CITES toolkit
1.1 CITES toolkit technical introduction
This chapter will analyze and describe
trade scenarios and processes relevant to the control of the trading of CITES-listed
species.
Analysis of these questions may be useful
to Parties implementing (to-be) or further developing (as-is) national
electronic permitting systems. The resultant process description can assist in
answering the following questions:
- Who is involved in the exchange of
import/export authorizations?
- Which processes have been defined and
implemented? Which processes must remain as is and which may be changed?
- Are optimizations possible?
- What are the benefits of a new solution?
- Who will benefit from a new solution?
The main groups involved in the CITES
e-permit process are traders (B = business level) and Customs, CITES Management
Authorities or other governmental bodies (G = governmental level). These groups
can interact with each other in specified ways.
Relationships or interactions among those groups
can take place on different levels. The level of interaction (B2B, B2G and G2G[1]) within the scope of a particular e-permit implementation will
influence the technical and security aspects of that CITES implementation.
The international trade process in regard
to the CITES Convention can be summarized in two main directional processes:
the import and export (or re-export) of CITES-listed species.
Currently, in the B2B and B2G scenarios most
of the data exchange processes in many CITES implementation environments are paper
based.
The introduction of electronic data
exchanges will create opportunities for more sophisticated solutions and higher
level interactions such as G2G or inclusion in the Single Window concept as supported
through G2G data exchanges.
Furthermore, in the following description of the technical process, attention is given to potential impacts of implementation on the different process scenarios. Attention is also given to how a choice of a solution for a particular environment may be dependent on compatibility and security needs.
The process diagrams assist in visualizing and clarifying issues related to implementation of e-permit systems of the current situation of an existing implementation. It also assists in identifying potential optimizations by enhancing current paper-based processes with electronic data exchange in different scenarios.
Every CITES
electronic permitting system requires first and foremost the unambiguous
definition of, and the structural relationships between the pieces of
information which are used across the CITES trade and administrative processes.
These definitions and structural relationships can be provided by either an
ebXML compliant or a WCO Data Model compliant CITES payload syntax neutral subset
data model (see Chapter 4 Annexes). Such a CITES e-permit data model subset offers
the blueprint for the implementation of compliant and interoperable systems of
CITES-permit-related information
To be able
to exchange CITES data between CITES Authorities and other bodies/agencies
nationally and internationally, it is necessary to define a technical exchange
format for the data. This is provided by a World Wide Web Consortia (W3C)
compliant and ebXML conformant CITES XML schema.
The
relationship between the CITES payload syntax neutral data model and the CITES
XML schema is that the CITES XML schemas have been fully auto-generated from
the CITES or WCO data model subsets. The key reason for this standards approach
is that, by keeping the underlying CITES data model consistent and free of
technical errors, and by generating the CITES XML schema automatically from it,
maintenance becomes easier and cheaper than if the XML schema were generated
and maintained manually.
Maintaining
the distinction between a payload syntax neutral data model and the XML
exchange format allows the use of the CITES data models as a canonical format
for the mapping to (or even the generation of) other payload grammars, such as
other W3C compliant schemas, other XML schemas, ISO XML, comma-delimited
exchange formats (CSV) or classic EDI formats such as UN/EDIFACT. Another
reason is that the innovation cycles related to the Internet and XML
environments are very short and the use of a payload neutral model is more
likely to be adaptable to technological change.
The first of
the two CITES data model subsets is based on the UN/CEFACT Core Component
Library (CCL) which is compliant with ISO 15000 ebXML Core Component Technical
Specification (CCTS). The UN/CEFACT Core Component Library (CCL) has been set up as a library of reusable data structures by harmonizing submissions from
trade, transport, insurance, tendering, tourism, government agencies like
Customs or phytosanitary and many others.
The second
of the two CITES data model subsets is based on the WCO Data Model version 3.3
which is recommended for supporting implementation of International Trade
Single Windows systems.
The CITES CCL
based data model presented in this toolkit defines a restricted profile of the
UN/CEFACT CCL version D12B and it contains only the data structures and
elements which will be needed for the exchange of CITES data. The CITES UN/CEFACT
XML schema presented in this toolkit is conformant to the UN/CEFACT XML naming
and design rules.
The CITES
WCO Data Model subset presented in this toolkit defines a restricted profile of
the WCO Data Model version 3.3 and it contains only the data structures and
elements which will be needed for the exchange of CITES data. The CITES WCO XML
schema presented in this toolkit is conformant to the WCO XML naming and design
rules.
The CITES
GOVCBR subset presented in this toolkit defines a restricted profile of the
UN/EDIFACT standard message GOVCBR and it contains only the data structures and
elements which will be needed for the exchange of CITES data. The CITES GOVCBR Message
Implementation Guide (MIG) presented in this toolkit is conformant to the UN/EDIFACT
syntax.
The reuse of
any of these CITES data exchange specifications for e-permitting
implementations supports greater interoperability across all the sectors,
parties and boundaries of Cross Border Trade. The two provided CITES data
models and the three syntax specific exchange specifications provided in the Chapter
4 annexes are fully aligned to each other. The UN/CEFACT based data model may
be the most appropriate choice for trader to CITES Authority data exchanges and
the WCO based data model may be the most appropriate choice for the CITES
Authority data exchanges with other CITES Authorities or Customs etc.
The CITES and related Customs and other governmental
agency scenarios are exchanging nearly identical data structures, which are
basically consignment based. In other words, both the electronic and paper
documents are profiles of the same basic structure. The CITES e-permit XML
schemas and the GOVCBR MIG specification each cover all the data needed to
describe the exchange of CITES relevant information referring to the processes
of an import, export, re-export or other types of CITES permit processes and
for all cases in regard to the CITES appendices.
