Blog - Cross-border Research Association

International Forum for NTF Committees (part 2/2)

February 7, 2017/in Blog /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

About 300 delegates from all over the world braved the frosty outdoor temperatures in Geneva in late January to attend the first International Forum for National Trade Facilitation Committees at the United Nations. Myself, Dr. Sangeeta Mohanty, had the good fortune of representing Cross-border Research Association at this memorable event. This Blog (part 2 of 2) covers the last three days of the forum.

The second half of the forum centred on defining the role of National Trade Facilitation Committees, NTFCs, in Trade Facilitation reforms, the specification of concrete processes and detailed recommendations on establishing and sustaining NTFCs. Real live issues encountered during the reform process were brought to the forefront. Another highlight was the trade fair where organisations presented their Trade Facilitation programmes and supporting tools, offering participants information on a one-to-one basis. This also provided a unique opportunity for government representatives to explore possibilities of bilateral assistance with donor institutions. Quite interestingly, the International Customs Day happened to fall during this one-week event that served as a reminder of the leading role of customs in the monitoring and management of international trade. Speakers reinforced the central role of customs in bringing about wide-scale reforms to cross-border trade operations and procedures.

The first panel discussions dealt with the scope, mandate, recommended governance and management styles of NTFCs to establish a healthy breeding ground for mutual understanding, trust and cooperation among the parties involved. Potential problems and pitfalls were discussed at great length. Speakers from Sudan and Morocco shared their experiences in setting up NTFCs, including challenges and lessons learned. Senior representatives from Nigeria and Togo highlighted the most important elements to be taken into consideration. They key considerations expressed by the Nigerian expert were the empowerment of Trade Facilitation committees to take binding decisions, aligning the national policies and legislations with the WTO TFA provisions, and sensitising the private sector to the WTO TFA. The representative from Togo elaborated on the difficulties encountered with regard to budget, financing, resources, membership, training and capacity building. The WCO expert drew attention to a number of issues associated with information and intelligence data gathering, professional development, talent management, technical competence and training.

Private sector engagement that was briefly touched upon in the first half of the forum became the main focus of the next session. It was commonly agreed that businesses can play an instrumental role in the long-term success of Trade Facilitation activities. The Global Alliance programme, a public-privat -partnership is based on the premise that neither the public nor the private sector can independently achieve the WTO TFA goals. Several institutional barriers to cooperation were discussed by experts from Pakistan and Jamaica. Nigeria was cited as a more successful example, with a well-organised private sector and institutionalised cooperation between government and industry stakeholders. From the discussion it emerged that the logistics sector is generally less represented and active efforts must be made for a balanced representation of interests from each stakeholder category. A tripartite structure of governance consisting of national regulators, other relevant governmental stakeholders and industry actors was advocated. The progressive building of mutual trust and confidence between industry and government was considered the key to establishing successful partnership. Further, stakeholders are advised to build up a good communication strategy to be included in the decision-making agenda. The overall message for successful engagement was encapsulated in three keywords: inclusive, comprehensive and coordinated.

The reference to coordination paved the way for the dialogue around Coordinated Border Management and the involvement of NTFCs in this dynamic process. The example of the one-stop border post between Zimbabwe and Zambia was presented, reiterating the issue around trust and alignment. Coordinated Border Management was summed up as an engineered process of shared resources, shared responsibility, shared work, as well as an interplay between national committees. Striking a balance between legal, operational, technical, and human resource processes was recommended for effective border management.

Creating and driving a National Trade Facilitation roadmap was considered integral to Trade Facilitation reforms. Governments are advised to refer to the UNECE guide that was successfully applied by Greece. Speakers outlined the different phases of establishing a Trade Facilitation implementation roadmap and various strategies to address major challenges. A number of guiding principles were put forward, such as defining a strategic vision, establishing clear-cut goals, setting up steering and management groups, creating technical working groups, and establishing measurable performance indicators.

Insights were provided on the drafting of project proposals. It is imperative that drafting proposals is a participatory process involving all actors likely to be affected or expected to have a role in enabling project success. The proposal should outline a coherent set of planned activities reflecting the objectives of the donors. The core message delivered was to ensure inclusive participation, find common grounds of interest and align the proposal with the objectives of the funder.

The forum concluded with an extensive discussion around the specific role of NTFCs in the evaluation and monitoring of reform processes and in shaping the future of Trade Facilitation. An overview of the WCO tools for monitoring and evaluation was given, namely the Time Release Study and the SAFE Framework of Standards – Self- Assessment Checklist. The private sector was viewed as a valuable instrument in the monitoring process. Since businesses have legitimate reasons for efficient border management, leveraging public-private dialogue in each step of the reform process was considered vital. Coordinated Border Management and Information and Communication Technologies, ICT, were considered two important pillars of Trade Facilitation reforms. Strengthening border management and ICT based modernisation of services is expected to play an increasingly significant role in global trade. In this context, the Automated Systems for Customs Data, ASYCUDA, and the Online Intelligence Trade Portal of the International Trade Center, ITC, were elucidated. ASYCUDA is a computerised system designed by UNCTAD to assist customs authorities to control and automate their core processes, whereas the trade portal aims to be the one-stop shop for trade related intelligence on international markets for the business community and governmental sectors.

To sum up briefly, the WTO TFA is driven by three main objectives: reduction of administrative burdens in cross-border trade; effective cooperation between customs and other relevant authorities; and institutionalisation of a system of continual capacity building. The general consensus was that 2017 is the year of implementation of this ambitious Trade Facilitation agenda and reinforcing multi-stakeholder partnership. NTFCs are advised to serve as the leading platform for public-private dialogue, ensure broad participation and integration of all stakeholders. Businesses are uniquely positioned to inform policy makers and must be informed of the resulting benefits from the engagement of Trade Facilitation bodies. In view of this, the ITC’s long experience in evidence based public-private dialogue has given attention to the critical role of the private sector. Governments must break away from the controlling mindset and the private sector must rise above self-interest to contribute to inclusive economic growth. It is incumbent on all stakeholders to work towards these ends in recognition of the major role that trade can play in achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.

Part 2 of 2 of the CBRA NTFC-Blog by Dr. Sangeeta Mohanty.

International Forum for NTF Committees (part 1/2)

This one-week event was organised by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in cooperation with the International Trade Centre (ITC), the World Bank Group (WBG), the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The objective of the Forum was to empower the leaders of National Trade Facilitation Committees and provide opportunities for developing and Least Developed Countries to access funding for the establishment and sustainability of such crucial committees.

