In this three-part series, digital trade expert Craig Atkinson, CITP addresses key questions and practical considerations related to technology-enabled cross-border interaction among buyers, sellers, intermediaries, and governments. Article based on an interview by FITT’s Pamela Hyatt.

Craig Atkinson is the Founder and Director of Lexmerca International Trade and a Trade Development Specialist with the International Trade Centre (ITC), the joint agency of the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). His roles focus on addressing legal-technical challenges that affect global trade.

Active in the field of digital trade, Craig participates in the World Economic Forum’s TradeTech community and in projects with multiple international organizations, academic institutions, technology foundations, and standards bodies.

Academically, he is a Non-Resident Fellow with the World Trade Institute (WTI) as well as a Research Affiliate with the Singapore Management University (SMU) Centre for AI and Data Governance and the SMU Centre for Computational Law. Professionally, Craig has been a FITT Certified International Trade Professional (CITP) since 2011.

What is a ‘Single Window’ for trade regulation?

In the first article in this series, ‘Single Windows’ were described as exemplifying the digitalization of goods trade. Aside from being known as the most impactful class of ‘TradeTech’, what is a Single Window?

The answer is found in the ambitions of ‘digital trade facilitation’: government measures to simplify, harmonize, and modernize trade formalities and procedures to allow for cross-border paperless exchange between actors in international supply chains.

According to United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) Recommendation 33, a Single Window (SW) is a ‘facility’ that “allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements”.

An electronic SW environment links government bodies – Customs and other government agencies (OGAs) like ministries of health, agriculture, and finance – for online application, issuance, and exchange of trade-related permits/certificates.

Private stakeholders include traders, agents, customs brokers, carriers, forwarders, ports, freight terminals, and commercial banks. As documents (or data) is in electronic form, they only require ‘single’ submission and leading systems utilize ‘rules engines’ for compliance automation.

While Singapore is credited with deploying the first SW in 1989 – TradeNet for Business-to-Government (B2G) exchange and the more recent Networked Trade Platform (NTP) extension to facilitate Business-to-Business (B2B) transactions – other countries have implemented projects for paperless trade via Single Window.

Note: Singapore is not a typical case. Above, ‘Trade Permit’ is used for Customs declarations. Yet, if goods require permits from other OGAs when submitting a ‘Trade Permit Application’ to TradeNet, the application is a ‘single’ submission for other OGAs to process and provide permits. Unlike the SWs of most countries, traders/agents using TradeNet do not have to apply for each permit separately.

How do Single Windows solve problems?

Borders represent a ‘labyrinth’ of paper that must be exchanged between private actors and government agencies through manual processes.

In reaction, Single Windows lower certain barriers to trade compliance – identifying, preparing, submitting, and coordinating documents – by creating a public-private interface to overcome what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) calls “sludge”: unjustified friction that affects satisfaction, trust, and access to government services.

As institutional arrangements, networks, and platforms, SWs generate observable results that make trade faster and less costly as well as more safe and secure. In offering the highest standard of public service delivery, a Single Window for trade is considered a ‘beau ideal’ by the World Customs Organization (WCO).

As SW is a ‘whole-of-government’ facility, Customs is just one of the involved regulatory agencies and its authority is limited to import/export approval and permitting.

Though Customs is often a lead agency for SW, it does not have legal power to override other OGAs. Even if a SW neither eliminates nor diminishes the role of any regulatory agency, simplification through a single point of entry mitigates duplication, ‘re-keying’, and other data-related issues while enabling consistent data reuse.

Significant benefits arise for trade logistics and economies: across studies on the impact of Single Window, costs fall for all actors (i.e., traders, intermediaries, and governments), trade grows between countries with SWs, and the public sector improves its revenue mobilization/collection capacity.

For example, in the United States, government agencies and traders have realized benefits with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). In 2021, the platform reduced transaction processing by 795,000 hours for private actors, assisted process automation for 269 forms/document types, and led to $2.7 billion USD in efficiencies.

How can Single Windows contribute to inclusive trade?

