Single Maritime Window projects progress around the world… but not in Australia

International Maritime Organization assessments are paving the way for setting up Single Maritime Windows across the world, with the IMO reporting its consultants have carried out missions in Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau.

The IMO reports that it carried out stakeholder meetings, and will provide reports that will provide the basis for further development, including (in the case of Sierra Leone) key recommendations as well as a pre-and post-activity survey. In the case of Guinea Bissau, the report includes findings and analyses for the deployment of the window along with the development of related IT tools that will interact with the single window.

According to the IMO, a Single Maritime Window is “a one-stop digital platform for information exchange among different stakeholders and agencies involved in clearing the arrival, stay and departure of ships”.

When international ships call at an Australian port, the idea is that all the required information is entered into the portal at one time, thereby saving time, effort, money, duplication and preventing mistakes (e.g. typos from repeated re-keying of the same data). Whenever officials from various government bodies want that information, then they can consult the database. Whenever it is decided that new information should be sought, then the portal and the website can be updated. There’s a related concept of a national single window for e.g. customs duties, other trade documents etc. But, at a high level, they’re basically very similar – they’re websites that allow the input and collection of data into databases, resulting in time and cost savings and allowing government entities to interrogate a centralised database of trade data.

Australia’s failure to meet its international obligations

Since 1 January 2024, all Member States of the International Maritime Organization (of which Australia is one) are required to use a single, centralised digital platform or “Maritime Single Window” to streamline and render more efficient the collection of information from ships by governmental bodies.

Australia does not comply with this rule. Australia does not have a Single Maritime Window.

Our government reports that it is “scoping” the Maritime Single Window. Which, of course, is nice.

But it’s a bit behind the deadline.

We invite you to reflect, for a minute, on how the Australian Tax Office might react if, in response to a demand to pay your taxes, you replied that you were “scoping” out how to comply.

Anyway.

Benefits of the Single Maritime Window

Failure to have a working Single Maritime Window is costing the Australian economy time and money.

Studies suggest that directly and indirectly incurred trade transaction costs, such as complying with government requirements to supply documents to authorities, can amount to anywhere between one percent to 15 percent of the value of traded goods (see Walkenhorst and Yasui). 

Assuming trade facilitation leads to a reduction in trade transaction costs of 1% of the value of world trade, then aggregate welfare gains are estimated at about USD$40 billion worldwide, with all countries benefiting (see Walkenhorst and Yasui in “Overcoming Border Bottlenecks“).

Maritime Single Windows (also called “National Single Windows” or some variation thereof) have been proven to have beneficial effects. “The systematic literature review of numerous successful examples of NSW/MNSW globally has led to the conclusion that the implementation of NSW/MNSW has potential for improving sustainable seaport business,” the authors of Maritime National Single Window – a Pre-requisite for Sustainable Seaport Business” wrote in their 2019 paper.

Thai traders in sugar, rice, rubber, and frozen products were, in 2019, potentially able to realise a USD9.5m reduction in costs and 54% cut in delivery time. Indonesia has reported a saving of over 84 million kg (84,000 tonnes) of paper along with “quite an impact on time effectiveness and cost efficiency in processing port licensing documents”. Indonesia also reported cost savings of IDR 221 million (about AUD$21k) simply through paying via a single billing code (ibid, p23). Beijing has reported (via Xinhua) that its single-window-customs clearance (which covers all trade ports) has helped companies cut financial-costs by 10 percent and time-costs by 10% while, at the Port of Shanghai, cargo clearance time-efficiency has increased by 26% for imports and 32% for exports; China’s Chongqing port has cut clearance procedures by a third. Xinhua reported that from May 2017, the State Council “required all ports to adopt single-window systems”.

Huge cuts to delays in border crossing have been reported in Benin, Malaysia, and Azerbaijan. Singapore set up its TradeNet system in 1989 and cut processing times from seven days to ten minutes while cutting the number of forms from 35 to one, and simultaneously cut the average fees charged from SGD$6-13 to about SGD$2.10. Meanwhile, the UNCTAD reports that “Jamaica’s trade facilitation and paperless trade rating jumped from 50.5% in 2017 to 79.6% in 2023, after rolling out a national electronic single window”. In Vanuatu, an electronic single window enables customs officials to clear goods on the day those goods arrive whereas, previously, it took 3-5 days. In Rwanda, transporters save USD$6m annually owing to faster clearance (see “Roadmap for trade single windows: UNCTAD helps countries cut red tape, costs and emissions,” 29 January 2024”).

Room for improvement in Australia

There is potential for improvement in Australia. In or about 2023, officials from the Federal Department of Infrastructure advised Shipping Australia that at least 19 regulatory reports are submitted by each vessel arriving and departing Australia. At the time, there were 5,915 unique ships entering Australia waters every year and there were 17,602 international voyages into Australia

Incidentally, these ship voyage figures are known to be out of date. The figures come from “Australian Sea Freight” by BITRE, it’s an important publication that is often relied on by all manner of policy-focused workers and its data can be seen in submissions to, and consultations from, government. It needs to be updated. But we digress.

Anyway.

The Federal Department of Infrastructure has advised that over 35,000 (thirty-five thousand) hours are spent every year by ships on reporting. On average, it was said, a vessel will spend two hours reporting when there are no issues, otherwise it can be upwards of six hours. That’s an awful lot of time (and therefore cost) and it really needs to be cut down.

No sensible, or reasonable, explanation for Australia’s failure to have a Single Maritime Window has been publicly articulated. This Australian failure is especially glaring given that there are countries that have considerably less resources, and, specifically, far fewer public service resources, and which have implemented a Maritime Single Window.

Case study: Cape Verde

Consider, for instance, the case of the nation of Cape Verde, which implemented a Single Port Window in all ports in May 2013.

As the famous American political philosopher and rapper, Shawn Maurice Mims (MIMS), famously never sang of Cape Verde-Australia economic comparative advantages in 2007:

“I’m hot ‘coz I’ve got a Single Maritime Window
You ain’t, Australia, ‘coz you not”

Anyway.

Let’s assess the claim. Firstly, for the avoidance of confusion, Shipping Australia emphatically does not intend to disrespect the nation, or the people, of Cape Verde in any way. We merely use Cape Verde as an example of what can be done if public policy prioritises the development of a Maritime Single Window.

Cape Verde is a democratic, archipelagic, nation located off the west coast of Africa, with its capital, Praia, (roughly 647km to the west of Dakar, Senegal). Cape Verde is an economically lesser developed nation than Australia.

There is a gulf between the economies and public service capabilities of Cape Verde and Australia. Again, without intending any disrespect to Sierra Leone or its people, Australia is considerably wealthier and has much greater public policy capability than Cape Verde.

Consider the following data:

Well, we can see from the table above why MIMs might regard Australia as a lot less “hot” than Cape Verde.

Anyway.

If the benefits of implementing a national single window (customs, trade, maritime) are so high (which they are), and if a relatively lesser-economically developed nation with lesser government expenditure on the population like Cape Verde can build a Single Maritime Window more than 12 years ago, then there is no good reason why Australia cannot and should not do so now.

Indeed, given that the IMO deadline to have a Single Maritime Window passed about 18 months ago, Australia should already have a Maritime Single Window (apart from, y’know, the overwhelmingly compelling business case).

The high-level policy implication is simple and obvious: Australia’s Federal Government ought to prioritise and expedite the Single Maritime Window project (and related projects) as a matter of urgency.

Anyway.