Measurements in the ESA Region Index
Introduction
Last update: 9th September 2020The WCO ESA RPSG monitors important international metrics for each member country, most notably the World Bank’s (WB) Ease of Doing Business Trading Across Borders component. The metric records the time and cost associated with the logistical process of exporting and importing goods, which in turn provides significant insight into trading with ESA member countries.
Similarly to the WB’s EODB indices, the OECD’s Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) introduced another set of useful indices to assist trade facilitation. The TFI metrics cover the full spectrum of border procedures of over 160 economies throughout the globe. These TFIs comprise fact-based variables concerning current trade-related policies, regulations, and their respective performance in practice.
Concerning countries’ logistics performance, specifically, the logistics performance index (LPI) is an advantageous index constructed by the World Bank. The aggregated LPI combines the four most recent LPI editions of each country, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018. These four years are weight-aggregated with the most recent year carrying the most value and the oldest year the least weight.
Other metrics currently being monitored include WCO’s TRSs, Customs connectivity and technological advancements, AEO uptake, and AfCFTA ratification. As the adage goes, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. It is, therefore, the aim of the WCO ESA RPSG to continually measure these metrics and stay abreast of the progression of each member country going forward.
Best Practices Globally
i. World Bank Ease of Doing Business - Trading Across Borders
The ease of doing business score helps assess the absolute level of regulatory performance over time, capturing the gap of each economy from the best regulatory performance. The indicators are ever-present since 2005.
It serves the countries in the regions well to keep track of these measurements, and importantly, measure their progress again the benchmark nations globally. The WB calls the benchmark the ‘distance to frontier’ score, indicating the gap between the respective government and the category leader. The following countries lead the WB Doing Business category leadings for Trading Across Borders – measuring both the time and cost to import and export. These countries act as the frontiers of these topics and indicators:
World Bank Ease of Doing Business - Trading Across Borders
|
Topic and Indicator |
Economy Establishing Best Performance |
Best Performance |
Worst Performance |
ESA average Performance |
|
Time to export |
||||
|
Documentary compliance (hours) |
Canada; Poland; Spain |
1 hour |
170 hours |
49 hours |
|
Border compliance (hours) |
Austria; Belgium; Denmark |
1 hour |
160 hours |
58 hours |
|
Cost to export |
||||
|
Documentary compliance (US$) |
Hungary; Luxembourg; Norway |
$0 |
$400 |
$123 |
|
Border compliance (US$) |
France; Netherlands; Portugal |
$0 |
$1,060 |
$402 |
|
Time to import |
||||
|
Documentary compliance (hours) |
Republic of Korea; Latvia; New Zealand |
1 hour |
240 hours |
63 hours |
|
Border compliance (hours) |
Estonia; France; Germany |
1 hour |
280 hours |
76 hours |
|
Cost to import |
||||
|
Documentary compliance (US$) |
Iceland; Latvia; United Kingdom |
$0 |
$700 |
$158 |
|
Border compliance (US$) |
Belgium; Denmark; Estonia |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$465 |
Source: WB Doing Business, 2020
As a collective region, the ESA region remains significantly behind the frontier countries as far as trading across borders is concerned. Alarmingly, some ESA countries have the worst performance across these metrics. Also evident is the continued restrictive nature in countries, with imports taking longer and costing more than exports.
ii. OECD’s Trade Facilitation Indicators
Trade facilitation indicators refer to a specific set of measures that streamline and simplify the technical and legal procedures for products entering or leaving a country. To measure these indicators, the OECD has developed a set of trade facilitation indicators (TFIs) that identify areas for action and enable the potential impact of reforms to be assessed.
The OECD TFIs cover the full spectrum of border procedures for more than 160 economies across different income levels, geographical regions, and levels of development. Each TF indicator is composed of several specific, precise, and fact-based variables related to existing trade-related policies and regulations and their implementation in practice. The indicators are the following:
- Information availability
- Involvement of the trade community
- Advance rulings
- Appeal procedures
- Fees and charges
- Documents
- Automation
- Procedures
- Internal border agency co-operation
- External border agency operation
- Governance and impartibility
Currently, the 10 “trade facilitative countries” as per the OECD’s TFI are the Netherlands, Korea, Hong Kong, the US, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, Singapore, and Ireland.
