46-WCN-Feb09:Layout 1 24/2/09 16:04 Page 1
WorldCargo
CONTAINER SECURITY
news
US scanning law under fire
The implementation of effective
container security measures at sea-
The planned introduction in 2012 of new security
port/border crossing interfaces has
legislation requiring all US-bound containers to be
long been an issue for the global
transport industry.
screened at their foreign port of origin has sparked
However, the stakes were raised
in August 2007 when the US de- global opposition
cided on a new unilateral approach
to the problem. Legislation was and called for the mandatory of origin, which must check for transmit the scanned images di-
drawn up by the US Congress in screening of all US-bound contain- a range of threats (explosives and rectly to US Customs and Bor-
the form of the HR1 (House ers within five years. nuclear materials, in addition to der Protection (CBP) as docu-
Resolution No 1) bill, which grew The responsibility for screen- firearms, narcotics, contraband mentary evidence.
out of the 9/11 Commission Act ing would be on the foreign port and even immigrants) and then Central to the operation is the
It is widely held that 100% scanning of US-bound containers is impractical
deployment of suitable, non-intru-
sive container scanning technol- Another likely outcome is that While the ZDS remains
ogy based on X-ray generation increased traffic would be routed wholly supportive of any move to
from high-energy linear accelera- through larger “mega-terminals” tighten global security, it does not
tors, plus a separate capability for at the expense of smaller ports, as believe that the HR1 legislation
radiation detection, at all ports/ these will be less able to fund the will provide any noticeable im-
terminals trading with the US. required scanning technology and provement in protection for the
It was the view of the CBP and keep down their box processing US or EU member states, but “in-
US Department of Homeland costs. EU sources calculate that the stead will create major distur-
Security (DHS) that only through scanning procedure, on its own, bances in the trade relations be-
such determined action could the will cost at least US$10 per con- tween Germany and the US and
risk of a terrorist attack on the tainer for larger ports operating also lead to major congestion
maritime transport chain be prop- the most efficient high-through- within German port areas and at
erly countered. The DHS had al- put terminals and be far greater at hinterland cross-points.”
ready identified many US entry smaller terminals. The total extra In short, the ZDS believes that
ports as potentially vulnerable tar- handling charge per container will “the requirement to implement
gets and believed that existing be considerably higher for all ports 100% container scanning will not
customs provisions were insuffi- and possibly as much as 10 times be justifiable on the basis of a cost-
cient to meet the security threat. that incurred from carrying out benefit analysis” either for Ger-
HR1 was duly ratified late in the scan itself. man or US interests.
2007, with July 2012 set as its date Over 600 seaports will be af-
of implementation. Deferment fected globally, according to the Huge burden
would only be possible through EU, along with 40% of the world’s India, along with at least 30 other
the DHS secretariat, which can container trade - estimated at over countries across the Asia-Pacific
grant a two-year extension or US$500B per year. Moreover, be- region, has similarly expressed
bring the start-date forward. cause HR1 does not address con- deep concern, stating that the new
tainers being exported from the US law would raise transaction
Global opposition US, its introduction is likely to costs substantially and place a huge
Predictably, the US action has trig- prompt other nations to impose burden on ports in Asia, where
gered a groundswell of opposition rules of their own on inbound large volumes of US-bound con-
throughout the past year, initially container traffic from the US and tainer exports are handled.
from the EU and subsequently so further add to the pressure. The difficulties have been
around the world. Many countries In addition, HR1 is claimed to mulled extensively by senior gov-
have since found a voice in the run counter to all previous US- ernment officials in India, where
World Customs Organisation backed initiatives, including the the CBEC recently gained approval
(WCO), which is hopeful that the CSI (Container Security Initia- for another seven scanning ma-
new Obama Administration might tive) and ISPS (International Ship chines to be installed at seaport
be persuaded to relax the legisla- and Port Facilities Security) Code, Customs stations during 2009.
tion or, at least, postpone its in- which are more globally focused However, with as many as 320 sepa-
troduction. and generally recognised to have rate Customs locations in opera-
The Transport Guides are an invaluable reference U����i�v���vi
HR1 is objected to on the had a positive impact. tion throughout India at ports and
source for the handling of perishables. The books U���iv��}i�>����]��>V���}�>�`����vv��}
provide guidelines to: U����>��������iv��}i�>�����i�����i��
grounds that it is unilateral and It also makes no reference to inland depots and each scanner
U����>�`>�`��>�`��i}��>����� U��>���V��V��>�����>�`�>������i�i�V������ very costly to implement. It is also the WCO’s own SAFE Frame- costing upwards of US$3M, the
U�����������i����i�i����v�������>}i U��V�`i��v�}��`���>��������}���>V���i
likely to increase congestion at work of Standards, which has been expense associated with equipping
U���`i>��>�`��iV���i�`i`��i��i�>���i�V��`������ U��V�������i`�>�`���`�v�i`�>������i�i
ports around the world and result widely adopted since its inception the whole country is enormous.
in reduced efficiency and higher in 2005. This considers container The CBEC states that, instead
terminal handling costs interna- scanning to be just one of the of rushing headlong at the behest
tionally. Existing trade patterns many tools available in the fight of HR1, it would prefer to bring
could even be upset, as growing against international crime and extra scanners into use at major
numbers of US-bound contain- terrorism and advocates the build- ports “in a phased manner over a
Get free extracts at www.gtft.dk
ers may end up being moved via ing of a more comprehensive in- number of years.”
Mexico or Canada, in order to telligence process based on risk Moreover, the CBEC has al-
circumvent the scanning rules. management and the sharing of ready had a bad experience with
information. imported gamma-ray scanning
equipment, which was alleged to
+44 1372 370111
this form to
Fax
Call for action have performed poorly and been
Available from WorldCargo News
Lobbyists against the US meas- subject to breakdown (see
ures are due to press for action at WorldCargo News February 2008,
“Container Terminal
a WCO meeting in Brussels this p54). The procurement budget
month. They will point to strong was set too low, in the view of the
Planning - A Theoretical
Name...........................................
criticism that has already been CBEC, resulting in the selection
forthcoming from numerous of models of too limited a specifi-
Approach”
...........................................................
sources, including the Association cation for the duties required.
of German Seaport Operators Ironically, the machinery in
Title.....................................................
(ZDS), the Central Board of Ex- question had been supplied from
A major study by Dr Itsuro Watanabe
...........................................................
cise and Customs (CBEC) in In- the US and it has raised further
(Container System Technology)
dia and even from within the US. fears that the CBEC may still not
Company ............................................ A position paper released by the be able to effectively scan every
This comprehensive 245 page study is an in-depth analysis of capacity constraints, productivity, selectivity
ZDS in April 2008 summarised container individually even as-
...........................................................
many of the global seaport indus- suming it could purchase and in-
and flexibility of different container handling systems in terminals of different types and sizes: common-users
try’s worst misgivings by suggest- stall all the necessary hardware/in-
or dedicated; hub centre (transshipment and/or relay) or import/export vocation; gateway or feeder port; ...........................................................
ing that the Port of Hamburg alone frastructure in time, particularly
intermodal rail or truck distribution inland; with or without CFS, etc. Profusely illustrated with charts,
would incur an extra annual cost given the rapid growth in US traf-
figures and explanatory tables. Effects of different call patterns of containerships and dwell day regimes.
Address...............................................
of €36M simply to cover the trans- fic being handled by Indian ports.
Predictive power provided through development of queuing theories. Hundreds of detailed equations.
........................................................... port of over 120,000 containers The trade volume moving be-
Price: £165 or US$245 or
destined for the US from their tween India and the US was val-
€245 including postage and packing.
...........................................................
holding stacks to the scanning fa- ued at more than US$40B in 2006,
cility. The figure rises to €300M for at least 60% of which was out-
a73 I enclose my cheque or bank draft for £..................US$................. This must be drawn on a UK bank.
...........................................................
Bremenhaven, where the propor- bound from India.
a73 Please invoice my company - we will mail study on receipt of payment.
...........................................................
tion of US-bound traffic is higher Objections to HR1 were
a73 Please debit my American Express a73 Visa a73 Mastercard a73 (please indicate card and currency used) at over 1M units/year. This is with- raised strongly at the 12
th
meeting
Company business ..............................
out considering the charge for the of the WCO Asia-Pacific region,
a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 a73 Expiry date a73 a73 a73 a73
actual scanning process and the ac- held last April, with the whole is-
...........................................................
companying cost of initial equip- sue due for a wider discussion at
Signature............................................................ Date..................................................
Fax......................................................
ment installation and training. the aforementioned WCO gath-
Nor does it take any account ering in Europe this month. Be-
WCN Publishing: Northbank House, 5 Bridge Street, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8BL, UK.
Please make payments to: WCN Publishing WCN PUBLISHING VAT No: 644 2190 53
Tel....................................................... of the two ports’ growing tran- sides India and the EU, many other
shipment volumes, much of which trading partners with the US, in-
is also destined for the US. cluding Brazil, Argentina, South
46 February 2009
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