Border agency co-operation is critical for increasing operational efficiency, facilitating legitimate trade and reducing traders’ costs at both the domestic and cross-border levels. Yet significant implementation challenges remain. This chapter explores progress to date on border agency co-operation, both domestically in terms of co-ordination among all agencies involved in the trade process at the border and across the border between agencies in neighbouring countries, whether in the form of logistics or procedural harmonisation, or integrated controls under a One-Stop Border Post. The chapter draws lessons from country experience and case studies to help identify for policy makers key challenges and factors for success.
Trade Facilitation and the Global Economy
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Chapter 3. Border agency co-operation
Abstract
Co-operation among agencies, including across borders, matters
The benefits of a country’s trade facilitation reforms will be greatly enhanced if its trading partners undertake similar reforms and if border agencies from different countries are able to work together to ensure the smooth flow of goods. Equally, the efficiency with which goods are able to cross borders in any one country can depend not only on the efficiency of Customs, but also on all the agencies with responsibility for trade-related regulation. Hence border agency co-operation, often termed Integrated Border Management (IBM) or Coordinated Border Management (CBM), includes both a domestic dimension, relating to co-ordination and co-operation among national agencies involved in border controls, and an international dimension, relating to co-operation between agencies of States with common borders.
Article 8 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) calls on agencies to “co-operate with one another and co-ordinate their activities in order to facilitate trade” and sets out requirements for both national level co‐ordination (8.1) and cross-border co-operation (8.2). The Article does not specify the most appropriate way of ensuring such co-operation, but sets out five illustrative co‐operation activities. Other international agreements and recommendations, as well as country experience, also offer insights into the key factors for efficient border agency co‐operation. Analysis of all these factors enabled the development of the TFI indicators on border agency co-operation. These indicators go beyond simply what might be needed to satisfy the requirements of the TFA, and focus on measuring performance in relation to worldwide best practice.
The Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) show that border agency co-operation remains a significant implementation challenge for countries at all levels of development. This chapter identifies the key elements of effective domestic and cross-border agency co-operation. Drawing on insights from case studies, it also highlights concrete steps that policy makers can take to make border agency co-operation, both domestic and international, work.
Measuring effective domestic border agency co-operation
At the national level, Article 8 of the TFA on Border Agency Co-operation calls on each Member to “ensure that its authorities and agencies responsible for border controls and procedures dealing with the importation, exportation and transit of goods co-operate with one another and co‐ordinate their activities in order to facilitate trade.” This recognises that the border process involves not only the determination and collection of Customs duties and other government revenue, but also operations to enforce national legislation on health and safety, security, environmental protection, immigration, consumer protection, and commercial policy. In addition to Customs agencies, various other governmental agencies and private entities, often also represented at the border, undertake document and physical controls of goods, vehicles and people.
Redundant or sequential controls, duplicative documentation requirements, and insufficient co-ordination among different agencies at the border can cause delays, complicate compliance by traders and strain border post resources. Border agency co‐ordination aims to increase operational efficiency, reduce compliance costs for traders and enforcement costs for authorities, and facilitate legitimate trade. Addressing border agency co-ordination failures, already important for trade flows of finished goods, is essential for the smooth operation of global and regional value chains.
Domestic border agency co-operation has been high on the trade facilitation agenda for many years, not only as an important element of the WCO 1999 Revised Kyoto Convention (RKC)1 and the 2005 SAFE Framework of standards,2 but also as a key foundation of several donor-supported border reform projects.3 While the terminology has changed several times over the years, from Integrated Border Management (IBM) to Collaborative, to Coordinated Border Management (CBM),4 the key concept has remained the same: the simplification, integration and automation of national border processes and procedures in order to enhance the free flow of goods across the border, while at the same time protecting national security and collection of government revenues.
