Archive for category Maritime Security

Maritime Security: US Government Goes Public With Support For Armed Guards On Boats

Nov 11

Posted by Matt in Maritime Security | 2 Comments

Wow, big news here. Thanks to Somalia Report for breaking this story first, and a hat tip to David Isenberg for finding and posting DoS’s new official position on armed guards on boats.

The thing here is that Secretary of State Clinton has had to make a pretty significant public reversal on her ‘views’ on PSC’s. As a Senator and presidential candidate, she was pretty much opposed to PSC’s and even introduced legislation against the usage of them in the war. Of course that all happened during the aftermath of the Nisour Square deal, and we have come along way since then…. Here is a quote from Somalia Report:

It is a stunning reversal of opinion for Clinton, a well known opponent of the use of private security companies and a political appointee who has openly discussed taking steps to eliminate them. As a presidential candidate running against President Obama she sponsored legislation entitled H.R.4102 “Stop Outsourcing Security Act”. The suggested legislation was created in November of 2007 proposed banning the use of security contractors.

Although it should be noted that the DoS has been steadily using WPS contractors during her entire time as Secretary of State, and I am sure she has experienced the security services of quite a few WPS folks in places like Afghanistan. Security contractors really shined during the attack on the embassy in Kabul, and I am sure that has only enforced how important their contracted guard force really is. Not to mention that their security contractors will be incredibly important to the mission in Iraq as troops leave in mid-December.

So I want to applaud her and the DoS for promoting armed guards on boats. It makes sense, it works, and it is the right thing to do. I also hope that this will open the market a little for US security companies.  If anything, we should see more American guards protecting US flagged vessels. Plus, that would also help chip away at veteran unemployment to some degree. Every little bit helps.

But there is another issue though that the US government needs to address, and that is the cost that US flagged vessels must contend with.  The other day I came across a very interesting document at Marsec4 that talked about how much US flagged vessels pay to operate, versus the global market.

Operating a deep draft ocean going vessel under a US flag costs on average $20,000 per day, a much higher amount than the $7,000 daily average for vessels flying foreign flags.

With that said, if the DoS really wants to help, then reduce or eliminate the frivolous or costly rules and regulations that make it so expensive for US flagged vessels to operate. Get our fleet economically competitive, so at least American shipping can afford armed security and capture some of that global market share out there. -Matt

 

Remarks to the Defense Trade Advisory Group
Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Washington, DC
November 9, 2011
……Finally, I want to provide a brief update on our efforts to counter piracy off the Horn of Africa. This is another area where we are working very closely with industry. Commercial shipping vessels transiting off the coast of Somalia are frequent targets for pirates. The lives of innocent seafarers have been lost and crews are often held hostage for many months in appalling conditions. The monetary total of ransoms demanded runs into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with the total cost of piracy to the global economy estimated to be in the billions.
With so much water to patrol it is difficult for international naval forces in the region to protect every commercial vessel. Working with industry, we recently established a national policy encouraging countries to allow commercial ships transiting high-risk waters to have armed security teams on board. The reason for this is simple: to date no ship with an armed security team aboard has been successfully pirated. We believe that the expanded use of armed security teams by commercial vessels is a major reason why we have seen a decline in the number of successful pirate attacks this year. Therefore, we have recently demarched countries to permit the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on commercial vessels. And we are also working with industry and transit countries to make it less onerous for privately contracted security personnel to transit foreign ports with weapons intended for the self-defense of ships.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Maritime Security: JLT In The News–Private Navy To Start Within Five Months

Nov 8

Posted by Matt in Maritime Security | 1 Comment

The project, first discussed more than a year ago, experienced some delays in getting a state jurisdiction to register its vessels. Cyprus agreed to add the ships last month, following a U.S. State Department veto for registration in the Marshall Islands, Campbell said.

This is really the only quote I was interested in with this article. Of course JLT and these security contractors have been promising this private navy concept for awhile now, and it all revolves around getting backing from a country and from investors.

