!
For further information, please visit www.kghborders.com.
International Single Window Study
Page 85 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
12.7 References
ASEAN Single Window. (2016, June). Retrieved from ASEAN Single Window:
http://asw.asean.org/
Barbados ESW. (2016, June). Retrieved from Barbados ESW: http://esw.gov.bb
(2011). Beyond the Border: a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitivness.
CAB Min (10) 13/4. (2010, April). Retrieved from New Zealand Treasury:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/budget/2010/pdfs/b10cabmin10-13-4-5.pdf
CBSA. (2008). Single Window Framework.
CBSA. (2014). Electronic Commerce Client Requirements Document.
CBSA. (2016). Electronic Commerce. Retrieved from Canada Border Services Agency:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/eservices/menu-eng.html
CBSA. (2016). What we do. Retrieved from CBSA website: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agencyagence/what-quoi-eng.html
CBSA Act. (2016). CBSA Act. Retrieved from Justice Laws Website: http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-1.4/
CBSA/US-CBP. (2013). Beyond the Border Action Plan - Canada/United States Data Alignment.
Cohen, L. H., Baida, Z., & Kouwenhoven, N. W. (2013). Beyond the Single Window. IBM.
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. (2016, June). Retrieved from EUR-Lex Access to European Union Law:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN
Customs Act. (2016). Retrieved from Justice Laws Website: http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-52.6/
DG TAXUD. (2012, September 10). Belgium Federal Public Service Finance. Retrieved from
Specifications, Development, Maintenance and Support of European IT Services in the
area of taxation and excise:
http://www.minfin.fgov.be/portail2/fr/downloads/assignments/MOSS/FITSDEV2-SC12-TSMini1SS-v1-05.pdf
DIRECTIVE 2010/65/EU. (2010, October 20). Retrieved from EUR-Lex: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0065&from=EN
Dutch Customs Administration. (n.d.). Single Window for Trade and Transport - Presentation.
European Commission. (2014, November 21). Electronic Customs Multi-Annual Strategic Plan.
Retrieved from European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/policy_issues/ecustoms_initiative/masp_strategic_plan_en.pdf
European Commission. (2016, June). Electronic Customs. Retrieved from European
Commission.
European Commission. (2016, June). How does TRACES work. Retrieved from European
Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/traces/how-does-traces-work/index_en.htm
European Union. (2005, April). REGULATION (EC) No 648/2005 OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Retrieved from EUR-Lex Access to European
Union Law: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005R0648:en:HTML
European Union. (2008, January). DECISION No 70/2008/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Retrieved from EUR-Lex Access to European
Union Law: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:023:0021:0026:EN:PDF
European Union. (2013, October). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0952&rid=1. Retrieved from EUR-Lex Access
to European Union Law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0952&rid=1
International Single Window Study
Page 86 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
European Union. (2014, July). REGULATION (EU) No 910/2014. Retrieved from EUR-Lex
Access to European Union Law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0910&from=EN
European Union. (2016, June). DIRECTIVE 2010/65/EU. Retrieved from EUR-Lex Access to
European Union Law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32010L0065&from=EN
General Implementation MNSW NL. (2013, September 20).
Government of Netherlands. (2016, June). International Relations. Retrieved from Government of
Netherlands: https://www.government.nl/topics/international-relations/contents/australia
IE Singapore. (2016). Retrieved from International Enterprise Singapore:
http://www.iesingapore.gov.sg/
Maritime Single Window Nederland. (2016, June). Retrieved from Rijkswaterstaat:
https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/verkeersmanagement/scheepvaart/scheepvaartverk
eersbegeleiding/maritime-single-window/index.aspx
MSB. (June 2016). MSG. Hämtat från Faktablad SGSI:
https://www.msb.se/Upload/Produkter_tjanster/SGSI/Faktablad_SGSI_20160215.pdf?eps
language=sv
Port of Rotterdam. (2016, June). Fact and figures about the port. Retrieved from Port of
Rotterdam: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/the-port/facts-figures-about-the-port
Ronald van den Heuvel. (2013, April 24). Single Reporting Multiple Use - Presentation.
Savage, J. (2014, December 5). Revealed: $30m government IT blowout. Retrieved from New
Zealand Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11369088
Sheehy, E. (2010). Electronic Single Window Readiness Assessment for Barbados Customs and
Excise Department.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar. (June 2016). Government Offices of Sweden. Hämtat från
Uppgiftslämnarservice för företagen:
http://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/396bc7c68d964fa6b93e9f04b4610ab1/uppgiftsla
mnarservice-for-foretagen-sou-201533
Swedish Customs. (2015, December). Projects in the roadmap. Retrieved from Swedish
Customs:
http://www.tullverket.se/download/18.44a6a1ff14dad48234ffe07/1453204445449/version_
3_EN.pdf
Swedish Customs. (June 2016). Permit Changes. Hämtat från Swedish Customs:
http://www.tullverket.se/framtidatullhantering/tillstandiforandring.4.7fa62b8b152d5d595e7
31a4.html
Swedish Customs. (June 2016). Permits. Hämtat från Swedísh Customs:
http://www.tullverket.se/framtidatullhantering/tillstandiforandring/tillstandskoder.4.7fa62b8
b152d5d595e72fe9.html
Swedish Customs. (June 2016). Swedis Customs. Hämtat från Dialogforum:
http://www.tullverket.se/innehallao/d/dialogforum/dialogforum.4.e0158eb140f9d5442d272
5.html
Swedish Institute. (2016, June). The Swedish System of Government. Retrieved from The official
site of Sweden: https://sweden.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Government-high-res.pdf
The Swedish E-identification Board. (2016, June). The Swedish E-identification Board. Retrieved
from The Swedish E-identification Board:
http://www.elegnamnden.se/globalalankar/inenglish.4.5a85666214dbad743ffe971.html
Trade and Investment. (2016, June). Retrieved from Government of Canada: http://canam.gc.ca/relations/commercial_relations_commerciales.aspx?lang=eng
TradeXchange Services. (2016, June). Retrieved from TradeXchange:
https://www.tradexchange.gov.sg/tradexchange/content/services.html
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2016). Policy on Management of Projects. Retrieved
from Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doceng.aspx?id=18229
International Single Window Study
Page 87 (87)
Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
th
TSW Statistics. (2016, June). Retrieved from New Zealand Customs Services:
http://www.customs.govt.nz/news/resources/bordersector/Documents/TSW%20statistics.
pdf
UN. (2016). Trade Data. Retrieved from UN Comtrade Database: http://comtrade.un.org/
UN/CEFACT. (2005, July). Recommendation and Guidelines on establishing a Single Window Recommendation No. 33. Retrieved from List of Trade Facilitation Recommendations:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec33/rec33_trd352e.pdf
UNECE/UNESCAP. (2013). UNECE. Retrieved from Single Window Implementation Guide:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trade/Publications/ECE-TRADE404_SingleWindow.pdf
Verva. (2007, April 5). SHS Architecture. Retrieved from Verva - Swedish Administrative
Development Agency: https://www.forsakringskassan.se/wps/wcm/connect/a2271ef001e0-4f48-aae6-0fd819d7f025/shs_architecture_ver_1_2_01.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
WCO. (2013). WCO News No 72 October 2013, 30-31.
World Bank. (2016). Gross Domestic Product 2014. Retrieved from GDP Ranking:
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table
World Bank. (2016, June). Trading Across Borders Methodology. Retrieved from World Bank
Doing Business: http://www.doingbusiness.org/methodology/trading-across-borders
World Bank. McLinden, G. (2014, October 13). Gothenburg.