Feral Jundi

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Maritime Security: Ministry Of Shipping–Indian Ship Owners Are Now Allowed To Contract With Private Security Companies

This is surprising, because from what I can tell, Indian ship owners are able to contract with whatever PSC they want. Which means Indian ship owners could tap into the already vibrant maritime security market. This is great news if true. I posted the guidelines in my Scribd if anyone is curious, and I could not find anything in them that said these PSC’s had to be Indian owned.

A couple of months back I posted a deal about the Indian government warming up to the idea of allowing their ship owners to use armed guards. But I got the impression in that article that they would only allow retired Indian naval officers to work on these vessels? Now I am sure Indian shipping companies would probably prefer contracting with Indian PSC’s, but hopefully with these new guidelines, this will help them to realize they have a choice–that’s if they would like to go outside of the market of Indian PSC’s.-Matt

 

Ships with Indian crew can have armed guards
Aug 30 2011
The ministry of shipping on Monday issued guidelines allowing ships with Indian crew to deploy armed guards in a bid to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden. The move comes on the back of recommendations from the inter-ministerial group (IMG) of officers constituted to handle the hostage situation on hijacked ships and also suggest preventive measures.
It has been found that about 35 per cent of the ship transiting in these waters deploy armed security guards and that the pirates generally don’t attack ships with armed guards on board, an official release said on Monday. So far, 120 Somalian pirates have been apprehended by India as on date.
As per the new guidelines, ship owners are allowed to engage private maritime security companies (PMSC) through a proper selection procedure. In line with these, all Indian ships visiting Indian ports are to furnish details of security personnel on board, the firearms carried by them and the details of licence issued, etc, to the port authority, customs, Coast Guard and the Navy. Foreign merchant vessels visiting Indian ports with security guards are also required to follow similar procedure, as per the guidelines.

(more…)

Friday, August 19, 2011

Quotes: Up To 80% Of Ship Owners Are In Favour Of Arming Their Vessels

Filed under: Maritime Security,Quotes — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 2:33 PM

“We took the decision three to four months ago that we could not defend our ships without contracting-in armed guards with light machine guns and who will shoot back,” said Per Gullestrup, CEO & Partner of Clipper Ferries/Ro-Ro.
“I hear that 60% to 80% of owners are in favour of arming their ships, which is a lot, and if you figure out that every time you do, it costs an owner between $30K and $50K to put armed guards on each passage then you are talking about a lot of money,” he said.

I had to post this, just because it is such a startling quote. And if the figures of $50,000 per passage is true, then anyone with any business sense will know that this is going to be one heck of a market.  I have mentioned this in the past, and will continue to say that the maritime security market is seeing some rapid growth right now and will only go up.

Of course this will only snowball on itself, just because no shipping company will want to be the ‘undefended low hanging fruit’ that could be easily taken by pirates. And believe me, there are plenty of ways for pirates to figure out what shipping companies are using armed security, and which ones are not. Pirate investment companies have elaborate intelligence collection operations going on, and they will find you if you are ‘easy money’.

The other thing I was wondering is that if PNC’s are making $50,000 per voyage, then how come we are not seeing salaries reflect this rate? These companies that are making this much money per trip, should definitely ensure that their contractors are getting paid well to put their lives on the line. For that fee, contractors should have the best equipment, weapons, and leadership on those voyages. We should also see health coverage as a mandatory benefit, just because there is no DBA out on the high seas. So if you get your leg blown off by an RPG round, I certainly hope that your company covers that? And if contractors are not able to receive these benefits because the rate is too low, then that $50,000 per voyage fee needs to go up.

I would also hope that companies are investing in good legal help, and offer their contractors full coverage if they happen to get caught up in some legal issues. There is so much that could happen out there, and there are no legal protections whatsoever. Please do not throw your contractors under the bus, and you have a responsibility to take care of them out there if they get into trouble. Especially if they are in ports of countries that have really shady laws.  There is no SOFA to protect or give guidance to these contractors out there, so a company really needs to be on the ball with this stuff.

Let’s talk about salaries. I believe salaries for maritime security should reflect the danger that those crews are up against. If pirates are using wolfpack tactics and heavy weaponry, then that ups the danger level tremendously. Not to mention that if pirates manage to sink a vessel, that the crew is now in danger of drowning. I make this point, because it is a requirement for most of these contractors to have STCW certifications. So contractors are expected to get this certification (on their own dime usually), so that if the vessel catches fire or sinks, that they will know how to survive. Why then are the salaries not reflecting this reality of sea life in pirate infested waters?

Not to mention that the value of the ship and it’s goods, and it’s safe delivery, is extremely important and vital to the world markets. Those armed guards are crucial to the safe delivery of those goods, and yet pay structures do not reflect this great responsibility? Stuff to think about, and I certainly hope that the companies remember who their most important asset is out there, and that is their contractors. –Matt

 

Up to 80% of owners want their ships armed

As many as 60% to 80% of ship owners are in favour of arming their vessels even though the cost can be as high as $50,000 per passage, a leading Danish ship owner has claimed.
“We took the decision three to four months ago that we could not defend our ships without contracting-in armed guards with light machine guns and who will shoot back,” said Per Gullestrup, CEO & Partner of Clipper Ferries/Ro-Ro.
“I hear that 60% to 80% of owners are in favour of arming their ships, which is a lot, and if you figure out that every time you do, it costs an owner between $30K and $50K to put armed guards on each passage then you are talking about a lot of money,” he said.

(more…)

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Publications: ICS And ECSA Summary Of Flag State Rules On Arms And Private Armed Guards On Vessels, 2011

ICS And ECSA Summary Of Flag State Rules On Arms And Private Armed Guards On Vessels, 2011

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Legal News: Italy And Norway Produce National Regulations On The Use Of Armed Guards For Maritime Security

Right on, and this is great news that countries are now starting to wake up about this stuff. I also think that this move to put armed guards on boats and backing that up with legal authority to do so, is actually helping to fuel the opinio juris of the world body that armed security is a good idea on these boats. If Italy or Norway thinks it’s a good idea, then other countries might be more inclined to do the same thing. I have also seen this change in attitude with places like the UN, Germany and the UK.

Now will armed guards on boats, eventually lead to states granting Letters of Marque? Who knows, but as armed guards on boats present certain unavoidable situations (like taking prisoners after sinking a pirate boat, killing pirates, killing innocents, clashes with other navies or armed guards, etc.) then further legislation might lead countries to just go back to the tried and true license called the LoM. In other words, if the sum of all of the laws created over time add up to being just a basic LoM, then why not just implement the LoM?

The Declaration of Paris (DoP) is old and outdated, and as we put more private armed guards on boats and states continue to pass laws allowing for such things, then why hold to the DoP? Especially as pirates continue to flourish, and navies continue to fail at stopping this virus. Stuff to think about, and bravo to Italy and Norway for doing the right thing. –Matt

National regulations on the use of armed guards
July 22, 2011
Italy

The Italian Decree no. 107, dated 12 July 2011, (Italian only) states the general principles of the deployment of military forces or private security guards onboard Italian Ships.
—————————————————————
Norway

On 29 June 2011, the Norwegian Government announced a new framework on the use of armed guards by amendments to Regulation 972/2004 on ship security and amendments to Regulation 904/2009 relative to arms. The changes came into force on 1 July 2011.
The new framework follows the IMO guidelines, and allows Norwegian owners to have armed guards onboard in a certain geographical area within the legal limits laid down. An owner wanting to place armed guards onboard must apply for authorization with Norwegian Police Authorities and provide necessary documentation to the Norwegian Maritime Directory. However, the owner is required to conduct an independent risk evaluation to prove the need for armed guards. In addition the owner must be able to show the Security Company’s documentation on procedures for training, qualification and storage and use of weapon.
The simultaneously issued Provisional Guidelines the use of armed guards  offer practical guidance on the interpretation of the new framework.
The minister of Trade and Industry states in a press release (Norwegian only) that the amendments do not imply an encouragement to have armed guards onboard Norwegians ships. The purpose is to control the selection and use of security companies to ensure the safety of Norwegian ships and their crew. He emphasizes that all other efforts to protect the ship and its crew must first be fulfilled before armed guards are used.
Link to post here.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Maritime Security: Indian Government To Allow Armed Guards On Cargo Vessels

In India, the proposal under consideration is to seek retired navy officers from the pool maintained by the Directorate of Resettlement under the Ministry of Defence. Each vessel can have a group of five armed personnel – one officer and four others. The shipping companies have to bear the cost of hiring the guards.

Already the IMO ruling is helping nations to realize the most logical path towards protection of ships. Put armed guards on boats!

It is interesting that the only folks they will allow to be on these vessels is retired naval officers? And that these guards will be drawn from a ‘pool maintained by the Directorate of Resettlement under the Ministry of Defence‘. India has a huge population and I am sure this pool of retired naval officers is pretty substantial. I am sure they will be happy to make the extra income as well.

With that said, there might be a chance that the demand ‘could’ outweigh the supply of qualified manpower. Or the Indian government might change it’s mind and allow private companies to choose whomever they want to contract with, as opposed to being forced to only draw from one source. The market of force is pretty extensive these days, and if retired Indian Naval Officers are not cutting the mustard, there are other sources.

The other thing here is that there was no mention of licensing?  I would think that the Indians would develop a licensing mechanism for this guard pool? And with that license, I would be curious if there would be any legal provisions dealing with the taking of prisoners or rules of engagement that would be ‘productive’ and not counter-productive? It’s little things like that, that could mean all the difference. We can either have a resource sapping ‘defense industry’ floating around out there or a piracy destroying machine called ‘offense industry’, and licensing and the legal authority backing that action is key.

I am all about ‘Expulsis Piratus, Restituta Commerica‘. With piracy growing at an exponential rate and with no end in sight, this is the kind of ‘thinking’ about the problem that needs to be done. It is not enough to just defend vessels, and eventually an offensive mechanism needs to be created to eradicate this problem. –Matt

Govt to deploy armed guards on board cargo vessels
N. K. Kurup
May 24, 2011
The Government has decided to allow deployment of armed guards – preferably retired naval officers – on board Indian cargo vessels sailing on the pirate-infested waters of the Indian Ocean, a top government official told Business Line on Tuesday.
Detailed guidelines on the number of guards that each vessel can have will be issued shortly, he said.
In the wake of rising incidents of piracy on the high seas, Indian shipping lines have been seeking government permission to deploy armed guards on board their ships.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress