1. Certificate webservices Certificates offload and upload mechanisms and application contexts
Presentation to
Ministero Della Salute
Rome
30/5 – 1/6 2012

2. Contents Certificate offload – System-to-System (B2B)
History and overview
Status and future
TRACES and Customs Single Window
Certificate upload – Business-to-business (B2B)

3. System-to-System (S2S)
Part 1
System-to-System (S2S)

4. Introduction
Definition: webservice offload of veterinary certificate data from TRACES
Purpose:
Allows MS authority to build "mirror" of TRACES for internal purposes (statistics…)
Other applications exist, e.g:
DK: "Export portal" for streamlining Danish handling of intra-community exports of pigs and poultry
FR: "TRACES – near real time certificate replication for customs single window

5. Technical overview Platform: Axis2 Compatibility: Java, .NET…
Asynchronous interface with dedicated endpoints:
for launching search request, WSDL indicates possible criteria
for polling result

6. searchCertificate request example

7. searchCertificate response example

8. pollCertificateSearchResult request example
The identifier

9. CertificatePollResult example
Certificate data
XML struture

10. Tips and tricks Good practices: More info in the S2S manual on CIRCA:
Limit yourself to 1 – 3 active requests at any given time
Allow at least 5 seconds between results pollings
Be sure to retrieve all results before sending new requests
More info in the S2S manual on CIRCA:

11. Single-window based on S2S
Problem: Customs officials need to consult TRACES certificate data wish to avoid having to connect to TRACES
Solution: based on S2S, replicate CVED for France in local environment

12. Part 2
Customs Single window

13. Architectural outline
Frequent retrieval of last time window (5 minutes)
"Mirroring" of TRACES certificates relevant for French customs
maintains a DB replica of TRACES
recreates the PDF certificates for French custom official to consult

14. Status and "verdict" Advantages: Disadvantages: A solution that works
In use for several years without much disruption
Disadvantages:
Overly heavy solution for what is fundamentally a simple problem (view PDF, consult / check certain fields)
Significant support burden for both sides
No feedback channel to TRACES

15. Customs Single Window initiative
Initial work set out by working group chaired by DG TAXUD (2010 – 2011)
Define business process model (BPM) for CVED and Agricultural export subsidy certificate
Define data dictionary
Results are available for those interested
A Single Window implementation is still on the agenda

16. Single Window conclusions
TRACES team has experience in setting up such a service
However, any new initiative would be strongly recommended be in line with DG TAXUD SW initiative data dictionary and BPM
More light-weight, reduced support burden
In line with customs policy evolution in EU
May benefit from future "true" SW solution provided by DG TAXUD

17. Business-to-Business (B2B)
Part 3
Business-to-Business (B2B)

18. Business-to-business interface (B2B)
Problem:
Some MS have national systems handling CVEDs
For various reasons they wish to keep their systems and at the same time do not wish to double-key to TRACES
Solution: provide webservice mechanism to
Submit CVED part I (description of consignment)
Submit CVED part II (veterinary decision)
Well, that's the theory…

19. B2B Evolution Initiation of project: 2006 SOAP protocol with APIs to
submit consignment (CVEDP, CVEDA)
change consignments
submit decision (including laboratory check)
First production launch: January 2010 (NL)

20. B2B Status Deployments: Results for 2012:
NL: all BIPs, but mainly RTM1, AMS1, AMS4
DE: HAM1, BRV1, BRE1, MUC4 (NB: not Frankfurt airport)
ES: launch in ~35 BIPs imminent
Results for 2012:
around 2/3 consignments through B2B
Results vary between 50 – 80 %, some BIPs and time periods better than others

21. Points to note part I
While simple in theory, realising a B2B interface mimicking the web behaviour has proven difficult
Part I: unambiguous identification of actors involved
Part II: correct implementation of veterinary legislation in national system
Added-value functionality in TRACES not always or easily possible: RASFF, Reinforced checks, Statistical advise…

22. Points to note part II Conclusion: 100% precision impossible
Some certificates mst be entered in TRACES
Therefore, BIP must also know and use TRACES
Therefore, certain administrative burden remains
Significant support effort for both MS and TRACES IT staff
Follow-up to new releases
"Debugging" specific certificates: B2B adds extra layer of complexity
National system must be kept in synch with TRACES

23. A possible future outlook for B2B
Current approach unsustainable in long term
Align interface with that for 3rd countries (UN/CEFACT)
Decision part (Part II) should always be in TRACES
Ensures information in TRACES at the correct time
Ensures that TRACES added value is leveraged
Aligns TRACES and national system in a more equal way

24. Conclusions on certificate webservices
Part 4
Conclusions on certificate webservices

25. Certificates webservices in TRACES
Several certificate webservices exist
Each service has arrived as an ad-hoc request for specific need
As a result, we have a plethora of services, all with varying APIs and technical platforms
While all are functional; the y are not optimal and a significant support effort is needed to maintain status quo

26. Future certificates webservices in TRACES
We need to take a fresh start based on common grounds
Leverage UN/CEFACT protocol where possible
Use a common technical platform
Have some common parts B2B, S2S, …
Webservices, if supported need to be an integral part of regular TRACES business flow, not an ad-hoc "satellite" service next to TRACES