The provided specifications may not cover
all possible specific national requirements where they may differ from the
CITES standard because of the variety of national rules and regulations.
However, where known, some specific requirements for national or regional
implementations have been included.
Future more advanced scenarios with
extended data requirements may be developed, such as providing XML schemas for
Web services to include queries to the CITES Trade Database or other relevant
databases. The CITES e-permitting data exchange specifications may then be the
subject of further development to include these new requirements.
By design, the CITES e-permitting data
exchange specifications support Single Window environments and international
trade-related data interoperability. They have been designed to maximize their suitability
for future data exchange requirements.
However, the scope of this project is defined
pursuant to Decision 14.55. The CITES e-permitting data exchange specifications
described in this toolkit concentrate on providing the necessary
interoperability of data in B2G and G2G interactions.
In practice, XML schemas are commonly developed
for two usages which can be human-related and application-related. From a human-related
perspective, XML schemas offer a human-readable presentation of exchangeable
data structures and its documentation. Furthermore, applications can be
supported by document structures which are expressed in XML schemas.
The CITES e-permitting data exchange
specifications have been developed to meet as many of the above criteria as
possible. In the opinion of the Secretariat the chosen combination of the reuse
of these e-permitting data exchange specifications offers a flexible and future
looking way forward.
Additional information:
UN/CEFACT and other UN projects
Information of single window approach
Description of the CITES reference data model
1.1.1 General description of CITES business processes
Applying a new technical CITES (e-)permit system
may have impacts on processes of other parties such as Customs authorities.
Business procedures or technical implementations may have to be changed and the
readiness of other parties to adopt the new solutions has to be checked before.
From the view of the CITES Management
Authority the following parties may have specific interests in communicating to
the authority:
- Trade parties (e.g. importer, exporter,
carrier)
- Governmental administrations (e.g.
customs, health, environment)
- Other CITES executing bodies (e.g. scientific
agencies)
- CITES Management Authorities of other
countries
Generally, all parties need to be able to:
- Access the CITES Management Authority’s
offered interface solution
- Be granted the appropriate access/edit
rights in order to process the information
Additional features and options for exchanging and processing CITES data more efficiently may be offered to participating partner agencies. Some important options which could be available include:
Trade parties
- Track and Trace functionalities whereby the
status of CITES permits or the movement of CITES specimens
(“passed-the-checkpoint-successfully” type of feedback) can be kept up-to-date
by and exchanged between involved parties
- Efficient collaborative master data
management via a secure Web application
- One stop data input of required trade
data when applying for a CITES permit or certificate.
Customs
- Ability to request detailed up-to-date
information from the CITES Management Authority about the status of a
CITES permit at the time when the goods need to be examined at a border checkpoint.
This requirement may include the development of a new user front-end where
the CITES permit reference number can be entered and referenced to the
CITES Management Authorities database
- Access to CITES species information stored
in a CITES database which may be made possible via Web services
- Ability to recall an existing CITES
permit when required
- Ability to adjust the certified quantity
of the imported CITES goods to match the inspected quantity as ascertained
at a border crossing point.
Other CITES Management Authorities
- Facility to exchange e-permits between
agencies
- Ability to forward the necessary data of
a request submitted by a trader, customs or other institution via Web
services to the appropriate authority for further automated processing and
immediate feedback
- Ability to automatically respond to any
received request from a CITES Management Authority in another country.
1.1.1.2 Business levels of data interaction among the involved parties
It is possible to identify the following
data exchange scenarios all of which may be relevant to CITES e-permit system
requirements:
- Business-to-Government (B2G)
B2G in the
context of CITES data exchange means a business party (e.g. exporter/importer)
- Government-to-Government (G2G)
G2G in the context of CITES data exchange can have two connotations
which can be referred to as the ‘external’ G2G and the ‘internal’ G2G.
The ‘external’
case is when there is an interaction between a CITES Management Authority of
one country (e.g. the exporter country) and the CITES Management Authority
(e.g. the importer country) of another country.
The ’internal’
case is when there occurs data exchange internally in a country between its
CITES Management Authority and related national governmental agencies.
1.1.1.3 Issues related to implementation
Applications, interfaces and possible data exchange technologies are factors which may define the implementation of a CITES e-permitting system. All typical components of data exchange must be defined including the data exchange format, the chosen data transfer protocol and the data input and output application, among others.
- Electronic forms and documents
The development
of an electronic CITES permit form involves the conversion of the data fields
present in the paper document into a suitable electronic format which provides
a more convenient way for a user to insert his/her data values. The required conversions
include the implementation of ‘tick boxes’ into radio buttons and the addition
of drop-down code lists. Business rules can also be integrated into the e-form
definition so that data validation can be built in to increase the accuracy of
the submitted data and for increased ease of use. The data may have to be
inserted manually into the resultant interactive document (e.g. PDF e-form) or,
alternatively, there may be direct linkages to the data through the use of an
application.
However completed,
an XML file can be created easily and transferred electronically as an e-mail
(SMTP) or more directly via the Internet (HTTP, HTTPS).
The secure
transfer of the XML file or an interactive document should be carefully
considered and all necessary security methods employed such as https, digital
signature or smart card. The security method will determine the choice of the
transport protocol.
The implementation of an e-form solution has only low-level, readily available and reasonably low-cost technical requirements such as PDF reader software, an Internet connection and an Internet browser.
- Web Application
A Web application provides an efficient way of implementing e-permit
procedures. The user has easy access to his/her e-permit status information via
a Web application using a login name and password. All data entry can be done
using one online application which is accessible via an Internet browser.
Master user data could be submitted once, saved and maintained in a
database and reused several times. An interaction between different documents
and e-permit tasks could be created and a history logged to provide statistics
and traceability.
The technical requirements are the Web application, an Internet
connection and an Internet browser.
The usage of a Web application can generate some drawbacks such as the need for access to the Internet or an intranet. Another disadvantage may be that if there media breaks occur between two data exchanging parties, it may be necessary to re-enter the data a second time.
- Web Service
Web service technology
allows the connection of applications by communicating via a network. A Web
service can be used to transfer and process CITES data automatically without a manually
initiated user request or response actions.
A good example
of a CITES Web service would be the automated lookup of CITES scientific names
of species directly from a drop-down menu of an e-form.
Again security
aspects and data transfer protocols should be considered carefully.
The requirements of the usage of Web services are: to be online and to have real time database access not only on the side of the data provider but for the data retriever, too.
There are possibilities
for significant improvements of the CITES e-permitting processes through the
implementation of a Single Window approach.
A Single Window in an international trade regulatory
environment can be described as a facility that allows all traders to submit
their regulatory required information electronically with each piece of
information submitted once and only once through a single entry point.
From a CITES perspective a Single Window
can either be a single CITES Management Authority or a wider national or
regional Single Window covering Customs and other related regulatory bodies.
If a CITES Single Window is in place an
importer or exporter can use the Single Window as an entry point for submitting
e-permit requests and for receiving responses from the MA. The submitted data
will be processed directly by the Management Authority. Depending on the
available technical solution this data can be exchanged with other Management
Authorities as required.
If a national or regional Single Window is
in place then submitted CITES data will be routed to the Management Authority through
the Single Window and responses from the Management Authority to the trader
will also be routed through the Single Window.
Whichever Single Window is available, the trader and the Management Authority should benefit from lower costs and greater efficiencies.
1.2 Common information exchange standards
This chapter presents guidelines on the use
of common information exchange formats, protocols and standards for use with CITES
e-permitting systems.
Some standards are described briefly, but as
it is not within the scope of this toolkit to offer a comprehensive explanation
to all possible standards, references are provided in these cases for accessing
further information if required.
1.2.1 Guidance on relevant cross-border data exchange related standards
1.2.1.1 WCO SAFE framework[2]
In 2005 166 members of WCO accepted the
Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE Framework). The goal of this instrument is to enforce a closer relationship between international
business and Customs highlighting the security and efficiency aspects in
international trade.
To achieve the goals set by the WCO
Framework some elements of the framework are considered to be essential.
One aspect of the framework, referring to
the acceleration of electronic trade, is the development of a WCO data model
which will be established to cover all governmental requirements, relevant
trade processes from a customs point of view and also commercial issues
relating to border clearances.
The currently available WCO data model is
version 3.3 which includes a range of data elements and data structures
explicitly defined by WCO covering not only goods import and export declarations,
cargo declarations and conveyance reports but also covering Single Window
governmental agency processes.
This version widens the data model to
include some of the regulatory border release requirements of Partner
Governmental Agencies (PGAs) such as CITES, eTIR, Phyto-Sanitary regulatory
requirements at the border. The WCO Data Model profile, WCO XML schema and
GOVCBR MIG included in the Annexes of this toolkit are based on the WCO Data
Model version 3.3.
1.2.1.2 United Nations/ Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business and other United Nations projects[3]
The mission statement of the United Nations/
Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) is defined as:
“The United Nations, through its Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, supports activities dedicated to improving the ability of business, trade and administrative organizations, from developed, developing and transitional economies, to exchange products and relevant services effectively. Its principal focus is on facilitating national and international transactions, through the simplification and harmonisation of processes, procedures and information flows, and so contribute to the growth of global commerce.“
UN/CEFACT International Supply Chain Reference Model (ISCRM)
UN/CEFACT is developing a business process model which reflects supply chain processes from an international trade perspective which is known as the ISCRM. The scope of the ISCRM project is to covers commercial, logistics, regulatory and financial processes.
UN/CEFACT BUY-SHIP-PAY (BSP) data model
The UN/CEFACT BSP data model consists of
data structures used across the processes defined in the UN/CEFACT
International Supply Chain Reference Model (ISCRM). These data structures are a
subset of the UN/CEFACT Core Component Library (CCL) which means that they are
compliant with the UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification v2.01 (CCTS)
which is also known as ISO TS15000-5 and ebXML Part 8. The full BSP data model covers
data requirements to support the commercial (BUY), transport and regulatory
(SHIP) and financial (PAY) procedures of cross border trade processes.
The BSP data model is especially in line with the requirements of the cross-border transport sector and therefore covers the core of the CITES regulatory requirements in an international trade environment.
Source: UN/CEFACT
Figure 1
The
UN/CEFACT BSP data model and its derived components have been chosen as the
basis from which to derive the subset CITES Standard e-Permit data model structure
which will be introduced as an implementable solution in the CITES reference
data model chapter of this toolkit. The CITES data model subset is therefore reusing
the naming and data structure of an already existing sophisticated library
which is approved as a UN/CEFACT Business Standard.
Because this data model conforms to the
UN/CEFACT Core Component Library (CCL) and is based on the Core Components
Technical Specification (CCTS), it is well placed to support future Single
Window approaches and is extendable to fulfil future needs through submissions
to the UN/CEFACT CCL Management Group (TBG17).
UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS)
CCTS provides rules for the definition of context
neutral and context specific information in reusable building blocks which are
called core components. UN/CEFACT has developed a library of CCTS core
components covering the international supply chain (B2B, B2G and G2G) and this
library is maintained and published by UN/CEFACT. It is called the UN/CEFACT
Core Component Library (CCL) and it is available from the UN/CEFACT website free
of charge.
The UN/CEFACT BSP Data Model is based on
the UN/CEFACT Core Component Library.
UN/CEFACT has defined a set of naming and
design rules which are based on the W3C schema definition language (XSD) and
can be used to express Core Component message assemblies as XML schemas. The specification
of the UN/CEFACT XML Naming and Design Rules (NDR) Technical Specification can
be downloaded from the UN/CEFACT website.
To be conformant to UN/CEFACT XML, the XML Schemas must follow the UN/CEFACT XML NDR.
UNECE recommendations[4]
UN/CEFACT has published a set of trade
facilitation recommendations which are available free of charge from the
UN/CEFACT website. For example, there are recommendation on code lists
including ISO Country and Currency code lists, the UNLOCODE, INCOTERMS, Package
Type codes etc. together with recommendations on how to use them.
Recommendation 1 describes how to align the layout of trade documents to the UN Layout Key (see also below) which is followed by thousands of paper forms related to cross-border trading worldwide. Recommendation 33 describes how to prepare for a Single Window approach.
Unite Nations Layout Key
As one of
the first recommendations made by UNECE in 1973, the United Nations Layout Key
for trade documents (UNLK) still plays a very important role for facilitating
international trade. The main function of the UNLK is to present a standard and
universal design for any paper document which can be exchanged by parties in
the international supply chain. The UNLK is a joint standard developed with
ISO where it is referred to as ISO 6422.
Because of the broad acceptance of this
recommendation thousands of documents have been aligned to the UNLK and time
and costs of document processing have over the years been decreased for many
administrative processes significantly.
ISO is currently considering to adopt a new work item to develop an equivalent standard for electronic international trade documents to be called the eUNLK or ISO 6422 Part 2.
United Nations Trade Data Elements Directory
The United Nations Trade Data Elements Directory (UNTDED) offers a standard list for trade elements which can be used for data exchange in international trade. UNTDED version 2005 is another joint standard with ISO which is known as the official ISO Standard ISO7372.
1.3 Development of a migration strategy
A key factor in the development of a migration strategy and its implementation plan is that they must always start from the existing as-is situation. This means that one of the dependencies will be the minimisation of any negative impacts on existing system structures and the current data exchange techniques during the implementation stages.
Below are some general issues, which may be
considered when drafting a project plan for implementation:
- Assessment of the benefits of an
iterative approach
- Re-evaluation of long term goals as
identified in the to-be situation to address any changes or emerging
changes in relevant external and/or internal environments. These could
include legislative constraints, etc.
- Comparison of the as-is situation with
the to-be situation from different perspectives such as technical,
business and security
- Making use of experience and adoption of
proven best practises learned from other successful implementations
- Consideration of the impact of the
developments of other related parties i.e. trading partners – consideration
of where they could help and how they might affect the project plan
- Assessment of which steps are feasible at
which stage considering the dependencies of all relevant factors such as
time, costs and prerequisites?
- Wherever possible, include a plan for a
beta environment to run in parallel to the implemented solution and also
consideration of how to introduce a beta environment in parallel with the as-is
i.e. current processes.
- In order to encourage migration to the new environment, the development of an incentive plan which could be offered to trading partners could be considered.
1.3.1 Analysis of the situation and identification of requirements
To gain a concise
picture of the current (as-is) situation, implemented systems, their processes
and compatibilities should be analysed. This exercise should include aspects of
technologies used and security and business issues. This collated information
about the current situation will assist to identify strengths, weaknesses and
requirements for improvements in any future solutions.
Which of the
three general types of permit systems does/will exist?
- Fully paper-based permission process
- Parallel e-permission: Supports both
paper-based or electronic e-permission processes in parallel
- Fully electronic e-permission process
using interactive online forms, Web services or direct XML exchanges
What can be
improved and which possible improvements depend on implementing new
technologies?
- Which parts of the existing system can
remain in place and be integrated with the future system, which parts will
have to be modified or extended and will there be new processes which will
need to be to be integrated?
- Could the adoption of an existing
solution used by a Party offer the required functionalities?
- Which open, interoperable and
international Standards could or should be followed for defining required data
exchange formats?
- Which data exchange model(s) will be
adopted, i.e. PULL or PUSH?
- Which technologies (e.g. Web service,
e-form or application) will be needed for implementation?
- If plans are to build common data
exchange structures and techniques between Parties, then jointly designed technical
building blocks will need to be developed, implemented and maintained collaboratively
between all the participating parties (e.g. building a Web service driven
single window solution between CITES Management Authorities)
Which
security issues have to be considered?
§ Basic security:
Confidentiality, integrity, authenticity and availability
§ Document security:
Electronic data exchange employing encryption techniques, (XML)
digital signatures, electronic certificates and certification authorities
§ Application security:
User access controls (Registration with username and password, Smart
Card etc.)
§ Data Transfer:
Electronic protocols and digital security mechanisms (https, SSL),
1.3.2 Development of a project plan
Developing a migration strategy leading
from the as-is to the to-be situation requires the determination of several factors
which will potentially influence the process of implementation. These variable
factors can be fixed in a project plan and some of them are listed below:
- What is the implementation time schedule?