Single Windows are inclusive because, as a whole-of-government interface that is usually free (or low cost), they allow for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to interact with governments with less or no need for intermediaries (e.g., agents and brokers).

A single channel of interaction lowers effort and administrative costs of compliance with documentation and increases accuracy/speed of submission and processing, helping small businesses to better participate in international trade.

For example, In Costa Rica, a study by Volpe Martincus et al. estimated the impact of the gradual phase-in (2007-2016) of an electronic SW, Ventanilla Única de Comercio Exterior (VUCE CR). Adoption of VUCE was associated with increased and more frequent exports by businesses using the system, larger shipments, and greater numbers of exporters, especially MSMEs located in non-central areas.

Such outcomes are particularly important in industries and sectors with specific or complex regulations. For instance, to meet Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements for food safety, pest mitigation, or disease prevention, SW facilitated trade in agricultural goods has moved toward processing of electronic SPS certificates.

Are there different kinds of ‘Single Windows’ for trade regulation?

The short answer: no. The term ‘Single Window’ is frequently mis-used. In digital trade facilitation, it’s important to follow UN/CEFACT standard terminologies. Five ‘must’ features differentiate SWs for national trade regulation.

Source: Adapted from UN/CEFACT 2017

Given the strict criteria provided by Recommendation 33, true SWs are realized by a country as a ‘National Single Window’ (NSW).

At their core, NSWs are a B2G interface, but some systems have evolved to further allow for B2B transactions. Under Article 10.4 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), member governments “shall endeavour to establish or maintain” a NSW. Article 10.4 is also the most frequently requested area of TFA-related technical assistance.

Under Article 23.1, a national trade facilitation committee (NTFC) is usually the appropriate cross-government agency/mechanism to guide and monitor NSW establishment.

Going beyond the scope of UN/CEFACT Recommendation 33, NSWs can be interlinked for Country-to-Country exchange as a ‘Regional Single Window’ (RSW).

However, these systems are not ‘facilities’ in the same sense as the Single Window definition: RSWs are Government-to-Government (G2G) focused and implemented under international frameworks as a collaborative system of NSW networks.

Additionally, and not to be conflated with a SW for trade regulation, there are many ‘sector-specific’ platforms, such as an airport Cargo Community System (CCS) or a maritime Port Community System (PCS).

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines a Maritime Single Window (MSW) as a “one-stop service environment”: a vessel operator-to-port interface for maritime procedures (e.g., port entry/departure declaration and security reports) between private and public actors. The amended Annex to the IMO FAL Convention makes MSW mandatory for ports.

In some cases, a ‘unified’ PCS can be considered MSW.

Which governments have established a Single Window?

Hundreds of Single Windows have been deployed and are at different stages of maturity. With more than ten years in operation, some SWs are relatively mature and cover all the OGAs in their respective country, such as Indonesia (Indonesia NSW, INSW), Singapore (NTP/TradeNet), and South Korea (UNIPASS/uTradeHub).

Those already deployed, but in in progress toward covering all OGAs, include Canada (Single Window Initiative, SWI), Chile (Sistema Integrado de Comercio Exterior, SICEXChile), Costa Rica (VUCE CR), Kenya (Kenya TradeNet), New Zealand (Trade Single Window, TSW), Pakistan (Pakistan Single Window, PSW), Peru (VUCE PERÚ), and the US (ACE).

Other jurisdictions are continuing to strengthen their bases for SW, including Australia, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and the United Kingdom (UK). For example, under the Single Trade Window (Preparation) Regulations and the Electronic Trade Documents Act (ETDA) (see FITT coverage), the UK is planning its NSW.

Taking stock of initiatives globally, the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility (TFAF) indicates that, at 56%, SW is the TFA measure with lowest ​implementation rate.

Source: Author based on WTO data (2024)

Regionally, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members have established the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) and technical collaborations; the Pacific Alliance has connected its member NSWs; and the European Union aims to enhance ‘digital cooperation’ under the Single Window Environment (SWE) regulation.

Why do governments and the private sector need to work together?

