Quality of work of the external EU border crossing points

Technical conditions on the border crossing

Access to the information on the law regulations

Information on customs issues is available in Russian and English at the site of the Russian Federal Customs Service (www.customs.ru). No information on border-crossing regulations was located at the site of the Russian Border Guard Service (http://fps.fsb.ru/). Instead, the border-crossing point transit process is thoroughly described at tourist-oriented websites (e.g. www.travel.ru/news/2006/06/19/90803.html).

According to travelers, at the actual border-crossing point you people can access information at the special stands. The information on them is available in English, Estonian and Russian. As to the Estonian version, one respondent mentioned: “I <...> saw this plaque on the exit, with the regulations in Estonian and Russian. And that Estonian version had really lots of mistakes, which for me as a teacher of Estonian is weird”.

Besides the stands, the traveler may contact the shift supervisor. “There phone numbers of the shift supervisor, the bosses, where one can call in emergencies and all, since if you got into trouble, you’re fully able to call and clarify all the nuances with the administration”.

The simplest prompt method to obtain information on the regulations, according to travelers, is to address border guard or customs officers directly.

From the traveler’s point of view, the pressing issues are the rules for transit of goods cross the border, the list of documents necessary for border-crossing, and also the possible delay intervals at the border.

Waiting time and lines organization

In the course of all interviews, various opinions were expressed as to the efficiency level of the Kunichina Gora border-crossing point. On the whole, the quality of the border-crossing point’s work is assessed by the travelers as satisfactory. The main travelers’ complain is that the process is too long. This problem is not pressing for pedestrians, but it does show for those who cross the border by bus, and becomes most acute for those who cross by car.

I.e. the main factor, upon which the border-crossing transit times depend, is the transport mode. The quickest way is that of pedestrians. In such instance no more than 20 minutes is required. Crossing by a passenger bus takes at around one hour. While if the traveler goes by car, the procedure may take several hours. And truck drivers can queue for days.

A motor vehicle requires greater deal of attention during the inspection, which shows in inspection time costs: “The problem arises with transport, but that is again connected with the inspection process – you need to open it up, look in, climb all around it – this is why the transport passes through so slowly, and the regular citizens crossing on foot don’t have any problems”.

The procedure of passing through the border-crossing point is as follows. Upon entrance, the traveler receives an individual pass ticket. If it is a passenger bus, its driver receives a set of such tickets for the number of passengers. The traveler passes through the customs. After this the passport control follows, which includes visual verification of the photo in the passport with its owner’s face, answering questions that may arise by the border guards as to previous border-crossing, as well as to the level of acceptability of the documents the traveler holds. On top of that come the standard questions like “Are you transferring any illegal goods?” The last link is the exit checkpoint of the border guards, where the person crossing the border submits the ticket with validation marks from the previous control stages.

The facility employees do conduct some activities aimed at speeding this process up. For instance, respondents note that sometimes during the passport control procedure queues occur. When such things happen, border guard officers form more temporary checkpoints: “There were fairly many passengers on the bus, and there were two windows open, so there was a queue. And so a third representative came out and started to check the passports of the people at the end of the line, stamping and all”.

Yet, such efforts are obviously insufficient. The conclusion is apparent: the checking procedure does not meet high efficiency requirements. One of the obstacles is the use of the ticket, which accumulates all the validation marks. There is no such procedure on the Estonian side. “It [checkpoint passing procedure] could be optimized only if the marks would be canceled. This is often done in the European Union”. “If it weren’t for that customs stamp, it would be just a passport check”.

Unfortunately, we did not manage to meet the representatives of the Kunichina Gora facility to discuss, among other things, the need in this ticket.

On the other hand, the entire pool of the opinions on passport control collected also contained some critical remarks. Some respondents thought the passport control procedure was way too long and complicated, and that it could be reduced. To boost the efficiency of the procedure several steps may be taken.

