THE ROLE OF TRADE AND MARITIME SINGLE WINDOWS PHOTO BY: © BUSAN PORT AUTHORITY, KOREA Port Community Systems 1 The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 2 Port Community Systems Executive Summary Key Takeaways ■ Interconnectivity and interoperability between platforms represent the next wave of the digital transformation of ports. ■ Three systems - Port Community Systems (PCS), the Maritime Single Window (MSW) and Trade Single Window (TSW) – are critical to increased interconnectivity and interoperability. ■ Boundaries between different platforms are starting to break down, paving the way for true single-submission and data collaboration across trade and transport supply chains. ■ More countries are expected to reinforce interconnectivity and interoperability between the three platforms. ■ Putting in place the necessary legal, regulatory, and institutional pillars to support the develop- ment of single-submission platforms is critical to the successful adoption of any digital platform. R apid technological improvement has led to the adoption of a variety of port data collabo- ration platforms both in the developed and developing worlds. Apart from the PCS, trade, and Maritime Single Windows (SW) operate in the same port logistics operational environment. The concept of SW is associated with facilities that allow trade and transport parties to lodge standardized information and documents to fulfil all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements. PCSs are access points which allow traders to exchange electronic information in a standard format and related to a specific activity, with relevant private parties and with regulatory government agencies. Essentially, the scope and mandate of data collaboration platforms largely depends on the incentive used for their adoption. When motivation is compliance with provisions of international agree- ments, these platforms are structured in a manner to conform to specific regulatory requirements. In this category, we include the Trade Single Window (TSW) which, as per the WTO’s Trade Facil- itation Agreement (TFA), enables traders to submit documentation and data requirements for importation, exportation, or transit of goods to participating regulatory authorities or agencies. Similarly, the Maritime Single Window (MSW), as a mandatory requirement under the IMO’s FAL Convention, aims at the intelligent and secure exchange of ship-to-shore information related to regulatory requirements for the arrival, stay, and departure of vessels. The boundaries between the three platforms are often blurred. For instance, in many cases, the PCS encompasses MSW or TSW functionalities. Regardless of their scope, all platforms share common features. The most fundamental one is the “single entry” which supplemented with the “single submission” feature, means that data submission is only performed once, and the system The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 3 Port Community Systems offers a single point of access to its users. Also, standardizing the format of shared information and the use of a common data reference model, enables interoperability and allows data exchange in a way that all connected systems can understand and manage. Gains for the trade commu- nity are clear as it benefits from the reduction of red tape as well as from the establishment of faster and more accurate operational workflows and compliance processes. This, in turn, lowers logistics costs, improves transparency, increases supply chain predictability at a micro level and improves trade competitiveness at a macro level. International experience provides no evidence to support which platform should be developed first. In countries with a strong port and maritime private sector, PCSs were developed first. In other countries, top-down government initiatives to comply to either the FAL or WTO-TFA provisions have led to the initial development of respective SWs with pure regulatory compliance focus, while PCSs were developed at a later stage. Whichever the sequence, it is important to assess and analyze the existing trade and transport digital solutions ecosystem prior to the design and implementation of a new platform. Taking this under consideration, PCS development requires high levels of coordination with the government to avoid overlaps and ensure procedural coverage complementarity. Interconnectivity and interoperability between the PCS and the various SW compliance plat- forms will constitute the next wave of port sector digital transformation. This type of initiative will eventually break down the boundaries between the existing triptych and pave the ground for true single-submission and data collaboration along the trade and transport dimensions of international supply chains. Although the financial and economic benefits from the digital integration and holistic supply chain treatment have already been acknowledged, there are still a number of important prerequisites for successful implementation, including the political will of the government and the relevant governmental trade and transport authorities to: (a) Enhance coordination with the maritime and port logistics business community. (b) Develop the basic legal framework, including the introduction of privacy laws and rules providing privacy and secu- rity in the exchange of information. (c) Develop common data reference models in support of interconnectivity and interoperability. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 4 Port Community Systems 1.  Introduction 1.1.  The context declarations. It must be submitted as part of the MSW ship-to- shore electronic data exchange platform. The same data submis- During the past few decades, the adoption of modern techno- sion requirement is part of the TSW, especially when Customs logical solutions in the port and maritime sector has improved have the mandate to process pre-arrival information and even its overall performance and operational efficiency. Software and proceed to pre-arrival clearance. The two referred declarations hardware solutions were adopted not only by private companies, may not have the exact same form but include several common terminal operators, trucking companies, warehousing, and distri- data elements which are submitted twice in each of the plat- bution companies but also by government agencies with regu- forms. Therefore, in many cases although some data elements latory or compliance mandates. The initial positive impact was are submitted once to the PCS and effectively shared between restricted by the operational boundaries of adopting entities. For its members, the same element must be submitted again to instance, the adoption of terminal operating systems (TOS) has either MSW or TSW. This is the result of lack of interconnectivity undoubtably improved terminals’ operational efficiency. Similarly, between the distinct platforms that sometime exists even in warehouse management systems (WMS) improved the way stor- developed countries. age companies store, handle and distribute their cargo units. At the same time, government compliance and regulatory agencies have However, policy decision makers still wonder whether there adopted their own management information systems i.e., Customs is room for the concurrent operation of all three platforms management system focusing on the cargo clearance process, or whether, for instance, PCS or TSW can slightly extent their while port management information systems (PMIS) enable a scope to cover all trade and transport operational and regulatory port authority to control traffic and manage port infrastructure. requirements. Another practical challenge, which developing but also many developed countries face, is how to fit SW platforms The automation of port logistics entities and the subsequent into port digital ecosystems in which a PCS already exists. It is digitization of their respective workflows permitted inter-orga- recommended that SWs are architecturally designed to reflect nizational data collaboration, initially via EDI systems and later PCS functions and coverage. It is also recommended that the through single-submission platforms. The PCS concept was one legal, regulatory, and institutional enabling environment that will of the outcomes of this development since port logistics service allow the development of single-submission platforms is put in providers – especially terminal operators - realized the benefits of place prior to the adoption of any digital platform. sharing digitized information with each other. They quickly real- ized that this could lead to better operational orchestration and Looking into the future, the core question seeking an answer is cost savings via workflow simplification and lean supply chains. how many “single” windows can operate in the port sector and In addition, border agencies with the mandate to inspect and whether there are possibilities for deep integration or systems’ clear inward and outward cargoes also seized the opportunity. mergers. As technology rapidly advances towards more afford- The development of national trade single windows (TSW) was able software and hardware solutions, port communities will enabled by the digitalization of Customs compliance operations not stop investing in their systems’ upgrade, thus allowing the with the concurrent automation of other border agencies such utilization and analysis of available big data. To the extent that as sanitary-phytosanitary (SPS), standards or national security SWs remain initiatives of distinct public entities i.e., maritime or agencies, among others with mandates to control cargo flows at port authorities or Customs, the odds for developing one single national borders. Finally, increased use of technology by shipping window to serve holistic trade and transport facilitation purposes lines and their agents has allowed the electronic exchange of remain slim as well as chances for the complete merger of data from ship-to-shore. The MSW focused on vessel arrival, existing platforms. However, is highly likely that more and more stay and departure processes at the port of entry. countries will try to find ways to reinforce interconnectivity and interoperability between the three platforms. This implies that In practice, these three platforms have many common data the legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks and respective elements, which sometimes makes their boundaries blur. For provisions, necessary to enable data-sharing between platforms, instance, a cargo declaration is one of the standardized FAL will be in place. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 5 Port Community Systems 2.  Data collaboration platforms at ports PCS is not the only port electronic data exchange platform: There Border agencies rely on trade single windows: Development of are several data platforms at ports, especially in the developed single windows for trade are recommended in the WTO-TFA. In world. Currently, one may encounter trade or maritime single article 10.4 of the agreement, it is stated that WTO member-gov- windows or cargo community systems, sometimes operation- ernments should establish a single window, via the use of infor- ally linked to seaport service and processes. Each one of these mation technology, if possible, to enable traders to submit data solutions is championed by a public entity or private company, requirements for importation, exportation, or transit of goods which may often represent a larger group of organizations. For through a single-entry point to relevant government authorities or instance, Customs authorities, on behalf of the border agencies agencies. According to UN/CEFACT, the SW concept refers to a group, lead the development of TSWs. Similar leadership roles are facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge also sometimes undertaken by terminal operators in the case of standardized information and documents with a single-entry point PCSs as well as the port and maritime authorities with respect to fulfil all import, export, and transit-related regulatory require- to the MSW. The different nature of the above agencies and the ments. If information is electronic, then individual data elements fact that each platform reflects different trade and transport should only be submitted once. The above definitions are used processes explains the fact that most countries end up with to describe a single window at a national level which facilitates more than one single-submission platform. data exchange between border agencies for the sole objective of allowing the quick and efficient cargo clearance process. Single windows are important in the trade and transport domain: A single window in the context of trade and transport facilitation The pivotal role of maritime single windows: In alignment with serves as an integrated platform that encompasses various the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Facilitation of configurations but nonetheless exhibits several universal attri- International Maritime Traffic (FAL) Convention, Maritime Single butes. It engages stakeholders who are instrumental in both Windows (MSWs) serve as indispensable regulatory architectures trade and transport sectors, thereby fostering a collaborative that facilitate electronic data interchange to optimize vessels’ ecosystem. The platform is engineered to manage standardized clearance procedures. Deployed as a critical component of trade information and documents, thereby streamlining the informa- and port logistics, these MSWs are instrumental in streamlining tional architecture, and enhancing data interoperability. Central the bureaucratic formalities associated with the international to its design is the use of a singular entry point, which simplifies ships’ arrival, sojourn, and departure processes. By offering a user interaction and expedites transactions. Furthermore, it is centralized, digital conduit for the requisite legal and procedural geared to comply with extant regulatory frameworks, ensuring documentation, MSWs effectively ameliorate systemic inefficien- that it serves not merely as an informational repository but also cies, thereby promoting an expedited and more seamless flow as a compliance tool. Importantly, the single window system is of maritime trade across international borders. predicated on the principle of single submission for individual data sets, thus eliminating redundancies and improving opera- Can multiple port data-exchange platforms exist? In the evolving tional efficiencies. Overall, a single window represents a syner- landscape of port logistics and trade facilitation, the prevalence getic convergence of multi-stakeholder involvement, information of multiple digital platforms within a given port ecosystem can standardization, regulatory adherence, and streamlined data indeed foster enhanced operational efficiency, provided these submission mechanisms. platforms exhibit non-overlapping scopes and cater to distinct dimensions of maritime, trade, or port-side operations. However, The crucial role of a single-entry point in single window systems: this compartmentalization of digital solutions runs the risk of The concept of a “single entry point” emerges as a pivotal mech- engendering data silos, thereby allowing repetitive data submis- anism within single window systems for trade and maritime sions across these disparate platforms. Such redundancy runs logistics. It stipulates that economic operators should submit counter to the overarching objective of streamlined international requisite data exclusively through this singular platform, thereby supply chains and poses a challenge to the holistic advance- streamlining administrative processes and eliminating dupli- ment of trade and transport facilitation agendas. Therefore, cative data collection efforts. In tandem with this, the single it is imperative to infuse these platforms with interoperability window system is endowed with the authority to discharge a features to facilitate seamless data-sharing across various trade, comprehensive array of regulatory functions pertinent to both maritime, and port-side operations. This would obviate the need trade and maritime sectors. This indicates that the SW system for multiple submissions of identical data elements, thereby operates under an explicit mandate from the governing authority, engendering a more integrated, efficient, and resilient supply effectively acting as a proxy for government in administering chain ecosystem. The strategic alignment and integration of trade and transport regulations. Hence, the principles underly- PCSs with maritime and trade single window systems are vital ing the “single entry point” hold salient implications across the in fortifying this interoperable infrastructure, thus contributing spectrum of trade and maritime single windows, harmonizing substantively to the consolidation and elevation of trade and procedures and fortifying the governance structure. transport facilitation paradigms. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 6 Port Community Systems 3.  The Maritime Single Window 3.1.  MSW under the FAL Convention Box 1. The FAL Convention The birth of the MSW concept: The FAL Committee at its 40th session in April 2016 adopted resolution FAL.12(40) on amend- For international shipping, a unified, global approach to ments to the Annex of the FAL Convention, which made manda- FAL is vital. These activities are regulated and streamlined tory the requirements for the electronic data exchange to assist by an international treaty called the FAL Convention. It’s ship clearance processes in ports. This puts the responsibility been in force since 1967 but is kept continually amended of establishing systems for the electronic data interchange on and updated by Governments at the FAL Committee of IMO governments from April 2019. – which meets once a year at IMO’s London Headquarters. FAL 46 approved the guidelines for setting up a maritime single The FAL Convention contains standards and recom- window (FAL.5/Circ.42/Rev.2), enabling intelligent and secure mended practices and rules for simplifying formalities, exchange of information between public and private stakeholders documentary requirements and procedures on ships’ related to the arrival, stay, and departure of ships nationwide. arrival, stay and departure. Under the FAL Committee, The deployment of a MSW shall be nationwide, including any IMO has developed standardized FAL documentation for vessel at any ports of entry related to international traffic and authorities and Governments to use, and the FAL Conven- could also be extended to any domestic vessel. tion urges all stakeholders to do this. Focus placed on vessel clearance process improvement: The The FAL Convention will make it mandatory for ships and objective of the MSW is to facilitate ship clearance processes ports to exchange FAL data electronically and encourages in ports for ships on international voyages. It is a public-private use of the so called “single window” concept in which all data collaboration platform that allows the submission through the many agencies and authorities involved exchange a single-entry point of standardized and harmonized informa- data via a single point of contact. tion related to the electronic exchange of information required Source: IMO. on the arrival, stay and departure of ships in ports and harbors (Figure 3). It covers maritime regulatory procedures, but could be extended to other administrative, nautical, and operational procedures and other related information shared between private sector and public authorities at the port. reporting. In this context, IMO—in partnership with WCO, UNECE, and ISO—have agreed on an IMO reference data model known Standardization of documentation requirements: One way the as the IMO Compendium which refers to a set of standards for FAL Convention facilitates maritime transport is by simplify- the submission of maritime related data. IMO encourages all ing and minimizing complex formalities and documentation stakeholders to adopt the IMO Compendium when building requirements linked to arrival, stay and departure of ships. Based their digital systems as it allows interoperability, as no matter on this guidance, regulatory authorities are encouraged to use which standard or system is being used data can be exchanged. a specific number of standardized formalities (Table 1), elim- Enabling interoperability reduces the administrative burden. For inate redundant documents and ensure that data required is example, the Compendium allows single windows to integrate, not submitted more than once. Simplification of formalities is enabling closer coordination between Customs and maritime a prerequisite for the successful adoption of the MSW, and in authorities during cargo and vessel clearance processes. line with the “simplification prior to digitization” mantra which prevents the automation of repetitive procedures. According to Streamlining the vessel clearance process: Vessel clearance FAL 46, maritime authorities should ensure that MSW includes refers to the process of obtaining permission for a vessel to at least thirteen FAL