condensation damage is to apply suitable dunnage to separate the cargo from the container’s walls and floors. This cannot prevent the formation of condensation, but can greatly reduce its commercial implications. It is often recommended to use kraft paper or similar material to line the walls and floors of containers or as protective sheets on top of the cargo. Since these become quickly saturated they cannot afford significant protection against severe sweat, although they can absorb small amounts of condensation and in some circumstances prevent or reduce staining and similar damage. Sheets placed atop the cargo must be readily permeable to air; plastic is unsuitable for this purpose, as condensation could form between sheets and cargo.


Taint


Many foodstuffs can absorb chemicals and foreign odours from the air. This typically affects their taste and severely affects their commercial value even when there are no significant toxicological implications. Coffee, tea and cocoa are particularly susceptible to taint. They are traded primarily on their delicate flavour balances, with sophisticated tastings of every consignment being carried out at various stages. A comparatively minor off-flavour or odour causes commercial damage to these high-value cargoes.


A short article can give only a general introduction to the potential problems associated with the containerised carriage of agricultural products. Condensation in particular is a complex topic. The above may be of some assistance in identifying key areas of concern. However, if in doubt, specialist advice should be sought.


Shipping dangerous goods by sea – the hidden dangers


When towards the end of a voyage four seamen were sent to check lashings little did any of them realise what the


future held in store. Unbeknown to anybody on the ship, a shipment of cylinders of deadly gas had been placed inside a freight container which had been loaded aboard. Although the gas was properly packaged and the cylinders were properly labelled, they had not been declared to the shipping company,


15


the container was not placarded and the cylinders were either badly secured or not at all. Furthermore, the ocean had caused the cylinders to roll, damaging the valves and letting the gas escape. A declared shipment would have gone on deck, but nobody knew so there it was underdeck – and this particular gas was much heavier than air.


If only this story were the product of a fevered imagination. However, regrettably, it was a tragic real life case and two lives were eventually lost but it serves to dramatically underline how vulnerable the ship and its crew can be, even with packaged dangerous goods. In fact, despite the millions of man hours spent in discussing, devising, updating, publishing, training and implementing the dangerous goods rules at international, national and company level, if the cargo originator fails to carry out his part either through ignorance or intent, the whole concept collapses, just like a pack of cards.


Shipments of packaged dangerous goods are quite substantial – it is estimated to be anything up to10% of total tonnage carried and this dictates that there is a need to ensure that there is widespread knowledge and understanding of the rules throughout the maritime transportation chain. After all, the rules have been built up over many years and are often the result of accident or incident experience in the past. The fact that there is wide understanding is shown by the millions of shipments made and completed properly, safely and successfully every year.


However, it is also clear, and there can be no doubt, that there is widespread non compliance to one degree or another with the DG rules and that this indicates a certain level of ignorance of the requirements. This does not mean that it has become dangerous to carry dangerous goods, although, if it is not brought under control, it could well become so. The annual surveys carried out by maritime administrations and reported to the Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers Sub Committee (DSC) of IMO has told its own story. Starting with the USA in 1985, a large number of countries have submitted reports over the years. Separate reports have been compiled by Finland, three Western European nations, followed by five Western European nations, Japan, Sweden, then Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, the USA and Norway. The vast bulk of these reports has revealed considerable shortcomings in the situation found.


An analysis of the reports over the past 5 years, for example, shows:


● Over 9000 cargo transport units (CTUs) were checked


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24