INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE on PORTS CIDI/CIP/Doc. 11/10

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Council for Integral Development Inter-American Committee on Ports

SIXTH MEETING OF THE OEA/Ser.W/XIII.4.6 INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON PORTS CIDI/CIP/doc. 11/10 Panama City, Panama March 18 2010 March 21-24, 2010 Original: Spanish

MEASURES FOR IMPROVING THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CIP

(Document presented by the delegation of Mexico) 2

CONTENTS Page

I. BACKGROUND...... 2

II. MAIN SHORTCOMINGS...... 2

1. Organizational…...... 2

2. Programming...... 6

3. Budgetary and financial...... 8

4. Of port delegations to the CIP...... 8

5. Of the private sector……………………………………………………………...... 9

III. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 10

IV. ANNEXES...... 15

a. Annexe 1...... 16

b. Annexe 2...... 21

c. Annexe 3…………………………………………………………………………………..29 3

I. BACKGROUND

At its Tenth Meeting (Buenos Aires, 2009), the Executive Board of the Inter-American Committee on Ports (CIP) adopted resolution CIDI/CECIP/RES. 14 (X-09), in which it requested the Subcommittee on Policy and Coordination to recommend measures for improving the operational aspects of the Subcommittees and Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) and to present those measures at the Sixth Meeting of the CIP.

At that meeting, the delegations of Brazil, Canada, Chile, and the United States presented document CIDI/CECIP-X/doc. 30 (X-09), “Report on the Focus and Organizational Aspects of Subcommittee and Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meetings” which identifies shortcomings in the performance and organizational aspects of the meetings of those forums and includes suggestions for overcoming them. In addition, at the Fifth Meeting of the CIP (Brazil 2007), the Secretariat presented document CIDI/CIP/doc. 8/07 on “Recommendations for the Management of the Technical Advisory Groups (TAG)”, which constitutes a major input for improving said Groups. Both documents are attached hereto.

This paper addresses the valuable suggestions put forward in the aforementioned documents and includes, in addition, comprehensive measures aimed at improving the management and effectiveness of the CIP and its meetings.

II. MAIN SHORTCOMINGS

For methodological purposes, the main shortcomings that have been identified may be grouped together under the following headings: organizational, programmatic, budgetary and financial, related to the representatives of the port authorities to the CIP and private sector participants. The following is an objective and analytical summary of these shortcomings.

1. Organizational. These shortcomings are defined as those deriving from the application of the Rules of Procedure of the CIP. Some examples may help illustrate what is meant: The lack of minimum requirements and commitments for the establishment and evaluation of the TAGs, as well as for a member state to be part of a Subcommittee; the absence of defined procedures for meetings of the Executive Board; the lack of deadlines for reports or documents from people in charge; among other limitations. Given that state of affairs, and bearing in mind that changes to the rules of procedure require prior studies, discussion, and political decisions, we have come to the conclusion that it is best not to propose regulatory changes at this time. Nevertheless, it is indeed important to place on record the need for a detailed review of the rules of procedure and to amend them in due course. This leads us to analyze the shortcomings derived from the current organizational structure of the CIP. First, it will be worth taking a look at the CIP organizational chart, adopted in December 2007: 4

The Committee is the highest body in this forum as it comprises the highest national government authorities in the sector, who come together to approve plans and guidelines for actions, development and port cooperation programs, the budget, and other policies aimed at ensuring the successful management of the CIP. It meets every two years.

The representative nature of the authorities. Although the definition of a port authority is clearly established in the Rules of Procedure and is correctly applied by most member states, there are some that are not representative in that sense. Some countries are represented in the CIP by officials of different levels and different port related government institutions (ministry, superintendence, government enterprise), or even by executives of port administrations. The representatives also have a high turnover and some represent their country in the different forums of the CIP (Executive Board, TAGs, Subcommittees). This practice leads to a lack of continuity (in the sense that no one in the institution is responsible for the area) and to internal discrepancies regarding responsibilities vis-à-vis the CIP, as well as other issues.

The Executive Board of the CIP (CECIP) is the organ that implements the resolutions adopted by the Committee. To that end, it establishes Subcommittees and draws up their respective work plans, which are then implemented and, later, evaluated. It meets every year.

The representative nature of the authorities. The Board mostly comprises the same people who attend the meetings of the Committee, so that basically there is little difference between the two with respect to representation, except with regards to the number of representatives with voting rights and the agenda. 5

Subcommittees.The lack of regulations in this respect has in practice led to each Chair of the Executive Board appointing, upon taking office, the Subcommittees he/she deems appropriate. Consequently, the establishment of Subcommittees reflects subjective, rather than objective, criteria. Over the past 10 years, there has been little continuity with respect to the Subcommittees, which have varied in number and in the topics they addressed. Between 1999 and 2003, three Subcommittees were established; in 2003-2007, six; and in 2008-2009, 12. With the increasing number of Subcommittees, the subject areas were spread out, leading in some cases to some overlapping of tasks, and in other cases, member states taking on too many commitments, compromising their resources as well as the Secretariat’s.

Correlation between the Subcommittees and the Technical Advisory Groups. As will be seen later on, while these Groups are advisory groups on specialized port issues of the Committee, they must submit all their recommendations through the Executive Board, which evaluates and then submits them to the Committee. Until a few years ago, the Executive Board was not engaged in the areas of activity of a TAG, in order to avoid duplication. During the Executive Board’s last term it was agreed that the subject areas of the TAGs would also be handled by a Subcommittee. This led to confusion and to an increased number of Subcommittees, raising questions about the benefits of the TAGs. This has been viewed as a very complex, confusing, and costly practice that should therefore be discontinued.

Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), are advisory bodies of the Committee on an area of port specialty, and are created as a result of the interest and leadership of a member state and five additional member states joining to support an initiative. Its entire management should be provided by the lead country, which usually assumes the chair. It ideally brings together member states’ specialists in the field at least once a year, at the initiative of its chair. It also stipulates that active participation by associate private sector members would make significant technical and financial contributions to the Committee. The main functions established for all TAGs are: (i) To gather and exchange information on the topic of its specialty, including the use of information technology systems in its area; (ii) to develop and maintain a database with information, including lists of experts, relating to their work; (iii) to identify training needs; (iv) to prepare reports, studies, and specialized technical documents; (v) to organize national and international specialized meetings and activities in their area; and (vi) to submit to the Chair of the CECIP every six months written progress reports on their work.

