The OECS is considering a digital corridor that could allow a vessel cleared in one participating port to continue through the region without repeating the same procedures at every call. The proposal promises greater visibility and shorter processing times, but its implementation will depend on more than technology.
A vessel serving several Eastern Caribbean islands may be required to provide similar information at each port of call. The authorities change, the national rules remain in force and the same journey can generate a succession of administrative procedures.
During the 29th Annual General Meeting of the Port Management Association of the Caribbean in Paramaribo, PMAC Chairman Darwin Telemaque presented a different model: a digital corridor connecting OECS ports through a common platform.
Under the proposed system, a vessel cleared in one participating territory could be recognised by the others as it moves through the region. Telemaque linked the idea to shorter processing times, greater visibility and lower costs, while acknowledging that it remains a mission rather than an operational system.
One digital space for several port calls
The proposal is based on a simple operational question: why should a ship repeat the same clearance process whenever it moves from one OECS port to another?
Telemaque used Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as an example. Once a vessel had been cleared there, the information could become visible to the other participating authorities as the ship continued its route between islands.
“Not only is it cleared everywhere in the OECS, it is seen by everyone in the OECS as it moves from one island to the next.”
A regional platform could therefore provide ports and public agencies with a shared view of the vessel’s status, route and previously submitted information. Instead of rebuilding the administrative file at every call, the next port could focus on what has changed, what remains outstanding or what requires further control.
The potential gains would be particularly relevant for vessels making several calls within a limited period. Inter-island services could face fewer repeated procedures, while cruise ships might recover part of the time currently absorbed by administrative processing.
Telemaque argued that the corridor could reduce processing times by hours or even days. The available sources, however, do not quantify the current delays or establish how much time an operational corridor would save. Those benefits therefore remain projected rather than demonstrated.
The proposal clears the ship, not automatically its cargo
The word clearance creates an important ambiguity.
Telemaque explicitly clarified that the proposal concerns the vessel:
“Not the cargo on the ship, just the ship.”
A ship clearance normally covers the information and authorisations required for a vessel to enter, remain in and depart from a port. Cargo clearance involves a different set of procedures, including customs declarations, duties, inspections and compliance with import or export rules.
The corridor should therefore not be interpreted as an existing OECS-wide customs union in which all cargo would be released after a single declaration.
A vessel cleared in Saint Lucia might, under the proposed model, continue towards Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Anguilla or Montserrat without restarting the same vessel-entry process. The cargo on board could still remain subject to national customs and regulatory requirements.
The distinction also applies to passengers and crew. Immigration, health and security authorities would need to determine which decisions could be recognised across territories and which controls would still have to be completed locally.
This is why the corridor cannot be reduced to a single software connection. It would require governments to define the precise legal effect of a clearance granted elsewhere.
Digitalisation alone will not create a corridor
Connecting several national platforms does not automatically produce an integrated regional system.
For a clearance decision to move from one territory to another, the participating authorities would need to agree on:
- the information that must be submitted;
- the format and definition of each data field;
- the authority responsible for validating it;
- the users permitted to access or update it;
- the circumstances requiring an additional inspection;
- and the responsibility for incorrect or incomplete information.
The systems would also need to identify the same vessel consistently and retain a reliable record of each decision. A digital corridor becomes useful only when the receiving authority can trust both the data and the institution that validated it.
The proposal is therefore as much about mutual recognition as it is about technology.
Without common rules, the corridor could simply reproduce existing procedures on a new platform. Ports might receive information more quickly while still being required to repeat the same checks because the previous decision has no legal standing in their territory.
Ports and Customs need a clearer operating relationship
The corridor also raises a broader institutional issue: how ports and Customs divide responsibilities during a port call.
Telemaque referred to discussions held in Saint Lucia involving port and customs authorities, the OECS, the World Bank and the European Union. PMAC had been invited to represent the interests of the ports.
According to his account, the meeting examined costs generated when ports and Customs do not coordinate their processes effectively. He argued that both sides need a clearer understanding of their respective roles and that these responsibilities should be reflected in appropriate legislation.
The point is not to remove customs controls or transfer regulatory authority to port operators. Customs administrations remain responsible for border protection, revenue collection and the enforcement of national rules.
Port authorities, however, manage the infrastructure, vessel calls and operational environment in which many of those controls take place. When the procedures of the two institutions are poorly aligned, vessels, agents and cargo owners may face duplicated requests, unclear instructions or longer processing times.
A regional corridor would make that relationship even more important. Before one territory can recognise another’s decision, each country must first establish who is authorised to issue it.
Suriname is building one of the national foundations
Although Suriname is not part of the OECS, its own digitalisation project illustrates the groundwork that regional interoperability requires.
Reza Karg, Manager of Corporate Affairs at the Suriname Port Management Company, said the country is working on the implementation of a Port Community System.
Such a project brings together more than the port authority. Karg referred to shipping agents, service providers and other stakeholder groups whose activities converge around the port.
He also highlighted the participation of a representative from Suriname Customs in the PMAC meeting. According to Karg, it was the first time someone from the country’s customs administration had joined these exchanges to hear directly about the experiences and challenges faced by ports.
“That’s of benefit to us when we want to implement the Port Community System now.”
His comments demonstrate why digital transformation must begin with institutional participation. Customs cannot simply be connected after the technical platform has been designed. Shipping agents and service providers also need to help define the information flows and procedures they will use.
The Surinamese project is not evidence that an OECS corridor already exists. It is a practical Caribbean example of the national coordination that must happen before separate systems can be connected regionally.
Technology can prepare information, but authorities still make the decisions
The PMAC programme also included proposals for using single-window systems, artificial intelligence and digital inspection tools to process information before a vessel or container arrives.
During the technology presentation, Leif Ollivierre described a model in which the ship could be pre-cleared through a single window, while digital tools could support advance cargo processing and risk-based inspections.
The presentation suggested that documents, container images and inspection records could be consolidated in one digital environment, giving ports, Customs, shipping lines and freight forwarders greater visibility before arrival.
These tools could support a corridor, but they do not establish regional policy. A vendor may demonstrate that data can be collected or exchanged; only the competent authorities can determine whether that information is sufficient to grant an authorisation.
The technology presented in Paramaribo should therefore be understood as an illustration of what may become technically possible, not as a system already selected by the OECS.
From a regional vision to an operating system
Several fundamental decisions remain unresolved in the available sources.
The participating territories would need to define the corridor’s governance, financing and technical architecture. They would also have to decide which procedures would be mutually recognised and how exceptions would be handled.
No confirmed launch date, pilot project, budget or selected platform was announced in the material reviewed for this article.
The corridor remains a proposal. Its value lies in shifting the discussion from isolated national digitalisation projects towards a regional operating model.
The technology required to exchange vessel information increasingly exists. The harder task will be securing agreement between governments, ports and border agencies on how that information can be trusted, reused and legally recognised from one island to the next.