regulatory requirements. The maximum enter or exit a port or waterway. It involves the completion of information required by public authorities for the declarations in various formalities and documentation requirements to ensure section 2.1 is described in the Annex of FAL Convention (2022 that the vessel complies with all applicable laws and regula- edition). tions and is safe to operate. Vessel clearance typically involves obtaining clearance from several different authorities, such as Securing interoperability via IMO’s Reference Data Model: To the port authority, Customs, immigration, environment, and health share, exchange and understand the data, ships and ports need authorities. The specific requirements for vessel clearance may to use international harmonized standards as different groups vary depending on the country or region, as well as the type of of stakeholders have different objectives and different work vessel and the cargo it is carrying. In most ports in the developing processes. Therefore, more than one standard is used for ship world, the process is cumbersome and repetitive, thus adding The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 7 Port Community Systems Table 1. List of required FAL Declarations include trade facilitation and environmental dimensions of trade and transport. Port call optimization needs to be regarded from a. General Declaration two different business logics and should be balanced between: (a) A port-centric approach which raises the concern of the port b. Cargo Declaration with its operators to optimize the utilization of their resources. c. Ship’s Stores Declaration (b) A ship-centric approach which raises the concern of ensuring high utilization of the ship paying visits to multiple ports. d. Crew’s Effects Declaration e. Crew List MSW leading to port call business process improvement: Simi- larly, to the PCS, the adoption of single window platforms has a f. Passenger List direct positive impact on the business processes they cover (see g. Dangerous Goods Manifest chapter 7). The port call process is based on the high-level busi- ness process of port calls, which is based on IMO regulations, h. The special declaration for postal items as described in the Acts BIMCO contracts, and specific requirements of port authorities of the Universal Postal Union currently in force and other stakeholders. It was created by the industry through i. Maritime Declaration of Health as set forth by the International the International Task Force on Port Call Optimization (ITPCO).3 Health Regulations The port call brings together into a common port environment j. Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate or Ship Sanitation three types of data: (i) Nautical data used for safe navigation. Control Certificate or extension as set forth by the International (ii) Administrative data submitted by ships to authorities based Health Regulations on legislation or regulations. (iii) Operational data submitted to k. Security-related information as required under SOLAS regulation non-authority parties as part of operational planning and execu- XI-2/9.2.2 tion. By reducing the overall dwell time of ships at ports, the port call process becomes an important element of safe and l. Advance electronic cargo information for customs risk assess- ment purposes as set out in the WCO SAFE Framework of efficient port operation, coordinated border management for Standards vessel clearance and inspections, and trade facilitation. The FAL 46 Committee informally extended the scope of MSW4 beyond m. Advance Notification Form for Waste Delivery ot Port Reception Facilities. regulatory information to the port call process, including admin- istrative, nautical, and operational data that may be exchanged through the MSW to address the above. Port call is also included in the guidelines for setting up a maritime single window (FAL.5/ unnecessary steps for shippers, port operators, traders, and their Circ.42/Rev.2). agents, which lead to additional costs of doing business. Some of the key factors that may impact vessel clearance include the vessel’s size, draft, and overall condition, as well as the cargo it 3.2.  The European MSW environment is carrying and any potential safety or environmental concerns. In many cases, vessel clearance may also involve the payment Perceived benefits of MSW: The MSW concept in the EU is a of various fees and charges, such as port fees, pilotage fees, result of a long process which started in 2010 and is still going and Customs duties. on. The generating factor behind it was the facilitation of elec- tronic exchange of data related to administrative procedures that The incentive of port call optimization: The positive impact of the shipping industry faces when arriving and/or departing EU MSW extends beyond the mere vessel clearance and captures the ports. Early legislative acts that were passed in 2010, although broader port call process.1 Today, one of the strongest arguments they understood the impact of simplification and harmonization in support of the MSW adoption lies in its contribution to the measures on maritime shipping cost reductions, just-in-time port optimization of port call process which, in turn, leads to the facil- logistics and port call optimization, were drafted with maritime itation of just-in-time arrival of vessels.2 One core value coming safety in mind as a primary goal and how this can be enhanced out of port call optimization is enhanced predictability which is by improved port call processes. This explains the mandate given an important foundation for port and shipping lines’ scheduling to the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to lead the effort and planning processes. Beyond the direct positive effect on port on the maritime single window development. However, as the operators’ and shipping lines’ cost-effectiveness, other benefits concept develops and adjusts to national and regional needs and 1 Port call is defined by EU Regulation 2019/1239 on establishing a European Maritime Single Window environment for the arrival of a ship at a maritime port in a member state, its stay in the port, and departure from said port 2 https://www.iaphworldports.org/just-in-time-arrival-of-vessels 3 https://portcalloptimization.org/ 4 Port call references were added to the MSW guidelines but not mentioned in the FAL Convention. The goal of the addition is to highlight the need to consider both operational and regulatory data to achieve port call optimization. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 8 Port Community Systems Figure 1. MSW Coverage of Vessel Port Call process Vessel Arrival Vessel Stay Vessel Deprature Coast Guard Shipping Lines & Agents Harbor Master Small Vessels Port State Control Nautical Providers Port Authority Vessel Services Providers Customs Terminal Operations Immigration MSW Health Biosecurity Environment Agriculture OGAs Public Stakeholders Private Stakeholders Source: Accelerating Digitalization: Critical Actions to Strengthen the Resilience of the Maritime Supply Chain. Washington, D.C. IAPH & World Bank.2020.:.https://documentsinter- nal.worldbank.org/search/32775900. requirements, more attention is being paid to its impact on trade or increases maritime administrative bureaucracy. Therefore, and transport facilitation. Overall, the European MSW environ- the development of the European MSW environment aims at ment concept is based on the principle that all member states the monitoring of national progress while at the same time facilitate their own Maritime National Single Window (MNSW) providing technical guidelines for interoperability and proper interconnected at the EU community level. regional scale-up. European MNSWs are still works in progress: The first attempt to develop a legal framework in support of the MNSW was in 3.2.1.  National reporting formalities 2010. However, after nine years of limited success, it was recog- for ships (Directive 2010/65/EU) nized that the framework was vague in many of sections. An in-depth evaluation of the program revealed the need to update Reporting formalities for ships within the EU: A number and upgrade sections, especially those related to guidelines of concrete measures have been launched by the European for development of MSW at a national level, harmonization of Commission with a view to establishing a European maritime reporting interfaces and coordination of MNSWs at a community transport space without barriers aiming at the reduction of level. The EU MSW is expected to be continuously evaluated on administrative burdens and facilitation of maritime transport a regular basis and improved, based on its performance. As of between ports in the EU. Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting now, it is the most advanced regional initiative of interconnected formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of national MSWs. the member states was one of the core regulations for estab- lishing a single maritime transport space without barriers. The The twin development goal at national and community levels: purpose of its adoption was “to simplify and harmonize the The challenge of the program is how the MNSW concept can administrative procedures applied to maritime transport by evolve and produce anticipated results both at a national making the electronic transmission of information standard and EU regional levels. Actually, the operational success of and by rationalizing reporting formalities.” Consequently, it only the MNSW constitutes a prerequisite for the success of the regulated the methods of collecting and exchanging information EU-wide MSW. For instance, the proper application of the “only- and simplifying and harmonizing the procedures for exchanging once” principle largely determines whether the MSW reduces it, without prejudice to the nature and content of the information The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 9 Port Community Systems requested. The scope of Directive 2010/65/EU is defined in 3.3.  