Refusing Arrival Fees

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You dont mince words boaty

Australia also requires visa processing pre arrival.

Actually.. no they do not.. all they require is notification of arrival 72hrs in advance..
Which in my case.. headed for Darwin was easy.. just notified the plane as it patrolled the Torres Straits.
Oh.. and I had to pay no bribes tho' my Canadian crew member got some grief from the authorities on arrival.. he'd been kicked out off OZ in the past for overstaying and going 'Bush'.. last seen headed back to the 'Bush' and his 'Abo's'..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Many ports use the same paperwork as for the ships, so maybe in those countries it is the same. Where does it say applies to commercial shipping? Also I can simply state that I am also involved in commercial shipping with any private vessel.

Sure you can claim to be commercial but you just opened a new can of worms. Do you have all the paperwork and permits to run an import/export buisness in the country? Suddenly, your statement makes you a smuggler.

So essentially if you are less than 12 miles and dont want to clear in, just raise the Q flag, then lower it when you are more than 12 miles. If you need to anchor it is ok, as long as you stay on board.

This seems sensible but I believe some countries dont allow anchoring before clearing in so in this case you should try to contact someone via radio to inform them of your emergency.

You might get away with this depending on the country but doesn't solve the issue of getting to visit the country.

You can argue running out of food or water is not an emergency, but to me it is. This is of course unlikely to happen unless there are other problems (like losing rig or being robbed by pirates)

I don't doubt they would consider it an emergency but they may also consider you incompetent and take you into custody before shipping you home by plane.

Thanks for all the replies. Basically since I am headed for the carribean (leaving today) I am glad to get some additional information. In some cases, fees are charged for anchoring which is actually illegal (like simons town) so while noonsite might list them, they dont have to be paid. Or in the case of all of south africa the authorities require that you check into the marina of the private yacht club which is why I know of several boats (including myself) who left south africa without clearance only to have no problems in namibia and save a lot of money and hassle.

Great way to engender good will towards the cruising community.

Some countries like new zealand decided to detain my boat and put it on the hard for a week because they didnt like the look of it. Even though it was completely illegal to do this, they did it anyway.

It's thier country. They get to decide what is legal...especially when they are likely to be the ones funding the search and rescue.

It makes me curious of the trap mentioned where the authorities inform all the nearby countries that you have left without their permission. According to international treaties (I know doesnt apply to all countries) you have the right to leave for any reason, so they technically dont have the right to stop you, but of course they may decide to interpret this to mean that you only have the right to leave if you pay them money.

Where does it say you have the right to leave for any reason? I'm pretty sure if you have committed a crime, your "any reason" theory goes out the door. Violating the boarder constitutes a crime in most countries.

Whichever country you arrive in, I believe many do not have the right to refuse you under their own laws for this, but in some maybe they can refuse you.. I am curious to know of cases where they can or actually did do worse than this, by taking the boat or arresting you.

I think you believe wrong. Most countries reserve the right to refuse you entry. Many have agreeements (particularly if you arrive by plane less so arriving by boat), that you get a certain amount of time automatically...but that assumes you don't have outstanding issues. For example, the often discussed, 90 days out of 180 days for US citizens in the EU. Assuming no red flags, show up at the airport and no one questions it. Add a red flag or two and they still have the right to refuse you entry. I ran into this just last week. I was connecting thru the EU and was staying for a week. The air reservations were seperate and they wouldn't let me on the flight to the EU until I proved I had a ticket leaving the EU because the airline would have been responsible for getting me out.

I see a lot of false assumptions about what you can legally demand of other countries.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's where his problem lies Rustic.. and what a lot off folks are completely missing it seems..
If I sail from Portugal down to Morocco for example I do not apply for a visa before hand.. no need.. its part of the arrival process and 'Clearing In'.
The countries that require Visa's pre-arrival are still relatively few and share the same paranoia's.. Russia, China, Korea, most Islamic States and the USA.. everywhere else is much more relaxed about it.. but to many start taking the piss and those may start closing their doors till it gets draconian and near impossible to leave Home Waters without six months of paperwork.
The fantasies 'BoatA' seems to have is that the world can be travelled as it was 75years ago when one could circumnavigate without a passport is just that.. a Fantasy.
Ignore most of this crap about bribes etc.. that's generally sour grapes ********.. unless one is trying to dig their way back out of the **** they created by not following the local rules.
Since time immemorial strangers arriving by sea bearing gifts are welcomed.. those without were considered unfriendly and put on the menu..

Well, most bribes can be avoided by scrupulously following the rules.

But in a few places you will get shaken down even without having committed any violation or asking for any favor. It's a risk when cruising in the 3rd world.

