Border authorities have long known more, in advance, about air passengers than about those arriving by sea. That gap does not have to exist. A country has one border, so knowing who’s coming shouldn’t depend on how they arrive.
Three decades of trusted data exchange, common standards, advance assessment and government-industry coordination in the air travel industry have shown what earlier insight can make possible. To close the maritime visibility gap, governments, policymakers and operators need to turn these principles into an approach built around maritime’s people, operations, legislation and infrastructure.
Key takeaways
- Maritime’s complex journeys, operating models, connectivity constraints and differing national requirements are essential in shaping how the visibility gap is closed.
- Maritime does not need to start from scratch. It can build on decades of border experience while designing an operating model that fits the realities of the maritime industry.
- No organization owns the entire maritime journey. Authorities, operators, ports and industry bodies have to co-design the operating model before technology can then connect the data and put it to work.
Border agencies can’t act on what they can’t see
One thing keeps coming back in every conversation I have with border authorities: they need a complete view of who is entering their country, regardless of how they arrive. Yet, when it comes to maritime, that view is often harder to achieve. Information is already collected and exchanged, but that does not necessarily make it operationally useful. It must reach the responsible authority in a usable form, early enough to support action.
Frameworks such as the IMO FAL Convention and Maritime Single Windows already let ships, ports and public authorities share information electronically. But digitizing ship clearance does not automatically give border authorities a timely, operational view of each traveler and crew member. Requirements vary by country, responsibilities are distributed across agencies, and information collected for one purpose may not reach the border teams that need it. Even where other sectors have automated these processes, maritime still relies heavily on manual exchange.
The journey adds to that complexity. A cruise itinerary may include several ports of call across multiple countries, with guests and crew embarking and disembarking at different points. Information can therefore change throughout the journey, as can the requirements that apply at each arrival.
Information that is delivered too late limits the time available to assess risk and prepare for an arrival. Information that is incomplete or difficult to use can obscure what needs attention. And information that does not reach the responsible authority creates a blind spot.
I believe the industry is at an important turning point. As maritime reporting becomes increasingly digital, there is an opportunity to design information exchange around operational border outcomes, rather than hardwiring today’s disconnected processes into tomorrow’s systems.
Closing the gap on maritime’s terms
When looking at this gap, it may be tempting to ask how the aviation model can be replicated at sea.
That’s the wrong question.
Aviation has spent decades establishing many of the principles that make earlier border decisions possible. Advance passenger information and PNR, risk assessment and targeting, and digital travel authorization have all helped turn trusted information, common standards, advance assessment and government-industry coordination into working border processes. Those lessons are valuable, but the processes built around them reflect the realities of air travel.
Maritime has different realities. A single cruise ship can carry thousands of people for weeks at a time, with crew traveling under their own documentation and permissions. Vessel types also operate differently, connectivity can’t always be assumed, and responsibilities vary between countries.
From what I've experienced, that complexity can and should be the starting point. And designing a successful operating model means asking the right questions: What information does an authority genuinely need? When does it become available? Who holds it? Which agency needs it? What happens when connectivity is limited? And where in the journey can a decision realistically be made?
El Salvador is a great example of a country that’s working toward closing this gap. Through a single platform connecting airlines, cruise operators and border authorities, advance traveler and crew information can be processed before arrival. This will give their border teams an earlier and more complete view of air and sea travelers, helping them identify who requires closer attention before they reach the country.
What I hear across the industry is clear and consistent: any effective approach must begin with the realities of maritime. The principles that have strengthened borders over the past three decades in air travel provide the foundation, but maritime’s ecosystem must determine how they are applied.
The technology can connect, but the industry must come together
If maritime’s realities determine how the operating model is designed, they also determine who needs to be involved.
Technology can collect, exchange and analyze information, but it cannot determine the policy, responsibilities and operational decisions around it. Governments and industry must agree what information is required, who provides it, which authority receives it and how it should inform a border decision.
No single player owns all of those decisions.
I’ve witnessed first-hand why that distinction matters. Some governments can already receive maritime-specific manifests, but that is only one link in the chain. Operators need clear and consistent requirements for what to submit and how, while governments need processes that turn the information they receive into something their border teams can act on.
The real question is therefore not whether the technology exists. It is whether governments, border agencies, operators, ports and industry bodies can agree what the information exchange needs to achieve, and how each party contributes to that outcome. Only then can technology connect the information and put it to work.
And that agreement is worth reaching, because closing the gap isn't only a win for authorities.
For cruise and ferry operators, clearer and more consistent requirements mean fewer manual submissions and reconciliations, and less duplication where the same information goes to several agencies or several ports of call on one itinerary. Resolving passenger and crew exceptions before arrival means less disruption on the day, smoother disembarkation and crew changes, and a better experience on board and ashore.
For ports, more predictable arrivals support better planning of terminal resources and quicker turnaround. When information flows earlier, and only needs to be provided once, everyone in the journey benefits.
The challenge is shared, the answer must be too
The next step is to move from principles to pilots. Start with one real journey, one operator and one authority. Map where information and responsibilities need to connect, agree the decision that needs to be made, identify the minimum information required to make it, and test whether it can be delivered early enough to change the outcome. Then scale what works. That is how we will move maritime border visibility forward.
FAQs
