Global concerns speak out against 100 percent cargo scanning
By Tom Andel, Executive Editor -- Logistics Management, 4/18/2007
WASHINGTON-The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Europe sent a letter to Congress last week they hope will turn minds and hearts against 100% cargo scanning at overseas ports. The letter was addressed to the chairs of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. The authors of this letter represent the world's two largest business federations, representing millions of companies responsible for the majority of trans-Atlantic trade and employing up to 14 million people.
One-hundred percent scanning was one of the provisions of the proposed homeland security rules that global traders say would raise costs and lead to job losses. The reason for the timing of this letter is to reach lawmakers as conferees are selected for the next hearing on this matter, which is expected to take place within the next two weeks.
Jason Conley, senior manager, Homeland Security, for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told Logistics Management that not only would there be consequences from this mandate for 100 percent scanning and sealing, but the three- to five-year timeframe for instituting it is unrealistic and could cause repercussions for U.S shippers.
"This could lead to reciprocal requirements coming out from China," he says. "The fundamental problem with 100% scanning is you have limited assets overseas, limited Customs officers, and limited funds. We’d have to engage in cooperative agreements with each host country to accomplish this scanning."
That means not only deploying technology to move cargo through ports rapidly, but determining what to do with the scans, determining response protocols, dealing with false positives, deciding how to score the scans, allowing sufficient time to review the scans, and determining who will review the scans.
The fundamental questions, Conley suggests, are: Is this the best way to manage risk, or does it obviate all the risk based programs that have already been put in place? Why do screening and why do targeting if you’re going to scan 100% of all cargo? And what are the negative implications on trade flows?
"It will be a friction on global trade, and we’re concerned about this," Conley concludes. "If the U.S. does it, what’s to keep Europe and Japan from doing the same? Pretty soon you’ll have companies paid to pay fees and comply with different security regimes. That’s not to say there isn’t room for scanning of the highest risk cargo, but you have to triage based on risk."
View All On-Demand Webcasts
