FEBRUARY 2017 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ALBAN ODHIAMBO, Taking Advantage of a Window of (Nairobi, Kenya) is currently Director, ICT for Trade Facilitation at TradeMark East Opportunity: The Rwanda Electronic Single Africa. He is the technical advisor to the Rwanda Electronic Single Window Window for Trade Efficiency Project. Alban has private sector experience in the logistics Rwanda’s government and private sector took a bold step towards sector. achieving a critical reform agenda with the design and implementation RICHARD KAMAJUGO, (Nairobi, Kenya) is currently of a single-window for international trade system. This implementation Senior Director, Trade Environ- ment at TradeMark East Africa. marked the first successful collaboration among Rwanda’s numerous He is the Strategic Objective Leader for the Portfolio under agencies that oversee the country’s cross-border trade. Addressing the which the Rwanda Electronic demands of a diverse group of stakeholders was certainly daunting, but Single Window Project falls. Richard was previously effective stakeholder engagement and change management efforts have Commissioner of Customs at the Uganda Revenue Authority and produced results that are exerting a major impact on the efficiency of has extensive experience in trade facilitation. goods into and transiting Rwanda. JACKIE ZIZANE, is currently the Programme Driving the Single Window project was an aspiration for greater Manager, One Stop Border Post Programme at TradeMark East collaboration at the level of government-to-government, business-to- Africa. She is the technical lead of all TMEA OSBPs in Rwanda business and government-to-business. Rwanda’s membership in the East and Burundi. As a former Head of Reforms and Modernization African Community, which is a Single Customs Territory was another at the Rwanda Revenue Authority Customs Department, critical factor. By addressing national needs and incorporating a regional she is an expert in cross border focus and outreach in the management of cargo, the Rwanda Electronic trade facilitation issues and was instrumental in the setting up Single Window has achieved success. of the ReSW. BACKGROUND was unsuccessful due to the high trans- APPROVING MANAGER action costs that had been estimated The genesis of the ReSW started in 2005 by the government. Under this initia- when the Rwanda Development Board tive the Single Window system would (RDB) started spearheading automation reside outside customs administration initiatives for government service deliv- and hence customs procedures would ery. Being the agency that supported in- be considered as being equal to other vestors in Rwanda to establish business- government agency procedures neces- es, they identified the challenges faced sary for cargo clearance. This initiative by investors in the process of clearing also presented the possibility of duplica- goods that they were either importing tion of processes and procedures, com- or exporting in and out of Rwanda. The plex integration technologies and high key challenge rested on investors hav- capital implementation costs that would ing to deal with multiple regulatory make the system inefficient and ineffec- agencies that had overlapping roles or tive. In an effort to build on moderniza- used manual procedures. To address tion initiatives then ongoing at Rwanda the challenge, RDB conceptualized the Revenue Authority (RRA)—the agency Single Window for Trade. The initiative responsible for Customs Administra- SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017 1 in how trade systems and procedures were developed, used and administered. The implementation of the ReSW officially began in the middle of 2011 at the first of several meetings of key government and private sector stakeholders. Through these meetings, Terms of Reference for the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and the Project Implementation Team (PIT) were developed; within the same period the two teams were established and constituted with representation from the government and private sector. RRA was selected to be the principle implementation agency. By the end of 2011 the process of identifying suitable single service providers to develop the system had been completed. The RRA customs management system is based on tion—the government opted for a Single Window en- the United Nations Conference on Trade vironment that was customs-centric. This meant that and Development’s (UNCTAD) ASYCUDA World Cus- the anchor system for the Single Window ecosystem toms Management Platform. UNCTAD supported would be the customs management system.1 the technical implementation of the Single Window, which cost US$2 million less than other commercial After many delays arising from challenges in identify- versions that were also considered. ing the right model for the Rwanda trade environ- ment, the government of Rwanda in 2011 started In early 2012 the pilot phase of the Single Window the implementation of the ReSW with support from System began, and what followed was a gradual roll TradeMark East Africa, based on three key pillars: en- out to all customs areas in Rwanda. In February 2013 hanced collaboration between government agencies