The following map illustrates the average trade facilitation performance across the globe.
iii. World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI)
The WB’s LPI is an interactive benchmarking tool created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in their performance on trade logistics and what they can do to improve their performance.
The Aggregated LPI combines the four most recent LPI editions. Scores of the six components across 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 LPI surveys used to generate a “big picture” to indicate countries’ logistics performance better. This approach reduces random variation from one LPI survey to another and enables the comparison of 167 countries. The aggregated LPI for each year’s scores in each component is then weighted. 6.7% for 2012, 13.3% for 2014, 26.7% for 2016, and 53.3% for 2017. In this way, the most recent data carries the highest weight. The Aggregated LPI allows for comparisons across 167 countries.
This table indicates the top 10 performing countries in terms of the Aggregated LPI:
World Bank LPI - Top 10 countries (2012-2018)
# |
Country |
LPI Score |
Customs |
Infrastructure |
International Shipments |
Logistics Competence |
Tracking & Tracing |
Timeliness |
1 |
Germany |
4.19 |
4.09 |
4.38 |
3.83 |
4.26 |
4.22 |
4.40 |
2 |
Netherlands |
4.07 |
3.97 |
4.23 |
3.76 |
4.12 |
4.08 |
4.30 |
3 |
Sweden |
4.07 |
3.95 |
4.22 |
3.88 |
4.04 |
4.02 |
4.32 |
4 |
Belgium |
4.05 |
3.74 |
4.03 |
3.97 |
4.10 |
4.11 |
4.40 |
5 |
Singapore |
4.05 |
4.00 |
4.14 |
3.72 |
4.08 |
4.05 |
4.34 |
6 |
UK |
4.01 |
3.85 |
4.09 |
3.69 |
4.04 |
4.10 |
4.32 |
7 |
Japan |
3.99 |
3.91 |
4.19 |
3.61 |
4.03 |
4.03 |
4.24 |
8 |
Austria |
3.99 |
3.71 |
4.07 |
3.78 |
4.04 |
4.13 |
4.22 |
9 |
Hong Kong |
3.96 |
3.85 |
4.02 |
3.85 |
3.94 |
3.95 |
4.18 |
10 |
US |
3.92 |
3.76 |
4.10 |
3.54 |
3.93 |
4.13 |
4.14 |
Source: WB LPI
iv. WCO TRS studies globally
The WCO TRS is a strategic and internationally recognised tool for measuring the actual time required for the release and clearance of goods from the time of arrival until the physical release of cargo. The TRS, therefore, aims to find bottlenecks in the trade flow process and take necessary measures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of border procedures. The WCO TRS Guide can be accessed on the WCO’s website, here.
To date, several countries within the ESA region has attempted a TRS study, notably Mauritius. The Mauritius Revenue Authority conducted its second TRS in 2018. Burundi has also ear-marked doing a TRS. Within a regional sense, SACU held a Regional Workshop in July 2015 concerning the preparations to conduct a TRS along the Trans Kalahari Corridor (TKC). However, the TRS has not yet come to fruition.
In the greater African region, a TRS has been done in the Cape Verde Islands, Cameroon, and Sudan.
Globally, the most recent TRS was done in Brazil.
On 30 June 2020, the Secretariat of the Federal Revenue of Brazil (Receita Federal do Brasil) launched its first-ever nation-wide TRS during an online live broadcasted event attended by over 4,000 participants, including border agencies and the private sector as well as Customs administrations from across the globe. The TRS follows the WCO’s TRS Methodology and constitutes a milestone for the Brazilian Customs Administration. The TRS further enhances transparency while providing an opportunity for evidence-based dialogue between all key stakeholders to tackle the identified bottlenecks and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of border procedures.
The RPSG encourages its members to engage with their respective Customs and revenue authorities to promote doing a TRS study.
