1. Single Window Interoperability Recommendation No. 36 SOURCE:Recommendation 36 project team ACTION:Preparation for ODP Step 3 Internal review STATUS: First Draft AFACT Asia Pacific Council for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business - Permanent Secretariat

2. Johan Pontén Domain Coordinator UN/CEFACT International Trade Procedures Domain Rémy Marchand (general) and Bill Luddy (Legal) project leaders

3. I NTRODUCTION The publication of Recommendation 33 – Establishing a Single Window, and its Guidelines provided recommendations and advice on planning, implementing and operating a Single Window facility. Improving and enhancing the exchange of information between the trading community (and trade services providers) and Government was shown to bring significant benefits in the administration of international trade. The international supply chain begins at the national border. Goods moving domestically are usually only subjected to national laws and regulations but when traded goods move across international borders or transit counties they are subject to internationally agreed rules, obligations and agreements as well as the legitimate needs of the transit and importing country. After all one country’s export is ultimately another country’s import.

4. I NTRODUCTION – CONT. The recommendations and guidance in Recommendation 33 provide a solid foundation for planning and establishing a Single Window facility to meet the identified needs for improving the information exchange between trade and government. This is valid whether the lead agency in the country is from the private or public sector. However, the process is complex raising many important issues that must be tackled to realise the optimum benefits of the Single Window. Therefore, and in response to requests from end users (both existing and potential), stakeholders and other interested parties UN/CEFACT developed and published two additional Recommendations.

5. Rec 34, 35 Recommendation 34 Data Simplification and Standardisation for International Trade: recommending a simple, easy-to-use and cost effective 4 stage process to achieve the objective of a national simplified and standardised dataset. Recommendation 35 Establishing a Legal Framework for an International Trade Single Window: Provides advice and guidance in the form of a Checklist of the common legal issues encountered when introducing a Single Window facility. International harmonization of relevant laws was not addressed by this recommendation, as it is the matter of UNCITRAL

6. Recommendation 36 Single Window Interoperability The latest addition to the UN/CEFACT suite of Single Window products: Recommendation 36: Single Window Interoperability It provides guidance on the mechanism and systems required for the interconnectivity and interoperability of two or more national (or regional) Single Windows. The individual recommendations address the need for cross-border trade data transfer required for the exchange of information beyond the domain of the national Single Window.

7. O BJECTIVES Highlight areas and options for considerations for the establishment of regional Single Window or Single Windows Interoperability. Focused on the interoperability of national single windows as such the target audience is various Governments. It is not to define technical specifications or standards to be adopted for regional single windows or single window interoperability. The interest of the SWI is that it enables end to end dematerialization and reuse of information collected and certified at the origin of its creation.

8. R ECOMMENDATION – 1 Research and examine the systems of international trading partners to ascertain the type of Single Window facility used and its operational framework. After implementation of Single Window operators should monitor the operation of trading partner Single Windows to ensure the national facility is revised to accommodate new cross border processes and procedures and to meet a dynamic constantly changing international trade environment. Single Window designers and implementers whether public or private sector, or in partnership, should:

9. R ECOMMENDATION - 2 Research all regional and bilateral trading agreements and arrangements to ensure specific protocols or legally binding obligations are considered when developing a national Single Window facility. Such research may reveal examples where a trading agreement may need amendment or revision to take into account the developing trading relationship between partner countries. Single Window designers and implementers whether public or private sector, or in partnership, should:

10. R ECOMMENDATION - 3 Conduct a survey and produce a list of cross border and transit trade related information requirements that should be considered in the design of any interconnectivity and interoperability module for the national Single Window. From this research activity the Single Window development team could build a minimum core requirement to meet interconnectivity and interoperability demands. Single Window designers and implementers whether public or private sector, or in partnership, should:

11. R ECOMMENDATION - 4 Produce an inventory of all the technical, business and operational requirements needed to ensure a national Single Window could interconnect and interoperate with bilateral and regional trading partner countries. The inventory, for example could include the different models for interconnectivity and interoperability such as a network of NSWs interconnected, or individual NSWs connected to a central secure hub, or a network of networks such as private sector Value Added Networks (VAN) or Local Area Networks (LAN). Equally designers and implementers should list all available technologies, methodologies, information platforms and communication protocols to ensure good practice and the latest developments are considered when planning a national Single Window. Single Window designers and implementers whether public or private sector, or in partnership, should:

12. R ECOMMENDATION - 5 Ensure co-ordination and co-operation among government and all its authorities and agencies. This approach would guarantee that individual and specific departmental cross border trade related requirements are incorporated in any interconnectivity and interoperability module for the national Single Window. Single Window designers and implementers whether public or private sector, or in partnership, should:

13. Other recommendations Expand the service of Single Window beyond national level to maximize the benefits Streamline the cross border business processes for the information being exchanged Make use of international standards and best practices for the facilitation of SW interoperability

14. Recommendation 36 Challenges

15. Mutual Recognition Mutual recognition and acceptance of electronic identification of regulators, exporters and importers For instance, exchange of e-CERT does not make sense without mutual recognition of e-signature by the quarantine agencies. Same will do in case of electronic certificate of origin. The recommendation point to a way of managing the diversity that exists in the schemes for trader identification. mutual recognition, it will be inevitable to enter the territory of UNCTAD, as legal framework supersedes technical standards required for mutual recognition.

16. Security Control how to handle with the data relevant to the mutual recognition of AEO, as many trusted traders over the world demand the improved performance by being AEO There's no internationally accepted model to establish an information exchange for containerized cargo along international supply chain. For example, the ports of Hamburg, Mumbai, Singapore and Shanghai all use different data sets as well as Single Window capabilities.

17. Interoperability or Interconnectivity Interconnectivity is a word for networking regardless the contents of the data which is exchanged over a network. Interoperability’ solves the problems of a ‘community of interest’ that need to interconnect and exchange data internationally. What problems will Rec 36 solve and for which communities of interest?

18. Reciprocal Responsibility There is an issue in that administrations are reluctant to accept reciprocal responsibility. In this light a laudable objective of this recommendation could be to mitigate this concern by finding viable solutions for the shared responsibility that administrations would inevitably face with one another.

19. Reciprocal responsibility – Cont. There are different requirements in different areas of the world and different requirements and proposals according to the mode of transport, even different approaches between import and export data, without mentioning the difference between cargo data and goods data, which is even more important. My view is that the recommendation should be alerted on the existence of these requirements, but it should not be prescriptive in this area, lest it became impossible for any administration to accept.

20. Facilitate the legislator’s work The recommendation does not represent the “legislator”, it is an instrument to facilitate the legislator’s work. As such its objective should be to seek facilitation for administrations, not for traders. Facilitation for traders will come as a by-product when the objectives of the recommendation are achieved by the administrations.

21. Avoiding duplication of work Globally Networked Customs(GNC) is one of the 10 building blocks of “Customs in the 21st Century”. Discussions were held in the WCO in past 3 years on why and how should one Customs exchange data with another, what is GNC, and how to achieve it. Working with other key players involved in trade-facilitation activities and organizations involved in standards development, with a view to avoiding duplication of work and to building together an internationally consistent framework.

22. Thank you for your attention and Comments Your Comments will guide AFACT for Contribution to Rec 36 AFACT Asia Pacific Council for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business - Permanent Secretariat