Feral Jundi

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Industry Talk: BIMCO And ISO Join Forces To Establish PMSC Standards

Filed under: Industry Talk,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 10:07 AM

Compliance with the new ISO Standard will provide a number of advantages and assurances for Shipowners as well as PMSCs. Together with BIMCO’s GUARDCON the Shipowner will have a solid foundation on which to base the choice of armed security providers. Furthermore, for the PMSC, compliance with the new ISO Standard together with the use of BIMCO GUARDCON will constitute a hallmark of professionalism.

Great news and having an association like BIMCO behind this is a big push.  BIMCO is the largest international shipping association in the world. Here is a blurb from their website about how big.

BIMCO is the largest of the international shipping associations representing ship-owners controlling around 65 percent of the world’s tonnage and with members in more than 120 countries drawn from a broad range of stakeholders having a vested interest in the shipping industry, including managers, brokers and agents.

So when you have that kind of power to back something like an ISO standard for PMSC’s, I think that is significant. Couple this with the efforts of other groups like ASIS getting an ANSI rating for a code of conduct, and the efforts of the ICoC and you can see that momentum is gathering for making PMSC’s a legitimate market of force.  Not to mention all of the input and hard work that industry associations have put into these standards.

The end result will be internationally recognized standards for what is a quality PMSC–or an ‘ISO Standard‘.

On the other hand, I certainly hope that the ISO is truly universal and not biased towards one country or another. It should be a standard that any country that has PMSC’s can achieve and participate in, with reasonable investment. Because this is the thing with standards–you just don’t get those for free.

I am also wary of those who wish to turn the standardization process into a over regulated money making scheme. Sure we want standards, but who wants a set of rules that makes business unprofitable because of all of the extra costs? Or basically creating an industry that profits from regulating another industry. I certainly hope this regulation and accreditation industry does not get out of hand. So this is something to watch as we get closer to an ISO standard for this industry.

I say this, because if you look at what is going on with the maritime security market, you see the companies continue to tack on training requirements that are just overkill it seems. For example, in my last maritime security job post, Control Risks listed these requirements for work.

Essential:
-Minimum of 5 years military experience
-Prior experience of mobile or static maritime security
-Fluent English
-FPOS I as a minimum
-ISPS SSO Qualification
-STCW 95
-ENG 1 Medical (or recognised equivalent)
-Criminal Record Check
-Seaman’s Book
-Yellow Fever inoculation certificate

lol. I mean look at all of that crap that contractors have to have as requirements to be ‘armed guards on boats’?  And I have seen this with other companies that have flown these jobs as well. The catch is that many of them do ‘training’ on top of providing security teams, so having these requirements only helps them to make money off of that side business called training and certification. So where does it end and will an ISO give these companies even more angles to overburden contractors with cost and hoops to jump through?

Not only that, but check out the £220 cost for an SIA license as an example? Or all of the hoops you need to go through just to get that SIA license? So I appreciate an ISO Standard, but I certainly hope we don’t go down the path of over regulation. Or maybe an ISO will put a stop to over regulation, just because if everyone meets the ISO standard, what is the point of going beyond that standard? Interesting stuff and we will see how it goes. –Matt

 

BIMCO – ISO join forces to establish PMSC standards
ISO standard will be available in 2012 as a Publicly Available Specification
05/08/2012
In a joint submission to the 90th session of IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee, BIMCO and ISO explain that work is underway to establish an ISO standard for the accreditation and certification of PMSCs (private maritime security companies) providing contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) on board ships.
The new ISO standard will be available in 2012 as a Publicly Available Specification. Because the reputation and recognition of the organisations involved provide essential legitimacy, BIMCO firmly believes that this is the best and swiftest methodology to develop the process through which to audit with the necessary thoroughness. In IMO precedent has been set before with endorsement of ISO standards and it is hoped that IMO will also endorse this new ISO standard and thereby help speedily resolve this complex issue.

(more…)

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Industry Talk: So What Is Going On With The ICoC?

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:30 PM

Ever since the news of all of these companies signing on to this International Code of Conduct, there hasn’t been much else reported. So I figured I would do a little research and see where they are at.

Low and behold, there is actually some interesting movement going on with the group. First, they have a website.  Excellent move and it sounds like they are getting organized. Below, I listed all of the members of the steering committee, and these are the folks that will decide how this thing is to work.

I thought it was interesting that they found representatives from all over. Here is a quote:

Michael Clarke, G4S
Mark DeWitt, Triple Canopy
Estelle Meyer, Saracen International
Sylvia White, Aegis

Yep, that list says it all. G4S is the largest security company in the world. Triple Canopy is a large US based company. Aegis is another huge company with offices all over. But Saracen International….Now that is interesting. I guess they are the largest company representing Africa?

The other news with the ICoC is that there are now 211 members!  Up top, I even started a page dedicated to ICoC members, and as more folks sign on, I will update. The list is in a Scribd format, and I think that makes very easy to scroll through and use.

But the real story here that I wanted to talk about, was the discussion in their latest minutes about the grievance process. My number one concern with groups like SAMI, ISOA, and now this ICoC group….as always….is what will they do about members who violate the standards? What is the crime, and what is the punishment?

It is one thing to get everyone to sign on to these codes of conduct, but if you have no disciplinary policy with teeth to back them up, then what’s the point? lol Seriously. Why make laws, if you plan not to enforcement or punish folks for doing bad things?

Now I am not saying that the ICoC is not going to punish members that screw up, but according to these minutes, it sounds like they are going to put the onus of punishment on the companies themselves first. Which is fine, but what if the company does not want to clean house, or maybe they just want to drag it out until everyone forgets about the grievance.

Of course companies should all strive to take care of business so that they are in accordance to the ICoC, as well as doing all they can to take care of their people and clients.  But if they have no fear of punishment, because the ICoC is not aggressive or is unwilling to get tough with members that pay dues, then you can kind of see the potential problems here. Which really boils down the question to this. Is the ICoC just words, or do those words actually mean something?

As you read through the minutes, the ICoC committee also mentioned the good offices concept and creating an incentive of some type for companies to actually do something about this stuff.  I had to look up good offices in the dictionary, and here is a quote:

Third-party influence that facilitates one party’s dealings with another.

So basically they will act as a mediator between the aggrieved and that company?  Interesting, and yet again, what interest would this office have to fight for the aggrieved?  Isn’t it a conflict of interest if a mediator is getting payment by one group in the form of dues/membership fees, and then claiming to help out the other side (the aggrieved) who does not pay dues?

Finally, I would really like to see the incentive(s) that the committee comes up with in future discussions, that will actually get companies to abide by the standards. Are we talking fines, or membership loss or suspension. How about a black list of bad companies?  What are we talking about here?

The big picture is pretty simple to spell out. Members get value when they sign on to this document, by enjoying the benefits of a gold seal of approval. Clients want to believe in that standard, and trust that they are actually doing business with a good company. Contractors want to believe that they are working for a company that actually cares about treating them properly, and this ICoC is a symbol of a companies desire to do good.

But with weak to non-existent enforcement of those standards, that gold seal of approval will turn into lead and clients, the public, and contractors will have no respect for what it stands for. Those are my thoughts on the matter…. –Matt

Edit: 10/12/2011- Here is a snippet from a recent article on the ICoC:

Motzouris says the ICoC does not dismiss the efforts of the Montreux Document, rather it builds upon the base developed by the Montreux Document in order to develop a more comprehensive regulatory mechanism. While the Montreux Document was primarily aimed at states, the ICoC takes on a multi-stakeholder approach that includes governments, PMSC, industry associations, experts and academics and civil society. The ICoC outlines principles for the conduct of PMSC personnel, including rules on the use of force, detainee treatment, prohibition of sexual misconduct, etcetera.

“The reason the ICoC is different from any other regulatory mechanisms is that it appeals to governments and non-state clients to adhere to the Code whilst drawing up contracts with PMSCs. If a PMSC is a signatory of the Code, and the government or non-state actor whom they are contracting to has also committed to implementing the Code, then it moves from a voluntary regulatory standard, to one that can be upheld in a court of law. The British Government has already expressed its commitment to making adherence to the ICoC a requirement for any of its contracted PMSCs, and the US Government is contemplating a move in the same direction,” Motzouris added.

 

International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers

There was consensus that if a complaint is made it should be dealt with by the company first. In some circumstance that won’t be appropriate (internal grievance mechanism exhaustion requirement, with well defined exceptions). There was consensus that the grievance mechanism should include something like a referral function.
A summary of the grievance mechanism functions would be:
A  complaint triggers two avenues:
1. Compliance review,
2. Notice advisory/referral with options for the claimants. Afterwards facilitation of the IGOM for remedy.

(more…)

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Industry Talk: For Standards and Organization, Look to the Fire Industry

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 1:17 PM

     How do you apply standards and some kind of organization to a contracting industry that works in war zones? Here is a look at how another industry that deals with a very dangerous environment called fire, has worked out the problem. The Federal Fire Services. (I also posted this as a comment over at Jake’s site, and figured this needed a home here as well.)    

     The one experience I have with this, was when I was a smokejumper, dispatcher, and Incident Commander Type 4 in the federal fire services.  The government uses contractors to support fire operations on a regular basis–in fact they are highly dependent on them.  It is also a system that works.

     The fire industry is a lot like the war industry the more I think about it, and the fire industry went through the same problems of standardization.  The government had to figure out what was a governmental task and what could be contracted out in fire.

     Smokejumpers, Helitac, and Hotshot crews are still all government controlled, as well as most of the upper level Incident Command positions.  But these are areas that are constantly tested for possible privatization.  Although my belief is that those functions should remain governmental, and most agree on that in this industry.  But still, there are a lot of functions that can be contracted out for forest fire operations. Aviation stuff, like helicopters and fire bombers, to camp kitchens, to communications trailers, to hand crews and engines that help to mop up on fires or even assist in initial attack on a fire.  The Incident Commander of that fire makes the final call on all of it, and they determine if that company or federal/state unit is an asset or liability.  They can also kick people off of fires, or set up training for the various management positions for anyone on that incident.  

(more…)

Powered by WordPress