As Reported HERE , The IAMSP has significantly assisted in the standards with the lead voice from the Maritime Security sector.
"IAMSP congratulates ASIS International on the acceptance of the PSC.1 Standard for the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers into the ANSI system of standards. This achievement was a truly remarkable effort under the coordination of Dr Marc Siegel of ASIS International's standards development body that brought together representatives of foreign governments, the private sector, and non-government organizations. IAMSP, through the efforts of Allan McDougall, participated as the clearest voice representing issues and challenges within the maritime security domain, the largest group of signatories to the ICoC. This participation is representative of IAMSP's concrete efforts and volunteerism on behalf of the maritime security industry, something that continues to be vital as these efforts (and others) move forward.
IAMSP recently put forward comments regarding the ICoC Charter, expressing significant concerns over its structure and a number of specific measures. As an Association, we continue to be committed to the intent of the ICoC and will continue to support the ASIS International efforts in the development of those standards supporting the Code. Our primary focus will continue to be ensuring that the intent of the ICoC to weave respect for human rights and similar considerations into the business practices within the private security domain remains in the forefront of the Code and its integration into the maritime security domain.
We will continue our efforts in representing the industry through all phases of these efforts, working collaboratively with the various groups and interests involved to ensure that our members, and the maritime security industry in general, is given appropriate voice in these important efforts. While we continue to represent various trades and crafts within the maritime security domain, this effort, and others like it, demonstrate our commitment to operate in a leadership role with other credible associations to the betterment of the industry as a whole.
Again, our congratulations to all the representatives that participated in the development of this standard and who have been active in subsequent efforts and particularly ASIS International for providing the leadership and technical means of moving this important effort forward."
Congratulations and a job well done.
Showing posts with label reporting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reporting. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Piracy Attacks more than double?
I had some thoughts in regards to the numbers that have been floating around on piracy reporting in the Horn of Africa region, as compared with this year and last year. Last year the number of reported piracy attacks in the region are about 111 total attacks with about 42 hijackings for the year. This year, there have been approximately 32 hijackings with about 250 reported attacks for the same area, being the Gulf of Aden and the East Coast of Africa.
The reported hijackings are probably pretty factual, however, my thoughts are on the
supposed increase in attacks. When looking at the Live Piracy map by the IMB as a basis, I can see that the reported attacks of course have gone up dramatically, however, for some reason, the reported sightings of “suspicious” vessels stands at only three. This is what caught my eye and started my thought process as to the reality of attacks. The IMB admits that less than 50% of attacks are reported to the IMB, as merchant vessels are not 'required' to report attacks. Through a few informal talks with seaman, I found that the only attacks that are normally reported, are those that result in significant damage to the vessel, serious injury to a crew member, or of course, the actual successful hijacking itself. This is mostly due to the desire to maintain an 'incident free' situation with insurance
carriers, and the fact that if an attack is reported, the vessel may be held up for inspection causing unnecessary time delays and other matters with some port authorities. I have come to a few conclusions or a theory as to why the numbers have jumped significantly, and how the reporting of this can be very misleading. First we will start with the reporting. Most articles or reports, are missing one key element, and that is the word “REPORTED.” When the article is written or given on television, it is given that the number of attacks has significantly risen in the region. They are not taking into account that it is the number of Reported attacks has risen.
If you look at the numbers of reported attacks for the region, it is well over 100%
increase in the reported attacks, and we are not even finished with the year. However, the most interesting element, is if the attacks had actually increased, then the number of sightings of suspicious vessels would have increased dramatically as well. This significant increase in reported attacks coincides with the naval presence in the region. The navy ships are compelled to report all activity, to include calls for help by merchant vessels being attacked by pirates. n. However, the merchant vessels are not reporting a significant increase in the sightings of suspicious vessels. In order for the number of attacks to have literally increased over 100%, there would have to be a significant increase in actual pirate boats and pirates themselves. Almost all reported attacks involve about two skiffs, sometimes three and sometimes one. Therefore, there would have to be twice as many pirates on the water for the figures to match. I therefore conclude that the attack rate has not risen significantly, merely the reporting of the attacks has risen significantly.
I have concluded that this is the case due to the naval presence in the region. Before the naval presence, the merchant vessels fended for themselves and did not report attacks unless of the damage to the vessel, injury to the crew or an actual hijacking took place. Now that the naval entities are there, the merchant vessels have someone to call for help in the event of an attack. The naval vessels are compelled to report the call of distress, therefore, the number of reported incidents has risen significantly. Another way to substantiate this theory, is when
the incident is reported, the name of the vessel is not normally reported. Therefore, the report to the IMB came from the navy, not the individual vessel filing the report. The response to this may be causing the maritime industry to go in the wrong direction when it comes to vessel defense. The answer is not to rely on the naval flotilla, but to take the appropriate action to protect their own vessels.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts.
The reported hijackings are probably pretty factual, however, my thoughts are on the
supposed increase in attacks. When looking at the Live Piracy map by the IMB as a basis, I can see that the reported attacks of course have gone up dramatically, however, for some reason, the reported sightings of “suspicious” vessels stands at only three. This is what caught my eye and started my thought process as to the reality of attacks. The IMB admits that less than 50% of attacks are reported to the IMB, as merchant vessels are not 'required' to report attacks. Through a few informal talks with seaman, I found that the only attacks that are normally reported, are those that result in significant damage to the vessel, serious injury to a crew member, or of course, the actual successful hijacking itself. This is mostly due to the desire to maintain an 'incident free' situation with insurance
carriers, and the fact that if an attack is reported, the vessel may be held up for inspection causing unnecessary time delays and other matters with some port authorities. I have come to a few conclusions or a theory as to why the numbers have jumped significantly, and how the reporting of this can be very misleading. First we will start with the reporting. Most articles or reports, are missing one key element, and that is the word “REPORTED.” When the article is written or given on television, it is given that the number of attacks has significantly risen in the region. They are not taking into account that it is the number of Reported attacks has risen.
If you look at the numbers of reported attacks for the region, it is well over 100%
increase in the reported attacks, and we are not even finished with the year. However, the most interesting element, is if the attacks had actually increased, then the number of sightings of suspicious vessels would have increased dramatically as well. This significant increase in reported attacks coincides with the naval presence in the region. The navy ships are compelled to report all activity, to include calls for help by merchant vessels being attacked by pirates. n. However, the merchant vessels are not reporting a significant increase in the sightings of suspicious vessels. In order for the number of attacks to have literally increased over 100%, there would have to be a significant increase in actual pirate boats and pirates themselves. Almost all reported attacks involve about two skiffs, sometimes three and sometimes one. Therefore, there would have to be twice as many pirates on the water for the figures to match. I therefore conclude that the attack rate has not risen significantly, merely the reporting of the attacks has risen significantly.
I have concluded that this is the case due to the naval presence in the region. Before the naval presence, the merchant vessels fended for themselves and did not report attacks unless of the damage to the vessel, injury to the crew or an actual hijacking took place. Now that the naval entities are there, the merchant vessels have someone to call for help in the event of an attack. The naval vessels are compelled to report the call of distress, therefore, the number of reported incidents has risen significantly. Another way to substantiate this theory, is when
the incident is reported, the name of the vessel is not normally reported. Therefore, the report to the IMB came from the navy, not the individual vessel filing the report. The response to this may be causing the maritime industry to go in the wrong direction when it comes to vessel defense. The answer is not to rely on the naval flotilla, but to take the appropriate action to protect their own vessels.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
