cites electronic processes: state-of-play and options for future...
TRANSCRIPT
CITES electronic processes: state-of-play
and options for future development
(Version edited for public release)
Prepared for the
European Commission Directorate General Environment
Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2. – Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral
Agreements
by the
United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
August, 2013
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge
CB3 0DL
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.unep-wcmc.org
The United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-
WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment
centre of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost
intergovernmental environmental organisation.
The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,
combining scientific research with practical policy
advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and
highlight the many values of biodiversity and put
authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre
of decision-making. Through the analysis and
synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the
Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely
information for conventions, countries and
organisations to use in the development and
implementation of their policies and decisions.
UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically
rigorous procedures and services. These include
ecosystem assessments, support for the
implementation of environmental agreements,
global and regional biodiversity information,
research on threats and impacts, and the
development of future scenarios.
CITATION
UNEP-WCMC. 2013. CITES electronic processes: state-
of-play and options for future development. UNEP-
WCMC, Cambridge.
PREPARED FOR
The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of UNEP, contributory
organisations or editors. The designations
employed and the presentations do not imply the
expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part
of UNEP, the European Commission or
contributory organisations, editors or publishers
concerning the legal status of any country, territory,
city area or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The
mention of a commercial entity or product in this
publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.
© Copyright: 2013, European Commission
3
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Processes ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Permit data exchange ....................................................................................................................... 5
Trade data reporting ......................................................................................................................... 5
E-permitting systems ........................................................................................................................ 6
Information updates ......................................................................................................................... 7
Suggested strategy ................................................................................................................................ 8
EPIX conduit ..................................................................................................................................... 8
CITES trade data capture and validation facility ........................................................................... 8
Ready-to-use CITES e-permitting system ...................................................................................... 9
Application Programming Interface (API) ..................................................................................... 9
ANNEX: Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 12
4
Introduction
Over the last decade, various discussions have taken place and advances made in relation to
CITES electronic processes, including within the CITES e-permitting Working Group, at a
number of e-permitting regional meetings, and as part of other CITES and EU meetings and
activities.
These have resulted in an improved understanding of the relevant issues by the Parties
involved and in general support for further developments and collaboration to strengthen the
implementation of CITES through the adoption of electronic processes.
Advances in CITES electronic processes have the potential to improve the implementation of
CITES by:
o allowing near-real-time monitoring of trade in listed species (so any trends of
concern can be identified and acted upon earlier)
o facilitating the near-real-time validation of permit information (reducing the risk
of illegal trade)
o standardising and streamlining the use of taxonomies across Parties
o making it easier for least developed countries to manage their trade in line with the
Convention (therefore avoiding unnecessary bans)
o increasing the efficiency of permit management processes and reducing
duplication of effort (therefore allowing Parties to invest resources in other aspects
related to the implementation of the Convention).
Within this context, this document provides an overview of CITES electronic processes
including an update of progress to date and UNEP-WCMC’s involvement. It outlines options
for future development of technological solutions to facilitate CITES processes and support
decision-making. In particular, the following electronic processes are discussed:
o permit data exchange (EPIX)
o trade data reporting (real-time collation of Annual Report data)
o electronic permitting and
o information updates (data delivery from the CITES Checklist/Species+ to national
permitting systems through an API -Application Programming Interface-).
The document presents an overview of the processes and progress to date, followed by a
suggested strategy (outlined diagrammatically in Figure 1). Definitions of relevant terms are
included in an Annex at the end of the document.
5
Processes
Permit data exchange
CITES Management Authorities routinely exchange CITES permit data (including permit
numbers) with their counterparts in other countries to verify details and reduce the risk of
fraudulent permits being used. Conducting these consultations by telephone or e-mail is
relatively burdensome for Management Authorities (particularly those issuing large numbers
of permits) and may result in delays.
To facilitate this process, UNEP-WCMC developed, with funding from the European
Commission, the Electronic Permit Information eXchange (EPIX) system. EPIX allows the
near-real time electronic exchange of permit information amongst CITES Management
Authorities to facilitate permit verification. Future EPIX developments have been discussed at
a number of fora, including various CITES e-permitting workshops and, most recently, at a
CITES CoP16 side event. Whilst the number of Parties participating in EPIX has been low,
various CITES Parties are supportive of its continuation and there is general consensus
amongst those involved in the discussions that the next phase of EPIX should include ‘conduit’
functionality.
In an electronic permitting scenario, EPIX could work as a ‘conduit’ of permit information.
Due to the high number of possible bilateral exchanges amongst CITES Parties, the
development and management of a multitude of bilateral connections would be difficult and
highly inefficient. With a central EPIX conduit, each Party would only need to establish a
single connection, through which data exchanges with any number of other Parties can be
managed. The EPIX conduit would give CITES Authorities the ability to control which data is
being shared with whom (see Figure 2 for more details).
It is anticipated that this functionality would lead to increased participation by automating
the provision of regular data updates (i.e. reducing the burden of sending batch updates) and
by introducing links to potential near-real-time trade reporting.
Trade data reporting
In fulfilment of Article VIII, paragraph 7 of the Convention, CITES Parties must prepare
annual reports containing details of trade in CITES-listed species. The annual reports are
submitted to UNEP-WCMC and, following a series of data checks, subsequently uploaded
onto the CITES Trade Database (maintained for the CITES Secretariat by UNEP-WCMC) and
made available online. Permit numbers are confidential and therefore not uploaded onto the
CITES Trade Database. Instead, they are held securely by UNEP-WCMC and accessed when
necessary to resolve discrepancies or perform detailed trade analyses.
CITES trade data provides the basis for, inter alia, trade analyses, the Review of Significant
Trade, quota management, sustainability assessments, and overall compliance with and
enforcement of the Convention. However, submission of CITES annual reports poses a
considerable burden to Parties. In addition, as the deadline established by Resolution Conf.
11.17 (Rev. CoP16) for submission of annual reports is 31 October of the year following the year
to which they relate, CITES trade data are only available up to 22 months after trade took
6
place. Moreover, a significant number of Parties fail to submit their annual reports in time,
further increasing the time gap.
As noted under ‘Permit data exchange’ above, an EPIX conduit could provide the basis for the
real-time capture of permit data to be fed into an improved CITES Trade Database (which
would also be integrated as part of Species+).
Fifty-five per cent of respondents to a questionnaire on CITES data management circulated to
CITES Parties in early 2013 reported that they would be interested in using direct electronic
submission of CITES annual report data to UNEP-WCMC in near-real time. Thirty per cent of
respondents reported that they would be “supportive in principle, but not a current priority”,
while the remaining 15 per cent answered “don’t know”.
E-permitting systems
At CITES CoP13, in 2004, some CITES Parties noted that development of e-permitting systems
could greatly assist in the handling and processing of CITES applications, and the collation
and dissemination of CITES trade information. Subsequently, a CITES electronic permitting
toolkit was developed and Parties using or developing electronic permits and certificates were
encouraged to adopt the standards recommended in the toolkit. In 2012, a v.2 of the toolkit
was developed and the standards in the toolkit were included in the WCO Data Model.
The level of development of CITES electronic permitting systems varies greatly amongst
Parties. Very few countries currently have fully electronic national permitting systems, but an
increasing number of them are either developing or planning to develop systems, while others
do not have the capacity to do so. For instance, Australia, Brazil, Ecuador, France, Malta,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and the UK, amongst others, have electronic or partially
electronic permitting systems and some of these are currently undergoing further
development. Parties including Bulgaria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Finland, Georgia and
Poland are considering the development of national electronic permitting systems. Many
Parties do not have any electronic system. Amazonian (ACTO1) countries are currently
implementing a regional project on CITES electronic permitting and it is envisaged that Brazil
will share the specifications of their system with other countries in the region.
At CITES CoP16, Decision 16.54 (directed to the Standing Committee) was adopted to extend
the mandate of the Working Group on Information Technologies and Electronic Systems to,
amongst other, “collaborate with the CITES Secretariat in the drafting of funding proposals
related to the development of CITES e-permitting systems” and “collaborate with the UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre to further develop the Electronic Permit Information
eXchange to act as a clearing-house of CITES e-permits and certificates and to offer Parties in
developing regions a ready-to-use electronic CITES permitting system”.
All respondents to a questionnaire on CITES electronic permitting circulated to CITES Parties
in early 2013 reported that a CITES e-permitting system would be either (or is, if already in
place) ‘very useful’ or ‘useful’ to their country. In addition, Caribbean countries have recently
expressed the need for support in developing a CITES electronic permitting system for the
region.