The EMSWe (Regulation such a way that it applies to the reporting formalities applicable 2019/1239/EU) to maritime transport for ships arriving in and ships departing from ports in EU member states. The European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe): The EU recognizes that the administrative burden for shipping The EU Maritime National Single Window (MNSW): Within Direc- companies and the procedures for fulfilment of reporting obli- tive 2010/65/EU, EU member states are required to establish a gations should be further simplified and harmonized via the Maritime National Single Window (MNSW), linking SafeSeaNet, adoption of data exchange solutions. Therefore, it introduced e-Customs and other electronic systems. The MNSW consti- Regulation 2019/1239/EU.6 The main aim of this regulation is to tutes the place where all information is reported once and made lay down harmonized rules for the provision of the information available to various competent authorities. The master or any that is required for port calls, in particular by ensuring that the other person duly authorized by the operator of the ship should same data sets can be reported to each maritime national single provide notification of the information required at least 24 hours window in the same way. The regulation establishes a framework in advance. In 2015, EMSA developed, together with six member for a technologically neutral and interoperable European Mari- states, a MNSW prototype to enable data flows between the time Single Window environment (‘EMSWe’) with harmonized shipping industry and authorities in a member state, and between interfaces, in order to facilitate the electronic transmission of member states, via SafeSeaNet. This prototype is based on information in relation to reporting obligations for ships (Figure international standards and EU requirements and thus allows 4). The same provision defines the scope of reporting obligations reporting of all formalities required by Directive 2010/65/EU. for ships arriving at, staying in, and departing from an EU port. It is also adaptable to different national administrative set-ups, This regulation introduces a much clearer definition of the MNSW, procedures, and legislation. It also enables EU member states described as “a nationally established and operated technical to use it as a complete solution or to use any of its components platform for receiving, exchanging, and forwarding electronically to comply with the directive requirements. information to fulfil reporting obligations”. Alignment to FAL Convention requirements: Directive 2010/65/ Setting out the universe of formalities to be submitted: The EU considers the decisions of the International Maritime Organi- ultimate list of forms, notifications, declarations, and other zation (IMO), namely the Convention on Facilitation of Interna- formalities required for submission from ship-to-shore is also tional Maritime Traffic (FAL) and the application of IMO FAL forms. defined. Three subsets of formalities are outlined: (a) Reporting Accordingly, it was necessary to define the interrelation of these obligations stemming from legal acts of the Union. (b) FAL decla- forms and systems for electronic data exchange at the level of rations and reporting obligations stemming from international the European Union. EU ports should accept FAL forms for the legal instruments. (c) Reporting obligations stemming from rying out the official ship fulfilment of reporting formalities for car­ national legislation and requirements (Figure 5). This way, it is registration procedure. It should be noted that the directive must secured that the declarants comply with all levels of formalities sion of the FAL forms that are currently in force, so refer to the ver­ required: national, regional, and international. The risk of submit- that the Commission should continually monitor the work of The ting the same data elements in different forms and declarations Facilitation Committee of the International Maritime Organization is mitigated by the “only-once” principle. In the same context, (IMO) and propose amendments to the directive it­ self. governments are required to define and report centrally all data elements into a regional EMSWe Data Set, which constitutes a Implementation challenges on a national level: However, the complete list of data elements stemming from all member states’ adoption of the directive in the national legislation and the prac- reporting obligations. All member states notified the Commission tical implementation in each of the EU member states faces of any reporting obligations stemming from national legislation several obstacles. According to a recent in-depth evaluation,5 and requirements, as well as of the data elements to be included the directive’s outcomes fall short of expectations due to: (a) in the EMSWe data set.7 Lack of its full implementation, including difficulties in getting all national authorities properly connected. (b) Poor system Ring-fencing the “only-once” submission principle: Govern- design. (c) Lack of mandatory technical specifications ensur- ments should ensure that declarants are requested to provide ing harmonized MNSW. (d) The continued reporting by separate required information only once per port call, and that the relevant entry points outside the MNSW. data elements of the EMSWe data set are made available and reused for the purpose of fulfilling the reporting obligations at arrival to the next port. In addition, any relevant data elements of the EMSWe data set received in accordance with this regulation 5 Evaluation of the Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States (https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/ files/2018-05/swd20180234-eval.pdf) 6 The implementation date of Regulation 2019/1239/EU is August 2025. 7 Submission deadline was 15 February 2020 The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 10 Port Community Systems Figure 2. The European Maritime Single Window Environment Port Safety Customs Border Health RELEVANT AUTHORITIES Ship Operator Ship Master Ship Agent SHIP DATA PROVIDERS SAFESEANET EMSW Source: European Maritime Safety Agency. is made available to other Maritime National Single Windows core reasons leading to it is the fact that required information via the SafeSeaNet. Therefore, the commonly identified risk of is submitted upon arrival and in paper form. In countries that submitting the same data element more than once, especially use the MSW, documents and processes that cover the ship’s in single windows with regional application, is mitigated via the arrival, stay and departure from a port are digitized. Therefore, adoption of national legislation. This legislative action is critical required data elements capture the entire workflow of inbound for the success of the EMSWe. and outbound vessel clearance which leads, by definition, to its streamlining and re-engineering as some of the workflow steps are no longer needed. The use of the MSW also allows 3.4.  MSW as a trade required data to become available even before the vessel’s facilitation instrument arrival, which allows the pre-arrival processing of the vessel information. This, in turn, leads to a more predictable, reliable, Simplification of formalities and documentation requirements: and quicker vessel clearance process. In addition, regulatory Compliance with excessively complex maritime transport formal- and control agencies have more time on their hands to conduct ities and the obligation to repetitively submit the same data to risk-based inspections required for clearance from a safety and different agencies leads to high transaction logistics costs. security point of view. Efforts towards documentation standardization, according to regional or international standards, ensure that: (a) Only the Optimization of the port call process: Linking the maritime and necessary documents are submitted. (b) Data embedded into the port operational processes, a streamlined and effective these documents is only submitted once. In addition, paper forms vessel clearance process may lead to the optimization of the and documents already submitted electronically are identified, port call process, if following respective corrective measures on formally become redundant and are legally eliminated. This the port side. By reducing the overall dwell time of ships at ports, implies that governments review national reporting requirements the port call process becomes an important element of safe and to ensure that data requested has not been already submitted efficient port operation, coordinated border management for through the regional or international standardized forms. When vessel clearance and inspections, and trade facilitation. The port conducted correctly, simplification of formalities leads to reduc- call brings together into a common port environment the admin- tion of bureaucracy for government agencies and reduction of istrative, nautical, and operational information that includes three costs and time spent by shipping lines and their agents to fill types of data: (i) Nautical data provided by hydrographic offices out and submit unnecessary documents, often in paper forms that are used for safe navigation. (ii) Administrative data that as it is the case in most of the developing world. are submitted by ships or other non-authority parties to author- ities based on legislation or regulations. (iii) Operational data Streamlining of the vessel clearance process: The sight of submitted to non-authority parties as part of planning or execu- several vessels waiting at anchorage outside the port water tion of certain operations. Both the EU and IMO view the MSW territory is quite common in the developing world. One of the concept via the lenses of port call improvements. The main aim The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 11 Port Community Systems Figure 3. Reporting Obligations Notification for Notification ships arriving in Border checks of dangerous or FAL 1: General FAL 2: Cargo and departing on persons polluting goods Declaration Declaration from EU ports carried on board Notification of Notification of Information on FAL 3: Ship’s FAL 4: Crew’s waste and security persons Stores Declaration Effects Declaration residues information on board EU Legal Acts Safe loading and Custom Port State FAL 5: Crew List FAL 6: Passenger unloading of formalities contol List bulk carriers Maritime FAL 7: Dangerous Maritime transport Goods Declaration of statics Health National International Legislation Reporting Obligations Legal and Instruments Requirements Source: Authors based on information from the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). of Regulation 2019/1239/EU is to lay down harmonized rules for 3.5.  