Progress in the ESA Region
i. World Bank Ease of Doing Business - Trading Across Borders
Some countries within the ESA region have significantly improved their Trading Across Borders scores in recent years. This table serves as a summary of the region’s performance.
World Bank Ease of Doing Business - Trading Across Borders (2020)
| Country | 2020 | Documentary Compliance | Border Compliance | Documentary Compliance | Border Compliance | ||||||
| Rank (/190) | Score (/100) | Rank ESA (/24) | Time to Export (hours) | Time to Import (hours) | Time to Export (hours) | Time to Import (hours) | Cost to Export (US$) | Cost to Import (US$) | Cost to Export (US$) | Cost to Import (US$) | |
| Angola | 174 | 36 | 21 | 96 | 96 | 164 | 72 | 240 | 460 | 825 | 1,03 |
| Botswana | 55 | 87 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 179 | 67 | 317 | 98 |
| Burundi | 169 | 47 | 20 | 120 | 180 | 59 | 154 | 150 | 1,025 | 109 | 444 |
| Comoros | 120 | 67 | 9 | 50 | 26 | 51 | 70 | 124 | 93 | 651 | 765 |
| Djibouti | 147 | 59 | 15 | 60 | 50 | 72 | 118 | 95 | 100 | 605 | 1,055 |
| Eritrea | 188 | 0 | 24 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| eSwatini | 35 | 93 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 76 | 76 | 134 | 134 |
| Ethiopia | 156 | 56 | 17 | 76 | 194 | 51 | 72 | 175 | 750 | 172 | 120 |
| Kenya | 117 | 67 | 8 | 19 | 60 | 16 | 194 | 191 | 115 | 143 | 833 |
| Lesotho | 40 | 92 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 90 | 90 | 150 | 150 |
| Madagascar | 140 | 61 | 13 | 49 | 58 | 70 | 99 | 117 | 150 | 868 | 595 |
| Malawi | 127 | 65 | 11 | 75 | 55 | 78 | 55 | 342 | 162 | 243 | 144 |
| Mauritius | 72 | 81 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 24 | 41 | 128 | 166 | 303 | 372 |
| Mozambique | 94 | 74 | 6 | 36 | 16 | 66 | 9 | 160 | 60 | 602 | 399 |
| Namibia | 138 | 62 | 12 | 90 | 3 | 120 | 6 | 348 | 63 | 745 | 145 |
| Rwanda | 88 | 75 | 5 | 30 | 48 | 83 | 74 | 110 | 121 | 183 | 282 |
| Seychelles | 98 | 72 | 7 | 44 | 33 | 82 | 97 | 115 | 93 | 332 | 341 |
| Somalia | 166 | 52 | 19 | 73 | 76 | 44 | 85 | 350 | 300 | 495 | 952 |
| South Africa | 145 | 60 | 14 | 68 | 36 | 92 | 87 | 55 | 73 | 1,257 | 676 |
| South Sudan | 180 | 26 | 22 | 192 | 360 | 146 | 179 | 194 | 350 | 763 | 781 |
| Tanzania | 182 | 20 | 23 | 96 | 240 | 96 | 402 | 275 | 375 | 1,175 | 1,35 |
| Uganda | 121 | 67 | 10 | 24 | 96 | 59 | 145 | 102 | 296 | 209 | 447 |
| Zambia | 155 | 57 | 16 | 96 | 72 | 120 | 120 | 200 | 175 | 370 | 380 |
| Zimbabwe | 159 | 54 | 18 | 99 | 81 | 88 | 228 | 170 | 150 | 285 | 562 |
| Average | - | 59.6 | - | 49 | 63 | 58 | 76 | $123 | $158 | $402 | $465 |
Source: WB Doing Business, 2020
ii. OECD’s Trade Facilitation Indicators
This table indicates the performance of ESA countries according to the OECD’s TFIs:
OECD’s Trade Facilitation Indicators - ESA countries (2019)
Country |
TFI Score |
ESA Rank |
Angola |
0.8 |
11 |
Botswana |
1.2 |
4 |
Burundi |
0.5 |
18 |
Comoros |
0.4 |
19 |
Djibouti |
0.4 |
19 |
Eritrea |
- |
- |
eSwatini |
0.7 |
15 |
Ethiopia |
0.7 |
15 |
Kenya |
1.3 |