Performance. In pursuit of these initiatives, the offices of the chair of the TAGs have played an important and recognized role in creating and launching the Groups, in addition to promoting them, particularly in their countries. Some of these offices are known to have specialized staff to follow up on issues. However, very little of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the CIP has been fulfilled by the four existent TAGs for the past ten years. While the chairs have fulfilled their commitments in terms of holding their annual meetings, these meetings have been held during other meetings of the CIP (Committee, Executive Board, or specialized Conference), that is, for reasons of budget and participation, they have not been convened independently. Moreover, the participants have generally been the same delegates attending the CIP meetings in question; only a few member states of that TAG have attended; and there have been very few specialists in the field.

Furthemore, there are two TAGs with two associate members and one TAG with none, which means that there has been little or no corresponding collection of funds, respectively, and there has been 6

very little attendance or participation by those members at meetings, except in the case of one TAG,1 which has ten associate members, better collection, and one Vice Chair of a private port company.

Likewise, not much promotion of this forum has been observed. Only one TAG 2 has a website – since mid-2009 – and there is none with promotional brochures. That is, there has been little or no TAG outreach and promotion or fundraising, especially outside the country of the Chair.

Coordination between the office of the Chair of each TAG and the member states of the TAG has also been observed to be inadequate; as is coordination with the associate members or with the offices of the Vice Chair.

Participation by representatives of member states in each TAG has been insignificant and they have had relatively little technical input. It is further observed that neither the TAGs nor the involvement of new associate members is being promoted in those countries. There has also been very little participation by Caribbean3 and Central American countries; there is neither any participation by those countries’ businesses or institutions as associate members.

Unfortunately, there is still no compliance with the recommendations of 2007 to improve the management of the TAGs.

Most of the functions of the TAGs can be said to have been fulfilled, albeit in a tangential, irregular manner—that is, their activities have not been completed or have only been partially carried out, and have not been consistently undertaken over the years. Generally, all the technical support of each TAG has been provided at its annual meetings, for two hours, at most, per year. There has not been much monitoring of the work throughout the year, hence the obvious lack of rosters of specialists in the different areas handled by a TAG, the lack of which has hindered experts being brought together and their expertise utilized. There is no technical reference material, no thematic bibliographies for each Subcommittee’s specific area, and no comprehensive database for each TAG, among others.

The process of annual evaluation of the TAG by the Subcommittee on Policy and Coordination has been very thin, lacking in technical depth, and rather subjective.

Real contributions of these Groups. Two of the existing TAGs have been significantly involved in the activities of the CIP, mainly in organizing specialized hemispheric conferences, 4 which brought many experts together. The importance that port systems began placing on these issues and the high priority they now enjoy, in terms of external factors as well as decisions by administrations, could be seen at those meetings. While this can not be attributed exclusively to the work done in these TAGs, it does show that the CIP has the capacity to address these needs.

The fact that there are ten associate members in a TAG is an indication that there is an interest on part of the private or quasi-government institutions in being involved in the subject matter and the CIP forums.

1 . TAG on Logistcs and Competitiveness. 2 . TAG on Port Security. 3 . Except in Barbados, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica 4 . TAG on Port Security with three specialized conferences -- in Miami (2004), Puerto la Cruz (2006), and Punta Cana (2008); and the TAG on Environmental Port Protection with one specialized conference, in Panama (2007) and one specialized convention in Foz de Iguazú (2009). 7

While the TAGs have carried out their functions, even if only marginally, they are an important vehicle for cooperation and therefore a series of improvements must be undertaken.

The Secretariat, is the organization’s permanent body, which is managed based on the approved budget and timely contributions. This has involved the constraint of stable staff on short-term contracts, and whose salaries are low and uncompetitive. The Secretariat also has a manager who, besides managing the Secretariat itself, raises external funding, organizes and implements cooperation programs, negotiates and develops projects with third parties, and moves forward on agreed programming, among other functions. The budget provides resources to extend contracts for administrative staff and for basic logistical support, with recruitment limited to medium- to long-term hiring of a mid-level executive to assist with the Secretary’s technical management, who would help in managing new cooperation projects and in strengthening relations with international aid agencies.

2. Programming. These shortcomings stem from the following factors.

Length of the meetings. The meetings of the Committee and of the Executive Board last longer than they would need to if they kept strictly to the minimum indispensable agenda. However, there always has to be additional time for holding the TAGs meetings. Furthermore, as in any international meeting of this kind, it is common practice to add technical presentations to the agenda, in order to provide participants with up-to-date information and to make the meeting more varied and attractive for the community taking part in it. In addition, one of the recently stepped-up requirements of the CIP’s Rules of Procedure is to have the (English and Spanish) versions of draft resolutions delivered 24 hours in advance, so that they can be considered by the plenary. For these and other protocolary and social reasons proper to each case, the overall duration of a meeting is prolonged, adding to its cost, and, as a result there is less time to debate issues and proposals adequately. At the same time, there are occasions in which sufficient time is allowed for debate but participants show little inclination to debate a plethora of technical matters at greater length. As a result, those sessions have finished earlier than expected, giving the impression that some delegates were not sufficiently well versed in the subject matter. Sessions are programmed consecutively, which also adds to the duration of meetings, but at least that guarantees that all member states can take part, because many delegations consist of just one representative. For that reason, it is almost impossible to hold parallel sessions, which would also add to the expense (in terms of rooms and interpreters needed).

Nature and characteristics of each meeting. Delegations’ attendance at Committee meetings varies, with between 21 and 25 member states participating. Only nine countries have attended all regular meetings, while a further ten attended four meetings. Three member states of the CECIP attended all of its ten regular meetings and one special meeting; ten countries attended at least eight of the meetings (even, in some cases, if they were not members of the CECIP at the time). There are at least ten countries that rarely attend scheduled meetings (of both the CIP and the CECIP). That could point to the lack of a clear perception on the part of those member states as to the benefits of participating in meetings of the Inter-American port system, either because they do not yield noticeable advantages for countries or because the fruits of cooperation are not being transmitted to the appropriate bodies. At the same time, there is scant attendance by the private sector, particularly in the case of the associate members.

Another important shortcoming for the CIP and the CECIP meetings is their financing, 60 percent of which is provided by the host country.5 It basically covers the travel and per diem expenses of OAS

5 . Of the remainder, 20% is covered by the participants and 20% by the Secretariat. 8

Secretariat staff; interpretation services (interpreters, booths, headphones); translation services (document translators); audiovisual support services (projectors, screens, laptops); administrative personnel, equipment operators; appropriately fitted meeting rooms (auditoriums, delegates’ rooms, secretariat); computers, photocopiers, sound systems; telephone and internet services; office materials; social activities, among others. There is no systematic exploration of the possibilities of obtaining financing from sponsors (direct contributions, a hall in which to set up booths exhibiting goods and services, attendance fees), so that such financing tends to be random.

Added to the above are problems related to simultaneous interpretation, which used to be bilingual (English/Spanish) and has recently been trilingual (English/Spanish/Portuguese) in some meetings. The quality of interpretation has also been problematic, given the lack of interpreters specializing in port issues. All these add up to the cost of the meetings.

Another shortcoming is related to the failure to provide documents for meetings in time for them to be translated and delivered to participants in their own language. Numerous documents (reports of the Chairs of the Subcommittees and TAGs, speaker’s presentations, etc.) are provided at the last minute, so that translations (which are also costly) are often limited or not available.

Planning of work plans. Currently, the CECIP work plans which are produced by the Subcommittees (TAGs are also included in this issue), derive from the CIP’s Action Plan 2008-2011 and the adjustments made to it in response to short-term developments in the industry. Those work plans cover two years, which is the period between the CIP meetings, revised at the end of the first year. The Chair of the CECIP coordinates the fulfillment of the work plans. It is up to the Chair of each Subcommittee to select activities. In most cases, activities and plans are established at each meeting of the Executive Board, with limitations in the following areas: Identification of the entity responsible for execution and follow-up; execution timetable; quantifiable targets to facilitate evaluation; costs and financing of activities; excessive optimism by delegations when it comes to programming activities, for which there are neither time nor resources; the lack of cooperation by member states that are supposed to submit information to the country responsible for executing an activity, and so on.

Links to other OAS dependencies. The Secretariat regularly reports its activities to other dependencies in the OAS, be they the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (including CICAD and CICTE), the Department of Economic Development, Trade, and Tourism, the Department of Sustainable Development, the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission, and others, in order to avoid duplicating efforts and achieve greater efficiency and benefits for the port sector. Their staff is invited to the CIP meetings and maintains cordial working relations with the CIP. Some managers in those dependencies take part in the CIP meetings related to their spheres of competence.

Relations with other international organizations and agencies. The CIP has established important ties with a number of international organizations. This is accomplished through cooperative mechanisms that have been implemented between the OAS and the International Maritime Organization, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, UNCTAD, the World Customs Organization, the World Trade Organization, and other global forums. In addition, there are specific agreements signed by the CIP Secretariat with the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), Puertos del Estado of Spain, the United States national section of the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC-USA), the Caribbean Shipping Association (CSA), the Port Management Association of the 9

Caribbean (PMAC), the Port of Le Havre, among others. In other words, the legal framework for cooperation has been established with most of the international and regional organizations and agencies involved with ports. However, the chief shortcoming is the lack of personnel to carry on and step up cooperation ties, and to develop projects of common interest with those agencies. The benefits to be derived from closer ties with such entities is well recognized and it could lead to more project financing, as well as attracting new partners interested in cooperating with port development projects. The more partners there are, the easier it will be to disseminate projects and seminars, thereby facilitating greater participation and more abundant resources.

3. Budgetary and financial. The main shortcomings under this category are as follows. The CIP has two main sources of funding for its annual budget. Contributions from national governmental port authorities, whose quota of $6,000 per year remains to what it was in 1999, that is to say, has stayed the same for the last ten years. During that time, total inflation in the United States reached 28.3%,6 which means that there has been an equivalent percentage of erosion or decrease in the purchasing power of the real budget. Added to this is the arrears factor. To date, the member states’ debt is more than a year’s budget.7 There are also countries that carry huge debts because they do not make their contribution to this project on a regular basis. The other source of contribution is the OAS Regular Fund, which covers the salary of the Secretary, with only another $8,000 per year earmarked for operations.8 If we compare the OAS Regular Fund contribution to four Inter-American Committees, including the Committee on Ports, 9 we find that the allocation for the CIP is 7% of the total amount of Regular Fund contribution to the four Committees together. Moreover, the CIP has a drastically reduced budget compared to other international organizations engaged in the port and shipping sector. It would therefore be wrong to compare the CIP budget – and therefore management – to that of international agencies. For example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) comprises 169 member states and has an annual budget of $45.5 million; the Association of American Port Authorities (AAPA) has 158 members and an annual budget of $2.5 million; and the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) has 342 members and an annual budget of $2.1 million.10

4. Of port delegations to the CIP. Shortcomings of this type are due to the following reasons:

Representation and rotation of representatives. As already noted, there is a variety of accreditations among the various delegations, and a good amount of rotation of the officials appointed as delegates or alternates to the Executive Board. It is also common for permanente representatives to have never attended a CIP or a CECIP meeting, and even for delegations to be comprised of envoys separate from those accredited as permanent or alternate representatives. Delegates who attend regularly are believed to participate and intervene at a higher level, taking initiative and leadership on many issues.

Fulfillment of the commitments undertaken. The Rules of Procedure state that the Subcommittees will be based in countries that have been elected to chair them and that those countries shall provide staff and cover the cost of infrastructure needed for them to carry out their functions. In real terms, it is not known whether this provision has been fulfilled. Some countries have also been observed to be

6 . The total total of annual inflation levels during the period under review. Source: www.Inflationdata.com, Historical U.S. Inflation Rate. 7 . As of October 31, 2009 the member countries’ debt to the CIP reached $ 213,600. The anticipated annual contribution of CIP is $204,000 8 . The Budget for the CIP in the OAS Regular Fund is $182,100 for 2010. 9 . CICTE, CICAD, CITEL, and CIP. 10 . Source: IAPH Secretary General’s Report, May 2009. 10

chairing a Subcommittee while not being a member of the Executive Board, which would require them to attend meetings; but they usually do not attend – at least they do not attend regularly – not even when such meetings coincide with the CECIP meetings.

In relation to the work plans of the Subcommittees, tasks related to studies or other tasks such as collecting information from countries and ports on a particular issue, convening working groups, developing or maintaining websites or databases, have not been performed consistently or regularly. In some cases tasks are carried out as ad hoc events, rather than as a working methodology. Specifically, it is believed that the only tasks carried out on a regular basis are those related to training programs, which are done under the coordination of the Secretariat.

Evaluations of work plans are conducted in a superficial manner, without addressing the reasons as to why a particular work plan could not be implemented. This applies to the Subcommittees and TAGs alike. The result is that many of these plans have been repeating work on which little progress has been made, without any effort to address why it was not completed or had to be postponed. Although the topics chosen are clearly of interest to member states, no procedure has been found to carry out these tasks and therefore accomplish the objectives. The lack of allocated resources and the failure to identify the officials in charge are decisive factors in the failure to perform most of the tasks.

Chair of the TAGs. A minimal structure needs to be defined for the chairs, identifying roles, responsibilities, and contributions, among other elements. Functions also need to be assigned to the vice chair, establishing specific responsibilities and tasks to be performed during a term of office.

No clear cost-benefit has been identified from associate members participating in the TAGs.

5. Of the private sector. Private sector involvement in the CIP is marginal, even though its inclusion was considered innovative and valuable to the Organization. This stems from its limited participation in the TAGs, despite having 14 members 11 in the four TAGs, and even though the contribution of a few associate members has been important to progress in these institutions. The private sector has not been encouraged to attend nor has been assigned responsibilities. Likewise, no clear benefits have been identified for target companies or entities.

Some delegates have also disagreed with allowing business activities at the same time as the meetings. This makes it difficult for these entities to regularly attend all the meetings.

Other than an associate member’s representative being exempt from the attendance fee, there are no other mechanisms to encourage a greater participation.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objectives of this set of recommendations are as follows:

11 . The current associate members, by TAG, are as follows: Logistics and Competitiveness-Customs Brokers Association (Uruguay), Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company,* Halcrow Inc., Port of Miami (United States), Association of Port Terminals and Operators A.C.,* OCUPA S.A. de C.V.,* International Containers Associates of Veracruz- ICAVE,* Maritime Company of the Pacific* (Mexico), Southern International Terminal S.A., Institute of Maritime Research and Development – INDESMAR(Peru); Navigation Safety - Kongsberg Norcontrol IT AS* (United States), Management Consortium of the Port of Bahía Blanca* (Argentina); Environmental Port Protection - Port Administration of Paranaguá and Antonina* (Brazil), Ocean Pollution Control* (Panama). * The membership fee for 2010-2011 is still pending 11

1. To achieve the goals of the Inter-American port system and the CIP in order to strengthen cooperation between and among ports in the hemisphere.

2. To promote greater participation by all member states, in order to produce clearer, measurable benefits for them.

3. To promote greater ongoing participation in the maritime port sector by organizations and private companies and their representatives in order to address priority issues in the sector, to have a broader range of specialists in different fields, and to increase revenues.

4. To achieve greater efficiency and rational use of resources and make better use of available time for the CIP forums.

In order to achieve these goals, the following strategic elements must be considered:

1. There should be no immediate proposal to alter the current CIP Rules of Procedure; instead, a mandate for analysis and proposed amendments to the rules of procedure should come later on.

2. The choice of topics for the CECIP and the TAGs’ work plans should focus on those expressly stipulated in the CIP’s Action Plan 2008-2011; and its terms of reference should be in an executive capacity in relation to the CECIP and in an advisory capacity for the TAGs, avoiding duplication.

3. Establishing minimum requirements for the inclusion of activities in the work plans of the CECIP and the TAGs.

4. Establishing responsibilities with explicit and real deadlines for actual completion of activities.

Based on the foregoing, the following overall recommendations are being put forward:

A. Meetings of the Committee and the Executive Board 1. To request member states that require so to correct problems of representation, in keeping with the provisions of the CIP Rules of Procedure. This means that the highest level of national government port authorities should represent the member state at the meetings of the Committee and two alternate representatives should be appointed to represent the country at the Executive Board.

2. To request member states’ representatives to submit to the Secretariat their comments and suggestions on the agenda and schedule of meetings, which are published sufficiently in advance of the meetings’ start dates. This allows for the necessary corrections and amendments to be made in advance. The meetings will be scheduled by allowing enough time for discussion and analysis of issues and proposals.

3. To reiterate the importance of each member state elected to the Executive Board to appoint two officials to serve as permanent liaison with the Secretariat and with the other member states, as 12

stipulated in Article 57 of the CIP’s Rules of Procedure, and for each country that is not part of the Executive Board to appoint an official to act as liaison with the Secretariat.

4. To instruct the member state holding the CECIP chairmanship to establish an office for this body in that country, as provided for in Article 62 of the CIP’s Rules of Procedure.

5. To include in the annual contribution of the member states an additional amount to fund travel and accommodation for a representative to attend an annual meeting of the Committee or Executive Board, in that order of importance. The Secretariat will report on how these funds are used at each meeting. Any surplus will be credited to the member state’s account.

B. The Executive Board and its Subcommittees 6. To establish a small number of Subcommittees of the Executive Board to facilitate the programming and control of activities and the involvement of more member states; the latter will thus be able to perform functions and carry out activities that they really can afford. The Subcommittees would therefore remain the same over the term of office of an Executive Board, subject to exceptions. Each Subcommittee will be led by a Chair and will have a Vice Chair as well.

7. Countries that have been elected to chair Subcommittees shall provide staff and cover the cost of infrastructure needed for them to perform their functions under Article 67 of the CIP’s Rules of Procedure.

8. To establish for each Subcommittee the necessary technical groups, which will not be permanent but will be activated when assigned specific activities. Each technical group will have a coordinator responsible for its management.

9. To prepare each Subcommittee’s annual work plan as proposed by the Chair, in coordination with the technical group coordinators. The Subcommittee’s and the technical groups’ work plans will be activity-based. For each activity, the following information should be provided as a condition for approval: Well-defined objectives; measurable goals and defined results to be achieved; country in charge; office and official responsible for implementing the activity; tasks assigned to the participating countries with their executing offices designated; estimated budget and funding source. A format for collecting this information is attached as an appendix.

10. To reiterate that it is the CECIP Chair’s prerogative to create Subcommittees; but given past experience, and based on these recommendations, the alternative of creating six Subcommittees is being presented. Also included are technical groups on the issues indicated for each proposed Subcommittee:

(i) Subcommittee on Policy and Coordination. Comprising the CECIP Chair and the four Vice Chairs, whose functions will rotate every six months during the two years for which they were elected. They would be responsible for the following:  Coordination of annual meetings  Evaluation of the TAGs  Promotion of the CIP and external relations  Promotion of the participation of women in port affairs of the hemisphere  Editorial Board of the CIP Magazine 13

 Budget and Financing  Training

(ii) Subcommittee on Cargo Services, comprising member states wishing to join. It would have the following technical groups:  Planning and port management  Port operations  City and ports  Port facilitation (relations with customs and others)

(iii) Subcommittee on Vessel Services, comprising member states wishing to join. It would have the following technical groups:  Port development for cruise ships  Waterway, river and lake port development

(iv) Subcommittee on Port Security and Safety, comprising member states wishing to join. It would have the following technical groups:  Port Security  Port Safety

(v) Subcommittee on Environmental Port Protection, comprising member states wishing to join. It would have the following technical groups:  International regulations  Technology and equipment

(vi) Subcommittee on Legislation and Investments, comprising member states wishing to join. It would have the following technical groups:  Legislation  Investments and Concessions

C. The Technical Advisory Groups 11. To reiterate that the TAGs should be valuable tools to support the Committee, focusing on studying and discussing very specialized and specific issues of the port sector. Each TAG must therefore cover, exclusively, only one specific port sector issue that is clearly defined. No TAG will cover issues assigned to Subcommittees.

