APEC
Regional Workshop
on Single Window
Challenges and practices in
implementing Single Window in
Japan
How NACCS contributes to fulfilling our
Missions: Speedy & Proper Clearance
October 2011
Harumi Chikada
Deputy Director, Information Management Office
Customs and Tariff Bureau
Ministry of Finance, Japan
1
Outline
I. Overview of Single Window (SW) system in Japan
II. Background of SW initiative
III. Development of SW
IV. Challenges
V. Key enablers to success
VI. Conclusion
2
I. Overview of Single Window
system in Japan
3
I. Overview of Single Window System in Japan
Features
 NACCS (Nippon Automated Cargo and Port Consolidated System)
playing a pivotal role in achieving Single Window
 Established status of NACCS as a comprehensive international logistics
information platform, where Customs and private sector share information,
enabling complete cargo tracking, quick response, high credibility and more
 Developed in a phased manner since 2003
 Going beyond Single Window – System Integration
 6 government agencies participate in Single Window (agencies related to
customs, port authority, quarantine, immigration, trade control, food sanitation,
veterinary and plant health)
Effects
 Facilitation of import / export procedures across government agencies
 Simplification and harmonisation of import / export procedures, supported by
uniform processing through IT system
 Enhanced convenience of users
⇒ Enhancement of international competitiveness of logistics in Japan
4
II. Background of SW initiative
5
II. Background of SW initiative
Previous status: opportunity for improvement
 It was necessary to submit similar but different documents for various
government agencies
→ Duplicated work to process documents which requires more time and cost
 Different stages of computerisation of various agencies
→ Mixture of paper-based and system-based processing
 Various systems, not interconnected
→ Needed to file to all the concerned systems
Driving force
 Political impetus, political leadership
- Cabinet decision to enhance paperless environment regarding import/export
and port procedures (July 2001)
- International logistics Reform Plan (Shiokawa Initiative) presented by
Finance Minister to Cabinet members (August 2001)
 Coordination mechanism across agencies
- Liaison Council for Import/export and Port Procedures-related Ministries
and Agencies (September 2001 – July 2003)
6
III. Development of SW
7
III. Government Agencies participating in SW
Agency in charge
Procedures
Name of System
(prior to system integration)
Ministry of Finance
Customs
NACCS (Nippon Automated Cargo and port
Consolidated System)
Ministry of Justice
Immigration
Crew Immigration Support System
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Port Authority
Port EDI
Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry
Trade Control
JETRAS (Japan Electronic open network
Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfare
Quarantine
Port EDI
Food Sanitation
FAINS (Food Automated Import notification
TRAde control System)
and inspection Network System)
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries
Plant Health
PQ-NETWORK (Plant Quarantine
NETWORK system)
Veterinary
ANIPAS (ANimal quarantine Inspection
Procedure Automated System)
8
First Generation
(From Jul. 2003)
Simple Interfacing SW System
Less User Friendly
Port EDI
(Port Authority)
(Quarantine)
All Users
New Generation
(From Oct. 2008)
Common Portal SW System
User Friendly
New Dimension (Partially from
Oct. 2008 and complete by Oct. 2013)
Integrated NACCS
Very User Friendly, Less Cost
NACCS
Port EDI
(Port Authority)
(Quarantine)
Immigration
All Users
(Customs)
(Port Authority)
Common
(Quarantine)
Portal
(Immigration)
(Trade Control)
Immigration
All Users
NACCS
NACCS
NACCS
(Customs)
INTERFACE
SYSTEM
Common
Portal
(Customs)
Current
System
JETRAS
(Trade Control)
JETRAS
(Trade Control)
FAINS
(Food Sanitation)
ANIPAS
(Veterinary)
PQ-NETWORK
(Plant Health)
FAINS
(Food Sanitation)
ANIPAS Merged
(Veterinary) in
Oct. 2013
PQ-NETWORK
(Plant Health)
FAINS
(Food Sanitation)
From Oct. 2013
ANIPAS
(Veterinary)
PQ-NETWORK
(Plant Health)
All Users
Integrated NACCS
(Customs)
(Port Authority)
(Quarantine)
(Immigration)
(Trade Control)
(Food Sanitation)
(Veterinary)
(Plant Health)
9
9
First Generation (July 2003-):
Interfacing SW System
Port System
(Port Authority)
Quarantine
All Users
Although this SW system give a basic benefit of SW to
the users, it is not so user friendly compared with
Common Portal SW.
Immigration A user is required to obtain and manage multiple IDs
and passwords issued by individual OGA systems, and to
consult with many help desks if some troubles occurred.
NACCS
NACCS
(Customs)
INTERFACE
SYSTEM
Each OGA system is owned and operated by respective
OGA.
More importantly, besides the benefit of SW function,
interfacing Customs system with OGAs’ allows declarants
to process customs procedure and OGAs’ concurrently.
Without the interfacing system, declarants are required to
take OGA procedures first and then customs procedure at
Food
Sanitation last as the customs is required to confirm all the
Veterinary
necessary official requirements completed prior to the
Plant Health
release. It’s so called one by one process which is much
more time consuming than the concurrent process.
Trade
Control
10
New Generation (October 2008-):
Common Portal SW System
More User Friendly System
Port Authority
Quarantine
All
Users
NACCS
Immigration
Common
Portal
Customs
Trade Control
Food Sanitation
Veterinary
A user is merely required to obtain and
manage one ID and password issued
by the Common Portal Administrator
(NACCS Center), and to consult with
Common Portal’s single help desk.
Each OGA system is owned by
respective OGA but daily system
operation is managed by the
administrator of the Common Portal
(NACCS Center) because all queries
on the system operation come to the
help desk of the Common Portal.
Plant Health
11
Ultimate Solution (partially from October
2008, complete by October 2013):
Integrated NACCS
Very User Friendly, Less Cost
Integrated NACCS
Advantage of Common Portal
All Users
(Customs)

(Port Authority)
(Quarantine)
(Immigration)
(Trade Control)
(Food Sanitation)


(Veterinary)
(Plant Health)

Plus
Less development cost by avoiding the
duplication hard and software
(No Common Portal)
Less system maintenance cost by the
integration of hardware
More user friendly service by
allowing OGA applicants to use cargo
information
Quicker response due to the single
system (No network between the systems)
12
Two critical components of trade facilitation
Even if Single Window is operationalised, if there is no link
between database of Customs and those of OGAs,
importers/exporters still need to physically present paper permits
of OGAs to Customs for clearance, which requires more time…
⇒ Two Critical components for facilitated release:
① Single Window (single submission to various OGAs)
+ ② Link of database between Customs and OGAs
Input an approval or
permit number of OGA
Declaration
Permission
NACCS
Matching
Approval or permit
number, Importer &
Commodity
OGA
Database
within
NACCS
(Common Portal/
Interface Server)
13
IV. Challenges
14
IV. Challenges

Varying level of computerisation at various OGAs

Diversified business operation for similar procedures
– diversified data elements, code, timing of entry, etc.
– simplification and harmonisation way into the future

Negotiation with OGA was difficult

New Generation SW or System Integration needed
very tough negotiation over the controversial issue:
who would be the leading agency?
15
V. Key enablers to success
16
V. Key enablers to success ①
Political impetus
 Leading agency

Contributing factors
Firm commitment at ministerial level
- ‘Use’ of Cabinet Decisions as strong driving force across agencies, with deadline
- Initiative presented by minister, shared by Cabinet members

Coordination mechanism among concerned agencies
- Cabinet decisions with clear targeted date
- Liaison Council for Import/export and Port Procedures-related Ministries at
directors level
- Frequent meetings among concerned entities (Customs, OGAs, NACCS Center,
system vender)

Established status of NACCS as a comprehensive international logistics
information platform, where Customs and private sector share information,
enabling complete cargo tracking, quick response, high credibility and more
- It was obvious that the customs must be a leading agency
(Traffic Burden of NACCS: Customs:60.93%, OGA:0.51%, Private:38.56%)

17
V. Key enablers to success ②

Simplification and harmonisation of data elements
Contributing factors
Simplification and harmonisation of data elements
- Definition of each data element (e.g. What is ‘consignee’?)
- Coding structure
-- Number of characters/digits, types of characters (numeric, alphabetic, marks, etc.)
-- Order of entry (e.g. last name, first name, middle name)

July 2003 (just after the introduction of
SW system for Port Clearance)
Declaration forms: 16
Pre-arrival forms:
5
Data Elements: 600
November 2005 (after revision of
forms and data elements in order to
adopt FAL Convention)
Declaration forms: 8
Pre-arrival forms:
1
Data Elements: 200
Harmonisation of the timing of submission
- Similar documents with slightly different timing
- Different documents but same timing

18
V. Key enablers to success ③

Stringent project management
Contributing factors
Expertise of project management
- Established status of NACCS as a comprehensive international logistics
information platform, dating back to 1978, with a number of upgrades
- Expertise on what to do, when, how

Expertise of coordination
- NACCS which has been developed and operated in a framework of PPP
- Experiences in coordination between Customs and private sector in upgrading
NACCS, which can be applied to coordination process with OGAs
- Secondment of officers (from MOF, OGAs) to NACCS Center to share
institutional expertise

Stringent management
- Coordination meeting among Customs, NACCS Center, OGAs and system
vender to identify issues, tasks, responsible parties and to monitor progress
- Waterfall model - sequential design process used in software development
process, in which progress is seen as flowing steadily downwards (like waterfall)

19
VI. Conclusion
20
VI. Conclusion

Whole government approach with driving force

Business Process Reengineering as critical
enabler – how best to take opportunity to
change business models, to be best in
conformity with unified processing of IT

Grand design over mid-term and long-term –
phased approach or one stroke approach?
21
Thank you
22