4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
APCS are widely known as Automated Border Control (ABC). It was introduced as best practice of other countries but modeled to resolve a unique problem. It was found practical to replicate the same in Rwanda but in its special context. Citizens that make informal trade carry their luggage in manual ways (on their heads, backs or in hands) except the people with disability who use tricycles. These conditions dictated the design of a special ABC that can be able to cope with problem.
• It works in an outside and open environment: This brings conveniences to the citizens.
• Once in the control zone, a person will have to proceed and if he/she does not have proper document, will be detected.
• The system is innovative as it prints border passes valid for only 24 hours and contains a security number which can be used for movements’ records.
• Special lane for people with disability: The APCS was designed to cater for such category of users.
• Conditions to use finger prints: for conveniences, it was important to choose a biometric which could make life easier to the travelers especially those carrying their luggage on heads or their backs.
|
|
5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
The initiative was implemented by the Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration (DGIE) in collaboration with local authorities and Private Sector Federation (PSF). The district of Rubavu had the same challenge as DGIE of managing its population that trades across the border on daily basis. The Private Sector Federation also needed a system which can help cross border traders. The population affected by the initiative is about 70,000. The next line is the people and business whose survival relies on those crossing the borders; these include families and other service providers and schools.
The project started by the border community of Rubavu District. They are citizens living in the defined sectors: Rubavu, Rugerero, Gisenyi, Nyamyumba, Bugeshi, Busasamana and Cyanzarwe. Sixty nine thousand and four hundred and fifty (69,450) citizens are registered and use the auto-gates to cross the border. Indeed the registration is continuous. About 260,917 residents of the mentioned sectors can benefit from the system to visit or conduct business in Goma populated by around 1,7million of people. As soon as the traveler who belongs to the border community wishes to cross the border he/ she is registered and allowed to use the APCS. The registration is done once for all and can be done in one minute by using the National ID card.
|
6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
The conception of the APCS started back in July 2012. An internal project team was formed and was made of the Technical Engineers. Later the team was extended and included stakeholders from other Ministries which formed the technical committee. The committee included technical experts from Rwanda Development Board (RDB), National Identification Agency (NIDA), Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) and Rwanda National Police, Rubavu district authorities, Private Sector Federation and representative of cross border traders.
The team worked together to initiate the project, develop the technical specifications necessary to procure the system, implement the project and carry out the awareness and post implementation management.
The APCS being new project of its nature in the country, the technical committee had no all expertise. It was therefore important to conduct research, consult individual experts and carry out study tours were similar projects were successfully implemented.
A small group of technicians had a study tour in Hong Kong where the Immigration Department in Hong Kong, shared with them their experience on ABC. An independent consultant was used to put in place ideas on how to design the system.
In October 2013, the APCS was installed and the registration process started. An awareness program started via public talk show on radio and different consultative meetings with the local leaders. Mass registration of the citizens took five months, followed by use of the APCS by volunteering travelers. In January 2015, all the travelers of the border communities were obliged to use the auto-gates when crossing the border. The statistics indicate a daily crossing of about 45,000 travelers of the Rwandan community.
The APCS project was funded by the Government of Rwanda through the development budget. Today, the APCS is maintained by the DGIE IT department that carries out the system maintenance and project management for future extension. There is good return on investment in human capacity, in terms of reducing number of staff who works at the border and reduction in terms of clearance time.
|
|
7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
The project was initiated by the DGIE Management. It formed a project team made of the experts from the IT, Legal and Procurement departments. The team was headed by the Director responsible of the Border Management.
• Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC); technical advice, assistance in the awareness Campaign and assistance of the Local Leaders in the awareness campaign and registration process.
• Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA); technical advice and acquisition of land to construct the building that would host the auto-gates
• Private Sector Federation (PSF); technical advice, determination of traders’ needs participation in concept and analysis.
• Association of women cross border traders and association of people with disability operating tricycles for trade; requirements initiation and validation
• National Identification Agency (NIDA); technical support on citizens’ registration and support on use of the biometric data.
• Rwanda Development Board (RDB) - IT department; technical support on network infrastructure and use of optic fiber.
• Rwanda National Police (RNP); law enforcement
DGIE recognizes the work done and support provided by all the stakeholders. It could not implement this project without their support. In the project’s weekly meetings, stakeholders participated with all their efforts towards the successful project completion.
|
|
8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
The APCS has tremendously boosted the cross border movements, increased the workers’ productivity and boosted the informal trade which contributes to the country’s economy. We can list five concrete outputs of the project:
• Increased number of travelers: before introduction of the APCS, the number of travelers crossing the border including the border communities was in the range of 25,000 travelers per day. Today the daily movement records indicate between 40,000 to 45,000 travelers. That is almost a double of the previous numbers. We note that 70 % of the travelers using the border are the border communities.
• Increased number of cooperatives of the disabled persons: the disable persons at the border have different cooperatives involved in informal trade. Before the introduction of the APCS, it took longer to clear the disable persons with their goods. Usually, disabled persons use tricycle to park the goods. One tricycle is used by up to six (6) persons. The driver who is always the disable person and at least two to three helpers and sometimes up to five (5) depending on the size of the luggage. Today we count 200 Cooperatives from 120 before APCS.
• Enhancing border control: before the APCS, the Immigration officers carried out manual clearance of all travelers. The work was quite difficult and tiresome as it required first to manually read the names written on the ID card, do manual verification, and then issues the border pass. Being a manual process it was difficult to insure an efficient control. The Officers could not work in a consistent manner for up to 12 hours whereas the APCS does so.
• Increased worker productivity: two individuals manage ten (10) auto-gates and two (2) wheel chair kiosks on daily basis. There is a mandatory Officer in the control room of the APCS. He/ she monitor all activities inside the auto-gates whereas the second Officer assist and guide travelers who may need any assistance especially novice travelers and the wheel chair kiosks.
• Secure identification of travelers: travelers are securely identified through the use of their finger prints. The auto-gate detects one person at a time. It has the capability to detect tail gating and travelers who may use cards which do not belong to them.
|
|
9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
The APCS being the first of its kind in the country was a challenging project in nature. The challenges included:
• Mass registration of the border community: During that period even those who were not planning to travel came for registration. This created long queues in a way that some attended the offices at mid-night to register in the morning from 7:00AM. It required carrying out an intensive public awareness and informing the citizens that the registration will continue.
• Novice Users: in the beginning none of the citizens was aware of the system usage. Novice travelers were not confident enough of the self-clearance. When including the human behaviors it could take up to a minute for clearance instead of 16 seconds. It required accompanying travelers until they become more used.
• Choice of biometric: use of finger print was the best choice when considering the citizens activities where some transport goods on their head or backs. Facial recognition could not be an option. However, finger print matching took longer simply that the hands of some of the citizens were not clean. With the awareness they were engaged in proper usage of the system, hence cleaning of their hands.
• Mind set: some citizens resisted on the system. There were rumors that using the APCS would affect their health status. Through the awareness program, these citizens were explained of the functionality of the system and that it will not affect any health system of individual.
• Resistance to Change: some staff at the border, resisted on the use of the system. There were long queues caused by mass registration and assistance to the citizens to use the system. An awareness program was done and as a result they ended up seeing the system helpful than causing hectic work to them.
|