Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
Report provided by the International Maritime Bureau (with annotations)
The fifth international meeting on piracy and maritime security was held on 29 and 30 June 2004, at the Hotel Mutiara, Kuala Lumpur. There were 180 delegates from 34 countries and six international organisations or associations attending the meeting. The Meeting was convened by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in collaboration with the Royal Malaysian Police, with support from Fleet Management Limited, a member of the Noble Group of Hong Kong. The main sessions of the meeting were ‘closed’ in that attendance was restricted to invited maritime and related industries, law enforcement and the government agencies.
This report is an executive summary. It is not necessarily a verbatim transcript of proceedings. In some areas, for clarity, inputs from various sources have been grouped together and may be reported out of sequence.
His Excellency Chia Kwang Chai, Deputy Minister of Internal Security for Malaysia, opened the Meeting. He highlighted the role played by Malaysia in co-hosting the meetings and the importance of piracy being brought under control. He spoke of the rising incidence of piracy according to the reports from the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre and wished the meeting well.
Mr Brian Jenkins, a renowned expert on terrorism and security gave the keynote address on The Real Threat of Maritime Terrorism – Separating Fact from Fiction. He warned against the danger of reading too much into statistics and highlighted that the analysis of the terrorist threat should be founded on firm analytical information. He said that it was dangerous to confuse threat analysis with vulnerability analysis. The identification of vulnerabilities does not equate to threats. What is a possible vulnerability may be easily interpreted as a probability, and then be construed as an inevitability and finally become an imminent threat. The increase in piracy attacks is no indicator of the increase in terrorist threat. Responding to a question regarding the environmental consequences, Mr Jenkins advised that in his view these consequences were an inadvertent result rather than the intended result of a terrorist attack.
Captain P.K. Mukundan of IMB spoke about the real extent of the piracy and armed robbery problem from the statistics provided by the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre. The best figures were the annual statistics, which indicated a steady rise in the attacks. In 2004 there were 445 attacks as apposed to 370 in 2002. 359 crewmembers were taken hostage and 93 crewmembers were killed or missing. Attacks were aimed at the theft of valuables from the ship to the hijacking of vessels. There had been a change in the hijacking incidents. The ships were not now being hijacked for the theft of the vessel and cargo; they were aimed primarily at the abduction of crewmembers to be held for ransom and the hijacking of tugs and barges. The hotspots of piracy in 2003 were Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria and Venezuela. In the first few months of 2004 there was a dramatic decrease in the attacks against vessels in Bangladesh and India. This was primarily due to the effective law enforcement action in these countries, resulting in the arrest of a number of gangs. It was clear from this that when Governments decided to prioritise these attacks and allocate resources for law enforcement to deal with them, the number of attacks came down. In a 21-day period in June 2004 there had been seven attacks against vessels off the coast of Northern Sumatra aimed at trying to abduct senior crewmembers from vessels to hold them to ransom. The IMB had written to the Indonesian authorities regarding this and we are awaiting the results of their actions. In 2004 there were at least three hijacked tugs and barges, which had been recovered with the assistance of the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre. When these tugs and barges were seized by the authorities, they were in the process of changing their appearance by cropping and replacing the ventilators, funnel and other structures on deck to change the silhouette of the vessel. If they had succeeded in completing this work, the recovery of the vessel would be difficult.
Mr Andrew Linington of NUMAST[1] advised that the crews on board ships had become ever smaller and there were not enough people on board to conduct the anti-piracy watches. He looked at the effect of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) code on the crewmembers. He also advised that if the attack on the Limburg[2] had occurred at a time of oil supply uncertainty, it could have significantly increased the price of oil. There could thus be a serious economic consequence to these kinds of attacks.
Detective Superintendent Suzanne Williams of the Metropolitan Police in London looked at managing kidnap ransom incidents. She highlighted that this was a different type of crime and gave detailed advice on the key steps involved in setting up a response centre and negotiating the release of abducted crew. Responding to a question she advised there were cultural differences in different parts of the world in respect of hostage negotiations and negotiations had to be sensitive to these issues.
Associate Professor Dr Robert Beckman of the National University of Singapore looked at the legal developments in respect of security and piracy. He advised that the December 2002 amendments to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) in respect of the ISPS code were in process. The timetable for installation of the automatic identification systems (AIS) had moved forward. He advised that whilst the ISPS will help in the prevention of piracy and armed attacks against ships, the SOLAS amendments did not look at improving security in the choke points of shipping. At last count there were 107 parties who had signed up to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Navigation (SUA Convention) representing more than 80 per cent of vessels. However the amendments to the SUA were still being discussed. Some of the sticking points here were in respect of the boarding of vessels outside the EEZ and the tacit authorisation of Flag States if no response was received from them within four hours of the request. He also spoke about the Regional Maritime Security Initiative launched by the United States. This had been rejected by Malaysia and India.
