PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE OF SINGLE WINDOWS FOR ... · Single Window for Foreign Trade in Africa. This is outlined notably in Article 10.4 of the WTO TFA on “Single Window”,

PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE OF SINGLE WINDOWS FOR FOREIGN TRADEVersion 2 : March 2017

Ta s k F o r c e M e m b e r s :

C o n t r i b u t o r s :

• AbdoullahiFAOUZI(GUCE/Cameroon)• AmadouMbayeDIOP(GAINDE2000/Senegal)• JonathanOFORI(GCNET/Ghana)• KhadijaHmamouHADIZA(CNCE/Morocco)• NarcisseAimeParfaitMAYOULOU(GUMAR/RepublicofCongo)• JalalBenhayoun(PORTNET/Morocco)• MohammedAnasAmri(PORTNET/Morocco)• NadiaHAFSI(PORTNET/Morocco)• VickyKUNNIAH(MACCS/Mauritius)

• OmarGHOUACH(PORTNET/Morocco)• AssaneSARR(GAINDE2000/Senegal)• BoubacarGermainSARR(Gainde2000/Senegal)• DanielSARR(GAINDE2000/Senegal)• FatimaEZZAHRA(PORTNET/Morocco)• MohamedDIOUF(GAINDE2000/Senegal)• MorTallaDIOP(GAINDE2000/Senegal)• NogayeDIAGNEDIOP(AAEC)

DocumentdevelopedundertheleadershipofMr.IbrahimaNourEddineDIAGNE,PresidentoftheAfricanAllianceforElectronicCommerce(AAEC),assistedbytheAAECTaskForceandexternalcontributors.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s :

TheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgeallthosewhocontributedtotheeditingofthissecondversionoftheAAECGuide,namelytheBanquePopulaireofMoroccowhichfacilitatedlogisticsforthetaskforce,andespeciallyATPCwhichprovidedfinancialresourcesforthepublicationofthisversionoftheguide.

TheAAECSecretariatwasinchargeofcoordinationandediting.

TheAlliance expresses its gratitude to all thosewho contributed to the production of thisguide.

3

Implementation Guide for Single Windows in Africa

CONTENTSABBREVIATIONS

TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS

REFERENCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FOREWORD

SUMMARY

Section 1 - Background 1.EconomicContext2.RegulatoryandInstitutionalContext3.TechnologicalContext4.Objectives

Section 2 – Definitions, typology and categorization of Single Windows and Review of Best Practices 1.Definitions2.TypologyofSingleWindows:models,categoriesandarchitectures 2.1 Models of Single Windows 2.1.1 Single Window for Foreign Trade Formalities 2.1.2 Logistics Coordination Single Window 2.1.3 National Integral Single Window 2.1.4 B2B Transactions Single Window 3. Architecture of Single Windows 4. Emerging New Trends 5. Global Expansion of Single Windows

Section 3 – Previous Strategic Choices 1. Institutional and Organizational Preconditions 1.1 Pilot Phase for Implementing a Single Window 1.2 Operation Management Phase of Single Window Services 2. Legal and Regulatory Preconditions 3. Technological Preconditions 4. International Standards

06

07

07

08

09

10

11

12

12

15

15

17

18

19

19

19

20

21

24

26

27

30

31

31

32

33

34

36

4


5. Various Business Models of Single Windows 5.1. The Business Model Issue 5.2. The Various Business Models of Single Windows 5.2.1. The Public Financed Model 5.2.2. The PPP Model 5.2.3 The Concession Model 5.2.4 Synthesis of Business Models6. Best governance practices 7. Transparency of service pricing 8. Regular publication of reliable and relevant performance indicators

Section 4 – Practical Steps of Implementation 1. Mobilization of Stakeholders 2. Engagement of Public Authorities 3. Mobilizing and Securing Financial Resources 4. Setting up the Project Team 5. Setting up Steering and Project Management Bodies 6. Analysis of Processes, Trades and Reengineering 7. Definition of the Implementation Strategy 8. Drafting of Specifications 9. Development Project Implementation 9.1 Sequencing of Deployment 9.2 Change Management Strategy 9.3 Managing the Specificities of Public Administrations 9.4 Managing the Transition Phase towards Operation 9.4.1 Quality and Information Security Policy 9.4.2 Continuity of Activity I-1 DIALOGUE STRUCTURES I-1.1 The Various Dialogue Frameworks I-1.2 Dialogue Structures at various Strategic Levels I-1.3 Dialogue Structures under the Bali Agreement I-2 MONITORING 1-2-1 Monitoring at National Level I-2-2 Monitoring at International Levl

Section 5 – Performance Evaluation and Strengthening 1. Evaluation Mechanisms2. Availability Management3. Performance Management4. System of Assistance, Monitoring and Strengthening

Annexes Annexe 1 : Single Window Management and Operation Systems Annex 2 : Synthesis of Peer Review FindingsInternational Standards Technologies

36

36

37

38

38

38

39

40

40

41

42

43

44

46

46

47

48

51

52

52

53

53

54

55

55

56

56

56

58

58

59

60

61

63

64

65

65

66

67

68

71

5


A B B R E V I AT I O N S

AAEC African Alliance for Electronic Commerce

ACP Activity Continuity Plan

ATPC African Trade Policy Center

AU African Union

BI Business Intelligence

BOT Build Operate Transfer

CCS Cargo Community System

CEMAC Central Africa Monetary and Economic Community

DMZ Demilitarized Zone

DNS Domain Name System

EAI Enterprise Application Integration

FC Fibre Channel

FTP File Transfer Protocol

IP Internet Protocol

IS Information System

ISCSI Internet Small Computer System Interface

LTO Linear Tape Open

MSMQ Microsoft Message Queuing

NTIC Nouvelles Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (NICTs)

OIC Organization of Islamic Cooperation

PAA Pan Asia e-Commerce Alliance

PCS Port Community System

PKI Public Key Infrastructure

PPP Public Private Partnership

RSW Regional Single Window

SAN Storage Area Network

SW Single Window

TIP Trade Information Portal

TFA Trade Facilitation Agreement

UNCEFACT United Nations Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business

UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

VPN Virtual Private Network

VTL Virtual Tape Library

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WCO World Customs Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

XML eXtensible Markup Protocol

6


R E F E R E N C E S

UNCEFACT. (2005). Recommendation and Guidelines on establishing a Single Window . Geneva: UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION.

TA B L E O F I L L U S T R AT I O N S

Illustration 1 : AAEC Pilot Projects (CEMAC and WAEMU) for dataexchangeoncertificatesoforigin

Illustration 2 : SingleWindowforForeignTradeFormalities

Illustration 3 : LogisticsCoordinationSingleWindow

Illustration 4 : NationalIntegralSingleWindow

Illustration 5 :ArchitectureofSingleWindows

Illustration 6 : GlobalexpansionofSingleWindows

Illustration 7 : ExpansionofSingleWindowsinAfrica

Illustration 8 : Evolutionofuserinsecurityaccordingtoprojectphases

Illustration 9 : Strategicdialoguelevels

Illustration 10 : Monitoring

Illustration 11 : Managementandgovernancetools

Illustration 12 : Evaluationmethodology

Illustration 13 : Evaluationmethodology

Illustration 14 : CostEstimateandImplementationTimeframe

13

20

21

22

24

27

28

54

57

60

69

71

72

81

7


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Africa has a noticeable growth rate that hasremained stable over the years, improvingat a sustainable pace. Thismeans that Africais a promising continent, endowed with realpotential that only needs to be judiciouslyexploitedforthecontinenttotakeoffandjointhe groupof emerging economies. Therefore,no effort should be spared to preserve andenhance this growth dynamic as long aspossible.

However, forAfrica toposition itselfasa truehub of the global economy, it is necessaryto radically initiate some restructuring andinnovative measures. This is why highlyappreciable initiatives like those taken bythe African Alliance for Electronic Commerce(AAEC)shouldbecommendedandsupportedwithvigorandsteadfastness.

The conclusion of the Bali Agreements ontradefacilitation,aimedatpositivelyimpacting

cross-bordertrade,givesevenmorerelevanceto the AAEC’s initiatives for the promotion ofSingleWindowforForeignTradeinAfrica.Thisis outlinednotably in Article 10.4 of theWTOTFAon“SingleWindow”,whichencourages“thesettingupofasinglewindowbymembers…”andtheuse“asmuchaspossibleandachievable,ofInformationTechnologiestosupportthesinglewindow”1.

In conclusion, it appears clearly that AAEChas understood that (i) trade has become areal development tool, (ii) regional integrationthroughdynamic intra-African trade isamustand,aboveall, (iii) the implementationofhighvalueaddedsolutions throughthemasteryofInformationandCommunicationTechnologies,backed up by efficient technology transfer, isnowoneofthepillarsofdevelopment.

Alltheseinitiativesandbeliefsarewidelysharedand advocated byUNECA andATPC,with theaimofcontinuouslypromotingtheirextensionacrossthecontinent.Inviewofthis,UNECAandATPCreaffirmtheircommitment to continue supporting AAECin all its activities, and further undertakes toprovide a framework for intense and broadcollaboration,tothebenefitofallthoseinvolvedininternatonaltradeintheAfricancontinent.

UNECA/ATPC

1 Trade facilitation agreements, article 10, paragraph 4.1 and 4.4

8


FOREWORD

Dear readers,

I am pleased to share with you the second edition of the Single Window for Foreign Trade implementation guide. After the first edition launched in 2013 with a resounding success, experts at the African Alliance for Electronic Commerce (AAEC) worked hard to deepen and simplify the content of the first version.

As this edition is being published, global trade has just recorded the coming into force of a new agreement aimed at facilitating international trade. The role of single windows in that perspective is pivotal. In fact, this is a tool that enables all stakeholders in the logistics chain to trade and share information through information technology to reduce cost, time of transactions and formalities.

This updated guide is therefore timely, as all countries are now aware of the need to facilitate trade in order to increase prosperity and thus appease relations among peoples and States.Undoubtedly, 2017 was a very promising year, as global fears and hopes were rife, politically

and economically. Consequently, resources earmarked for official development assistance will undoubtedly decline, and their access more and more difficult.

Naturally, this situation calls on States to exercise more responsibility in their choices. For that to happen, there needs to be a clear understanding and perfect consideration of the stakes. This guide highlights the fact that a single window is meaningless if it does not lead to measurable reduction of the cost and time of international trade transactions. Thus, whether a country opts for a foreign operator under a Public Private Partnership or a sovereign national initiative, performance is a must.

This guide, with a universal scope, is aimed at serving as a working base for governments, technical and financial partners, and private operators interested in successfully implementing Single Window for Foreign Trade and achieving commendable performance levels.

As President of AAEC at the time of printing, I wish to warmly thank all those who took part in its production. I would also like to pass special gratitude to the UNECA’s African Trade Policy Center (ATPC) for its continued support for the dissemination of this guide.

I wish you a good read.

Ibrahima Nour Eddine DIAGNEPresident of the African Alliance for Electronic Commerce (former)

9


This guide is mainly centered around 5complementaryparts:

The first part entitled “Background” is anoverview of the economic, regulatory,institutionalandtechnologicalframeworkforthe implementation of Single Windows. Italsodealswiththeguide’sobjectivetoenableGovernments, donors and stakeholders tohavepractical ideaof theconditions for theimplementation and operation of a SingleWindow serving its intrinsic purpose ofreducingthecostandtimeofForeignTradetransactions.

The second part covers the definitions,typology and review of best practices inthe area of Single Windows. It proposesanother definition that complements thatof Recommendation 33 ofUNCEFACT. ThisAAEC definition is worded as follows: “TheSingleWindowforForeignTradeisanational or regional facility mainly built around anIT platform, initiated by a Government orad hoc authority to facilitate import, exportand transit formalities, by offering a singlepoint for the submission of standardizedinformationanddocuments,inordertomeetallofficialdemandsandfacilitatetraderelatedlogistics”. The three main Single Windowmodels are also highlighted. They are theSingleWindowforForeignTradeFormalities(cf. 2.1.1), the logistics coordination SingleWindow (cf. 2.1.2) and the national integralsinglewindow(cf.2.1.3).

The third part deals with prior strategicchoices,at institutional,organizational, legal,regulatoryandtechnological levels,andalsowiththevarioustypesofbusinessmodels,ofwhichPublicPrivatePartnership is themostbroadlyused. Atthelegal level,twomodelsstandout:

• The Single Window without mandatoryrecognition of electronic documents:this SingleWindow is a platform for the

automationofdataexchangeprocesses.Changing the legal framework is not apreconditionforthestartoftheproject;

• The Single Window with mandatoryrecognitionofelectronicdocuments:thisSingleWindowenablesthedigitizationofallprocedures.Theelectronicdocumentreplaces the paper document and itis therefore necessary to have a legalsystem that governs this new documentformat.Electronicsignaturewillthusbeanecessarytechnicalelementtoreassurestakeholders.

The last twoparts focus respectivelyon thevarious practical steps of implementing,performance evaluation and consolidationoftheSingleWindow.Buildingthebroadestpossible consensus around the SingleWindow project with the mobilization of allstakeholders is a critical step. The modelfor evaluating the stakeholders’ level ofcommitment to the success of the projecthelps work out all possible cases. Beyondthe consensus, the contribution of publicauthoritiesatthehighestlevelisvital.AsetoftoolsandindicatorsshouldalsobedevelopedtoenablecontinuousmonitoringoftheSingleWindow’sperformanceandproposeareasofimprovementforitsconsolidation.

The dynamic nature of the analysis inthis guide, the multiplicity and diversity ofexperiences that inspired it, as well as theinternational scope of the standards whichform the basis of its development, makeit a precious tool for any decision maker,especiallyAfricandecisionmakers,whowishto set up a Single Window in the optimumconditionsofsuccess.

Summary

10


Section 1

Background

11


1 . E c o n o m i c C o n t e x t

2 . R e g u l at o r y a n d I n s t i t u t i o n a l C o n t e x t

Internationaltradeisstilltrulytheengineoftheglobaleconomy.Itsgrowthfollowsthetrendsofeconomicindicators.Behindthisquasi-linearalignment,thereisathoroughchangegivinganincreasinglypredominantroletoemergingeconomies.

Theemergenceofnewinternationaltradehubsismainlyexplainedbythecostcuttingrationale.However,thecountriesoftheSouthareexperiencingexponentialgrowthindemandandarecharacterizedbyanincreasinglyeffectivecapacityfortechnologicalownershipandinnovation.

Concretely,successfulcrossbordertraderequiresthefollowingmajorfactors:

• The market:findingoutlets;• Technology and labor: producingqualitygoodsandservicesatlowercost;• Logistics and formalities: rapid,reliableandlowertransitcost.

