There are three main weaknesses that could be seen in the initial methods by which poor governance serves as a hindrance to assessing and addressing border management functionality.
The number one barrier that could be seen in the earlier methods was often more or less not objective but are rather subjected to the connection between corruption risk mapping and overall governance environment which could be through a value chain analysis or via some other techniques.
The second major weakness can be attested to in the totality of the impact of the rulership and social environment on efforts that are directed towards reform. These efforts nevertheless were often disregarded due to the fact that the environment was not seen as a viable candidate for project influence.
However, the last main weakness was the rarity of provision of decipherable tools for monitoring and evaluation. And thus, the aforementioned shortcomings of initial methods birthed a search for updated approaches in order to assist in the identification of all organizational weaknesses and comprehensively understand the divarication of rulership of border management reform, which could rather be from a bottom-up perspective as well as top-down perspective. These kinds of approaches were essential in order to secure long term improvements.
The search yielded a result that was a mechanistic tool, formed to be susceptible to available risk assessment and management methods. That is, both generic and sector-specific for the purpose of mapping weaknesses in corruption —and then, using a simple governance analysis, to infer a governance accountability action plan (GAAP).
Part of the function of the tool is for the identification of short, medium, and long term actions required, the usefulness is not subjected to project entities alone, but from other stakeholders that are influential as well. The tool would also be useful in assessing the rate of achievement that could be seen in any reduction in avenues for corruption via changes in rulership.
It, the proposed tool would come in handy in generic business transformation audits and the governance controls assessment which is functionality is based on the Committee Of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) internal control integrated framework.
Furthermore, it would use the World Customs Organisation (WCO) integrity framework, which is a modified version of “Gartner Magic Quadrant,” and also make use of the World Bank guidelines for developing GAAPs. The use of all these approaches would assist in depicting graphics of the governance topography as well as the magic quadrant of action, which lucidly depicts areas that are of utmost priority for the current and the evolving governance environment.
For the main reason that this approach, if applied, is suitable for projects located in the highly sensitive area of customs modernization, its use was then employed to create a vulnerability mapping and GAAP for a World Bank customs project in South Asia. Myriads of years replete with experience in customs reform internationally had shown the extent of local modernization projects that are squarely based on customs. The plenitude of such projects was centred on a particular function of customs activities. Some procedures that expediently yielded to patching up have a minute effect on the generality of institutional capacity. While some such procedures were all-encompassing but rapidly found the extent to their applicability, as customs systems which are unlike other financial institutions rely on copious externalities that impact the ability of the agency in reformation—and over which the extent of its control is limited. Consequently, the local projects did not extend beyond the limited domain of customs, albeit most identified blockages were not inside that domain. There are three main limitations of local modernization projects that are noteworthy:
The first is a specialized reform theme. This involves approaches such as valuation control, implies technical competencies and an organizational model which is also computerised based and can be optimized only if toilsome control issues like post-clearance reviews, audits, and severe penalties for forging invoices are addressed in parallel. A couple of valuation projects that are self-contained, therefore, will have a futile delivery but in its stead, it is necessary that the valuation project fit into a reform program that is much broader.
Customs reform solely depends on computerization —still, it denotes a whole range of reforms, reforms which include declaration format and processing, legislation, organization, transit management, post-clearance checks, risk management, business process transformation, as well as change management albeit these reforms are not exhaustive. Therefore, the information and communications technology (ICT) reform must also fit into a wider package of reforms.
However, the development of the infrastructure can only be effective if cognizance of all the border agencies’ operational mandates is taken, fits into an understandable reform package, as well as used to set concrete reforms. It may not augur well to consolidate existing procedures into a modernized layout—or to make use of updated approaches with an existing layout, this is because the layout should reflect the ambitions of the reform program.
(Adapted from Enrique Fanta et al. 2012: Border Management Modernization)