Ocean shipping: Carriers stress security’s role at AAPA event

Jeff Berman, Senior Editor -- Logistics Management, 7/23/2007

BOSTON—Even though there are many initiatives and forms of political legislation designed to protect ports, carriers, and shippers in the event of an act of terrorism or natural disaster, the underlying theme is that much more work, planning, resources, and education is needed to make ports truly safe, according to panelists at the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) Port Security Seminar held in Boston last week.

The panel, entitled “Ocean Carrier Perspective on Port Security Challenges,” touched upon what is—and what is not—happening to make ports as safe as possible.

Shortly after the terrorism acts of September 11, 2001, a lot of legislation designed to make ports more secure was drafted, but much did not go very far with the notable exception of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and the SAFE Ports Act, said John Hyde, vice president of corporate security and compliance for Maersk Sealand. 

“We wound up with some pretty good processes to raise the level of [port] security, but there is no way to prevent every single thing that could possibly happen” said Hyde.

Among these processes are C-TPAT, 10+2, and the Secure Freight Initiative. CBP’s 10+2, which is part of the SFI, in which importers and carriers will be required to submit much more information about specific shipments to determine specific risk levels and is far more detailed than basic manifest information, noted Hyde. It is comprised of the 10 data elements an importer would provide for a shipment, and the two elements provided by an ocean carrier—the stowage plan and information regarding cargo remaining on board a vessel.

Regarding the issue of 100 percent container examination at the port of origin, which is a major component of the SAFE Ports Act, Hyde said that may be a good thing to strive for some day, but added that “the reality is we are a long way from that.” (Editor’s note: On July 19, the House Homeland Security Committee agreed to an amendment that would establish a five-year deadline for 100 percent scanning of all containers before they are loaded onto ships bound for U.S. ports, but it would also allow the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to waive that deadline as necessary)

And the private sector, he said, does not have the authority or resources to conduct off-shore inspection of cargo, but the private sector does want a dynamic clearance routine at the point of origin for screening to prevent tainted cargo from ever making it onto vessels.

From the perspective of ocean carriers, CBP and the Department of Homeland Security, a risk-based, layered approach to security processes is the most efficient way to go about making ports safe, said Hyde.

“You cannot have any one component be the silver bullet [for security], because that does not exist,” he said. “We have to raise the security level a lot on vessels internationally and at the origins we call. There are [more than 700] foreign ports that ship cargo to the United States all the time. So how are you going to establish a regime you are comfortable with at this many ports? Security in an ocean environment needs to be ingrained into everything we do.”

More than anything, Hyde stressed it is important for all involved regulatory bodies and the private sector to “keep the dialog going” with politicians to ensure port security and safety initiatives continue to head in the right direction.

Another main factor, he said, is the costs behind these efforts and how they are going to be absorbed. “Obviously, these costs are going to be filtered among everybody using the supply chain and..if we don’t do some things that need to be done, what is the economic cost is we have an incident?”

One piece of a big puzzle
The container industry, said Hyde, is only one part of the entire maritime domain. And this facet of the domain is “way ahead of where we were” in terms of security compared to right after September 11, and the industry has limited its vulnerability and now needs to take the next steps to look at improving infrastructure for things like intermodal cargo movements.

“If an event happens, we need to know if closing a port can allow for vessels scheduled to enter that port can be absorbed into another port,” Hyde said, “but there may not be sufficient terminal infrastructure for that and some internal and regulatory changes may be required. There are many issues to be worked through. Security in an ocean carrier—and port—environment is not simply ‘security.’ [It] has to be integrated into everything we do. If you want to have a good operation, you have to have good security, with things like accountability and transparency.”

All hands on deck for ocean security education
Hyde’s concept of keeping the dialog moving to increase educational awareness on port security operations and safety, was strongly supported by C. Thomas Burke, special advisor to the president at K. Line America Inc.

Burke noted that as various facets of the ocean carrier industry continue to be regulated by politicians in Washington that are coming out with legislation he described as ill-advised.

“We don’t do a good job of educating our political people in Washington of what this industry is really all about,” said Burke. “Look at the Dubai fiasco. It is important for our industry to focus in on how do we [best] educate Congress and the Senate to..make them understand that what we do has a tremendous impact on their constituents, our country, and the world?”

The best way to make this happen, contends Burke, is to get all major freight transportation organizations, including the AAPA, National Industrial Transportation League, the World Shipping Council, and others that have a vested interest in this type of educational process to form some kind of task force.

This task force would then “all sit down and listen to each other’s comments and then put together an educational program for the politicians.” As an incentive for the politicians, Burke noted that as we are in an election year, coupled with the fact that ocean carriers “contribute heavily” to campaigns in political parties. But this time around, he said, the contributions would come with a string attached that would require politicians to spend a half day in the port closest to them, where they would listen to industry professionals explain what they do, what they need, and what is best for the country, as opposed to listening to someone who has no real industry experience.

“So many times on Capitol Hill staffers are advising politicians on what action to take,” said Burke. “And these staffers often have no port experience or have ever been in a port themselves. We have [to realize] we are not doing a good job of educating politicians. This is the time for us to do it in an election cycle. It is very important for the future of our country. We cannot afford to let politicians to continue to make policy that affects the maritime industry, our international trade, and our standing in the world.”