first choice for opinion, policy & insight


Overweight boxes: stop blaming the shippers


Shippers have become the scapegoats for ships capsizing. There has been considerable finger-pointing by some maritime commentators, seeking to blame the shipper for overweight containers or incorrect declarations of the loaded container weights. They are easy targets if one reads, in isolation, the fact that perhaps 20% of containers being loaded on ships are more than three tonnes over


their declared weight. So


when a ship capsizes, one of the first explanations people reach for are overweight containers. The call for mandatory weighing


of containers prior to vessel loading is getting louder, and arguments against it seem like trying to defend the indefensible. But you need to unravel all the facts surrounding the incidents which have sparked these calls. European shippers’


representative, the European Shippers’ Council claims the proposal is disproportionate to the risk. It cites evidence from incident reports and other sources that point to other more likely causes of capsizes or container stack collapses. The UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Board’s report of the MSC Napoli capsize in 2007, the most frequently quoted by supporters of the proposals at the IMO, states:“... the effect of the discrepancies [ in containers’ actual and declared weights] alone would have been insufficient to cause hull failure.” Moreover, many containers


are not in their correct stacking location. Of the 700 container positions examined, “53 (7%) were either in the wrong position or declared as the wrong container. It is generally agreed within the


By Andrew Traill


container industry that up to 10% of containers loaded onto a vessel might not be in their planned place.” And there were strong


suggestions that the ship itself was


not structurally sound:


“The transverse framing in the engine room of MSC Napoli was an inherently weak structure under compressive loading”, and: ”Consequently, it is likely that when the vessel’s hull girder strength was reduced due to the buckling of the weaker panels, the remaining structure had insufficient margin to withstand the increased load”. This is compounded by statements in the report such as: “It has been identified that the hull structure of MSC Napoli failed due to a lack of buckling strength in the engine room region.” These points are seldom raised


by those arguing for an urgent need to introduce mandatory weighing requirements. Of course, the fact that so many


container weights are being mis- declared does require industry attention. But what are the reasons for mis-declaring the weight of the container? Many shippers are unaware of


8293-Seatruck 270x60mm Advert 26/05/2011 12:24pm Page 1


the problems created for handlers and transporters of maritime containers caused by modest excesses of gross weights (under 3


tonnes, for example). It is probably also true that most shippers, if asked, would readily agree that accurate gross cargo weights are being declared on transport documents, because weight calculations are oſten automated using their internal business/ process management systems (e.g. SAP) and supported by weighing the loaded containers either at their premises or those of their logistics service providers, or on the few public weighbridges that might exist along their route to the ports. The reason therefore might


realistically be clerical errors. For example, how oſten is the net tonnage mistakenly being entered into transport documents as the


gross weight, or even mistakenly recording the tare weight? Let us also not forget that it is not just the shipper that enters such information, but also the freight forwarder or even the carrier’s own administrative personnel. Further problems may lie in the


way the cargo is packed into the container, making the container inherently unstable under certain conditions, such as bad weather. Guidelines on best practices on ‘Safe Transport of Containers by Sea’ by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC) are available, but while these point out the areas of concern, perhaps of greater need is a freely available ‘how-to’ guide. The IMO is leading a revision of the ‘IMO/ILO/UNECE Guidelines for packing of cargo transport units. Maybe this is the best vehicle for appropriate advice and guidance of a more practical nature. There


is no single culprit;


everyone in the chain has to address all the possible causes of capsizing. Just blaming the shipper is too easy.


One cheer for rail package


I suppose we should welcome the recast of the EU’s First Railway Package agreed on 19 June. However, while it may help bring benefits, it fails to address the fundamental problem that incumbent, usually state owned, rail freight operators are also in charge of their country’s national rail


infrastructure – hardly the


recipe for an open market. Of more interest, perhaps, is


the expected decision from the European Court later this year on infraction proceedings against


13 member states for failing to put the original First Railways Package of 2001 into practice properly. Until the issue is sorted, I don’t


think we can expect to see much real competition on the rails of Europe. The


recast package does


however allow for the installation of proper regulators with real teeth, as the UK has had for a number of years. That would help ensure open access and help keep access charges keen.


Cabotage – a move in the right direction


The report by a high-level European Commission group recommending gradual opening of the road transport cabotage market is welcome, although it is only a start. It seems reasonable to demand that any operators wishing to partake in another country’s haulage market should be asked to comply with local labour laws and to register there. At the same time, cabotage is good


news for shippers – it helps even out peaks in demand and deal with short-term capacity shortages. Easier


access to the cabotage market will also reduce shippers’ dependence on often costly third party logistics providers and encourage direct relationships between hauliers and their true customers. Of course, the changes do need


to actually happen. Some member states are less keen on the proposals, some hauliers will fight tooth and nail to defend ‘their’ market, so it’s unlikely that the new legislation will have a completely smooth ride through the Brussels machinery.


Kallas gets the wobblies over bigger trucks


Meanwhile, another piece of road legislation has got snarled up in Brussels politics,


although I am


still hopeful of a positive outcome. It might seem strange that while adjacent countries may allow 25-metre long trucks to operate on their respective territories, allowing them to run cross-border runs the real risk of breaking the law, as it is currently interpreted. Transport Commissioner


Siim Kallas has wavered from his previous assertion that allowing cross-border operation seemed sensible and logical. Clearly, I think he does believe that, but now has to deny that he does. Clearly, he has been ‘got at’ by


the anti-”mega-truck” lobby, such as the rail industry, who seem to


forget that the ultimate aim of current EU transport policy is not necessarily to promote use of rail per se, but


to reduce emissions


from freight transport – and if so- called ‘gigaliners’ can achieve that, safely, there is no reason why such a policy should not be pursued. The rail industry’s stance is pure


protectionism, and this is a pity because, currently, it should be on a roll. Rail is in a stronger position than ever, because many firms’ corporate policy now explicitly states that they will switch traffic from road to rail wherever that is possible. Perhaps the rail industry should concentrate on delivering attractive services, and help make that switch from road to rail a reality.


Knowledge is power


As reported elsewhere in this issue, importers shouldn’t just leave everything up to their


trading


partners when it comes to arranging freight transport from another country. Freight charges are a complex area and it is all too easy to find yourself landed with many unexpected costs if you fail to do your homework properly. Then, too, some traders are not above loading


the cost of freight that they have paid for themselves. More than ever, a good shipping


manager – whether importing or exporting – needs to understand the business they are in if they are to obtain the best service at the right price, and not get nasty surprises such as big demands for import and handling charges before they can get their hands on their freight.


Switch to Seatruck!


The Irish Sea freight specialists • 4 routes • 80 departures per week •Reduce road mileage • Unaccompanied trailer specialist


www.seatruckferries.com


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