COLLABORATION KEY

The use of a Maritime Single Window (MSW) system for ship data exchange will soon become mandatory in ports around the world. Felicity Landon reports on an IMO symposium that charted the way ahead with collaboration identified as central to progress

8 The Single Window for data exchange will be mandatory in ports from 1 January 2024. While there are common denominators in system configuration it is invariably a bespoke business

Amendments to the FAL Convention announced by the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Facilitation Committee last year were welcomed as an important step in the acceleration of digitalisation in shipping. The FAL Committee agreed that a Single Window for data exchange should be mandatory in ports from 1 January 2024.

With this date in mind, the IMO, International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) and BIMCO, with support from the International Port Community Systems Association (IPCSA), organised a symposium, “Maritime Single Window 2024 – a window of opportunities”. The event brought together speakers and attendees from across the maritime industry, including port authorities, associations, shipowners, solution providers, governments and other authorities.

“The MSW presents an opportunity for all stakeholders in shipping. It is a necessary step forward,” said Kitack Lim, Secretary General, IMO. “It is part of our imperative to highlight these opportunities as we are now one year away from the new requirements.”

There has always been collaboration between shipping and the ports industry, he noted – but the past few years had seen ‘dramatic progress’ in this area.

Without advancing on the collaboration front, decarbonisation and digitalisation will not move forward, said Nikolaus Schües, President (designate), BIMCO. “The MSW is a textbook example of one of those changes that is in fact ready to go and ready to be implemented – but of course, only with broad collaboration.”

The main barrier often cited by ports to implementing such a new digital solution is the legal framework in their home countries or region, followed by lack of human resources and lack of persuasion to collaborate between public and private stakeholders, said Schües. “The main barrier is definitely not technology – the technology is there and ready to go,” he reiterated.

What is needed is political will, a preparedness to see the bigger picture and collaboration across the sectors, he added. “Today, a nation and its authorities may operate with 15 ‘windows’ towards the hinterland – that is 15 windows that the crew need to report into when a ship approaches a port. And that is exactly 14 too many. We need one window, the Maritime Single Window.”

The benefits are tremendous, he said – including alleviating the burden on crew time associated with paperwork and reducing the risk of human errors, alongside financial benefits and increasing efficiency.

The COVID-19 pandemic did little good to anyone but it did cause a major shake-up in shipping when it comes to digitalisation, fuelling an uptake in digital solutions and a wish to reduce paperwork and become more efficient, noted Schües. “The Maritime Single Window is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.”

One panel session focused on possible architectures for a Maritime Single Window – should it be set up as a standalone system, as a module of a National Single Window (NSW), or as part of a Port Community System (PCS)? Key alternatives reported are discussed following.

FINLAND: HYBRID VERSION

Among the panel speakers was Sanna Vainionpää, Director of Domain Strategy and Head of Maritime, Siili Solutions, which is designing and building Finland’s National Maritime Single Window. She explained: “We don’t have very large port communities in Finland – the landscape is quite scattered, with a lot of quite small ports.” Hence the authorities took a National Single Window approach to trade facilitation. “Of course, the ports with their Port Community Systems have interfaces towards the public service that we are providing and to declarations, for example for waste management.”

A new ‘hybrid’ version of the National Maritime Single

Window is now being developed. “In addition, we are accelerating digitalisation in Finland and we have a national shared data platform that all the participants from the private and public sectors can utilise and share the data and benefit from that. We have rethought ways of working, roles and responsibilities – and also the platform enables building value-added services for the companies. Basically, we are looking for the ideal perspective and approach for private/ public partnerships,” elaborated Vainionpää.

NETHERLANDS: CHALLENGING APPROACH

Mees van der Wiel, MSW and PCS expert at Portbase, explained the background to the Dutch PCS. Twenty years ago, Dutch Customs’ decision to go paperless was a deciding moment for the country’s ports, which had to opt for digitalisation, he said. Portbase was founded by the Port of Rotterdam, and Amsterdam later became the second shareholder.

The PCS grew, incorporating more ports in the Netherlands, to the point that it has been handling up to 90 per cent of the country’s ship calls.

“Then came the 2010/65 EU Directive [on ship reporting formalities]. There was a discussion then – should we incorporate the PCS into the MSW environment in the Netherlands? It was not the right time then for all kinds of reasons – governance, the way the ports and authorities work together, etc.” cooperation of all parties, he said – “making sure everyone got around the table, talked to each other on what would be the best situation given what we have, and how can we make it work. That is how it starts – collaboration is key in these kinds of projects.”

However, the directive led to a better cooperation between the Dutch authorities and Portbase. The Netherlands chose a ‘challenging approach’ where not only maritime formalities, but also Customs formalities were introduced in the Single Window and, in addition, the system incorporated formalities for air cargo.

WHY NOT GLOBAL?

A challenging point was raised by the Ghana delegation in the audience, who had heard panel discussions about national systems and also regional systems. “I am sure very soon we are going to be looking at global systems. Shouldn’t this be put upfront so that anyone developing would have that future view? Otherwise, people will get there and everyone will be scrambling again.”

Periklis Saragiotis, Panel Moderator and Trade and Regional Integration Specialist at the World Bank, acknowledged that it might seem as if “we might as well start with something big at global level”. His view was: “We cannot predict the future but this is where it is going. There are a couple of examples of PCSs already exchanging information At the same time, MSWs still develop on a national level – in order to be part of a regional initiative, they still need to be national first.”

The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management did a great job in project management and stakeholder management, where its focus was towards authorities and the two PCSs (Portbase and Cargonaut) and software providers, and the two PCSs focused on their own communities, noted van der Wiel. “The PCSs in the Netherlands now operate as a one-stop-shop for their respective communities, for both B2G and B2B information flows, reflecting what the UN/CEFACT Recommendation 37 on Single Submission Portals describes.”

Looking ahead, it would be good to find more cooperation between the MSW and the PCS, underlined van der Wiel. “There is a lot of governance behind it. We continuously have discussions with each other – when are you having your maintenance windows, when are the message implementation guides being published, when are we going to update the systems? And, when there is a failure, is it in the PCS or the MSW or maybe the authority?”

The success of the current system is really down to the

For many authorities or countries embarking on the PCS/ MSW route, a key was how to manage expectations – how to start small and scale up, he said. “A lot of work needs to be put in place before these systems become operational. How do you ensure the port and maritime stakeholders talk to each other and have a common vision? How will data sharing be implemented? There are technical and legal issues – all need to be addressed, starting at national level but keeping an eye on what’s happening at regional level and globally.”

Mees van der Wiel highlighted: “One of my takeaways for the audience was that in designing the MSWs globally, an agile mindset would be great. Start small, fail fast, but have a vision towards the future where you want to be and make that work.”

Resource Divide

In the final session, considering strategic partnerships and resources available for MSW projects, Jose Matheickal, chief of the IMO’s department of partnerships and projects (DPP), said that while digital transition was gathering pace in the developed world, developing countries have still to catch up.

“Things are not happening the same in the global south as the global north,” he said. He emphasised that the economic and regulatory drivers, in the form of FAL, are in place – and reminded delegates of the contribution to decarbonisation that MSWs will bring.