the system was officially launched. With the core involved in the regulation of international trade in work ongoing, TMEA was supporting the other gov- Rwanda; strengthened government-business rela- ernment agencies involved in clearance of goods to tionships; and the use of Information and Commu- automate their backend systems and procedures for nication Technology (ICT) to improve service delivery, licensing or issuance of permits as well as mandatory communication and transparency in the trade envi- import or export inspections. ronment for the benefit of all stakeholders. These systems are now popularly known as the Single The development of these three pillars and the sub- Window Information for Trade Systems (SWIFTs). The sequent choices made regarding the nature and func- targeted agencies are: Rwanda Development Board; Rwanda Standards Board; Rwanda Agriculture and tionality of the Single Window were based on an as- Livestock Inspection Services; National Agriculture Ex- sessment of Rwanda’s trade environment, according to port Board; Rwanda Agriculture Board – Veterinary which there were: multiple government agencies with Services; and The Ministry of Health Pharmaceutical overlapping mandates yet operating in silos; low levels Unit. The aim was to enhance the efficiency of the of trust and few channels for communication between Single Window by integrating these systems to en- the government and business; trade systems and pro- able direct information/data exchange so as to elimi- cedures that were predominantly manual rather than nate paper-based permits during clearance of goods. automated; and low levels visibility and transparency The development and integration of these systems began in 2014; to date four systems have been suc- 1 The terms Single Window Environment and Single Window Ecosystem refer to the engagement locus where trade actors operate and cessfully integrated with the Single Window System. relate within agreed institutional frameworks, defined standards and protocols that are supported by ICT for the purposes of creating open, In mid-2015 TMEA and RRA commissioned an indepen- transparent, efficient and effective trade systems. It also refers to trade systems that have been integrated and have the capability of sharing dent evaluation and assessment of the Single Window information and other critical services to facilitate trade in Rwanda. to establish the impact and benefits of the systems. 2 SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017 The evaluation indicated that as much as US$18 million upgrading the customs management system. The has been saved in trade costs and reduction of delays. Single Window operates in two ways: govern- Since 2015 there are ongoing improvements to the sys- ment agencies and the private sector are offered tem, including upgrades of the Customs Management direct access to the customs platform to carry out System (CMS) and development of mobile enabled ap- approvals in the Customs Management System; plications to support cross border traders. and back end systems of government agencies are directly integrated with the ReSW to enable TMEA began providing support to Rwanda Revenue the information sharings through web services. Authority (RRA) efforts to upgrade its customs man- agement system (CMS), a first step towards establish- 3. The Change Management Framework – To sup- ment of a Single Window environment. During that port the implementation of the Single Window, upgrade, TMEA helped set up, with private sector sensitization and awareness needed to be en- participation, an interagency task force to advance hanced, so the PIT developed a communica- implementation of the Single Window environment. tions plan that was used to make the general The task force developed a framework for other gov- public aware of what was being developed by ernment agencies to participate in the implementa- highlighting their benefits. Coupled with the tion of a Single Window system. The implementation communications plan was a training plan that had three aspects: focused on offering training to build capacity in the use of the Single Window System. 1. The institutional Framework – this was the set- ting up of a governing body to manage the Sin- The implementation was phased in with “quick wins” gle Window initiative and a technical body to identified and government agencies prioritized based manage implementation. The governing body on their relative importance to the cargo clearance was the ReSW Steering Committee whose terms process. of reference included oversight of the implemen- tation, development of a collaboration strategy Among the tangible outcomes from implementation to ensure that trade agencies and the private of the ReSW are: sector work together to ensure the objectives • A reduction in the average time to clear im- of the Single Window are met. It was also en- ported goods through customs from 264 hours trusted with the responsibility of directing and (11 days) in 2012 to 34 hours (1.5 days) in 2014. approving the activities of implementing the Export clearance times dropped from 67 hours Single Window. Below the Steering Committee (about 3 days) to 34 hours (about 1.5 days). was the Project Implementation Team, whose terms of reference were to carry out needs and • The elimination for importers of the US$50 fee technical assessments to identify requirements associated with securing a tax exemption certifi- and gaps in the ReSW environment, manage vendors and service provid- ers contracted to deliver components of the Single Window system, and en- sure the Single Window would be op- erational. Both structures were made up of representatives of government agencies and the private sector. 2. The Technical Framework – this was the system environment set up to en- able information sharing between agencies, and also enhance visibility of clearance processes. The Steering Com- mittee opted for a Customs-centric Single Window Platform on the ra- tionale that most clearance processes reside with customs and because the government had already invested in SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017 3 cate and a combined savings to-date of as much as US$2.6M, based on the number of certificates issued between 2013 and 2014. • An increase in the productivity of transporters and other logistics pro- viders’ assets as a result of shorter turnaround times for clearance of goods as well as savings associated with lower parking fees, demurrage costs, warehousing rent and storage penalties. The money value of higher productivity likely exceeds a combined US$6M a year. • Increased cooperation among Rwan- dan agencies involved in customs and shipments. For instance, RRA and the Rwanda Standards Board (RSB) devel- rectly affect the cost of doing business and the price oped a shared risk profiling mechanism that fa- of goods in the market. cilitates a robust risk-based assessment of goods. This in turn made it easier for the government agen- • Improved efficiency in the form of expedited, cies and corporations involved to compromise and pur- more transparent transactions and communica- sue a common good above their own narrow interests. tion between government and the private sec- TMEA project teams also needed to strategize project tor. Also, real time monitoring of the progress implementation as the stakeholders were at varying of goods through the system is now possible levels of preparedness for a Single Window Environ- and there is reduced scope for corruption as a ment. Some agencies lacked even basic ICT infrastruc- result of fewer face to face interaction between ture as well as the funding to install it. system actors. According to Fred Seka, Chair- man of the Association of Freight Forwarders In response, the team decided to break the project in Rwanda, “Under the single window a good implementation into three phases: the aforemen- broker is one who complies with the stipulated tioned upgrade, in cooperation with RRA, of the cus- requirements set out in the automated environ- toms management system; development of a Single ment and is competent is the use of ICT to pro- Window system based on the automated systems for cess trade clearance transactions.” Customs data (ASYCUDA) World Platform and the granting of access to RSB and the Rwanda Develop- ment Board; and development, concurrently with LESSONS LEARNED implementation of phase two, of ICT and back end infrastructure for those agencies that lacked it. Lesson 1: A systems thinking and phased approach in the design and implementation This approach meant that the trade environment of ICT4T interventions is a promising changed relatively gradually and that the complex pathway to success. interaction among stakeholders did not destabilize progress and become a source of weakness. A single-window environment comprises complex and multistep interactive and dependent processes Lesson 2: The ReSW is first and foremost a and numerous actors so what was needed was a ho- stakeholder-driven solution and secondarily, listic solution that would meet the needs of all stake- a technology-driven solution. holders in Rwanda. Systems thinking enabled all the relevant actors to develop an understanding of how Many observers refer to ReSW as a technology but they influence and affect one another within Rwan- the project team has learned hard lessons about how da’s wider trade ecosystem and how their actions di- to characterize such solutions. Viewing ReSW as a 4 SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017 technology-driven solution fosters the mind-set that work for continuous improvement is intended to technology can resolve the issues hampering clear- foster and encourage future improvements that are ance of goods. This mind-set was particularly evident a necessary part of systems development and archi- during the benchmarking exercises and site visits tecture and which ensure that emerging needs are made by the team to other countries that have imple- addressed. For example most of the subsystems devel- mented Single Window systems. To begin with, the opment in Rwanda’s Single Window ecosystem have impulse was to source solutions that have worked in already undergone demand-driven enhancements in other countries and transplant them “as is” into the response to changes in business and ICT requirements. Rwandan environment. This institutional framework was formed by retaining the project structures established at