Feral Jundi

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Maritime Security: Business Innovations–A Company Proposes A Centralized Approach For Protecting Vessels

Filed under: Jundism,Maritime Security — Tags: , , — Matt @ 1:17 PM

US-based company Armed Piracy Defense is proposing a centralised approach to ensure that all ships within high risk areas will have anti piracy security teams on board. These security teams would have common protocols and procedures to provide quality armed security service to ships transiting pirate-infested waters.
From its command centre in South Florida, Armed Piracy Defense gives thousands of shipping companies access to 25 maritime security companies and their available teams. These companies have 125 teams in the High Risk Areas at any given time. The plan is to include as many as 400 security teams that will be stocked by floating armouries, to protect vessels in danger zones. These teams will be able to cover all of the 150 ships on the riskiest routes, moving in and out of the Indian Ocean High Risk Areas each day. -From Defence Web

This is cool and thanks to Christopher over at my Feral Jundi Facebook Page for sending me this one. What APD has proposed is a rather innovative business model that could help to reduce costs to shipping and ensure more ships get access to armed security in high risk transit areas.

What I wanted to do is post what the company is proposing, and allow the readership here to saturate/incubate/illuminate this proposal, and share their thoughts. It also sounds like the company is seeking this input as well, which is awesome. They want feedback and they want to improve upon the idea, which is pure Jundism in my book. So definitely let them know by voicing your opinion here. Bravo to the company for daring to be innovative, and open about their idea. –Matt

 

From the APD website
Armed Piracy Defense: Securing clients fleet any time, any place in 25 HRA ports, with world TOP 50 leading Marsec companies
Armed Piracy Defense is offering an innovative new service that will save you money, time and hassle. We operate in Florida, USA, a command and control center for all Maritime security companies world wide, with over 50 1st class selected companies operating between West Africa and Straits of Malacca.
All of the companies are members of SAMI and other 1st class accredited companies. When your voyage plans change to A NEW destination as you set sail or if your timing changes for mechanical reasons or a deviation from the original route plan, you will still need armed guards to protect your vessel.
We are able to match the needs of ship owners in all HRA with Maritime Security companies. These companies provide us with disembark times and the place of their teams 7 to 8 working days before the completion of a voyage so we can put their team with your vessel when a last minute change occurs.
We periodically send information about the availability of ARMED GUARD teams in real time at 25 HRA ports to 10000 selected Ship owners, Charterers, CSO’s, Fleet managers, Active Captains and Operation officers world wide. Our aim is to secure your ship at any time at any place.

(more…)

Monday, July 23, 2012

Somalia: To Catch Pirates, Somalia Turns To Outsourcing, By Eli Lake

Filed under: Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:38 AM

I wanted to post this story after Somalia Report put it out there that the Daily Beast pulled it. It is very odd to me that they would pull such a story…. Was it because the PMPF was too effective of a force, trained and mentored by the men of Sterling Corporate Services? Or was Newsweek/Daily Beast told to pull it because of politics or whatever?

And why did the UAE pull it’s funding right when the PMPF was beginning to produce results? Is there a bias against Puntland at the UAE. Check this quote out, and one million dollars is hardly enough to keep the PMPF going.

Ahmed said he thought international donors such as the United States were reluctant to contribute funds because they were concerned that the money would be embezzled and said he was willing to allow them to pay and train such forces themselves to allay such fears.”If they (donors) are willing to help … we can give them the chance to come and do the training, to give salaries to soldiers by themselves,” he said.Ahmed’s complaint came as it was announced that the United Arab Emirates has pledged to donate $1 million to help build a Somali coast guard. Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, confirmed the news to reporters.

I mean I thought that it was agreed upon by the international community that piracy must be dealt with both on sea and on the land, and it just does not make sense that the UAE would so quickly shut this down?

Here is the other kicker. If anyone remembers what happened after Hart Security trained Puntland’s coast guard back in late nineties, then you would know that after the collapse of the Puntland government, many of those who were trained by HS went on to fire up the beginnings of this current piracy industry. Here is the quote.

Ironically, piracy in the Gulf of Aden partially grew out of efforts in the late 1990s by the same Hart security outfit to train Somali militias as a self-sufficient coast guard. When the Puntland government fell in 2000, the transition from coast guard to piracy took about a day. Enterprising sailors such as Boyah and 38-year-old Mohamad Abdi Garaad grabbed guns and began boarding unsuspecting fishing vessels operated by Thai, Spanish, and Chinese companies, demanding “fines” of $20,000 to $50,000.

Are we doomed to repeat history here? Will veterans of the current PMPF go on to be pirates, complete with 17 weeks of maritime police training under their belts?  pfffft.  –Matt

 

PMPF Camp. Credit: Somalia Report.

 

To Catch Pirates, Somalia Turns to Outsourcing
Eli Lake, Senior National-Security Correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast
06 June, 2012
“From the vantage point of a desert airstrip that serves as an airport, the Somali town of Bosaso could be an exotic beach resort. Breezes carry scents of the sea, and the small port on the horizon shimmers against the pastel blue Indian Ocean. The closer we get to town, however, the more the reality of Bosaso comes into focus. Misspelled signs along the dirt road advertise foreign brands like “Marlboro” and “Nokia Telecon.” Shacks of cardboard, wire, and corrugated metal look like they’d be blown away in the next storm.
This is Somalia, one of the most lawless places in the world, a country that has lacked a functioning government for more than 20 years. In that time, Somalia’s shores and waters have been overrun by powerful outlaw-entrepreneurs—otherwise known as pirates—who menace key trade routes, take hostages with near impunity, and at times collaborate with al Qaeda’s increasingly influential local affiliate Al-Shabab. Since 2007, the U.S. government has spent nearly half a billion dollars propping up African Union troops in Mogadishu and paying the salaries of the security forces affiliated with the weak transitional government there. None of that seems to have made much of a dent in the $7 billion piracy business.

(more…)

Friday, July 20, 2012

Maritime Security: Germany Plans To License And Regulate Anti-piracy Security Firms

Filed under: Germany,Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 2:38 AM

“We are breaking new ground here,” Otto said. “We mainly have foreign companies that operate in international waters.” The German government estimates that British and US companies in particular could apply for a license.

This is interesting and I really liked the quote up top. To have a German ‘Letter of Marque’ or a license would be pretty cool. Although on the down side, I did not like the limitations that the Germans were putting on weapons use.

Weapons for the private ship protectors will have to be registered separately. The law stipulates that no heavy military weapons can be employed. Semi-automatic weapons, though, could be permitted.

So the pirates can operate heavy military weapons for attacks, but armed security defending these boats are not allowed too have them?  And what exactly is the German definition of ‘heavy military weapons’?

The other point that was kind of interesting is the license fees and process.

The Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) will most likely be the office in charge of the procedure. It will be able to call in the Federal Police for consultation. Security firms will have to pay between 8,000 euros ($9,800) and 16,000 euros for the licenses, which will be valid for two years.

This is peculiar to me and I was wondering how the fee schedule works?  Do you pay less for a license if you are only defending small vessels, or what?  Or do you pay more if you are a foreign security company versus a national one? We will see…

The last part of this article also mentioned some key statistics. Like ‘German shipping companies operate the third largest merchant fleet in the world’! Specifically, they mentioned these numbers.

German shipping companies operate the third largest merchant fleet in the world. However, only a small proportion flies under the German flag. The country’s black-red-gold flag only flies on 492 ships. This makes the vessels German territory. Criminal offences on board, for example, are tried before German courts.
On the other hand, 3,161 ships operated by German shipping companies sail under foreign flags. Shipowners, unions and the government are aiming to bring a total of 600 ships under the German flag. But to date, this goal has shown little success.