MSW and PCS complementarity the provision of the information that is required for port calls, in particular by ensuring that the same data sets can be reported The MSW is not a distinct platform, isolated from the rest of the to each MNSW in the same way. digital port infrastructure that exists in the port and maritime sectors. In some cases, it is developed as an independent body Enables collaboration between trade and transport agencies: but with strong links to the existing IT solution, even to existing The vessel clearance process is not solely the responsibility of single window platforms. The latter may be either a PCS or a TSW. the maritime or the port authorities. As seen in Figure 2 there In other cases, the MSW is so embedded into other solutions are a number of government agencies involved in the process. that it is considered one of their integral components. The MSW This includes but is not limited to Customs, immigration, health, could also be the vessel module8 of the PCS such as in Peru, agriculture, standards, national security, and other agencies. Portugal, Israel, and other countries. This conceptually makes Coordinated trade and transport facilitation is key to unlocking a lot of sense given the strong linkages between the maritime opportunities for the reduction of logistics costs and cutting and the port operations and processes. down dwell times at the ports, while improving predictability of maritime supply chains. Improving collaboration between mari- MSW in the context of digital ports initiatives: The MSW is time, port and border compliance agencies may result in moving only one of the many digital solutions offered in the port and and clearing vessels faster and more efficiently. This requires maritime ecosystem. This is particularly obvious in developed efforts at an institutional level to: (a) Operationally coordinate countries which base their economies on international trade activities of different national trade and transport agencies in and invest in technology to simplify and automate proce - connection to the sea and at the port side of operations. (b) dures. A good example is the port of Singapore. Being one of Enable electronic data and information exchange among them the largest transshipment ports in the world, Singapore has to verify ship’s stores and cargo declarations. dramatically reduced the time of administrative procedures, especially those related to the ship arrival, stay and depar- ture. The vessel clearance process at the port of Singapore 8 The vessel module of a PCS primarily deals with activities related to the management and tracking of vessels entering, docking, and leaving the port. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 12 Port Community Systems Box 2. Port Call optimization The port call process is based on the high-level business process of port calls, which is based on IMO regulations, BIMCO contracts, and requirements of port authorities and other stakeholders. It was created by the industry through the International Task Force on Port Call Optimization (ITPCO) and validated during industry roundtable sessions organized by the IMO Global Industry Alliance (GIA) to Support Low Carbon Shipping. The Port Call process consists of one physical execution part involving the navigation of the ship and the handling of cargo, supplies and services; and one business process part that among several other things includes the digital exchange of infor- mation related to the port call. The Port Call business process has two main phases: (i) the contractual phase that includes information on the sale of goods (bulk) or carriage (container), hiring ships, and terminal service; and (ii) the operational phase that includes passage planning, berth planning for arrival, port planning for arrival, vessel and cargo service planning, and port planning for departure. Source: International Task Force on Port Call Optimization (ITPCO). is completely automated, thus allowing ship masters or their related procedures were done in the system of the Chilean mari- agents to fulfil regulatory port entry requirements by electroni- time authority, the Sistema Integral de Atencion a la Nave (SIAN). cally submitting required information to the Maritime and Port However, SIAN did not provide notification of process comple- Authority of Singapore (MPA), the Immigration and Checkpoints tion. It also did not provide real-time status updates, leaving the Authority (ICA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) shipping lines and their agents with the option of telephone or for clearance respectively. email. The goal of VUMAR is to support all required procedures related to the arrival, stay and departure of the vessel. The users The impact of the Singaporean MSW: The development of the of VUMAR are either public agencies involved in the approval Singapore digitalPORT@SGTM MSW platform in September 2020, process, including the validation of documents or certificates prevents the submission of repetitive information and separate required for the vessel call, or shipping lines required to submit communication with the three agencies for their clearance appli- documents and fulfil the required procedures, based on the cation status. digitalPORT@SGTM has streamlined up to 16 differ- IMO provisions and national legislation. On the recipient side, ent submission forms into one application that is processed and the port authority and terminal operating companies receive updated by all three agencies centrally. Therefore, shipmasters the information which they use for planning and coordination and ship agents from more than 550 shipping companies can purposes on the land side of port operations. Additionally pilot- now submit, track, and receive approval for arriving and departing ing service providers may use the respective MSW module for ships through the portal. As a result, the industry saves up to the oversight and monitoring of piloting and tugging maneuvers. 100,000 personnel hours per year. Figure 7 illustrates the main modules of VUMAR, that consists of the reception and dispatching of the vessel, the pilotage, Linking port and maritime processes: digitalPORT@SG™ has and the module to coordinate information with ports and their been recently enhanced to a single integrated digital platform port terminals. for the industry to facilitate the booking of marine services from service providers. It also provides Just-In-Time (JIT) services Chilean PCS and MSW integration: In terms of the integration from a port-centric approach for all stakeholders in the maritime of SILOGPORT PCS with VUMAR, it is important to notice that value chain. This way it facilitates direct berthing for arrivals SILOGPORT does not handle information related to the vessels and on-time departures thus: (a) Reducing wait time at anchor- as it is more focused on the landside coordination. The SIAN ages. (b) Enhancing ship turnaround time in the planning and now provides the information related to the estimated time of scheduling of port resources. digitalPORT@SGTM also enables the arrival (ETA) and estimated time of departure (ETD) of vessels to sharing of ship and port documents between port administrators SILOGPORT, but this is not transmitted in real-time. For instance, and maritime stakeholders, facilitating data convergence in the the pilot ends the maneuvers and registers the operations when global maritime transport value chain. he/she arrives at his/her office. Once the VUMAR may be fully implemented and integrated with SILOGPORT, such information Transforming a maritime information system to MSW in Chile: will be transmitted by VUMAR to SILOGPORT. VUMAR’ integra- In Chile, the MSW referred to as “VUMAR” is being gradually tion with other automated systems is a work in progress. There developed by the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications are currently plans for the integration to be carried out with the (MTT) and the Maritime Authority of Chile. Prior to VUMAR, the Integrated System of Foreign Trade (Sicex) of the Ministry of The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 13 Port Community Systems Figure 4. Singapore PCS and MSW Linkages E-Navigation • ‘digitalSHIP’ —Ship-shore Harmonisation and Interoperability Project Port Community Systems • Contribute to international work on data standards and harmonisation •Enable true interoperability via system-to-system API calls versus online form-based submission in typical national single windows G2B •Facilitate JIT for ships that call at Port of Singapore Bilateral/Multilingual Agreements • Work with authorities e.g. other national Single Windows, exchange of e-documents (eg. e-Certs) to facilitate ease of port clearance & other e-Services G2G • Enable data sharing to eliminate the need for “double port-entry submissions” by vessels, such that submitted documentation to one port will be conveyed to the next pot of call digitalPORT@SGTM Supply Chain Digital Platforms •Enable true interoperability via system-to- system API calls versus online form-based submission in typical national single windows • Facilitate track and trace of cargo B2B2G Source: MPA Singapore. Figure 5. Chilean MSW (VUMAR) Reception Dispatching • Vessel pre-arrival • Arrival • Dispatching Request • Reception • Sailing • Authorization SIAN Port Coordination Pilotage • Vessels waiting to be moored • Maneuver Monitoring • Dangerous cargo of the • Sailing vessel to be moored Source: Authors. Finance, to allow the connection with public services such as to statistics, and historical information. VUMAR generates signif- SAG, Health, Sernapesca and Customs, thus facilitating the oper- icant savings associated with the elimination of paperwork and ations and internal analysis of each service in relation to those operating expenses. Once VUMAR is fully developed, MTT esti- covered by VUMAR. mates that 425,000 paper documents will no longer be issued annually (including forms and certificates), and the 62,500 hours VUMAR’s positive impact: Among the benefits of VUMAR, it is currently allocated by the different stakeholders that are part possible to list a shorter time for procedures, the traceability of of this process will be saved. Furthermore, the time spent on operations, authorizations, online notifications, a 24/7 operation, payments, especially those required to be done physically, will the standardization of public service processes as well as access be also saved. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 14 Port Community Systems 4.  The Trade Single Window (TSW) Data exchange focusing on cargo clearance process: The Trade generally understand and appreciate much more the benefits Single Window (TSW) enables an environment for traders and of automation ad digitization, especially compared to the rest transport service providers to interact efficiently with cross-bor- of the border agencies. der formalities in international trade. Traders and their agents benefit from the convenience of transacting with these agencies There are three official TSW models but many more in practice: electronically via the TSW. Procedures are simplified and stream- There are three common models for a TSW, as suggested by lined since Customs and other trade regulatory agencies (OTRA) UN/CEFACT Recommendation No 33: (i) The ‘single authority’ operate in a coordinated manner, automated data exchange model, whereby an entity co-ordinates between all the relevant eliminates the need for submission of duplicate information, agencies to ensure that the logistics chain remains unhindered. and automated processing speeds up end–to–end processing of (ii) The ‘single automated system’ model, whereby an automated import and export transactions. Regulatory agencies benefit from information system processes information or co-ordinates tighter border control, improved efficiency, and greater ability with a group of systems that process the data to be received to monitor performance against service-level agreements. The or sent. Such systems could be further categorized as inte- TSW’s objective is to reduce the time and cost of international grated systems, in which the single automated system serves trade transactions. The definition used by the lodge standardized as a processing hub for individual users from all the agencies information and documents with a single-entry point to fulfil all concerned, or as interfaced systems, where the single automated import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements. If system develops and utilizes interfaces with systems belonging information is electronic, then individual data elements should to other agencies to complete a transaction. There could also be only be submitted once”. a hybrid of integrated and interfaced approaches to the single automated system. (iii) The automated information transaction An increasing number of countries adopt TSW, but global figure system, which serves as a transaction hub and is integrated with remains low: The development of a Trade Single Window (TSW) is all the authorities. a mandatory requirement for member-countries of the WTO. The Article 10.4 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA),9 states that Technology mismatches between Customs and OTRAs often its members should endeavor to establish or maintain a single determine the TSW model: In countries with strong Customs window, enabling traders to submit documentation and data agencies – both in terms of institutional power and capacity- and requirements for importation, exportation, or transit of goods OTRAs, the “single automated system” model is the preferred through a single-entry point to the participating authorities or solution. In such cases, the Customs information system (usually agencies. However, as seen in Figure 8 this digital solution is some form of ASYCUDA) acts as the coordinator of the rest of fully adopted primarily in the developed world. The Trade Single the border agencies’ systems. This model is frequently found in Window (TSW)10 is the TFA measure with the lowest rate of imple- the developing world. Also, low automation of OTRA’s operations mentation globally. It ranks 36th out of 36 TFA measures with often lead to a TSW with only one or two agencies connected a mere 53.1 percent implementation rate. Especially in least beyond Customs. It is recommended that an adequate number developing countries (LDC) and developing countries member of OTRA’s automate their operations and business processes group implementation rate figure drops to 38.8 percent according prior to the design and implementation of a TSW. Among the to the notification data (Annex 2). most important border agencies that need to modernize are sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agencies, food safety, standard Customs are leading the TSW development: There is no specific authorities, national security, and others. provision that defines the most appropriate agency to lead the establishment and operation of a TSW. In practice though, As opposed to PCS, TSW is largely a government initiative: Customs could be seen as the agency best suited to lead its The adoption of the single window benefits both regulatory and development and implementation. This perception is based compliance agencies and the trade logistics industry. Nonethe- on the pivotal role they play at the borders, ports included, less, its conceptualization and design are mainly a government to receive and coordinate the flow of information related to affair. In most cases, initiatives for the adoption of the systems the fulfilment of all cross-border regulatory requirements. It are taken either by Customs agencies or, in fewer cases, by Minis- is also true that over the past decades, Customs agencies tries of Trade,12 which quite often view the TSW adoption through worldwide have modernized their operations via the applica- TFA compliance lenses. Frequently, the two parties are locked tion of specialized software and hardware.11 Therefore, they in power struggles over the design, operation, governance, and 9 WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation, Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 10 The term used in the WTO-TFA to describe the TSW is NSW. 11 These may range from simple Customs declarations systems to e-payment systems for Customs duty or 12 Or with Ministries responsible to officially notify the WTO Committee on Trade Facilitation of their SW operation The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 15 Port Community Systems Figure 6. Trade Single Window implementation rate 0-40% 40-70% 70-100% 100% Source: Ministry of International Trade and Tourism, Peru. Note: This map was produced by the Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. overall ownership of the SW solution. Regardless, it is recom- operations of a specific port, TSWs cover the entire network of mended that: border crossing where Customs and OTRAs are present. There- fore, TSWs could be seen as a larger initiative compared to either a. The conceptualization and visioning of the TSW is the MSW or a PCS. conducted via a series of public-private dialogue sessions and under the institutional umbrella of the National Trade Opportunity to streamline cargo clearance processes: Like in the Facilitation Committee.13 case of the PCS (see Chapter 7), the TSW offers ample oppor- tunities for the simplification of trade processes and required b. The design and implementation of the preferred solution documents. As part of the solution design process, it is required is led by a strong government entity with the necessary that border agencies review such formalities and documentation legal authority, political backing, financial resources, and requirements. This review exercise includes the development of: influence on Customs and OTRAs. a. As-Is maps reflecting current import, export, or transit International organizations, like the World Bank, have not only processes.14 assisted interested developed counties to develop enabling legislative and institutional environments for the TSW but also b. To-Be maps which represent the desired simplified versions provided financial resources. of existing ones. Economy-wide versus geographically bounded single window This review exercise allows border agencies to simplify and solution: The coverage of a TSW is rather thematic than harmonize formalities and procedures prior to the adoption of the geographic. In its typical form, it enables the exchange of trade TSW digital solution. Eventually, it leads them to better define the regulatory data thus enabling cargo clearance processes in all scope and coverage of workflows to be digitized. This way, they types of border crossings (land, port, airport etc.). In contrast to avoid the digitization of inefficient trade regulatory processes and the PCS which, at least until the recent past, was linked to the procedures. Measures are aligned with the WTO-TFA, which calls 13 As per Article 23 of the WTO-TFA 14 An example of an AS-IS business process map of the import process at the port of Acrra, Ghana is offered in Annex 4 The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 16 Port Community Systems Box 3. The Korean UNI-PASS The UNI-PASS platform is the backbone of international trade in Korea and serves as the information hub for the entire trading community. It connects all stakeholders involved in trade clearance processes and provides automated end-to-end processing of all trade transactions. The most recent available data states that UNI-PASS connects 169 government entities, including customs, ports, warehouses, banks and 27 OGAs, and a total of 260,000 different private sector entities covering importers, exporters, customs brokers, shipping lines, etc. In Korea, governance of UNI-PASS comes under the purview of KCS. The Commissioner of Customs reports to the Prime Minister but has decision-making authority over all UNI-PASS-related issues. A working group, led by KCS, with members of all 27 connected OGAs feeds into this process. Through UNI-PASS some 21 million import declarations are processed annually, and revenue collection of USD 52 billion. Moreover, 25 million TEUs of cargo are handled, and, through the platform’s intelligent risk management features, some USD 7 billion of illegal trade is prevented. Source: Authors based on various presentations on UNIPASS. for the minimization the complexity of import, export, and transit of paper documents required for submission. Once the single formalities and the simplification of import, export, and transit window system is adopted, compliance requirements are documentation requirements.15 It should also be highlighted more related to data entries as opposed to documentation that the review and re-engineering actions require institutional submission. Being a single-entry data exchange platform, the coordination between all border agencies and deep collaboration TSW has the technical capability to repeatedly use data entries on a technical level. submitted once by traders or their designated agents. Lessons learned from international experience do not yet support the TSW adoption requires a number of prerequisites: The adop- argument that national single windows lead to a complete tion of the data-sharing hardware and software infrastructure trade paperless environment. However, the elimination of even does not guarantee its proper functionality. The TSW journey is a minimum number of documents allows border agencies to less about installing a single system and more about develop- shift their culture towards less bureaucratic and more efficient ing an efficient, inter-connected ecosystem. Even in advanced processes. countries, this is an on-going process. Successful TSWs have a strong legislative framework supporting their functionalities Big data analytics and evidence-based management of risk: (Box 4). However, in many cases, lack of the appropriate legis- TSWs generate vast volumes of data, sourced from Customs but lative and regulatory frameworks has prevented the TSW from also from the OTRAs. National single windows offer the ability ever becoming operational. In other cases, the lack of laws or to turn otherwise scattered data points into a coherent single regulations securing the mandatory character of the TSW has led repository, so Customs and other border inspection analysts traders to submit twice in both digital and paper-based forms. can query all the data together to gain insights into embedded Increasing numbers of countries now recognize the importance risks. This creates a unique opportunity for border agencies to of the enabling environment for the TSWs effective operations collectively analyze this information to identify and appropriately and treat the development journey of this digital solution as an manage risks in the movements of cargoes across borders. Given opportunity for shifting the culture of border inspection agencies the size and scope of TSW data, this could be a challenging exer- and how to best manage institutional change. cise unless border agencies proceed with targeted investments in human resources by hiring IT professionals to manage and Substituting documents with data entries: Ultimately, the assess large volumes of data and by investing in appropriate adoption of the TSW will, at a minimum, lead to the reduction data analytics software. 15 Especially with all sections of Article 10: Formalities Connected with Importation and Exportation and Transit The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 17 Port Community Systems Box 4. VUCE’s legal framework Peru’s legal environment provided the impetus to drive necessary government reforms and to establish a TWS to support trade facilitation. There are several regulations forming the basis for VUCE. Some of which include, but is not limited to: 1. Supreme Decree No. 165-2006-MEF, granting status by law to the creation of a single window for foreign trade, through the Supplementary Provision of Legislative Decree No. 1036 under the administration and maintenance of the Ministry of Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR). Specifically, it is to be managed by the Vice Ministry of Foreign Trade. 2. Legislative Decree 1211 endorsed measures aimed at integrating public services and encouraging the exchange of infor- mation through a single window. It determined the rules for implementing a single window, for exchanging information between parties and for interoperability instruments. The decree also stated that the adoption of relevant technologies can occur over time (OECD, 2016). 3. Law No. 28977 enabled the formation of the Special Committee to oversee the implementation and functioning of VUCE (OECD, 2015). The Committee is comprised of 27 institutions: 17 from the public sector, nine business associations for foreign trade and one port administrator. 4. Digital Certificates and Signatures Law No. 27269 provides the legal status to digital or advanced electronic signatures. For digital certificates to be recognized, certain standards need to be met by the certification provider. Source: Study on Single Window Systems International Interoperability: Key Issues for Its Implementation, APEC Policy Support Unit, August 2018. Box 5. Jamaica interoperability Jamaica is home to one of the region’s largest transshipment terminals in the Caribbean. A key factor of success was the development of Jamaica’s PCS and its integration with ASYCUDA along with the National Single Window (NSW). The PCS was seen as part of a wider initiative by the Government focused on improving the national logistics and trading environment. The latest strategic project related to improving the trade environment is the National Single Window (NSW), implemented in 2020. The PCS and Customs solutions are interoperable and integrated to provide seamless transactions for cargo processing. This exchange was made possible by the signing of an MOU between the PCS operator and Customs. eSAD Declarations are sent to the Customs’ ASYCUDA World and manifests sent to the PCS. Both systems validate the information that is sent. The PCS also disseminates specific manifest information to customs, terminals, and regulatory agencies in the required format. Once cargo is cleared and released by all the major stakeholders, the PCS provides confirmation and then generates an electronic release. Benefits of Jamaica’s PCS include faster and more efficient Customs clearance, more streamlined standard processes, and faster turn-around of trucks, improved gate in-gate out operations, and reduced congestion at gates. Source: Jamaica Port Authority. 4.1.  Linkages between PCS and TSW necessarily lead to quicker release of cargo from the port. Quick and efficient stevedoring, stripping, stacking and other port logis- Border operations at ports are still a challenge: The widespread tics services are largely offset by lengthy and complex cargo adoption of private sector participation in global terminal opera- clearance processes, leading to longer than necessary stays of tions has dramatically improved their operational performance. containers at the ports. This mismatch increases uncertainty This is reflected in reduced dwell times and increased predict- for importers and exporters and impacts the trade industry’s ability of cargo movements at the ports’ terminals. However, perception of a port’s effectiveness. Improving collaboration especially in the developing world, these improvements do not between Customs and ports has been recognized as a priority The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 18 Port Community Systems Figure 7. Integration Schema VUCE2.0 Maritime Agent Ship Service Providers Custom Agent Logistics Operators Exporters Importers Producers B2G B2B B2G VUCE 2.0 (Trade Single Window) G2G B2G PCS (CP v2.0 ) PMS (CP v2.0 ) Free Trade PMS (CP v2.0 ) Authorizations MISLO Zone Arrival Stay & & Vessels Departure Services Maritime Restricted Peru Control MIIO Port Goods Marketplace Tower Land Health Complementary certificates information (Callao) services Logistics Trade Origin E-PYMEX Maritime Port Observatory Logisitics Hinterland Services Secuirty Electronic Digital Autentication Digital File Electronic Box Payment Signature Operated by PRIVATE STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Port Authority Operated by MINCETUR SPV Operated by MINCETUR Source: Ministry of International Trade and Tourism, Peru. and several initiatives are underway.16 In the center of this agenda • Development of standards for the digitalization of mari- is the: (a) Identification and measurement of benefits from digital time-related documentation with industry partners. collaboration. (b) Actions towards the convergence between TSW and PCS. Similarly, in the port of Rotterdam, an alliance was formed between Portbase17 and Customs, which allowed a technical alignment for Formalizing the Customs-ports digital collaboration: An increas- the ICT-challenges of both organizations. In the developing world, ing number of countries have proceeded with the signing of memo- Jamaica is a good example of formal collaboration which has led randums of understanding (MOU) to define and formalize digital to the integration of the PCS and TSW (see Box 5). collaboration. Recently, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singa- pore, Singapore Customs and the Singapore Shipping Association A top-down approach may untie the knot: Achieving high levels of signed an MOU on digitalization of trade and maritime documen- coordination and data collaboration between Customs and ports tation in the industry. Through this collaboration, the parties aim to is often difficult. They report to different government ministries promote digitalization, by showcasing gains in productivity, time, with different priorities. This leads them to work in isolation. and cost savings. The focus areas of this MOU include: Therefore, instructions for collaboration should come from the highest levels of the government. Such a top-down approach has • Collaboration with multiple industry stakeholders to digitalize been successful in Morocco. Here it enabled a comprehensive the documentation required across the maritime industry. approach to the implementation of PORTNET, which includes both functionalities of an TSW and PCS. The project was initiated • Leveraging suitable technologies, such as distributed ledger in a top-down manner as part of an overall planning and imple- technology, to achieve greater assurance of trust and integrity mentation of reform initiatives: all focused on improved transport of the shipping documentation passing through the supply efficiency and trade facilitation. The National Port Authority of chain players. Morocco took charge of project management and was able to 16 In November 2021, WCO and IAPH embarked on a dialogue to strengthen the partnership between Customs and Port authorities for smoother and more efficient supply chains. 17 PORTBASE is the entity that runs the PCS of the Port of Rotterdam The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 19 Port Community Systems convince partners in the port community of the effectiveness of a. Enhance coordination with the maritime and port logistics moving towards a PCS. business community. Towards the end of multiple “single windows”? Interconnectivity b. Develop the basic legal framework, including the introduc- and interoperability between the PCS and the various SW compli- tion of privacy laws and rules providing privacy and security ance platforms will constitute the next wave of port sector digital in the exchange of information. transformation. Some countries, such as Peru, have taken steps in this direction (Figure 10). This type of initiative will eventually break c. Develop common data reference models in support of inter- down the boundaries between the existing triptych and pave the connectivity and interoperability. way for a true single-submission and data exchange along the trade and transport dimensions of international supply chains. Although On a regional level, experience from the EU suggests empha- the financial and economic benefits from the digital integration and sizing the importance of a robust regulatory framework for the holistic supply chain treatment have already been acknowledged, successful interoperability between PCS and Trade or Maritime there are still a number of important prerequisites for successful Single Windows. For instance, the EU Customs code makes it implementation, including the political will of the government and legally difficult for data received by Customs, via the TSW, to be the relevant governmental trade and transport authorities to: re-used by the PCS for the purpose of B2B services. 5.  Conclusion This chapter focused on the presentation and analysis of the authorities are one entity these linkages are even greater maritime and trade single windows and on the identification and more durable. The mandatory adoption of a MSW, as of linkages between them and the PCS concept. International defined by the IMO FAL Convention, is easier for countries experience shows that there are no guidelines on which of the that already have a functioning PCS in place. three solutions should be developed first. Preferred system’s design and development should reflect the needs of the port IV. Despite a slow start, an increasing number of countries logistics industry and should be customized to fit the specific are adopting TSWs, in compliance with the provision of structure of the market. the WTO-TFA. In big ports that act as national trade gate- way ports, maritime authorities, terminal operators, and The key takeaways are: shipping lines are linked to the TSW. In these cases, the trade platform incorporates several of the port operational I. There is more than one data collaboration platform oper- processes, which are important for the cargo clearance ating in the modern port and maritime sector. PCSs could process. be accompanied by MSWs and TSWs, which are specific purpose single windows. Both of them are compli- V. Ports looking into the development of PCS should take ance-based, government-initiated solutions, as opposed under consideration the existing single windows already to efficiency-driven PCSs, and foster trade and transport in place. PCS developers should assess in-depth the port facilitation in international supply chains. digital ecosystem and ensure that its architecture comple- ments rather than overlaps with the respective MSWs II. A rough method for distinguishing a PCS from either the and TSWs design. The role of public-private consultation MSW or a TSW is by identifying the process they cover. groups is expanded and becomes instrumental as they are While the first two focus on the port, maritime and hinter- mandated to identify the trade industry’s core challenges land side of operations, the latter covers the regulatory and convert them into policy reforms. procedures for the clearance of imported or exported cargoes. However, conceptual boundaries between the VI. Looking into the future, technological advances and the three are not always very clear and, in reality, they tend to development of affordable software and hardware solu- overlap both procedurally and administratively. tions will improve interoperability and interconnectivity capabilities and will eventually lead to real-time, seamless III. PCSs quite often co-exist with MSWs. This is true especially exchange of data between the three-core data collabora- in the context of the EU. Linkages between the two are tion platforms. It is unclear whether this will lead to the quite strong and – in many cases – the vessel clearance complete merger of the systems. However, it is at least process is an embedded module of the port community expected to prevent the repetitive submission of the same system platform. In cases where the port and maritime data elements across the board. . The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 20 Port Community Systems Appendix 1. Port call process Sale of Goods Ships Sale of Goods Contract contract (bulk). Terminal Departure Passage Berth planning Abbreviations and contract (bulk) for hiring ships Carriage contract contract planning to port A arrival introduction (See 1) -3 months to -3 weeks -3 months to -3 weeks (container). -3 months to -3 weeks -3 weeks -48 hours -3 months to -3 weeks Sale of Goods Sale of Goods contract (bulk). Carriage Ship operator Contract terminal contract (bulk) contract (container). (See 7) (See 2) (See 6) Contract Ship charterer for hiring ships (See 3) Berth Berth Berth Berth planning Berth planner information information information (See 12) (See 5) RTA Berth Port Port dues land Port planner information lease contract Port (See 4) (See 8) information Nautical Hydrographic service charts and provider publications (See 10) Ship manager Port passage ETA berth PTA berth Arriving ship plan (See 11) (See 13) (See 9) Ship manager PTD berth Departing ship Nautical service providers Vessel or Cargo service providers Authorities Nautical Information Operational Information Source: ITPCO The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 21 Port Community Systems Port planning Berth / Port Vessel / Cargo Port planning Berth / Port arrival arrival service planning departure departure -3 hours 0 hours +24 hours - +72 hours +24 hours - +72 hours +24 hours - +72 hours ISPS (See 22) Port planning Port (See 15) Port ISPS Port planning RTA pilot (See 25) information boarding (See 22) information RTD berth place Vessel and ISPS Vessel and ETA pilot PTA pilot ATA pilot ATD pilot cargo service (See 22) cargo service ATD berth boarding boarding boarding ATA berth ETD berth PTD berth boarding planning planning (See 27) place place place (See 20) (See 21) Crew rest hour planning (See 21) (See 24) (See 26) place (See 14) (See 16) (See 19) (See 28) RTS service (See 23) RTS service Nautical Nautical service service planning planning (See 17) ETS PTS ATS ETC PTC ATC service service service service service service (See 21.5) (See 21.5) (See 21.5) (See 21.6) (See 21.6) (See 21.6) Notifications and Notifications and Notifications and declarations declarations declarations (See 18) (See 18) (See 18) Administrative Information The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows Port Community Systems Appendix 2. Global implementation of WTO TFA Article 10.4 Single Window Top 5 measures with highest implementation rate Based on implementation commintments by all WTO Members Measure: 10.4 - Single window Ranked 36 out of 36 measures Rate of implementation commirments to date: 53.1% 1 Today Art. 9 - Movement of goods 93.3% 2 Today Art. 5.2 - Detention 92.6% 3 Today Art. 10.5 - Preshipment inspection 92.3% 4 Today Art. 10.9 - Temporary admission... 90.2% 5 Today Art. 10.6 - Use of custom brokers 89.6% 36 Today Art. 10.4 - Single window 53.1% 0 25 50 75 100 % Developed members Category A current commitments Category B current commitments Category C current commitments Category B future commitments Category C future commitments Unknown TFAD (Trade Facilitation Agreement Database) www.tfadatabase.org TODAY 2023 - 2024 2025 - 2027 2028 - 2050 22 Feb 2017 - 29 Mar 2023 30 Mar 2023 - 31 Dec 2024 1 Jan 2025 - 31 Dec 2027 1 Jan 2028 - 31 dec 2050 38.8% 52.0% 68.0% 87.2% +13.2% +16.0% +19.2% Status of implementation commitments Implementation commintments according to notification data Groupings: LDCs, Developing members Measure: 10.4 - Single window Today 38.8% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % TFA implementation commitments Category A commitments for implementation to date: 19.6% Category B commitments for future implementation: 2.4% Category B commitments for implementation to date: 8.8% Category C commitments for future implementation: 54.8% Category C commitments for implementation to date: 10.4% Unknow: 4.0% TFAD (Trade Facilitation Agreement Database) www.tfadatabase.org PHOTO BY: © 2020 JUICE FLAIR/SHUTTERSTOCK The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 24 Port Community Systems Appendix 4. Import cargo clearance business process map at the Port of Accra, Ghana Waiting at Anchorage Time at berth (average): 32.35 hrs Navigation: 0.5 hrs (average): 43.86 hrs Vessel Reaches Vessel on-board Pilot /Tugs Container Container Loaded Vessel Cleared Anchorage & Waits Inspection / Parallel Discharged from Berth Container Terminals (berths 1 and 2) Master-Port Processes on Vessel for Sail Manoeuvre Vessel for Clearance Vessel to Port Entry/Exit Exchange Start Quay-Side Port Navigation: 0.5 hrs Yes MPS / GPHA Deconsolidation Location for Reefer? Gate-Out Required? deconsolidation Pilot /Tugs Vessel Berthing Manoeuvre Vessel No Completed to Berth Containers Yes Delivery Type Direct placed on Delivery No consignee truck ICD Indirect Delivery ICD/Consignee Containers placed Container Submits container on ICD/CConsignee/ Stacked in Yard Movement Request RedSea truck Import Containers Discharged from MPS or GPHA Container Terminal – Tema Port GPHA Shed 10 Golden Jubilee Terminal Average time reefer containers in yard: ? No Reefer Yard GPHA Container Stacked Consignee Unstuffing Yes Unstuffing takes Inspection Yes Inspection/ Clearance Yes Scanned? in Reefer Yard Reaches Port Required? place Required? Sampling Received No Unstuffing Holding Yard/Car Parks Inspection Required? Inspection Required ICD or Shed 10 ICD Terminal (exc. GJT) Inland Container Legend Task/Activity Decision Point Sequence Source: World Bank. The role of Trade and Maritime Single Windows 25 Port Community Systems Vessel Leaves Port End Shed 10 Physical Wait for Inspection/ Customs Shed 10 Gate In Sampling if Sampling/ Clearance Issued required Inspection Results Yes Yes Container Stripped Cargo Loaded on No Cargo stored in Consignee No Consignee picks in presence of Inspection? Inspection Consignee Truck Inspection? Shed 10 reaches Shed 10 Inspection up cargo Customs and seal placed Cargo stored in Scanning Required? Shed 10 Delivery Type? Yes Direct No Storage Indirect Location? GJT Physical Wait for Inspection/ Customs Sampling/ Sampling if Clearance Issued required Inspection Results Yes Cargo stored in CFS Shed Consignee No Consignee picks Inspection? (Golden Jubilee reaches GJT Inspection up cargo Terminal) Truck with No Inspection Direct Delivery container waits Discrepancy? No Physical Required for results in Inspection holding yard Inspection Shed 10 Physical Container Type of Delivery inspection in Scanned holding yard/car New Seal placed Truck Exits Port parks Going to ICD No Inspection Truck with Physical Truck Released ICD Gate-IN Earlier Scaned? container waits Inspection? Inspection New Seal placed for results in ICD inspection from ICD No