More than a technology project, SW initiatives represent major ‘reform’ and require whole-of-government cooperation internally as well as collaboration externally with the private sector to realize a fully-fledged, evolved, SW environment. A Single Window and its suite of services truly represent a ‘virtual enterprise’.

Implementation of a SW requires planning and the creation of a legal-institutional framework, followed by business process analysis/design, document simplification/standardization, data harmonization, platform piloting, and phased deployment.

Despite the variety of implementation or operational models, all stakeholders should be aware of the types of decisions to be made at each phase:

• Develop internally: The public sector is made up of different agencies must coordinate the roll-out and functioning of SW with their own staff and resources. For governments, it’s important that services – Customs, finance/treasury, health, agriculture, – work harmoniously, regardless of the internal model(s).
• ‘Buy off the shelf’: Procure hardware, software components, and/or services.
• Engage in public-private partnerships: Any combination of options at different phases of implementation and/or operation of a Single Window.

What are some key resources for planning and deployment?

There are many implementation guides and even a ‘ChatGPT’ for Single Window. Key resources include:

• Under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), UN/CEFACT provides core standards and guidance, such as Recommendation 33 (establishing SW), Recommendation 34 (data simplification/standardization), Recommendation 35 (legal framework), the Reference Data Model White Paper, a technical note on terminology for SW, and the SW Assessment Methodology (SWAM).
• The WCO Compendium on Building a Single Window Environment (g., Volume 1 Part 1, Volume 2, and the supplement), WCO Data Model, and Data Harmonization Guidelines.
• The United Nations Trade and Development roadmap for building a SW.
• The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) and its Network of Experts for Paperless Trade and Transport in Asia and the Pacific (UNNExT) provide a planning/implementation guide and expert Neelima Pamulapati has developed comprehensive case studies on legal frameworks for SW. Other important UNESCAP guides focus on Business Process Analysis and Data Harmonization/Modeling.
• The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) SW implementation guide.
• With significance for Regional Single Window, UN/CEFACT Recommendation 36 provides guidance required for the interconnectivity and interoperability of two or more SWs, APEC has produced a study on SW systems’ international interoperability, UNESCAP provides a paper on ‘e-trade’ through the ASEAN Single Window, and UN/CEFACT is developing guidelines on establishing RSW.

How are you engaging with Single Window-related efforts?

Cross-border regulations are constantly changing and digital public infrastructure (DPI) must be agile. In certain situations, rules and requirements can change by the minute.

Taken as a whole, the contributions have been to advance Single Window design in support of greater engagement by software development and business communities.

Although ‘greenfield projects’ and ‘legacy system’ integrations face difficulties, prospects exist for SW ‘rules engine’ (re)design in the short-term and new thinking on the long-term viability of systems.

Everything is deeply interconnected and ‘global value chains’ (GVCs) depend on streamlined interactions between people through computer technologies. Single Windows should empower MSMEs to capture value in GVCs through ‘interlinking’.

Any trade professional, especially a CITP, may consider informing SW deployment and upgrading. The next article in this series examines relevant innovations and how a Single Window frontend/backend paradigm can be ‘flipped’ for optimal human communication, interoperability of systems, and impact.

The post Simplifying International Trade with Single Windows appeared first on Trade Ready.

In this three-part series, digital trade expert Craig Atkinson, CITP addresses key questions and practical considerations related to technology-enabled cross-border interaction among buyers, sellers, intermediaries, and governments. Article based on an interview by FITT’s Pamela Hyatt.

Craig Atkinson is the Founder and Director of Lexmerca International Trade and a Trade Development Specialist with the International Trade Centre (ITC), the joint agency of the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). His roles focus on addressing legal-technical challenges that affect global trade.

Active in the field of digital trade, Craig participates in the World Economic Forum’s TradeTech community and in projects with multiple international organizations, academic institutions, technology foundations, and standards bodies.

Academically, he is a Non-Resident Fellow with the World Trade Institute (WTI) as well as a Research Affiliate with the Singapore Management University (SMU) Centre for AI and Data Governance and the SMU Centre for Computational Law. Professionally, Craig has been a FITT Certified International Trade Professional (CITP) since 2011.