492 ships flying the flag of Germany is a significant number of vessels to protect under this scheme. No telling how many of them transit through dangerous waters. But increasing that to 600 ships will only increase the odds of more work for security firms. Not to mention the 3,161 vessels out there operated by German shipping companies. Perhaps these security measures will bring more vessels back under their flag? –Matt

 

Germany plans to regulate anti-piracy security firms
July 19, 2012
Sea piracy off the coast of Somalia has dropped dramatically, in part as the result of private security forces accompanying the ships. The German government now wants to regulate their certification.
The German Cabinet has agreed on legislation to introduce a licensing procedure for security companies on board ships. The draft bill determines which requirements these firms have to fulfill if they are protecting German-registered vessels. The government coordinator for the maritime industry, Hans-Joachim Otto, welcomed the decision.

(more…)

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Maritime Security: IMO Guidance Calls For ISO Certification For Companies

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 AM

This is a good move. The ISO standard has been the goal of a number of groups and this is one step closer to giving legitimacy to this sector of the industry.

It is also cool to see the statistics mentioned in regards to pirate attacks. An increase in attacks, but a decrease in successful ones. Bravo to all of the security teams out there doing such a fantastic job in beating back these heathens. It really is impressive and armed guards on boats is definitely proving it’s worth.

But the statistics also show that pirates are not giving up and their industry continues to grow and expand. So they definitely have the greed and determination to keep going after their prey. Especially when they are expanding into new hunting grounds, and using mother ships and swarm type attacks. At this rate, there will not be any patch of ocean devoid of these thugs. –Matt

 

IMO Guidance Calls for Certified Private Maritime Security Companies
This is interim guidance from the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee that applies to privately contracted armed security personnel on vessels transiting off the east coast of Africa.
Jun 05, 2012
New interim guidance adopted by the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee calls for companies supplying armed security personnel to seek certification with national and international standards, once those are established. The IMO committee decided ISO is the organization best suited to develop an international standard.
The committee met May 16-25 in London, and IMO posted details of its guidance May 31. The guidance applies to vessels transiting what IMO called “the high risk area off the east coast of Africa.”
During their meeting, committee members discussed the 544 acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships that were reported to IMO in 2011, which represented an 11 percent increase from 489 reported the previous year. The areas most affected in both years were East Africa and the Far East, in particular the South China Sea, followed by the Indian Ocean, West Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. (East Africa alone was responsible for an increase from 172 incidents in 2010 to 223 in 2011.)

(more…)

Monday, May 14, 2012

Maritime Security: JLT News–CEP Private Navy Will Have Full Funding By End Of Month

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 11:29 PM

This is interesting news and JLT has been fighting to get this funded and operational for awhile now. So it will be great to see this in action. Although a couple of ‘what ifs’ have popped up as I read through the plans.

The CEP is planning to buy seven 150-foot fast patrol boats, understood to be ex-Swedish Navy, and has already earmarked 11 former offshore supply vessels for purchase and conversion.
The ships will be equipped with fast semi-inflatables, called ribs, an array of non-lethal counter-measures, and 0.50 calibre heavy machine guns. They will be operated by a crew of five and carry eight armed security personnel each.
The programme will result in convoys of up to four merchant ships closely escorted by one CEP craft along the IRTC, with additional CEP ships in support, covering east and west-bound traffic.

So this will be 8 armed security personnel covering down on convoys of up up to four merchant ships?  These armed guards will be in small boats to deploy and intercept pirate attack groups?  Ok, so I imagine 1 guard and the commander of the guards will have to remain on the patrol craft in order to guard that and do command and control, and that would leave 6 guys in probably two inflatables (with 3 per craft). So that is two inflatables and one patrol craft to cover down on four merchant ships? Or 2 guys for each inflatable, for 3 craft?

With that kind of force structure, pirates would have quite the juicy target (four merchant ships) with bare minimum force protection (8 guys?). And what is interesting is that pirates usually attack in groups of two skiffs. But there is also precedent for pirates attacking in packs of up to 10 skiffs. (a recent attack with 6 skiffs and 40 pirates was stopped by the Iranians)

So I have to say that this CEP sounds nice, but I question the manpower levels, and especially given the possibility of an attacking force using a swarm.