But A64's advice was spot on -- thoroughly studying and then scrupulously following THEIR rules, then showing a respectful and modest demeanor, opens practically every door.

In some places it is considered proper to give some kind of present -- a good bottle of something they can't get there, etc., and where this is accepted, it works wonders . . .


And on the contrary, showing any kind of attitude or defiance is the worst possible thing you can do. You are on their turf, and there is nothing a third world petty bureaucrat loves more, than showing his power to put an arrogant foreigner in his place . . . Oh, and believe me, they have the power . . . .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I see a lot of false assumptions about what you can legally demand of other countries.

I agree with all of this.

Just two points, about (a) emergencies; and (b) innocent passage.

You have the right to dodge into an unplanned port in case of emergency, including running out of food. BUT YOU HAVE TO DECLARE IT, you can't just slink into port and then say you came in because of an emergency. You have to call them in advance, explain the situation, and ask permission to come in, unless only your radios are out of commission. Furthermore, nothing says that they have to take you in for free. An emergency may get you out of the visa requirements for a short period of time needed to solve the emergency, but it may well not exempt you from clearing in AND paying the relevant fees.

Note also that they will KICK YOUR you know what, if they perceive you are using a false pretense of an emergency to achieve some other goal.


Concerning innocent passage -- it's an ancient traditional right to pass through the territorial waters of one state on the way to another's, without clearing in. Here's a good explanation: The Innocent Passage In The Un Convention International Law Essay | Law Teacher. Anchoring overnight without going on shore may or may not fall under this -- it's a matter of interpretation.

Not every state really recognizes such a right with respect to pleasure vessels. This may be a violation of international law, but what are you going to do about it? They know damned well that you're not going to sue anyone in The Hague, and so they know damned well that this law means whatever they say it means, no matter how ridiculous. So guess how far you will get if you try to "press your rights"? You will just get yourself in trouble, and they are experts in making life miserable, for people who don't cooperate.

If you want to use the right of innocent passage, you should call in advance and ask for permission, informing them in detail about your passage plan, including any anchoring. I doubt that any third world country is going to allow you to anchor anywhere without clearing in, and they are not going to be interested in your interpretation of international law other than for a laugh or two, so I doubt if this will be much help.


I think if you take the big picture view of this -- if you use their waters, they will expect you to pay the usual to clear in and pay the usual port fees. If you try to find some clever way to avoid these fees, the will kick your etc. So you probably just need to stay well clear of those countries, whose customs and port fees you are not acceptable to you. Also, you stop somewhere and work for a while and save up enough money to have a reserve of cash sufficient to cover unexpected fees and "fees" - the risk of which is a normal part of cruising, just like the risk of unexpected repairs, medical expenses, etc. It's possible to cruise on all kinds of different budgets, including very modest ones, but even the most modest cruising budget must have cash reserves for this kind of things. Sometimes you just have to pay -- and that includes not only port fees, but when things -- or people -- break.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

BUT YOU HAVE TO DECLARE IT, you can't just slink into port and then say you came in because of an emergency... Furthermore, nothing says that they have to take you in for free. An emergency may get you out of the visa requirements for a short period of time needed to solve the emergency, but it may well not exempt you from clearing in AND paying the relevant fees.

Excellent points. It is their country, they get to make the rules, and one of those rules could very well be that there is a fee.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not every state really recognizes such a right with respect to pleasure vessels. This may be a violation of international law...

It is not international law. There is no such thing as an international law. This is a treaty. And not every country has agreed to the treaty--the United States, for one example.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So guess how far you will get if you try to "press your rights"? You will just get yourself in trouble...

Another excellent point. It never ceases to amaze me when people come on here and start talking about how they are going to demand their rights under "international law" (which doesn't exist) in some foreign country. As if THEY get to make the rules, and all the countries of the world just have to do whatever they say.

It doesn't work that way, and acting like it does is only going to make things much, much worse for you.

Oh yeah. And running out of food is NOT an emergency. It is just poor planning.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

. . . It is not international law. There is no such thing as an international law.

Shhhh, don't tell my former students, who paid good money attending courses in international law

Actually, of course, there IS such a thing as international law. But I think what DenverDon is trying to say is that it doesn't work like law the way most people understand it, and that is correct. That's because there is no world government (thank God), so there are no "international laws" which apply and are enforced directly, the way national law is. But international law does exist, and is an extremely important part of the world order.

Originally Posted by denverd0n

This is a treaty. And not every country has agreed to the treaty--the United States, for one example.

Which is a great example of why international law is not "just treaties". The U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS and is not officially a part of it (although it has signed it), but it recognizes the entire convention as binding on the U.S. as customary international law except for the one objectionable section, on mineral rights. The right of innocent passage has existed practically since the beginning of recorded history, and the U.S. recognized it long before UNCLOS was even a glimmer in anyone's eye.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But I think what DenverDon is trying to say is that it doesn't work like law the way most people understand it, and that is correct.

Yes, you are correct. I did mean that there is no such thing as "international law" in the way that most people use the term. Most--based on how the term gets used around here, at least--seem to think it is just like any local law, only that it is applied in exactly the same way everywhere in the world. As you say, it doesn't work that way. Hence my resistance to the use of the term--I think it is almost always going to cause more misunderstanding, than understanding.

In particular, and relevant to this thread, I think it is important to remember that not every country has signed off on the UNCLOS treaty. Perhaps even more important is that, even for those that have, there is a lot of latitude for local interpretation and differences in enforcement. And even more important than THAT is the fact that, entering some foreign country as a visitor, and then trying to tell the local authorities what they can and cannot do--because you think you understand "international law" better than they do--is a pretty certain way of digging yourself into a much deeper hole than you would have been in otherwise. It will almost always work out better if you are polite and respectful, and recognize the fact that it is their country, and their laws apply.

[Gone2long]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

I would like to know about any possible complications if you were to arrive in a new country, be presented with fees which turn out to be too high for you to afford so instead you offer to get back on your boat and leave immediately instead.

As far as I can tell this practice is perfectly legal but I have heard reports that some governments claim you already owe money before you are cleared in.

Furthermore, isn't it true that any vessel can claim the right to stay 72 hours to make emergency repairs? Which countries allow for this? Doesn't this conflict with advance notice of arrival or areas which require permits to access?

Various laws may conflict here, and in the end money will encourage officials will perform illegal acts, for example breaking international treaties that they don't even know about. Which countries should be specifically avoided for this reason, and which countries are known to be tolerant of this?

Is there a list of countries which are possible to visit legally if there exists no money on the boat? I am interested to know even in cases where it's possible to stay only 24 hours.

... From reading this thread, there is much has changed since I last visited these islands back in the mid-seventies. At St Barts, there was a beautiful, palm-fringed cove and a private residence that the folks there called "Le Camp". The skipper pulled up and we anchored only about 50 yards off shore. When we swam and the capt. took a dinghy to shore, we were greeted by a tall, elegant blonde, who exclaimed, "Oh, we have guests."

She escorted us to the interior of the residence where there were a number of open air cabanas, which she offered without charge, at the same time producing a bottle of Moet Chandon. By the end of our week long stay, we and her friends consumed at least another case of premium champagne, and she would not accept a dime in return. There were no anchoring or other fees, and we never met an island official during our entire stay, though I am sure the skipper did the appropriate paperwork in Gustavia, after we arrived.

I know, the above probably sounds to most readers like a ridiculous fantasy, but that was our actual experience (excluding some even more fun times, which will appropriately remain unrecorded) in St. Barts in June, 1976.

Although I most certainly have been gone too long to offer any worthy advice, based on what others have written on this thread, I would hazard a guess that St. Barts, though undoubtedly more costly these days, is certainly still worth a visit, if you are ever in the neighborhood. Of course, there are probably many other destinations on your list, much closer to "home" that other folks would recommend just as highly.

Fair winds ...
G2L

[boatman61]

Should have seen Antigua in 1967.. all St Johns had was a wooden jetty... and lots of beautiful reefs full off life..
Things change.. sadly.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, most bribes can be avoided by scrupulously following the rules.

But in a few places you will get shaken down even without having committed any violation or asking for any favor. It's a risk when cruising in the 3rd world.

But A64's advice was spot on -- thoroughly studying and then scrupulously following THEIR rules, then showing a respectful and modest demeanor, opens practically every door.

In some places it is considered proper to give some kind of present -- a good bottle of something they can't get there, etc., and where this is accepted, it works wonders . . .

And on the contrary, showing any kind of attitude or defiance is the worst possible thing you can do. You are on their turf, and there is nothing a third world petty bureaucrat loves more, than showing his power to put an arrogant foreigner in his place . . . Oh, and believe me, they have the power . . . .

Don't offer a bribe or a bottle in Karachi..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Yes, you are correct. I did mean that there is no such thing as "international law" in the way that most people use the term. Most--based on how the term gets used around here, at least--seem to think it is just like any local law, only that it is applied in exactly the same way everywhere in the world. As you say, it doesn't work that way. Hence my resistance to the use of the term--I think it is almost always going to cause more misunderstanding, than understanding.

In particular, and relevant to this thread, I think it is important to remember that not every country has signed off on the UNCLOS treaty. Perhaps even more important is that, even for those that have, there is a lot of latitude for local interpretation and differences in enforcement. And even more important than THAT is the fact that, entering some foreign country as a visitor, and then trying to tell the local authorities what they can and cannot do--because you think you understand "international law" better than they do--is a pretty certain way of digging yourself into a much deeper hole than you would have been in otherwise. It will almost always work out better if you are polite and respectful, and recognize the fact that it is their country, and their laws apply.

Totally agree. In fact I think it's kind of a basic principle of visiting other peoples' countries, and remarkable that many people don't understand it.

In many cases the minor officials of third world countries just LOVE defiant and arrogant foreigners. Gives them a chance to wield their little bit of power. It's a sport for many of them. It's a sport you don't want to play, because there is no pathway to winning it. They have the power, and you don't.

[tbodine88]

As others have said it's their country, they make the rules, they have guns. Find out the rules before you arrive, even if only passing by.

To do otherwise is to court disaster.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually.. no they do not.. all they require is notification of arrival 72hrs in advance..
Which in my case.. headed for Darwin was easy.. just notified the plane as it patrolled the Torres Straits.
Oh.. and I had to pay no bribes tho' my Canadian crew member got some grief from the authorities on arrival.. he'd been kicked out off OZ in the past for overstaying and going 'Bush'.. last seen headed back to the 'Bush' and his 'Abo's'..

I don't understand you saying you don't need a visa approval prior to coming to Australia It's contrary to all the advertising in Australia and contrary to the information on the Border site. Even the television shows currently on routinely have people being 'sent back' because they lied on their visa applications or didn't even have visas. Can you provide some reference that you don't need prior approval to visit Australia. AND, I'm not talking about the 96 hours of intending arrival.

If you are not an Australian citizen, you must hold a valid visa to enter Australia which must be presented at the Australian border along with a valid travel document . Your visa should be arranged before travelling to Australia. Special provisions apply to most New Zealand citizens, and to people eligible to transit Australia without a visa. For more information on checking in please see Air Travel. Arriving into Australia

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

I am curious to know of cases where they can or actually did do worse than this, by taking the boat or arresting you.

While it had nothing to do with fees but his boat not being seaworthy according to local authorities and being one day late in renewing his visitors permit, an acquaintance of mine lost his boat to 'red tape'.

He arrived in St Helena Bay, South Africa, where it all started with his boat being deemed unseaworthy by SAMSA and it was detained.
(Personal note: I've seen the boat ... I can see how this could happen ...)

He worked on repairing his boat (while arguing with SAMSA about their laws versus Dutch laws) for 3 months (for example, he doesn't have a life raft, which is fine under Dutch law but apparently not under South African).

While I'm not clear exactly on the how and why, he ended up leaving South Africa (flew out, boat was still being worked on) for a short period to re-enter and renew his permit. He came back half a day too late and was refused entry.

Long and somewhat confusing story short: while he was away, they put his boat on a mooring where it took serious damage during a storm (it's a cement boat). They moved the boat and apparently it started to take on water. Since the skipper isn't allowed back into the country for a year, SAMSA decided the boat is abandoned and will be destroyed.

The above is the skippers account as he posted it on his FB - it all sounded a bit confusing to me but bottom line is, SAMSA decided his boat was not seaworthy and detained it, so he wasn't able to leave in time and his visitors permit ran out before the boat was allowed to leave.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

While it had nothing to do with fees but his boat not being seaworthy according to local authorities and being one day late in renewing his visitors permit, an acquaintance of mine lost his boat to 'red tape'.

He arrived in St Helena Bay, South Africa, where it all started with his boat being deemed unseaworthy by SAMSA and it was detained.
(Personal note: I've seen the boat ... I can see how this could happen ...)

He worked on repairing his boat (while arguing with SAMSA about their laws versus Dutch laws) for 3 months (for example, he doesn't have a life raft, which is fine under Dutch law but apparently not under South African).

While I'm not clear exactly on the how and why, he ended up leaving South Africa (flew out, boat was still being worked on) for a short period to re-enter and renew his permit. He came back half a day too late and was refused entry.

Long and somewhat confusing story short: while he was away, they put his boat on a mooring where.. it took serious damage during a storm (it's a cement boat). They moved the boat and apparently it started to take on water. Since the skipper isn't allowed back into the country for a year, SAMSA decided the boat is abandoned and will be destroyed.

The above is the skippers account as he posted it on his FB - it all sounded a bit confusing to me but bottom line is, SAMSA decided his boat was not seaworthy and detained it, so he wasn't able to leave in time and his visitors permit ran out before the boat was allowed to leave.

The OP went through the 'Unfit for Purpose' in NZ a couple of years back.. he got all agitated back then as well claiming illegal and corrupt officials if I remember correctly..
I've tended to ignore his Threads in general since then.. however this title sucked me in