security to help protect Dutch ships from the threat of attack by (mainly Somali) pirates. It recommends that the Dutch Government moves towards a higher level of protection of its merchant fleet including, “if necessary,” the use of armed private security guards. The report, however, cautions that such security guards should only be hired by the government, and should only perform their security duties as troops under the full authority of the Ministry of Defence. The authors of the report add that, under the current circumstances, it is not desirable that shipowners privately hire armed private security guards, an option which should only be considered “in case of special conditions”. The committee argues that, if the government


uses its own resources, engages reservists or hires armed private security guards who will temporarily be given military status, this will not constitute privatisation of security duties. By creating additional defence capacity in this way, no amendment of legislation and regulations will be required. It is envisaged that the recommendations of


the committee could lead, relatively quickly, to providing the level of protection against piracy considered necessary for merchant vessels. The alternative – whereby shipowners themselves hire private security guards (an approach endorsed by the Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners) – entails “several problems,” according to the committee, and would require drastic amendment of Dutch legislation and regulations, which under normal circumstances could take “several years”. Jan Kromhout, a partner with AKD in


Rotterdam, says, “Clearly, it is the duty of government to do its utmost to protect the merchant fleet from attacks by pirates. In the event that the government is not able to fulfil its duties, for whatever reason, it will have to employ outside help. It is not desirable that privately owned companies hire armed protection to perform the duties which are the responsibility of government, which should retain its monopoly of force. Furthermore, the cost of providing protection against piracy should be borne by the state. Shipowners should only be allowed to hire private armed guards in special situations, in the event that the government is not able to fulfil its duties. “In the event that Dutch shipowners do hire


armed personnel, or provide weapons to those on board, those directly involved, as well as shore-based personnel (including the ultimate management of the company) could face criminal prosecution. Furthermore, shipowners could be faced with local legislation covering the import and export of weapons in the event that the vessel has weapons on board and enters the jurisdiction of another country.” In an October speech to the British Chamber


Security companies can complement the military, but owners must exercise due diligence


of Shipping on the UK Government’s response to counter-piracy, UK Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham told the gathering that while current government policy strongly discourages the use of private armed security on ships, work is almost complete on a change in policy to


Jan Kromhout (AKD): “It is the duty of government… to protect the merchant fleet”


allow armed guards and will be announced soon. “We are planning for the arming of ships to be a temporary measure only. Not one ship carrying armed security has yet been hijacked. And nine out of 10 failed attacks in the last few months were repelled by armed security, in those situations where the military was not involved.” Ultimately the British Government believes it


is down to the industry to analyse its own risks, decide what security it needs, and who it wants to provide it. “But we are strongly encouraged by the good work being done on self-regulation by industry bodies and associations.” Key examples of self-regulation are the


Convoy Escort Programme (CEP) and the Security Association for the Maritime Industry. CEP is being driven by insurer Jardine Lloyd


Thompson. The programme envisages a Gulf of Aden anti-piracy fleet, privately financed and acting in total compliance with the law, escorting merchant vessels through this area. The scheme would be registered in Cyprus and have an operational base in Djibouti. According to Angus Campbell, who is running


APTAS assesses likely threat of attack


UK-based anti-piracy and maritime security consultancy Drum Cussac has unveiled the Automated Piracy Threat Assessment System (APTAS). It has been designed specifically to assess the likelihood of a pirate attack on a vessel with transiting high risk waters. The dynamic and continuous interrogation of a vessel’s course by APTAS identifies changing threat profiles and automatically alerts vessels and their operators to increased levels of threat in real-time, significantly reducing the threat of piracy. APTAS is an online system that enables


users to produce accurate and up-to-date risk assessments, coupled with user-defined


www.tankershipping.com


criteria to support the impact of the threat on their capability, finance and reputation, alongside applied levels of security and protection. The system is recognised by leading insurers and is generating interest in military and government organisations. The system allows users to plot the entire


route for their vessel, analysing the route risk profile at every 25th nautical mile. Its dynamic nature means that it does not simply determine where attacks have taken place, but identities specific risk, based on actual route and vessel information. As the threat profiles changes, APTAS will identify this and provide accurate information automatically, such as the location of a new series


of pirate attacks, what the activity is and whether this affects the course the vessel is on. Using APTAS, low-risk routes are developed


from detailed information and maps generated by APTAS that show users exactly where pirate attacks are occurring, areas of current threat, pirate action group activity and other critical information. However, even once a route is set, a piracy incident, in proximity to any point along the route could change its risk level at any time. When this occurs, APTAS automatically provides users with details on the incident – giving the captain and ship operators an opportunity to modify their route and/or implement appropriate mitigation strategies.


Tanker Shipping & Trade I October/November 2011 I 31


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  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68