It might even be worth the investment for a pirate action group to figure out a way to sink the CEP vessel, like using guided missiles purchased on the black market. (thanks to conflicts like Libya)  The reasoning here is that an investment in a couple of missiles, might result in the sinking of a CEP vessel and the capture of four merchant ships that could all bring in about 4 to 5 million dollars a piece. Maybe more if those vessels are highly valuable. So the folks at JLT should know, that a determined pirate force might attempt such an attack because of the potential for profit. Is it wise to just use one CEP patrol vessel per convoy, and especially if it takes awhile for air assets or reserve CEP vessels to show up and help?

The other thing is that JLT is trying to sell this as a cheaper option than guards on boats.  Which is fine, but only assigning one CEP patrol vessel to a convoy of four merchant ships is one of the reasons why they are able to go cheap. I mean ideally you would want enough vessels to cover down on both sides of the convoy. Either CEP vessels that cover port and starboard sides, or aft and  fore of the convoy. That way you don’t have vessels running from one side to the other to repel an assault.

Another point is that what if the one CEP vessel covering down on the convoy, breaks down?  Do all of the merchant ships stop while the CEP vessel waits for repairs? That is another advantage of keeping armed guards on the boats. Perhaps JLT should write into the contracts that in those cases of CEP vessels breaking down, that the armed detail could board the vessels and cover that way so they can continue on with the trip? Who knows and I imagine this stuff has been worked out.

Finally, the other reason why they are pushing for this convoy concept is because it get’s the firefight off of the merchant vessels and out in the open between the CEP and the pirates. That’s so companies can distance themselves from the liability of these types of engagements. It also keeps the firefight away from merchant vessels that have explosive or flammable materials on them. Although with a swarm attack, if a CEP vessel is occupied, then how do they expect to stop other pirate vessels from attacking while they are busy? So pirates will shoot at these vessels anyways, just to signal them to slow down or draw the attention of the CEP boats.

Now one option, that might be more expensive but would definitely cover down on 4 vessels properly, is a patrol craft with helicopter launching capability. Much like the Bob Barker vessel in the Sea Shepard fleet, or the MacArther vessel. Having an eye in the sky to watch over the convoy, as well as engage multiple targets from that helicopter would be an excellent capability. That is owning the high ground!

It’s a numbers game guys, and pirates will take advantage of that. At least with guards on the boat, the advantage is with them because they have the high ground and own a pretty stable platform to fight from. That, and the enemy has to deal with that guard force if it wants to take the ship. With no guards on the boat, pirates could distract and overwhelm the CEP in order to get folks on that boat. The probability of this happening is pretty low, but it is possible.

I am also wondering what is cheaper? Slower vessels with armed guards, consuming less fuel because of a reduced speed, or this convoy model? We will see, and the market of these protection types and the pirates will dictate how this goes.

Also, nice try JLT for trying to dispel this idea that the CEP is not a private navy. lol It certainly is a private navy, that’s unless a government now owns and runs the CEP and will be collecting all of the profit from this venture? –Matt

 

Private navy planned to counter pirate raids
David Black
May 13, 2012
A private navy costing US$70 million (Dh257m) is being set up to escort merchant ships through the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden.
It will comprise a fleet of 18 ships, based in Djibouti, and will offer to convoy merchant vessels along the Internationally Recognised Transit Corridor (IRTC).
This is the world’s most dangerous shipping lane, between the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The fleet will be operated by the Convoy Escort Programme (CEP), a British company launched by the international shipping insurers Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT) and the Lloyds of London underwriters Ascot.
Full funding will be in place by the end of next month, and the CEP hopes the fleet will be operational by December.
“The shipping industry needs to stand up and be counted,” said Angus Campbell, the CEP’s chief executive and a former director of Overseas Shipholding Group, the world’s second-biggest listed oil tanker company. “The time is now, not in four or five years’ time.”
Piracy in the region is costing the global economy an estimated US$7 billion a year. For the ship owners alone, every vessel sailing through the waters off Somalia is charged additional insurance premiums of between $50,000 and $80,000.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress