Feral Jundi

Monday, February 27, 2012

France: Regulation, Expansion Of French PMSC’s Urged By Members Of Parliament

Filed under: France,Industry Talk,Libya,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:38 AM

“Global sales of the sector(security) are difficult to evaluate, but the specialists put it between $100 billion and $200 billion a year,” the report said, adding that the Foreign Ministry puts the figure as high as $400 billion for the total market for security and defense services.
Some 5,000 security firms operate in the world market, which is changing continuously and sometimes with a hazy line between security and military practices, hence the usefulness of calling them security and defense service companies.
Of the French firms, average annual sales is 3 million euros ($4 million). The largest is GEOS with 40 million euros followed by Risk & Co with 28 million euros, the report said.

Very interesting article and France is now joining China in this ‘re-evaluation’ of PMSC viability. I think what we are seeing here is a realization by France that it is missing out on a massive market, and by not having a vibrant and competitive PMSC industry, that they are missing out strategically.

That last part is the most important part because like most of Europe, France needs oil. In a world where oil producing countries are threatened by regional instability or the demand continues to push supply, countries are looking to all and any means of achieving strategic advantage for those resources. Having French companies on the ground, working day in and day out with these oil rich, war torn nations, or protecting the various key individuals and projects within these zones, is one way to ‘influence’ and grab a larger piece of the ‘oil pie’ in those regions.

To further emphasize this last part, here is the quote that perked me up.

A visit to Libya showed the significant presence of “Anglo-Saxon companies,” which have used the uncertain situation on the ground to develop their businesses.
“Their presence seems to favor British economic interests,” the report said. “It seems very desirable, within the framework of Libyan law, for our societies to form partnerships to set themselves up for the long term in this country, as there are strong expectations toward France,” the report said.

The other oil related indicator of need is maritime security. France does not want to depend upon other nation’s PMSC’s to protect their flagged vessels. And those flagged vessels transport commerce and oil/gas.  It is of national interest to ensure these vessels are protected and the economy of France is not negatively impacted by piracy. PMSC’s are a strategic asset that France can tap into to protect that interest.

 French Navy commandos aboard cargo ships. The daily cost of a Navy team is 2,000 euros, compared with 3,000 euros charged by a private company, the report said.
A Royal Dutch Navy team on a cargo ship costs 80,000 euros, reflecting the deployment of 18 personnel, including a nurse. But the demand for onboard protection outstrips supply of Navy teams, and a flourishing private market has sprung up.
Some French oil companies have asked for Navy teams but have had to go to the private sector because squads were unavailable, Betto said…British companies dominate this sector, including Triskel, APMSS and Solace, with a U.S. specialist, Advanfort. An estimated 170 companies specializing in armed maritime protection were set up in Britain from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 last year, the report said.
The only French firm in this market is Gallice. With annual sales of 20 million euros, it offers armed protection through an Irish subsidiary in order to avoid tangling with French law, the report said.

So France is putting military details on private vessels, and because the need outstrips the supply, they are having to look to the private sector for security–which means using  British or other companies. I am sure that does not sit well with these French shipping companies. lol

Also, how is putting Naval commandos on private vessels  the best use of that resource? Shouldn’t they be doing more important missions, like hostage rescue? Using highly trained commandos for basic protective duties is not a wise choice for this particular mission, and especially when you only have a limited number of those commandos.

Some of the companies mentioned in this article are Argus and a Global X. I have not heard anything about these companies, but here are some quotes about them below.

The European Union uses Argus, a Hungarian-registered company, for building security in Libya. The firm is led by French nationals, and using diplomatic status, the personnel carry weapons…A group of French companies — Geodis, GIE Access, Sodexo and Thales — has formed the Global X company to bid for contracts in U.N. peacekeeping operations, which is seen as a huge market. Such contracts would provide jobs for former French service personnel and create a presence where active French soldiers are not deployed.

 UN peacekeeping operations?  Interesting. Global X would be a serious contender as well, just because having french speakers is a big plus for a few places in Africa. 

So there you have it. Libya and it’s oil, maritime security, and peacekeeping are the markets that France is looking at, and they estimate the global security and defense market to be a 400 billion dollar industry! Not only that, but PMSC’s are viewed as strategic assets, much how China is seeing this industry.

The US and Britain are already way ahead of most of the world when it comes to this industry thanks to ten years of constant war. But as more countries catch on, I imagine the market will evolve and become more interesting as time goes by.

