CSCAP MEMORANDUM NO. 29

Harmonisation of Aeronautical and Maritime
Search and Rescue (SAR)A Memorandum from theCouncil for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
July 2017

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
Memorandum No. 29
Harmonisation of Aeronautical and Maritime
Search and Rescue (SAR)
July 2017
Introduction
Search and Rescue (SAR) is about saving lives through a cooperative approachto human safety and security. In doing so, states should set aside politicaldifferences, territorial disputes and security concerns. It is through thestrengthening of SAR coordination that a seamless and timely response can beachieved. Government agencies, private industry and the civil society are partof the SAR response system. Efficient organisational structures, effective
processes as well as technology-enabled capacities and capabilities need to be
stitched together seamlessly in order to build a system that can save lives inany contingency or circumstance.
Background
The International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR)
manuals call for a comprehensive global SAR system based on a responsive
Regional and National SAR system. However, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Convention on Civil Aviation 1944 Annex 12 (SAR) andInternational Maritime Organization (IMO) SAR Convention 1979 have createddistinct approaches to SAR. In light of this, the ICAO-IMO Joint Working Group(JWG) was established in 1993 with the objective of assisting ICAO and IMO indeveloping provisions on new holistic search and rescue techniques andprocedures where both aeronautical and maritime interests are involved.
The Asia-Pacific is a maritime-configured region with increasing traffic, both bysea and air. The regional community is becoming increasingly aware of theimperatives of SAR, including the harmonisation of its aeronautical andmaritime elements. In 2012, the ICAO Bangkok Regional Office established theAsia/Pacific Search and Rescue Task Force (APSAR/TF) with the objective ofconsidering the enhancement and improvement of SAR capabilities within theAsia/Pacific Region and adjacent regions. In September 2015, the Task Forcedeveloped the Asia/Pacific SAR Plan. Separately, ASEAN is in the midst ofdeveloping an ASEAN Agreement on Aeronautical and Maritime Search andRescue Cooperation.
In the Asia-Pacific, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is another leading forum
on SAR matters. In the wake of the 2014 incident relating to the Malaysian
Airlines flight MH 370, the ARF issued a statement that called “for regionalcountries to strengthen SAR coordination and cooperation at bilateral, regionaland multilateral levels, including through dialogue and cooperation in ARF”.

1

Consequently, CSCAP established a Study Group on Harmonisation of
Aeronautical and Maritime SAR (SG HAMSAR) to recommend policies forstates to strengthen cooperation and coordination through the harmonisation ofaeronautical and maritime SAR. CSCAP-Malaysia and CSCAP-India agreed tobe Co-chairs of the SG HAMSAR.
Findings
The central philosophies of countries pertaining to SAR were observed to belargely similar, and based on the common overarching objective of saving livesof the people rendered helpless due to accidents or natural causes, in addition
to meeting inescapable international obligations and commitments.
It was clearly brought out that the areas of responsibility of various countries
demarcated for provision of aeronautical information and SAR services have noco-relation to sovereignty or sovereign rights of the concerned coastal states.
Hence, the arrangements and acts of providing a SAR service in a particulararea cannot lead to, undermine or reinforce any maritime/territorial claim. This
stipulation is also articulated in the SAR Convention, 1979, the IAMSAR Manual
Volume 1, Annex 12 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the Asia
Pacific SAR Plan (APSAR), 2015 and the Agreement on Cooperation on
Aeronautical and Maritime SAR in the Arctic, 2011.
An attendant imperative lies in the need for all countries in the region to accedeand conform to the relevant international (IMO and ICAO) conventions
governing SAR. A related issue is the development of enabling legislations at
the national level. Also, while all country representatives asserted thatappropriate national laws (and national plans) on SAR exist, these often exist
separately for maritime and aeronautical SAR, and are thus not conjoined for amore effective and seamless SAR response to aeronautical contingencies.
Therefore, the national SAR plans of many countries have yet to integrate theaeronautical and maritime elements, and are thus not prepared for audits byrelevant international organisations.
The Study Group had an extensive discussion on the aspect of rationalisation/
coordination of Flight Information Regions (FIRs) 1 and Search and RescueRegions (SRRs). It was felt that in case of an aeronautical emergency involving
the FIR of one country and SRR of another, adequate coordination andcommunication mechanisms should be in place to ensure immediate response.
While the IAMSAR Manual and Asia/Pacific SAR plan calls for ‘alignment’ ofSRRs and FIRs, (Art 7.1, sub para (g)), the Study Group considered it adequatefor states to achieve effective SAR response through MoUs / arrangements.
1 CSCAP Singapore takes the position that the term “FIR” should be replaced with“SRR”, which is a more appropriate and technically correct term, as the main issue of
this memorandum is about search and rescue.

2

While the MoUs are required at the inter-governmental / Ministerial level,
arrangements need to be forged between relevant SAR agencies and theRescue Coordination Centres (RCC) of two states. These MoUs / arrangements
would need to cater for aeronautical contingencies at the margins of SRRs toresolve any ambiguity of maritime SAR responsibility.2
The organisations and associated structures for SAR of countries were foundto be much at variance. For example, while some states have already adopted
the concept of Joint RCC (JRCC) by merging the aeronautical and maritime
RCCs (and some others are on their way to do so), yet some other states havedecided to maintain separate ARCC and MRCCs, with software systems toharmonise the SAR effort cross-cutting its air and sea elements. Regardless ofthe specific means adopted by states, there was an unequivocal
acknowledgement of the fact that maritime and aeronautical components of theSAR organisation need to be seamlessly integrated. Further, voluntary maritime
reporting systems promulgated by some countries contribute effectively to suchintegration.
Premised on being a benign and humanitarian mission, SAR must necessarilytranscend national security interests and concerns. Hence, in order to achievea co-operative approach to delivering timely and effective SAR services
anywhere in the region, states should share information on their SAR
capabilities and coverage. Such information-sharing would need to address not
only the requirement of enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) for theSAR mission, but also for sharing of SAR capacities, logistics purposes and themedia, when required. While national sensitivities may exist, states areencouraged to come together to develop a common regional SAR portal, andshare the details and capabilities of SAR assets available to their respective
national SAR authorities through existing multi-national frameworks such as
ASEAN and the ICAO-IMO JWG.
Another ‘common denominator’ that was widely discussed and agreed uponwas inter-agency cooperation among multiple national agencies, including therole of private industries and community, functionally connected with SAR.
Seamless cooperation and coordination amongst all SAR agencies –particularly those across the aeronautical-maritime divide – was criticallyrequired. This could be achieved through periodic exercises and training
through simulation of various scenarios, and with the optimal utilisation ofidentified assets. This will not only cater to different contingencies, it will address
the management of scarce resources and prevent duplication of efforts.
2 CSCAPSingapore however assesses that the MoUs for inter-governmental /Ministerial level agencies for effective SAR responses include the SAR agencies of
their countries and hence there is no requirement for further arrangements between
relevant SAR agencies.

3

Recommendations
 Recognise that the agreed common objective of regional and national SAR
is to save lives.
 Urge all regional states to note that Search and Rescue Regions (SRR) are
not about sovereignty; they are designed to facilitate seamless andcooperative SAR taking account of regional geography and nationalcapacities.
 Encourage countries to accede to the IMO SAR Convention 1979 andConvention on International Civil Aviation; and make enabling national SAR
legislations and plans, preferably amalgamating the aeronautical andmaritime components of SAR.
 Dovetail organisational structures and processes with the provisions /guidelines contained in the IAMSAR Manual and Regional SAR Plan to theextent feasible, based upon the unique requirements of each state, withparticular attention to ensure that effectiveness of SAR services is notadversely impacted in areas where deviations occur.
 Encourage countries to develop and update national SAR Plans inaccordance with the IAMSAR Manual and Regional SAR Plan, and subject
their respective plans to regular audits by relevant internationalorganisations.
 Achieve greater seamlessness in cooperation and coordination amongstates through SAR ‘MoUs / Agreements’ between their respective
governments and SAR ‘Arrangements’ between their respective SAR
agencies, wherever such agreements / arrangements do not presently exist.
 Encourage countries to develop a regional framework for information sharing,leading not only to enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) but alsomutual awareness of the availability of SAR resources, assets andcapabilities of various countries for an effective and seamless regional SARresponse.
 Develop a regional template for SAR risk and vulnerability assessment. The
recommendations from such assessment would be necessary for improved
harmonisation of regional SAR policies, arrangements and facilities.
 Harmonise aeronautical and maritime alert and communication systems.
 Encourage countries to promulgate voluntary maritime reporting systems.

4 Establish a regional database of SAR activities with a view to sharing casestudies and experiences as well as evolving best practices.
 Evaluate the civil-military interface in terms of SAR structures and processes
for enhanced effectiveness of SAR.
 Include private industry and civil society into the SAR system.

5

ABOUT CSCAP
CSCAP is a non-governmental (second track) process for dialogue on security
issues in the Asia Pacific. Membership in CSCAP is on an institutional basis
and consists of Member Committees. Current membership comprises Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, the EU, India, Indonesia,
Japan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea,Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia,Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and the USA.
The functions of CSCAP are as follows:a. to provide an informal mechanism by which political and security issues
can be discussed by scholars, officials, and others in their private
capacities;
b. to encourage the participants of such individuals from countries andterritories in the Asia Pacific on the basis of the principle of inclusiveness;c. to organise various working groups to address security issues andchallenges facing the region;d. to provide policy recommendations to various intergovernmental bodies
on political-security issues;e. to convene regional and international meetings and other cooperative
activities for the purpose of discussing political-security issues;
f. to establish linkages with institutions and organisations in other parts of
the world to exchange information, insights and experiences in the areaof regional political-security cooperation; andg. to produce and disseminate publications relevant to the other purposesof the organisation.
Study Groups are the primary mechanism for CSCAP activity. As of July 2017,
there were five CSCAP Study Groups. These are concerned with: (i) PreventiveDiplomacy; (ii) Non-Proliferation and Disarmament; (iii) Harmonisation ofAeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue; (iv) Marine Environment
Protection; and (v) Peacekeeping Operations.
This memorandum was produced by the CSCAP Study Group on
Harmonisation of Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR).
Further information on CSCAP can be obtained from the CSCAP website atwww.cscap.org or by contacting the CSCAP Secretariat:

6

CSCAP Secretariat
c/o ISIS Malaysia
1 Persiaran Sultan Salahuddin
PO Box 1242450778 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
T: +603-2693 9366 Ext 125
F: +603-2693 9375
E: cscap@isis.org.my7

CSCAP Memoranda
CSCAP Memoranda are the outcome of the work of Study Groups approved by theSteering Committee and submitted for consideration by the ASEAN Regional
Forum and other bodies.
 Memorandum No.28 – Energy Security in the Asia Pacific Region
Author: Study Group on Energy Security
Date published: June 2016
 Memorandum No.27 – Implementation of UNSCR 1540
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: April 2015
 Memorandum No.26 – Towards an Effective Regional Security Architecture forthe Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Regional Security Architecture
Date published: June 2014
 Memorandum No.25 – Maritime CBMs, Trust and Managing Incidents at Sea
Author: Study Group on Principles for Good Order at Sea
Date published: June 2014
 Memorandum No.24 – Safety and Security of Vital Undersea Communications
Infrastructure
Author: Experts Group on Vital Undersea Communications Infrastructure
Date published: May 2014
 Memorandum No.23 – Enhancing Water Security in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Water Resources Security
Date published: January 2014
 Memorandum No.22 – Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: September 2012
 Memorandum No.21 – Implications of Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificDate published: August 2012
 Memorandum No.20 – Ensuring A Safer Cyber Security Environment
Author: Study Group on Cyber Security
Date published: May 20128 Memorandum No.19 – Reduction and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: February 2012
 Memorandum No.18 – Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Author: Study Group on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Date published: September 2011
 Memorandum No.17 – Promoting the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: June 2011
 Memorandum No.16 – Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Author: Study Group on Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Date published: January 2011
 Memorandum No.15 – The Security Implications of Climate Change
Author: Study Group on the Security Implications of Climate Change
Date published: July 2010
 Memorandum No.14 – Guidelines for Managing Trade of Strategic Goods
Author: Export Controls Experts Group (XCXG)
Date published: March 2009
 Memorandum No.13 – Guidelines for Maritime Cooperation in Enclosed andSemi-Enclosed Seas and Similar Sea Areas of the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia
Pacific
Date published: June 2008
 Memorandum No.12 – Maritime Knowledge and Awareness: Basic Foundationsof Maritime SecurityAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia
Pacific
Date published: December 2007
 Memorandum No.11 – Human Trafficking
Author: Study Group on Human Trafficking
Date published: June 2007
 Memorandum No.10 – Enhancing Efforts to Address Factors Driving InternationalTerrorism
Author: Study Group on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Campaign Against
International Terrorism with Specific Reference to the Asia Pacific Region
Date published: December 2005

9 Memorandum No.9 – Trafficking of Firearms in the Asia Pacific Region
Author: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: May 2004
 Memorandum No.8 – The Weakest Link? Seaborne Trade and the Maritime
Regime in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: April 2004
 Memorandum No.7 – The Relationship Between Terrorism and Transnational
CrimeAuthor: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: July 2003
 Memorandum No.6 – The Practice of the Law of the Sea in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 2002
 Memorandum No.5 – Cooperation for Law and Order at Sea
Author: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: February 2001
 Memorandum No.4 – Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation
Author: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 1997
 Memorandum No.3 – The Concepts of Comprehensive Security and Cooperative
Security
Author: Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security
Date published: December 1995
 Memorandum No.2 – Asia Pacific Confidence and Security Building Measures
Author: Working Group on Confidence and Security Building Measures
Date published: June 1995
 Memorandum No.1 – The Security of the Asia Pacific Region
Author: CSCAP
Date published: April 1994

10