The concept of Single Window for Foreign Trade finds its importance in the search foroptimizationofthelogisticsandformalitiesoftheForeignTrade. It isnotinsignificantthatthedevelopmentofthismodalityisnowthemajorconcernoftheeconomiesthatplacetheirhopesintheexponentialgrowthoftheirForeignTrade.

Inaddition,withtheconclusionoftheTradeFacilitationAgreement,SingleWindowswillnowhaveprideofplaceinthefacilitationoftradeflows.Infact,it isexplicitlyrecommendedtomembercountriesoftheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)toestablishormaintainaSingleWindow,enablingtraderstosubmitthedocumentsand/ordatarequiredforimport,exportortransitofgoodsatasinglepointofentrytorelevantauthoritiesorbodies.

Strictlyspeaking,thereisnouniversalregulatoryandinstitutionalframeworkgoverningtheoperationofSingleWindows.Provisionsarenational,sometimesbilateralorregional.Infact,theprimepurposeofaSingleWindowforForeignTradeistoprovideaframeworkforforeigntradefacilitationandefficacyoflogisticswithinnationalborders.

However,theinternationalnatureoftraderapidlyrevealedfunctionaldemandsbeyondthenational context. To take careof thesedemands, SingleWindowsfirstownedpreexistingstandardizationinstrumentsandtools.ThesearemainlytheworksofUNCEFACTandWCOthat structured international logistics and customspracticeover thepast 4decades. Butneeds specific to Single Window for Foreign Trade were given increased consideration.Theseincludenotablythenotionoftechnologicalinteroperabilitybetweenplatformsandtherecognition,by thecountryofdestination,of theelectronicdocumentsordatacreatedorgeneratedinthecountryoforigin.

12


Illustration 1 : AAEC Pilot Projects (CEMAC and WAEMU) for data exchange on certificates of origin

Nowadays, there is no universal approach in terms of practice. This is partly due to themapping of Foreign Trade electronic SingleWindows,whichdoes notmatch themappingof intense international trade flows and, on the other hand, lack of a formal institutionalframeworktostructureandstandardizethepracticeofSingleWindows.Theambitiontobuildthis institutionalenvironmentisstrong,notably inAsiaandAfrica,buttherearechallengesrelatedtothediversetypesofSingleWindowsandmodesofgovernance.

The African Alliance for Electronic Commerce (AACE) is a framework of exchange and sharing in Trade facilitation. It comprises 12 member countries and aims at promoting the concept of Single Window, in compliance with recommendations from international institutions. One of AACE’s flagship projects is the setting up of a Regional Single Window (RSW) to interconnect all national platforms with a view to improve trade flows and enable African countries to be more competitive on the global marketshttp://www.african-alliance.org/

The Pan Asian for Electronic Commerce Alliance (PAA) was founded in July 2000. It comprises 12 members and aims at setting up and promoting a secured, reliable technological infrastructure with added value to facilitate global trade. https://www.paa.net

13


However,itshouldbenotedthatthemajorissues,suchasrecognitionofelectronicsignatureandstandardformatsofdocumentanddataexchangearewelltakencareofandtechnicalandoperationalrecommendationsareregularlypublished.

Insummary,itcouldbesaidthattheinternationalregulatoryandinstitutionalenvironmentisstillbeingdeveloped,butthereisagoodreferencebasetoenableacountrytobuilditsSingleWindowenvironmentbytakingownershipofemergingpractices.

The WAEMU Regional Single Window (RSW)

The various international institutions have not given a specific definition of the concept of Regional Single Window. It may be defined as the umbrella single window of national single windows in a given region, to facilitate cross-border and international transactions and pool resources and skills. The Regional Single Window should not be regarded as an entity but rather as data exchange facility and a framework for the adoption and implementation of international standards in this area.

The WAEMU’s Regional Single Window project was mooted at the meeting of the Council of Minister of Trade held in 2006 in Dakar, which recognized that “the establishment of single window systems can effectively contribute to removing barriers to trade”.

It will be built on a simple organizational model. National single windows exchange through the RSW. Then each national single window is responsible for exchanges within its territory with its local users. Thus, it will not be possible for a customs department or a business operator to directly connect to the Regional Single Window, except if expressly authorized by their national single window. Besides, the Regional Single Window may be built or hosted ad hoc or merely come from one of its members with the technical capacity to provide the service to others.

The WAEMU RSW may be illustrated as follows:

14


3 . T e c h n o l o g i c a l C o n t e x t

4 . O b j e c t i v e s

The development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), notably networkinfrastructures (Intranet/Extranet, Internet, Mobile), and paperless solutions, storageand archiving fostered the development of interconnection, pooling and consolidation ofinformationsystems.

Inseveralcountries,telecommunicationoperatorshaveinvestedininnovativetechnologiesinordertoofferservicestoenterpriseswithevergrowingcapacitiesatcontinuously lowerpricesandwithexceptionallevelsofperformanceandsecurity.

Besides,recentyearshavebeenmarkedbytheemergenceofanewconceptcalled“CloudComputing”.Formanystakeholders,itimpliesacompletechangeofbusinessmodel.Insteadofpayingprohibitivepricesforequipment(servers,software,etc.)thatarenotusedat100%andareverycostlytooperate,itiscommontoseeoffersforoutsourcingITservicestothirdpartycompanies,accessiblethroughhighspeedtelecommunicationlinks.However,thiskindofsolutionshouldbethoroughlyanalyzed,notablytakingintoaccountregulatorydemandsandtechnologicalreliance.

These innovations have gradually permeated the domain of Foreign Trade with aninternationalizationofsolutionsleadingtothefacilitationofproceduresinsomecountries.WhetherinthemodernizationofCustoms,technicaladministrationsorstakeholdersinthelogisticschain,itisnotuncommontofindinthemarketITsolutionsthatcoverallorpartoftheissuesfacingstakeholders.However,performancewillalwaysberelatedtotheconditionsof implementation for thesesolutionsand themobilizationof stakeholders toachieve thetargetedlevelsofperformance.

Nowadays,theimplementationofSingleWindowsismoreamatterofstrategyandorganizationthanoftechnology.

The objective of this Guide is to enableGovernments, technical and financial partners aswellasallstakeholderstohaveapracticalideaontheconditionsoftheimplementationandoperationsofaSingleWindowforForeignTradethatservesitsintrinsicpurposetoreducethecostandtimeofformalities,contributetoimprovingthebusinessclimateandcorporatecompetitiveness.

ThereareaseriesofpublicationsandrecommendationsonSingleWindows, includingthefamousRecommendation33,publishedbyUNCEFACTandusedbyseveralGovernmentsasreferenceframeworkintheprojectstosetupaSingleWindow.AftermorethanadecadeofSingleWindowdevelopment,especiallyinAfricaandAsia,thereisanewknowledgebasethatenablesbetterappreciationofthefactorsofsuccessandfailure.

15


Thisguide,designedundertheaegisofAAECwithsupportfromATPCforitspublication,isaimedatbeinganeffectiveanduniversaltoolforthesettingupofSingleWindowforForeignTrade.ItessentiallyreferstoAfricanexperiencesbutisgenerallyinspiredbyallSingleWindowpracticesacrosstheworld.

TheGuideaimsatfacilitatingtheconstructionofavisionbyGovernmentsandstakeholdersby providing guiding elements for its implementation. The recommendations formulatedhereinarenotapplicableinallcontextsandinonego.

Itsambitionistobepracticalandnotdogmatic.Itsimplementationoftenbringsoutelementsof complexity that require contextual adaptations that this guide would not be able toanticipate.

Thetraditionalprojectmanagementapproaches,startingfromtheidentificationphasetotheevaluation,arenotdevelopedinthisGuide.

16


Section 2

Definitions, typES and categorization of Single Windows and Review of Best Practices

17


1 . D e f i n i t i o n s

ItisimportanttoreturntotheprimarydefinitionofRecommendation33andothersubsequentdefinitions,andthenseewhatneedstobecomplementedorbetterspecifiedinthecontextofcurrentreality.

AccordingtoRecommendation33published in2005, “The Single Window is a facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all import, export and transit-related regulatory requirements”.Thisnowcanonicaldefinitionisstrongthroughitsopennessandtendencytotakecareofallaspectsofthesubjectmatter.

FortheWorldCustomsOrganization,theSingleWindowisafacilitationmeasurethatenablesall theparties involved in tradeand transport to lodge informationanddocumentswithasinglepointofentrytofulfillallimport,exportandtransit(…)(UNCEFACT,2005)

Thedefinition,proposedbyAAECin2013,strovetoprovidethefollowingprecisions:

• WhatisaSingleWindow?• WhatisthescopeofaSingleWindowintermsofprocess?• WhooperatestheSingleWindowandforwhom?

In trying to give practical answers to these questions and better specify the concept, theAllianceofferedthefollowingformulationtodefineaSingleWindow:

“The Single Window for Foreign Trade is a national or regional system, mainly built around an IT platform initiated by a Government or ad hoc authority, to enable the facilitation of import, export and transit-related formalities, by providing a single point for lodging standardized information and documents, in order to meet all official demands and facilitate logistics”.AAEC2013

This definition repeats the broad lines of that made through Recommendation 33, butassertsthatitismainlyasystemaroundanITplatformandindicatesthattheinitiatoristheGovernmentauthorityoranadhocauthorityinanationalorregionalcontext.

ThisformulationisthebasicdefinitionrecommendedbyAAEC.Itwasproposedanddiscussedwith all international institutions to be considered among the referencedefinitions of theSingleWindowconcept.

18


Description : Single Window for Foreign Trade Formalities interconnects, around a centralized platform or through interconnection mechanisms, all the stakeholders in pre-clearance, clearance and post-clearance formalities, with a view to facilitating formalities relating to goods removal operations. Logistics stakeholders may be integrated into this type of Single Window.

2 . T y p E S o f S i n g l e W i n d o w s : m o d e l s, c at e g o r i e s a n d a r c h i t e c t u r e s

There are several types of Single Windows serving distinct, related and complementaryfunctions. It is not uncommon to see, in one country, several entities claiming to beSingleWindows,acting inacoherent framework,notablywhenthisstems fromastrategicapproachbytheauthorities.Butmostoften,SingleWindowinitiativesareimplementedinanuncoordinatedmanner,againstabackgroundofhiddenrivalriesamongadministrations,withtotallyunproductiveresultsforthecountry.

Atthelevelofarchitectures,powerrelationsmayalsoimposesometimescumbersome,costlyandineffectiveoperationalarchitectures.

2.1 Models of Single Windows

ThisguidedealswiththeissueofSingleWindowtypologybyinsistingontheneedforeachcountry to make sure that there is always coherence and coordination. Based on theobservationandanalysisofexistingSingleWindowsacrosstheworld,SingleWindowscanbegroupedinthefollowingthree(3)majorcategories:

• Single Window for Foreign Trade Formalities (this Single Window takes care of alladministrativeformalities(publicandprivate)requiredforForeignTradeoperations);

• LogisticsCoordinationSingleWindow(thisSingleWindowisoftenlocatedinaportandisaimedatprocessingtheflowof informationrelatedtoshipmentandmainly involvinglogisticsandcustomsstakeholders);

• National Integral SingleWindow (this is the combination of the previous 2 around thesametechnicalplatformandgovernanceframework).

Thefirsttwocategoriesseemdifferentbuttheyperfectlyintegrate.Theycanbesetupbythesameauthority,orbyseparateauthorities.Atanyrate,coordinationisvital.Ifitisasingleauthority,itishighlyrecommendedtoputinplaceagradualapproach,withamaturingtimetofosterthoroughownershipofthecomponents.

2.1.1 Single Window for Foreign Trade Formalities

19


Illustration 2 : Single Window for Foreign Trade Formalities

Description : This type of Single Window exclusively deals with logistics, notably in the port facilities. It focuses on the speed and reliability of logistics from the announcement of a vessel until the delivery of the goods to their owners. Several European ports entered the realm of Single Windows through that system also called Cargo Community System (CCS) or Port Community System (PCS). Its impact on logistics is all the stronger as volumes are high, infrastructures available and stakeholders equipped. Therefore, this tool is rather meant for large port facilities. However, some of its components may have a positive impact in smaller ports.

2.1.2 Single Window for Logistics Coordination

Results

• Significant reduction of formality time;

• Significant reduction of indirect formality costs.

• High level government leadership;

• Consensus based approach;

• Strong customs involvement;

• User ownership.

• Leadership squabble;• Cost of services is too

high;• Low impact on

processing time (notion of involvement or commitment);

• Ineffective change management;

• Duality between manual and electronic systems.

Conditions of success Risks to be managed

Perimeter

• Import

• Export

• Transit

• Other Regimes

Main Functions • Application for

d’authorization or permit

• Routing of permits and authorizations to customs

• Electronic payment of duties and tax

• Electronic monitoring of the whole processing procedure

Scope: all borders • Ports• Airports• Land borders (road,

river and railway) • Other (postal,

economic zone...)

Key Stakeholders• Customs• Private sector

professionals • Government

Agencies

20


Illustration 3 : Logistics Coordination Single Window

Description : The National Integral Single Window is the form that corresponds most to the definition of Recommendation 33 and AAEC definition. It is also the most complex in its implementation, since it implies trust and collaboration among several entities that do not depend on the same authority, do not do the same job and may even sometimes have conflicting interests. It is the Single Window that interconnects, around a single platform or interconnection mechanisms, all the stakeholders in administrative, customs, port and logistics formalities. It is present across the national territory and in all modes of transport.

2.1.3 National Integral Single Window

Results

• Improves logistics performance in terms of feasibility time

• Significant reduction of indirect costs

• Consensus based appraoch

• Logistics stakeholders are favourably disposed

• Upgrading the environment to maximize the potential

• User ownership

• Cost of services too high • Low impact on

processing time (notion of involvememtn or commitment)

• Ineffective change management

• Duality between manual and electronic systems


Perimeter

• Logistics (transport, unloading, storage, delivery, etc.)

Main Functions • Data exchange

among the various logistics stakeholders

• Facilitation of transactions

• Electronic payment of logistics costs


Scope: all borders • Ports• Airports• Other logistics sites

Key Stakeholders• Port stakeholders• Airport stakeholders• Logistics

professionals• Customs

21


Illustration 4 : National Integral Single Window

Results

• Significant reduction of formality time;

• Improved logistics performance in terms of time and feasibility

• Significant reduction of indirect formality costs.

• High level government leadership;

• Consensus based approach;

• Strong customs involvement;

• Logistics stakeholders are favourably disposed

• Upgrading the environment to maximize potential

• User ownership.

• Leadership squabble;• Cost of services is too

high;• Low impact on

processing time (notion of involvement or commitment);

• Ineffective change management;

• Duality between manual and electronic systems.


Perimeter• Import• Export• Transit• Logistics

(transport, unloading, storage, delivery, etc.)

• Other Regimes

Main Functions • Application for

d’authorization or permit

• Routing of permits and authorizations to customs

• Electronic payment of duties and tax

• Data exchange among various logistics stakeholders

• Electronic payment of logistics costs


Scope: all borders • Ports• Airports• Land borders (road,

river and railway) • Other (postal,

economic zone...)

Key Stakeholders• Customs• Private sector

professionals • Port stakeholders• Airport stakeholders• Logsitics

professionals• Government

Agencies

22


BOX 1: Systemic Risks in Single Windows

In addition to the typology of single windows, this guide introduces for the first time the notion of “systemic importance” in the qualification of single windows.Single windows of systemic importance are systems that could trigger or transmit systemic disruptions in the sphere of foreign trade at national level, due to the dimension or nature of individual transactions that they process or due to the total value of such transactions.

Given their importance and the risks arising from their implementation, national governance bodies should establish a general oversight framework, notably through the development of basic principles that the single windows should comply with in the setting up and operation phases.

A single window of systemic importance does not necessarily only manage international trade transactions of a particular nature or high amount. The phrase may also refer to a single window that processes international trade transactions of various kinds and amounts, but capable of triggering or transmitting systemic disruptions, due to certain segments of its traffic or the concentration of procedures and formalities carried out at its level. In practice, the line between single windows of systemic importance and others is not always clear and national regulatory bodies should be careful to clearly draw that line. The principles to be laid down by national governance bodies may also be useful to evaluate and understand the features of single windows that involve relatively low systemic risk. I may be advisable that such systems comply with some or all the basic principles.

23


Illustration 5 : Architecture of Single Windows

EXAMPLE: Single Window for Foreign Trade of Cameroon

The functional components of a Single Window platform dedicated to the dematerialization (paperless) of Foreign Trade procedures.

2.3 Architecture of Single Windows

Duetotherapidevolutionoftechnologiesoverthepastdecadeandtheexponentialgrowthofexchangeandstoragepossibilities,itisnotrecommendedtobuildSingleWindowarchitectureonthebasisofconstraintsinanexistingenvironmentorconstraintsinapreexistingsolution.It is strongly recommended to have an architectural visionopen to the future. Themajorquestionsweshouldaskourselvesarethefollowing:

• HowdoweensuretheinterconnectionwithCustomsandinstitutionswithanautonomousITsystem?

• Howdoweexchangewiththepartnerswhodonothavecomputerizedsystems?• Howfarshouldwetakethecomputerizationoftradetoachieveresults?• Howdowecompensatefortheabsence,poorqualityorhighcostoftelecommunication

links?• Howdoweensureservicecontinuity?

Therearenouniversally relevantanswers toanyof thesequestions. Ineachcountry, thetechnological and legal context, financialmeans and power relations determine themostadequatetypeofarchitecture.

24


Portal: the platform has access through a portal not only enabling the management of formalities, but also providing connected stakeholders with a certain amount of value added information and services.

Messaging Tools: the major role is to ensure reception and transmission of messages in compliance with standard protocols (SMTP, POP, JMS, etc.).

Message Translator: it enables the conversion of various standard electronic data exchange formats (EDIFACT, XML, EBXML, JSON, etc.) and provision of corresponding data to each recipient.

Orchestration Engine: it enables the management of all data exchange rules to guarantee effective flow of messages among Foreign Trade stakeholders in a specific order.

Integration Engine: it has standard connectors (ODBC, JDBC, HTTP, WEBSERVCIES, etc.) enabling the injection and retrieval of messages. These can be based notably on messaging tools for the integration mechanisms using them. This tool is the basis of interoperability and should therefore take into account as many standards as possible to avoid specific developments that affect the core of the system.

Administration Tools: in short, these are all the tools necessary to calibrate, manage and supervise the other operational modules of the Single Window platform.

Reporting and Business Intelligence: the reporting tools and dashboards enable the monitoring of common indicators and the production of various statistics.

Tradee securing tools: A single Window Platform should absolutely have all the tools guaranteeing security by ensuring traceability, confidentiality, non-repudiation of messages exchanged. Electronic signature mechanisms should be taken into account as well as the archiving of the data exchanged.

Form development tools: in many cases, the Single Window system is put in place in an environment where a few stakeholders in the chain do not have an information system. To avoid the continuous use of a manual process by some stakeholders, it is important to provide for minimum forms for interaction with the platform and other expecting players.

Electronic payment toolkit: This tool enables online payment of services, duties, taxes and fees by various Foreign Trade stakeholders. It is compatible with the country’s banking systems.

25


3 . C o n n e c t i n g S i n g l e W i n d o w s w i t h c r i t i c a l I T s y s t e m s

TheSingleWindowisadataexchangeplatformthatinteractswiththevarioussystemsusedbythestakeholdersintheForeignTradecommunitywithmainly3flows:

• Thephysicalmovementofgoodsfromthecountryoforigintothecountryofdestination;• Thetransmissionofrelatedinformationanddocuments;• Thefinancialflows.

Interconnectionwithcriticalsystemsenablestoensurethebestmonitoringoftheseflows.

SincetheSingleWindowisattheheartofallthesesystems,itisimportanttohavearobust,resilientandflexiblebaseofITinfrastructuretoguaranteethemanagementofcriticalflowslistedabove.

TherearevariousformsofinteractionbetweentheSingleWindowandothersystemswhosemajorfeaturesare:

a.TheSingleWindowmaybecentralizedinaCLOUDordedicateddatacenter,withaWebportalthatenablesvariousstakeholderstoconnectatanytime,wherevertheymaybeintheworld. Inthisconfiguration,everyoneconnectstotheSingleWindowandalloperationsareprocessedthere.b. The Single window enables to harmonize and standardize the various types ofelectronicmessagessuchasEDIorXMLamongthevariousoperatorsandauthorities.ItisimportanttocarryoutafeasibilitystudybeforehandtocheckthecompatibilityoftheSingleWindowsystemwiththevarioussystemsinplaceandprovideforpossibleupgrading.

Choosingoneofthese2optionswilldependontheITsituationofstakeholdersandtimeline.

Ingeneral,sincetheSingleWindowisindispensable,itisimportanttohaveafallbacksolutionincaseofmajorproblems,suchas:

(i) Realtimereplicationonadistantsite;(ii) Asynchronousreplication;(iii) Datarecoverythroughbackup.

The backup solution should be operational, not just in case of a SingleWindows systembreakdown,butalsoincaseanyotherpartner’ssystembreaksdown.Infact,ActivityContinuityPlan(ACP)isvalidforallsystems,sincetheyareinterdependent.

26


Source : ESCAP, UNRCs TF Survey 2015

4 . N e w e m e r g i n g t r e n d s

Due to the rapid evolution of information technologies, Single Windows are increasinglybecoming technical bridges for communication and information exchange, notably inEuropeanandNorthAmericancountries.WiththeITautonomyofstakeholders,theexchangeof informationandstructuredmessages isgivenpriority intheseenvironments. However,in developing countries, the situation is rather conducive to the setting up of centralizedandnationalSingleWindows,due to the low ITautonomyof stakeholders. This isevenacertainasset,asthecompetitiveSingleWindowsintheworldareoftenfoundinemergingordevelopingcountries.

4.1 Global expansion of Single Windows

Inrecentyears,therehasbeenaproliferationofSingleWindowprojectsacrosstheworld.InAsiaforinstance,thesettingupofelectronicSingleWindowshasanincreasinglyimportantplaceinprogramstomodernizeinternationaltradeactivities.

Illustration 6 : Global expansion of Single Windows

27


Source : http://www.swguide.org

AmongmembersoftheAfricanAllianceforElectronicCommerce,thenumberofnewmembersrecordedshowstheinterestofAfricanGovernmentsintheissue.However,Africaremainstheleastcompetitiveregionintermsofcrossbordertrade,probablyduetoinadequacybetweenpolicydecisionsandthetechnicalcapacityto implementthemwithoutbeinghamperedbycountryspecificities.

Illustration 7 : Expansion of Single Windows in Africa

28


InEurope,SingleWindowssystemshaddifficultytakingshapeduetosystemsthathadalreadybeenaroundforafewdecadesandwhoseperformancewasappreciable. However,thereareafewcases,notablytheMaritimeSingleWindow(DGMOVE),thetaxSingleWindow(DGTAXUD),healthandveterinarycontrolSingleWindows(TRACESSystem).

4.2 Emergence of the Regional Single Window concept faced with inter-country data exchange needs

TTheproliferationof national SingleWindowsopened anopportunity for anticipateddatamanagementby countries involved in commercial transactions. To facilitate Foreign Tradeoperations in the sub-regions between Regional Economic Communities, a few SingleWindowsfounditnecessarytosetupdataexchangemechanismsbetweenthem,leadingtotheconceptofRegionalSingleWindows.Forinstance,thePanAsianAlliancefore-Commerce(PAA)initiatedandoperatesaregionalSingleWindow.TheWAEMUalsohasaprojecttosetuparegionalSingleWindowinitszone.

Besides,AAECmembersinitiatedaprojecttosetupapanAfricanplatformforForeignTradedata exchange in Africa andwith the rest of theworld. Pilot project for the exchangeofcertificatesoforiginareunderwayintheCEMACandWAEMUzones,andwillenable“proofofconcept”.Otherinternationalorganizations,notablytheAfricanUnionandtheOrganizationofIslamicCooperation (OIC), are initiating regional SingleWindowprojects to facilitate trade amongtheirmembercountries.

These new developments led the United Nations, through UNCEFACT, to developRecommendation36,relatingto interoperabilityofSingleWindows. Itprovidesareferenceframeworkforthestandardizedimplementationofinterconnectivityatregionallevel.

29


Section 3

Prior Strategic Choices

30


Setting up a Single Window requires the validation of significant strategic choices. Suchchoiceswillbethekeyelementsthatdeterminethesuccessoftheproject.Theywillbedealtwithinthissection,withoutlosingsightofthefactthateachcountryisaspecificcase.

1 . I n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d o r g a n i z at i o n a l p r e c o n d i t i o n s

Thesearchforaconsensusisanecessaryconditiontothesuccessoftheproject.Achievingsuch consensus is sometimes difficult, given the multiplicity of stakeholders and theirdependenceondifferentauthoritiesorministries.

1.1 Pilot phase of setting up a Single Window

Ingeneral,thefollowingsituationsariseintermsofleadershipinsettingupaSingleWindowproject:

Experience shows that these authorities level of involvement is very important and oftendeterminesthesuccessoftheimplementation.

A Single Window requires close and intelligent cooperation among all public and privateauthorities,departmentsandGovernmentagencies, takingpart inthe improvementofthecustomsclearancechain,inordertoprovidefacilitationinbusinesscircles.

NR STEERING LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW LEADER COMMENTS

1Senior Governement Level

President or Prime Minister’s Office

When a Single Window Project is piloted under the leadership of the President or Prime Minister, buy-in by public institutions is virtually guaranteed.

2 Ministerial Level

Ministry of Finance The Ministry of Finance, which oversees Customs, has the most assets to pilot a Single Window.

Ministry of TradeThe vision of effective trade without barriers is most often built at the Ministry in charge of Trade.

Ministry of Transport When the Single Window’s focus is port logistics, this Ministry can take the lead in Single Window implementation.

3Ad hoc department or body

Customs, Port, Department in charge of trade, other ad hoc institutions

When a department is in a leading position, there is a high risk of other departments not buying in.

Public private partnership When the Single Window is implemented under a PPP it is important that leadership for the project is left to independent entities to facilitate its ownership by the stakeholders.

31


1.2 Management and Operation Phase of Single Window Services

Atorganizationalandoperationallevels,aSingleWindowrequirestheexistenceofanentityin charge of operating the platform and providing services. This responsibility should beentrustedtoanautonomousmanagemententitywithclearlydefinedmissions.

ThemanagementofaSingleWindowbyanautonomousentityenablesbetterfocusonactualactivitiesandtheoperationoftheplatform,atoperationalaswellastechnological level. Italsomakesitpossibletodemandcontractuallevelofservicequality.

Thebesttimetosetuporselectthemanagementstructure(ifitalreadyexists)variesbasedonthecontextandcapacityoftheSingleWindowimplementationchampion.Thefollowingtableshowstheprosandconsofeachapproach:

Pros Cons

Case I: Setting up the management entity at the start of the project phase.

• Very early on, resources are linked to the project implementation activities.

• Gradual stakeholder involvement.

• Poor planning of activities could lead to wavering of resources. Thus, skills profiles may not be precise enough.

Case II : Setting up the management entity during the project rollout.

• The Single Window operator starts by defining the modus operating modes.

• Resources have an operational implication in the setting up of the activities.

• A too premature recruitment of the management team may lead to significant costs without any operation.

Case III : Setting up the management entity at the end of the project phase and at the start of operations.

• Sure to have the right profiles and limit starting costs.

• The operating teams do not have a good understanding of Single Window operations.

• Longer learning period for operation and assistance staff.

32


2 . L e g a l a n d r e g u l at o r y p r e c o n d i t i o n s

Thelegalandregulatoryframeworkreferstoallthelaws,decrees,regulations,conventionsandmemorandawhichmaygoverntheprocedurestobeappliedinForeignTradeoperations.

Accordingtoinducedoperationalchanges,thedemandsoftheregulatoryframeworkwillbemoreorlesshigh.Basically,theSingleWindowmayfollowtwodifferentlegalmodels:

• Model 1 : SingleWindowwithoutrecognitionofelectronicdocuments(inthismodel,theSingleWindowisaplatformfortheautomationofdataexchangeprocesses.Itdoesnotleadtotheproductionofanylegallyvalidelectronicdocument);

• Model 2 : SingleWindowwithrecognitionofelectronicdocuments(theSingleWindowensuresthedematerialization/automationofalltheprocedures.Allthedocumentsandalltheauthorizationsareelectronicallysignedandreplacepaperwork100%-paperless).

UnderModel 1,itisnotimperativetochangethelegalframeworkatthestartoftheproject.Forinstance,mostcustomsITsystemsweresetupincountrieswithoutanyneedtochangethelaw.Inthiscase,whatisnecessaryisforthestakeholderstoagreetoreceiveelectronicrequests and electronically process them. The Customs may be connected to the SingleWindowplatformandreceivetheelectronicauthorizationswithoutsignature.

However,underModel 2,theelectronicdocumentreplacesthepaperdocument.Itisthereforenecessarytohavelegalprovisionsgoverningthisnewdocumentformat.Itisalsonecessarytohaveaninfrastructurecapableoftakingcareofelectronicsignaturesandelectronicarchiving.

Such lawsmayexistbecause theyarenot specific toSingleWindows,but toall electronictransactions.

StillunderModel 2,thefollowinglawsareexamplesthatmaybenecessaryfortheregulationofnewoperationalprocedures.Theselawsmainlydealwiththefollowingissues:• Lawontheprotectionofpersonaldata;• Lawonelectronictransactions;• Lawoncybercrime;• Lawoncryptography(datatransmission).

Moreover,acountry’smembershipofanEconomicCommunitymayalsoleadtochallengesintheimplementationofsomeregulations.

Thus,withregardtointernationaldocuments,theirvalidityoutsidebordersmaybequestionedduetonon-recognitionofelectronicdocumentsorelectronicsignature.

Finally, strong involvementat thehighest levelof theState, asmentionedabove, is a vitalconditionfortheenactmentofthelaws,regulationsandmemorandathatwillaccompanythenewSingleWindowprocedures.

33


3 . T e c h n o l o g i c a l p r e c o n d i t i o n s

Intermsoftechnology,thereisnopre-establishedstandard.Infact,everymajorpublisherofcustomsandSingleWindowsoftwarehastheirowntechnologicalorientation,whichhingesonthecompany’stechnicalstrategy.

However,there isaneedfor interoperability2ofapplicationsandalsostandardizationofthe information tobeexchanged. It isessential toensure interoperabilitywithallexistingsystemsamongpartnerson theonehand, andalsowith IT systemsof the countrieswithwhich thehost countryhas trade transactions. This interoperability shouldbe sufficientlystandardizedtotakeintoaccountthenewtradeflowsthatcouldfollowtheimplementationof SingleWindows. Technologies should therefore be open, evolutionary and avoid fixedapproaches.

When the various administrations issue their authorizations and permits, these shouldintegrateessentialITsecuritycomponents.

Awell-run feasibilitystudywillhelp identify thestrengthsandweaknessesof thecountry’stechnological environment. The various Single Window experiences show that there isoftenasignificantgapbetweeninitially identifiedinfrastructureneedsandthedemandsofimplementationinthefield.

2 Capacity to exchange data or information between two heterogenous applications.

34


There is need for a rigorous financial evaluation before setting up the technologicalpreconditions. In fact, technological upgrade absorbs a significant part of the project’sbudget.Itwillalsoenableanevaluationoftheautomationlevelofeachadministration.

“Ideally”, administrations and stakeholders could have minimum automation level toelectronicallyreceiveandprocesstherequestsforauthorizationlodgedwiththem.However,itshouldbewellnotedthatthisisbynomeansashow-stopperontheproject.

Initsdevelopment,theSingleWindowcouldaccommodateall the necessary functions of these administrations aswell as technical equipment to ensure comprehensiveperformance of the system and better technologicalintegrationamongstakeholders.

Asinthecaseoflegalandregulatorypreconditions,whentheSingleWindowintegratesdematerialization(paperless),thefollowingtechnologicalcomponentsareimportant:

• Electronicsignature;• Electronicarchivingofdocuments;• Accommodation of certain standards (UNCEFACT,

WCODataModel).

In a context of dematerialization,we talk about “natively conceived electronic document”. Electronic documentsshouldintegratethefollowingfeatures:

• Permanence;• Integrity;• Security;• Traceability;• Legibility;• Accountabilityorauthorauthentication.

35


4 . I n t e r n at i o n a l N o r m s a n d S ta n d a r d s

It is important to note that the integration of standards is a strong recommendation butnota technologicalprerequisite. Throughout the lifecycleofaSingleWindowproject, it isrecommendedtouserecognizedbenchmarks,normsandstandardstoguaranteepermanenceandfuturechallenges.

Several documents and guides took inspiration from Recommendation 33 of UNCEFACTtotake intoaccount thespecificitiesof internationalorganizationspromoting it. Thus, theWCOCompendiumon-HowtoBuildaSingleWindowEnvironment-publishedbytheWorldCustomsOrganization(WCO)attachesgreatimportancetotheSingleWindow.

Reengineering processes is a permanent exercise in implementing Single Windows. Thesimplificationandstandardizationofproceduresisinspiredfromthefollowingtools:

• Recommendation 12 of UNCEFACT on measures aimed at facilitating procedures relating to maritime transport documents;

• Recommendation 34 of UNCEFACT on the simplification and standardization ofdata for international trade;

• Version 3 of the WCO data model;• UNNExT Guide for the analysis of business processes notably based on UMM;• UNNExTGuidefordataharmonizationandmodeling;• UNNExT Guide on document alignement.

ForthemanagementofimplementationphasesofITsolutions,toolssuchastheAgilemethodandSCRUMarehighlyrecommended.Infact,suchmethodsmakeitpossibletoguaranteethattheITsolutionsimplementedactuallycorrespondtotheneedsofpartnersandstakeholdersinvolvedintheprocedurestobedematerialized.

As for the operation phase of a SingleWindow, tools such as ITIL and COBITmay proveeffectiveinensuringgoodservicequality.

5 . S i n g l e W i n d o w B u s i n e s s M o d e l s

5.1. The business model issue

TheSingleWindowproject isaimedat introducingamajor innovationintheForeignTradeenvironment,whichwillbeturnedintoeconomicvalue.TheSingleWindowcoversacomplexecosystem, made of public and private administrations, often with different economicrationales. Therefore, from the outset of the project, a decision should bemade on thebusinessmodeloption,whoseacceptancebyallstakeholderscouldserveasacommonbasistoresolutelymovetowardstheachievementoftheobjectivesassignedtotheproject.Thisdecisionwill thendeterminethechoicesonfinancingtheproject, thestrategytomeetthecostsrelatedtotheoperation,andfinallythetransformationoftheaddedvaluecreatedintoincometoensurethepermanentoperation.

36


Inotherwords,thefollowingaspectsshouldbeclearlydefinedandbalanced:

• The value created by the project: the SingleWindow should enable the country tomeettheneedsexpressedorprovideinnovations,inordertoimprovetheForeignTradeenvironment.Atanyrate,addedvalueshouldbegeneratedforstakeholdersandusersofForeignTradeformalities;

• The project’s funding sources:theymaybedonors,privatesector,GovernmentorPPP;• The project’s implementation budget: it should be well estimated to avoid lack of

resourcesfortheprojectimplementationandstartofoperation;• The prices charged to access the services:theyshouldbeabletocoverallthecosts

relatedtooperationandguaranteethesustainabilityofthesystem.

5.2. Various Single Windows business models

ThebusinessmodelsofSingleWindowsarehighlydependentontheinitialconditionsintheenvironment(political,economic,socialandtechnological),butalsoonagoodidentificationandmanagementofpreconditionstothestartoftheproject.

Consequently,adetailedestimateofSingleWindowimplementationcostsremainsimperative.Itwillbebuiltaroundaninclusiveapproachtargetingallstakeholdersforgoodidentificationofneedsintermsofinfrastructure,equipment,humanresources,training,communication,etc.

Theaimisalsotohaveamodelcapableofguaranteeingthebalanceofthethreelevelsoffunding,whicharethesettingup,operationandfuturesustainabilityoftheSingleWindow.

• Thepublicfinancingmodel;• ThePublicPrivatePartnership(PPP)model;• Theconcessionmodel.

37


5.2.1. The public financing model

Thismodelisusedincaseswherefundingforsettingup,operationandevolutionoftheSingleWindowisfullyprovidedbyGovernmentorwithdonorsupport.

WhatmovesaGovernmenttofinancethevariousstagesofthelifeofaSingleWindowisthedesire to improve theForeignTradeenvironment,notably throughthe facilitationof tradeformalitiesandgoodadministrationof theSingleWindow (e.g.Kenya, Finland,RepublicofKorea,Sweden,theUSA,MacedoniaFYRM,Azerbaijan,Philippines,andTunisia).

ThemajorriskofastrongGovernmentinvolvementinfinancingallthestagesoftheSingleWindowlifecycleliesintheabsenceofresourcestoensureitsevolutionespeciallyindevelopingcountriesand leastdevelopedcountries (LDCs). Thissituationcouldnegatively impacttheperformancesoftheSingleWindowand,whereappropriate,theoptionofinvolvingtheprivatesectoranddonorsmaybeenvisaged.

Veryoften,adonorintervenesinthesettingupoftheSingleWindow,andtheStatetakesovertoensureitsfinancingandoperation.However,donorsmayintervenelaterinfinancingtheevolutionneedsoftheSingleWindow.

5.2.2. The PPP model

ThismodelmainlyrelatestoSingleWindowssetupaspartofaPPPbetweentheStateandtheprivatesector.ThePPPislimitedtothegovernanceandmanagementoftheproject.Therationaleof improvingthecompetitiveenvironmentofForeignTrade isattheheartofthismutuallybeneficialpartnership(e.g.:Ghana,HongKong,Japan,Malaysia,Mauritius,Senegal,Singapore,Cameroon,Morocco,Congo,etc.).

In general, Single Window services set up under PPP charge fees. But these are oftennegotiated or approved rates (Senegal) aimed at balancing the operation. In some cases,the use of the SingleWindow is optional (Germany, Hong Kong, Japan,Malaysia, Sweden,UnitedStates,RepublicofKorea)whileinothersitismandatory(Finland,Ghana,Guatemala,Mauritius,RepublicofKorea?,Senegal).

TheadvantagewithPPPisthatitscomplementaritywithothertypesoffundingavailable,asitgivesthepossibility,iftheneedshouldarise,tocallontheGovernmentasastakeholder,orondonorsdependingontheopportunitiesorcontext.

5.2.3 The concession model

Followingapublicserviceconcession,theprivatesectormayfinancetheinvestmentnecessaryforthesettingupoftheSingleWindowaswellasitsmaintenanceandoperation(e.g.Germany,Guatemala). Inthisprocess,profitabilityofoperation isamust. Thus,thefacilityprovidespaidservices.

3 The examples in italics in this table are drawn from “Part 1: UN/CEFACT Single Window Repository” 2009

38


In principle, the concessionaire should directly be paid by the users on the basis of feespredeterminedinthetermsofthecontractwiththeconcessioningauthority.Inactualfact,administrationshavelimitedcompetenceonthistypeofcontract.Concessionairesthentaketheopportunitytoextendtheconcessiontimeaswellasthescheduleofcharges.

Thus, profit rationale may lead to high costs of services provided by the Single Windowconcessionaire. Toavoidthat,theGovernmentshouldseetothecosteffectivenessoftheSingleWindow,byprovidingsubsidiesifneeded,butalsobymobilizingdonorstofinancetheSingleWindow’sinvestmentandevolutionprogram.

5.2.4 Synthesis of business models

ThevariousSingleWindowbusinessmodelsmaybesummarizedasfollows:

Business Models Set up Financing Operation Financing Evolution Financing

Public financed model Donors/Gov. Gov. Donors/Gov.

Concession model Concessionaire Concessionaire Concessionaire

PPP model Donor/Gov. Ad hoc entity Ad hoc entity

39


6 . B e s t g o v e r n a n c e p r a c t i c e s

AmongthekeysuccessfactorsconditioningthesuccessfulimplementationofaSingleWindow,thereisthegovernanceaspect,whichisthecombinationofanumberofstrategicelementsthroughouttheprojectimplementation.

Governanceisnotasetofprinciplesaprioribut–likeanyarchitecture–asetofpracticesborneoutofconcretechallenges thatorganizationsshouldmeetandwhich, littleby little,becomeabenchmarkleadingtotheformulationofgeneralprinciples.Legal,economic,socialandculturalspecificitiesvaryfromoneenvironmenttotheother.However,andgiventhebestpracticesidentified,thefollowingaspectsshouldbetakenintoconsideration:

• SettingupaninclusivegovernancebodyfortheSingleWindow;• Involvingallstakeholdersatallstages;• Transparentpricingofservices;• Regularpublicationofreliableandrelevantperformanceindicators;• Sustainedrelationswithgovernmentauthorities.

The supreme governing body of the entity in charge of the Single Window should berepresentativeofthewholeForeignTradechain,notablyinthecaseofaPPPmodel,soastoavoidinterestbeingorientedtowardsasingleorganization.Forinstance,actionstakenbyaSingleWindowgovernedbyacommunityofshippingagentswillmostlyandprimarilyserveshippingagents.

Thisiswhy,tobeabletoprovideadequateservicesaccessibletoallstakeholders,thepoolof theSingleWindowgoverningbodyshould includeall stakeholders in theForeignTradecommunity(allpublicandprivateentitiesconcernedbytheSingleWindow).

TherelevanceoftheservicesprovidedbytheSingleWindowdependsontheintegrationandinvolvementofthepartners-publicandprivate–inForeignTrade.TheSingleWindowshouldbedesignedasa comprehensive communityplatform, integratingall processes related tointernationaltransactions.

7 . T r a n s p a r e n c y o f s e r v i c e p r i c i n g

Admittedly, the services provided by the SingleWindow for Foreign Trade Formalities areoftenpricedtoensurebalancedoperationandpermanentactivities.However,itsstrategicpositionintheenvironmentofforeigntradeformalitiesmakesthelevelofchargesextremelysensitive,hence the importanceofaperfectbalancebetween theaddedvaluecreatedbytheSingleWindowandthecounterpartpaidbyusers,inordertoavoidanyriskofinflationinducedbytheSingleWindow.Toensuretransparency,itisrecommendedthatthechargesappliedbediscussedamongthevariousstakeholdersoftheSingleWindow,validatedbeforepublicationandimplementation.

40


8 . R e g u l a r p u b l i c at i o n o f r e l i a b l e a n d r e l e va n t p e r f o r m a n c e i n d i c at o r s

TheobjectivestocutthecostandtimeofformalitiesareacoreconcerninsettingupSingleWindowsinthevariouscountriesthathaveinitiatedtheproject.Monitoringandevaluationof these objectives require the identification, management and regular publication ofperformance indicators. Thecredibilityof these indicatorsdependsontheirreliabilityandrelevance.TheirpublicationshouldbeperiodicalandbeaccessibletoalltheSingleWindowstakeholders.Thebroadestpossibledisseminationrequirestheavailabilityofpublications,inprintaswellaselectronic(website,mailinglist,etc.).

Government support is important in implementing a Single Window, notably for theintroductionofanadequateregulatoryandlegalframeworkfortheapplicationoffacilitationanddematerializationactions.

GovernmentmaybeafacilitatortoensuretheinvolvementofallstakeholdersoftheForeignTradecommunityinthedevelopmentoftheSingleWindowandalsoenableharmonizationbetweentheSingleWindowactionplanwithnationaldirectivesandguidelines.Italsoplaysaconveningroleforthemobilizationofteamsandeffortsinasituationofbuildupand/orcrisis.

41


Section 4

Practical implementation stages

42


1 . S ta k e h o l d e r M o b i l i z at i o n

Anyevolutionofoperationalproceduresisdifficulttoacceptbythestakeholders,inparticularinthepublicsphere,evenifitenablestoenhancetheefficacyofdailyoperations.Ingeneral,private stakeholders (Banks, Insurance) do not resist because they rapidly identify theoperational and economic advantages related to the setting up of a SingleWindow. ThedifficultylieswithpublicstakeholdersanditisrecommendedtoexplaintheobjectivesoftheSingleWindowproject,whichmustbesharedwithallstakeholderstobuildastrongconsensusandgoodownership.

Todoso,itisimportanttocarryoutanobjectiveanalysisofthestakeholders’commitmentthroughouttheprojectinordertochartastrategytomobilizeallstakeholders.

Table 1 :Evaluation model of stakeholder commitment for a successful project

Caption:

4- Total commitment: total ownership of the project and proactive participation inproceedings.

3- Support for the project with a constructive attituded: belief in the interestof theprojectandwillingnesstocontributetoproceedings.

2- Understanding the project, but with low mobilization: understandingtheinterestoftheproject,withlowlevelofinvolvement.

1- Awareness of the project’s stakes, without further interest: Knowledgeoftheprojectanditsimpactwithrefusaltobeinvolved.

0- Rejection of the project:RefusaltotakepartintheSingleWindowandcooperatewiththeprojectteam.

LEVEL OF COMMITMENT

PROJECT SPONSORS

PROJECT TEAM STAKEHOLDER FOCAL POINT

USERS AS STAKEHOLDERS

4- Total Commitment

Optimum Optimum Optimum Optimum

3- Support for the project with a constructive attitude

Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

2- Understanding of the project, but low mobilization

Acceptable Insufficient Acceptable Satisfactory

1- Awareness of the project’s stakes, without further interest

Insufficient Critical Insufficient Acceptable

0- Rejection of the project

Critical Critical Critical Insufficient

43


Tohaveall theguaranteesofsuccess inaSingleWindowproject, it is important toalwaysbe aware of the stakeholders’ level of commitment. Throughout the project cycle, thiscommitmentshouldbeinthegreenupperpartofthetablebelow,foralltheconditionsofsuccesstobemet.Infact,theusualperceptionofaSingleWindowbystakeholdersisalossofinfluenceandcontrolintheirworktothebenefitofotherentities.

Toincreasetheirmobilizationlevel,itisimportanttoregularlycommunicateontheproject,byhighlightingthetangibleandquantifiablegainsaswellasthefuturerolesofeachstakeholderinthenewsystem.

Furthermore,theintegrationofstakeholdersinthelifeoftheprojectisagoodpractice,fortheperceivedrisksandproblemsidentifiedtoberesolvedastheyappearandforthelevelofcommitmenttoremainhigh.

However, ifthisapproachprovesinsufficientafterseveralattempts, itmaybenecessarytoresorttoGovernmentauthorityforarbitration.

2 . C o m m i t m e n t o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s

ThecommitmentofdecisionmakersatthehighestleveloftheStateisakeysuccessfactorinaSingleWindowproject.Infact,itispreferableforthemainsponsoroftheSingleWindowprojecttobeahigh-rankingauthorityinthepublicadministration.

Toensuregoodownershipof theprojectandtotalcommitmentofpublicauthorities, theaddedvalueoftheSingleWindowshouldbeproven.Thefollowingbenefitsmaystrengthenthatlineofargument:

• Improvedinteractionsamongtheadministrations/stakeholdersinvolved;• Enhancedreliabilityoftheinformationdisseminatedbyadministration;• Speedydeliveryofpublicservices;• Lowerhumanandfinancialcostsofcommercialprocedures;• Reassignmentofhumanresourcesgainedfromthecostcutting,andtheirredeployment

toactivitieswithhighervalueadded;• Lowerlevelofcorruptionduetotransparencyintransactions;• Securingandincreasingrevenue,ifapaymentsystemisintegrated;• Overallimprovementofthebusinessclimate,itsimpactforthecountryininternational

ratingsandresultingpoliticalgains.

Infact,thecontributionofpublicauthoritiesatthehighest level isparamount. Duringtherolloutphase,itmaybedecisiveto• Providethehighestqualifiedhumanresourcestojointheprojectteam;• Mitigate,orevenovercome,resistancetochangeamongsomestakeholders;• Communicateonalargescaleduringtherolloutphase;• Managethepressurerelatedtocriticaltechnicalincidentswhichwillnodoubtoccurin

theSingleWindow.

44


45


3 . M o b i l i z i n g a n d s e c u r i n g f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s

Implementing a SingleWindow requires, from the part of the initiators, prior and preciseindicationon thefinancial resourcesnecessary for itsfinancing. Hence the importanceofcarryingoutafeasibilitystudytohaveaclearideaofthesolutionspossible,evaluatetheminordertofindasolutiontobeimplementedandestimatetheresourcestoberaisedaswellastheexpectedbenefits.

Mobilizingfinancialresourcesinvolvesvariousstakeholderswhomaybedonors,Governmentand/orprivatesector,notablyinthecaseofaPPP.

It is importanttocarryoutafeasibilitystudy,andalsocomplement itwithabusinessplanformalizingtheforecastevolutionoftheproject.Itisalsoaneffectivetoolforfundraisingwithinstitutionalorprivatedonors.

Thebusinessplan shouldbeof goodquality,with rigorously evaluatedfigures to give thedocumentutmostcredibilityandprovideaframeworkoftrustbetweendonorsandtheSingleWindowproject.

In the final analysis, securing financial resources requires goodmanagement of the cost/timeline/project deliverable, so as tominimize gapsbetweenwhat is plannedandwhat isachieved.ThisisallthemoreimportantastheimplementationofaSingleWindowimplieshugestakesandmobilizessignificantamounts.

Possiblefundingmaycomefrominstitutionaldonors(WorldBank,AFDB,etc.)orStates,eitherthroughGovernmentequityfunding(Tunisia)oraPPP(Ghana,Senegal,etc.).

4 . S e t t i n g u p t h e p r o j e c t t e a m

TheskillsandexperienceofmembersoftheprojectteamarevitalforthedesignandsuccessfulimplementationofaSingleWindow.Itisrecommendedthatthemembersbe fully dedicated to the project andhavea goodunderstandingof the stakes. Besides, thedecision tree,the reporting lineand the responsibilitiesof eachmember, aswell as the communicationmodalities,shouldbeclearlydefined.

Infact,themajorchallengeforaSingleWindowprojectismoreorganizationalthantechnical.The project team should therefore be able to manage not only the technical dimension,butalsothebusinessprocessesofallthestakeholdersinvolved,takepartinthedraftingoffunctionalspecificities,carryoutacceptancetestsandprovidetrainingtotheendusers.Onthisbusinessaspect,itisrecommendedtodevelopcloserelationswitheachstakeholderbyidentifyingafocalpointwhoisanexpertintheirarea.

46


Depending on their involvement in the project and their motivation, it is a good practice to recruit after the deployment, the members of the project team to build the core of the entity in charge of operating the Single Window.

However,oneoftheessentialrolesoftheprojectteamistomakesurethattheprojectmanagerunderstandsthebusinessneedsandtoalwaysprompthimtocomplywiththeimplementationscheduleoftheSingleWindowsolutionwiththeexpectedqualityandbudget,whilemeetingtheusers’expectations.Intheabsenceofapointofcontactintheprojectteam,thechancesofsuccessfullyimplementingtheSingleWindowcouldsolelyhingeontheprojectmanager’scapacityandgoodwill.Ifnecessary,capacitybuildingmaybeusefulintheformoftrainingsessions(projectmanagement,reengineeringofprocesses,functionalstudies…)orinductionincountrieswithasimilarcontext,withsignificantexperienceinSingleWindows.Formoreassurance, the recruitmentofa consultant tosupport theproject teamatmethodologicalandbusinesslevelsmayincreasethechancesofsuccess.However,theprojectteammustnotsolelyrelyontheconsultant’sworkandreducetheirlevelofinvolvement.Todoso,itisimportant:

• At individual level, to regularlymeasure thecontributionofeachproject teammemberandevaluatetheirlevelofcommitment;

• At general level, that the project sponsors evaluate, based on specific predeterminedcriteria,theperformanceoftheprojectteamaswellastheircapacitytoachievethesetobjectives.

5 . S e t t i n g u p t h e s t e e r i n g a n d p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t b o d i e s

AProjectChampionshouldbeclearlyidentifiedandapprovedbyallstakeholders.

Theprojectshouldbestructuredthroughsteeringandbodiesthatmonitorthedeliverablesthroughouttheimplementingphase.

1. ASteeringCommitteetoserveasthedecisionmakingbody;2. AProjectCommitteeinchargeofimplementingtheproject’sactivities;

•TheSteeringCommiteeisthevalidationbodyfordecisionsrelatedtotheprojectandthemonitoringof thevariousphases. Itsmeetingsproduceminuteswith theguidelines tobeimplementedbytheProjectCommittee.Thecommitteemainlygroupsthemanagementofstructuresthatarestakeholdersintheproject.

•TheProjectCommitteeistheprojectimplementingbody.ItsubmitsanactionplantotheSteeringCommitteeandensuresitsimplementationonceitisvalidated.UndertheProjectManager,theprojectcommitteeshouldmeetfrequentlytoconsideralltheissuesassoonaspossible,thusavoidinganydeviationfromtheinitiallydefinedoperatingprogram.

47


Othercommitteescouldalsobesetup,butwillonlyinterveneintechnicalactivities:TechnicalCommittee (technical aspects of the solution) or Administrative Committee (evaluation ofserviceproposalsandfinancialbidsforequipment).

6 . A n a ly s i s o f b u s i n e s s p r o c e s s e s a n d r e e n g i n e e r i n g

Theprocessesareatthebasisofthesystem’soperationandperformances.Thisiswhyitisimportanttowellanalyzethemandchartoutthepossibleareaofimprovement.

Thus,itshouldbespecifiedthatthepurposeofaSingleWindowisessentiallythemigrationfrommanualprocedurestoamoreoptimizedandsecuredinformationchannel,whichisnotaimedatputtingintoquestiontheprerogativesofanyinstitutionalstakeholder.

The analysis of business processes is a study of existing processes within the targetedorganizations. ThecreationofaSingleWindowwithoutanalyzingandreengineeringtheseprocesseswillmerelyreproducetheexistingflawsandpossiblyminimizetheexpectedgains.Theanalysisofprocessesconsistsinunderstandingthefeaturesofbusinessprocessesandtheirinterconnections,andalsoclearlyidentifyingtheroleofanystakeholderinthesystem.

Themodeling of processes is a technique to document business processes where everyelementisrepresentedbygraphicnotationstoillustratethepointslistedbelow:

• Activitiesthatcomeinaspecificorderanddecisionpoints;• Stakeholderscarryingoutthoseactivities;• Inputsandoutputssetforeachactivity,relatedcriteriaandrules;• Interconnectionamongstakeholders;• Informationflowthroughoutthecompany;• Quantitativeindicatorssuchasthenumberofstagesaswellasthetimeandcostnecessary

tocompleteaspecificbusinessprocess.

OrganizationssuchasUNCEFACTproposemethodologiesforprocessanalysisbasedontheUNCEFACTModelingMethodology(UMM).

48


The UNCEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) is a modeling approach that enables the design of business services which all partners and stakeholders should develop to facilitate collaboration.“UMM enables to capture business knowledge independent of the underlying implementation technology used, like Web Services or EBXML. The goal is to specify a global choreography of a business collaboration serving as an agreement between the participating partners in the respective collaboration. Each business partner derives in turn its local orchestration, enabling the configuration of the business partner’s system for the use within a service-oriented architecture”, WikipediaThe UMM collaboration model is based on three major mappings: i) A Business Domain View (BDV), ii) A Business Requirements View (BRV) and iii) A Business Transaction View (BTV). These three pillars of the UMM model are generally stereotyped. For instance, the BDV is described as follows: “The BDV is used to gather knowledge from stakeholders and business experts. Through interviews, the business analysis tries to have a good understanding of processes in a specific area. The description of cases of use related to a given process remains at a high level. One or several types of partners may be involved in a process, but it may be that no stakeholder has an interest in the process. The BDV leads to the development of a process mapping, i.e. a categorization of the process…”

BOX 2: Example of setting up a BPA

UNESCAP’s BPA efforts in Asia

The BPA approach contributes to building the basic capacities for the implementation of paperless trade and Single Window. In fact, to improve the efficiency and efficacy of trade processes and information flows throughout the logistics chain, it is vital that the procedures in place be analyzed prior to the implementation of trade facilitation reforms such as a Single Window.The goal of BPA training sessions provided by UNESCAP is to facilitate the analysis of the processes in place and develop recommendations for the improvement of trade processes and information flows.

These training sessions generally help participants to better understand the role of business process analysis in simplifying procedures, harmonizing data and implementing a Single Window.

Theresults fromthebusinessprocessanalysiswillserveasastartingpointto implementtradefacilitationmeasures,inlinewiththesettingupofaSingleWindow,suchas:• Simplificationofprocedures;• Simplificationofdocumentrequirementsandtheiralignmentwithinternationalstandards;• Automationofinternationaltradetransactionsandcreationofelectronicdocumentsfor

theSingleWindow.

49


Thus, UNESCAP plays a very important role in promoting the Single Window principle and assisting in the optimization of Foreign Trade procedures.

Harmonization of data and documents with standards such as the WCO Data Model, etc.

With a view to ensuring maximum interoperability among the various stakeholders in international trade, the World Customs Organization (WCO) set up a standardized data model enabling the harmonization and effective exchange of data. This WCO data model represents a maximum set of demands carefully combined, harmonized and inspired from the regulation of cross border flows.

The WCO thrives to regularly update these demands in order to meet the legal and procedural needs of border agencies such as Customs, for the control of export, import and transit transactions.

The WCO Data Model is based on the revised Kyoto Convention which makes it mandatory for Customs Administrations to request a minimum set of data to ensure compliance with customs laws in each country.

The rigorous use of the WCO Data Model guarantees that any new data demand, as part of procedures to regulate cross border flows, follows a thorough analysis of the need and leads to a decision based on international standards.

Simplification and standardization of Foreign Trade docume

Setting up a Single Window necessarily requires simplification and unification of Foreign Trade procedures. In that regard, it is recommended to set up a committee in charge of optimizing the procedures and documents in use.

The work of such a committee can be organized in four major phases:• Analysis of Foreign Trade procedures; • Description of Foreign Trade operators’ information; • Plan the simplification of document standardization procedures;• Proposal of a solution scenario for generalization of EDI.

The simplification plan developed as part of the committee’s work should propose a range of concrete measures aimed at facilitating and optimizing Foreign Trade operations. Besides, it should also provide answers to the shortcomings noted in the processes as well as in the flow of documents among the various Foreign Trade stakeholders.

To do so, the plan could focus around three major pillars, namely: • Horizontal measures to optimize procedures and documentary flows;• Proposals of target procedures per process and sub-process;• Priority projects with action planning.

50


7 . D e f i n i t i o n o f t h e i m p l e m e n tat i o n s t r at e g y

This stage consists in defining the mode of implementation. There are three modes ofimplementationgenerallyusedacrosstheworld:• Developmentofthesolutionandinternaloperatingcapacity;• ChoiceofsolutionproviderunderaconcessionorBOTcontract.

Each formulahas itsprosandcons,whosescopevariesaccording to thecountrycontext.Thefollowingtemplateraisestheissueandcanhelpdecisionmakersfindthebestformuladependingonthecountry:

ThesynthetictablebelowisbasedonthevariousoptionsanalyzedfromtheperspectiveofthedesignatedNationalChampion’scapacitytopilottheimplementationofaSingleWindow:

FORMULAS PROS CONS SUCCESS CONDITIONS

INTERNAL SOLUTION AND OPERATION

Independence and capacity to adapt the solution to the needs.

Too high cost, very long timeline and excessively long maturing period. It takes 4 to 5 years to have a stable and operable solution.

A well trained team and judicious choice of technologies. Announce sufficiently comfortable timeline so as not to repeatedly delay implementation.

EXTERNAL SOLUTION AND INTERNAL OPERATION

This is the most common approach as there is a gain in time and maturity of the solution selected if it has already proved effective elsewhere.

Technological dependence on the supplier for evolutions.

Ensure that the solution selected is already working in the same conditions elsewhere with satisfaction. Demand knowledge transfer if possible.

SERVICES PROVIDER (CONCESSION OR BOT)

Financing is not a problem, and there is no risk taken on the hazardsof project management.

Services are often very weak and costly as the operator seeks to cover their risk and avoid being drawn into specifications.

Well draft the specifications and make sure the provider correctly implements with measurable results. Avoid being limited to a best-endeavors obligation.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIONAL CHAMPION IN CHARGE OF IMPLEMENTATION

HIGH CAPACITY MEDIUM CAPACITY LOW CAPACITY

INTERNAL SOLUTION & OPERATION

Risky Very risky Not to be considered

EXTERNAL SOLUTION & INTERNAL OPERATION

Favorable Favorable Risky

SERVICE PROVIDER (BOT OR CONCESSION)

Limited interest Limited interest Favorable

51


What type of architecture? Centralized, decentralized?What infrastructure and hardware do we need?What infrastructure is in use? What is the status of computerization? If none, what can the existing infrastructure sustain?What is the legal framework? Is it sufficient?Are there improvement projects?What is the time allotted to set up the project?What are the most critical processes?What are the bottlenecks?Who adheres to this project?What are the targets?What is the stakeholders’ level of technological maturity?What are the processes to be developed, rewritten?What is the change management risk level?How do we enroll the maximum number of stakeholders in the sector?

8 . D e v e l o p m e n t o f s p e c i f i c at i o n s

“The book of specifications is a document which contains the list of needs, demands and requirements to be met in the implementation of a project” sourceWikipedia.

UnderaSingleWindow,itwouldberiskytolimitoneselftoabookoftechnicalspecificationsbecauseaSingleWindowismorethananITproject.Variousaspectsneedtobelookedat:• Technicalaspect;• Organizationalaspect;• Operationalaspect(includingtheconcessionmodel).Specifications should always be drafted for each component, while taking into accountinterconnectionsamongthevariousaspects.

Thecontentofthespecificationsoftenadapttothepolitical,legalandeconomiccontext.Thefollowingboxcontainsasetofquestionsthatwillhelpyoubettertranscribethespecifications.

9 . P r o j e c t i m p l e m e n tat i o n a n d d e p l o y m e n t

Inmethodologyterms,theimplementationofaSingleWindowfollowsatraditionalsystemforthemanagementofITsystemintegrationprojects.However,theprojectteamshouldagreeupstreamonamethodandtoolsthatenabletomonitortheprogress,budget,workingpointsandrisks.Itisimportanttodefineaclearcommunicationstrategy,targetingallstakeholdersandenablingtoliftallresistancetochangeateachstageoftheprojectimplementation.

52


However,specificconstraintstotakeintoaccountaretheavailabilityofresources(human,financial,technicaletc),thenatureofneedsandtheinterestofchange,whichvaryaccordingtothepublicadministrationsandsectorsinvolved.ForasuccessfulSingleWindow,specialattentionshouldbegiventothefollowingelements:

• Phasingindeploymentovertime;• Changemanagementstrategy;• Takingintoaccountthespecificitiesofpublicadministrations;• Modalitiesfordeploymentandtransitiontowardsoperation.

9.1 Sequencing of deployment

InaSingleWindowproject,itisimportanttohaveanambitiousvision,butalsotostartwithinterimobjectives,whichmayreasonablybereachedwithtangibleresultsthatwillincreasetheproject’sattractiveness.

Moreover,startingwitha largescope increasestheriskof failure,sinceusersdonothavetimetoabsorbthechange,andtheprojectteamrisksbeingunderstaffedtoproperlysupporteachstakeholder.Therefore,deploymentshouldbepreparedwiththerightbalancebetweenthefollowingtwofactors:• Definingseveralphasesorwavesofdeployment,withreasonablespacingtoenablebetter

ownership;• Reorganizingthescopeintosimpleandcoherentfunctionallots,tobedeployedateach

phase.

However,evenifthedeploymentisgradual,theinfrastructureoftheSingleWindowshouldbeinitiallydimensionedinatargetconfigurationtoavoidcostlyreadjustmentsinthecourseoftheproject.

9.2 Change management strategy

The change management system of a Single Window should include the following vitalcomponents, which must be well organized at the start of the project and graduallyimplemented:• Involvestakeholdersatthestartoftheproject,withthecreationofusergroupscomprising

therespectivefocalpointswhowillbeinvolvedfromtheanalysisphase;• Communicationstrategy,withtransmitters,messages,channelsandafrequencyadapted

toeachofthestakeholders;• Trainingforthefocalpointsofvariousadministrationsastrainers,tofacilitateownership

oftheSingleWindowandserveasrelaysfortheircolleagues;• Functionalandtechnicalassistance;• Supportusersinthefield.

Theexpectationsandconcernsofallstakeholdersshouldbemanagedproactivelytofacilitatetheirbuyin.Infact,changesrelatedtotheSingleWindowimplementationmaybeperceivedasasourceofinsecuritywithregardtoworkingmethods,acquiredadvantagesorevencareerprospects.

53


Illustration 8 : Evolution of user insecurity according to project phases

Toincreasethechancesofsuccess,effortsmustbemadetomanagechange,asillustratedinthegraphabove,atthebeginningandthroughoutthelifeoftheproject,ratherthanjustatthepilotphaseanddeployment.

9.3Managingthespecificitiesofpublicadministrations

Oneshouldnotunderestimatethescopeofeffortstobedeployedtotakeintoaccountthespecificconstraintsofanadministration.Infact,integratingeachnewadministrationintotheSingleWindowmayberegardedasseparateprojectbecauseitrequires:• Situationanalysisandreengineeringofspecificprocesses;• Integrationwithexistingsystemsandpossiblytheirmodification;• Adaptedchangemanagementstrategy.

Insomedevelopingcountries,thescarcityofmeansleadstoadditionaleffortstomeettheneedsforprocessingexpectedaspartofaSingleWindowoperation.

9.4 Managing the transition phase to operation

ThemostimportantpartofaSingleWindowprojectstartswithdeployment,whichisoneofthemajorriskperiods,duringwhichanycriticalincidentmayjeopardizepreviousefforts.Therecommendationsdescribedbelowmaybefollowedtoreducetherisksinherentinthisstage:• Startthedeploymentphaseoveramanagedperimeter;• Spacedeploymentwavestoenablegradualownership;• Stimulatestakeholderperformancebybuildingtheircapacitiesifneed;• Continuethegradualdeploymentuntilfullcoverageoftheperimeter.

Attheendofthedeploymentphase,theprojectteamwillhandovertotheentityinchargeofoperatingtheSingleWindow.Thatentitywillbeinchargeofmanagingcurrentoperationover

54


thedeployedandstabilizedperimeter.Thankstothedevelopmentofperformancemonitoringindicators,theentitywilloperatetheSingleWindowbycarryingoutchangemanagementandtechnicalassistanceactions,andby identifyingthenecessaryevolutionsto integrate intotheapplication.

9.4.1 Information quality and security policy

Considering the critical importance of positioning a Single Window within Foreign Tradeprocedures,itisvitaltoputinplaceadataqualityandsecuritypolicy.Suchapolicyrequirestheadoptionoftechnicalandorganizationalmeasures,namely:

Data access management:o Ensurethesecurityofthepremises;o Ensurethesecurityofthecomputerrooms;o Securetheworkstations;o Usestrongidentificationandauthentication;o Manageremoteaccess.

Data life cycle management:o Pseudonymizationandanonymization;o Dataencryption;o Mediasecurity;o Databackupandarchivingo Datadestruction;o Subcontracting(third-partyprocessing).

Secure data transfert through:o Networksecurity;o Messageencryption;o Messagesignature;o Datamediatransmission;o Transferlogging.

Oneofthemostinterestingsystemstoalsoprovideforisthatrelatingtopersonaldataprotection.Inaccordancewiththedomesticlawofeachcountry,thecollectionofpersonaldataisonlylegalunder strict conditions, and only to serve a legitimate purpose. Besides, the SingleWindowmanagementbodyshouldpreventtheirfraudulentuseandrespecttherightsconferredontheownersofthesedata.

9.4.2 Continuity of activity

To guarantee the continuity of activities and services, the Single Window should develop,implementandmaintainanActivityContinuityPlan(ACP),dependingonthekeyForeignTradestakeholders,notablybycoveringthefollowingareas:

55


• ContinuityofITservicesprovidedtothepartnersandclients;• Continuityofgeneralresources“ITresources”andreconstitutionofworkingenvironments;• Managementofcrisisandcommunicationatalllevels. I- DIALOGUE STRUCTURES

DialoguestructuresareframeworksforconsultationanddecisionssharedamongthevariousstakeholdersaroundtheSingleWindow.Theygenerallyinvolvethefollowing:

• Customs,portandairport;• Publicadministrationsissuingauthorizationsorcertificates;• Privateadministrations:banks,insurance,etc.;• Logisticsstakeholders:approvedcustomsagent,stevedores,

consignees,etc.• SingleWindow stakeholders in Africa and the rest of the

world.

The existence of dialogue structures is fundamentally inherent in the active neutrality ofSingleWindows,alignedontheobjectiveofcompetitiveForeignTradeformalities.

I-1 The various dialogue frameworks

In general, there are as many dialogue frameworks as there are stakes around a SingleWindow. To facilitate understanding, thedialogue frameworkswill need tobe segmentedandstakeholdersidentifiedateachlevel.

I-1-1 Segmenting dialogue frameworks

Managing the diversity of dialogue frameworks requires segmentation along two criteria:geographic(nationalandinternational)andthenumberofstakeholdersintheSingleWindow(1(bilateral)orseveral(multilateral)).

ThissegmentationenablesustodevelopadialoguetemplatearoundtheSingleWindowatfourlevels:

The various consultation frameworks that exist or need to be set up are grouped into 4segmentsasfollows:

I-1-2 Strategic levels of dialogue

Theidentificationofstrategiclevelsofdialoguewillresultfromthecross-referencematrixofsegmentationcriteria,whichenablestoidentify4strategiclevels:

CRITERIA BILATERAL MULTILATERAL

NATIONAL Strategic Level 1 Strategic Level 2

INTERNATIONAL Strategic Level 3 Strategic Level 4

56


Illustration 9 : strategic dialogue levels

Strategic level 1 :national et

bilateral

Strategic level 3 :international and bilateral

Strategic level 2 :national et multilateral

Strategic level 4 :international et multilateral

Thisvariousstrategiclevelsenabletohighlightthenatureofdialoguelevelsasfollows:

DIALOGUE BETWEEN• SW and administrative

stakeholder (public or priate);

• SW and a user.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN• SW and a foreign

counterpart;• SW and a foreign

administration (where there is no counterpart SW in a country.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN• SW and a foreign

counterpart;• SW and a foreign

administration (where there is no counterpart SW in a country.

DIALOGUE BEWEEN•SW and several administrative stakeholder (public or priate);

•SW and several groups of stakeholders or users;

•SW and several users.

57


I-2 Dialogue structures at the various strategic levels

The analysis of dialogue structures, based on the experience of various single windows,enablestoclassifythemaccordingtothe4strategiclevelspreviouslyidentified.

Whilethereisagreementonthemeaningofdialogueframeworks,whichismainlytofacilitategood implementation of SingleWindow activities (removal of constraints, development offacilities, etc.), these partnership frameworks should fit into a dynamics of continuousimprovement.

I-3 Dialogue structures in the BALI Agreements

The newBali Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA) takes into account the importance ofdialogue for its implementation and highlights it in the framework of cooperation amongstakeholdersattheborder,atnationalaswellasinternationallevels.

Reconciliation between Trade Facilitation Agreements and the strategic levels of dialogueframework of identified Single Windows puts them at Strategic Levels 2 (national andmultilateral)and4(internationalandmultilateral).

CRITERIA BILATERAL MULTILATERAL

NATIONAL

Strategic Level 1

• Business Focal Point;• Technical Focal pPoint;• Technical Assistance• Ad hoc Work Session.

Strategic Level 2

• General Assembly,• Board of Directors;• Supervisory Board;• Steering Committee;• Executive Secretariat• National Trade Facilitation

Committee;• Inspection Coordination Unit;• Strategy Papers;• Evaluation Seminars;• Satisfaction Survey.

INTERNATIONAL

Strategic Level 3

• Joint Commission;• Steering Committee.

Strategic Level 4

• Regional Economic Commissions;• Regional Associations (AAEC, PAA) ;• International Forums (UNCEFACT,

UNECE, UNESCAP, UNECA, UN, etc.) ;

• UNNEXT ;• International Events: SWC.

58


STRATEGIC DIALOGUE LEVEL BALI ARTICLES

Strategic Level 2 (national and multilateral)

Article 13.2 National Trade Facilitation Committee “Each member shall establish or maintain a national trade facilitation committee or designate an existing mechanism, to facilitate both internal coordination and implementation of this agreement”.

Article 8: “Border Agency Cooperation”

Art 8.1 “Each Member shall ensure that its authorities and agencies responsible for border controls and procedures dealing with the importation, exportation, and transit of goods cooperate with one another and coordinate their activities in order to facilitate trade”.

