the European Commission. “The drug traffickers promote corrupt actions and practices sometimes by bribery, sometimes by intimidation. We are working with authorities at all levels to strengthen systems in the fight against the criminal activity this report outlines.”
The analysis was conducted with the Security Steering Committee of the ports of Antwerp, Hamburg/ Bremerhaven, and Rotterdam. Europol said that Europe’s three biggest ports are among the most targeted for criminal infiltration although organised crime networks are also expanding into smaller ports as a means of avoiding enforcement. In the last few years, they estimate that at least 200 tons of cocaine have been trafficked through the ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam alone.
The report finds that the structure of the ports and the nature of their operations makes them vulnerable to infiltration. They highlight the open structure, need for access, growing automation, and a large number of companies and personnel involved in port operations.
The report identifies a few common techniques used in smuggling including “rip-on/rip-off” where the drugs or other items are hidden with legitimate imports and retrieved in or outside the port at the destination. A newer switch method involves moving the drugs between containers during inter-community transport from one EU country to another. However, the gangs are also becoming more sophisticated by cloning containers by using the same registration number of multiple boxes. “Trojan horse containers,” are used to get extraction teams into the port often hidden inside an export container sometimes days before the arrival of the illicit goods.
The main recommendations of the report include better international information exchange as they note the gangs have infiltrated ports on all the continents. They said ports must integrate security features into the design of their infrastructure and public- private partnerships need to be implemented to involve all port actors essential for tracking the infiltration.
Read the full report at
https://bit.ly/3KCeNyh. Or scan the QR code.
IMO PUBLISHES GLOLITTER, A GUIDE FOR TACKLING PLASTIC WASTE THROUGH PORT FACILITIES
The International Maritime Organization has published a new guide to support countries to put in place port reception facilities to receive marine plastic litter from ships. Plastic litter has devastating effects on our oceans, marine life and human health. Some scientists warn that, by 2050, the quantity of plastics in the sea will outweigh fish.
The Guidance Document on Conducting Techno-Feasibility Studies for the Establishment of Port Reception Facilities for Plastic Waste has been developed by the GloLitter Partnerships team.
The document outlines the costs of operating a port reception facility and the revenue that such facilities can generate. It provides tools and guidance on conducting economic assessments and techno-feasibility studies concerning Port reception facilities for plastic waste generated on board ships, including fishing gear. Case studies of waste reception facilities in different ports around the world (large and small) are used to illustrate the relevant income and expenditure flows.
Ports need to cover the costs incurred in collecting and treating the waste received from ships by charging direct and/or indirect fees, and by selling products derived from the waste. In smaller ports with limited vessel calls, it is deemed essential that all ships contribute to the cost of provision of reception facilities, including those ships not actually using them. Reception facilities in large ports are on standby around the clock so that ships that need to discharge waste are not unduly delayed. In smaller ports this would be too costly.
Download the report at
https://bit.ly/3KeKxbC. Or scan the QR code.
22 | The Report • June 2023 • Issue 104
Reports and publications
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