1 Amazonian Cooperation Treaty Organisation
7
As all 178 Parties to CITES have a fairly standard set of permit requirements, it seems likely
that Parties would benefit from synergies in joint development of new electronic systems,
and/or from replicating aspects of a common system. Furthermore, Parties without the
capacity to develop a national CITES e-permitting system could benefit from using a ready-to-
use system.
Based on UNEP-WCMC’s expertise in developing EPIX and permit storage databases such as
the caviar database, in 2010, UNEP-WCMC and the CITES Secretariat prepared a proposal for
the development of a remote CITES e-permitting system so that countries without their own
national systems could access it remotely and use as their own.
Information updates
The development of national CITES electronic permitting systems results in the need to keep
those systems up to date with accurate and standardised information on the listed species for
which permits are being issued. Through Resolution Conf. 12.11 (Rev. CoP16) on Standard
nomenclature, the Conference of the Parties to CITES recognizes the Checklist of CITES
species compiled by UNEP-WCMC as an official digest of scientific names contained in the
official standard references. As the updating of this and other relevant information is
conducted centrally by UNEP-WCMC, several Parties have expressed an interest in the
automatic transfer of the information from UNEP-WCMC to their national systems.
Sixty-nine per cent of respondents to a questionnaire on CITES data management circulated
to CITES Parties in early 2013 reported that they would be interested in the capability of
“pulling” taxonomic, legislative and distribution information from the CITES
Checklist/Species+ into their national systems.
The development of computer-to-computer links (API) between the CITES Checklist/Species+
and national information systems would allow Parties to access the CITES Checklist/Species+
data and automatically update relevant information in their national systems. Parties would
gain immediate benefits in terms of data accessibility and time and cost savings as they would
no longer need to maintain and update their own versions of the data. API development
would also provide a firm basis for future implementation needs such as links to e-permitting
systems.
Several Parties have expressed an interest in the development of this API and Belgium has
provided Use Cases (or specifications as to how they would use the system) and offered to
collaborate in the development of an API. It is envisaged that an initial API on the basis of
these Use Cases could be developed and serve as a proof of concept and then be expanded
with support from other Parties requiring additional functionalities.
8
Suggested strategy
A diagrammatic representation of the suggested strategy is outlined in Figure 1. This “vision”
was presented by UNEP-WCMC at CITES CoP16. The CITES Secretariat, the chair of the e-
permitting WG and various Parties have provided input and expressed general support for this
suggested way forward. Further details are provided below.
It should be noted that the development of CITES electronic processes has the potential to
widen the technological gap between countries with and without the capacity to
fund/implement such processes.
Options will therefore need to be explored for financing the development of identified
solutions and to provide least developed countries with the necessary support to embrace
technological advances in the implementation of CITES processes.
EPIX conduit
It is suggested that the next phase of EPIX includes the development of ‘conduit’ functionality.
Figure 2 outlines a suggested connection establishment procedure and data flow under this
scenario.
To inform the development of functionality, feedback will be needed from EU Member States
and other interested Parties as to whether the EPIX Conduit will best address their needs and
expectations, and on any specific requirements from such a system.
Some countries may require assistance to join, i.e. to establish the connection between the
EPIX Conduit and their national systems. Funding would therefore need to be
identified/directed towards providing the necessary support.
CITES trade data capture and validation facility
The EPIX Conduit could provide a means of testing a system to allow real-time uploads of
CITES trade data into the CITES Trade Database (to be integrated as part of Species+), in
preparation for automating the submission of CITES annual reports. The facility would need
to allow Parties to submit updates as permits are used/cancelled; in addition, a data validation
process would ensure that the quality of the data being uploaded onto the CITES trade
database is maintained or improved.
This development would reduce the reporting burden (as long as Article VIII, paragraph 7 of
CITES is amended to provide for real-time electronic reporting) and the existing time lag
between trade taking place and trade reporting. The availability of CITES trade data in near-
real-time would result in trade volumes/trends of potential concern being identified up to two
years sooner than is currently the case, improving the relevance and efficiency of decision-
making. In addition, features such as quota excess alerts could be put in place to improve
implementation and avoid problems before they arise. These additional features would be
particularly relevant and feasible following the redevelopment of the CITES Trade Database
and integration with Species+.