Key elements of effective domestic border agency co-operation
Border agency co-operation shifts the focus beyond the traditional Customs-specific trade facilitation agenda to a new and more comprehensive “whole-of-government” approach to reform. This new approach relies less on institution-specific reform and more on a wider trade supply chain approach designed to tackle the major issues traders face in navigating regulatory requirements. Country experience shows that the first step in promoting domestic border agency co-operation is mapping the current situation across all key management aspects; undertaking a thorough gap analysis and needs assessment; and preparing an inventory of all ongoing and planned activities in the area of domestic border management. Important supporting features include the creation of inter-agency working groups, exchanges of liaison officers among agencies, and establishment of a co‐operation culture by sharing intelligence, carrying out joint risk assessments, or maintaining joint specialist task forces.
The TFI on internal border agency co-operation captures the key elements of Article 8.1 of the TFA, supplemented by additional factors identified in the literature and country experience as supporting efficient domestic agency co-operation.5 These additional factors aim to capture six key management areas of domestic border agency co‐operation: the institutional framework; the legal and regulatory framework; procedures for co-operation; communication and information exchange; infrastructure and equipment; and human resources and training. These are discussed briefly below.
Institutional framework
Border agency co-operation can be implemented through different governance frameworks and levels of co-ordination. These range from simple consultative mechanisms to align office hours; co-operation on a voluntary and ad hoc basis at the border; mutual administrative assistance and sharing of information on infringements;6 to establishing a legal framework for the exchange of information7 and sharing of control functions amongst agencies, through to the setting up of a new agency incorporating the responsibilities of some or all of the previously existing agencies.8
These changes and frameworks involve varying degrees of organisational transformation which can be challenging to implement. Any re-organisation requires political will and clear leadership, as well as incentives and drivers to bring about changes in the institutional culture. These can be provided by a new agency incorporating the responsibilities of previously existing border agencies or, where that is not pursued, a body entrusted with defining the national inter-agency co-operation strategy and its implementation may be needed to lead the process. Such a body should be composed of the key stakeholders in border management (including relevant ministries, institutions and agencies) and provided with the necessary political, administrative and financial support.
Legal and regulatory framework
The legal and regulatory framework provides the necessary legal basis for the implementation of structures for co-ordination and information exchange, and defines the responsibilities and roles of agencies to ensure that they are appropriately empowered to fulfil their mandate. A clear determination of authority, tasks and responsibilities at central, regional and local levels is important to avoid conflicting or overlapping responsibilities or, on the contrary, gaps in the attribution of responsibility.
Successful inter-agency co-operation is based on a legal framework (including laws and regulations and administrative or standing instructions and formal agreements) that fits all border agencies’ operational needs and clearly defines the key elements of co‐operation. These include: the responsibilities and tasks of each agency; the powers and authorities vested in agencies to implement their tasks; offences, actions and penalties, along with clarity on jurisdiction; records (databases) of each agency and access to information (databases) of other agencies; and delegated responsibilities (that is, which tasks can be carried out by other agencies).
Co-operation procedures
Co-operation procedures set out how the work of each agency is done, identifying responsibilities and giving step-by-step descriptions of how specific tasks are to be implemented. To ensure streamlined and better co-ordinated procedures, the existing workflows of each agency must first be described and analysed at the head office, regional and local levels with a view to identifying overlapping mandates. This is especially true of responsibilities, sequencing and processing times at land border posts. Joint efforts to resolve identified overlaps and delays and to amend relevant procedures help sustain improved co-ordination over the longer term.
An important factor in cementing inter-agency co-operation is the development of a common risk strategy, which enhances control efficiency and greatly facilitates the flow of goods at the border. All concerned agencies need to work together to define priorities and establish common risk profiles. This common strategy can be supported by specific activities, such as identifying inland control points on major transit routes or joint mobile units of Customs officers and border police.
Importantly, contingency and emergency plans should clarify the division of responsibilities in case of imminent threats to national security or public health, or extreme situations such as natural disasters, pandemic diseases, mass influx of irregular migrants or refugees, terrorist activities or major accidents and fires in the border zone. These plans should be developed at the national level, but be adjusted at the regional and local level to ensure that each border post is fully informed about the distribution of responsibilities and tasks in maintaining service delivery in these situations.
Communication and information exchange
Standardised and efficient communication and information exchange between the different agencies is critical for ensuring effective and sustainable co-operation. A formal agreement among all participating agencies can clarify which information will be shared and with whom, how the information will be exchanged, and how it can be tracked and traced. An effective early warning system, be it through a system of contact points in individual agencies or through IT solutions, can greatly enhance information exchange efficiency.
Sharing of infrastructure and equipment
The sharing of infrastructure and equipment supports co-ordination and co-operation at all levels. An overall border-related investment strategy that includes equipment standards can help avoid capacity disparities among agencies. Investment plans at the national level, applying to all relevant agencies, also ensure that adequate infrastructure and equipment can be procured in a timely manner, and can permit economies of scale in the context of limited budgets. Standards and investment plans should be aligned with the volume and nature of traffic at specific border posts; not every border post needs to be equipped in the same way.
A co-ordinated but tailored strategy requires regular assessments of existing facilities and equipment, as well as feedback from other stakeholders, such as ministries of transport and freight operators. Additionally, in some countries, border post infrastructure is neither owned nor under the direct control of border management agencies, necessitating contracts to formalise the terms of their use, maintenance, and cost coverage. Finally, consultations with neighbouring countries can also be helpful in order to take into account their border post development plans.
Human resources and training policies
The above pillars need to be enforced through well-targeted human resources and training policies. Border management tasks are highly specialised and need to be treated as such in training plans, but a common border agency co-operation curriculum and joint training courses can also help foster a corporate culture of co-operation. Joint training activities ideally involve staff from all border management agencies, promoting confidence-building and information exchange as well as more efficient use of training resources.
Making domestic border agency co-operation work
Drawing on the above elements and the Costa Rican experience (Box 3.1), the key factors for efficient design and implementation of domestic border agency co-operation are:
An explicit co-ordination strategy with strong political backing, led at a senior level.
An institutionalised mechanism to support inter-agency co-ordination (e.g. an inter-agency co-ordination body).
Regular meetings to develop strategy and oversee implementation of border agency co‐operation.
Co-ordination and/or harmonisation of data requirements and document controls, for example through common data definitions and types of information requested, as well as mechanisms to ensure timely exchange of information.
Interconnected or shared computer systems and real time availability of pertinent data.
Co-ordination of inspections.
Co-operation in terms of risk analysis, data sharing, and risk profiling of goods.
Explicit strategies to harmonise the requirements for, co-ordinate the certification and inspection of, and manage the follow-up for Authorised Operators.
Co-ordinated and efficient sharing of infrastructure and equipment.
Box 3.1. Domestic border agency co-operation in practice: Costa Rica
Costa Rica embarked upon the modernisation of its main land border crossings in an effort to optimise implementation of its FTAs, streamline Customs and international trade procedures, improve border efficiency and promote trade facilitation. Efficient border agency co-operation is an essential part of this endeavour, particularly in view of the expected increase in transactions at the border posts undergoing modernisation. The efforts undertaken to improve co-ordination among agencies with responsibilities for the border process, in particular at the border crossing of Las Tablillas, highlight important success factors, as well as challenges. These include:
Sustained political commitment is essential to support inter-agency co-ordination bodies in their early years of operation. This is particularly the case when practices vary significantly among agencies, or where particular agencies are reluctant to relinquish control or change modes of operation to adopt the new, co-ordinated approaches.
The extent of momentum on trade facilitation reform provided by an inter-agency strategy and working group depends on the commitment of the dedicated Secretariat, and its ability to co-ordinate research and analysis on key policy issues, to monitor action plan implementation, and to encourage participation by the private sector.
Building a strong corps of well-trained border officials that value trust and collaboration with other border authorities is essential for the success of institutional reforms, and system and infrastructure investments.
The legal framework should define the organisation, mission and functions of each agency within a collaborative framework. Manuals containing standard operating procedures and guidelines should be developed by the inter-agency working groups and made available to all staff present at border posts.