What is digitization? From documents to data?

Digitization involves moving away from paper documents – that may be authoritative with original ink signatures or stamps – toward electronic representations of what paper ‘would’ include.

Digitization vs Digitalization

Digitization is the conversion of analog content into an electronic form (resulting in a representation of data, information, objects, images, sounds, documents, signals, etc.).

Digitalization is the utilization of digital technology to improve processes and alter business and governance models. These changes lead to opportunities for improved coordination.

Unfortunately, it is common to conflate efforts for digitization, the first step in digital transformation, with ‘digitalization’ that follows. To really understand what digitization entails for trade, it is important to initially know something about electronic data.

As industry and government transition toward Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) between systems, many types of trade documents – financial/commercial, transport, and compliance – are being digitized and represented as ‘digital paper’ or originating as machine-readable (i.e., neither requiring extra ‘keying-in’ of data by people nor optical character recognition, OCR, by machines).

Digital paper formats, such as PDFs, may or may not contain machine-readable data fields (or have data appended). Among others, directly machine-readable formats include the eXtensible markup language (XML, a standardized markup language designed to define how data and information is organized) and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, a standardized file and data interchange format that uses human-readable text to store and transmit data objects as tables).

An endpoint for digitization, electronic data sources break the mould of thinking about ‘documents’ and move the conversation toward how ‘data’ are structured and used as well as availability, quality, compatibility, and legality.

How is the digitization of trade documents taking hold in practice?

My experiences in advancing electronic business and government technology (GovTech) can help to answer this question. Since 2018, I’ve been an Expert with the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT). Through the international system, UN/CEFACT engages with all stakeholders in the trade community to develop standards and technical guidance.

In advancing digitization, its outputs include the UN Trade Data Element Directory (UNTDED/ISO 7372) as integrated into other standards, the ‘buy-ship-pay’ Reference Data Model (BSP-RDM), the Supply Chain Reference Data Model (SCRDM), the Multi-Modal Transport Reference Data Model (MMT-RDM), and document representation standards for electronic invoicing (e-invoice) and electronic sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) certificates (E-cert).

As a global forum, goods trade professionals should be aware that UN/CEFACT’s standards increasingly underpin domestic electronic commerce (e-commerce) and digital trade.

The conceptual framework for digital trade

I also maintain a Member-Observer role in the Universal Business Language (UBL) Technical Committee (TC) under the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). Involving contributions from individuals, the private sector, and governments, OASIS develops open standards in a variety of areas, including transportation, payments, and finance.

For example, the UBL TC has produced an open library of trade-relevant electronic document representations (e.g., sales invoices, purchase orders, and carnet for temporary export of goods) in XML and JSON formats. Version 2.4 of UBL was recently approved as a Committee Specification.

Several document-specific initiatives are emerging in parallel to these efforts, leading to a greater need for stakeholder collaboration to resolve potential interoperability issues between proliferating document standards.

For instance, the Future of International Trade (FIT) Alliance was established in 2022 by five founding members (BIMCO, DCSA, FIATA, ICC, and SWIFT). The main objectives of the FIT Alliance are to raise awareness and accelerate adoption of a standardized electronic Bill of Lading (eBL) across entities in ocean shipping (creating a ‘universal eBL’). For trade professionals looking to engage with eBL initiatives, it’s critical to consider what any bill of lading should include.

Shaping digital standards for customs, I also monitor the work of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and updates to its Data Model (DM). A pillar of goods trade facilitation for more than 20 years, the WCO DM provides structured, harmonized, standardized, and reusable sets of data definitions and electronic messages to meet operational-legal requirements at the border.

Adapting to and utilizing such standards at digital ‘touch points’ with cross-border regulatory agencies is quickly becoming a core competency for trade professionals involved in compliance.

Lastly, trade professionals should follow developments in the legal environment at home and abroad. By committee, lawyers under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) have crafted model laws as templates to inspire national legislation for the legal recognition of electronic trade documents/data. Alongside work to map trade data elements, the International Chamber of Commerce Digital Standards Initiative (ICC DSI) promotes UNCITRAL instruments.

While such initiatives have largely emphasized goods trade, digitization combined with the legality of electronic communications and transacting is also needed for services trade when contemplating e-invoicing, e-payments, and taxation.

So, that’s digitization in a nutshell. It is vital for stakeholders in the trade community – from senior leaders to newly minted trade professionals – to have a strong grasp on the nuance. The ‘end-to-end’ supply of electronic data is only as strong as its weakest link and its availability is a midway point. An additional step, digitalization, is required for digital transformation to address the manual processes associated with cross-border interaction.

What is digitalization? Towards process improvements and systems?

A second step, digitalization can occur when you have requisite data sources in electronic form and there is no longer a need to physically coordinate the submission, exchange, and processing of paper documents. Within disparate initiatives, digitalization concerns process improvements – multi-layered possibilities for better coordination and automation of procedures – that arise from using electronic data sources with digital technologies (typically through computer programming). For trade, digitalization can help businesses to anticipate costs before they’re incurred and better comply with market requirements.

This implies that, by leveraging digital technologies, the potential for market expansion is significantly greater for businesses of different sizes. Digitalization can be considered the ‘great equalizer’ because it means that an individual or small business may use technology to better participate in domestic e-commerce and digital trade. For digitalization-oriented approaches to work, there needs to be foundational Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) in place, such as national or regional Single Window (SW) systems for trade.

In combination with the right public infrastructure, tools like Digital Intermediation Platforms (DIPs), “online interfaces that facilitate… direct interaction between multiple buyers and multiple sellers, without the platform taking economic ownership of the goods or rendering the services that are being sold (intermediated)” create possibilities for small enterprises to scale their international market reach to the level of businesses with fully staffed trade operations/compliance teams.

How can professionals contribute to the digital transformation of trade?

Digital transformation is as much of an endpoint as it is the beginning of a cycle that changes how businesses, intermediaries, and governments interact. Aside from staying aware of the various initiatives for digitization and digitalization, it’s important for trade professionals to actively contribute given their unique experiences within different stakeholder groups.

Informing the development of infrastructure allows people to build specific tools to address the ‘pain points’ experienced by small enterprises. This also means that any trade professional should be able to use these tools, along with their expertise, to have the option of going ‘beyond the border’.

A caveat, technology aside – I believe that businesses should always try to learn their home market first.

Any good trade advisor will tell you it’s better to prove your local market, or at least operational capacity, before making a foray into international markets.

Combining practical experiences with trade expertise, like the Certified International Trade Professional (CITP) designation, equals a path to success for businesses in this new ‘digital economy’.

It’s important that businesses have team members with a grounded professional background in trade before considering digital transformation or offering services.

A CITP or someone who has completed a program, like the FITTskills program, is incredibly useful for the purposes of validation within a particular community, whether business or government, related to trade.

Learn more about Single Window systems in Craig’s deep dive article, part 2 in his series on digital trade technology, or TradeTech.

The post Unpacking the Digital Transformation of Trade appeared first on Trade Ready.

I first became interested in trade during my time at business school in the Netherlands. The experience opened my eyes to many of the non-tariff barriers that enterprises face in reaching export markets and how businesses from a “small country” can actively participate in international trade.

My time in the Netherlands inspired me to dedicate my career to promoting international trade.

The road to working in the UN system, and for the International Trade Centre specifically, was the result of a move from the private sector to employment with two national governments.

Although I enjoyed my employment experiences with both SMEs and larger enterprises, I have always been interested in what makes for a strong, domestic, “enabling environment” for businesses and how to effectively promote trade.

I therefore began my career in trade promotion with the Australian Trade Commission in 2007, and subsequently worked for the Canadian government in 2010.

The motivation to assist enterprises in developing economies

During my early work in trade promotion I witnessed the important connection between business success and the level of international trading activity of SMEs in developed countries (particularly in Canada, given its small domestic population and the likelihood of market saturation).

