1. RSA-LESOTHO AGREEMENT ON THE FACILITATION OF MOVEMENT OF CITIZENS

2. PURPOSE
The Purpose of this presentation is to request the Select Committee on Social Services to please support the ratification of the RSA-Lesotho Agreement on the Facilitation of Movement of Citizens

3. BACKGROUND Lesotho landlocked by SA, which is its only neighbour
Unique situation calls for special approach
Facilitation of movement and economic development are cornerstones of the SA/ Lesotho JBCC agreement
Lesotho Least Developed Status
Large % of Lesotho GDP derived from migrant workers in SA
Foreigners can only enter Lesotho via the RSA
Lesotho is the only members of the UN which is completely surrounded by another country.
A key objective of the agreement establishing the RSA/Lesotho Joint Commission for Cooperation (JBCC) is to assist Lesotho to graduate from it Least Developed Status (LDS) to “developing country”.
Lesotho’s economic dependency on the RSA translates directly into the need for its nationals to cross the border into the RSA.
The security considerations of this unique situation affect both countries, if not more so Lesotho.

4. CURRENT SITUATION
Numbers of routine travellers unmanageable ( p/d)
Effectiveness of routine processing questionable
Porous borderline encourages bypassing of controls
Service delivery considerations (compliant travellers)
Current processes cannot cope with the high volumes of travellers.
Travellers are routinely issued with cross border permits to ease the traffic flow.
The cross border permit is captured on the system, which then performs a check against all stop- and watch lists. In the case of a positive hit, the permit should not be issued. However, criminals and other wanted persons bypass these controls either by crossing the border illegally or bribing officials not to capture their applications. At a meeting held with the SAPS at the Maseru Bridge border post, the SAPS confirmed that No arrests have been made as a result of a positive hit on the system for the preceding 12 months.

5. 3 OPTIONS Maintain status quo
Increase resources to effectively manage peaks
Stop processing routine commuters
Undesirable
Under-utilisation during troughs
Monitoring of compliance
Peak times correspond with the rush hour in any big city, with people commuting to and from the work place across the border.
Third option based on the Schengen model, where states do not rely on the border control process in order to track down wanted or undesirable persons. Doing away with routine processes free resources to monitor compliance and places the emphasis on increased cooperation between states, focusing on problem cases.

6. OBJECTIVES: OPTION 3
To facilitate the movement of citizens of the RSA and Lesotho
To reduce immigration formalities over citizens of SA & Lesotho visiting the territory of the other state
To focus efforts on inspections
To free resources and use them more effectively
Reduce opportunities for corruption (SAPS & DHA)

7. Progress report
The draft agreement first served before Cabinet in 2005.
Cabinet resolved that the matter be referred back to the JBCC for consideration of the implications thereof for the RSA and Lesotho; and
Finally to the JCPS.

8. Progress report (cont)
JBCC considered the implications and found that the agreement would be advantageous to the RSA and Lesotho
Agreement signed - 19 June 2007.
Strengths
Trade facilitation
Reduction of corruption
Reduction of congestion at ports of entry
Improved service delivery for travelers
Improved information sharing and cooperation
Promotion of tourism
Weaknesses
Insufficient buy-in by stakeholders
Not all ports of entry staffed by immigration
Remoteness and inaccessibility of some ports of entry
Borderline not clearly demarcated at all places
Porous border line
Opportunities
Less infrastructure expansion at ports of entry
Less expansion of staff at ports of entry
Staff utilized more for compliance monitoring
Discontinuation of cross border permits
Introduction of better identification biometric systems
Threats
Abuse of Agreement by 3rd country nationals
Inadequate resources for monitoring purposes
Current systems not detecting the movement of criminals through ports of entry

9. ADVANTAGES
Creation of “fast lanes” for SA and Lesotho citizens at the 14 land border posts
Reduce congestion at the border posts
Shift the focus from current routine checks at ports of entry to problem cases in our territories
Economic advantages of freer movement

10. SCOPE 14 land border posts Citizens of SA & Lesotho
On valid national passports
Only in respect of visitors & permit holders
Contract workers (not to report on departure)

11. PROPOSED MECHANISMS Broadening of the current visa exemption
Permit exemption
Category exemption to RSA & Lesotho citizens not to have to report to immigration when entering / leaving SA
Currently Lesotho nationals may visit the RSA for periods of up to 30 days. This exemption would have to be changed so as not to be time bound. However, it would still apply only to purposes for which a visitors permit is required.

12. PROPOSED PROCEDURES
Visitors produce passports at perimeter gate, to verify validity & authenticity
No endorsement of passports by an Immigration Officer
Individual movements not to be captured by an Immigration Officer
Permit holders not to report to immigration on arrival & departure

13. UNAFFECTED CATEGORIES
Third country nationals, irrespective of status in SA / Lesotho
Airport users
People wishing to cross the border legally at places other than the 14 border posts

14. RISK FACTORS Document fraud
Undesirable & Prohibited persons (Exclusions)
See next slide for mitigation of risk

15. MITIGATION OF RISK Shift of focus to inspectorate (law enforcement)
Improved co-operation & exchange of information at all levels
Continued enforcement of both countries’ anti-corruption strategies
Implementation Framework, i. e:
Airports project;
Intensify focus on borderline;
Improve the security of enabling documents;
Consular cooperation
The first workshop on the development of the implementation framework is scheduled to take place on Friday 8 June In terms of previous discussions, the framework would focus on areas where both parties would improve on current security. Over and above the above mentioned aspects, the Australia – New Zeeland Model comes to mind (sharing of passport databases in order to prevent travel of undesirable persons). A project has also been envisaged before, where travellers would be facilitated by biometric recognition systems. The Implementation Framework would be phased, i.e. immediate, short and medium term goals would be identified.

16. WAY FORWARD Ratification Legislative enablement
Compliance with Implementation Framework
Roll out of Communication Strategy
Entry into Force
The communication implications would focus on citizen education programmes in order to ensure a common understanding of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
The agreement would come into force

17. The Department of Home Affairs thank the Select Committee on Social Services for this opportunity