What I am interested in though, is Cyprus allowing these vessels to be state registered? That seems pretty close to issuing a Letter of Marque if you ask me? Especially if Cyprus registers these vessels, knowing full well that they will be purposely used for anti-piracy operations and escort duty. That they are endorsing a ‘private navy’.  Even if they have not issued a LoM, they might as well do so anyways, because in effect, Cyprus is blessing a privateer force. (mind you, historically speaking, LoM’s have been issued to early privateers to do exactly what these guys will be doing–escorting commerce through pirate infested waters)

The other thing to bring up here is that there just isn’t enough naval assets out there to cover all of the transits.  The reason for this is the poor economy and a reduction in naval forces and their missions. Especially missions protecting commerce in such a vast operational area. So enter private industry to fill in the void…..  But it is all still all talk, and when this private navy actually gets some investors, and we see video of them doing their thing, then I will truly be impressed. -Matt

 

Somalia Piracy Spurs Private Navy to Start Within Five Months
November 07, 2011
By Michelle Wiese Bockmann
The company behind the world’s first private navy to protect merchant ships against Somali pirates plans to start armed escorts through the Gulf of Aden within five months after attacks rose to a record this year.
Convoy Escort Programme Ltd., backed by the marine insurance industry, will initially deploy seven former naval patrol boats, each with armed security teams of eight people on board, Angus Campbell, chief executive officer, said by phone from Swarland, England today. The bullet-proofed boats will charge about $30,000 per ship traveling in a convoy of around four vessels over three to four days, he said.
“We are going to be a deterrent,” Campbell said. “We are not in the business of looking for trouble but if anybody tries to attack a vessel we are escorting, our security teams will deploy force if they have to act in self defence.”
Attacks reached a record this year and cost the global economy an estimated $7 billion to $12 billion annually, according to the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization. About 23,000 vessels carrying $1 trillion of trade pass through the Gulf of Aden every year, the U.K. government estimates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Maritime Security: Guards Must Be Regulated, Says BIMCO

Nov 4

Posted by Matt in Maritime Security | 3 Comments

This is funny. BIMCO was one of the signators of that letter on the request to use UN guards on boats.  I guess that idea went out the window? Or maybe that was a political ploy to get governments to act on the legalities of armed guards on boats, because the alternative of using blue helmets was a bridge too far?

As to the idea of setting up some contract guidelines that covers all of the basis for armed guards on boats, is great. Anything that helps to alleviate the legal issues on these vessels and during transits, just so we can continue to get more guards on these vessels. Although I would highly suggest to BIMCO to not be biased towards purely using British security companies.

The reason why I say that is because of this quote:

Noakes estimates that between 6,000 and 7,000 personnel would be needed to deploy four-man armed teams on around 50% of vessels transiting the Indian Ocean or Gulf of Aden. But that number of professional operatives does not exist.

I disagree with Noakes on this matter. There are plenty of operatives to use, but that would require opening up the market to bring in US and/or other Nationalities. But for US companies specifically, the infrastructure, manpower, management, and most of all, experience in high threat operations is there. US companies have also been operating in two wars, and multiple other countries in this war for the last 10 years. Hell, just look at the last USCENTCOM report if you want an idea on the numbers of contractors, and our flexibility.

It is a ridiculous assumption to say that the industry cannot handle filling in these guard positions. Especially with today’s global mess of an economy, and especially with this massive pool of unemployed combat veterans. But yet again, in order to tap into this pool of resources, that would require being more inclusive towards this market of force.

Not everyone can be Royal Marines or SAS/SBS. Nor can everyone you hire be a Navy SEAL or CAG.  But you can find plenty of veterans with tons of combat experience in these wars, that can certainly handle a weapon and pull guard duty on a boat. You can also find plenty of companies out there that can certainly answer the call and fill a contract.

On the other hand, you get what you pay for.  If you want to attract the organized and experienced PSC’s and PMC’s that I am talking about, then you are going to have to pay a reasonable price to get them. If you want to go cheap, then of course you are going to have problems. But that can be alleviated as well, by just passing on the costs to your customers. You just have to look at your security as something that is as important and as vital as a mechanic or ship’s captain. Plus, 100 percent success rate for armed guards repelling pirate attacks is a hard statistic to argue against. If it works, then ramp it up and get armed guards on boats. -Matt

 

Guards Must Be Regulated, Says Bimco
November 4th, 2011
Bimco plans to introduce an armed-guard contract as fears grow that scores of second-rate companies are jumping on the piracy bandwagon.
The move comes as UK prime minister David Cameron confirmed that the UK is reversing its position and in future armed guards will be permitted on ships flying the Red Ensign.
Giles Noakes, Bimco’s chief maritime-security officer, says the new contract is to protect the interests of shipowners using privately contracted armed security personnel.
“We have been forced into a position where large numbers of owners and operators are using armed guards,” said Noakes.
“Unfortunately, growth is exponential and there are a large number of cowboys out there jumping on the bandwagon.”
The new contract will be aimed at ensuring that armed-guard companies follow the guidelines to owners in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) MSC Circular 1405.
The circular is designed to provide “hoops” that security companies must jump through to prove they are capable of doing the job.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy

Oct 30

Posted by Matt in Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, United Kingdom | No Comments

Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.

Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?

I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. -Matt

 

Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Maritime Security: Maersk Discusses Anti-piracy Issues In Interview

Oct 25

Posted by Matt in Maritime Security | 2 Comments

This is a nice little interview with one of Maersk’s operations folks and it gives you a good idea as to their thought process and concerns. I really liked it when he mentioned that armed security has a 100 percent success ratio. Hard to argue with those kinds of statistics.

Reuters also posted some good graphics that showed a increase in ransom amounts over the years, but a decrease in the amount of hostages taken in the last year. So the more painful the ransom amounts, the more focus the shipping industry has had in not putting their crews into a position of being taken. Also, if the crews know that the company does not care about their well being, then that could lead to labor disputes. Meaning, striking crews can impact a shipping company’s pocket book.

So bottom line, armed guards on boats protect assets, diminish the possibility of paying more ransoms, protects goods so they make it to port on time and in one piece, and gives the crews the security they deserve during transits. -Matt

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Italy To Use Military To Guard Merchant Ships Against Pirates

Oct 11

Posted by Matt in Italy, Maritime Security | 2 Comments

Interesting news, and this is coming right after a report of another Italian vessel being taken. The reason why it was taken is because their guard force on the boat was not armed. Funny how some folks still think that a less than lethal, unarmed guard force is still a good idea?  On the bright side, it sounds like the MV Montecristo was retaken by British and US commandos and all of the hostages have been released.

As far as using military assets on merchant vessels, I guess that will work. Although I certainly hope that these shipping companies are paying the bill for such a thing, because that is a pretty sweet deal to get a military protection force on their boats for free.  Maybe Italian banks or jewelry stores should write their lawmakers and ask if they will provide military details to protect their businesses?

The Italian navy will have to re-adjust as well to service all of these private vessels. And what is interesting with that is aren’t these vessels losing their merchant status by posting military folks on them?  Aren’t they now technically military vessels?  For example, if these vessels were attacked by an enemy of Italy, that the vessel would be considered a military target and not a civilian target. And who would be in charge on these vessels, the ship’s captain or the military force? I don’t know, and these are some interesting legal questions that I do not have an answer for. -Matt

 

Italy to use military to guard merchant ships against pirates
October 11, 2011
By Barry Moody
Italy is to station military forces on its merchant vessels to guard against attacks by Somali pirates, shipping sources said on Tuesday, the day after another of its ships was attacked off the anarchic east African country.
Many ships already carry private security contractors to try to prevent hijacks, but deployment of military forces on merchant vessels would mark a clear escalation in measures to combat piracy, which costs the world economy billions of dollars each year.
The sources said Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa would sign an agreement later on Tuesday with the confederation of Italian ship owners to put military guards on board vessels in the huge area of the Indian Ocean at risk from Somali pirates, who have hijacked several Italian ships.
The Montecristo, an Italian cargo ship, was attacked by five men in a small boat off the coast of Somalia on Monday, its owner the D’Alesio Group said. A pirate told Reuters by phone that it was under their control. The ship had 23 crew from Italy, India and Ukraine.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Spain Allows Heavy Weapons On Tuna Fishing Vessels

Sep 29

Posted by Matt in Indian Ocean, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, Spain, Weapons | 2 Comments

You know, out of all of the countries that I have followed, Spain has been one of those countries willing to work with private security and shipping companies the most to achieve a good level of security. Unless someone can point out a better arrangement?

Especially when Spain is paying grants to Tuna boats that cover 25% of the cost to hire security, or providing military training to that security, and most of all, allowing those PSC’s to use heavy weapons. That last one is a big plus for me, just because it reflects the reality of what is out there.

I also like the idea of placing conditions on these grants. Although why not just grant the Letter of Marque? But this is an interesting way of mitigating the principal-agent problem.  Here is the quote:

“No aid shall be granted in cases of breach of Community law, Common Fisheries Policy or legislation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activity. In these cases the aid will be refunded depending on the severity of the infringement,” the Ministry added.

Armed guards on boats are having some fantastic success against piracy. We have a 100 percent success rate. But that is no reason to get comfortable or to not evolve and stay one step ahead. Today’s pirates are consolidating, they are innovating, they are attacking using wolfpack tactics, they are using NVG’s to attack at night, and they are using weapons of war.  With that kind of enemy, we must give today’s armed guards every advantage we can.  So with that said, I give Spain high marks for this new weapons policy. -Matt

 

Heavy weapons allowed in tuna fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean
September 28, 2011
In order to combat pirates’ action in the Indian Ocean, the Ministry of Defense of Spain authorized the use of large caliber weapons — 12.70 mm — in tuna vessels fishing in these waters.
So far, the boats have been able to carry weapons of 7.62 millimetres, but the current ones are much more powerful and they are usually anchored using some kind of support.
The measure was announced by Defence Minister, Carme Chacón, after meeting with representatives of tuna vessels and of shipowners of the Spanish fleet in the Indian Ocean.
Thus, Spain is the only country with permission to carry heavy weapons on board to fight Somali pirates, Diario Montañes reported.
The initiative will be implemented as soon as the Government of Seychelles comes to approve the protocol submitted by the Spanish government with details of the agreement.
According to Chacón, it is “almost imminent” to carry such weapons in the Spanish vessels.
When asked about the possibility of managing an operation similar to Atalanta in the Gulf of Guinea, following the increase of crime in these waters, Chacón dismissed it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Cyprus Merchant Ships To Carry Gunmen Against Piracy, CNA Says

Sep 27

Posted by Matt in Cyprus, Legal News, Maritime Security | No Comments

Unfortunately, this is all I could get on this story. There might have been stuff hidden in Cyprus news sites, but I could find anything, and translation mechanisms kind of sucked. Either way Lloyd’s List reported in June about Cyprus lawmakers introducing legislation that would make it legal for their flagged vessels to have armed guards. So hopefully this story below indicates some movement towards this becoming a reality?

I also imagine that the ‘cooking beans‘ incident, where a Cyprus vessel was set on fire by pirates as the crew cowered in their little safe room, probably brought just a little too much negative attention to the matter. lol  Hopefully we will see this law passed, and armed guards can get on these boats. -Matt

 

Cyprus Merchant Ships to Carry Gunmen Against Piracy, CNA Says
By Stelios Orphanides
Sep 26, 2011
Cyprus’s government is preparing a change to the law that will allow its merchant ships to carry gunmen as protection against pirates, Cyprus News Agency reported, citing a shipping official.
The east Mediterranean island is close to completing a bill which will be submitted to the parliament aimed at protecting Cypriot ships, CNA said, citing Sergios Sergiou, director of the Cypriot Department of Merchant Shipping.
Story here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Funny Stuff: Another Reason For Armed Security, ‘Pirate Tactic #52–Cooking Beans’

Sep 22

Posted by Matt in Funny Stuff, Maritime Security | No Comments

I call this pirate tactic (#52), ‘cooking beans’. lol Quite simply, if the crew and captain of the ship goes running into the citadel, the pirates just board the ship and set it on fire. The fire then cooks ‘the beans’ in the citadel, much like how you would cook a can of beans on an open fire (likewise, if the can is not open, those beans could blow up-lol) This tactic is great if a ship doesn’t have armed security and a pirate force is able to take control of the ship.

On a serious note, when a shipping company is so cheap as to not invest in armed security, and instead depends upon someone else to protect them or save them when their ship is set on fire by pirates, then I don’t have much sympathy for them. The lesson here is that running to the citadel or safe room of a ship, basically relinquishes control of that ship to an attacking force. And once on the ship, they can do whatever on your ship in order to get what they want. Pay the money and get armed security on your boat. -Matt

 

1 Andrea Doria rescue2Funny Stuff: Another Reason For Armed Security, Pirate Tactic #52 Cooking Beans

M/V Pacific Express on fire. Photo courtesy of NATO.

 

Pirates Set Fire to Cargo Ship After Failed Hijacking
September 22, 2011
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reported that pirates have set the Estelle Shipping-owned cargo ship, M/V Pacific Express, ablaze after they were unable to take control of the vessel.
The IMB reports indicate that the armed pirates were aboard two skiffs about 300 nautical miles east of Mombasa, Kenya, and attempted to seize the vessel.  The Cyprus Maritime-managed Pacific Express crewmembers were all able to retreat to the onboard citadel and dispatched for assistance.
In response to the refuge of the crew, the pirates then set fire to the ship in hopes it would thwart the crew from the citadel.  The piracy flagship of NATO, Andrea Doria, was sent to answer the request. According to the Italian Navy, the pirates fled the scene when they noticed the Andrea Doria approaching.
NATO security teams then evacuated the 26 crew members who were in the citadel, including a Ukrainian ship master, and 25 Filipinos.  The men boarded the Andrea Doria and will be transported to Mombasa.
The M/V Pacific Express had been en route to Mombasa to drop off shipments of steel bars and coils before the attack.  There are no reports on the fate of the Cyprus-flagged vessel as of yet.
Story here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Marine Insurers Backing Armed Guards As Piracy Threat Grows

Sep 20

Posted by Matt in Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security | No Comments

Frédéric Gallois, the deputy general manager at Gallice Security, a specialised security firm, said that keeping a team of four armed agents on board a vessel can cost between $4,000 and $8,000 a day.
Paul Tourret, the director of Institute Supérieur d’Économie Maritime, ISEMAR, a research institute that specialises in sea-based economic activities, estimated that the extra costs to a ship due to the risk of piracy can reach up to $50,000 a day.- Link to quote here.

That is an interesting quote up top, and I am always on the look out for cost estimates on transits. ISEMAR specializes in sea-based economics, so I tend to perk up when think tanks like this put out figures. Although on their website, I was not able to find any documents about armed security costs.  Perhaps some of my french readers could help me out here?

But the real story here is the one below.  That insurers are now getting behind the idea that armed guards on boats is a heck of good idea, compared to their other options. Or compared to the future of West’s navies.

They mentioned below about the defense cuts of Western navies, and the reduction of force size over the coming years. This is a very important point to bring up when it comes to today’s anti-piracy efforts. Eventually today’s war planners and strategists will come to the realization that using large Destroyers to take out tiny little pirate boats is not exactly cost effective. Especially when those navies still continue to falter when it comes to protecting commerce.

Cook said private firms would play an increasing role as navies face spending reviews, citing prospects of a 30 percent decline in the size of Western navies in the next 20 years. “They’re taking the policemen off the block,” he said.

The other statistic that was interesting was this one from ISEMAR. I would have thought that number would have been bigger? Especially if Peter Cook of SAMI said he has 58 member companies? I would be curious if SAMI or any other maritime groups agree with this number?

French maritime economics institute ISEMAR said there were about 1,000 private guards being employed by ships to counter Somali pirates.

Finally, with all of the increased use of armed security, the reduction in naval forces, and increase in pirate attacks and complexity, I have to think that the legal authority for how armed security is used will change. I have argued in the past that defense industries do not profit from the end of their venture. That they profit if the client they protect, continues to be attacked and threatened. But with offense industry, a different market force is set up to where companies profit from the ‘destruction of an enemy’ that threatens a client. That an offense industry work’s itself out of a job.

When countries really think about it, and try to understand what the economics are with how the pirates operate, and how private force ‘could’ operate to counter it, perhaps there might be some pragmatic choices made on the legal front? The question is, how do you reduce the numbers of pirates and attacks, and how can private industry be used to accomplish such a thing?

Specifically, I suggest to bring back the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, and create an offense industry to ‘expulsis piratis, restituta commercia’. It is the legal ‘sledge hammer’ in the tool box of states, and it is just sitting there getting rusty.  As piracy becomes better funded, more violent, more organized, and more rampant, eventually states will have to re-evaluate what is ‘inherently practical’; and change their view on what is ‘inherently governmental’ in order to stop this. -Matt

Marine Insurers Backing Armed Guards as Piracy Threat Grows
By Gus Trompiz
September 20, 2011
More ship insurers are backing the use of private armed guards on merchant vessels at sea to combat Somali piracy as attacks and the resulting costs are set to rise in coming weeks, industry officials said on Tuesday.
Pirate attacks on oil tankers and other ships are costing the world economy billions of dollars a year and navies have struggled to combat the menace, especially in the vast Indian Ocean. Seaborne gangs are set to ramp up attacks in the area after the monsoon season ends.
A famine crisis in Somalia could also draw more people into piracy, marine insurers said.
“Piracy is clogging the arteries of globalization,” said Emma Russell with underwriter Watkins, a member of the Lloyd’s of London insurance market. “No vessel with armed guards has yet been taken,” she added.
Industry delegates at the annual conference of the International Union of Maritime Insurance (IUMI) said there were more than 20,000 transits a year in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
Speakers at the conference said the hiring of private armed guards to accompany ships is increasingly seen as an effective deterrent against pirates and as a complement to overstretched navies, many of whom face budget cuts.
Ship owners and insurers have until recently been reluctant to accept the use of armed private contractors. They have hesitated partly due to legal liabilities and risks, including the problem of bringing weapons into some territorial waters and due to the fear of escalating violence.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,