62
study: Canada (83 percent) and Japan (83 percent). The same reasoning explained above
applies to this comparison as well. Canada and Japan have much older and mature AEO
programs that are enriched by the needs and suggestions of very high numbers of AEO
companies in their programs. The impact of compliance process during the MRA negotiations
may also be a factor that increases the convergence for the best practice countries.
3.3.2. Convergence Results of OIC in Comparison to APEC
This section presents a brief comparison of OIC survey with APEC survey in APEC (2016).
Table 3.7 shows the variable level convergence across OIC and APEC AEO programs. Bold-
faced characters in the table signify the variables that have a higher-level convergence
compared to the other country group. Moreover, the variables are sorted from the highest to
the lowest levels of convergence using the OIC results. In other words, in the OIC AEO
programs the highest levels of convergence are observed for self-assessment mechanism along
with physical security and compliance requirements. However, the lowest levels of
convergence appear to be in the areas of SMEs, MRAs and types of operators.
Table 3.7. Variable Level Convergence across OIC and APEC
Variable OIC APEC
Self-Assessment Mechanism 100.0% 92.2%
Physical Security Requirements 100.0% 89.8%
Compliance Requirements 100.0% 88.2%
Application, Verification & Authorization Procedures 87.5% 79.8%
Benefits for AEOs 83.9% 73.8%
Partnership Initiatives 77.1% 67.7%
Suspension and Revocation 70.8% 80.4%
Training of Customs Officers 79.2% 59.8%
Customs Organizational Structure of AEO Program 75.0% 76.5%
Electronic Promotion of the Program 66.1% 74.8%
Post-Authorization Audit 67.5% 75.3%
Types of Operators 65.6% 55.9%
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) 52.1% 72.2%
Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 43.8% 29.4%
Source: Authors’ compilation using survey data.
Furthermore, the OIC AEO programs exhibit higher levels of convergence in terms of self-
assessment mechanism; physical security and compliance requirements; application,
verification and authorization procedures; benefits of AEOs, partnership initiatives, training of
Customs officials, types of operators and SMEs compared to the APEC AEO programs.
Meanwhile, the APEC AEOs perform better convergence in terms of suspension and revocation
procedures, customs organizational structure, electronic promotion of the program, post-
authorization audit and MRAs.
Table 3.8 presents comparative sectoral convergence rates of AEO programs in OIC and APEC
member countries. First of all, in both country groups there is perfect convergence in terms of
manufacturing. In other words, all AEO programs in both of these groups are opted by