Ports
rush to adopt terror security standards
Many still working to meet new law's July 1 deadline
For the past several years, governments, maritime agencies
and regulators, and shipping companies around the world
have been working on a complex series of measures to thwart
maritime terrorism. The undertaking is hugely ambitious:
monitoring the activities of millions of mariners, dockworkers
and support personnel in some 3,000 ports worldwide that
handle the roughly 40,000 ships involved in the transport
of billions of dollars worth of cargo every day.
Now, after countless hours of hearings and meetings, a
forest of paperwork and hundreds of millions of dollars
in infrastructure upgrades and salaries for new security
personnel, the procedures are set to take effect July 1.
But just weeks before that deadline, fewer than 20 percent
of the world’s ships and 10 percent of global ports had
certified that they have made the changes called for by
the new rules, according to the International Maritime Organization,
which is overseeing the regulations.
The agency says there are no provisions to grant extensions
for countries or shipping companies that need more time.
The penalty for those that don’t comply could be harsh:
ranging from a ban on specific ships entering U.S. ports
to an all-out trade embargo for a country whose ports don’t
meet security standards.
“That is a real danger,” said Hartmut Hesse, head of the
IMO’s maritime security section in London. “We keep telling
our member governments that this could have a huge economic
impact," he said. "It may prevent ships docking
in a port or even expulsion of ships from a relevant port.
And the end result is no trade.”
[On Monday, IMO Secretary General Mr. Efthimios Mitropoulos
said 16.2 percent of ports and about a third of all ships
covered by the code were in compliance. Of the 148 countries
covered by the code, the IMO has surveyed 50 and gotten
only 39 replies.
"I am, therefore, concerned that, unless prompt action
is taken urgently by all parties concerned, we may live
to regret any delay in acting,” he said in a press release.
Mitropoulos also said the IMO is undertaking a review of
critical shipping lanes that are vulnerable to terrorist
attack to try to beef up security in those areas.]
Ports and shipping companies have been tightening security
for years, but that effort took a major step when Congress
enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
– a series of measures designed to thwart attacks by vessels
entering U.S. ports. A similar set of rules was adopted
by the IMO, the United Nations organization that oversees
safety and environmental regulations for the world’s commercial
shipping fleet.
Despite 18 months of preparation, the world's ports have
been slow to adopt the new rules and upgrade facilities.
Coast Guard officials say nearly all U.S. ships and ports
have already filed their security plans and expect most
of them to be approved. IMO officials say many countries
are simply waiting until the last minute to file the appropriate
paperwork. But a series of interviews with security experts,
industry, Coast Guard and port officials, and testimony
at recent congressional hearings point to a number of hurdles
in the effort to protect the world’s maritime industry from
terrorism.
Money is a big part of the problem. Despite the heightened
awareness and the sprawling task of trying to secure 361
U.S ports and thousands of ships that visit them, attention
and resources devoted to thwarting maritime terrorism has
been a fraction of that devoted to aviation. So far, the
federal government has allocated less than $500 million
to counter maritime terrorism. By comparison, $11.7 billion
has been spent since Sept. 11 to tighten security at the
nation’s 429 airports served by commercial airlines. That
amounts to less than a nickel spent on maritime security
for every dollar spent on aviation.
A new rulebook
At the heart of the new security standards is a massive
new rulebook known as the International Ship and Port Facility
Security Code (ISPS). The code will, among other things,
require every ship to sail with a security officer who will
oversee the new procedures, train staff and document the
ship’s compliance with ISPS rules. Ships will be required
to display a unique identifying number visible from air.
They will have to give 96-hour notification before arrival
to allow port security authorities to verify where they’re
coming from and what kind of cargo they’re carrying.
The ISPS code also includes extensive measures for upgrading
ports -– everything from perimeter fencing to closed circuit
security TV cameras –- along with new documentation and
procedures. An Automatic Identification System will radio
ahead a ship's information and location, much the way air
traffic control tracks airliners. As security problems or
suspicions arise, ships and ports will use a series of three
alert levels calling for tightened procedures.
U.S. officials have also redoubled efforts to intercept
suspicious shipping containers. Two years ago, the U.S.
Customs Service began extending its reach around the globe
with a program called the Container Security Initiative.
By stationing inspectors in the 20 busiest ports worldwide,
customs agents try to monitor the loading of ships headed
for U.S. ports and pre-screen some 70 percent of U.S.-bound
cargo.
Shippers will also be required to send a manifest, listing
specific cargo, 24 hours before arriving at a U.S. port
-- a more detailed description than the widely used “general
merchandise” or “F.A.K.” (freight of all kinds)designation.
Some $60 million has also been allocated to pilot programs
to develop better cargo screening procedures and technologies
in three of the busiest U.S. container ports: Los Angeles/Long
Beach, New York/New Jersey, and Seattle/Tacoma.
U.S. officials are also stepping up efforts to better identify
who is sailing aboard ships that enter U.S. ports. In March,
the Coast Guard and FBI wrapped up a 14-month investigation
that scoured the records of more than 200,000 crew members
of commercial ships and found nine with ties to terrorist
organizations.
The cost of comfort
The goal is to maintain security without choking off trade,
but -– despite the July 1 deadline –- even Coast Guard officials
concede it will take years to fully implement these solutions.
For starters, the security upgrades are proving costly
for individual ports. Port Everglades in Ft. Lauderdale,
Fla., for example, a major U.S. cruise ship port, has seen
its annual costs triple since Sept. 11 to $14.5 million
– not including infrastructure improvements that are expected
to top $40 million. Estimates vary, but security experts
and government officials say it could cost upwards of $10
billion to adequately secure the nation’s 361 ports that
handle international cargo. To help offset those costs,
Congress has budgeted $7.5 billion for port security over
the next 10 years.
But just weeks before the new tighter regulations are to
take effect, many planned improvements have not been made.
Last week, Rep. Richard H. Baker, R-La., told a House Transportation
subcommittee that, despite strong cooperation from the Coast
Guard, the Port of New Orleans has received little money
to upgrade security infrastructure. The limited funds available
have been spent “to acquire some cameras so we could record
in real time the disaster as it occurs,” he said.
One of the busiest ports in the country, New Orleans has
the nation’s largest petrochemical complex and limited transcontinental
rail crossings across the Mississippi River, along with
the basic threat of “someone simply sinking a tanker in
the deepwater canal which we have to dredge to keep open
to commerce,” Baker said.
“We still don’t have any response capability on the river,”
Baker told the committee, “except for a Boston Whaler on
a trailer – which is a fine boat: I understand it has a
lifetime transferable warranty. But in holding it up against
a 700- or 800-ton vessel that takes a mile to stop … I can’t
understand why we haven’t had a more significant on-the-ground,
on-the-river physical response.”
New Orleans is not alone. The relative dearth of federal
spending has left cashed-strapped states and municipalities
that own and operate many of the nations ports to pick up
the tab. Federal officials have said that, because private
port facility operators and shipping companies will ultimately
profit from improved security, they should step forward
to shoulder their share of the burden.
“Many of these companies have a very low profit margin
and security has not been at the highest priority,” Noel
Cunningham, director of operations, Port of Los Angeles,
told the hearing.
Global reach
Coast Guard officials say they plan to board every vessel
that enters U.S. waters after July 1 to insure that it is
following the new rules, and have added 500 inspectors to
tackle the job. In many cases, the ship will be well known:
for years the Coast Guard has monitored and inspected ships
for compliance with safety and environment rules. But the
new round of inspections will focus on finding out whether
the new security rules have sunk in, Rear Admiral Larry
Hereth, the Coast Guard’s Director of Port Security, said
last week.
“We’re going to be asking the master and crew members lots
of question,” he said. “And if they fail to answer those
questions properly that’s clear grounds (for suspicion),
and we will follow up and potentially control the vessel’s
movement or deny entry or send them out of the port.”
But the Coast Guard has a much more ambitious task ahead
of it: verifying that ports around the world are also complying
with the new guidelines. One powerful enforcement tool will
be the requirement that all ships document their last 10
ports of call: if any one of those ports is not compliant
with the new rules, that ship can be denied entry into the
U.S. The Coast Guard is also assembling a team of several
dozen inspectors who will visit foreign ports to inspect
security infrastructure and procedures.
“With 3,000 ports around the world, we probably won’t be
able to get each and every single port,” said Hereth. “But
through a network of intelligence and information and a
variety of inputs to our system, we will be tracking the
expected compliance and expected security measures at all
those ports.”
A ripple effect?
For countries that don’t make the cut, the loss of access
to U.S. ports could bring severe economic damage, especially
among developing nations whose economies are heavily dependent
on exports or tourism. Already, some security experts say
the cruise industry could face a shortage of destinations
if too many tropical island ports fail to meet the new standards.
Developing countries that don’t meet the new standards also
face an embargo with the developed world that could cut
off vital shipments of oil, food and other supplies.
Among those countries most heavily dependent on U.S. ports,
for example, are struggling Caribbean nations, some of which
have already said they can’t afford to comply with the new
rules.
“If you close our trade lanes to those islands, you’re
talking about unemployment going to 50 percent plus,” said
Stephen Flynn, a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations
and a retired Coast Guard commander. “What are those people
going to do? They’re going to get in boats and migrate and
they’re going to get involved in terrorism.”
In dealing with ships and ports that aren’t ready by July
1, the Coast Guard faces a tough choice. If it denies access
to ships and boycotts ports that don’t fully comply with
the new rules, it risks slowing trade. If it postpones enforcement
to give ships and ports more time to get up to speed, it
risks compromising security. As the deadline approaches,
Coast Guard officials say they're not going to cut anyone
any slack.
“Come July 1, all those countries that are not compliant
-- those vessels will be denied entry into the United States,”
said Tony Regalbuto, chief of policy and planning for the
Coast Guard’s port security directorate.
But the real task will be distinguishing between ships
that pose a legitimate security threat from those that may
have incorrectly filled out a form or two. To resolve the
dilemma, officials have come up with a complex “matrix”–
a kind of point system designed to focus most heavily on
critical elements of the new security measures.
They also say they’ll look for temporary solutions for those
that are working toward compliance in good faith but aren’t
fully up to speed. “Any shutdowns that will be required
will be modest in number,” said Hereth.
And while both the Coast Guard and IMO insist that core
regulations will be strictly enforced worldwide on July
1, negotiations will continue with countries that aren’t
ready.
Still, no matter how they are applied, the new rules could
reshape the maritime industry, with shipping companies that
have invested in security picking up market share from those
that can’t – or won’t – comply.
“There are ports out there that operate almost on a break
even basis,” said Kim Petersen, executive directory of the
Maritime Security Council, a trade group. “And to have such
ports face infrastructure improvement cost of anywhere between
$5 million and $15 million -- plus the immense recurring
cost -- I would not be surprised if we were to see some
small- or medium-sized ports go out of business.”
By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
June 21, 2004
(with the contribution from AP)
