In Singapore, inspection equipment is purchased by government via the National Enforcement Agency Immigration & Check Points (ICA). No recovery is made and related container shunting and handling charges are also free. Singapore has gallantly made a decision not to levy charges to protect existing client relationships and to encourage new ones.
In Sydney terminal operator P&O Ports is charging via the shipping lines for their increased investment in ISPS Code related security costs. Perhaps because they have witnessed issues arising in the UK, they have made the process transparent with the additional security costs validated by audit by a global accounting firm.
In Africa the investment required in container security scanning is such a large proportion of Customs excise revenue that, coupled with the lack operating expertise, a BOT approach has generally been adopted. Specialist channel tunnel security providers Port Maritime Security International (PMSI), security consultants MUSC, and companies involved in cargo and pre-shipment inspection in Africa: SGS, Cotecna, Bureau Veritas and Intertek Testing Services, compete in partnership with the container scanning manufacturers.
These comprise UK owned Smiths Heimann (generally considered to be the best equipment and priced accordingly), Rapiscann and AS&E in the USA and from China, Newtech who are often are able to provide the keenest price.
COOPERATION IN AFRICA The benefits of cooperation within these consortium groupings are apparent in Dar es Salaam where Cotecna, who already carry out post-shipment inspections, have purchased one mobile scanner (from Smiths Heimann) which is operated by their local company Tiscan under contract to Customs. The operating costs are recovered via an existing post-shipment inspection charge levy on the FOB value of the cargo, imposed by Customs.
In Freetown, two UK companies PMSI and Intertek Testing Services, have combined their considerable container scanning, port security and African cargo inspection experience to provide a new fixed facility for the government of Sierra Leone. As well as fulfilling their security brief their aim is also to train local management to be fully effective in aspects of detection, operation and maintenance.
Whist the cost of these investments are high ranging from US$500,000 for a fully fitted portable unit to around US$5m for a large fixed system for high capacity throughput, the benefits have also been significant. In Melbourne a foiled attempt to smuggle nine tonnes of tobacco into Australia represented an evasion of duty and taxes of over US$2m.
The significant reduction demanded by Customs in physical outturns of containers has brought big savings in labour costs and reduced cargo damage for importers in Singapore.
In Dar es Salaam World Bank and IMF studies say progress has been very satisfactory and enforcement revenues have increased dramatically too.
And in Abidjan it is believed that had container security scanning been in place the Cote d’Ivoire authorities would have been able to prevent the arming of the rebels who attempted a coup in 2002, the fallout from which still splits the country in two to this day.
Steve Cameron can be contacted at steve@cmrsupport. com or see www. cnrsupport. com Generally, in western Europe the national Customs authorities have invested in container scanning equipment and have not made a commercial charge for it. Container security scanning has considerably improved detection and thus significantly enhanced excise revenues. Furthermore, port authorities have also invested in improved security for the ISPS code and again, have tended not to pass the costs on.
Private terminal operators have also invested in improved security to comply with the Code. Many are charging a security surcharge of between ?5-10 per TEU to their customers in the form of the shipping lines.
The UK provides an exception where HPH at Felixstowe have been charging shippers direct. The process has not been seen as transparent and customers have complained that it is an excuse to generate revenues rather than to just recover costs.
The British International Freight Association (BIFA) representing freight forwarders and shippers, has made a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and debate continues surrounding the claim that there is no legal basis to charge freight forwarders and there is evidence of abuse of a dominant position. Interestingly in Europe the EU has commenced a study (Tren/J253-2004) to establish how to develop transparency and harmonisation of financing port and maritime security measures.