The complexity and fragmentation of information systems can create knowledge gaps and undermine performance. The interoperability of information systems can benefit from the support of an expert group, tasked with addressing legal, technical and operational questions, including the necessity, technical feasibility and proportionality of available options and their data protection implications.
Implementation of joint operational processes among border agencies and co-ordinated inspection systems also benefits from regular meetings and upgraded IT solutions and platforms. Communication and information exchange needs to be not only structured, but also timely.
Domestic co-ordination of inspections needs to be based on a solid legal framework establishing control delegation, and include regular monitoring of processes at the border and co-ordination with the national steering body at a policy level. This chain of activity is key to ensuring the predictability and transparency of border processes.
Source: Moisé and Sorescu (2017).
Measuring effective cross-border agency co-operation
If effective co-operation among domestic border agencies sharing common language, culture and government poses challenges, this is even more the case for co-operation among border agencies across countries.
In recognition of these greater challenges, TFA Article 8.2 on cross-border co-operation includes greater flexibility, providing that “Each Member shall, to the extent possible and practicable, co-operate on mutually agreed terms with other Members with whom it shares a common border with a view to co-ordinating procedures at border crossings to facilitate cross-border trade”. The Article suggests five possible features of such co-operation, such as alignment of working days and hours; alignment of procedures and formalities; development and sharing of common facilities; joint controls; and establishment of One-Stop Border Post (OSBP) control.
Key elements of effective cross-border agency co-operation
These five features are all reflected in the OECD TFI on external border agency co‐operation, supplemented by a number of additional factors identified in the literature and country experience as supporting the aims of TFA Article 8.2.9
These factors aim to capture the institutional and legal framework enabling co‐ordination, as well as main areas for co-ordination and exchange. They include exchange of data and harmonisation of requested documentation; joint, co-ordinated, delegated or mutually recognised processes and procedures, inspections and controls; mutually recognised Authorised Operator schemes; cross-border sharing of resources and infrastructure; and well-established communication amongst the agencies.
TFA Article 8.2 identifies progressively more ambitious approaches to trade facilitation, ranging from co-ordination of logistics, to procedural harmonisation supported by the sharing of resources, to the sharing of responsibility,10 culminating in integrated controls in the framework of a OSBP. Each of these presents its own implementation challenges; however, many of these could be eased or even eliminated thanks to reforms undertaken subsequent to other provisions of the TFA.
For example, alignment of working days and hours may require some adjustments in internal operations, although changes may be more limited where these are already designed to reduce the time and cost of compliance for traders. Similarly, the alignment of procedures and formalities between cross-border partner countries might also call for some procedural reengineering, although again, this task may be greatly facilitated where countries are already bringing procedures into line with relevant provisions of the TFA. This may be the case, for example, with implementation of provisions on the use of international import, export or transit standards, or on pre-arrival processing of documents or electronic payment of duties.
The development and sharing of common facilities may require significant infrastructure investments; however, this challenge is recognised by development co‐operation partners and financial assistance for infrastructure related to trade facilitation focuses increasingly on co-operative cross-border projects.
Joint controls and OSBPs (Box 3.2) require increasing levels of mutual co-operation and trust, particularly in view of the need to exchange information for joint actions. However, this information exchange can also support more effective risk management that can in turn positively impact revenue collection.
Indeed, while cross-border co-ordination and co-operation clearly facilitate trade and expedite border crossings by minimising lag time, avoiding duplicative requirements and reducing the number of stops and participating agencies, they are also essential for addressing risks and threats. These range from Customs fraud and smuggling, to sanitary risks and criminal activities and terrorism. In particular, intelligence sharing among agencies across the border allows better targeting of offending goods while minimising the burden on legitimate flows.
In a OSBP, the border authorities of one party are authorised to perform all Customs checks and formalities applicable to import, export and transit on behalf of the authorities of the other party, enabling a one-stop process at the border (usually upon entering a country). Thus, each border post handles incoming traffic only, with exit and entry procedures completed in the same building. Such an arrangement already exists between Norway and Sweden,11 and Norway and Finland, and is in progress at borders in Africa (e.g. between Zambia and Zimbabwe). OSBPs can be implemented using juxtaposed facilities, or a common facility located in the territory of one of the countries.