12. To stress the urgent need to redefine the specialized subject area of the TAGs to take effect in the next biennium, particularly after the proposed Subcommittees that are to be established are identified (see recommendation 10), and bearing in mind that no Subcommittee should be covering the same issue as a TAG. Accordingly, should the existing TAGs continue for the next biennium, their respective chairs must first review this issue and hence the name. They must then make recommendations for improving the TAG along the lines of the recommendations submitted in the management improvement document (Brazil 2007) and other recommendations contained in this document. 13. The Office of the Chair of each TAG must be in constant coordination with the Vice Chair as well as the member states, associate members, and the Secretariat. It must schedule its meetings in advance, and include the Vice Chair and associate members, offering them greater 14

participation. Each TAG must disseminate its own information – ideally on its own website – in at least three of the official languages of the OAS.

14. They must then set up and update their websites as a way to attract new partners, report on their activities, provide studies and documents to be produced, and thereby to facilitate the work of the TAGs, Subcommittees, member states, and the Secretariat.

15. To strengthen the work plans of each TAG, not only with presentations by experts on a topic of interest, but also including activities to create a maximum impact in terms of achieving the objectives of the TAGs, including studies, documents, information exchange, and training. Specifically, they must carry out their assigned functions.

16. To establish the CIP conferences and conventions as a forum for Inter-American port dialogue mainly for the TAGs, informally bringing together experts in each subject area.

17. To raise the level of the TAGs’ evaluation, which shall be under the most stringent criteria, such that the ones evaluating the TAGs cannot chair such groups.

D. The Secretariat 18. To strengthen cooperation with other units of the OAS, particularly those with complementary agendas, notably the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security and the Department of Economic Development, Trade, and Tourism.

19. To seek to recruit a mid-level manager to assist with the preparation of projects to attract external funding and facilitate cooperative projects with other international agencies. This might be achieved through an increased budgetary allocation to cover such hiring.

E. Budget and Finance 20. To set up a working group to study and prepare a proposal on a new system for contributions to the CIP by member states through their national government port authorities. The proposal would be submitted at the Twelfth Meeting of the Executive Board (December 2010), for analysis and discussion. Consideration of the alternative of an equal increase in annual contribution for all members (“flat” standard contribution), or differentiated contribution based on certain criteria (GDP; linked to contributions to the OAS; number of ports, vessel traffic, cargo volume, etc.).

21. To step up a process for collections from member states seriously in arrears, for them to honor their debt either in cash or in kind by organizing and conducting CIP meetings and events in their countries, and underwriting the costs involved in organizing them. In addition, continue applying penalties to participants from countries in arrears, in terms of benefits derived from projects financed with funds that they fail to contribute. 15

F. Private Sector 22. To establish, through the office of the Chair of each TAG, the importance and benefits of the associate members’ participation and contribution to the TAGs, which should be included in publicity and promotional material of that TAG.

23. To encourage them to actively participate at the meetings of the port system, especially meetings of the TAGs, including presentations, providing technology transfer and specialized information on the topic. Likewise, to facilitate their business activities during meetings, by way of exhibitions, product and services’ samples that at the same time should generate additional income to finance the meetings. 16

IV. ANNEXES 17

Annexe 1

Document CIDI/CECIP-X/doc. 30 (X-09), “Report on the Focus and Organizational Aspects of Subcommittee and Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) Meetings” 18

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Committee on Ports (CIP)

TENTH EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING OEA/SER.L/XX.1.10 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON PORTS CIDI/CECIP-X/doc. 30/09 March 23-27, 2009 March 25, 2009 Buenos Aires, Argentina Original: English

REPORT ON THE FOCUS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF SUBCOMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPS (TAG) MEETINGS

(Document submitted by the Delegations of Brazil, Canada, Chile and United States) 19

Report on the Focus and Organizational Aspects of Subcommittee and Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meetings

Introduction

The Inter-American Committee on Ports (CIP) is a permanent forum of the Organization of American States (OAS) whose primary objective is to strengthen cooperation in the area of hemispheric port sector development with the active participation and collaboration of the private sector.

The CIP fulfils its objectives through regular meetings, special meetings and Conferences. The most recent event was the Third Hemispheric Conference on Port Security which was held in April 2008 in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. On the margins of the Conference, a handful of member states met to discuss ways to improve member participation and the efficiency of meetings of the Technical Advisory Group on Port Security (TAGPS), and perhaps other similar groups within CIP. The objective of the discussion and this paper is to shed light on measures that might be further considered in order to make meetings both more productive and responsive to the needs of a diverse CIP membership.

Subject Matter

With respect to the substance and subject matter of the TAG and Subcommittee meetings, some concern has been expressed that these groups are not focusing sufficient attention on important work being carried out by other multilateral organizations, and thus are not actively representing OAS interests in global port security matters.

Regional organizations should work closely together to coordinate work programs to ensure a global approach to port security. With this in mind, CIP should consider expanding its role in the global port security arena by establishing closer linkages with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Customs Organization (WCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and other international groups that have been taking the lead on important matters affecting port security in the Western Hemisphere. Work being done in these other organizations directly affects ports and specifically their costs of operations: examples include the implementation of the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code and proposed audits of its implementation, as well as cooperative technical security assistance programs in APEC.

At the same time, there are also opportunities to obtain financing from both multilateral organizations and individual countries for projects, not only in the area of port security facilities, but also in areas of port infrastructure development, such as dredging. For example, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) could play a more direct role in addressing the needs of the CIP and its members. Individual member countries have stepped forward to fund port security and infrastructure development projects, such as the United States Trade and Development Administration. In this regard, the CIP should consider directing its attention on furthering exchanges of information on important work being carried out in the region and promoting best practices. Closer linkages with multilateral organizations are important in promoting the interests and efforts to achieve effective port security measures globally and improve port infrastructure. In order to facilitate these linkages, it is believed that the conclusion of memoranda of understandings should be explored. 20

Furthermore, there is also a need to follow up on port security topics discussed at the Third Hemispheric Conference on Port Security. Examples include problems related to communicable diseases, long-range identification and tracking of ships, and 100 percent scanning of containers.

