Minutes of Regional Clearance System Advisory Committeee

EXCO/Brussels/3/2006/3.9.3

First Draft

MINUTES OF REGIONAL CLEARANCE SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEEE

MEETING

HELD ON 18 0CTOBER 2006, AT REX ST. ST LUICA HOTEL

PRESENT:-

Claude Paul PS CCLEC Chairman

Mrs. Winnie Fostine Dasilva Bermuda

Dennis Wayne Deshield Bermuda

Dudley Dixon Cayman Islands

Edward Joseph St. Lucia

Albert Sandy St. Lucia

Micky Westbrook UK

Aaron Smith CCLEC

Edwin Harewood CCLEC

Observers

Robert Potter DPC

Ms. Kris Nelly DPC

Jason Lynd DPC

Agenda Item 1- Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 0915 hrs. by the Chairman Claude Paul. Apologies were offered for the absence of Canada and the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Albert Sandy of St. Lucia Customs welcomed members; this was followed by brief introductions around the table.

Agenda Item 2 - Adoption of Agenda

The meeting agreed to the following amendments to the agenda: item 5 to 7, the first 6 to 5 and the renumbering of 7, 8 & 9 to 8, 9 and 10. The adoption was proposed by Bermuda and seconded by UK.

Agenda Item 3 - Adoption of Minutes

The minutes were accepted as presented after a proposal to this effect by Bermuda which was seconded by the UK.

Matters Arising

Reference the co-hosting of the JIO with the Dominican Republic, the Chairman stated that an invitation was extended to the Dominican Republic to send two officers to the JIO for training but they were unable to attend as requested. He further stated that they indicated that they are still committed to the setting up of the sub- office.

Agenda Item 4 – Update on Progress re Recommendations

DPC stated that all recommendations which were to be actioned by their organization were completed except the reference to the light aircraft module and the automatic out-bounding utility. It was however indicated that the code has been tested.

CCLEC informed the meeting that the quick thread developed to allow for loading of images was completed. It was also stated that the metropolitan countries now have access to the data query and will also be able to view the SID.

The Cayman Islands stated that they were unable to manually enter a port and that it was creating a challenge for their input officers. The DPC in response said that Cayman Islands could provide CCLEC with a list of the ports which could then be forwarded to DPC to be included in the drop down field. Cayman further requested that the free box field be reintroduced so that they may manually enter the port to or from which the vessels journeyed or returned. It was also stated that this concern particularly related to a problem with fishing boats which go to fishing banks off Cuba and Colombia. The need for being able to track these vessels was stressed since they also move between Cayman and Jamaica and are also suspected of carrying illegal drugs to Europe and North America. The Cayman member further noted that without the inclusion of these fishing vessels their stats would be low.

DPC further sated that during the assessment visits countries requested the inclusion of fishing vessels on the database.

Bermuda stated that the original intent of RCS was to monitor port to port movement and this did not include fishing vessels. Bermuda further indicated that their administration would have no problem with the inclusion but that there should also be a record of the quantum of fish caught. It was further suggested that this matter be raised at the November EXCO.

St. Lucia noted that the system already has a small field into which pirogues can be entered.

The Chairman observed that there was a challenge to overburdening the system and pointed to the filtering of the vessels entered by the French who only include those which they deem as necessary. It was however recognised that this sifting process also has connotations.

Recommendations

(1) Request EXCO to consider the entry of fishing vessels on the RCS database.

(2) DPC to define the requirement for inclusion of the fishing vessels and also ascertain if any other ports are missing.

(3) Cayman to provide a list of fishing banks to the Secretariat.

Agenda Item 5 – Statistical Report by CCLEC

Aaron Smith of CCLEC stated that since the upgrade the level of entries has vastly improved and in some instances they have doubled the pre-upgrade level, but that the quality of the data is being examined. He further noted that there is an increase in the number of workstations being used at different country locations because of the switch to an internet connection.

Country Brief

Anguilla: this administration will soon replace the original hardware which will further enhance their consistently high level of input.

Aruba: has a problem with assigning personnel.

Bermuda: has included two additional workstations.

Dominica: is using the system for developing intelligence and is working closely with St. Vincent & Grenadines.

The French West Indies: they have increased their entries but currently submit only 10% of their information due to sanitization of data. This is seen as ineffective and a suggestion was made that this matter be raised at EXCO. A further concern was that the names of crew members and passengers were also not being entered due to concerns related to privacy issues.

Grenada: the IT Unit is to be set up since the destruction caused by hurricane Ivan in 2005.

Jamaica: is a key country but that there was no inputting of vessel information.

Montserrat: has minimal vessel movement but are in constant touch with the Secretariat.

St Maarten: the Customs do not conduct boarding this is done by Immigration.

St. Kitts & Nevis: using the system for generating intelligence.

St. Vincent & Grenadines: utilizing the database for gathering intelligence.

St. Lucia: provided three additional workstations and are making same day entries.

Trinidad & Tobago: now have four work stations, but data entry is done in one location.

Turks & Caicos: experiencing staffing problems.

Agenda Item 6 – Assessment Visits

Mr. Bob Potter was invited to update the meeting on the assessment visits which were scheduled to involve thirteen counties including the nine CWC 20007 host nations. He noted that due to logistical problems Curacao was not visited and that only the DPC representative visited Guyana. Two teams made up of two persons from CCLEC and three from DPC conducted the visits in July and October. The countries visited were Grenada, St. Vincent & Grenadines, St. Kitts and St. Lucia in July and Anguilla, Antigua, Guyana, Jamaica, Martinique, St. Maarten, Trinidad & Tobago in October, to be followed by Barbados.

Mr. Potter said that the general feeling is that the clearance information is being entered at a central location because of a human resource problem. He further noted that there is a challenge when the crew list is long and particularly if the handwriting is difficult to understand. Those attending the meetings seemed to have no difficulty with allowing the Yachts Captains to enter the clearance details prior to arrival and noted that in some countries harmonisation of the clearance form is to be reviewed. While noting that some countries do not collect any fees from yachts Captains, he indicated that electronic collection of such fees is a long term projection. In most instances Immigration officials were not present at the meetings but some level of their involvement needs to be addressed.

Regarding the next steps Mr. Potter said that the responses to the questionnaires will be compiled; a report with recommendations will be forwarded to the CCLEC Secretariat prior to the November EXCO.

Bermuda indicated that the Customs in that country also perform the role of Immigration and offered their model as a best practice in addition to completing a copy of the questionnaire.

Recommendation

(4) A copy of the questionnaire is to be forwarded to Bermuda.

Agenda Item 7 – Presentation by CCLEC and DPC

This presentation was the one made during the assessment visits and was now being delivered to committee members for their further guidance and deliberations. It outlined the phases of the proposed feasibility study relating to (a) easing the burden of data entry aimed at making it easy for yacht Captains to enter their data prior to arrival or at designated locations in country achieving real time information and increasing the volume of entries and (b) improvement of RCS data analyst through the establishment of a regional intelligence center and providing training opportunities for officers. The expected benefits from this initiative would be (1) generation of funding (2) an increase of Customs resources for analysis and enforcement activity (3) provide an effective RCS analytical tool and (4) improve law enforcement capabilities.

Mr. Potter pointed out that the process would require financing of between three to five million dollars and that with the high capital outlay such a project would need to be sustained in order to recover cost and ensure sustainability.

St. Lucia viewed that Customs administrations must work together to have the analytical work done which would be an added benefit to the region.

Recommendation

(5) That EXCO needs to consider if the enhancement is necessary and if so how it can be achieved.

Agenda Item 8 – Proposed Strategic Plan

Bermuda queried the heading “sharing of information” on page 4 of the document and wanted to find out if the sharing is to be one way e.g passing information in exchange for funding. The delegate said that the exchange of information would be a more appropriate term and that using a top down approach e.g through CARICOM could be a method of ensuring that the information can be shared. The delegate was also concerned about the legal issues relating to information sharing and indicated that an MOU has no legal grounding.

DPC in response said that the entity with which they are currently associated would use the information to develop their own intelligence which would not necessarily be shared. He however indicated that there is another sharing level which is similar to that of the NJHQ’s. DPC also alluded to the cost of the overall project which an attempt is being made to conclude in approximately 18 months as opposed to 5 years. DPC further said that the infrastructure is already in place to make the expansion possible. It was also noted that there is an opportunity to increase the project support by involving the EU and that since the data cannot be shared from its present location in Canada it would have to be on a separate server located in a regional country. He also stated that caveats can be put on the data being shared.

The UK viewed that provided there are adequate safeguards there should not be any problems with information sharing. Cayman Islands indicated that they would require additional information in order to give an informed decision but shared the concerns of Bermuda and also wanted to know if the SID information could also be included in the sharing. St. Lucia’s main concern was how the information would be managed by the receiving entity.

Bermuda suggested that the word sharing be substituted for “giving access to information” and further indicated that the WCO recognizes the need to share information but that to go outside the Customs this could be different from the WCO’s concept.

DPC delegate stated that the targeted organisation conducts risk assessments and currently has a database with over 300 thousand small vessels and would provide the funding necessary for enhancement. He said that this entity has the capacity to fund the entire project which could earn several hundred thousand dollars and is requesting a five year commitment on the project. He also said that the possibility exists for sharing targeted data.

In response to concerns regarding the actual information DPC said that the users do not identify the source of the information and that a secondary source in country authenticates the information which is then given in evidence; therefore it will never be indicated that the original information came from DPC. The process therefore would be an agreement between ONI and DPC and DPC with CCLEC. The information to be shared would have to be placed in a separate database and although the specific mechanism has not been determined it could be a three way agreement between CCLEC, DPC and ONI. In order to allay any concerns about the process, as it relates to fall out in terms of information usage, DPC offered to make a request of ONI to have the senior person from that organisation speak to EXCO.

The PS indicated that he would make the appropriate request to EXCO.

DPC went on to say that the current amount of RCS information being entered is not sufficient to satisfy a real interest by ONI hence part of the upgrade would include financing from ONI to assist CCLCE in reaching an acceptable level of input.

The Chairman while stating that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) is the interested party at this time also stated that one of the legacies of CWC 2007 is to create a relationship with other organizations regarding border protection. He also said that there was an interface with ONI at a meeting held in the UK, the minutes of which will be forwarded to EXCO. Members agreed that the strategy should be submitted to EXCO.

Recommendations

(6) PS to request EXCO to allow a Senior officer of ONI to attend the November meeting.