Making cross-border co-operation work
Drawing on the above elements and the experience of Switzerland and the European Union (Box 3.2), the key factors for efficient design and implementation of cross-border agency co-operation are:
Box 3.2. Cross-border agency co-operation in practice: Switzerland and its EU neighbours
Switzerland has an extensive cross-border co-operation programme with its EU neighbours across all areas identified in Article 8.2 of the TFA. The programme draws extensively on the strong legal framework within which Swiss Customs operates, including international trade agreements, a series of bilateral agreements with the European Union, and individual bilateral agreements with EU countries bordering Switzerland.
The programme’s success is attributed in part to the use of standard trade facilitation systems and adherence to global conventions such as the World Customs Organization’s Revised Kyoto Convention, which enables the use of similar processes at the borders between Switzerland and the European Union. Highly efficient transit procedures significantly reduce waiting times at the border and facilitate simplified approaches for companies, such as the authorised consignor or consignee programme. Likewise, use of international data standards for trade documentation and data exchange has facilitated interoperability. That said, beyond the transit procedure, there is currently no exchange or harmonisation of data between Switzerland and the European Union and duplication still exists between the procedures on either side of the border.
Swiss Customs works closely with other agencies involved in inspections at the border and even undertakes inspections on behalf of other agencies. This eases co-ordination, and builds trust between Swiss Customs and its clients.
The use of risk management as a basic Customs strategy and the collaboration between Switzerland and the European Union in defining security risk profiles support the low level of documentation-related or physical controls of goods crossing the border. In addition, the existence of a common security zone between Switzerland and the European Union reduces the number of necessary checks. Finally, the high level of automation of Customs in Switzerland and its EU neighbours and the use of juxtaposed Customs offices at the main border crossings, with shared facilities and co-ordinated procedures, minimises the amount of time a truck spends at the border.
In view of the significant cross-border co-operation already in place at the Swiss-EU borders further steps in the direction of co-ordinated border management are within reach. Cutting edge measures based on the interoperability of Customs systems and procedures, real time availability of data on both sides of the border and new, jointly designed processes ultimately leading to the implementation of OSBPs could further reduce costs, reinforce integration into regional and global value chains and enhance the competitiveness of the Swiss and the EU economies.
Source: Moisé and Sorescu (2017).
Sustained political will to champion required changes through all relevant agencies on both sides of the border.
This is an essential condition, but also a significant challenge, as it requires clarifying and sharing policy and control objectives. Establishing an effective national strategy for cross-border co-operation can help both ensure the sustainability of efforts at the working level and address potential issues of trust and responsibility. The degree of trust among partnering countries is key in determining the extent of cross-border co‐operation. Close cultural and historical links help with building trust, but open communication channels are also required for common endeavours and shared responsibilities.
Ensure clear linkages to national trade and economic priorities.
Political will is more readily sustained when co-operation is linked to broader national economic and trade development strategies. Likewise, a clear focus on areas of strategic national (or regional) importance should guide implementation efforts. For example, in countries where food exports are important, special co-operation arrangements for operating hours and phytosanitary inspections may be a priority.
Foster a regional approach to cross-border co-operation.
Transit necessarily involves the agreement of several countries and a comprehensive co‐operation framework, offered for instance by membership in, or association with, a regional economic community (REC), which will be more efficient than separate arrangements with each country. For Switzerland and the European Union, cross-border integration is supported by common membership of the European Economic Area (EEA).
Seek the backing of all major stakeholders, including the business community.
The Swiss-EU experience shows the benefits of this engagement taking place at the outset. Ideally, this involves creation of a team to undertake regular consultations and garner ongoing feedback from border posts. Full engagement of all stakeholders is also critical for change management. Support and training is essential during the introduction of enhanced cross-border co-operation, particularly to allay fears and uncertainties associated with the introduction of new systems and procedures. In the absence of adequate support and training, new systems can be introduced, but old habits and practices will remain.
