Recently, a tender exercise was launched to implement a Single Window solution in a Southeast African country. Several organisations lodged bids. The financial quotations varied from around $2m to $12m. What does this tell us? Possibly that the invitation to tender was not sufficiently prescriptive about the requirement. Or maybe - linked to the above, the prospective suppliers interpreted the definition of ‘Single Window’ in different ways. A third possibility is that the bidders had different ideas on the funding model that could apply; maybe the lower bidders (should they win the competition), would employ a model where once operational, user fees would be applied. This necessitates some crucial questions. In another country in Southeast Africa, the Single Window is operated as a Public Private Partnership, and user fees are applied to each transaction on an ‘ad valorem’ basis, thus, according to the invoice value of the consignment, this arrangement would seem to be non-compliant with the intent of World Trade Organisation rules on fees and charges, and potentially inhibits inward investment, as well as also appearing to contravene contemporary trade facilitation best practice.

So, lessons need to be learned from this, for all countries about to implement a Single Window platform, including the UK, as well as the EU who, interestingly, have just passed legislation to initiate a European Union regional Single Window.

There needs to be absolute clarity on what is wanted from the system and how it is to be funded. In relation to the latter, there is an assumption that there will be no user fees for transactions via the UK platform; but, as we know, assumptions can be dangerous. It is really the ‘What is needed from the platform?’ that must be clearly articulated. The reality is that, if the system owner - HMRC or otherwise, is clear on what is needed and thus, what system providers must deliver, then all bidders for the various implementation activities should proffer very similar technical and financial proposals. This level of clarity is crucial from the outset. Governments tend to over promise and under deliver on the benefits that Single Window will deliver to the trade. Single Window programmes are expensive and, in situations where there are user fees or a requirement for traders to invest in new software to interface with the Single Window platform, there needs to be a very accurate cost / benefit analysis. This is especially so in developed countries, where traders enjoy a reasonable level of trade facilitation even without a Single Window – so, if benefits to traders are only marginal, the question must be asked “is it really worth it?” If the answer is “no” or “maybe not”, there needs to be a re-assessment of the scope of activities the platform will include and facilitate. As a starter, connecting the UK Single Window with the proposed EU regional platform would seem a no-brainer.  

If our friends across the Channel will allow it …. If the ambition for the UK platform is as expansive as it needs to be to have overall impact for the majority of traders, then it will be essential for HMRC to initiate discussions with all the stakeholders involved in international supply chains – importers, exporters, carriers, freight forwarders, port / airport authorities, banks, insurance companies, warehouse operators and chambers of commerce to name a few! In 2023, and beyond, Single Window implementers globally, need to think beyond the original concepts – there is a huge opportunity, if Government grasps it.