Finally, there are also other bodies within the OAS structure where cooperation in areas of overlapping interests might lead to improved synergies. An example is in the area of natural or manmade disasters affecting ports, which is partially addressed by the OAS under the topic of sustainable development. Another example is the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) and its security training initiatives.

Organization and Meeting Structure

The CIP fulfills its objectives, performs its functions, and exercises its powers through its meetings, the Executive Board, and the Technical Advisory Groups, with the support of the General Secretariat of the Organization. Meetings of the Committee are typically held every two years, while meetings of the Executive Board and the Technical Advisory Groups are typically held annually. Specialized meetings and Conferences are scheduled as required.

In addition to these groups, the Committee can establish Subcommittees as deemed necessary. Recently, eleven Subcommittees were established, including one on port security.

Having both a TAG and Subcommittee on Port Security would appear to be redundant and consideration should be given to combining this function into one body. The recent proliferation of both Subcommittees and corresponding TAGS has also created confusion and problems in conducting meaningful meetings and attendance.

In addition, the present meeting format, at least for the TAG on Port Security, is not effective. Typically, meetings are geared almost entirely toward presentations by outside speakers, with some exceptions. Although the presentations have been informative and useful, there has been concern expressed that there is too little time remaining for discussion and exchanges of ideas, concerns and interests. It is the general practice that the work and future programs (seminars, conferences, courses and studies related to the different areas of port security) of both of these groups are memorialized in resolutions that have been approved during the Plenary Sessions, mostly proposed by the Executive Secretariat. Some of these resolutions have not been sufficiently reviewed by the TAG, which could be attributed to insufficient meeting time being allotted to the groups. One possible solution is to divide the TAG or Subcommittee meeting into two parts. Under such an arrangement, the first part of the meeting would be devoted to presentations, while the second session would be aimed at discussion, planning future activities and programs, discussion of important issues affecting member countries, and drafting resolutions. The idea of a second session is to provide a forum in which to share experiences in the implementation of security measures. Resolutions would be finalized during the meeting and then forwarded from the TAG or Subcommittee for translation, final review by all member states, and then passage, according to procedures established by the OAS.

To facilitate the operation of the TAG or Subcommittee, there should be a concerted effort to encourage the distribution of Information, studies of general interest, and all papers on issues for discussion well in advance of the meetings to allow time for adequate review and comment before subjects are presented at meetings/seminars. Other improvements to be considered include the distribution of a list of names, titles, organizations, telephone numbers and email addresses of all 21

delegates (subject to delegates privacy wishes) at the conclusion of every Committee meeting. The purpose of this list would be to assist delegates, particularly new participants to stay in contact with each other during the long periods between meetings. It has also been proposed that a website be developed, with the specific purpose of serving as a clearinghouse for information, particularly for information of interest from outside the CIP, such as the IMO, ILO and APEC.

Conclusion

To conclude, the first steps should focus on collaboration and coordination with the appropriate international maritime transport organizations to elevate OAS member states to the sources of information, best practices and, in general, optimization of resources to achieve the goals of the TAG and the Subcommittee on Port Security.

In addition, a discussion on the CIP’s organization, the number of Committees, their role and their place vis-à-vis the TAGs, as well as new meeting structure should also be initiated. 22

Annexe 2

Document CIDI/CIP/doc. 8/07 on “Recommendations for the Management of the Technical Advisory Groups (TAG)” 23

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Committee on Ports

METINGS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPS (TAG) (September 10-11, 2007, Salvador, Brazil)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPS (TAG) 24

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPS (TAG)

I. Background

1. The Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) are accessory organs of the Inter-American Committee on Ports (CIP) on specific aspects of hemispheric port sector development. They are created by the CIP, under the proposal of a member State, which will lead the work of this group for a two-year period. This two-year period can be extended after favorable evaluation by the CIP.

2. Each TAG is composed of representatives of the government of the member States, specialized on the Group’s issues, and associate members that represent administrative and operating port entities, academic, scientific, commercial, developmental, financial and industrial institutions and other organizations related to port sector activity, which have legal standing and specialization in the matter. Associate members subscribe an annual contribution and have right to voice their opinion but no vote. The member States have voice and vote.

3. In the First Meeting of the CIP (Guatemala, 1999), three TAG were established: Port Operations, under the chairmanship of Mexico; Port Security under the chairmanship of United States and Safety Control and Environmental Protection, under the chairmanship of Argentina. In the Second and Third Meeting (Costa Rica, 2001 and Mexico, 2003), the Committee made a favorable evaluation of the work of the three groups and approved the continuation of their work. In the Fourth Meeting (Maracaibo, 2005) the CIP made a favorable evaluation of the work of the two first TAG and additionally ended the work of the TAG on Safety Control and Environmental Protection. However, at the same time it approved the creation of two new Technical Groups on Safety Control under the chairmanship of Argentina and on Environmental Port Protection under the chairmanship of Venezuela.

4. The TAG have taken off and progressed since their creation to date, in a heterogenic form and some faster than others, for several reasons, among others: the role played by the chair and vice-chair offices; the participation of the member States representatives; the integration and activities of the associate members and the payment of the correspondent quota; the priority of the issues in the sector, among others. The Executive Board of the CIP (CECIP) recommended to hold a special meeting to generate ideas in order to improve the function of the future TAG.

5. This special meeting was celebrated in Panama City, Panama, on April 10, 2007, with the participation of representatives from El Salvador, United States, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela. The Secretariat presented an analytical document regarding the success of the TAG and facilitated to reach conclusions and recommendations. Details on these conclusions and recommendations follow. 25

II. Function of the TAG

The principal and general characteristics of the TAG functions, since their creation to date, have been the following:

1. Meetings and experts. The TAG have fulfilled with the celebration of their annual meetings, according to what their policy establish. The meetings were celebrated jointly with the CIP or CECIP meetings, as the representatives of those meetings are the same, more precisely during the four TAG meetings and also the CIP and CECIP meetings. However a reduced number of “experts” have participated in the TAGs’ matters relative to their member States, which have limited the progress of their deliberations and objectives.

2. Representatives of Member States. The member States registered in the TAG related to their priorities. However, it has been observed that the representatives have often fulfilled their attributed functions on an irregular basis, such as endorsing experts in respective matters, providing specialized information, organizing work and presentation on issues, and attracting associate members, among others. These contributions have been marginal.

