Deciphering the code

It’s nine years since the International Ship and Port Facility code burst on to the port scene, bringing with it beefed up security requirements for ports around the world.

Devised in the wake of the 9/11 bombings in America in 2001, this comprehensive set of measures was established to bring global port security up to a high, consistent standard. The changes brought about by the code have been remarkable.

“The ISPS Code has clearly been successful at implementing a global framework for port and ship security,” says David Fairnie, director of G4S Global Port Solutions. “The ISPS Code has been the catalyst for focusing industry and government attention beyond the port and ship interface, outside the port gates, to assess and deal with broader and deeper risks in the supply chain.”

Nick Williams, chief training officer at IMSA Ltd, agrees that the ISPS Code has made a difference. “Although there is still a long way to go, on the whole, port security has improved. The ISPS code aims to be a unified code that sets a minimum level of security that all port facilities should reach.”

Top concern

But security should always be the number one priority for ports, regardless of the enforced changes brought about by ISPS. “The biggest security risks to ports are acts of organised and opportunistic crimes such as the attempted smuggling of narcotics, people or commodities,” says Mr Fairnie. “The reputational risk associated with such activity is also a major factor for port operators. In an increasingly competitive market, port operators are very aware of the commercial impact that reputational issues can have on their business.”

Post-ISPS, there has certainly been higher investments of money, attention and care on port security. In America for example, a number of ports have received higher levels of investment for security purposes. In 2012, it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had contributed to the Port Security Grant Programme. The grant will allow ports to strengthen their methods of dealing with outside threats and security risks.

One of the aims of investment is to tighten up the security structure of ports and to allow for a coherent, unified system. For example, last year, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey formed a stand-alone security department, headed by a security chief officer who would be responsible for implementing, developing and auditing security programmes across the agency. The new department was introduced to centralise and focus security systems.

One of the notable methods (and sources of investment) of maximising port security is that of technology. “Technology is increasingly being utilised across numerous security channels, ranging from surveillance, access control, and communications,” says Mr Fairnie, who adds that this type of technology should be designed with the bigger picture in mind. “Technology also plays a crucial role in other services that are being adopted to deliver the minimum compliance requirements of the ISPS code, and to integrate into wider supply chain objectives.

“However, progressive port operators who have invested capital in security technology will also be looking at wider benefits that can be achieved from their outlay. Security technology should be designed, engineered and integrated to support efficiency in other parts of their business process such as Operations, Health and Safety, and HR.”

Upgrade pays

Milford Haven Port Authority upgraded its CCTV systems in 2011 to include additional and replacement high-definition cameras, enhanced monitoring stations and two new automated gate entrances. The Port of Long Beach has also invested heavily in security, with millions spent on this sector since 2001. It has recently updated its security initiatives with devices such as a virtual port system, a non-intrusive inspection system, and underwater inspection technology.

But what are the implications of failing to meet the requirements of the ISPS Code? A possible argument, as Mr Williams points out, is that of different standards between different contracting governments. “Although worldwide port security has improved since the implementation of the ISPS Code, the levels of security can vary from country to country. While certain contracting governments have dramatically improved their security standards, others have not achieved the same level of security.”

If a port does not meet the requirements of the ISPS Code, then it will still have the opportunity to turn this around. The US Coast Guard helps nations that do not meet the standards of the ISPS Code. Representatives from the Coast Guard will visit the area in question and will work to help improve security levels until they are deemed of a high enough standard. A recent example of this was Indonesia – initially, Indonesia’s anti-terrorism systems were found to be short of the standards expected. Following Indonesia’s entry on the Port Security advisory list, subsequent visits from the Coast Guard found that sufficient improvements had been made at 34 port facilities. In December 2012, Indonesia was removed from the Port Security advisory list.

The ISPS Code has, however, attracted criticism with respect to seafarers. Some seafarers have responded with complaints about how the code has affected their work, the social aspects of their job, and in some cases, even their health. Commenting on this issue, Mr Williams says: “One problem with the code is the welfare of seafarers. Some have found that the code’s regulations have made an impact on areas such as shore leave. This problem again comes down to a difference between contracting governments. Here, in the UK, for example, we make the correct arrangements for seafarers to go ashore while keeping a close eye on security. But other contracting governments have made it more difficult for seafarers to get ashore.”

Access denied

A survey conducted by the International Transport Workers’ Federation found a number of complaints from seafarers about the ISPS Code. With regards to shore leave, 58% of respondents explained how they had either experienced difficulty in getting to shore or that they had been denied shore leave completely. In US areas, this can be a common problem, because some seafarers require a visa in order to qualify for shore leave. However, some respondents were affected by both time and money – in some cases, the length of time taken to apply for a visa was longer than the time it took to take work on a vessel.

As well as the shore leave problem, the survey found that the code had added an extra seven or eight hours’ work per month for seafarers. The increased workloads had in turn affected some seafarers’ health, causing extra fatigue and stress. The stricter rules also meant that accommodation doors were locked, reducing the levels of people interaction and socialising.

The overall picture for security, however, is a positive one. More time, attention and money are ensuring that ports are meeting the high standards of the ISPS Code. In fact, more ports and harbours are outsourcing security to third parties, as Mr Fairnie of G4S Global Port Solutions, explains: “We believe that there will be an increasing demand for outsourcing of port security. We are being approached by many customers who are now seeing the real benefits of using a single outsourcing company for their technology and operations management.”

As ISMA’s Mr Williams concludes: “Port Facility Security Officers of port facilities must ensure that everyone understands why it is important to implement the ISPS Code fully. The end game is that a well-organised security programme will give the master of the ship confidence in the port facility and the port facility confidence in the ship.”