I realized that, in many cases, these   enterprises have significant advantages, including highly developed infrastructure, less ambiguous regulatory requirements, and established trade support institutions.

This realization motivated me to work on behalf of developing country sectors to increase their competitiveness, especially producers in WTO member states that are highly exposed to the exports of developed countries.

Trade promotion organizations play a vital part in trade development

Some developed countries are fortunate to have highly successful trade promotion organizations.

I believe Canada’s federal trade-bodies, Export Development Canada (EDC) and the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS), have benefited significantly from FITT’s role as a training partner.

Unlike purely academic programs, the FITT program gives students practical information on the different aspects of exporting (e.g. trade finance, marketing, etc.). Although trade theory is important, and forms most of the legal bases for the rules of trade, being able to navigate and comply with export requirements is an essential skill.

On the multilateral level, United Nations agencies like ITC are important to improving the capacity of developing country exporters to trade internationally. This led me to ITC.

The team at ITC responsible for value chain development, in both product and services sectors, has been actively compiling the needs expressed by project beneficiaries for over a decade.

A number of colleagues and I have been analysing this large body of qualitative information to gain better insight into what the most common needs are in different sectors and regions.

Using a content analysis methodology, we were able to quantify these needs, and we intend to publish our initial results on the ITC website in the coming months.

Understanding a complex development challenge

Throughout my career, I’ve realized that with both general and specific education comes another challenge: engaging with audiences that expect simple answers to complex problems. My thesis represents an extension of my work at ITC. I’ve always been interested in the role of technology and innovation for development.

In my thesis, I am examining the impact of donor programs for “appropriate technology” transfer. In particular, I am looking at the transfer of small-scale peanut processing technology to communities in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

In the 1970’s, SSA had approximately 90% of the global market share for peanuts. Today, this market share has fallen to about 5%. The fall in peanut exports can be partially attributed to developed country import bans on food contaminated with aflatoxin, a carcinogenic chemical produced by mould growth as a result of moisture and humidity. Some of the moisture related issues have to due with manual shelling activities.

Improved processing may enable these producer countries to reclaim some of their world market share, and also improve national public health.

I believe my thesis topic addresses an important area at the apex of technology, trade and development.

I intend to continue to work in my thesis area, agri-food sector development within the UN/WTO system, but also to expand my consulting business further. I’m also pursuing more “entrepreneurial activities” in the IT, clean tech, and agricultural technology spaces.

International trade is a field of continuous learning

One of the biggest challenges in my career has been the continuous learning required to understand the multifaceted nature of international trade. After completing the course-based Master of International Trade from the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, I continued to work.

Even after completing a Master’s, I wanted to explore a specific area in greater depth. This led me to pursue a second, thesis-based, master’s degree with a specialization in international development. Given the strength of the University of Saskatchewan in all disciplines related to agriculture, I applied to a thesis-based Master of Arts program.

Upon acceptance, I was offered a graduate fellowship with the faculty of Political Studies. The fellowship entailed completing research for the faculty, grading the work of undergraduates, and other responsibilities. I also won several graduate awards that will contribute toward funding my fieldwork.

Completing my first master’s degree, earning my CITP designation in 2013, and, more recently, receiving a graduate fellowship have been among my proudest achievements in my educational career.

The ‘VALUE’ of a designation

Being a CITP has given me practical knowledge and skills related to trade. I’ve heard people mention certifications in any field as “not adding any value” in helping them “sell themselves”.

In my opinion, the value of a professional designation lies not in the paper received as a means to “get a job”, but as a way that your knowledge can be recognized by fellow professionals.

That being said, it has been good to see the designation included in position advertisements with federal government agencies involved in trade and export development.

I have also had the opportunity to connect with other international trade professionals through the FITT community by being featured in an article on TradeReady.ca and participating as a panellist in #TradeElite Twitter chats.

I am excited to continue to be active in the FITT community, participating in Twitter chats, as either a host or panelist, and look forward to networking with my fellow professionals in the future.

The post How I am leveraging my education and experience for trade impact appeared first on Trade Ready.