the inception of This approach met a lot of resistance particularly the project – the Project Steering Committee (PCC), from smaller trade agencies and Small and Medium the Project Implementation Team (PIT) and the proj- Enterprises (SMEs). Their objections were based on ect charter have all been transformed into a working the assessment that such solutions were not designed institutional framework that oversees the further de- for their specific environment and would assume that velopment and improvements of the country’s Single for example a phytosanitary agency in Singapore is Window ecosystem. similar in structure, nature and resourcing as that in Rwanda. Ultimately the approach taken was to let Lesson 4: ICT4T Interventions aimed at stakeholders drive the process through consensus. simplifying trade procedures have a high The upshot: a Single Window ecosystem is only as internal rate of return (IRR) and return on good as the government and private sector actors in- investment (ROI). volved in setting it up. Further, the technology can serve an enabling role but does not by itself represent TMEA’s total investment in the ReSW project, about a solution. That said, because the ReSW implemen- US$7M, covers the phases and components that have tation was driven by stakeholders, the technological been implemented to date. The breakdown of the in- component is robust, agile and suited to their needs. terventions ensured that there were multiple streams This stands in contrast to an implementation that of benefits accruing over the different phases and obliged stakeholders to conform to the specifications building incrementally toward the results mentioned of an off-the-shelf solution or application. above. An independent evaluation commissioned by TMEA established that the Rwanda economy has Lesson 3: The ReSW is a going concern and saved an estimated US $15M-US $20M annually if the not a project with a shelf life. economic benefit of time savings in clearance and the reduction of cargo clearance costs are factored in. Ev- Projects typically have a start date and an end date. ery dollar invested in the ReSW has yielded a three- The implementation of Rwanda’s Single Window fold return in form of savings. shows the limitations of this paradigm, which focuses on the project donor and implementing team, which set project timelines, rather than the beneficiaries of the project. While a timeline is an impor- tant part of project management, it was important in Rwanda to demonstrate to the stakeholders that the project was not finite. Thus, during the design phase two critical elements were incorporated; an intervention sustainability strategy and an institutional framework intended to guarantee continuous improvement of the country’s Single Window system. The intervention sustainability strategy ensures that the stakeholders are commit- ted to continuing to provide resources to support the ReSW. The institutional frame- SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017 5 CONCLUSION The government of Rwanda consid- ers the ReSW initiative ongoing, and The ReSW experience demonstrates continuous improvement is considered the value of collaboration among trade critical. Currently the Single Window stakeholders, adoption of appropriate is undergoing enhancements and up- ICT infrastructure to facilitate trade and grades that include: development of political good will and leadership. Such mobile enabled applications to sup- an approach as demonstrated here in the port cross border and other small scale ReSW will be distinguishable from solu- traders who have no access to conven- tions that are based on analyses that ei- tional devices like laptops and desk- ther do not capture the entire complex top computers; the development of a realities and phenomenon in the trade single sign-in webpage for the Single environment. Window to offer traders the option of using SWIFTs directly or to access them Part of the success of the ReSW model has via the Single Window; the develop- been its adoption by other countries. At ment of other critical customs functions the beginning of the project planning for that will support the Single Window to the Burundi and Uganda National Elec- make services available across borders tronic Single Window Projects, the tech- – to enhance the ability of the customs nical and management teams from these system to share information electroni- DISCLAIMER countries conducted site visits in Rwanda cally with other customs management SmartLessons is an awards to learn from its experience at first hand. systems in the East African Community program to share lessons learned in development-oriented Representatives of a number of West Af- trading bloc. Upgrades are expected to advisory services and investment rican countries have also visited Rwanda. continue into 2018. operations. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of IFC or its partner organizations, the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. IFC does not assume any responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this document. Please see the terms and conditions at www.ifc.org/ smartlessons or contact the program at smartlessons@ifc.org. 6 SMARTLESSONS — FEBRUARY 2017