9
It is suggested that, in addition to facilitate real-time permit verification, the EPIX Conduit
serves as a proof of concept to demonstrate the feasibility of capturing CITES trade data in
near-real time. Options for and interest in this should be explored further.
Ready-to-use CITES e-permitting system
It is suggested that EU Member States consider the need for a regional ready-to-use CITES e-
permitting system, as well as potential interest in sharing such system more broadly or joining
forces with other regions for the development of a more global system. Consideration should
be given to systems already in existence or being developed within the EU and in other
regions, to explore potential synergies.
A ready-to-use e-permitting system would also need to take into consideration Parties’ needs
in relation to Single Window trade environments. Similarly, collaboration with the World
Customs Organisation (WCO) and the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and
Electronic Buisness (UN/CEFACT) will be essential to ensure full compliance with
international standards and norms related to electronic trade.
Application Programming Interface (API)
It is suggested that the Use Cases provided by Belgium for the development of an API between
Species+ and their national permitting system be used as a pilot to test this data exchange
functionality and as the basis to extend the service to other interested Parties. Input (to better
understand Parties’ data and technical support needs) and support from other Parties will be
required to ensure that a relevant API can be developed.
A funding mechanism would need to be devised to support the maintenance of the API and
particularly to provide technical support to additional Parties (including least developed
countries) wishing to establish connections through the API.
The CITES Secretariat and UNEP-WCMC are currently working on documentation to clarify
terms and conditions of data access.
10
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the suggested strategy.
Countries A and C have their own national e-permitting systems, whereas countries B and D do not and therefore use a remote ‘ready-to-use’ one. All Parties are able to securely
connect their systems to the EPIX conduit, which acts as a ‘plug-in shop’ allowing Parties to exchange permit information in real time on the basis of pre-determined authorisations.
For countries that wish to report their CITES data this way, the conduit can also capture permit data for inclusion in Species+ (following a verification process). Up-to-date,
standardised data from the CITES Checklist/Species+ are transferred automatically through an API to the remote e-permitting system and to national permitting systems from
countries requesting this service.
11
Figure 2. Diagram outlining a suggested EPIX Conduit connection establishment procedure and data flow.
12
ANNEX: Definitions
The definitions below for some key terms relevant to the topics covered by this document are
not intended to be official definitions but to provide a common understanding to facilitate
discussion.
API (Application Programming Interface): Set of routines and data formats that specify
how different computer systems should interact with each other. An API could, for instance,
provide the means to establish an automatic transfer of certain data in a specific format from
the CITES Checklist/Species+ to national CITES permitting systems.
CITES electronic permitting (e-permitting): Electronic (paperless) management of the
permit business process, including permit application, consultation with Scientific
Authorities, permit issuance, notification to customs and reporting.
CITES permitting: National-level process that includes dealing with export/import permit
applications, consultation with Scientific Authorities, permit issuance, notification to customs
and national data management.
CITES Toolkit: Set of recommendations providing advice on the use of common information
exchange formats, protocols and standards, signatures and other electronic security measures,
for Parties implementing CITES electronic permitting systems, or for Parties developing and
implementing interoperable information exchange projects on electronic permitting systems.
CITES trade reporting: Process undertaken by CITES Parties in fulfilment of Article VIII,
paragraph 7 of the Convention. It includes data management, compilation and submission of
the CITES annual report and customs updates. Following submission of the CITES annual
reports, UNEP-WCMC runs checks on the data to detect any potential errors and uploads the
data onto the CITES trade database.
Electronic Permit Information eXchange (EPIX) system: System developed by UNEP-
WCMC with EU support to facilitate the uploading of CITES permit data and EU certificates to
a central repository and the near-real-time electronic exchange of those data between
registered CITES authorities from different countries to support permit verification and help
reduce the risk of fraudulent permits being used.
Permit information exchange: Exchange of queried CITES permit data between CITES
authorities from different countries to support permit verification and help reduce the risk of
fraudulent permits being used.
Single Window: 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.
Species+: Database and associated web portal managed by UNEP-WCMC that provides access
to species information relevant to the implementation of CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade
regulations, including legal listings, EU decisions, trade suspensions, CITES export quotas,
taxonomic and distribution information, etc.