Mr Abd Rahim Hussain from the National Security Division of the Prime Minister’s Office of Malaysia looked at the international and regional initiatives to deal with piracy and armed attacks against vessels. At a regional level he described regional developments with respect to the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (RECAAP).[3] In Malaysia they were in the process of rationalising the maritime agency dealing with these issues with the proposed formation of the Malaysian Coastguard. He recommended that one should not militarise law enforcement activities. Piracy should be prioritised and we should look for ‘smart’ partnerships between industry and government. He also proposed the setup of a voluntary fund to assist financially in the collection of intelligence to combat piracy. Finally, he stated that it was important to continue bilateral and multilateral activity in respect of piracy measures and it was important to remember piracy does not equate to terrorism. The representative from Bangladesh commented on the steps taken by the Bangladesh Government to bring attacks down.
First Admiral Dato’ Noor Azman of the Royal Malaysian Navy commented that it was important to define terrorism and said the efforts to bring piracy under control should be focused not so much at sea but on land from where the pirates operate.
After lunch the delegates proceeded to Port Klang to see the anti-piracy demonstration by the Royal Malaysian Police and other Malaysian Enforcement Agencies. The demonstration was superbly conducted and it showed the capability of the Malaysian Maritime Agencies to deal with anti-piracy situations, such as sea robbery, resolving the hijacking of a container vessel and the new boats and equipment acquired by the Royal Malaysian Police and other enforcement agencies.
Mr Richard Davey a security consultant gave the keynote presentation on the future of maritime security. He highlighted that we should balance the analysis of threat to consequences. In many cases the consequences gained greater importance than the analysis of threat. He advised that the significant maritime terrorist incident recently was that of the Limburg. Since then there had been no other significant attack on a merchant vessel. Overall fewer persons had been killed in terrorist attacks compared with piracy and armed robbery attacks. He also advised that the link does not exist between terrorism and piracy at present. The ISPS code does have its imperfections in terms of deficiency and supply chain security and the identification of seamen. He highlighted the absurd situation where, purportedly for security reasons, crewmembers were not allowed ashore to check a vessel’s draft prior to departure. With respect to South East Asia, some consensus was approaching on cooperation between the littoral states. It was important to focus on threat and risk and provide a balanced analysis. There was the issue of proportionate response to the risk. There had been international calls for financial support from shipowners. It was to be noted that the ISPS Code cost shipowners considerably. Governments should consider shouldering some of these costs particularly as 54 per cent of these attacks take place in ports. He proposed the setting up of a multinational control room, which would assist not only in information exchange but also control of maritime international forces. It is vital for States to reach an agreement on hot pursuit, the sharing of intelligence and joint patrols. He said that to solve the piracy problems in situations such as Malacca Straits, the right of hot pursuit is needed, as pirates could not then run over a border to escape law enforcement agencies. In response to a question, he also suggested the carrying of neighbours’ law enforcement officers on board vessels as the Royal Navy had done off Florida with the US Coastguard some years ago.
Captain Peter Raes of Tecto NV spoke about the attack on the Limburg. He described the attack in great detail and advised that the terrorists must have had precise intelligence because they hit 4S tank exactly in the middle. In doing so, they also hit the web frame, which disbursed much of the energy of the explosion. It was clear that they had had some prior information regarding the depositing of the cargo on board. The result of the attack was that in Yemen the insurance rates went up threefold. He said that there had been reports of a potential threat but it was too vague to have any practical value. He went on to say that as a result of the ISPS code, the way ships’ crews were handled in ports was ‘shocking’; seamen are a vital part of the fight against piracy. They should not be marginalised and treated like potential criminals in this way. He advised that in many countries that if any of the crew had Islamic sounding names the whole crew would be prevented from going ashore and this caused heavy social pressure within the vessel. He posed the question ‘Could ISPS code have avoided the Limburg?’ and the answer was ‘No’. In his view piracy was a more current threat than terrorism of which there had in recent years been only two major incidents.
Captain Jayant Abhyankar of the IMB spoke about maritime security threats and analysis. He looked at the difficulties in the old and new demands of port security and related a list of incidents including the capture of a terrorist on board in a container in Giao Tauro, and the explosion in the port of Ashdod caused by terrorists who had smuggled themselves into the port in a container.[4] He advised that the system was vulnerable but posed the question as to whether that amounted to a serious threat.