3. Associate Members. The number of associate members by TAG differs, but an elevated correlation has been observed between the country of the chair and the associate members. Other member States (different from the one of the chair) have not been successful in attracting associate members to the TAG they integrate. The cost-benefit of the participation of associate members is not clearly defined and also there is a controversy regarding this cost-benefit, which creates difficulty in the possibility of attracting new members. There is also ambiguity concerning the membership duration for the associate member due to the US $1,000 quota payment. Finally, the responsibility assigned to the associate member has been occasional.

4. Work plan and its implementation . The annual work plan, approved by each TAG, consists in sub themes corresponding to the TAGs’ area of expertise and has also been touched upon in conferences by experts presented in corresponding meetings. This has been efficiently implemented. However, other tasks such as the elaboration of technical and specialized studies and papers; compilation and exchange of information; use of technologic systems specialized in the issue; design and maintenance of the data base with pertinent information for their work; identification of training needs; organization of national and international meetings and activities specialized in the sector; presentations of written reports on the advancements and results of their work and other forms of participatory commitments have been occasional, and their implementation the same.

5. Information and circulation. Neither TAG has materials for circulation and promotion in the languages of the Organization (Spanish, English, French and Portuguese), or an updated web page which allows them to inform and divulge their actions and serves as promotion tool to recruit new associate members and inform the general community of the port sector. 26

6. Office of the Chair. It has fulfilled an important and recognized effort in generating and working with the TAG, as well as particularly promoting it in its country. It is observed that some offices count on specialized personnel who are assigned to follow up on the TAGs issues. However, in almost all the cases, there is insufficient coordination with the member States, with its associate members and with the offices of the vice-chairs. The efforts made to communicate and promote the TAG, especially outside its country, have also been limited or inexistent.

7. Office of the Vice-Chair. Has fulfilled a role relatively marginal in the majority of the TAG, with little coordination with the office of the chair and practically an inexistent responsibility to follow up on specific tasks.

8. Coordination. In all the cases the coordination and communication between the integrants of a TAG, being the office of the president, vice-president, member States and associate members, have been very incipient or inexistent.

9. Budget and financial aspects. It is the function of the Chair to manage the collection of funds coming from the associate members. These contributions have been irregular and the Secretariat has fallen in collecting these quotas.

10. Evaluation of the TAG. Every two years, during the CIP meeting, TAGs have been evaluated. The sub committee established for this purpose has based its evaluation on the reports of activities that occurred during the two-year period in consideration and presented by their respective Chairs and on the report of the Sub committee on Policy and Coordination of the CECIP.

III. The TAG on Port Operations

1. Authorities, members, and finances. Chair: Mexico. Vice Chair: Internacional de Contenedores Asociados de Veracruz (ICAVE) (Mexico). Other member States: Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Peru, Saint Lucia, Suriname, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Associate Members: Abarloa (Mexico); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (United States); Compañía Marítima del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico); Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo Marítimo (INDESMAR) (Peru); Navegación Veracruzana (NAVEGA) (Mexico); OCAMAR (Venezuela); OCUPA (Mexico); Puerto de Altamira (Mexico), and Terminal Internacional del Sur (TISUR) (Peru). This TAG has the greatest number of associate members from different countries. Additionally, they contribute regularly to the TAG and generally this TAG has the greatest number of deposits. The TAG has gathered on seven occasions.

2. Ample subject matter. The issue “operations” practically involves all port matters, which provides a field that is very ample. As such, various sub-themes have been concentrated on such as infrastructure, administration and the operation of specialized terminals, information and telecommunications, port facilitation, logistics, industrial relations, operative and industrial safety, strategic planning, among others. With a variety of issues it is difficult to specialize in only one. 27

IV. The TAG on Port Security 12

1. Authorities, members, and finances. Chair: United States. Vice Chair: No selection. Other member States: Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Associate Members: Administración General de Puertos (Argentina); Maritime Security Council (United States); Port of Texas (United States); Stevedoring Services of America (United States); Puerto de Miami (United States); Rapiscan Security Products, Inc. (United States); IENPAC Golfo y Caribe SC (Mexico) and Programa de Seguridad Portuaria (Guatemala). This TAG has regional coordinators, who have a personal title that does not represent a member State. This TAG has the greatest number of the member States and emphasizes the regular participation of representatives and guests from the United States. The participation of associate members has been decreasing and they do not contribute.

2. An issue of priority that covered great intensity was the entry into force of the ISPS Code of the IMO in 2004. The issues covered include, Inter-American Program of Training for Port Security; training necessities (issues and instructors); security equipment, networks of security officials, Inter-American Program for Auto Evaluation on Port Security, technical assistance in materials in port security and financing; management and implementation of the ISPS Code; Inter-American Action Plan on Port Security, Strategic Framework for Inter-American Cooperation in Port Security Materials, among others. The issues have concentrated on issues of security in order to control the fight against terrorism and ban of drug trafficking. Nevertheless, other security issues (anti- theft, smuggling, pirating, among others) have been covered less extensively. The TAG has supported the organization of two Hemispheric Conferences on Port Security (Miami 2004 and Puerto La Cruz 2006) and has gathered on nine occasions.

V. The TAG on Navigation Safety

1. Authorities, members, and finances. Chair: Argentina. Vice Chair: Ecuador. Other member States: Barbados, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, United States, and Venezuela. Associate Members: Consorcio de Gestión del Puerto de Bahía Blanca (Argentina); Hidrovía (Argentina); Mollendo Equipment Co., Inc. (United States); Norcontrol IT (Mexico); Administración General de Puertos (Argentina); and Sabik- Mobilis (United States). The participation and support of the associate members has been decreasing.

2. Issue areas have primarily been the supply of information on the system of control of ship traffic (VTS – Vessel Traffic Systems and AIS – Autonomous Intelligent Systems), determining the training necessities of pilots and sets of standards and definitions of professional profiles for VTS operators. The TAG has gathered as a new advisory group one occasion and connected with another TAG in six opportunities.

12 The original name of the TAG in English is “TAG on Port Security” which corresponds in Spanish as “CTC sobre Protección Portuaria,” and should be corrected in Spanish. Also, this TAG does not include the issue in English of “Safety” which in Spanish is “Seguridad.” 28

VI. The TAG on Environmental Port Protection

1. Authorities, members, and finances. Chair: Venezuela. Vice-Chair: Panama. Other member States: Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Ecuador, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay. The TAG has one member: Ocean Pollution Control (Panama).

2. Issue Areas. The TAG has covered the following sub-themes from its commencement: the situation of countries in MARPOL, OPRC, and international environmental conventions, the identification of training necessities in the fight against contingencies, the organization of technical reports available in each country in the fight against contingencies, the development of environmental management plans, a proposal to exchange information among members in charge of dangerous cargo, the creation of a network to exchange experiences on the requirements of each country (Port Estate Control), the elaboration of a specific guide for ports on the potential for the certification of ports in ISO 14000, and the establishment of contingency plans for hydrocarbon spills. The TAG has celebrated the First Hemispheric Conference on Environmental Port Protection (Panama 2007). It has gathered as a new advisory group on one occasion and connected to another TAG in six opportunities.

VII. Recommendations

In order to improve the management of these advisory organs of the CIP and reach an active participation of all the members of a TAG, the following recommendations are proposed.

1. General Recommendations

(i) Reinforce the concept of the TAG as an advisory organ to the Committee in specific matters of the hemispheric port sector. As such, each TAG should cover only one specific matter of the port sector, clearly defined and that it be covered exclusively. (ii) Emphasize the importance of technical leadership, the promotion and coordination of the office of the President of each TAG, in addition to the contribution of administrative and financial resources. (iii) Identify the relevant participation of associate members in the TAG, which should be established clearly, and in each case, the cost benefit of their participation that guarantees a payment of US $2,000 for two year duration of the TAG. (iv) Strengthen the annual work programs of each TAG, not only with presentations from experts on topics of interests, but also including activities that generate a greater impact in the achievement of the TAG’s objectives, such as the development of studies, documents, exchange of information, training activities, among others. (v) Fix quantifiable goals for the work plan activities of each TAG in order to facilitate their evaluation and that they are as objective as possible. (vi) Establish the forum of the CIP Conferences as spaces of inter-American port dialogue principally for the TAG, but not exclusively. (vii) Organize a manual or procedural guide that includes a series of spaces in the CIP 29

regulations, on the function of each TAG.

2. For the office of the Chair

(i) Define the structure of the office of the chair identifying functions, responsibilities, and support, among others. (ii) Elaborate documents, pamphlets, and other written informational materials, in at least two languages of the Organization, that serve to circulate and promote its actions, for the two year period. (iii) Design and maintain a webpage that includes all of the information pertinent to the TAG, such as objectives, functions, work plans, information on specialists from member States, information on associate members, next activities, among others. (iv) Designate functions for the office of the vice chair establishing specific responsibilities and work to be done during the exercise of the term. (v) Define clearly the cost benefit in order to attract the participation of associate members of the TAG. (vi) Establish a plan to attract associate members and cover their fee for two years. (vii) Maintain a narrow coordination and communication with other members of the TAG.

3. For the member States

(i) Define the functions and responsibilities of the member States of the TAG. (ii) Urge specialists in the issues of each TAG, which the member State belongs to, to participate in the meetings and work of the TAG. (iii) Fix areas of designation for member States in the area of specialization of each TAG, in such a way that these registrations allow for an understanding of the human resources available in each area. (iv) Participate regularly in the annual meetings of the TAG making presentations, gathering specialized information on the issues and assisting in the achievements of the TAG. (v) Urge each Member State of a TAG to manage the support of the associate members of each TAG.

4. For associate members

(i) Define the functions and responsibilities of each associate member. (ii) Participate regularly in the annual meetings of the TAG making presentations, gathering specialized information in the issues and assisting in the achievements of the TAG. (iii) Facilitate the participation of the associate members in the meetings and conferences of the CIP, ensuring that they are up to date with their contributions. (iv) Define that for the associate member the duration period of membership to the TAG is for two years, initiating in 2008-2009 and the fee will be in the amount of US $2,000 for that period. The fee should be deposited to the Secretariat of the CIP/OAS. 30

Annexe 3

Format: Program of Activities 31

2010-2011 CIP PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES NAME OF ACTIVITY...... CODE......

ACTION PLAN PRIORITY AREA 2008-2011

ORGANIZING UNIT (Subcommittee/TAG)

GENERAL OBJECTIVE:

......

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

1......

......

2......

......

3......

...... ESTIMATED GOALS PERIOD BUDGET

1......

2......

3......

4......

5......

COUNTRY IN CHARGE:...... PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES:......

COORDINATOR: 32

MAIL: TELEPHONE: FAX:

QUANTIFIABLE GOALS

(i) Organization of different types of meetings: (a) Hemispheric Conferences, which consists of competitions on special themes with the participation of government employees, national and international experts on the topic, and special guests from observing countries, international organisms and the private sector. The conferences will draw up a “Recommendations Agreement” which will be submitted to the corresponding CIP authorities. (b) Seminars, regional, sub regional or national, which are meetings of national or international specialists, the public and private sector, where information and experiences are exchanged on a specific topic with the intent of participants expanding their knowledge and promoting rapprochement between the parties. Reports from the seminars will be issued and will include, if advisable, the conclusions and recommendations reached by the participants. (c) Courses, international or national, aimed at training employees of the public and private sector, of general or specific nature; lectured by international experts. Reports of the courses will be elaborated and could include the participants’ evaluation. (d) Workshops, on precise topics, where a small group of experts meet with the specific assignment of elaborating a document, manual or report, which is meant to serve as a starting point for a project of higher judicial hierarchy.

(ii) Elaboration of reports: (a) Casual reports or documents issued occasionally by a working group, integrated by numerous delegations, or by a particular delegation in charge of a topic within the Subcommittee (for example, recommendations on a specific topic, the compilation of documents and their presentation in a predetermined order) submitted in an electronic or printed format. (b) Periodic reports or documents issued on a specific topic by a working group or a delegation, periodically, (for example statistics, management indicators, etc.) submitted in an electronic or printed format (c) Newsletters or publications on a regular basis with diverse information on a topic or topics aimed at keeping the employees of different countries of the port and related sectors informed and submitted in an electronic or printed format. (d) WEB page, that is, an electronic page with general or specific information, found on the INTERNET, under the supervision of an institution or people responsible for its maintenance.

(iii) Other disciplines: (a) Internships through which one or numerous employees of one or more countries attend during a certain period to receive training in another country’s facilities. Reports of the internships will be issued by the recipient as well as the beneficiary countries. (b) Direct technical assistance which consist in sending one or numerous experts of one or more countries to another with the goal of offering information and knowledge that will be of great use for the recipient country; this discipline will be able to include or not an account of the courses. The recipient country will issue a report on the assistance received. 33 (c) Inter-American awards are official, public or special ceremonial recognitions of individuals or institutions that stand out in specific topics or that have or are performing an outstanding job in certain activities.