Lines oppose security compliance surcharge

Ports also reject separate fee ALAN PEAT SHIPPING LINES are unlikely to impose a separate security surcharge despite the substantial additional cost of complying with the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) code. Although not venturing any hard figures, Dave Rennie, CEO of Ocean Africa Container Lines (OACL), and chairman of the Container Liner Operators Forum (Clof), described the cost as “substantial and on-going”. Substantial because of cost factors for each vessel - such as doing the risk assessment; drawing up security plans; having them certified by the flag state or classification society; training an on-board security officer; and installation of on-board equipment. It is on-going because of the need for continual maintenance of the vessel’s certification; additional security for the vessel; the additional reporting at the destination; and the cost of this communication. “One hopes there’s a pay-off in time,” said Rennie, “by improved supply chain management and the like.” “It’s certainly a significant cost,” said another shipping line executive. But the international perception of any sort of surcharge to cover ISPS compliance of ports and shipping is one of opposition, he added. This started with a number of international ports suggesting that a surcharge would be applied on port services. “But,” said our shipping line source, “there’s pretty much been a universal rejection of port surcharges - and I’m not aware that any of these promises of port security surcharges has been fulfilled. “So I don’t see the lines imposing a separate surcharge.” Sapo has also publicly stated that no surcharge will be imposed to cover its estimated cost of about R200-million for ISPS compliance at the ports.