Art 8.2 : “Each Member shall, to the extent possible and practicable, cooperate on mutually agreed terms with other Members with whom they share a common border with a view to coordinating procedures at border crossings to facilitate cross-border trade. Such cooperation and coordination may include:(i) alignment of working days and hours;(ii) alignment of procedures and formalities;(iii) development and sharing of common facilities;(iv) joint controls;(v) establishment of one stop border post control”.

Strategic Level 4 (international and multilateral)

II. MONITORING

Monitoringconsists in following theSingleWindow’sperformance indicators. It fits intoa3-levelapproach:

• First,thestartingpointisthesettingoftheSingleWindow’sperformancetargets,whichareformalizedandcommunicatedtoallthestakeholders;

• Then,theseperformancesshouldbemonitoredandperiodicallyreported;• Finally, satisfaction surveys are regularly conducted to ensure that the services are

consistentwiththeusers’needsandexpectations.

59


Illustration 10 : Monitoring

1. Performance Contract

3. Satisfaction Survey

2. Periodic Activity Reports

Beyondsetting theperformance targetsofSingleWindowsandsetting theiractivities inadynamicsofcontinuousimprovementthatrequiresgivingprideofplacetothemanagementandmonitoringoftheirperformance,oneshouldalsoconsidertheirimpactoninternationalindicatorssuchasDoing BusinessandLogistics Performance Index (LPI).

60


Monitoring Levels Observations

Per individual or administration (Performance Agreement)

The performance targets assigned to each stakeholder could be the subject of a performance covenant signed by each stakeholder concerned.To maintain that performance dynamics, motivation strategies could be implemented by the Single Window or administration concerned to the benefit of administrations or their competitive agents.

Per Transaction

For each transaction in a Single Window, observance of performance targets should be a reality. Failing that, the technical or functional causes of delay should be identified, and the expected responses or corrections should be carried out speedily.Thus, each transaction should be monitored from start to finish until its delivery.Stakeholders and users should also be given the possibility to enquire about the status of their dossier and receive information within the required timeframe.

System Evaluation of the file processing timeby all the administrations involved should be a reality for each Single Window.

Technical

The quality of performance hinges on the quality of infrastructure and connectivity.Single Windows should ensure the upgrading of their infrastructure, but also that of the connected public or private administrations.

II-2 International Level Monitoring

TheperformanceofSingleWindowsinfluencestheattractivenessofthebusinessenvironment.Thus,severalcountrieshavealreadyvalorizedtheirresultsinvariousDoingBusinessreportsonthecrossbordertradecriterion.

DoingBusiness valorizes electronic SingleWindowsby taking into consideration all SingleWindowprocedureasasingleprocedure.

II-1 National Level Monitoring

Ittakesplaceatseverallevelsasfollows:

61


Doing Business: the crossborder trade criterion

Doing Business lists the timeframe and costs related to goods export and import logistics. In accordance with the new methodology put in place this year, Doing Business measures the timeframe and costs (exclusive of customs duties) related to three categories of procedure – observance of documentation requirements, observance of cross border trade and internal transport procedures – which are part of the overall goods export and import process. The rating of economies based on cross border trade facilitation is done by sifting the scores of distance from the border for the cross border trade indicator. These scores correspond to the simple average of all scores of distance from the border, computed for the timeframe and cost of lodging the required documentation and observance of trans border trade procedures for export and import…

Cross border trade data are collected through a questionnaire sent to local forwarding agents, customs agents and traders. Responses to the questionnaire go through several verification cycles with monitoring of respondents, exchanges with third parties and consultation of public sources.The questionnaire data is confirmed by teleconference or visits to all the economies.

http://francais.doingbusiness.org/methodology

Logistics Performance Index (LPI): overall performance (1= low et 5 = high)

The overall score of the Logistics Performance Index reflects the perceptions related to a country’s logistics based on the efficacy of customs clearance processes, the quality of trade infrastructure and related transport infrastructure, the ease of shipment at competitive prices, the quality of infrastructure services, the shipment monitoring and traceability capacity and the frequency with which shipments arrive at destination on time. The index scale is 1 to 5 and the highest score represents the best performance. The data for the index are drawn from LPI surveys carried out by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions as well as private corporations and people active in the international logistics market.

http://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicateur/LP.LPI.OVRL.XQ

TheotherindicatorimpactedbytheperformanceofSingleWindowsistheLPI:

62


Section 5

Performance Evaluation and Consolidation

63


ToimprovetheoverallperformanceoftheSingleWindowandmakeitvaluableasystemshouldbeputinplacetomeasureandmonitorserviceimprovement.AsetoftoolsandindicatorsshouldbedevelopedtoallowpermanentmonitoringoftheSingleWindow’sperformanceandproposeareasofimprovementforitsconsolidation.

1 . E va l u at i o n M e c h a n i s m s

AsisthecasewithanyITsystem,therearemainlytwotypesofevaluation,firstduringtheimplementationoftheproject,thenaftertheimplementationoftheproject:

Evaluation of the methodology used to put in place the Single Window :thisisthe final evaluation of the project; it seeks tomeasure efficacy and efficiency. I generallytranslatesinto:• Appraisaloftheauthorities’levelofcommitmentgenerallyshownthroughthepublication

of texts, laws andenforcementdecrees for theuseof the SingleWindowas the soleplatformfortradeandvalidationofrequests;

• Verification of the efficacy of change implementation and sensitization: workshops,seminars,signingperformancecovenants,trainingandcoachingofusers.

EvaluationtheSingleWindowsresultsandeffects: Itshouldpermanentinorderto measure the Single Windows performance and propose areas of consolidation. Thisevaluationtranslatesintothedevelopmentofindicatorsthatenablethemonitoringof: • Cutsintime:processingtimesintimeframemode(24/7)andinduration.• Costcutting:savingsintraveltime,cutsinprinting;• Improvementoftransparenceamongstakeholders.

64


2 . Ava i l a b i l i t y M a n a g e m e n t

TheperformanceofaSingleWindowshouldbesupportedbyagoodavailabilitymanagementpolicy,whichshouldensurethatthelevelofservicesprovidedmeetsorexceedstheneedsagreedinarationaleofprofitability.

AsisthecasewithanyITsystem,thebasicparametertodefinetorestoreservices,whentheyarenotavailable,isMeanTimetoRestoreService(MTRS).Thisparametermaybeestimatedbasedonassistancemeansandtoolsprovidedtothetechnicalmedia.

Othervariantsmaybedefinedaspartoftechnicaloperation,withaviewtotakecareofanydefault.

3 . P e r f o r m a n c e M a n a g e m e n t

Tomaintain thecommitment levelofSingleWindowstakeholders, it isnecessary toput inplaceanumberofdynamiclevers:

• Preciselyspecifytheperformancemeasurementunitswhicharethekeyindicators;• Maximum use of standards and statistics that are easily interpreted and easier to

communicatetoquantifytheobservations;• Usethevarioussourcesofinformationpossible,suchastheSingleWindowsproduction

data,stakeholders’ITsystemdataandindicatorspriortotheadventoftheSingleWindow;• Definetheperiodicityforpublishingreportsandateachproductioninsistonneedsfor

improvement.• Identifythemajorrecipientsofreports:tradeunions,authorities,managers,stakeholders

andotherhighrankingdecisionmakers;• Produce a dashboard to constantly monitor gaps from indicators and warn the

stakeholdersthatarebelowthesetperformancethreshold.

65


4 . A s s i s ta n c e , m o n i t o r i n g a n d c o n s o l i d at i o n s y s e m

Assistance Center: Servicecenterputinplaceasasinglepointofcontact(SPOC)tomanagerequests,incidents,problemsandevents

Performance monitoring tools: Thisisasetoftoolsprovidedtotheservicecenterforperformancemonitoring

BI decision making tools:Decisionmaking tools based on the concept of Business Intelligence and using analyticaldatabases(OLAP).

66


Annexes

67


Annexe 1 : Single Window Management and Operating Systems

Single Window management bodies: Case of the Moroccan Single Window, PortNet.

• Service Desk: desksetupas thesolepointofcontact (SPOC) for themanagementoforders,incidents,problemsandevents.

• Operations Desk:thegoalofthisdeskistoensurehighavailabilityoftheSingleWindowplatform,inordertoprovideabetterservice.

• Training and Customer Relations Desk: thisdesksupportsusersof theplatform inprocedures related to itsuse. Thedeskalso takescareof communicationaround theSingleWindow,atnationalandinternationallevels.

• IT System Department:thisdepartmentisaimedatmanagingtheITsystemoperationsoftheSingleWindowplatform.

• Single Window Steering Committee:thiscommitteeisaimedatdevelopingthestrategicpillarsoftheSingleWindowandrecordinvestmentandgovernancechoices

• Partner Relations Desk: theSingleWindowcontextdemandsthesettingupofadesktotakecareofrelationswiththevariouspartnersoftheplatform:Customs,forwardingagents,etc.Thisdesk’smainmissionistocoordinateamongthevariousstakeholdersinordertoguaranteeefficacyoftheplatform.

Steering Committee

IT Systems department

Operations Desk

Service Desk Partners Relations Desk

Training and customer Relations

Desk

68


• Performance monitoring tools: thisisasetoftoolsprovidedtotheservicedeskforthemonitoringofperformance;

• BI decision making tools: decisionmaking tools based on the Business Intelligence

concept and using analytical databases (OLAP). These tools provide a customizeddashboardforeachusersoastoenablethemtomanagetheiractivity;

• WorkflowEngine:inanenvironmentsimilartoaSingleWindow,itisrecommendedtobuildtheplatformaroundaworkflowengine. Thisenginewillenablegreatflexibility intermsofmodifyingthemanagementrulesandprocesses;

• Test Plateform: theSingleWindowisthesubjectoffrequentrequestsforevolution.Itisthereforeindispensabletoprovideforatestautomationtoolinordertoswiftlycarryoutnon-regressiontestsandbein‘TimetoMarket’mode;

Management and governance tools:

Illustration 11 : Management and governance tools

69


• Tools for Single Window access authentication: the most commonly usedauthenticationtoolstoaccessSingleWindowsareofPINtype(and/orpasswordsystem)andPKI(PublicKeyInfrastructure);

• EDI messaging management tool: EDIconnectionsbetweencustomssystems,freightcommunitysystems,commercialoperatorssystems,banksandautomatedlicensecontrolsystems;

• Platform security management: the development of a Single Window should giveseriousconsiderationtotheITsecurityaspectbyusingaframeworkfortheimplementationofsecuritystandardssuchasISO27001andBS7799;

• Quality assurance framework: the ssound operation of a Single Window platformrequirestheadoptionofaqualityassuranceapproachinordertoguaranteesatisfactoryservicedelivery;

• Performance management tools: to ensurehighperformanceby theplatform, it isrecommendedtoprocureanITperformancemanagementtool inordertomonitorthebuildup.

70


Annexe 2 : Synthesis of peer review findings

In2014,theAfricanAllianceforElectronicCommerce(AAEC)introduced,withsupportfromtheWorldBank,animpactevaluationofForeignTradeformalitiesSingleWindowsthroughthepeerreviewmechanism.

InaccordancewithmajorinternationalbenchmarkingindicatorssuchasDoingBusiness,theaimofthisimportantexercisewastocarryoutobjectiveevaluationoftheimpactofSingleWindowsinperformanceofgoodsprocessinginthetargetcountries,withaviewtohighlightallthestrengthsandidentifypossibleweaknesses.

Thefirsteditionrecordedtheparticipationofthefollowingvolunteercountries:Cameroon,Ghana,Madagascar,MauritiusandSenegal.

ThefindingsfromthisreviewshouldserveasanimprovementframeworkforthecountriesinvolvedandabenchmarkforneworcurrentlyimplementedSingleWindows.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Launched in2014 inPointenoire,RepublicofCongo, theevaluationwent throughseveralphases.Thefollowingdiagramsillustratetheactivitybasedonthepeerreviewmechanism:

Illustration 12 :Evaluation methodology

71


Itisimportanttonotethatalltheoperational,technical,organizationalandlegalaspectsofthefivesystemswerereviewedtoidentifytheirstrengthsandweaknesses.Theevaluationwascarriedoutthroughpresentations,userinterviewsanddemonstrations.Duringtheexercise,theCustomsandafewotherusersofthesystemwerevisited.

REVIEW OF GASYNET/MADAGASCAR

Composition of the peer review team

GAYSNET,theSingleWindowoperatorinMadagascar,wasfoundedin2007underaPublic-Private Partnership (PPP) between the Government (30%) and the SGS company (70%).However, thepartnership isnotbasedonanysolid legal framework. ItsbusinessstrategyandfinancialmodelarebasedoncustomsoperationsthroughtheSingleWindowplatform.

Reviewer World Bank Consultant

Peer Countries Mauritius

Field Activities Coordinator GASYNET/Madagascar

Illustration 13 :Evaluation methodology

72


Theservicesbillingmodelisbasedonthefollowingconditions:

•Costofimports:• alumpsumforfreightbelow25,000EUR• apercentageoftheCAFvalueforfreightabove25,000EUR

•Costofexports:• alumpsumispaiddependingonthetypeofshipment.

Implementation and performance• Therewasasustainedgrowthofcustomsrevenue;• Areductionofcustomsprocessingtime(from16to4daysforclearance,andfrom20to

lessthan7daysforthewholeprocessingtime);

Challenges and recommendations Thecustomssystem(ASYCUDA)isattheendofitslifecycleandshouldbereplaced.ThisputsMadagascarinadelicatesituation,asthereiscurrentlynostrategyorplantomanagethissignificantchangeprogram;

It is therefore suggested to theWorldBank that aneutralpartybeappointed tohelpMadagascarcarryoutthefollowingtasks

• Carryoutadetaileddiagnosissuchasbusinessenvironmentanalysis;• Assistinthedevelopmentofshort,mediumandlongtermstrategicplan;• Assistinthedevelopmentandimplementationofimminentchangeprograms.

Strategic Orientation and Pilots:• The customs system needs to be coordinatedwith the strategic orientation of Single

Window operations. This may be done by developing strategic pilots derived fromthe balanced dashboards, and by implementing key performance indicators for thedepartmentsandleadersatallthelevelsoftheorganization.

• CustomsmaytakeadvantageoftheGasyNetstatisticsandreportstohelpimproveandmanagethisprocess.

Compendium on the legal framework of Single Windows

•ItissuggestedtoAAECthatalegalframeworkcompendiumcomprisingthelegalprovisions,processes,systemfunctionalitiesand lessons learnedbecompiledandconsolidatedbyallthecountriesevaluatedthroughthepeerreviewmechanism.ThiswouldprovideaguideforAAECmembersandothercountriestryingtobuildandextendtheirSingleWindow.

