1. UN/CEFACT Plenary, 9-12 Nov. 2009 Capacity-Building in Support of Trade Development and Facilitation in the Transition Economies Mario Apostolov, Regional Adviser, UNECE Trade mario.apostolov@unece.org

2. Logic of the regional advisory services for the transition economies (1)Strengthen regional cooperation and integration (SEE, SPECA, E-W cooperation) (2)Build networks: e.g. SPECA Project Working Group on trade or public-private cooperation. (3)Develop and lead projects + build the ground for pilot projects (4)“Seed work” -> we suggest themes, standards and tools for national and regional projects (AZ, KZ, KG, TJ, UZ) and donor-financed projects (GTZ, USAID, ADB)

3. Experience: what the transition economies need 1.Tangible tools: such as a)Rec.33: The Single Window: (the tool and its benefits are easy to understand) b)UN/EDIFACT: more work is needed on a guiding tool – e.g. “EDIFACT for Dummies” c)Rec.34 on data harmonization should be as simple as Rec.33 – explaining a process and not a technical solution d)Rec.4 has to be revised to focus on the function, not on the structure - No broad theoretical strategies, technically complex solutions needed 2. New capacity created – seminars, trainings, etc. – on concrete tools or given by practitioners. The transition economies are afraid of pioneering projects, in which they are used as guinea pigs. They ask, “where is this used?” – preferably in a post- transition economy.

4. What the transition economies need 3.Financing for their projects => need to work with other donors (as a multilateral agency the UN has too limited resources) 4.Concrete expertise of practitioners that can be implemented in concrete projects existing on the spot. If you cannot contribute to their projects, you may be seen as an odd outsider with no potential usefulness. 5.Integrating the various countries and various agencies to function together.

5. Priorities of the transition economies 1.Trade policy issues: WTO accession & AfT (in SPECA), FTA (in SEE) 2.Single Window systems (easy to understand the tool and its benefits) – expected to raise efficiency and transparency and to diminish corruption 3.Border-crossing, transport, and transit facilitation. 4.Facilitation that can serve export promotion.

6. Obstacles 1.Lack of political will 2.Departmentalized mentality and interagency relations 3.Too simplistic understanding of the tools (e.g. the Single Window) in isolation from the integrated understanding of trade facilitation; confusion of terms (e.g. Single Window / One-Stop-Shop / Coordinated Border Management, etc.) 4.Too complex technical solutions (no KISS in standard making) 5.Financing: UN - only 1% of world aid flows and the lion share of the 1% is with UNDP, UNCTAD, etc. => necessary to work with bilateral donors and development banks. Yet there are strings attached (e.g. no interest in international standards and regionalism), and bigger countries grow weary. 6.Countries which have resources (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia) are sometimes slow in adopting TF as a priority.

7. What we have done + results: 1.UNDA-5 project for SPECA: a)2 networks SPECA PWG on Trade & public-private cooperation for TF, b)5 capacity-bldg seminars: KZALA on integrated TF (2007); AZBAK on SW (2008); KGFRU on e-docs (2008); TJDUS on TF at the border (2009) and KZALA on public-private cooperation for TF & SW -> GTZ, USAID, ADB, etc. projects on TF and Single Window; “forms repository” project in KG, description of processes and recommendations on border-crossing facilitation, plan for next steps in a SW in KZ. 2.Series of events for UZ on the same issues: Tashkent, July 2008 (Czech project) -> EU funded seminar in Dec.2008 -> GTZ, USAID study tour to SE -> final seminar in UZTAS: Action Plan for a SW 3.Initiatives on the Single Window etc. in S. Caucasus (June 2009), EurAsEC (Nov.2009), and SEE (Dec.2009) 4.English Russian Glossary of TF terms

8. Thanks! mario.apostolov@unece.org www.unece.org/trade & www.unece.org/cefact