With just two ratifications to go for the entry into force of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, the debate was held at an opportune moment for many developing countries to support their continued efforts towards establishing fully operational National Trade Facilitation Committees, (NTFCs), that is mandated by the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).

The first two days of the meeting focussed on understanding the WTO TFA, the technical assistance available from a range of institutions for the implementation of Trade Facilitation reforms, challenges encountered in setting up NTFCs, Trade Facilitation efforts on a regional perspective and establishing coordination mechanisms between national and regional Trade Facilitation committees.

The main session started off with a lucid presentation by the WTO representative on the most relevant articles of the TFA, the status of ratification, categorisation and notifications and the way forward after the entry into force of the Agreement. Speakers from major international organisations including UNCTAD, ITC, WBG, WCO, WTO, UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) and AfDB (African Development Bank) elaborated on their specific programmes to support national governments in establishing or improving the effectiveness of NTFCs. Trade Facilitation (TF) support at UNCTAD is based on three pillars: Research, Technical assistance and capacity building, and Consensus building. ITC sets out to support the TFA implementation purely from the business perspective with a dedicated focus on small and medium sized enterprises and stimulating public-private dialogue in policy making. The WBG is dedicated to providing technical assistance for developing countries in reforming and aligning their TF laws, procedures, processes and systems to enable implementation of the WTO TFA requirements through its Trade Facilitation Support program. The WCO has launched the Mercator programme that seeks to ensure the uniform implementation of the TFA in the area of Customs, using the WCO instruments and tools. WTO drives the Enhanced Integrated Framework, a multi-donor programme, supporting Least Developed Countries to play a more active role in the global trading system. The AfDB targets regional infrastructure development and industrialisation of trade. And finally, UNIDO provides technical assistance support programmes with a focus on mutually recognising standards. The natural sequel to the above dialogue was the panel discussion around bilateral aid provided by the European Commission and national governmental offices from the United Kingdom, Germany and Finland, which in some cases operate in partnership with other organisations.

The next panel proffered some general policy recommendations to resolve operational, regulatory and procedural challenges faced by NTFCs across the world. One key recommendation was to include the private sector in decision making and financing. Academia and civil society participation was also recommended. Governments are advised to include the right mix of regulators and other actors in NTFCs. The panel members highlighted the need for facilitating inter-agency collaboration and to provide national directives for TF measures. Establishing legally established work plans for NTFCs on the strategic, operational and technical levels was considered absolutely essential. The gradual simplification of procedures was also considered fundamental to TF reforms.

The following panel discussions centred on the role of regional organisations in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean along with the bottlenecks affecting the implementation of TF reforms.

Parallels were drawn between the African and Latin American context where regional integration is largely missing. The main challenges appear to be limited human and financial resources, different priorities among members and agencies, duplication of efforts across existing agencies, weak monitoring and evaluation process, private sector exclusion from decision-making, limited coordination of NTFCs at regional and sub-regional levels, the different mandates and goals of NTFCs, and vested interests of different parties. Panellists recommended a variety of solutions, such as empowering regional committees with the capacity to coordinate, mobilising of resources, harmonising and standardising procedures, aligning facilitation and compliance, enhancing regional competitiveness, and ensuring public-private cooperation. Good practice examples of successful regional integration strategies were put forth in the final round of discussion by top-level experts from the WBG, WCO, the Swedish Permanent Mission in Brussels, Secretariat of the Central American Integration System, NTFC Kenya and the East African Community.

Overall, the integration of trade is considered vitally important to integration in the two regions and private sector engagement appears to be an essential part of dialogue and coordination. Long term strategy planning for NTFCs is advocated. The lively debate on the challenges and complexities around TF set the tone for the subsequent discussions in the next three days regarding important activities involved in establishing NTFCs to help make the vision of the TFA a reality.

Part 1 of 2 of the CBRA NTFC-Blog by Dr. Sangeeta Mohanty.

New Security Guidelines for the European Road Freight Transport Sector

January 27, 2017/in Blog, Blog /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

The European Commission DG MOVE contracts Cross-border Research Association and TAPA EMEA to develop a security toolkit for fighting crime and terrorism on European roads.

The European trucking sector faces many security threats today. While cargo theft continues to be a multi-billion-euro problem for the European transport sector, irregular migration poses another major security risk to international trucking operations: growing numbers of migrants are boarding trucks clandestinely to cross borders. The most alarming trend in the European road transport sector is terrorism. Terrorists have turned heavy vehicles into weapons by hijacking and driving them into crowds, as demonstrated in recent Nice and Berlin attacks.

To address these risks, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission, DG MOVE, has recently commissioned Cross-border Research Association, CBRA of Switzerland and TAPA EMEA to develop a new security toolkit for the European Road Freight Transport Sector. This new toolkit provides clear operational guidance that will help European truck drivers, haulage companies and other key stakeholders to address cargo theft, robberies, irregular migration, and terrorism on European roads. This project titled “ROADSEC” will be completed by end of July 2017.

The new toolkit complements and builds on existing security guidance and standards that TAPA EMEA and other European and national organizations have published over the past years. The new toolkit updates and upgrades contemporary good security practices that are rapidly becoming outdated amid constantly evolving risk landscape, emerging technologies, and regulatory changes. The toolkit also provides clear and commonsense guidance that is designed to reach and resonate with the down-to-earth audience of truck drivers. “The project does not only summarize good practices on how to secure freight on wheels,” Dr. Juha Hintsa, the founder and director of Cross-border Research Association, highlights. “It also seeks to build security awareness and culture across the entire community of several millions truck drivers who transport goods in Europe.”

The toolkit’s primary audience are the truck drivers who are on the frontline in the combat against crime and terrorism in the road transport sector. Nevertheless, the toolkit also encompasses more general security guidance for a broader audience of road transport stakeholders, including fleet managers, cargo owners, and police and customs authorities. “The guidance covers key themes like driver security & safety, incident reporting, secure parking, and hand-over practicalities – among several other topics, to be discovered and detailed during the next 1-2 months”, explains Mr. Juha Ahokas from CBRA’s office in Finland.

Since the project’s start in early January 2017, the project team has been busy collecting existing guidebooks, policies, standards and other relevant documents that could be used to produce the new security toolkit for the European road transport sector. “We want to study all available materials – European and national – so that we can produce the best possible synthesis of security practices for protecting people, cargo, and trucks from crime and terrorism,” Dr. Toni Männistö, a senior researcher of CBRA, says.

So far the project team has been in contact with the International Road Transport Union (IRU), European Shippers’ Council (ESC), European Traffic Police Network (TISPOL), European Organisation for Forwarding and Logistics (CLECAT), United Nation’s Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), PostEurop, and European Commission DG TAXUD. Later in spring, to collect further views of logistics security key experts, the project organizes a workshop as part of TAPA EMEA Conference in Milano, on 15-16 March 2017. In addition, we intend to discuss with individual transport companies, truck manufacturers and the insurance sector, in order to discover all possible inputs for the upcoming guidebook.

Do you want to share your insights or learn more about the study? Please email to juha@cross-border.org, or, call +41-76-5890967

Three new Senior Experts

November 19, 2016/0 Comments/in All partners, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, Blog, Compliance management, Customs risks, Global, Investigations, Manufacturer, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Supply chain, Supply chain security, TAPA, Theft, WP1 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

We have the pleasure to announce that the following three top experts in illicit trade and maritime security have recently joined the CBRA’s Consulting Team, as Senior Consultants: Ms. Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Mr. Michael Ellis and Mr. Lars W Lorenzen. We work closely with them in monitoring new calls and preparing project proposals – and, once new projects are funded, they play a key role in executing the actual research, consulting and training work. In the meanwhile, each one of them carries out other “non-CBRA professional activities”. In today’s CBRA Blog we introduce all the three of them, by sharing their short bios below. Please do not hesitate to contact us in case you see interesting joint project opportunities in the future! Have a great weekend everyone, Juha.

Ms. Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Senior Consultant, Illicit Trade and Human Trafficking, Italy

Ms. Luda di Cortemiglia is a senior researcher and consultant with extensive experience on various criminal justice and supply chain security issues at international level. Experience specifically includes applied research and analysis as well as project management and training for professionals, in the field of illicit trafficking and supply chain security, including trafficking in persons, trafficking in counterfeit products, illicit trade in precious metals, illegal waste trade and eco-crimes, cybercrime and misuse of technologies. After graduating in Law at the University of Turin, Italy, 1999, Ms. Luda di Cortemiglia obtained a Master degree in International Relationships and Diplomacy at St. John’s University, New York, USA, in 2001, joining the United Nations in October 2001. Until September 2016 she has coordinated the programs and activities of the Emerging Crimes Unit at the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI). She has acted as UNICRI Focal Point for the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network (PNI), and from 2009 until 2016 she represented UNICRI within the United Nations Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Human Trafficking (UN-ICAT).

Mr. Michael Ellis, Senior Consultant, Illicit Trade in Global Supply Chains, United Kingdom

Mr. Ellis has nearly 40 years of experience in law enforcement, coming from an operational policing background. He served with the London Metropolitan Police fighting against serious international and organised crime for 20 years, He was then engaged in the corporate security function in multinational firms, dealing with anti-counterfeit and illicit trade issues on a global basis for a further 16 years. Michael was with Universal Music, with IFPI, the music industry’s trade association, and with Beiersdorf. Most recently he was the Assistant Director of Police Services at INTERPOL and the Head of the INTERPOL Program on Traffic in Illicit Goods and Counterfeit. Michael was responsible for managing and coordinating INTERPOL’s global strategy to fight against this criminal activity, and he lead the police organisations international efforts in this area. Michael has a Master’s degree in Social Science, where he specifically researched the extensive links between organised crime and illicit trade and counterfeiting. Michael joined CBRAs consulting team on 1 October, 2016, as a Senior Consultant. He will be involved in various projects related to illicit trade and counterfeit goods in global supply chains.

Mr. Lars W Lorenzen, Senior Consultant, Maritime and Port Security, Denmark

Mr. Lorenzen has had a career with the Maersk Group spanning 37 years within a number of business units, notably within container transportation in the broadest sense. His particular knowledge and expertise covers the operational, equipment management, security, safety, standardization and regulatory sphere. He has been leading the Maersk Group work in obtaining and maintaining US C-TPAT and EU AEO-F supply chain security certifications and validations since the inception of both initiatives, while engaging with customers in shaping their profiles. As part of his security tasks, Lars has built and maintained a security response programme for the Maersk Line organisation, being also the focal point and first responder to security breaches. For a period, he was a member of the WCO PSCG (World Customs Organization Private Sector Consultative Group). During the past 20+ years he has been an appointed national expert in standardization work, mainly within ISO TC104 and TC204, including leadership of working groups – while heading the Danish delegation. Lars has served as a civil expert to NATO and other military initiatives by appointment of the Danish Government for the past 12 years, providing commercial views and factual information relating to logistics, and in the course of this participated in developing and conducting table top and other exercises.

The first Annual SYNCHRO-NET meeting

July 9, 2016/0 Comments/in Air, Airport, All transport modes, Blog, Capacity building, CBRA, EU, FP7, Freight forwarder, Global, Inland waterway, IT, IT-cluster, Maritime, Multi-modal, Optimization, Perishable goods, Rail, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Road, Sea port, Time-critical goods, Tracking, Transport carrier, WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

The SYNCHRO-NET project had its first annual project meeting in Barcelona in early June. I had a pleasure to take part in the three-day event and enjoy the welcoming atmosphere and sunny weather of the Catalonian capital.

For those who are not yet familiar with the project, SYNCHRO-NET is a three-and-half-year demonstration project on advanced logistics optimization. The project seeks to advance and promote new concepts of synchro-modality and slow steaming for more cost-efficient, less congested and greener intermodal supply chains. The project includes three demonstrations that test slow-steaming and synchro-modal solutions in real international logistics networks. The first demonstrator involves shipping of goods from the Far-East to the ports of Valencia, Algeciras and Barcelona, and subsequent movement by rail inland and final short truck movement. The second demonstrator focuses on regional logistics movements through the Port of Cork. The third demonstrator will address multimodal container movements in major European routes. The project is funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme.

During the two first days of the meeting, the Partner Forum discussed the SYNCHRO-NET work ahead: standardization, development of a tool for logistics optimization, real-world demonstrations, and exploitation and dissemination of the project’s results. The discussion produced some interesting findings and conclusions. The Partner Forum observed that, given the large number and variety of factors, the optimization of shipping and logistics in terms of cost (including CAPEX, crew cost, fuel), duration, environmental impact, reliability and various types of risks is nothing but an easy task. For example, weather, tide and state of the sea affect maritime logistics, its speed, reliability and cost-efficiency. There was also a great deal of discussion about the dimensions of risk in the meeting. The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) defines risk as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives.” In this light, the concept of risk in the SYNCHRO-NET context covers at least damage to cargo, lead time variability, variability of cost, and possibility of theft and piracy. The Forum concluded that cost-efficiency and quality of international logistics depend largely on real-time awareness and visibility over logistics operations: “the sooner you know, the lower the cost will be to solve the problem.”

The three days of SYNCHRO-NET meetings culminated in the International Logistics and Material Handling (SIL) conference, the primary annual industry fair and networking event for logistics professionals in Spain. In the conference, Mr. Santiago Blasco (DHL) introduced SYNCHRO-NET at the “Consumer & Goods” working session for a large audience. Later that day, a group of leading logistics experts from Spain and the rest of Europe debated on pressing topics at three SYNCHRO-NET roundtables. The roundtable sessions focused on the general theme “How to build win-win solutions synchro-modal logistics stakeholders.” Here are brief summaries of the roundtable sessions:

“Smart Steaming – how to build a win-win solution for all stakeholders.” The members of the roundtable raised concerns about organizational, technical and business challenges of future slow steaming. There are obvious draw-back in slow steaming such as longer lead times and lower capacity utilization. However, the panel concluded that smart rather than slow steaming is here to stay: “While maintaining high service level, we can make logistics more cost-efficient.”

”Effective management of synchro-modal logistics.” The panelists of the second session argued that the concept of synchro-modality is not yet very established in the logistics sector. Even so, the panel agreed that synchro-modality builds on real-time optimization, risk analysis and advanced, ITC-enabled logistics planning. Synchro-modality requires visibility over the supply chain, so that logistics planers react to contingencies and can make effective decisions in real time. The panel concluded that collaboration across supply chain operators – especially among shippers, carriers, freight forwarders – is the key to synchronized international logistics.

“Synchro-modal IT tools: innovation and value added to the logistics industry.” The third panel focused on the rather technical topic of leveraging cloud-based IT architecture for advanced logistics planning. The panelists saw a great potential in modern ICT solutions to enable synchro-modality, smart steaming and other ways for optimizing international freight transport. There still remain challenges for bridging a broad array of different computer systems for higher degree of logistics interconnectedness and interoperability.

The SYNCHRO-NET project has had a strong start, and the project progresses on the right track and at the full speed after one year of work. There is still much hard work to do over the next six months, for CBRA and other partners. In autumn, CBRA researchers will be focusing on reviewing policies, legislations, and standards that have an effect on synchro-modality and slow steaming. The CBRA team will also continue promoting the SYNCHRO-NET project and its findings at various events and publications. Stay with SYNCHRO-NET and visit the project website www.synchro-net.org.

CBRA Blog by Dr. Toni Männistö

Figure 1 Santiago Bosco presenting SYNCHRO-NET at the the International Logistics and Material Handling (SIL) conference

New survey on European postal security

June 15, 2016/0 Comments/in Air, Blog, CBRA, Counter-terrorism, Customs risks, EU, FP7, Global, IT, Mail operator, Multi-modal, Rail, Risk management, Road, Scanning, Screening, Supply chain security, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Tracking, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, UPU, WP2, WP3 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

PostEurop and Cross-border Research Association have launched a new online survey on postal security management to promote further development and implementation of best security practices in the postal sector. The survey is part of the ongoing SAFEPOST project that the European Commission is co-funding under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). SAFEPOST project going to finish in the end of July after four years of work towards higher postal security in the European Union.

The survey studies the current state of postal security management among PostEurop members, 52 postal operators in 49 European countries. The goal is to collect responses mainly from security and safety managers of the PostEurop members, but also postal expert familiar with sorting and distribution processes are welcome to provide their inputs. The first part of the survey focuses on security implementation and security performance, and the second part studies postal managers’ expectations and concerns regarding the following six main SAFEPOST innovations:

Common Postal Security Space:

SAFEPOST has created an online platform for sharing security-related information between postal operators. This Common Postal Security Space provides a digital track record of security controls and related evidence (for example X-ray images) that a postal parcel has encountered over its journey, and facilitates an easy and controlled way to exchange information both with other operators as well as the authorities.

D-tube drug screening station:

SAFEPOST has demonstrated a new screening solution, D-tube, that can be fully integrated into the sorting process. The D-Tube’s prototype detects illegal substances, such as narcotics and explosives, at high accuracy.

Explosive detection system:

SAFEPOST has demonstrated a Raman spectroscopy screening device for detecting trace amounts of explosives and explosive precursors on the outside of postal items. The device is designed to be seamlessly integrated, at the same level as X-ray machines already used today, in the sorting process and detect the explosive threats at a high accuracy and at a low false alarm rate (≈ 1 %).

Image recognition system:

SAFEPOST has developed an Image Recognition solution that photographs five visible sides of a postal parcel at one or more locations in the postal network. The solution compares these images to detect signs of tampering or damage (≈ 92% detection rate). The current solution functions properly when the conveyor belt moves no faster than 0.5 m/s.

Radiological screening:

SAFEPOST has demonstrated detection of radiation in moving parcels, that can be fully integrated into the sorting process. The current version of the detector is able to detect any harmful level of radiation, and identify the radioactive isotope, and when possible to consider effects of possible attempts of hiding the radioactivity with lead or other shielding material by detecting neutron radiation.

Security standard and certificate:

SAFEPOST project is working towards a new European security standard for the postal operators that would give recommendations about use of security inspection technologies, exchange of security-related information, cyber security, and key security performance indicators. This standard would pave the road towards a voluntary security certification program that would help the postal operators to show their commitment to security.

This survey research is expected to produce interesting new insights about postal security activities and security performance among the PostEurop members. If the response rate is high, the survey findings will set a basis for pan-European benchmarking of security activities. The findings would also contribute to smart policy making, legislation, and standardisation in the field of postal security.

Finally, depending on the response rate, CBRA is going to publish an academic journal paper based on the results. Building on solid theory on supply chain security risk management, the journal paper would provide new empirical about how supply chain security implementation is associated operational and security performance. We expect that collaborative security measures improve both on-time delivery performance (a proxy for operational performance) and supply chain security performance simultaneously. Collaborative security measures include survey items such as “we coordinate security activities with our business customers” and “we exchange customs declaration information with customs authorities electronically [for example, ITMATT or CUSITM messages]”. Another hypothesis is that, on the one hand, non-collaborative security contributes to supply chain security performance but decrease on-time delivery performance on the other hand. Examples of such non-collaborative measures include “we use tamper-evident mail bags to transport high-value postal items” and “We perform security controls also on non-airmail items to detect explosives.” The figure below summarises the theory and hypotheses of the research paper.

Figure 1 Theoretical framework of the SAFEPOST survey paper

The survey findings will be presented in the final SAFEPOST meeting in Madrid 5-6 July 2016. After the meeting, we hope that we can expand the scope of the survey to cover the rest of the world, as well. The next step would be to contact representatives of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) and coordinate distribution of the survey into the organisations’ 192 member countries.

First results from the WCO Cancun AEO benefit survey

June 8, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Customs, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, Importer, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Regulated Agent, Risk-cluster, Shipper, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, Uncategorized, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WCO, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

In today’s CBRA Blog we provide a sneak preview of the outcomes of the AEO Benefit survey carried out by CBRA research team at the 3^rd Global WCO AEO Conference, in Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016.

We keep today’s Blog very simple. First, we would like to introduce a new test-categorization of Customs granted AEO benefits, with the following five groups:

More streamlined / simplified Customs (and related) procedures
Less frequent interventions by the Customs administration
Increased priority over non-AEO companies (“getting to the front of the queue”)
Increased (positive) attention by the Customs administration
Increased number of other privileges granted by the customs administration

And second, we list the AEO benefits from our survey (only question 2 in the survey form, which focuses explicitly on Customs granted benefits to the supply chain companies, and not benefits for Customs themselves, or any kind of “side benefits” for the companies) under each of the five categories. The order of the benefits per category is based on the survey outcomes, i.e. the first bullet point benefit was the most common one in the survey, followed by the second bullet and so forth. Please note that there are no ranking indications between the five groups, neither when it comes to the groups per se, nor to the individual benefits – these will be included in our academic publications, bit later this year…

Group 1. More streamlined / simplified Customs (and related) procedures

Enjoying increased paperless processing of import/export shipments
Enjoying an access to / pre-qualification with various simplified customs procedures
Enjoying having a reduced number of data elements in the (final) declaration
Enjoying having entry/exit summary declarations with reduced data sets
Enjoying easier access to other governmental certification in the supply chain (e.g. in aviation security)

Group 2. Less frequent interventions by the Customs administration

Enjoying minimum number of cargo security inspections
Enjoying the option of audit-based / account-based controls (versus only transaction-based controls)
Enjoying access to self-audit or reduced audit programs

Group 3. Increased priority over non-AEO companies (“getting to the front of the queue”)

Enjoying priority use of non-intrusive inspection techniques when examination is required
Enjoying a priority status in Customs processing during a period of elevated threat conditions
Enjoying priority response to requests for ruling from Customs
Enjoying expedited processes to resolve post-entry or post-clearance inquiries
Enjoying priority treatment of consignments if selected for control
Enjoying preferential treatment at border crossings in post-disaster/post-attack situations
Enjoying a priority status in exporting to affected countries after a security incident

Group 4. Increased (positive) attention by the Customs administration

Privilege to deal with designated Customs contact points / assistance by Customs supply chain security experts
Privilege to receive training provided by Customs experts
Privilege to be notified of the intention to release goods prior to their arrival (“pre-clearance”)
Enjoying special treatment in some non-criminal legal cases
Privilege to exploit “extended Customs office opening hours”, during high peak / congestion times

Group 5. Increased number of other privileges granted by the Customs administration

Enjoying from tax privileges, such as speedier tax refunds and compensation
Enjoying the option to manage clearance formalities, inspections etc. at the business site
Enjoying from financial guarantee waivers, reductions or rebates
Privilege to self-manage the bonded warehouses
Enjoying tangible benefits due to mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs) with 3rd countries
Privilege to choose the place of controls (if selected for control)
Enjoying reductions on some Customs fees or charges
Privilege to conduct self-assessments when Customs automated systems are not functioning

And that’s about it! Please be reminded again that this CBRA Blog is just a first scratch on the surface to start publishing results from the WCO Cancun 2016 AEO conference… And by the way, we are also working to publish the results from the WCO Madrid 2014 AEO conference, as we have been waiting to publish the full results of the both conferences in a parallel manner / in a same paper. In the meanwhile, please email us any feedback, ideas and/or criticism regarding this Blog!

In Lausanne, 8 June 2016, CBRA Blog Dr. Juha Hintsa

PS. Our earlier Blog with all the WCO Cancun 2016 AEO survey questions can be read at: https://www.cross-border.org/2016/05/08/aeo-benefits-or-no-benefits-thats-the/

PPS. Related literature by the Cross-border Research Association team and key partners:

Most of these papers are available for download at ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juha_Hintsa/publications . And all of them can be naturally requested by email ( cbra@cross-border.org )

Hintsa, J., Mohanty, S., Rudzitis, N., Fossen, C. and Heijmann, F. (2014), “The role and value of customs administrations in minimization of socio-economic negative impacts related to illicit import flows in freight logistics systems- three preliminary cases in Europe – FP7-CORE”, Proceedings of the 9th WCO PICARD Conference, September 17-19, 2014, Puebla.

Hintsa, J. (2013), AEO – MRA Study for RTC- Thailand Europe Cooperation TEC-II, PDSC: Implementation of international standards on Supply Chain Security leading to a secure Trade Environment and to increased Trade Facilitation (Activity Code : TRA 4), Final Report, Bangkok.

Urciuoli, L. and Ekwall, D. (2012), “Possible impacts of supply chain security certifications on efficiency – a survey study about the possible impacts of AEO security certifications on supply chain efficiency”, Proceedings of Nofoma Conference, June 6-8, 2012, Naantali.

Hintsa, J., Männistö, T., Hameri, A.P., Thibedeau, C., Sahlstedt, J., Tsikolenko, V., Finger, M. and Granqvist, M. (2011), Customs Risk Management (CRiM): A Survey of 24 WCO Member Administrations, Study for World Customs Organization (WCO), February 28, 2011, Lausanne

Hintsa, J., Hameri, A.P., Männistö, T., Lazarescu, M., Ahokas, J. and Holmström, J. (2010), ”Conceptual model for measuring benefits of security in global supply chains”, Proceedings of the the 3rd International Conference on Transportation and Logistics (T-LOG), September 6-8, 2010, Fukuoka City.

Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, January 15, 2010

Gutiérrez, X., Hintsa, J., Wieser, P. and Hameri, A.P. (2007), “Voluntary supply chain security program impacts: an empirical study with BASC member companies”, World Customs Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.31-48.

Gutierrez, X. and Hintsa, J. (2006), “Voluntary supply chain security programs: a systematic comparison”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain (ILS), May 15-17, 2006, Lyon.

EU logistics security – an interesting decade

May 21, 2016/0 Comments/in Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, CEN, CLECAT, CPT, EC, ESC, EU, Freight forwarder, Government, Inland waterway, IRU, Other-cluster, Policy, Rail, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Road, Standardization, Supply chain security, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Transport carrier, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

I had a great pleasure to work intensively on the European surface transport security standardization efforts, some years ago – this CBRA Blog aims to summarize the main work done, and the key objectives achieved.

Couple of years after the US 9/11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the European Commission Directorate General of Transport and Energy, EC DG TREN, started to prepare a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing cargo surface transport security. In the meanwhile, 9/11 was already triggering an avalanche of new customs, aviation and maritime supply chain security regulations, programs and standards, in the US, Europe and across the globe. But when it came specifically to surface transport security for road and rail cargo (and inland waterways, to that matter) in Europe, nothing was cooking before the DG TREN initiative “Secure Operator”, first announced in 2004. By 2006, the main goal of the EC proposal for a regulation on enhancing supply chain security (SCS) in the EU was shaped as to achieve greater protection of the European freight transport system against possible terrorist attacks. The specific objectives of the draft regulation were defined as: (i) to increase the level of security along the supply chain without impeding the free flow of trade; (ii) to establish a common framework for a systematic European approach without jeopardizing the common transport market and existing security measures; and (iii) to avoid unnecessary administrative procedures and burdens at European and national levels. In addition, the draft regulation related to the need to prevent a patchwork of various supply chain security standards and solutions across EU.

However, it quickly became clear that there was no common sense of urgency in supply chain security regulations across EU Member States, particularly in the context of threat of terrorism to surface (cargo) transport. One was lacking a commitment towards an integrated approach, which would urge everybody to look at the holistic supply chain picture. The countries and especially stakeholder (or, lobby) organizations clearly focused on their specific interests on a part of the supply chain, thus appearing uncomfortable when trying to identify the “big picture”. Ultimately, the draft regulation was blocked in the European legislative process and finally officially withdrawn by the Commission, in 2010.

In the meanwhile, already in 2005, an expert group in supply chain security was formed under the umbrella of European Committee for Standardization (CEN) – and that’s when Cross-border Research Association started to play a role in the “EU land transport security regulations and standards play”, first as the rapporteur for the expert group, and later as the research party for the technical committee in supply chain security. The expert group was formed technically under the CEN working group “Protection and Security of the Citizen” (CEN/BT/WG161), and the (pre)standardization work was partly based on the Logistics Action Plan of the EC that indicated the need for standardization in the transport security domain for the whole logistic chain.

Following the conclusions and recommendations by the expert group, the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security (CEN/TC 379) was established in 2008, producing ultimately three tangible outputs: Supply Chain Security Feasibility Study (in 2010); CEN Technical Report “Supply Chain Security — Good Practice Guide for Small and Medium Sized Operators” (in 2012, CEN/TR 16412:2012); and, a European Standard: Logistics – Specifications for reporting crime incidents (in 2013, EN 16352:2013-06). The first of the outcomes is available for free (ask by email: cbra@cross-border.org ), and the latter two you can purchase e.g. from your national standardization institute web shop. All in all, great project experience behind us, couple of good publications, and many new contacts and even few friends for lifetime – thus, no regrets, and if asked, would become rapporteur and lead researcher on these important topics, again and again!

And finally, when it comes to the future of SCS regulation and standardization work in Europe – in particular in the land transport security sector (e.g. the LANDSEC expert group, Commission Decision 2012/286/EU): do not be shy in exploiting the tangible outcomes of a decade of our joint work, in particular the Euronorm EN 16352:2013-06, “Logistics: specifications for reporting crime incidents” – no reason to reinvent the wheel!

CBRA Blog by Dr. Juha Hintsa on 21.5.2016

Summarizing the main milestones of the surface transport security 2004-2014 regulatory and standardization process tracks:

A) Regulatory process -track was largely driven by the European Commission Directorate General for Transport and Energy (EC DG TREN), comprising of the following five sequential steps:
A1. Preparation of the Secure Operator legislation at EC DG TREN (2004-2006)
A2. Publication of the legislative proposal (EC, 2006a)
A3. Publication of an impact assessment study (EC, 2006b)
A4. Announcements and debates at European Parliament and Council (2006-2009)
A5. Withdrawal of the proposal by the Commission, (18.9.2010)

B) Standardization process -track – for which the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) was responsible – consisting of the following seven, chronologically ordered steps:
B1. Establishment of an Expert group in supply chain security, under CEN/BT/WG161, “Protection and Security of the Citizen” (2005)
B2. Publication of the final report of the Expert group, approved by CEN/BT/WG161 (14.11.2006)
B3. Establishment of the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security, CEN/TC 379 (2008)
B4. Publication of Supply Chain Security Feasibility Study (15.1.2010)
B5. Publication of the CEN Technical Report, CEN/TR 16412:2012 “Supply Chain Security — Good Practice Guide for Small and Medium Sized Operators” (2012)
B6. Publication of a European Standard: Logistics – Specifications for reporting crime incidents, EN 16352:2013-06 (2013)
B7. Closure of the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security, CEN/TC 379 (2014).

Main references / bibliography:

CEN (2013), “Logistics: specifications for reporting crime incidents”, EN 16352:2013-06
CEN (2012), “Supply chain security (SCS): Good practice guide for small and medium sized operators”, CEN/TR 16412:2012
CEN (2006), “Expert group: Supply chain security”, approved by CEN/BT/WG161, 14.1.2006
EC (2012), “Commission Staff Working Document on Transport Security”, SWD(2012), 143 final.
EC (2006a), COM(2006)79 final, 2006/0025(COD), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhancing supply chain security Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on enhancing supply chain security, (SEC(2006)251)
EC (2006b), SEC(2006)251 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Annex to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhancing supply chain security and Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on enhancing supply chain security – IMPACT ASSESSMENT – {COM(2006)79 final}
Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, 15.12010

AEO benefits, or, no benefits, that’s the?

May 8, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Customs, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, Importer, ISO28000, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Regulated Agent, Retailer, Risk-cluster, Scientific, Shipper, Supply chain security, TAPA, Tax evasion, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Trusted Trader, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WCO, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

“To be, or not be – that is the question”, was Prince Hamlet wondering already some 412 years ago. 400 years later, the CBRA research team started to raise the question of “AEO benefits, or no AEO benefits – that is the ?”…

Around year 2004, we first started to study the emerging AEO-types of programs in Europe and globally, working intensively with multinational companies (clothing, cigarettes, machinery etc.), and with multiple governments. Initially, we reviewed any data available from C-TPAT, StairSec, BASC and TAPA programs, and later we concentrated on EU AEO and all other AEO programs across the globe. After 12 years of research our intention is to publish an academic journal paper summarizing all the knowledge from the literature as well as from our own research on AEO benefits for Customs administrations and for supply chain companies – focusing on the tangible, realized benefits, instead of “paper tiger / lip service” types of benefit checklists.

As the last step of data collection, we are now launching the study: “Customs Supply Chain Security Programs (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) – Survey on Supply Chain and Government Benefits – WCO 3rd Global AEO Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016 – Research project by CBRA, ZLC, UCR, HEC UNIL and FP7-CORE”. This survey is a direct follow-up with the one CBRA did in the 2^nd Global AEO Conference in Madrid two years ago. Ms. Susana Wong Chan from the University of Costa Rica and Cross-border Research Association is presenting the survey in Cancun next week, and collecting as many replies as possible, in person during the conference (and by email after).

We have three main questions in the Cancun AEO survey, each one with multiple sub-questions (all questions are presented with a five-point Likert scale, plus one option for “cannot say”):

Question for Customs administrations, supply chain companies, and all other experts in cross-border supply chains and Customs supply chain security programs: How often are the supply chain security program certified companies in your country benefiting from the following Customs granted incentives?
Question for Customs administrations only: What are the benefits for the Customs administration in your country arising from the supply chain security program?
Question for supply chain companies only: What are the additional benefits for the supply chain companies in your country, arising from the supply chain security program participations / certifications?

The full list of questions and sub-questions is shared at the end of this blog. In addition, you can download the questionnaire in word-format, in English and in Spanish, at: https://www.cross-border.org/downloads/

Why don’t (near) perfect AEO benefit -papers exist yet in the literature? One would think that the topic attracts lots of academics to carry out such research, and to publish their exciting findings, rather sooner than later… Well, it is quite challenging topic to study: where is the objective, non-biased data located, and how do you get access to it? How to deal with all the politics linked to the topic, as maybe many countries would like to be perceived as “leading edge AEO program holders, with a set of fantastic, innovative benefits delivered to the trade and logistics…”? How to differentiate between all the AEO marketing materials and incentive promises from what is actually implemented on the ground, for the real benefit of supply chain companies; and so forth..? To expand on these thoughts, one could revisit our article on the WCO News No 74 of June 2014. The table on page 45 includes a row on challenges and peculiarities with different categories of possible AEO benefits, sharing following observations and notes:

As some of the Customs granted benefits existed in many countries before the AEO era, companies which have enjoyed “such pre-AEO benefits” may fear a potential reduction in existing trade facilitation measures – instead of the introduction of truly new benefits.
Due to the dynamics in the cross-border flow of goods, outcomes might vary considerably over time – ‘seeing is believing’; in particular, the benefits linked to ‘elevated threat’ and ‘post-incident recovery’, may appear quite theoretical until such situations actually emerge (and the benefits materialize – or, not).
Some could also consider that the AEO system may become a technical trade barrier – the ´become an AEO or die´ scenario.
Some might think that an AEO program deters crime, as criminals would rather choose an easy target (i.e. a non-AEO target), for example in the case of warehouse theft; and, alternatively, other might think that an AEO program attracts criminals, as they know there are likely to be fewer Customs interventions – the smuggling of narcotics, for example.

Dear CBRA Blog reader: although this is very challenging research topic, and one should not dream of reaching “one ultimate truth out there” – we kindly ask that if you are in Cancun 11-13 May for the 3^rd Global AEO Conference, please take 10 minutes to reply the questionnaire..! Next to the good vibrations gained from participation in this highly important study, you will join a lucky drawing of a nice Costa Rican souvenir! In Lausanne, 9 May 2016, Juha Hintsa.

PS. List of benefit survey questions, for the CBRA Blog readers:

Customs Supply Chain Security Programs (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) – Survey on Supply Chain and Government Benefits – WCO 3rd Global AEO Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016 – Research project by CBRA, ZLC, UCR, HEC UNIL and FP7-CORE

Question for Customs administrations, supply chain companies, and all other experts in cross-border supply chains and Customs supply chain security programs: How often are the supply chain security program (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) certified companies in your country benefiting from the following Customs granted incentives?

Use the following scale: Very frequently – Frequently – Occasionally – Rarely – Never / Not applicable in our country (or, this is nothing specific for certified companies) – Cannot say

Are companies submitting entry/exit summary declarations with reduced data sets?
Are companies benefiting from reduced number of data elements in their final declaration?
Are companies benefiting from increased paperless processing of import/export shipments?
Are companies offered the option of audit-based / account-based controls (versus only transaction-based controls)?
Are companies having access to / pre-qualification with various simplified customs procedures?
Are companies self-managing their bonded warehouses?
Are companies benefiting from tax privileges, such as speedier tax refunds and compensation?
Are companies benefiting from financial guarantee waivers, reductions or rebates?
Are companies benefiting from reduction of any Customs fees or charges?
Are companies benefiting from access to self-audit or reduced audit programs?
Are companies allowed to conduct self-assessments when Customs automated systems are not functioning?
Are companies benefiting from designated Customs contact points / assistance by Customs supply chain security experts?
Are companies benefiting from training provided by Customs experts?
Are companies enjoying easier access to other governmental certification in the supply chain, e.g. in aviation security?
Are companies benefiting from the option to manage clearance formalities, inspections etc. at the business site?
Are companies benefiting from a minimum number of cargo security inspections?
Are companies being notified of the intention to release goods prior to their arrival? (“pre-clearance”)
Are companies benefiting from “extended Customs office opening hours”, during high peak / congestion times?
Are companies benefiting from choice of place of controls, if selected for control?
Are companies benefiting from priority treatment of consignments if selected for control?
Are companies benefiting from priority use of non-intrusive inspection techniques when examination is required?
Are companies guaranteed a priority Customs processing during a period of elevated threat conditions?
Are companies guaranteed preferential treatment at border crossings in post-disaster/post-attack situations?
Are companies guaranteed a priority in exporting to affected countries after a security incident?
Are companies benefiting from expedited processes to resolve post-entry or post-clearance inquiries?
Are companies benefiting from priority response to requests for ruling from Customs?
Are companies benefiting from privileges in any kind of non-criminal legal cases?
Are companies enjoying tangible benefits due to mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs) with 3rd countries?

Question for Customs administrations only: What are the benefits for the Customs administration in your country arising from the supply chain security program (AEO, C-TPAT etc.)?

Use the following scale: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree – Cannot say

Better overall allocation of governmental resources
Improved indirect tax revenue collection
Improved prevention of trafficking and illicit trade
Improved detection and/or seizures in trafficking and illicit trade
Improved prosecution to judgements -ratio (= higher percentage of successful prosecutions)
Increased confiscations of criminal assets and/or proceeds of crime
Improved collaboration with supply chain companies
Improved collaboration with other national government agencies
Improved international collaboration with Customs administrations in other countries

Question for supply chain companies only: What are the additional benefits for the supply chain companies in your country, arising from the supply chain security program participations / certifications (AEO, C-TPAT etc.)?

Use the following scale: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree – Cannot say

Improved customer service
Improved customs loyalty
Increased market share/ gaining more new customers
Improved security commitment of employees
Improved company image and credibility
Reduced overall vulnerability of the supply chain
Improved supply chain resiliency
Reduced cargo theft incidents
Reduced tax fraud incidents
Reduced illicit trade / trafficking incidents
Reduced insurance fees
Improved inventory management
Fewer delayed cross-border shipments
Reduced lead time variability in the cross-border supply chain

PPS. Related literature by the Cross-border Research Association team and key partners:

Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, January 15, 2010

Hold on, before blaming it on the OGAs!

April 27, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Analytic, Blog, CBRA, Coordinated border management, Counterfeiting, Customs, Cybercrime, Dangerous goods, Dual-use goods, Environmental agency, Environmental crime, Exporter, Global, High-taxed goods, Importer, Other-cluster, Perishable goods, Phytosanitary agency, Police, Prohibited goods, Restricted goods, Risk-cluster, Strategic goods, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Trafficking, Transport security agency, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

It is common since many years already that the global customs community is pointing their “blaming finger” to other government agencies – OGAs – when it comes to identifying root causes behind too long cargo release times at sea ports and other border crossing points, high costs for importers and exporters to conduct international trade, and so forth. Now, without denying this as a plausible scenario, the CBRA research team proposes to take one step backwards, by first building a solid framework for analyzing and deeply understanding what is actually happening at the borders with Customs and all the other agencies, before rushing to conclusions on “who is to be blamed for poor / expensive cross-border performance…”. Therefore – for both educational purposes (FP7-CORE, work package 19.1) and for analytical purposes (Border Agency Cooperation study with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC), we have produced the following “universal border control task list” – naturally understanding that a perfect single universal list cannot exist. The list is first exploited during April-May 2016 in the OIC Embassy survey (here in Switzerland), to explore who is responsible for specific cross-border controls in various OIC member countries, and to what extent customs is performing tasks on behalf of other (border) agencies. Later, we plan to use the this as a “de-facto border agency control check-list” in our future studies, across the globe.

Again, the first step before analyzing which agencies to blame, is all about understanding what are the typical cross-border control tasks all about, considering all three task categories:

Border control tasks which typically cover all commodities;
Border control tasks which typically focus on specific commodities; and
Other border agency control areas.

Now, lets go through all three of them, starting with the first one, and followed by the other two:

Border control tasks which typically cover all commodities:

Calculation and collection of indirect border taxes:
- customs duties
- sales / value added taxes
- excise taxes
Calculation and collection of other import/ transit/ export fees and taxes (e.g. environmental fee at export)
Compilation of trade statistics

Border control tasks which typically focus on specific commodities:

Control of import quota restricted products
Calculation and granting of export subsidies
Control of product safety / conformity of goods / trading standards (please separate agencies per product category, if necessary)
Control of food, drinks, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals (including for general health and safety purposes)
Control of energy related materials / products (e.g. oil and coal, could be for export taxation purposes etc.)
Enforcement of intellectual property rights / fight against copyright infringements / anti-counterfeit
Control of plant diseases, pests and extraneous species (i.e., phytosanitary controls)
Animal quarantine and controls (i.e. veterinary controls, including pet controls)
Control of any biohazards (including deliberate ones)
Control of CITES protected species (i.e. endangered fauna and flora)
Control of natural resources under license requirements, harvesting quotas etc. (including specific fish, wood, minerals, diamonds etc.)
Control of cultural artifacts (stolen / looted, and/or illicitly traded)
Control of any stolen goods (including vehicles, machinery, cargo etc.)
Fight against drugs / illicit narcotics trafficking (including pre-cursors)
Control of waste flows (including those in the Basel Convention on transboundary movements)
Control of dual use / strategic goods
Control of dangerous goods / hazardous materials
Control of explosives and weapons:
- explosives (including pre-cursors)
- small arms and light weapons
- defense / war materials
Control of nuclear and radioactive materials

Other border agency control areas:

Conveyance / cargo transport security and safety controls:
- for maritime, including sea ports
- for aviation, including airports
- other modes: road, rail, inland waterways etc.
Traveler, crew and immigration controls:
- visa and passport controls
- trafficking of human beings and people smuggling
- asylum seekers
- passenger cars and vehicles in terms of temporary admission
Control of weight of cargo (including for road safety purposes)
Cash controls (cash smuggling and counterfeit currency)
Cyber security (customs and supply chain IT systems, critical infrastructure IT etc.)

Dear CBRA Blog and CBRA Monthly readers: we kindly invite your inputs to make the list more comprehensive / better in the future, so please send us an email with your ideas, to cbra@cross-border.org . And thanks already now to the multiple experts from national Customs administrations and international organizations for your valuable help so far– it has been great working with you on all these studies, keeping them as pragmatic as possible… (detailed acknowledgements will be published later). And it goes without saying that soon we will start looking on the next-step aspects on customs versus other government agencies, in the context cross-border supply chain costs and delays – please stay tuned for more!