Captain Mayank Mishra of Fleet Management Limited looked at developments towards compliance of the ISPS code. He said that 33 per cent of the vessels worldwide were compliant and expected around 50 per cent to be compliant by 1st July 2004, but only 16 – 20 per cent of ports were expected to be compliant. In his company they had brought over 100 vessels into ISPS compliance by the deadline of 1st July. He detailed some of the problems, which they had encountered on the way to compliance.
Mr John Bainbridge of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) looked at the human element in security measures and advised that as far as the authorities were concerned a cargo was potential terrorist material, the ship a terrorist weapon and the crew a terrorist. The ITF had supported the ISPS code but although the rights of workers were to be protected in the preamble to the code it had taken on a life of its own as it developed into this final version, and from a seafarers’ perspective this had been to their detriment. He said that where seafarers’ identity cards were initially supported by the ITF to facilitate shore leave against a background of the security threat, it had not unfortunately achieved this purpose. Seamen still required a visa in the US, which can be expensive and discriminatory on grounds of religion and race. He finally made the point that seafarers should not be considered the problem but an important part of the solution.
Captain Shuichi Iwanami of the Japan Coastguard looked at the incidents of the Limburg and the attack against port facilities in Basra. He advised that the strategy of the regional security initiatives was capacity building, anti-piracy measures and joint cooperation. He gave details of the Asian Maritime Security Initiative 2004 (AMARSECTIVE 2004).[5]
SAC II Abdul Rahman Hj. Ahmad of the Royal Malaysian Marine Police advised that the main problem, particularly in the northern part of the Malacca Straits was extortion attacks against fishermen. He advised that the strategy involved the timely reporting of attacks, timely intelligence and rapid reaction. He described the formation of an integrated maritime enforcement agency and he highlighted the value of the information from the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre, the role of the shipowners and said that Malaysia objected to intervention of other countries in its waters.
Mr John Fawcett-Ellis of INTERTANKO[6] advised that in the implementation of the ISPS code the tanker owners had been let down by Flag State administration who were unable to process their applications. He said that it was important to make a key distinction between attacks on vessels underway as opposed to attacks on vessels in port and at anchor. Vessels underway posed a far greater risk. He called for the need to make cross-border pursuit a reality and to have transponders made mandatory on small craft. There was a need for focused discussion on the amendments to the SUA Convention and a dialogue between littoral states in the Malacca Straits.
Mr Alan Chan of Petroships looked at developments to overcome jurisdiction issues and called for some parts of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to be updated. Under UNCLOS Article 43 there was provision for payment for safety by users of seaways and asked for coastal states and users to cooperate in this respect. The greatest danger is in territorial waters. The weakness of the SUA Convention was the failure to prosecute pirates and criminal masterminds. He said there was a need for a seamless integrated patrol across territorial waters and called for a group from the conference to lobby for such patrols.
Mr Masazumi Nagamitsu of the Nippon Foundation looked in some detail at the history and current role of Japan and the Nippon Foundation for piracy initiatives. Their interest arose when three Japanese-controlled vessels were hijacked in Southeast Asia in the late 1990s.
Mr Jean Pierre Cauzac of CLS looked at ShipLoc,[7] and the Ship Security Alert Systems (SSAS) solutions. Under ISPS code the cost of maritime security was estimated to be $700 million a year for the shipping industry of which the tracking solutions of SSAS accounted for only seven per cent. He described in detail the phased installation deadlines for bringing SSAS into effect.
Mr Alexander Spyrou of Airship Management looked at the use of airships for protecting coastal waters. It had been used very successfully in respect of major world events such as the Olympics.
Mr Stefan Gussmann of Zurich Financial Services explained the underwriters’ concern, which was to not encourage crimes, to assist law enforcement, and to not have any of their interests involved in a terrorist incident. He advised that Zurich actively encouraged shipowner loss prevention programs and called for common market guidelines for the installation of technological devices to improve security.
The meeting was divided into groups of law enforcement, government agencies including navies, and industry and assembled in different syndicate rooms. The groups were presented with a scenario of the hijacking of a vessel and the kidnapping of crewmembers on board for ransom. When the meeting reassembled, the following deliberations of the groups were placed on record.
• Governments: will do all they can to help in ransom negotiations. However, the government position is that they cannot negotiate with kidnappers and terrorists. It was important for insurance companies not to impose penalties, which discourages proper insurance from being cost effective. They saw this essentially as a law enforcement problem and called for improvement in the networking between law enforcement agencies.