One of the interviewees mentioned that there was insufficient information on behavioral patterns at the border-crossing point: “The information stands are too few, because I had this situation myself: at the Kunichina Gora point one shouldn’t use cell phones; so you get a phone call or you call some place, and they get some disturbance, and so the staff of the checkpoint are extremely irritated with it, and people – they make calls and get told off <...> But there is no warning, just the reprimands post factum”. Such remarks of the travelers are again evident to the fact that the work to improve efficiency is insufficient. The checkpoint’s personnel suppose that the greater part of their ‘clients’ are experienced border-crossers. Otherwise it is hard to explain, why the personnel do not try to adjust the border-crossing process to such extent, when a ‘new comer’ – an inexperienced border-crosser – also would not have doubts about the obvious truisms like a cell phone call. Having applied no effort to provide the information support for the border-crossing process, the personnel have to waste their time to familiarize the ‘inexperienced’ travelers with the everyday norms. So, on the whole, the more experience a traveler has, the more advantageous is his position.

Another such element is the inputting of passport data in the computer system. The border guard officer inputs passport data into the database every time the traveler crosses the border at the checkpoint. It is obvious that the information from the passport is already stored in the database from the time of the first crossing via the checkpoint. So, why not use the database search function, e.g. by passport number? Apparently, this requires upgrading the software, and that should be something the border guard service may not accommodate at the moment.

The third such element is the paper ticket given to the traveler upon entrance, which is then used to accumulate the validation marks on clearance of all types of control, and is turned in at the exit. At the present time, the necessity of such auxiliary control effort may well be doubted, specifically so, when all working stations of the checkpoints – both those of the border guards and customs officers – can be connected into a local area network. As soon as the traveler passes through the first checkpoint, all of the workstations built into the chain of border guard and customs control receive a relevant entry with the information on the person crossing. All the marks in such instance are made digitally instead of on paper. This, on one hand, will speed up the control procedure; on the other hand it will reduce in the complexity of the registration procedures run by the staff. Naturally, organizing this kind of procedure requires extra expenditures for additional hardware and software, as well as for staff training. But in the long run, this will positively affect the time cost for the people crossing the border, as well as reduce the human factor in control procedures.

One of our respondents characterized the status of the computer pool at the crossing point this way: “There are these computers that halt at times. I don’t know if it’s any better now, but the computers there used to be of pretty poor quality, halting all the time”.

The shifting procedure is also underdeveloped: by the time one group of staff have done their duty, the next shift have not yet started to perform their duties. Thus, shifting becomes a standby period for the travelers.

There are examples indicating the insufficient quality of the checkpoint’s amenities, which results in conflicts between the travelers and the staff. One of the respondents described a situation, when the pedestrian restriction line ran right across a huge puddle. The respondent attempted to walk around the puddle, naturally violating the restriction lines of the lane, which resulted in loud warnings and even shouting on the part of the staff.

Access to and standard of - toilets, bar/restaurant, foreign exchange office

Among the opinions voiced on the issue of access to toilets there were no negative views. “Concerning the toilets, they are there and they work. No customs officer or border guard would want the consequences of nonoperational toilets”. The only reprimand went to the absence of noticeable toilet signage: “If you are walking – especially for the first time – you just don’t know where the toilet is”. Thus, in order to find a water closet, one needs to address the staff of the point.

Respondents also note the lack of toilets for the physically challenged at the checkpoint.

At the Kunichina Gora checkpoint there is a foreign currency exchange, but none of the interviewees has ever experienced its service.

The question whether the checkpoint is complete with a bar, or a café had one of the interviewees say there was no such necessity: “Say, if a person is crossing by car, he has to queue. And you can queue a long time. But the border-crossing itself takes an hour, if no violations are found, and if he doesn’t get transferred to detailed inspection – and then, there’s a café before the border, the one at the gas station, and there’s a café after. <...> So, it’s senseless to make a café at the border”. “The border doesn’t take up so much time, as to really need some super comfort”.

A contrasting opinion also resulted: the presence of a cafeteria on the Estonian side was valuated positively, whereas its absence on the Russian side was viewed as negative. Some drawbacks in the work of the Estonian cafeteria were also mentioned: it opens 9 o’clock local time. For Russian travelers it is already 10 o’clock, and by this time they manage to cross the border, idle at the bus stop awhile, and finally leave hungry with a bus.

A respondent, who is crossing the border through the checkpoint regularly by car, suggested organizing in the area where the cars queue to pass the checkpoint a Wi-Fi Internet access point. A person may spend several hours by the checkpoint queuing. For many people using the Internet could become an opportunity to do some of their work remotely, or a good way to pass the time.

Such an opportunity could be offered for a fee, and the arrangement of the service could be outsourced in a commercial company with the compulsory condition of part of the revenues from the service to go to the account of the Border Guard Administration. That would bring about a budget relief for the state and yield additional funds to maintain and develop checkpoints.

Personal qualification of Border Guards

One traveler stressed that the Kunichina Gora checkpoint has existed already 15 years servicing travelers of completely different categories and citizenships: “It’s an international point, they go through it to the port of Tallinn, or to get on the plane in Tallinn airport, and all sorts of people go through there: cargo trucks, Poles, Swedes, Finns and Danes and!” Thus, in the opinion of the respondent, as of today, the personnel of the checkpoint have accumulated vast experience of doing their duty, including complex problem-solving and emergency response. This is why on the whole the quality of work with the travelers is satisfactory in the least.

Travelers note that not all body guards speak English. Yet, in a situation requiring communication in a different language, an interpreter may be called for. Notably, at the Kunichina Gora checkpoint it is not only translation to English – a factual international language, or Estonian –one of the two service languages – may be conducted, but also into other European languages, for instance, the Dutch.

Behaviour of Border Guards during passport control

Among the interviewed travelers the opinion that the Kunichina Gora checkpoint border guards treat the people crossing the border properly and politely was expressed several times. In words of one of the interviewees, this is due to the fact that the Kunichina Gora checkpoint is frequently used by Europeans, so the personnel simply have to sustain the level of service adequate to the other border-crossing points along the state border.

Border guards address travelers only using the polite form of the second person pronoun, refraining from use of indicative pronouns.

Respondents accentuate that no cavils are put across to travelers on the part of border guards. “It’s because if a border guard cavils about something creating trouble for himself, it’s he who will have to write it off. And, if he is a sensible person, he will not add on extra work for himself, unless he has grounds or confidence in the results. Since that is a very long process: agreeing, writing off and other nuances – and why the hell would he want that for?”

One of the respondents drives in an example of how the personnel agreed to soften the requirements to persons crossing in order to help. “Among the members of our delegation there was a student, and by the moment of crossing the border she was not 18 yet, she still head 2.5 months before she’d turn 18. In such cases, according to the Russian legislation, it is required that the group leader or the actual person crossing present a power of attorney from the parents, stating that the latter allow this person to cross the border independently. In the situation with that student that had not been done – she hadn’t taken the trouble, neither had her parent, nor indeed we, so the border guards refused to let her through, but in about 10-15 minutes of my arguing and my persuasions that we bear full responsibility and so on, they agreed to accommodate us.”

According to one of the respondents, one and a half years ago the preliminary border control started as you approached the town of Pechory. It is considered to be a border town, i.e. it requires major state security efforts. “I got on the train and was in my seat, and there was a young man next to me – he went to have a smoke a couple of times, and then he came up to me individually, flashed his emigration service ID and asked me to show him mine.” This case illustrates the selective control of the people arriving to Pechory. The mentioning by the interviewee of the fact that it was the only case of such individual check for him, and that, in his view, this was no longer the practice, speaks for the increase in body guard agencies’ trust in regular citizens.