3 |
Lesotho |
0.8 |
11 |
Madagascar |
1.0 |
5 |
Malawi |
0.7 |
15 |
Mauritius |
1.6 |
1 |
Mozambique |
0.8 |
11 |
Namibia |
0.9 |
6 |
Rwanda |
0.9 |
6 |
Seychelles |
- |
- |
Somalia |
- |
- |
South Africa |
1.6 |
1 |
South Sudan |
- |
- |
Tanzania |
0.9 |
6 |
Uganda |
0.9 |
6 |
Zambia |
0.8 |
11 |
Zimbabwe |
0.9 |
6 |
Average |
0.9 |
- |
Source: OECD’s TFI
iii. World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI)
This table indicates the performance of ESA countries according to the Aggregated LPI:
OECD’s Trade Facilitation Indicators - ESA countries
Country |
Rank |
LPI Score |
ESA Rank |
Customs |
Infrastructure |
International Shipments |
Logistics Competence |
Tracking & Tracing |
Timeliness |
Angola |
2.18 |
160 |
18 |
1.79 |
2.01 |
2.33 |
2.13 |
2.14 |
2.65 |
Botswana |
2.96 |
58 |
2 |
2.95 |
2.85 |
2.82 |
2.71 |
2.81 |
3.60 |
Burundi |
2.22 |
154 |
17 |
1.90 |
2.00 |
2.28 |
2.33 |
2.23 |
2.55 |
Comoros |
2.51 |
114 |
11 |
2.58 |
2.27 |
2.47 |
2.32 |
2.67 |
2.74 |
Djibouti |
2.43 |
126 |
13 |
2.29 |
2.47 |
2.33 |
2.14 |
2.46 |
2.91 |
Eritrea |
2.11 |
162 |
20 |
2.05 |
1.89 |
2.12 |
2.19 |
2.09 |
2.31 |
eSwatini |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Ethiopia |
2.40 |
131 |
14 |
2.54 |
2.13 |
2.54 |
2.39 |
2.24 |
2.49 |
Kenya |
2.93 |
63 |
3 |
2.66 |
2.68 |
2.86 |
2.88 |
3.11 |
3.35 |
Lesotho |
2.22 |
153 |
16 |
2.20 |
2.02 |
2.14 |
2.12 |
2.22 |
2.60 |
Madagascar |
2.35 |
137 |
15 |
2.32 |
2.16 |
2.22 |
2.25 |
2.42 |
2.70 |
Malawi |
2.69 |
84 |
8 |
2.58 |
2.56 |
2.61 |
2.76 |
2.65 |
2.99 |
Mauritius |
2.65 |
91 |
9 |
2.51 |
2.68 |
2.35 |
2.69 |
2.72 |
2.98 |
Mozambique |
2.59 |
102 |
10 |
2.45 |
2.22 |
2.86 |
2.38 |
2.62 |
2.98 |
Namibia |
2.73 |
80 |
7 |
2.60 |
2.74 |
2.68 |
2.64 |
2.55 |
3.14 |
Rwanda |
2.90 |
65 |
4 |
2.68 |
2.60 |
3.14 |
2.77 |
2.83 |
3.31 |
Seychelles |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Somalia |
2.00 |
167 |
21 |
1.81 |
1.69 |
2.24 |
2.07 |
1.94 |
2.18 |
South Africa |
3.51 |
29 |
1 |
3.29 |
3.39 |
3.53 |
3.42 |
3.56 |
3.85 |
South Sudan |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Tanzania |
2.88 |
67 |
5 |
2.66 |
2.72 |
2.89 |
2.80 |
2.85 |
3.34 |
Uganda |
2.79 |
72 |
6 |
2.78 |
2.45 |
2.82 |
2.70 |
2.69 |
3.27 |
Zambia |
2.49 |
118 |
12 |
2.27 |
2.29 |
2.72 |
2.46 |
2.18 |
2.94 |
Zimbabwe |
2.17 |
161 |
19 |
2.01 |
2.01 |
2.13 |
2.20 |
2.19 |
2.45 |
Average |
2.56 |
109 |
- |
2.42 |
2.37 |
2.58 |
2.49 |
2.53 |
2.92 |
Source: WB LPI
iv. AfCFTA Ratification
The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) entered into force on 30 May 2019 for the 24 countries that had deposited their instruments of ratification. According to Article 23 of the AfCFTA Agreement, entry into force occurs 30 days after the 22nd instrument of ratification is deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC) – the designated depositary for this purpose. Since reaching the 22-country threshold when Sierra Leone and the Saharawi Republic deposited their instruments of ratification on 29 April 2019, it meant that the AfCFTA was now legal.
The following table shows the 30 African countries that have ratified the AfCFTA Agreement, as well as their date of ratification:
AfCFTA Ratification
# |
Country |
Date of Ratification |
1 |
Kenya |
10 May 2018 |
2 |
Ghana |
10 May 2018 |
3 |
Rwanda |
26 May 2018 |
4 |
Niger |
08 June 2018 |
5 |
Chad |
01 July 2018 |
6 |
eSwatini |
01 July 2018 |
7 |
Guinea |
01 July 2018 |
8 |
Uganda |
28 November 2018 |
9 |
Ivory Coast |
16 December 2018 |
10 |
South Africa |
10 February 2019 |
11 |
Sierra Leone |
29 April 2019 |
12 |
Mali |
February 2019 |
13 |
Senegal |
April 2019 |
14 |
Namibia |
February 2019 |
15 |
Congo |
10 February 2019 |
16 |
Togo |
April 2019 |
17 |
Mauritania |
11 February 2019 |
18 |
Djibouti |
February 2019 |
19 |
Egypt |
8 April 2019 |
20 |
Ethiopia |
10 April 2019 |
21 |
The Gambia |
16 April 2019 |
22 |
Saharawi Republic |
29 April 2019 |
23 |
Zimbabwe |
24 May 2019 |
24 |
Burkina Faso |
29 May 2019 |
25 |
São Tomé and Príncipe |
27 June 2019 |
26 |
Gabon |
7 July 2019 |
27 |
Equatorial Guinea |
7 July 2019 |
28 |
Mauritius |
8 October 2019 |
29 |
Cameroon |
31 October 2019 |
30 |
Algeria |
15 December 2019 |
31 |
Somalia |
13 August 2020 |
32 |
Zambia |
26 October |
33 |
Angola |
4 November 2020 |
34 |
Nigeria |
11 November 2020 |
Source: Tralac, updated 12 Nov 2020
Tralac AfCFTA Ratification Barometer
v. Customs Interface Platform
The following table indicates the relevant Customs Interface Platform, which respective ESA countries use.
Customs Interface Platform
Country |
Customs Interface Platform |
Angola |
ASYCUDA |
Botswana |
BURS Customs Management System (CMS) - Crimson Logic |
Burundi |
ASYCUDA |
Comoros |
ASYCUDA |
Djibouti |
ASYCUDA |
Eritrea |
ASYCUDA |
eSwatini |
ASYCUDA |
Ethiopia |
ERCA Electronic Customs Management System (eCMS) |
Kenya |
KRA Integrated Customs Management System (iCMS) |
Lesotho |
ASYCUDA |
Madagascar |
ASYCUDA |
Malawi |
ASYCUDA |
Mauritius |
MRA Customs Management System (CMS) |
Mozambique |
Mozambique Customs Management System (MCMS) |
Namibia |
ASYCUDA |
Rwanda |
ASYCUDA |
Seychelles |
ASYCUDA |
Somalia |
- |
South Africa |
SARS Interfront Customs and Border Management Solution (iCBS) |
South Sudan |
- |
Tanzania |
Tanzania Customs Integrated System (TANCIS) |
Uganda |
ASYCUDA |
Zambia |
ASYCUDA |
Zimbabwe |
ASYCUDA |