• Business: was directly affected by the abduction of the crew. Their main concern was the safe return of the vessel and the crew and the release of the abducted crewmembers. They would in certain circumstances, pay a ransom in order to achieve these results. Depending upon the country, they would like these negotiations to be done independently of law enforcement.
• Law Enforcement: gave a detailed presentation on the steps to be taken for the recovery of abducted crewmembers including help, advice and support to the country concerned without undue criticism of the government, setting up of a liaison officer and crisis management team, preserving the crime scene on the vessel if possible, advising on negotiation strategies with a mediator to both parties. Whilst they would assist in the negotiations, it was important to note that in some countries such negotiations would be considered unlawful.
Captain Mukundan thanked the IMB’s partners, the Royal Malaysian Police and Fleet Management Limited for all their help and support. He thanked the officers of the Royal Malaysian Police, who very efficiently and courteously were always at hand to help the delegates. He thanked the Malaysian Maritime Authorities for putting on the anti-piracy demonstration, which was an excellent example of the determination of the Malaysian authorities to deal with this pressing problem. He thanked all the panellists for their presentations and for some of the pioneering ideas, which had been put forward. He recorded the appreciation of the meeting to the staff of the IMB for having organised the meeting. Finally, he thanked all the delegates for making the effort to come to the meeting and stated that all their remarks would be received in the spirit that they were given, i.e., constructive criticism and that the IMB would take note of the suggestions, which came from the meeting. He wished everyone a safe journey home and closed the meeting.
[1] NUMAST is the acronym for the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers in the UK. NUMAST’s membership covers a wide range of Merchant Navy officer ranks and nowadays also includes a wide range of professional staff serving at sea, on oil rigs, as marine pilots and in related shore-based occupations such as harbourmasters, vessel traffic services staff and superintendents.
[2] The French oil tanker Limburg was attacked by terrorists off the coast of Yemen in October 2002.
[3] All ASEAN nations, Japan, China, Korea, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are working under RECAAP to set up an information network and a cooperation regime to prevent piracy and armed robbery against ships in regional waters, including the establishment of an Information Sharing Centre (ISC) to be located in Singapore.
[4] On 14 March 2004, two Palestinian homicide bombers killed 11 and injured 18 at the Israeli port of Ashdod, just north of the Gaza Strip. One of the bombers exploded just outside the main gate to the port and the second penetrated the port facility and blew up shortly thereafter in a centrally-located workshop as a crowd gathered. The possible intention of the bombings was achieved in that they caused Ariel Sharon to cancel his first meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, which had been scheduled for 16 March.
[5] The Japan Coast Guard was instrumental in establishing AMARSECTIVE 2004, which was adopted at the Heads of Asian Coast Guard Agencies meeting in Tokyo on 17 and 18 June 2004 and is expected to set in motion a list of measures that have been drawn up to address maritime security concerns, including terrorism. AMARSECTIVE 2004 is aimed at tackling the problems of piracy, terrorism and unlawful acts at sea with the intention of enhancing maritime security and ensuring the uninterrupted flow of seaborne trade. Among other things, it sets out the commitments and responsibilities of coastguard agencies, and areas of regional and technical assistance and information sharing.
[6] INTERTANKO is the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners. Membership of INTERTANKO is open to independent tanker owners and operators of oil and chemical tankers, i.e. non-oil companies and non-state controlled tanker owners, who fulfil the Association's membership criteria. Independent owners operate some 80% of the world's tanker fleet and the vast majority are INTERTANKO members. As of January 2005, the organisation has 235 members, whose combined fleet comprises more than 2,230 tankers totalling 170 million dwt, which is 70% of the world's independent tanker fleet.
[7] Following SOLAS regulation XI-2/6 adopted in December 2002 by the IMO (International Maritime Organization) and effective over two stages (1 July 2004 and 1 July 2006), all vessels of more than 500 GT must be equipped with a SSAS (Ship Security Alert System). SSAS is a system that sends an alert from ship to shore in case of a piracy or terrorist attack on-board a vessel. ShipLoc is such a system that provides long range tracking of ships 6 or 24 times per day displayed on a dedicated website with complete maritime maps. If the crew pushes the alert button, a notification is sent to the ship owner and to the competent authorities. ShipLoc is operated by the company Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS), a subsidiary of the French Space Agency, known internationally as the operator of Argos worldwide location and data collection system. (see website at http://www.shiploc.com/html/about_shiploc.html).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2005/3.html