The definition of the state and it’s monopoly on the use of force is changing as well. Countries are realizing that PMSC’s, if used properly, can be ‘real levers of influence’ to quote the report. If anyone has any info on these companies or the article below, feel free to comment. –Matt

 

Regulation, Expansion of French Private Security Firms Urged
Feb. 26, 2012
A bipartisan French parliamentary report is calling for recognition and regulation of private military companies, hoping to reverse the strong climate of rejection regarding security contractors.
The report, published Feb. 14 and co-authored by members Jean-Claude Viollet (Socialist) and Christian Menard (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire), points up the growth of business in private security and military activity over the last two decades, led by U.S. and British companies.
The sector has become so important, France can’t ignore it, the report said.

 

(more…)

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

China: Enter The ‘Private Security’ Dragon

Filed under: China,Industry Talk,Kidnap And Ransom — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 9:07 PM

During the recent Sudan hostage crisis, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Sudanese troops who engaged in the rescue effort were joined by a dozen armed Chinese private security contractors. While that article and coverage of the issue in the Chinese media didn’t identify where the contractors came from, there’s a strong likelihood they were drawn from the same pool of former security forces personnel that Shandong Huawei recruits from and perhaps even came from the company. Chinese sources say it was the Sudanese military that told news outlets armed Chinese contractors were participating, so it appears that Beijing wants to keep its use of private security contractors out of the public eye.

Lately I have noticed an upward trend in reporting about China and it’s private security. These three articles below help to paint that picture of what I am talking about. We have a situation where China has interests all over the world, their people are getting killed and kidnapped all over the world in higher numbers, and security situations are changing for the worse in some of these places they have set up shop in.

Not only that, but now Chinese businesses are demanding more protection and they have the money to buy it. Especially if Chinese PSC’s charge less than western companies.

This first article below talks about the company Shandong Huawei Security Group. I have never heard of them before, and I could not find a link to their website. Although I doubt I would put a link up to their site for fear of getting some virus or whatever. lol Either way, Shandong Huawei is supposed to be one of their top PSC’s.

The article also described an interesting situation going on in Iraq. As the security situation degrades and there is now a lack of western forces to keep things in check, companies like Shandong Huawei are stepping in to fill that security vacuum in order to protect companies like the China National Petroleum Corporation. Oil is of national interest to China, as it is to many countries, and PSC’s are a part of their strategy to protect those national interests.

In the quote up top it mentioned Sudan and the involvement of security contractors in the rescue of kidnapped Chinese workers. There is oil in the Sudan and China definitely has interest there. And if PSC’s are actively involved in rescue operations like this, then it is not far fetched to imagine PSC’s entering other areas of security which would border more military-like operations. Will we see a company like Shandong Huawei evolve into more of a private military company?

The other thing mentioned in this article is the strategic implications of Chinese PSC’s. Here is the quote:

There are a number of strategic implications of this rise of armed private security providers by Chinese firms. For a start, if a project is in an area unstable enough to require armed private guards, there’s a significant probability of armed encounters between security providers and potentially hostile locals. Coupled with this is the fact that given their police and military backgrounds, the contractors are likely to look and comport themselves like soldiers, and would probably be armed with similar types of weapons. There’s real potential, then, for confusion on the ground in a place like Sudan when a private contractor who looks like a soldier engages rebels or others who then mistake him for an actual member of Chinese government forces. A local whose relative was shot near a Chinese drilling site by a security guard who looks like a soldier is likely to blame Beijing, which could spark additional violence against Chinese interests in the area.

Yep. And if the local insurgency/gang/criminal elements are not getting their cut, then expect these groups to attack these Chinese ventures.

The second article below is very interesting to me because it is written by Chinese journalists and actually discusses the lack of experience that Chinese PSC’s have compared to American PSC’s. That they should ‘study’ American PSC’s….or steal trade secrets about such things. lol Either way, I thought this was cool that the Chinese have recognized the west’s expertise in this area. Check it out.

Calls for security guards from China to accompany workers posted in dangerous areas overseas have increased since kidnappings in Sudan and Egypt underscored the danger workers face as Chinese companies expand globally.
The abductions highlight the urgency to ensure the security of Chinese workers overseas, said Han Fangming, deputy director of the foreign affairs committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee, on his micro blog.
Han said that there is a need to study how private security contractors in the United States, such as Academi, work and “when the time is right, the government might allow qualified companies” to establish such services…. Another factor to consider is how prepared the security services are to handle dangerous situations.
“I think security guards in China are far from the level of private security contractors like Academi in the US,” Fu said.