- What are the costs?
- What is the technical implementation plan?
- How will testing, e.g. maintaining
parallel systems, be planned?
- Creation of a test environment to check the functionality and stability of the new, modified or alternative system
What will be the quantifiable and qualitative benefits?
These may include items such as:
- Preparation and capacity for future requirements
(Single window support, XML schema techniques, electronic forms support
etc.)
- Higher efficiency (savings of time and
costs)
- Error reduction
1.4 Implementations of CITES e-permitting systems
1.4.1 A list of Parties which have implemented CITES e-permitting systems
Below is a selective list of Parties which
have implemented CITES e-permitting systems. Owing to the difficulty in keeping
this list up-to-date, it will be moved to a Web-based systems where Parties are
able to submit information related to their e-permtting systems. Below are
examples of selected countries:
|
Country |
CITES Management Authority |
Single Window Solution (G2G or Cites2Cites) |
Status tracking and data management |
Business data input |
Data processing |
Links |
|
|
Online (E-form, Web app.) |
Static Forms (Print) |
Automatically (e.g. Web service) |
|
||||
|
Switzerland |
BVET |
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
UK |
DEFRA |
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
Germany |
BfN |
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
France |
Ministry of Ecology |
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Singapore |
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
UAE |
Ministry of Environment and Water |
|
|
|
x |
|
Management Authority for Abu Dhabi Emirate: https://eservices.ead.ae/portal/page/portal/ead_portal/servicesIntroduction/CitesPermitIntroduction
Management Authority for the Northern Emirates: http://www.moew.gov.ae/En/onlineservice/cites/Pages/default.aspx
|
|
Thailand |
National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
http://www.dnp.go.th/ |
|
Brazil |
Ministry of External Relations / IBAMA |
x |
x |
|
x |
|
|
|
Italy |
Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Spain |
Ministerio
de Industria, Turismo y Comercio |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Canada |
Canadian Wildlife Service |
|
|
|
x |
|
|
Figure 2
See also: A Survey of Single Window Implementation. World Customs Organization, 2011 (WCO Research Paper No. 17). See: http://www.wcoomd.org/~/media/WCO/Public/Global/PDF/Topics/Research/Research%20Paper%20Series/17_SW_Survey%20Analysis_Choi_EN.ashx?db=web
The UNECE has developed a Single Window
Trade Facilitation Recommendation (UN Recommendation 33) which includes the
following definition:
“Within the context of this Recommendation, a Single Window is defined as 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. If information is electronic, then individual data elements should only be submitted once”.
The WCO has further refined the UNECE definition as follows:
“A Single Window Environment is a cross border, ‘intelligent’, facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information, mainly electronic, with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export and transit related regulatory requirements.”
An International Trade Single Window
environment is designed to increase efficiency for traders and governmental
agencies alike for all activities around import/export clearance procedures
including permits and certificates. Users are provided with a single,
coordinated interface to many different government agencies. Required data will
be automatically and electronically exchanged between all market partners and
government bodies through one interface. The primary objective
is that each element of required data should only have to be submitted once
thereby reducing the considerable data redundancy caused by today’s separated
regulatory interfaces and functions.
Additional information on Single Windows and practical steps for their implementation can be found in Recommendation No. 33 of UN/CEFACT (“Recommendation and Guidelines on establishing a Single Window to enhance the efficient exchange of information between trade and government”).[5]
1.5.1.1 Overall benefits of a Single Window approach
The Single
Window concept describes how a Single Window can provide improved services to
businesses, increased national or regional competitiveness by offering reductions
in documentary burdens on traders as well as delivering improved coordination and
streamlining of government operations.
Harmonised
networking between Single Windows across the globe offers further increases in
the benefits when complemented by compliance goals and mutual recognition of
secure trading frameworks between countries.
Additionally,
the recognised benefits in speed of data exchange, increased security and
increased process efficiencies of electronic data transfers will be available
to any Single Window environment. As a result further benefits such as the secure
exchange of pre-approval data and permits before physical goods are going to be
transported may be accrued.
1.5.1.2 Single Window initiatives
It will
probably be helpful to have information on current Single Window developments
which can give an orientation about the possibilities of implementation. Such
relevant reference projects would include:
Single Window frameworks such as WCO (Global Customs based),, APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation),
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and, ITAIDE (Information
Technology for Adoption and Intelligent Design for EGovernment)[6]
Country governmental Single Window projects such as those implemented or being implemented in Canada, France, Singapore, United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America
1.5.2 Specifics for the implementation of a CITES Single Window
CITES Management Authorities wishing to
offer services through a Single Window system should consider
the following steps:
- Data structures and data elements
exchanged must be defined clearly, unambiguously, transparently and based
on global semantic standards as much as possible. These definitions should
be made freely and easily accessible to all possible trading partners
- All defined interfaces, exchange
standards and formats should be harmonized and their design should be
optimised for maximum interoperability
- The underlying data model and exchanged
data should be designed to support possible future enhancements related to
CITES processes, border release procedures (e.g. Customs inspections etc.)
and other related documentary requirements (e.g. Phyto-Sanitary
certificate, certificate of origin etc.)
- Use an existing Single Window environment as appropriate.. Naturally, this will require alignment of CITES data requirements with those of the existing Single Window
1.5.2.2 Benefits of a CITES Single Window approach
Benefits from a trader perspective
- Lower costs in meeting CITES requirements
- Faster clearance of goods resulting in
increased efficiencies and, in the case of live animal transport, an
increase in animal health protection
- Increased security and increased compliance
with obligations under the Convention
- More effective and efficient use of resources
- Increased transparency of regulatory processes
Benefits from a Management Authority perspective
- Increased risk control , security and
supervision management
- Faster and less costly processing of CITES
data
- Easier collation and exchange of CITES statistical
data
- Simplified reporting requirements
1.6.1 Interoperability and application integration
Interoperability is the capacity of
heterogeneous systems to be able to work together.
To establish or improve interoperability between applications and organisations, an understanding of the following conceptual levels of interoperability is useful:
Business Process level
The business process level defines when and why certain data is exchanged between organizations or organizational units. Interoperability is achieved by aligning distinct business processes with one another.
Data Semantic level
This level is related to the content of
the data transmitted. This content is often described as the semantic content
or the meaning of the data. When two systems exchange data, full semantic interoperability
can only be achieved when all of the data exchanged is interpreted in exactly
the same way by both communication partners thereby eliminating
misunderstandings
The basic pre-requisites for semantic
interoperability are shared names and definitions for data elements plus
commonly agreed to codes. Whilst bilateral semantic agreements between
individual pairs of trading partners may be simpler to arrange, the wider that
such commonly defined semantics can be adopted across trading communities the
greater semantic interoperability benefits can be achieved.
Global semantic standards in the form of internationally maintained libraries such as the ISO 7372 Trade Data Element Directory, UN/CEFACT Core Component Library (ebXML) and the WCO Data Model are important as they can together provide a trustable and well maintained foundation on which trading communities can build semantic interoperability platforms.
Message Structural level
This level concerns shared data structures
and the relationships between them. When data is exchanged in the form of
electronic messages, it is important that the exchanged data follows a
pre-defined structure so that the receiver can understand the relationships
between the pieces of data received.
Message structures are developed as
representations of data models can be: a) bilaterally agreed, b) community
agreed such as GS1 EANCOM messages, or c) globally standardised such as the
UN/EDIFACT (United Nations/Electronic Data Interchange For Administration,
Commerce and Transport) Standard Messages (UNSMs) and UN/CEFACT XML Messages.
Message structures define cardinalities as well as business entity relationships which are linked together to form a message assembly. They can be thought of as a UML class diagram expressed in a chosen message syntax.
Syntax level
This level
specifies the syntax in which electronic document interchanges (EDI) are
conducted and in which the document structures are defined as described above.
The most common EDI syntaxes are XML or UN/EDIFACT. However, in the case of XML
there are several different dialects and the recommended version for
international e-business is the W3C XML Schema Definition Language commonly
referred to as XML schemas.
The syntax level consists of two or three distinct parts: a) the message structure definition, b) instances of actual data exchanges which comply with the message structure, and c) an optional message implementation guideline which defines agreed business rules to be applied to the processing of received instances such as an EDIFACT MIG or an XML Schematron file.
Communication protocol level
This final level defines the handshaking communication protocols which enable two exchange systems to talk successfully with each other in order to exchange electronic information.
Recommendations
The Convention is a legal framework that –
together with its requisite national implementation - lays the ground for business
process interoperability.
With regards to the semantic level, the syntax and meaning of electronic CITES documents will need to be carefully described in order to enable cross-border cooperation when using such documents (permits and applications for permits). In this toolkit, this is achieved by the uniform XSD-representations of permits and the concepts involved. Cf. CITES Reference Data Model and CITES XML Schema.
Recommendation
(R1) Use internationally agreed to and established open standards when describing and mapping CITES documents for use in e-permitting systems.
1.7 IT-Security & Secure Data Communication
1.7.1 Information security management
The establishment of an information
technology (IT) security system requires the creation of an IT security
management system which must designate, co-ordinate and monitor IT security
related tasks (in conformity with ISO 27001).
In addition, continuous and effective IT
security processes involve the following recurrent actions:
- analysis and documentation of the
structure of existing information technology assets
- assessment of the security requirements
to ascertain the level of protection needed
- undertaking of regular security checks
to obtain an overview of the existing IT security environment, i.e., does
it meet the specified and required security level
- implementation of security measures that
are absent or are not adequately implemented
Recommendation
(R2) Establish a management system in conformity with ISO 27001 to designate, co-ordinate and monitor IT security related tasks.
1.7.2 Protection Aims & Secure Data Communication
Protection aims
define the security needs related to communication including :
- Confidentiality – protection against
disclosure to unauthorized parties: No data is made available or disclosed
to unauthorized individuals, entities or processes. Confidentiality is
ensured by encrypting the information.
- Integrity – protection against
manipulation. Unauthorized modification or destruction of data is not
possible. This includes information concerning the origin or time of
creation. Integrity is ensured by the use of electronic signatures.
- Authenticity – protection against
identity fraud: Unauthorized sending of messages is not possible.
Authenticity is ensured by the use of electronic signatures.
Secure Data Communication comes in two
different forms: a) the network connection between the communication nodes is
private (e.g. using a virtual private network (VPN)), and b), the partners
communicate encrypted and signed documents via an open network (secure
communication via insecure channels).
With regards to CITES, the latter method may
be more suitable. The almost universal membership to the Convention and the
need to use the Internet as the basic communication channel favour the use of
encrypted and digitally signed documents exchanged via the Internet. The security
of CITES processes (application for permits, sending of permits, securing
permits against forgery etc.) must be assured a high priority. The solutions to
achieve interoperability must in no way compromise technical cooperation among
Parties.
Recommendation
(R3) Identify and use appropriate technologies when communicating via or using open/insecure networks (i.e. the Internet) to ensure confidentiality, integrity and authenticity of the data being exchanged.
1.8 Web Services and Web Service Security
1.8.1 Basic information about Web services
Web Service technology is a means to
integrate applications by having them communicate via a network. The
application establishing and offering the service is called the server,
the one accessing or using the service the client.
Web services are accessible over the HTTP
(Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol) protocol. XML is used as the message format as
defined by the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) standard. Machine-readable
description (also accessible via the network) related to the operations of the Web
service consists of the service specified through the Web Services Description
Language (WSDL).
Web Services can be and are being used for
application integration within an organisation. However, as a result of its
capacity to provide interoperability for applications across platforms and
vendor origins, they can be used –across organizations.
By being independent of technology,
operation systems or programming languages, the Web service standards facilitate
the interoperability among different systems and platforms
Both SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol)
and HTTP are valid application layer protocols used as transport for SOAP. HTTP has gained wide acceptance as it works well with today's Internet infrastructure,
specifically, with network firewalls (SOAP may also be used over HTTPS, which
is the same protocol as HTTP, but uses an encrypted transport protocol
underneath).
XML (Extensible Mark-up Language) should
serve as the universal and primary standard for exchanging data between information
systems. The data shown to the user can be presented in Extensible Style sheet
Language (XSL), providing much flexibility on the presentation layer.
Recommendation
(R4) Use Web service technology among different systems to exchange CITES-related data.
(R5) Use Web service communication such as., SOAP via HTTP / HTTPS),or, where appropriate,. SOAP via SMTP (E-Mail) as an alternative systems .
Currently, Web service technology is used
to access an application by other applications via SOAP to retrieve data
represented as XML documents. In brief, Web service technology offers the best
means to connect applications located in different countries and using
different platforms.
For example, a SOAP message could be sent
to a Web service enabled website (e.g. a job opportunity database) with the
parameters needed for a search. The site would then return an XML-formatted
document with the resulting data (companies, jobs, features, etc). Since the
data is returned in a standardized machine-parseable format, it can then be
integrated directly into a third-party site.
When applied to CITES processes, Web
service technology may be suitable to
- communicate permit (and other) documents
(or permit data ) between the Management Authorities of importing and
exporting countries, or to
- collect data (applications for permits)
produced by a system (Web server or other) administered by a management
authority.
Recommendation
(R6) Use Web services to facilitate exchange of CITES-permit data between applications (coupling)..
WS-Security is an OASIS standard[7] for secure Web services. It
defines upgrades of the SOAP protocol in order to provide and ensure
confidentiality, integrity and the binding effect of SOAP messages for securing
Web services. WS-Security supports the signing and encryption of SOAP messages based on XML Signature and XML Encryption. The use of different
security models and different cryptographic method must be possible.
WS-Security also enables different
"security tokens", i.e. data formats which warrant specific
identities or properties, e.g. X.509 certificates, Kerberos Tickets, SAML
tokens or encrypted keys.
The specification of WS-Security consists
of the "WS-Security Core Specification 1.1" and certain profiles that
specify how a certain kind of the tokens mentioned can be used in SOAP:
Recommendation
(R7) Use Secure Web Services for data communication made through open/insecure networks (i.e., the Internet ).
The standards XML Signature and XML
Encryption are crucial for the secure exchange of XML documents.
The joint W3C and IETF standard XML
Signature (XML Signature Syntax and Processing, W3C Recommendation and IETF
RFC 3275) describes digital signatures for all kinds of data (usually XML) by
providing an XML schema and a set of processing rules for generating and
validating the signature. The signature can cover one or more documents and/or
different kinds of data (pictures, text, etc.).
One central feature of XML Signatures is
that it is possible to sign specific parts of an XML document rather than the
entire document. This flexibility makes it possible to secure the integrity of
certain elements of an XML document whilst other parts can be edited. For
instance, a user can fill in certain parts of a signed XML form without
violating the integrity of the document. This was not possible with
conventional signatures because the complete document was always signed, so
that any change / addition would have meant a violation of its integrity.
The W3C standard XML Encryption (XML
Encryption Syntax and Processing, W3C Recommendation) provides an XML schema
and a set of processing rules which support the encryption / decryption of
entire documents, including XML documents, XML elements and contents of XML
elements.
Together with XML Signature, XML Encryption
is the foundation for several standards accepted in the industry for secure
XML-based document exchange.
Recommendation
(R8) Use standards based on XML Digital Signature and XML Encryption when implementing Secure Web services for the exchange of CITES-related information.
1.8.5 Deployment and implementation of Web services
The Web Service Interoperability
Organization (WS-I) offers guidance with regard to implementation of Web services.
It comprises a diverse community of companies and standards development
organizations (SDOs) interested in the development and the application of Web
service technology.
WS-I committees and working groups create
Profiles, Testing Tools and Sample Applications published on the Internet under
an open and public license.[8]
- A WS-I Profile is a specification that
selects suitable standards from the various Web service standards that are are compatible with each other.
- Sample Applications are Web services
applications that are compliant with WS-I guidelines and exhibit Web
services Best Practices. These implementations use multiple platforms,
languages and programming tools, to demonstrate interoperability in action
and provide readily usable resources for Web services developers.
- Testing Tools help determine whether a
Web service conforms to WS-I guidelines. Tests are self administered and
aim to improve interoperability among applications and across platforms.
