1 Peter Johnston, MPI New Zealand Case study: NZ/DAFF ePhyto Project

2 Future Vision/concept

3 What does this mean? Webservices Design Preliminary discussions identified that the two services, uploading a certificate and requesting certificates may be implemented as a set of functions as follows: Retrieving Certificates To minimize the data volume of each individual transfer two methods are proposed. The first method will allow the recipient to pull a list of certificate numbers and status information from the hub / provider for a given timeframe. A second method will allow the recipient to request the complete certificate from the hub / provider for a given certificate number. Uploading Certificates Uploading certificates will be enabled via a simple webservice for approved certificates. The certificate details will be conveyed by way of the standardized SPS certificate XML. An additional service is required to “notify” the hub of a status change for certificates that have changed to “Replaced” or “Revoked”.

4 Push Vs Pull of certificate data? New Zealand and Australia have agreed on a Pull method to be utilised. To align with the delivery of hard copy certificates one might claim that the action should be with the party that owns the export assurance triggering event (i.e. exporting NPPO). This would result in a push method. However, some practical reasons were considered when a pull method was chosen.

5 Push Model A A Exporting Country Importing Country B B 1 1 Exporting Country Generates Certificate 2 2 Exporting Country Pushes Certificate to Importing Country Importing Country Receives and Acknowledges Certificate Advantages Real-time update of certificates. Works well for time-sensitive applications such as stock exchange transactions. Advantages Real-time update of certificates. Works well for time-sensitive applications such as stock exchange transactions. Disadvantages Requires both systems to be available/online. All data is sent. Usually more expensive. Disadvantages Requires both systems to be available/online. All data is sent. Usually more expensive.

6 Pull Model A A Exporting CountryImporting Country B B 1 1 Exporting Country Generates Certificate 2 2 Importing Country Retrieves Certificate (Schedule or Notification) Importing Country Receives and Acknowledges Certificate Advantages Not reliant on both systems being available/online at the same time. Importing country can chose what to retrieve, and when. Works well for non-time sensitive/critical applications. Usually cheaper. Advantages Not reliant on both systems being available/online at the same time. Importing country can chose what to retrieve, and when. Works well for non-time sensitive/critical applications. Usually cheaper. Disadvantages Not necessarily real-time. Disadvantages Not necessarily real-time.

7 Stage 1. Development in stage 1 involves a web service being created in NZ as an add-on to the MPI ePhyto. This web service enables Australia to request and obtain approved, replaced and/or revoked electronic certificate data sets for a specified date range.

8 Stage 2. In stage 2 a separate certificate database ( a certificate hub) is created for storing approved, replaced and revoked NZ MPI ePhyto certificates. A web service is implemented to enable ePhyto to submit such certificates into the hub. The retrieval web service from stage 1 is amended to retrieve certificates from the new hub database rather than directly from the MPI ePhyto database.

9 Status of Transferred Certificate Data Approved Replaced Revoked

10 Stage 3. Stage 3 does not require further software development, but merely further separates the certificate hub from the New Zealand ePhyto solution, thus elevating it to a (????) certificate hub for phytosanitary certificates and making it available for use by other participating countries.