Establish a comprehensive legal framework to support cross-border co-operation and security.
This requires not only the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements, but also the reorganisation of processes and procedures. The use of existing conventions and agreements, such as the transit conventions of NCTS (New Computerised Transit System) and the TIR (Transports Internationaux Routiers)12 can help. The legal framework should also include mutual recognition of facilitating arrangements, such as Authorised Operator programs.
Manage sensitivities to enable the greatest possible co-operation and data exchange.
Empowering national agencies to conduct controls pursuant to national law outside their territory, and allowing control officers of the adjoining state to conduct border controls pursuant to their national laws within the host state’s territory can be an important challenge. Exchange of data can raise similar sensitivities. Transit declarations are usually not contentious, but transfer of information that has a commercially sensitive content often encounters strong opposition. Co-operation in risk management can be equally sensitive; however, experience has shown that the exchange of risk profiles can greatly enhance the operation of a risk management system and increase mutual security. All these areas depend critically on the level of trust established among the partnering countries. To draw the greatest benefits from their co-operation, countries should work towards the maximum level of data exchange, within the boundaries of national sensitivities.
Develop and maintain effective infrastructure and clear allocation of resources and responsibilities.
Infrastructure development includes both the management and maintenance of juxtaposed or OSBP facilities, and the development of ICT infrastructure to ensure efficient connectivity between partner countries’ systems. Development of ICT architecture must be based on a thorough business process analysis of existing practices and on consultations with key stakeholders on the desired future scenario.
Use international tools and standards.
Use of international tools and standards from the outset can reduce the cost and increase the flexibility of information exchange among the partnering, and other neighbouring, countries. For example, all UN data and trade document standards and tools, such as those developed by the UN Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT),13 are available free of charge. These data standards are used extensively throughout the world, facilitating interoperability and scalability, at the national, regional and global level.14
Maintain open communication channels to address day-to-day implementation challenges.
Frequent meetings at the strategic and operational level between the parties help preserve the goodwill necessary for effective cross-border co-operation. Training of officers on both sides of the border can also greatly increase knowledge of each other’s procedures and systems and help avoid confusion or grey areas, especially in juxtaposed or OSBP operations. Joint training also generates a greater sense of camaraderie among the officers of the different jurisdictions and helps increase co‐operation and mutual assistance.
Build on domestic co-ordination among the various border agencies within each partner country.
Strong and effective domestic inter-agency co-operation is a powerful enabler, facilitating and simplifying co-operation across the border. Ideally (as in the case of Switzerland), Customs acts on behalf of all other government agencies at the border. Failing that, strong co-ordination and integration among domestic agencies is necessary to facilitate cross-border co-operation. The existence of an efficient Single Window mechanism, for example, would normally indicate enhanced integration of domestic agencies and inspections.
Regular reporting by working level authorities to the political level about progress and challenges.
Achieving cross-border co-operation presents a range of challenges, and political support is critical in sustaining change. While efforts across a range of areas are needed to make cross-border co-operation work, success can bring many benefits to both sides.
Bibliography
Aniszewski, S. (2009), “Coordinated Border Management – A Concept Paper”, World Customs Organization, www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/facilitation/activities-and-programmes/∼/media/WCO/Public/Global/PDF/Topics/Research/Research%20Paper%20Series/cbm.ashx.
Doyle, T. (2011), “The Future of Border Management”, in McLinden, G., E. Fanta, D. Widdowson and T. Doyle (eds), Border Management Modernization, IBRD/World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kieck, E. (2010), “Coordinated Border Management: Unlocking Trade Opportunities Through One-Stop Border Posts”, World Customs Journal, Vol.4, No.1.
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (2013a), “Border Integration Program of Costa Rica: Loan Proposal”, Washington, DC.
IDB (2013b), “Support to the Border Integration Program of Costa Rica and the Modernization of its Border Crossings: Las Tablillas (Costa Rica) – San Pancho (Nicaragua) Border Post”, Washington, DC.
McLinden, G. (2012), Collaborative Border Management: A New Approach to an Old Problem, PREM Note No. 78, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/EP78.pdf
Moïsé, E. and S. Sorescu (2017), “Single Window and Border Agency Co-operation: Expanding Selected OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators”, TAD/TC/WP(2016)14/FINAL.
OECD (2016), Market Openness Review of Costa Rica, TAD/TC/ACS(2015)3/FINAL.
Oliver, J. and R. Arce (2013), “Facilitating Trade Through Effective Border Control: Costa Rica’s Challenging Reform Agenda”, SAIS, John Hopkins University.
Pitakdumrongkit, K. and M.T. Anna Robles (2014), “Assessing the Progress of AEC Projects: A New Approach”, RSIS Working Paper No. 280.
Polnar, M. (2011), “Coordinated Border Management: From Theory to Practice”, World Customs Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2011), “Draft Guidelines for Coordinated Border Management: A Practical Guide on Best Practices and Tools for Implementation”, August.
WCO (2005), WCO SAFE Framework of standards to secure and facilitate global trade, WCO, Brussels.
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2016), Costa Rica, viewed at: http://data.worldbank.org/country/costa-rica.
Notes
← 1. See in particular its transitional standard 3.35: If the goods must be inspected by other competent authorities and the Customs also schedules an examination, the Customs shall ensure that the inspections are co-ordinated and, if possible, carried out at the same time.
← 2. The SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade was adopted in 2005 to promote end-to-end management of goods across borders, and has been regularly updated since. In June 2015, a third Pillar was added, covering co-operation between Customs and other border agencies, calling on governments to “foster mutual co-operation between their Customs administration and other competent government agencies” (Pillar 3, Standard 1). A series of technical specifications cover co-operation with aviation, maritime and port security, as well as with land transportation authorities and postal operators.
← 3. See, for example, World Bank Collaborative Border Management (McLinden, 2012).
← 4. The evolution from “integrated” to “collaborative” or “co-ordinated” border management” sought to avoid the “threatening connotations of the organisational integration” arising from the term of “integrated border management (IBM)” (Doyle, 2011). One of the reasons organisational integration is treated cautiously is because it requires a “significant organisational change” and may create problems “as various entities struggle to retain their identities and protect their mandates and resources” (Doyle, 2011).
← 5. See indicator (i) in Annex B. As noted above, this aims at measuring trade facilitation endeavours in relation to international best practice, rather than assessing country compliance with the TFA.
← 6. As on the basis of the WCO Johannesburg Convention.
← 7. This needs to specify the conditions for sharing and use of information in respect of national legislation on data protection and data privacy.
← 8. Examples of institutional integration of border functions under a single roof with a particular focus on security (especially anti-terrorism) and border protection are the US Customs and Border Protection (US CBP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (CBPS), while in New Zealand the Border Sector Governance Group was established in order to oversee the implementation of CBM (the Group comprises the chief executives from the New Zealand Customs Service, Department of Labour, Department of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Food Safety Authority).
← 9. See indicator (j) in Annex B. As noted above, this aims at measuring trade facilitation endeavours in relation to international best practice, rather than assessing country compliance with the WTO TFA.
← 10. See sub-paragraphs i, ii, iii, and iv respectively.
← 11. As described in the 2005 Communication from Norway to the WTO Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, the agreement between Norway and Sweden allows the national border authorities of each country to “provide services and exercise legal powers not only onbehalf of their home state, but on behalf of their neighbouring states as well”. When goods are exported from Norway to Sweden, Swedish customs may take care of all paperwork and formalities related to the Norwegian export and Swedish import process, and vice-versa for Swedish exports to Norway. Norway considers this arrangement both cost-efficient and administratively effective. Customs officers from both countries meet on a regular basis to review the operation of the agreement, provide training, and update each other on any changes to legislation or procedures. Senior official meetings are held at least once per year. Swedish and Norwegian customs officials have the same access to each other’s systems as the country’s own officers and can review and perform the necessary Customs procedures.
← 14. UN/CEFACT’s EDI standard UN/EDIFACT is the leading data interchange standard globally.