Currently the
most important WS-I Profiles are:
- The WS-I Basic Profile (BP) establishes
core Web services specifications (SOAP, WSDL, UDDI, XML Schema, HTTPS)
that should be used together to develop interoperable Web services. To
date (May 2009), WS-I has produced the Basic Profile 1.0 and 1.1.
- The WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0 is an
interoperability Profile that addresses transport security, SOAP message security and other security considerations, and composes with other WS-I Profiles.
It references existing specifications and standards, including the OASIS
Web Services Security 1.0 and SOAP Message Security 1.0 specifications,
and provides clarification and guidance designed to promote
interoperability of Web services created according to those specifications
Recommendation
(R9) Use WS-I profiles as guidelines to implement Web service communication and to ensure interoperability of the resulting service.
1.8.6 Example of a technical architecture using Web services
Exchanging
CITES relevant data between two CITES Management Authorities can be described
from a business perspective as a single window solution. Technically, the data
exchange processes uses two servers as single points of exchange (SPoX) one on
the import side and one for the exporter.
Source: CITES Data Exchange pilot project
(Switzerland-UK)
Figure 3
There are some important prerequisites which are necessary to
transfer CITES data via Web service technology:
- Firewall protection and 7/24 available
server
- A server certificate issued by a trusted
third party certificate authority
- A client certificate for authentication
of the client
- Secure and common Web service protocol (e.g.
SOAP)
- Clear definition of the functionality of
the Web service
- Which data should/can be requested for?
- Which data should/can be sent as the
response?
- Choice of the data exchange format (e.g.
XML)
- How the integrity and validity of the
data to be sent can be proofed? (Syntactically and contextualized checks)
- How the security of the data can be ensured? (Encryption, Digital Signature)
1.9 Guidelines on document security and digital signatures
Electronic signatures are common, proven
and reliable tools to secure contents (e.g. export and import permits) and
interpersonal communications.
This section will describe briefly the technical and organizational requirements that should be taken into consideration in order to secure e-permits by electronic signatures.
1.9.1 Understanding electronic signatures and digital signatures
"Electronic signature" is a
rather broad term referring to any electronic data that carries the intent of a
signature. Not all electronic signatures use digital signatures.
A digital signature is a type of asymmetric
cryptography involving application of private and public keys by sender and
receiver (or author and reader) to messages or documents. Digital signatures
have the potential to provide for authenticity and integrity (see Protection Aims & Secure Data Communication).
An asymmetric signature method consists of a signing and a verification algorithm. The signature method is dependent on the key pair: the private (i.e. secret) key is used for signing (generating) and the pertinent public key for verifying (checking) the signature.
1.9.2 Application of digital signatures
For messages sent through an insecure
channel, a properly implemented digital signature gives the receiver assurance
that the message was sent by the claimed sender (authenticity) and that
it was sent consisting of exactly the content having been received (integrity).
Digital signatures can also provide the
property of non-repudiation of a message or a document, meaning that the
signer (sender or author) cannot successfully claim he did not sign a message,
while also claiming his private key remains secret.
Digitally signed messages may be anything
representable as a bitstring: examples include electronic mail, contracts, or a
message sent via some other cryptographic protocol.
Recommendation
(R10) Use digital signatures to provide authenticity and integrity when exchanging CITES-related permit information.
In the context of Web services XML Digital Signature and XML Encryption are recommended as the suitable technologies to implement digital signatures applied to data and document communication.
1.9.3 Other issues related to digital signatures
Digital signatures are equivalent to
traditional handwritten signatures in many respects. Properly implemented
digital signatures are more difficult to forge than the handwritten type. In
some countries, electronic signatures – properly applied - have legal
significance as a binding declaration of will.
The legally binding nature of electronic
communications is a crucial success factor for the implementation of e-Government.
Contrary to a simple or advanced electronic signature, a qualified electronic
signature offers the highest degree of electronic replication of a handwritten
signature.
The legal adjustments required to enable
the use of electronic signatures and to place these on the same standing as a
hand-written signature depends on the regulations in the respective countries.
In many countries, as a prerequisite for
the legal equivalence of electronic signatures with a handwritten signature,
the private key used in the algorithm to create the signature has to be stored
on a smartcard, connected to the signing computer by a card reader machine
equipped with a key pad of its own.
Smartcards are chip cards with an
integrated processor; they are also referred to as microprocessor cards. In
contrast to chip cards which are used to only save data (memory cards),
smartcards can also process data. Smartcards can serve as a Personal Security
Environment (PSE), in order to safely store trustworthy certificates and keys,
and also as a (secure) signature generation unit.
1.9.4 Algorithms and Security
The security of an electronic signature is
primarily dependent upon the strength of the underlying cryptographic
algorithms.
SHA-256 (Secure Hash Algorithm), as a
further development of SHA-1 (160-bit long hash value), is a cryptographic hash
function that generates a 256-bit long hash value.
SHA-224, SHA-384 und SHA-512 (Secure Hash
Algorithm) are further developments of SHA-1 (160-bit long hash value) and
constitute cryptographic hash functions that generate longer hash values (the
length corresponds to the number stated).
Furthermore, RSA[9], should be used as the asymmetric
signature method.
The level of security the mentioned
algorithms provide for is dependent on a given technological context. For any
given period an IT service is operated in there will have to be an assessment
about the adequacy of the chosen Algorithm relative to security requirements.
In conclusion, applications exchanging data
related to CITES permits should use digital signatures to protect against identity
fraud and data manipulation.
Recommendation
(R11) Use RSA as the asymmetric signature method and choose an appropriate algorithm based on recommendations of experts responsible for IT security .