73


REVIEW OF GUCE/CAMEROON

GUCE - Cameroon’s SingleWindow operator - is a PPP-type organization operating as aneconomicinterestgroup.Itisbasedonalegalframeworkforitsoperationandbusinessmodel.Its services cover thepre-clearanceand clearanceprocesses. Currently, theenvironmentis not yet dematerialized throughout. This SingleWindow still demands paper aswell aselectronicdocumentsforForeignTradetransactions.

Implementation and Performance:

Challenges and Recommendations:

1. Strongerleadershipandbetterimplementationofchangemanagementarenecessarytoestablishanelectronic,paperlessprocessinthecountry.

2. Needtopermanently informimportersandexportersonthefunctions,processesandservicesprovidedbytheSingleWindowenvironment.

3. Every2years,holdaseriesofSingleWindowevaluations.


Peer Countries GASYNET/Madagascar

Field Acitivies Coordinator GUCE/Cameroon

Time Saving 50.24%

Fully Paperless Procedures

• e-Manifest; • e-payment of customs duties and

tax; • e-ID; e-CIVIO (used cars); e-insurance.

Interfaced Stakeholders:

OGA 15%

Customs 100%

Commercial Banks 100%

Insurance Companies 100%

Inspection Company 100%

Port Authority 100%

CAD 70%

Shipping Lines 100%

74


REVIEW OF GCNet/GHANA

GCNet is the SingleWindow for Foreign Trade Formalities of Ghana. The SingleWindowoperatesinaccordancewithnationalpolicy.Theplatformhasalreadyserved50%ofOGAs,100%ofGCMS(CustomsManagementSystem),theportauthority,2outof29commercialbanks,100%ofinspectioncompaniesatdestination,98%ofcustomsagents,100%ofshippinglines,100%offorwardingagentsandcontainerterminals/depots.

The supply chain and commercial procedures cover three main processes, namely theapproval/beforearrivalprocess,goodsrelease/receptiondeclarationprocessandtheremovalprocess.Thesecovertheregulatoryprocesses,thetransportprocesses,theSingleWindowprocesses,thepaperandpaperlessenvironmentandtheSingleWindowservices.


Challenges and Recommandations:

• ServiceLevelAgreements(SLA)shouldbeputinplacewithMDAs(Ministries,Departments,Agencies)toenhancecollaboration;

• ThehighlightsshouldbeintegratedintotheactivitymonitoringsystemofMDAs;• Controlshouldbeputinplacetochecktheaccuracyofinputdata;• AbetterSingleWindowstructureshouldbedeveloped;• Integrationwithportprocessingproceduresshouldbebetterdeveloped.


Peer Review Representative Senegal

Field Activities Coordinator GCNET/Ghana

Year-on-year average increase for the port of TEMA and KIA (Kotoka International Airport of Accra) 34%

Customs Clearance Procedure From 14 to 4 days

OGAs connected 17 out of 36

75


REVIEW OF MACCS/MAURITIUS

ThistypeofSingleWindowisasystemcalledPortSingleWindow.Itnearlyprovidesafullypaperless environment, in operation since 2009. This platform, called Mauritius CargoCommunitySystem(MACCS),canbeagoodreferencemodelforthecommunityofCCSSingleWindowsofothercountries.Itprovidesanelectronicdataexchangeplatformthatfacilitatesthecoordinationandtraceabilityofgoodsmovementsamong logisticsstakeholdersat theportandairport.Itisbasedonthe2008customsregulation,whichprovidesalegalstatustoMACCStointeractwiththeCustomsManagementSystem(CMS)andTradeNet.Thisregulationalsoprovidesforaclearmandatetooperatetheelectronicnetworksystemforitsservices.ThisSingleWindowplatformalsobenefitsfromstrongcollaborationbetweeninstitutionsandotherelectronictransactionsrelatedtothelegalframework.

Mauritiusshouldtakeadvantageofthevariousopportunitiesandmanyvalueaddedservicesfound in the current system and in the organizationalmanagement, while overcoming itsweaknesses.


ThroughthevariousservicesprovidedbytheMauritiusSingleWindowmodel,thefollowingperformancewasachieved:

Theseimplyagreatimpacton:

• visibilityofcontainersandmovementofgoodsthroughthesupplychain;• availabilityofinformationenablinggreatersecuritythroughcrosscheckingofdata;• improvedportdeliveryprocesses;• Reducedtransportcost(upto93%);


Peer Review Representative Gcnet/Ghana

Field Activities Coordinator MACCS/Mauritius Single Window

Shipping Line/Airlines 100%

Ground Handling Agencies and Terminal Operators (CHCL/GHAs) 100%

Warehousesdes/Container Freight Stations (CFSs) 10%

Forwarding Agents 100%

Master B/Ls (law on Bills of Lading) 100%

House B/Ls 100%

Master AWB (Air Waybill) (2013 data, but 100% in 2014) 2%

House AWB (2013 data, but 100% in 2014) 2%

Customs Declarations for transshipment at sea 100%

76


Senegal has a SingleWindow for customs pre-clearance and clearance formalities with a fewservicesrelatedtothealmostfullydematerialized,paperlesslogistics.

ThisSingleWindowplatformisdevelopedandoperatedbyGAINDE2000,aPPP-typecompany(CGPID92%and8%Private).Ittakescareofelectronicinteractionbetweenoperators,Customsagents, shipping companies, forwarding agents, banks, insurance companies, the inspectioncompany, customs administration and nearly all other foreign bodies to regulated trade withelectronic transmission of data and regulatory authorizations, consolidated online and offlinepayments of fees and duties, notifications and reporting services on the performance duringimportandexportprocedures.Thisisafullypaperlessenvironment,butnotforsomeexceptionalcases,suchasamendments.

Thisplatformhasbeenoperatingsince2004andwasgraduallyimprovedwithmoreprocessesandcontinuallyimprovedcoverageofservices.

Italsohasasolidleadershipandstrongcollaborationwithcustomsandotherstakeholders.

• reduced invisible costs (due to SLA and the visibility of information between thestakeholdersinvolved;

• eliminationofpapermanifests;• greatersecurityandaccuracyofcontainerdelivery;• efficacyofprocessing;• greatersecurity,forinstance:MACCSenabledCustomstobettercomplywiththeWCO’s

SAFEframeworkandstandards.

Challenges and Recommendations:

1. Use theopportunitiesof interactionwith theCustomsSingleWindowsupplier tomakethe services more remarkable/beneficial to the stakeholders (medium and long termperspective);

2. High-levelstakeholdermeetingsshouldbeheldregularly;3. Theremainingprocessesandmajorfunctionsanothervalueaddedservicesstillneedto

berapidlyimplementedandadopted;forinstancetheportexportprocess,theairimport/export related process, statistics and Business Intelligence reports, and value addedfunctionalitiesforback-endoperationsofcertainstakeholders;

4. To accommodate numerous promising new functions and value added services, theMACCShumanresourcesshouldbeconsideredmorestrategically.

SENEGAL’S ORBUS

Peer Review Team


Peer Review Representative GUCE/Cameroon

Field Activities Coordinator ORBUS/Senegal

77


Implementation and Performance

Time Saving Up to 90%

Cost Reduction Up to 65%

• StatisticsandUses

Number of Customs Declarations (2014) 183,902 (76%)

Pre-Import Declarations 100%

Number of OGA Transactions 58,272 (61%)

Manifests 16,259

• Users

Shipping Lines 91%

Forwarding Agents 100%

Authorized Customs Brokers (both ORBUS and CMS) 100%

• OtherServices

OGAs 90%

Inspection Companies 100%

Commercial Banks 100%

Insurance Companies 100%

Challenges and Recommendations

1. Astrategicorientationshouldbefollowedtoensureastrongpoliticalmandateforthefutureevolutionandsustainabilityoftheorganization.Thismechanismcouldalsostrategicallysupportthecollaborationanddevelopmentofmoreservicesfortheportcommunity,aswellasthepost-clearancefunctionality,shouldbeestablishedandexploited;

2. Amoresystematicapproachofprojectmanagement (PM)andresourcesdedicatedtoPMmaystillbeimprovedsincemanypromisingvalueaddedserviceshavebeenpursued;

3. Otherbusinessmodelsandrevenueflowsshouldbefurtherexplored;4. AproposalofKeyPerformanceIndicators(KPI)forthestrategicandoperationallevelmay

bedevelopedanddiscussedmorebroadly;5. Thepossibilityofmoreexternalhumanresources inperiodsofhighworkloadmaybe

exploredandfurtherestablished;6. The visibility of data forCustoms shouldbe available in a single interface rather than

severaluserinterfaces.

78


International Standards

The importanceofSingleWindows translates into theexistenceof severalproceedingsorrecommendationsbyvariousorganizations.TheWCO,UNCEFACT,ISOmainlyhaveabundantliteratureinthisfield.Interventionscanbeclassifiedin3categories:

1. Recommandationshigh-levelvisionmainlyWCO,UNCEFACT,IATA,FIATA,IMO,etc.;

2. Recommendations for the reengineering such as document definition, e.g. Rec. 1UNCEFACT;

3. Commonlyusedstandardssuchascountrycodes,unitsofmeasurementfoundintheoperationphase.ISOisthemostactiveorganizationinthisarea.

Followingisatableofthevariousstandards:

WCO Data Model v3.0

ISO 6346 Container Code

UN/CEFACT

Recommendation 1 “United Nations Layout Key for Trade Documents”Recommendation 3 “ISO 3166 Code for Representation of Names of Countries”Recommendation 5 “Abbreviations of INCOTERMS”Recommendation 7 “Numerical Representation of Dates, Time and Periods of Time”Recommendation 9 “ISO 4217 Alphabetic Code for the Representation of Currencies”Recommendation 10 “Code for the Identification of Ships”Recommendation 16 “Code for Trade and Transport Locations UN/LOCODE”Recommendation 17 “PAYTERMS: Abbreviations for Terms of Payment”Recommendation 19 “Codes for Modes of Transport”Recommendation 20 “Code for Units of Measure Used in International Trade”Recommendation 21 “Codes for Types of Cargo, Packages and Packaging Materials”Recommendation 23 “Freight Cost Code-FCC: Harmonization of the Description of Freight Costs and Other Charges”Recommendation 28 “Codes for Types of Means of Transport”Recommendation 33 “Recommendations and Guidelines Establishing a Single Window”Recommendation 34 “Simplification and Standardization of International Trade”Recommendation 35 “Establishing a Legal Framework for an International Trade Single Window”Recommendation 36 “Single Window Interoperability” (draft)

79


Technologies

Intermoftechnology,thereisnopre-establishedstandard.Infact,SingleWindowsoftwareeditors each have their own technological orientation based on the company’s technicalstrategy.

Awellcarriedoutsituationanalysisshouldenabletoidentifytheneedsforautomation,drawup an IT allotment plan describing the general principles of dimensioning and expectedperformance.

A. Hosting

ThefollowingprinciplesshouldbeobservedbytheSingleWindow’shostplatform:

• CentralizationoftheplatformhostingtheSingleWindowwithouthavingtomultiplythephysicalorlogicalenvironments;

• High availability of the platform enabling 24/7 operation and, in case of an incident,resumptionofservicewithinlessthan15minutes,withoutdataloss;

• Theplatformhasabackupsystemwithoverlappingofserversandotherequipmentaswellasproductiondatabaseandrealtimesynchronizedbackups;

• Theplatformhasaconsolidationsystem(Servers)andstoragepool (Databases)usingvirtualizationtechnologyaccordingtoneed

• Evolution of capacity and performance to ensure consistency between technicalperformance,trafficevolutionanddeployment;

• Settingupastrongsystemofauthentication(PKI-based)andelectronicsignature;• InteroperabilitytoexchangewithITsystemsofotherplatforms.

Inthisrespect,theproposedSingleWindowarchitectureandtechnologyshouldbeowned(managedwithspecificationsspecifictothecontext)andshouldbebasedonstate-of-the-artstandards.

1. Single Window Components

TheSingleWindowisbasedonsub-systems.Allthesesub-systemsareintegratedaroundthesamedatabaseandthesameEAI:

• ASub-system:adataanddocumentexchangeplatformamongForeignTradepartners.ThisplatformisintegratedaroundanEAIandsustainsalltheworkflows;

• ASingleWindow(Internet-based)foraccessanddisseminationofinformationonForeignTradeelectronicforms;

• AnITapplicationforForeignTradefilemonitoringandmanagement;• AnInternetPortalpresentingtheSingleWindowandForeignTrade;• Utilityapplicationsforoperationincludingbillingtoolsandusermonitoring;• Applicationsforwarehouseanddataoperation.

80


2. Connectivity TwocasesneedtobeconsideredfortheSingleWindow’smemberorganizations:

• TheorganizationdoesnothaveITapplicationstomanagethedataitwillexchangewiththe SingleWindow. In such a case, the SingleWindow, through its Internet capacity,shoulddevelopWebinterfacestoposttheforms;

• Theorganizationhas itsown ITsystemandexchangeswith theSingleWindowwillbethroughfileexchangeundervariousformats:EDIFACT,XML,flatFiles,etc.Inthissecondcase,theusermayalsousetheWebSingleWindow.TheSingleWindowshouldtakecareof the functionsofdataconversion, translationandtransmissionbetweenthevariousEDIformats

B. Cost Estimate and Implementation Timeframe

For41.6%ofthecountriesinterviewed,theSingleWindowbudgetisbetween5and10millionUSdollars,between2and5millionUSdollarsfor16.6%ofrespondents.Itismorethan10millionUSdollarsfor16.6%andlessthan2millionfor25%ofthecountries.

Illustration 14 :Cost Estimate and Implementation Timeframe

81


Costs DURATION OF VARIOUS PHASES (months)

COUNTRY TYPEOF S.W Start Date COST CONSENSUS STUDY DEVELOPMENT PILOT TOTAL YEARS

GHANA General 2002 6 Million USD 12 8 7 3 30 2.50

BURKINA FASO General NOT YET 12 6 6 6 30 2.50

LIBYA General NOT YET 3 6 12 14 35 2.92

MALI General NOT YET 6 12 12 12 42 3.50

MADAGASCAR General 2008 12 12 12 12 48 4.00

SENEGAL General 2004 12 Million USD 12 12 24 6 54 4.50

COTE D’IVOIRE Port 2008 36 18 18 2 74 6.17

CAMEROON General 2002 6 Million USD 12 24 24 36 96 8.00

CONGO Port 7.4 Million USD 60 36 36 18 150 12.50

MOROCCO 5 Million USD

AVERAGE 6.4 18 15 17 12 62 5

Source : AAEC Task Force

82


phone +221 33 824 70 10 +221 33 859 39 99fax +221 33 824 17 24mail [email protected]

1,Allées Seydou Nourou TALLPoint E-5e étage Immeuble Sophie MBAYEDakar-Sénégal

www.african-alliance.org

+22

1 70

874

58

59