Yep. Private security contractors in the US, and our western partners, have all learned many hard lessons over ten years of warfare. If China plans on allowing PSC’s to do this kind of thing in war zones, then yes, they will be looking to all and any lessons learned in order to make that work. It is also a matter of Mimicry Strategy, and whatever works best, will be copied.

The final article discusses the enormity of the Chinese presence throughout the world. It also emphasizes the threat to these citizens and the upward trend of kidnappings. More kidnappings equals more ransoms. More ransoms paid equates to a creation of a kidnapping industry where individuals purposely target Chinese. That is the price China will pay if they plan on setting up shop in these dangerous parts of the world.

The dramatic rise in overseas travel and expatriate work by Chinese was punctuated by the recent kidnappings of Chinese workers in Sudan and Egypt. “Overseas Chinese protection” (haiwai gongmin baohu) has been a critical priority since deadly attacks killed 14 Chinese workers in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2004. Between 2006 and 2010, 6,000 Chinese citizens were evacuated to China from upheavals in the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Lebanon, Tonga, Chad, Thailand, Haiti and Kyrgyzstan.
But a new urgency has arisen in the past year: in 2011, China evacuated 48,000 citizens from Egypt, Libya, and Japan; 13 Chinese merchant sailors were murdered on the Mekong River in northern Thailand in October 2011; and in late January 2012, some 50 Chinese workers were kidnapped in two incidents by Sudanese rebels in South Kordofan province and by Bedouin tribesmen in the north of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
The worldwide presence of Chinese citizens – and the dependencies that generates – will only continue to grow: in 2012, more than 60 million Chinese people will travel abroad, a figure up sixfold from 2000, and likely to reach 100 million in 2020. More than five million Chinese nationals work abroad, a figure sure to increase significantly in the years ahead.

That is a lot of Chinese traveling and working throughout the world! As the word gets out amongst the thugs/terrorists/rebels of the world, we will continue to see this Chinese kidnap and ransom trend increase. That means more protection work, and more hostage rescue or negotiation work for this young Chinese PSC market. So yes, I would speculate that we are witnessing the rise of the Private Security Dragon and who knows where this will lead. –Matt

Enter China’s Security Firms
February 21, 2012
By Andrew Erickson & Gabe Collins
Chinese private security companies are seeing an opportunity as the U.S. withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. But plenty of complications await them.
A security vacuum is developing around Chinese workers overseas. The recent kidnapping of 29 Chinese workers in Sudan (where another worker was shot dead during the abduction) and 25 workers in Egypt has sparked a strong reaction in China. As a result, Beijing is looking to bolster consular services and protection for Chinese citizens working and travelling overseas. On the corporate side, private analysts are urging companies to do a better job of training employees before they are sent abroad. Yet with at least 847,000 Chinese citizen workers and 16,000 companies scattered around the globe, some of them in active conflict zones such as Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, key projects and their workers are likely to require more than just an expanded consular staff to keep them safe.
It’s with an eye on this growing danger that new Chinese private security providers see a business opportunity. Shandong Huawei Security Group appears to be a leader among Chinese security providers, which thus far have predominantly focused on the country’s robust internal market for bodyguard and protective services. Huawei provides internal services, but in October 2010, opened an “Overseas Service Center” in Beijing. The company’s statement on the center’s opening explicitly cites the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the potential for a security vacuum to result, as key drivers of its decision to target the Iraq market.

(more…)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Law Enforcement: G4S To Run First Private Security Police Station In Britain

Filed under: Law Enforcement,United Kingdom — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 4:18 PM

During times of cut backs and austerity, these are the things that communities do in order to save. I have talked about such moves in the US, and it is interesting to see the same thing happen in other parts of the world.

Now what I would be curious is to see how much was saved, and what problems came up, a year from the implementation of the contract? This is a ten year deal, but the cost effectiveness should present itself within the first couple of years. Interesting stuff and we will see how it goes. –Matt

 

G4S to run first private security police station
20 Feb 2012
Private security company G4S is about to sign a deal which would see it building and staffing the first British police station run by a private security contractor.
The deal with Lincolnshire Police Authority – expected to be signed within days – represents the most radical outsourcing of law enforcement so far, according to a report last week in the Financial Times .
The contract will see G4S take over jobs previously handled by police officers including custody and ID duties (but with custody sergeants still on hand), control room staffing, town enquiry officers, the crime management bureau, the criminal justice unit and firearms licensing.
But Simon Reed, vice-chair of the Police Federation, told the FT that he had some reservations about the scheme, as private employees may not have the same enshrined sense of public duty as police officers.
“Our concern is the resilience of the companies doing this,” he said. “When we have national emergencies or unforeseen events, will they be able to bring their staff in to work long hours, regardless of what their contracts say?”
The police station move is part of a £200m contract with G4S over 10 years. Other police forces are said to be considering similar moves.

(more…)

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Industry Talk: Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9 Million For Afghanistan Security Services

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:18 AM

Congrats to TC, but I have to say that I am not too interested in promoting their job for this. For the simple reason that the pay is too low and the leave schedule sucks. As it stands now, you have to work 344 days in order to get the bonus. That’s if the contract is still in place after a year. Who knows what will happen in Afghanistan a year out?

The other thing is burn out. Work is nice, but if you are working 12 hour days for 344 days out of the year, then that is a horrible schedule. For that reason, I think TC is going to have a tough time keeping this thing staffed. What I could see happening with this  is that guys use this contract as a ‘stepping stone’ contract in order to get into a better paying/better leave schedule job. Especially for those guys that have families.

In my opinion, I think this is a poorly constructed contract if these are the terms. The industry standard (in my opinion) for pay in a war zone like Afghanistan or Iraq should be more in the neighborhood $400 to $600 a day for static, to reflect the various management positions and seniority of contractors within the company. I should also note that such contracts like WPS is an excellent model for an ‘industry standard’ for pay. That is what this contract should have been modeled after, and DoS’s WPS program get’s it right in that department.

The industry standard for leave should be more around 2 to 3 months on, and about 1 month off. That is a great leave schedule, and the contract should allow some flexibility within that leave schedule to allow for emergencies and contractor personal choice. Requiring a contractor to work 344 days in a war zone is a recipe for disaster. Guys will burn out and their families will hate them for being away that long. I doubt that you will even see guys complete the contract to get the bonus, just because they will jump on the first gig that comes up with better pay and a better leave schedule. I know that is what I would do.

Even the hours worked is dumb. In my personal opinion, an 8 hour shift, working 6 days a week with one day ‘off’, is far better than a 12 hour shift 6 days a week. (especially if you are wearing kit all day long and working 344 days a year) I will also say that if this contract does lose guys because they burn out, that those left on the contract will be working a lot of hours without any days off. Just ask the AGNA guys what that is like when contractors bail ship because the company sucks or there are better gigs elsewhere. The guys that are left are the ones having to make up for a lack of manpower.

It is also a threat to the security readiness of a base, and could lead to a default on contract if there is a high attrition rate. Staffing a contract is serious business, and if folks are jumping ship because it sucks, then that has all sorts of consequence. Now imagine low staffing and low morale throughout a guard force because of being over worked, mixed with a high enemy threat or even enemy attacks?  We are not talking about security at some mall in Sandusky Ohio, we are talking about the protection of FOB’s filled with military and civilians in an active war zone, all depending upon that contracted guard force and it’s abilities.

In other words, this contract will have issues. That’s too bad, because I thought the Marines would have been smarter about this, and especially when they had more choice in the formation of this ‘best value’ contract. They should have asked this community what an appropriate contract would look like, and it just seems to me like they created another TWISS-like contract. Too bad…

The other thing I was curious about is if Triple Canopy gets paid for every guy they train?  Meaning when they train a contractor for this gig, they bill the government all the relevant costs. Why this matters is if the contract sucks and is set up to be a revolving door contract for guys, then TC will have to train up more contractors to keep it staffed. So what is TC’s incentive for training these guys and keeping them on the contract in Afghanistan? If anything, they benefit from a contract where contractors ‘don’t’ stick around so they can keep charging the government for training.

Which brings up another crucial point. When you set up a revolving door contract like this, then you lose something that is absolutely vital to organizations and security in war zones. Unit cohesion. Imagine being on a contract where no one sticks around? Where a new contractor shows up every week, or the management jumps ship every other week? Talk about instability. lol So basically you will have a contract where folks are constantly adjusting to new people, and all along you will have the security of a FOB to focus on. How can you trust the guy to the left and right of you, if A. you don’t know who they are and B.you don’t know if they will be there from week to week.

Unit cohesion is so hard to create in a company anyways, but if the contract itself does not lend itself towards making contractors happy and keeping them on the gig, then you can kiss any kind of unit cohesion good bye. And actually, that will be a cause of internal problems. I dare any military unit to try the same thing in a war zone, and see what the end result becomes. And this is what you want protecting these bases?

I sometimes wonder if the military should be setting up these contracts in the first place. How is it that the federal government understands how to set up these things (like WPS), but the military does not?  Could it be that the military purposely constructs poor contracts because contractors are the competition? What incentive do the Marines have in constructing a contract where a company that comes in to replace their Marine force, does a better job than that Marine force– because the contract lends itself to success?  Why would they want that company to be successful, and ‘show them up’?  Food for thought when it comes to the public versus private discussion about this industry, and when it comes to the principal-agent problem.

Finally, it is very simple to understand the game here. You find the industry standard within that war zone, and you stick to that standard. If you want to lose people and could care less about the quality of the contract/services, then by all means set up your contract below that industry standard. Go cheap, pay peanuts, and get your monkey’s.

On the other hand, if you want to attract the best of the best within an industry, then you need to offer incentives that are ‘better’ than the industry standard. And if you want a best value contract that has some degree of stability, then match what the industry standard is, choose a good reputable company, and manage it well. That is my thoughts on the matter. –Matt

 

Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9m for Afghanistan Security Services
By DOD
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Triple Canopy, Reston, Va., was awarded a $159,972,048 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the security services in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 26, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with eight bids received.  The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-12-C-0002).
Link to news here.
—————————————————————
From thread at SOCNET Forum
@camp leatherneck
$200 daily
6-12 hr days a week with the possibility for more hours
(1) 21 day leave period
12k bonus for contract completion
2 week train up on TC site followed by deployment @camp lejune
—————————————————————
From Triple Canopy’s Career section–Afghan Guard, Afghanistan
Position Responsibilities
-Act as armed security officer
-Responsible for internal security shift
-Perform unarmed screener duties by searching visitors, their vehicles and their belongings. Screeners will be proficient utilizing hand-held metal detectors, walk-through metal detectors and High throughput personnel inspection systems.
-Possess the capacity to acquire a good working knowledge of all aspects of contract security
-Must satisfactorily complete all Government required (and supplied) training and certifications prior to employment
Essential Skills and Experience
-US Citizen
-Must have a valid US Driver’s License and US Tourist Passport
-Honorable discharge from the military (if applicable)
-Able and willing to DEPLOY for one (1) year with one (1) 21-day R&R rotation
-Posses or be able to obtain a DOD Secret Level Clearance.
-Be at least 25 years of age
-Posses one (1) year of Military/ Police experience to include the use of personnel and vehicle security screening devices.
-Preferred security experience in the Middle East region.
-Possess a certificate of successful completion of a basic or advanced security guard training and certification program administered or recognized by the Government or professional organizations
-Must have no felony or domestic violence conviction. Record of recent recurring misdemeanors may adversely impact candidate’s suitability rating
-Employment with Triple Canopy is contingent upon a favorable background check to Include no serious financial problems in the past seven (7) years
Physical Demands and Work Environment
Able to perform internal security guard services, at any potential internal security posting, for 12 hours, while donning all required personal protective gear.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Maritime Security: The Security Costs Of Piracy For 2011?

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:07 AM

Below I have posted this report that One Earth Future Foundation put together, and have also posted an article that describes a lack of reporting from private security companies that stopped attacks, due to liability reasons. My simple question here is how can we truly tally the cost effectiveness of armed security on boats, if we do not have accurate data inputs?

In the report, I went to page 16 to catch anything that perked me up. One figure talked about the cost of security equipment investments made by all the ships mentioned. Razor wire was the most preferred out of all of the security equipment listed. They averaged the value of all of the razor wire purchased last year at about $434,552,160! Wow, razor wire is quite the business. Acoustic devices like the LRAD came in at second costliest at $133,717,500.

Here are two quotes that I combined for further analysis of the statistics.

Average ransoms increased 25% from approximately $4 million in 2010 to $5 million in 2011…… In 2011, Somali pirates attacked 237 ships and successfully hijacked 28.

So that is 1.158 Billion dollars that shipping companies could have lost potentially if those 237 ships had actually been taken. Not to mention the costs of ransoms, medical care, transport, rescue or lawsuits for every hostage taken, and the rising costs of insurance premiums because of all of those potential hijackings. In other words, these statistics are misleading and they do not show the cost if security measures were not taken.

The other part of the report was the percentages of armed security on boats. Here is the quote.

Varying sources estimate that the additional costs of armed guards are anywhere between $30,000 and $100,000 per transit through the HRA. According to the Independent Maritime Security Association, the use of a private armed security team generally costs around $50,000 per transit. We have estimated that approximately 25% of vessels transiting the HRA employ armed guards. It is important to note that this figure of 25% is an estimation of the entire year of 2011. From discussions with leading shipping industry representatives, we understand that the proportion of vessels employing armed guards increased rapidly throughout 2011, and by the end of the year this figure was closer to 50% of vessels.
If there are approximately 42,450 transits through the HRA each year, then around 10,612 transits employ armed security. At an average cost of $50,000 per transit, the total costs of private armed security are estimated to be in the region of $530.6 million per year.

So here is the question. How can anyone say that if only 25% of the ships last year were covered by armed security, that armed security is not successful? Get back to me when 100 percent of the ships have armed security, and then we can talk about effectiveness.

Also, how many armed guards on boats were the primary reason why any of those 237 ships attacked were not taken, and how many of these hijackings were prevented because of navies? Because if  we want to get technical, only 25% of the boats had armed security, yet the navies of the world with all of their might were involved as well, then who here is truly effective at preventing attacks? Whose cost is more justified?

Which brings us to the other article in my little collection below about the lack of good reportage by private security companies on the attacks they prevent. In order to prove effectiveness, then accurate figures on attacks prevented by private armed security on boats is crucial. Who knows how many actual attacks were prevented by armed security over the last couple of years? Are all the companies from all over the world reporting their actions, or are they not reporting because of fear of liability issues?

“Security teams are shaping this on-board decision-making for reasons of liability, because of the action they may have taken to defend ships against attack,” said Church, who works at a counter-piracy base in Northwood, England……
As many as half of all ships sailing through the region now use armed guards, the foundation said at the forum. That’s up from 25 per cent earlier this year, and companies providing security earn $530.6 million annually, it estimated. A total of 42,450 vessels pass through the region annually, it says.
Church cited a “disconnect” between the number of attacks expected last year, based on military intelligence assessments of pirates’ strength, and levels in 2009 and 2010. A “plausible argument” can be made that the increase in armed guards was the cause, he said.
Somali pirate attacks rose to 237 in 2011 from 219 in the previous year, according to figures from the London-based International Maritime Bureau. No legal framework exists to establish how armed guards should interact with pirates and what happens if any attackers are killed or injured, Pottengal Mukundan, the bureau’s director, said at the forum.”

So those are just a few thoughts on security costs and where we are at. I also like to bring this up to bring some balance to the discussion about cost effectiveness. Most of all though, these statistics and estimations add to the overall picture. If only 25 % of the ships transiting through the HRA had armed security in 2011 and we are now just at 50%, then we have a market with room to grow. –Matt

 

Security Equipment and Guards: A notable trend in 2011 was the rapid escalation in the use of private armed security. The total cost of both security equipment and armed guards in 2011 was between $1.06 and $1.16 billion.

One Earth Future Foundation Page 16
3. The Cost of Security Equipment and Guards
An increasing number of ship owners are seeking to protect their vessels against pirate attack when transiting the HRA with security equipment and/or private armed (or unarmed) security guards.
a) Security Equipment
According to the latest (fourth) version of Best Management Practices for Protection against Somalia Based Piracy (BMP4), a number of security measures should be taken by vessels to prevent and defend against a pirate attack. BMP4 describes these ship protection measures as “the most basic that are likely to be effective,” and ship owners are encouraged to conduct a full risk assessment prior to entering the high risk area. Suggested measures include (but are not limited to): Enhanced watch keeping/lookout/ and vigilance, maneuvering practice, enhanced protection of/and controlling access to the bridge, closed circuit television , upper deck lighting, razor wire, alarms, water spray and foam monitors, citadels/safe muster points.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress