Proceedings Spring 2011 Issue Available Online

The current edition of Proceedings (Spring 2011 – Waterways Management) is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/.

This issue highlights the domestic and international efforts of the Marine Transportation Systems Management Directorate.

Because marine transportation systems management is such a broad mission area within the Coast Guard, it is just a sampling of the marine transportation systems management that occurs in the field and at headquarters. It is intended to update readers on the latest developments for many of the areas traditionally covered under the waterways management umbrella.

In this day and age, this nation and our global partners rely more heavily than ever on our oceans and waterways for our collective prosperity, safety, and security. We trust that this edition will provide our policy makers, industry stakeholders, and international partners with a broader understanding of marine transportation systems management.

Developing Multi-Mission Regulations

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Jaideep Sirkar, former Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Regulatory Project Development Division.

The U.S. Coast Guard has 11 missions:

• Ports, waterway, and coastal security
• Drug interdiction
• Aids to navigation
• Search and rescue
• Living marine resources
• Marine safety
• Defense readiness
• Migrant interdiction
• Marine environmental protection
• Ice operations
• Other law enforcement

One way we exercise the authority given to us by the U.S. Congress is through regulations. Since our roles and responsibilities are so diverse, our regulations will be equally diverse.

Our regulations are primarily contained in Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, and Title 46, Shipping, of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Current Regulations
To review all Coast Guard regulations currently in effect, look at the online Code of Federal Regulations. You will notice regulations for “hardware”—ships, equipment, materials; those for “software”—operating/operational requirements, personnel requirements; and those for financial requirements.

You will also find, among other things, regulations on treatment of ships’ ballast water to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species, regulations on inspection standards for towing vessels, discussion of standards for card readers that read identification cards for transportation workers, and environmental issues that include pollution sources such as engine emissions and oil spills.

Reg Agenda
Do you want to know what regulations the Coast Guard is currently working on, or is thinking of working on?

Go to: http://www.reginfo.gov/. Click on the link in the center of the page, “Current and Past Agendas and Plans and How to Use Them.” From the drop-down menu for “Select Agency,” select “Department of Homeland Security” and click “Submit.” Scroll down to the Coast Guard entries—the ones labeled “DHS/USCG.”


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Looking Out for Seafarers—Part 2

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Click here for Part I.


In the summer of 2008, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston staff worked with the Apostleship of the Sea to aid a mariner. Excerpts from the e-mail correspondence follow.


5/25/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Coast Guard, Please help. My husband is aboard a vessel which is travels (sic)
on the high seas between the United States, Europe, and Trinidad. He is very
sick with the flu and the symptoms are causing him to slowly lose his hearing.
He is not able to see a qualified doctor because such doctors are not available
onboard the vessel or in Trinidad.

Now that the vessel has returned to the Gulf Coast of the United States, immigration personnel are unable to sign the referral form before the vessel leaves for the high seas. I do not know what to do because he will not be able to continue his work as a
seafarer with a loss of hearing, and my family of three children greatly needs his full health and support. Please help me and my husband.

—Signed … Wife of foreign crewmember aboard a foreign-flagged chemical carrier calling on the port of Houston in May 2008.


5/28/08 Coast Guard to seafarer’s spouse

Ma’am, we have inspected the vessel aboard which your husband works. During our
crew interviews and competency assessments, we found that he is able to perform
the tasks of his license and watchstanding duties, which are those of a third
engineer. Your husband’s medical needs are presently being taken care of by
doctors here in Houston.

—Signed … Chief, Inspections Division, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston.


5/28/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Thank you for your great help. Thank you very much because the medical attention
needed by my husband requires constant oversight.

6/3/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Coast Guard, I am sorry if I interrupted you again but my husband has been
diagnosed by the doctor with a perforated eardrum. He is diagnosed as being fit
for work but is suffering through a lot of pain.

Can you help us to have my husband sent home and have the company provide medical assistance? The ship will be in the United States again on June 10. I am very sorry for my interruption but I do not know where to seek assistance. I hope you understand.

6/3/08 Coast Guard to seafarer’s spouse

Ma’am, researching the Notices of Arrival supplied to the Coast Guard by the
master, I see that the vessel trades regularly in the United States. May I
direct you to seafarer representatives, who will be able to provide you with
options of how to handle such requests? ...

... At the end of our correspondence, I have included a website that lists the people who minister to the needs of seafarers like your husband. I routinely work with two of the Texas port chaplains listed on this page. If you are not able to establish
communication with a port chaplain, please let me know.

6/3/08 Seafarer’s spouse to Coast Guard

Thank you very much. Indeed the information you gave me will give a lot of help
for us. Thank you and God bless.

6/4/08 Coast Guard to the president of the Apostleship of the Sea in the United States

Good morning. Late yesterday, I responded to an e-mail provided to me from the
wife of the third engineer aboard a foreign-flagged chemical carrier. The Coast
Guard has been in contact with the engineer and with the wife and there are some
areas of concern that are outside of Coast Guard jurisdiction.

I bring this to your attention in order to alert you of this ongoing situation, and of the reference I made to your good organization.

—Signed ... Chief, Inspections Division, Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston.

6/4/08 Apostleship of the Sea in the United States to Coast Guard

I will keep an eye out for the vessel. Thanks for thinking about us. I will try
to visit the ship when she comes into our port.

I will also pass the word along to other seafarer welfare organizations that might be able to help while the vessel is visiting another country.

—Signed ... president of the Apostleship of the Sea in the United States.

6/25/08 Resolution
Vessel arrives in Vancouver, Wash. Through the efforts of the Coast Guard, the Apostleship of the Sea, the owner of the vessel, and shipping agents, the third engineer of concern is removed and provided the necessary medical treatment in his country of origin.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Looking Out for Seafarers—Part 1

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by LCDR Norbert John Pail, Jr., U.S. Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston; and Father Sinclair Oubre, J.C.L., President, Apostleship of the Sea of the United States of America.


Seafarer Welfare Organizations
Seafarer welfare organizations, faith-based or secular, welcome journeyers into ports throughout the United States, offering hospitality to mariners who may not have seen land for weeks. In the first picture, Sinclair Oubre and Doreen Badeaux welcome a vessel’s master to port.

Resources include access to transportation and conveniences such as high-speed Internet and pre-paid phone cards. Many seafarer centers also have big screen televisions with international channels. In the second picture, ship crewmembers use the resources at one of the nation’s seafarer centers.

The relations between the local Coast Guard and seafarer centers keep the needs of the seafarer at the top of the list of port priorities.

Seafarer Access and Living Conditions
With the advent of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), critical facilities must outline how access is restricted to secure areas. Coast Guard requirements outline that owners of these facilities ensure coordination occurs to provide for the needs of crewmembers and the vessel.

Additionally, living conditions on a vessel are determined by the economic health of the operator and the cultural traditions of the crew. What is “clean” for one crew may be considered unhealthy or substandard by another.

Without specific international standards for living and working conditions, port stakeholders are left asking questions such as: Do problems exist when vessels do not meet the hyper-clean standards Americans are used to? Is there sufficient quantity and variety of food, or are the dietary needs of the crews being put at risk?

It is much easier to determine whether the lifeboat davits work than to know if the vessel provides adequate accommodations.

Help Is on the Way
The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 is expected to standardize the living and working conditions for mariners while at sea. These regulations are the first attempt to set minimum requirements for seafarers, including conditions of employment, hours of work and rest, accommodations, recreational facilities, food, health protection, medical care, welfare, and social security protection.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Coast Guard Partnerships and the Federal Advisory Committee Act

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Rich Walter, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Regulatory and Administrative Law.


FACA Facts
The Federal Advisory Committee Act was enacted as a way of controlling the many advisory committees established to provide federal agencies with access to the views and recommendations of industry, consumer groups, and other outside experts.

FACA’s aims are simple:

• Provide ground rules for establishing, managing, and overseeing advisory committees.
• Provide fair compensation of non-federal government advisory committee members.
• Open committee meetings to public scrutiny.
• Reduce costs by terminating unnecessary committees.

We want to ensure that all Coast Guard partnerships with people outside the federal government are constructed with this act in mind.

How Do I Tell?
Whether or not the partnership is called an “advisory committee” is irrelevant—any group that involves non-federal government personnel and that gives advice or makes recommendations to the Coast Guard might be a FACA advisory committee, no matter what it calls itself.

Is the Group Established or Utilized by the Coast Guard?
If we fund the group’s activities, determine its composition, or set its agenda, the group may need to follow FACA procedures.

Trade associations generally fall outside the act, and if we meet with an association’s representatives to hear their views on an issue, we can do so without “implicating” FACA. However, if we bring representatives of several trade associations together, we need to ask more questions before determining whether that group will be covered by FACA.

Is the Group Meant to Provide Advice or Recommendations to the Coast Guard?
We often meet with groups of citizens to discuss port safety and security measures, possible new regulations, and the like. If these meetings are called to provide information or exchange individual views, FACA is not implicated. The key is whether we meant for the group to advise us as a group.

Suppose we call a meeting with local industry leaders, environmentalists, and concerned citizens to discuss a proposed regulation. At first, some citizens say they might be agreeable to the proposal, while others say they are firmly opposed. Gradually, the tide swings in favor of the opposition, and by the end of the meeting everyone is telling us the proposal is a bad idea.

Consensus? Group recommendation? Yes, but FACA is unlikely to apply because we called the meeting to hear individual viewpoints, and did nothing to manage the meeting in such a way that attendees felt any need to agree on a single point of view.

Does the Group Fall Within a Recognized FACA Exemption?
The Coast Guard generally can meet with groups of state officials or local civic groups without triggering FACA. Also, if Congress tells the Coast Guard to use private sector committees to help implement certain measures, those committees are also likely to fall outside FACA.

To Be Sure
The Coast Guard’s Office of Regulations and Administrative Law is the office responsible for determining when a collaborative effort should—or should not—be handled under FACA. Coast Guard units should involve this office as they seek to extend stakeholder partnerships.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Joint Exercises, Half the Headache

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Heather Kostecki, Planning and Force Readiness Department Head, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco.


In the exercise community, we often hear the term “exercise fatigue,” since with each new regulation and guideline comes a new requirement to conduct exercises. Many planners find themselves overwhelmed about how to meet the requirements and how to balance readiness needs against resource limitations.

More Exercises, Same Resources
One answer is to combine exercises to maximize available funding and manpower. Ports have started pairing area maritime security exercises with oil spill response exercises, and hurricane exercises with mass rescue operation exercises.

However, exercise creep (attempting to address too many issues within one exercise) can rapidly derail the exercise. Also, if not planned with a focus on coordinated operations, a combined exercise can turn into two exercises taking place at the same time.

Failure to establish interconnectivity between the exercises results in lost opportunities to explore the “rub points” that will occur when actual operations with different goals occupy the same space and compete for the same resources.

A Long-Term Solution
One way to address the issue is by producing a long-term exercise schedule that is systematic and regional in nature to achieve economies of scale and synergy.

FEMA regional training and exercise plan workshops, for example, allow regional partners to see what other exercises may be occurring that cover the same territory as their own, with the opportunity to combine efforts.

Combining exercises can be accomplished successfully if planners link exercises very deliberately and thoughtfully. All parties need to be apprised of the scope of play from the beginning, and must hold firm to that scope despite pressure to tack on “just one more” issue. Most importantly, the issues being evaluated must continue to meet all statutory requirements for each of the participating programs.

Members of different response communities in a port should meet well in advance of a planned combined exercise to learn what each community does during a response, what their jurisdictional boundaries are, and each community’s authorities and capabilities.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Biometrics at Sea—closing the revolving door

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CAPT Mark Higgins and LCDR Fair Kim, 7th Coast Guard District.


A Revolving Door
During 2004 and 2005, the Coast Guard interdicted more than 9,000 migrants attempting to illegally enter Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic—nearly 40 percent of the undocumented migrants intercepted. These migrants were typically repatriated to the Dominican Republic within days of apprehension. In the USCG photo above, this small boat has more than 100 illegal migrants aboard.

The cutters were able to return to their patrols, but many of those interdicted were recidivists. This repeating cycle severely overburdened law enforcement units, provided little incentive for migrants to seek legal immigration avenues, and enabled migrant smugglers to continue to ply their trade.

Without clear consequences, the flow of migrants appeared destined to continue unabated. From a security standpoint, the U.S. did not have a clear idea of exactly who was attempting to penetrate its borders, and whether a would-be migrant was an itinerant worker, deported felon, or terrorist.

Closing the Door
In early 2006, the Coast Guard embarked on an ambitious endeavor to curb these attempts by using biometric equipment at sea to facilitate prosecutions. Biometrics are readily identifiable traits unique to an individual, such as a fingerprint.

This would enable the Coast Guard to track individuals by ascertaining their history of attempted entries into the U.S. and screening each against criminal and immigration databases.

Testing the System
The Coast Guard acquired the biometrics hardware, conducted training, and made other preparations to a prototype cutter. Meanwhile, the service engaged local partner agencies in Puerto Rico including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, ICE Office of Detention and Removal, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Office of Field Operations, and Border Patrol. The agencies formed the Caribbean Border Interagency Group to formulate a standard procedure for taking action in response to a biometric “hit” from a Coast Guard interdiction.

In November 2006, USCGC Key Largo got underway with the portable biometrics collection equipment. Within days, the Coast Guard had interdicted three small boats attempting to enter the U.S. with 36 migrants aboard—business as usual in the Mona Pass.

Cutter personnel took biometric scans and a digital photo of each migrant and annotated data packets with information about the interdiction.

Five “Hits”
Five of the migrants had interacted with law enforcement or immigration authorities in the past—four were recidivists, and the fifth migrant’s file revealed a felony drug conviction and previous deportation.

Emboldened by this success, the Coast Guard deployed portable collection units to all five cutters based in San Juan.

Program Successes
From deployment of the Biometrics-at-Sea initiative in November 2006 through the end of 2008, the Coast Guard interdicted 1,986 migrants attempting to enter the United States. Of this group, 459 (more than 23 percent) were recidivist entrants, prior deportees, felons, or otherwise had some derogatory information within the database. As appropriate, these were forwarded for prosecution. In the USCG photo above is a Coast Guard cutter with migrants on deck. The vessel was turned over to local police.

Since the introduction of biometrics, the migrant flow decreased nearly 75 percent.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Abandonment of Seafarers—Part 2: Three Cases of Abandonment

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by RDML Charles D. Michel and LT Amber S. Ward, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law. Read Part I here.


Case #1
In October 1998, the Coast Guard detained a Panamanian freighter off Long Beach, Calif., after finding a number of safety violations and unsafe working conditions including overcrowded living quarters, polluted drinking water, stale food, overflowing toilets, and cockroach infestation.

At the request of a seafarers union, which alleged that the owners had failed to pay the crew’s earned wages, the federal district court ordered the vessel seized. Under U.S. law, vessels can be seized by authorities to recover unpaid earnings.

Several crewmembers reportedly fled into the U.S. after receiving medical attention. The remaining crew survived on donations of food and supplies. After approximately two months, the vessel was sold for scrap value, less than the amount of the pending claims against it for back wages, maritime supplies, and medical assistance for its crew.

Case #2
Just weeks after the Panamanian freighter was detained, a Pakistani-flagged freighter arrived offshore Brownsville, Texas, after being abandoned in Mexico by its bankrupt owners. After being held offshore for five months, with food and water nearly gone and the crew in despair, the captain fled Mexico and made the risky voyage to the U.S. in hopes of finding haven and help.

The 22 crewmembers aboard survived on rainwater and fish, and were suffering from sores and skin rashes. Many had not been paid in two years, and had not been home in nearly as long. The local community rallied around the crew, providing donations of food, fuel, and clothing. Finally, in August 1999, after being stranded at sea for months and in Texas for several more, the last of the crewmembers returned home, although still without their full wages.

Case #3
In October 2008, two U.S.-flagged ships owned by the same company were abandoned in The Netherlands. According to the U.S. crewmembers aboard, the owner ceased paying the crew their earned wages and providing for basic necessities. The crewmembers were forced to rely upon a local charity for sustenance.

U.S. Coast Guard officials visited both ships, offered to provide assistance, and advised the seafarers of the availability of further potential assistance from the U.S. consulate. They also identified numerous safety deficiencies aboard and attempted to work with the shipowner to resolve crew and safety issues. As required by applicable treaty, Coast Guard headquarters staff reported both cases of abandonment to the International Labor Organization.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Abandonment of Seafarers—Part 1

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by RDML Charles D. Michel and LT Amber S. Ward, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law.


Despite years of prosperity in the shipping industry and international guidelines designed to prevent the shameful practice of abandoning seafarers, crews are still being abandoned in foreign ports worldwide. Between 1990 and 2006, approximately 1,000 ships and 150,000 seafarers and fishers are believed to have been abandoned.

Just since 2004, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Labor Organization (ILO) tracking database reported more than 60 vessels were abandoned.

Economic Value vs. Value of Human Life
Abandonment is often a calculated economic decision by a shipowner facing bankruptcy, insolvency, or arrest of its vessel by creditors. In some cases, seafarers are abandoned along with their vessel after a port state determines the vessel unseaworthy and detains it for repairs.

At best, abandoned seafarers are often subject to cruel and degrading treatment. At worst, they may find themselves in life-threatening conditions.

What’s to Stop This?
Despite a customary international law right to seek redress through national legal systems, abandoned seafarers often do not have access to remedies because they cannot afford the litigation expenses. Even if seafarers have access to justice, the abandoned vessels are often of little value, and those who take legal action may be blacklisted.

Port states, including the United States, are typically ill-equipped to handle the humanitarian situation, disposal of the derelict vessels, or the immigration issues associated with abandonment. Although most ships are insured, coverage typically ceases upon insolvency or non-payment of premiums.

The Broader Impact
While the increasing complexity of global shipping has created an unprecedented demand for seafarers, the scourge of abandonment is a blight on the seafaring occupation. It serves as an indication of how, even today, seafarers can be exploited by their employers without remedy. This reduces the attractiveness of seafaring during a time of critical shortage of qualified mariners.

Interim Efforts
Port states can help combat the problem by unilaterally denying entry into port those ships not in compliance with international standards. Before vessels are allowed entry into a port, they should be required to prove their financial capability to repatriate and care for their crews should a problem develop. A certificate showing insurance coverage, a bond, or a port entry tax might provide sufficient security for this purpose.

For the first time since humans first began going to sea, there is a real opportunity to provide a comprehensive, mandatory international mechanism to provide for the basic humanitarian needs of the uniquely vulnerable class of seafaring workers abandoned in foreign ports. We all benefit from the service of seafarers who keep vital commerce flowing, and we owe it to them to terminate this shameful practice.

Part II gives three examples of the abandonment of seafarers.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Catching Polluters: Marine Pollution Enforcement—Part 2

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. Read Part I here.


International Outreach and Cooperation
In an effort to strengthen MARPOL compliance internationally, Coast Guard and Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel have presented training sessions on port state control and MARPOL Annex I compliance, focusing on methods of detection, enforcement, investigation, prosecution, the oil record book, and other inspection issues.

Punishing the Perpetrators
Additionally, the Coast Guard and DOJ have received international cooperation in several recent high-profile vessel pollution cases.

In 2007, a maritime operator agreed to a $37 million criminal settlement—the largest to date involving deliberate vessel pollution, 12 of its vessels in six separate U.S. ports.

The investigation was based upon a tip from Transport Canada, after an investigation into a mystery oil spill revealed suspicious entries in the vessel’s oil record book. The information was sent to the Coast Guard and resulted in a case that spread to six different ports.

Later in the investigation, Transport Canada provided aerial images of another of the operator’s vessels potentially engaged in illegal discharges.

In another incident, a maritime operator was convicted of 13 counts of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, three counts of falsifying records, one count of conspiracy, and one count of obstruction of justice. The operator was fined $4.9 million for its role in falsifying records to conceal overboard dumping of oily waste in international waters and efforts to conceal those discharges from the Coast Guard. (The operator is appealing this conviction.)

During the prosecution of this case, the Netherlands Royal Military Police, Ministry of Transport, and Coast Guard provided assistance. Netherlands government officials were able to provide aerial surveillance images of a vessel discharging oily waste within the Netherlands’ exclusive economic zone and testified to the same at trial.

Keep it Clean
Without the fear of discovery and prosecution, polluters have no incentive to change their illegal and destructive ways. The U.S. Coast Guard, through its international training and outreach efforts, seeks to ensure that all port states can detect and prosecute violations of MARPOL, forcing polluters to take corrective action.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Catching Polluters: Marine Pollution Enforcement—Part 1

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR David O’Connell, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law.


Port State Control
Port state control is an internationally accepted process through which a nation exercises its authority over foreign vessels when those vessels are in waters subject to its jurisdiction.

Environmental Protection
Under the umbrella of environmental protection, the main treaty for which Coast Guard port state control officers verify compliance is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or “MARPOL.”

MARPOL Annex I regulates the discharge of oil from ships. It is also designed to control the operational discharges of oil and oily waste that accumulate in ships as a result of normal operations.

The handling of oily waste is a constant challenge because it is continually produced, and the operation and maintenance of pollution prevention equipment takes time and effort. Additionally, disposal options can be costly. This has led some vessels to discharge oily waste overboard in direct contravention of MARPOL requirements.

The Oil Record Book
Oil record books, which capture all related onboard pollution prevention efforts, are examined regularly as part of the Coast Guard’s port state control program. Indications that large amounts of oily bilge waste are being discharged may indicate that there are substantial problems in the machinery space or elsewhere within the ship.

Irregular entries or a lack of entries may indicate that pollution prevention equipment is not being used properly and there is a potential violation.

In the most serious cases involving intentional discharges of oily waste or attempts to deliberately deceive Coast Guard port state control officers, the case can be referred for criminal prosecution.

Deliberate Discharge
Unfortunately, incidents of non-compliance with MARPOL Annex I requirements are on the rise. To combat this, the Coast Guard developed guidance on procedures to detect and respond to potential MARPOL Annex I violations.

The guidance focuses on scrutinizing the oil record book for irregularities, such as:
· oily water separators processing amounts that exceed capacity,
· dates not in order,
· missing pages,
· wrong codes,
· entries with the same time and amount processed,
· soundings taken during the inspection that do not match the latest entries.

Signs of bypassing of pollution prevention equipment:
· loose bolts,
· blanked flanges,
· different color piping,
· chipped or fresh paint,
· oil stains around pollution prevention equipment or overboard piping.

Despite the guidance being fully transparent to the marine industry and the success the Coast Guard has had in detecting and prosecuting these cases, discoveries of illegal operations continue at an alarming rate.

In part two we will examine Coast Guard prevention and detection efforts.

Photo Caption: Tell-tale signs of tampering include new bolts, different-colored piping, paint chipped from frequent handling, and oil stains on the bulkhead.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

U.S. Coast Guard Activities Far East—Coast Guard challenges and opportunities beyond the dateline

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR Richter Tipton and CAPT Gerald Swanson, U.S. Coast Guard Activities Far East.


U.S. Coast Guard Activities Far East (FEACT) is a forward-deployed Coast Guard operational command responsible for Coast Guard missions across the Asia-Pacific region.

Stretching from Russia to New Zealand, and from Madagascar to French Polynesia, this area of responsibility contains the world’s largest commercial ports and strategically important shipping routes, as well as the maritime industry’s largest shipbuilding and repair centers.

Safety, Security, Response, Diplomacy
FEACT executes the Coast Guard’s International Port Security and marine safety (inspection/certification/casualty investigation) program for all U.S. flag vessels operating in the region, including the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command fleet.

Additionally, the response/security department operates a team of 10 international port security liaison officers spread across the Japan, Singapore, and Seoul offices. The logistics department deals with issues unique to overseas missions such as obtaining visas and clearance approvals for international travel, specialized training for foreign deployment, protocol with industry and government officials, and maintaining critical relationships with our Department of Defense, the U.S. Embassy, and foreign nation hosts.

Uniquely FEACT
One aspect of the FEACT mission is the sheer number of cultures and various customs and traditions we encounter. To be successful, officers must be familiar with the cultures of all the countries they visit.

One week you might be greeting a Fijian with a hearty “Bula,” and the next week it’s “Annyong haseyo” in Korea. In one country you might shake hands, while in another it is only culturally proper to bow. Keeping it all straight can be complicated, but getting it wrong may undermine the success of the mission.

In several of the FEACT countries, the Coast Guard officer might be one of the few Americans the locals ever see, so it’s important to leave a good impression. Solid understanding of the country’s culture and the ability to identify critical factors help each of our members avoid cultural pitfalls.

On the Horizon
Because of FEACT’s close, long-standing relationships in our Asia-Pacific region, we find ourselves in a good position to help the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security move forward with a consolidated and comprehensive international engagement strategy for the region.


Photo 1: Coast Guard Activities Far East staff gathers in Japan for annual training and orientation.











Photo 2: LT Ken McCain of FEACT’s prevention department often flies thousands of miles to inspect vessels in other countries.












Photo 3: CDR Yuri Graves of FEACT’s security department, right, visits a foreign port as the international port security liaison officer. FEACT’s liaison officers make dozens of country visits per year, covering 105 million square miles of the Asia-Pacific region.









Photo 4: FEACT’s prevention department staff inspects a dry dock facility in the Asia-Pacific region.













Photo 5: Proliferation Security Initiative 2007 exercise at Yokosuka, Japan. The U.S. officers (from left) CDR Mark Eyler, LT Gregg Maye, LCDR Rich Kavanaugh, and LCDR Wes Bringham, USN, demonstrated how the USCG and USN work together during joint operations aboard a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force ship.







For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Coast Guard International Port Security Liaison Officers

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Adam Shaw, U.S. Coast Guard International Port Security Program Activities Europe.


The primary mission for an international port security liaison officer (IPSLO) is to assess the anti-terrorism measures implemented at foreign ports by reviewing their security practices, increasing international awareness of maritime security, and championing best practices to improve maritime governance.

Achieving Compliance, Cooperation, Coordination
In addition, one of the liaison officer’s most important objectives is developing relationships to build trust. IPSLOs are required to make regular visits to the countries in their portfolios. These visits allow the officer to ensure the ports are maintaining effective security measures as defined by the International Ship and Port Facility Security code and to develop relationships with their in-country counterparts.

Diplomacy
In many cases, the only exposure a foreign government will ever have with the U.S. Coast Guard is through the international port security liaison officer. During a port security visit, it is not uncommon for an IPSLO to field a wide range of questions regarding port state control detentions, boarding officer training, small boat procurement, search and rescue doctrine, response to marine environmental pollution, and more.

An IPSLO’s most critical skills involve effective cross-cultural communications, diplomacy, and the ability to get a wide range of agencies to work together in support of a common goal. The success of the International Port Security program has garnered the U.S. Coast Guard a unique role in global maritime security and has allowed us to develop strong diplomatic ties with our international maritime trading partners.

Photo Caption: At left, CDR Adam Shaw, USCG international port security liaison officer, greets the president of Benin, Thomas Yayi Boni, at the presidential palace in Benin, Africa. Also in attendance is the U.S. ambassador to Benin, Gayleatha Brown, and LCDR Robert Keith, USCG international port security liaison officer.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Security with Compassion

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR Tony Russell, former Commanding Officer, USCGC Nantucket.


Life at sea can be hard for the commercial seafarer. Complicating the matter is the labyrinth that is the international maritime industry, in which it is not uncommon for a ship to have regulatory, business, and physical ties to a multitude of countries and jurisdictions simultaneously. On occasion, this formula develops into a complex and frustrating problem for the U.S. Coast Guard, one that we cannot ultimately solve ourselves through our safety and security missions—only through partnership with industry and other non-governmental agencies.

More Than a Call for Help
Such was the case of the M/V Haitien Pride. It started when a Good Samaritan vessel received a mayday call from this foreign-flagged coastal freighter and its crew of seven, sailing from Haiti with the intent to enter Miami. This began an eight-day saga that required the efforts of multiple elements of Coast Guard Sector Miami, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Seamen’s Church Institute of New York and New Jersey (SCI), the ship’s representative, and the governments of the Bahamas and the Philippines to bring it to a successful conclusion.

At 10:57 a.m., May 5, 2006, Sector Miami’s command center received a report that the M/V Haitien Pride was disabled and adrift approximately 27 miles southeast of Miami.

Refugees?
The Coast Guard Cutter Cormorant, with a port state control inspector aboard, was dispatched to conduct a search and rescue boarding on the vessel. In the meantime, the master and crew began to make various claims regarding poor conditions, accompanied by requests to enter Miami.

The vessel was found to be structurally sound and not in distress and the Cormorant provided food and water to sustain the crew. Sector Miami decided that the standard safety and security requirements for entry into the U.S. would not be waived and the vessel would have to submit the required advance notice of arrival, document of compliance, safety management certificate, and international ship security certificate.

These entry requirements were provided to the vessel’s owner and agent, as well as an attaché from the Philippine Consulate who was sent to help resolve the situation. They made the decision that meeting the requirements was not financially feasible and began to make arrangements for the vessel to go to the Bahamas.

The master and crew of the vessel were not pleased with this situation and continued to state their desire to take the vessel to Miami, where they hoped to deliver the ship to the owner in an attempt to get paid back wages and return to the Philippines.

A Run for the Border
On the morning of May 12, Sector Miami received a call from the vessel’s agent stating that it was once again en route to Miami. The situation suddenly got more serious, and the focus shifted from safety to security.

An aggressive effort was made to re-locate the vessel, which had turned off its required Automatic Identification System, making things more difficult. It was found drifting in the Gulf Stream, southeast of Miami. While the significant concern continued to be the safety of the crew, the Coast Guard and its DHS partners began developing a contingency plan in the event the vessel attempted an illegal entry.

Interdiction, Negotiation
An interagency boarding team was quickly assembled from the patrol boat Nantucket, Sector Miami PSC inspectors, agents from ICE, and a non-governmental advocate for seafarers—Douglas Stevenson from the Seamen’s Church Institute.

Once permitted aboard, the non-governmental seafarer advocate enacted the mission of the Seamen’s Church Institute—to provide support and advocacy to seafarers. In this case, he understood that the best thing the master could do for himself and his crew would be to go to the Bahamas, where no-cost arrangements could be made to repatriate them to the Philippines.

Resolution
Almost immediately after Stevenson stepped aboard, the tone and progress of the negotiations improved. This was likely due to SCI’s reputation, credibility, and the fact that someone other than a government agent was providing assurances of taking care of them.

In less than two hours, the master and crew agreed to go to the Bahamas if clearance could be arranged and assurance made that they would not be arrested upon arrival. The vessel safely anchored near Freeport the morning of May 13, and the crew was eventually repatriated.

Lessons Learned
Though unusual and challenging, this case had many positive benefits. It tested the improved relationships and coordination that have been established since the stand-up of the Department of Homeland Security. It demonstrated the value of the new Coast Guard sector’s unified command structure, combining response and prevention responsibilities under one commander. And it showed the value of looking beyond the obvious government agencies and involving third-party non-government organizations to help broker acceptable solutions in these very complex and sensitive situations that don’t fit neatly into DHS’s jurisdictional responsibilities.

The most significant point made by this case, and others like it, is that the Coast Guard can find that important and delicate balance among safety, security, and compassion that makes it such a unique military, law enforcement, and humanitarian organization.

“The Coast Guard’s best side really shined through and showed that it can provide compassionate assistance without jeopardizing safety and security,” summarized Stevenson.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Multi-Agency Search Yields Results

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by PA3 Seth Johnson, U.S. Coast Guard Public Affairs Detachment New York.


As the rust-colored doors swing open, there is a sharp chemical smell, and dozens of white metal barrels become visible in the cargo container as sunlight spills in. A hazardous materials investigator in the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in West Trenton, N.J., places his gloved hands on a barrel and peers inside. He begins meticulously looking over each of the barrels for spillage and damage in a container big enough to double as a small garage.

He is also looking for safety deficiencies. Mainly what he sees are a lot of problems with placards not being there or filled out properly. For example, one carrying adhesives was labeled right, but the placard was wrong.

Teamwork
This was just one out of hundreds of containers inspected in a Coast Guard-led initiative that involved 12 federal agencies and lasted over three days around the Ports of New York and New Jersey in March 2008. The initiative, called a multi-agency strike force operation (MASFO), focused on identification of safety violations in the storage and shipment of hazardous materials and numerous other deficiencies, and also built cooperation among organizations that do not work together every day.

“This has allowed everyone to come together and inspect cargo on roads, railways, ports, and vessels,” said John Hillin, an inspector at Coast Guard Sector New York’s Prevention Division. “With 100 inspectors working together, they have been able to learn a great deal and will work better as a team in the future, providing a safer port.”

The Players
Participants in the MASFO included the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, National Cargo Bureau, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, New Jersey State Police, Norfolk Southern Railroad Police Department, Port Authority Police Department, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Pipeline & Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation.

Each of these agencies has specialties; having other members of agencies working in areas they usually wouldn’t provided a unique training experience. Each agency defined the roles of its participants. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration inspected cargo on trains, Port Authority Police worked alongside agencies to provide safety and assist with inspections, and the New Jersey State Police helped assist in roadside inspections and law enforcement.

Checks and Balances
With members of multiple agencies working together, the multi-agency strike force operation was also able to “catch” more in terms of identifying violations and deficiencies, as a whole.

“The idea is if there is a problem with a shipment, to catch it before it gets into another transportation mode,” said Joe Evans, a hazardous materials program manager at the Federal Motor Carrier Administration. “We check brakes, tires, driver credentials, and licensing to make sure he is able to carry hazardous material.”

While many agencies were local, Coast Guard leaders in the field of marine safety, inspection, and prevention traveled from places like Boston, Mass., and Oklahoma City, Okla., to work together during this operation and unique learning experience.

During the course of the MASFO there were 28 containers put on hold, 76 inspected containers found with deficiencies, 127 violations issued, and 15 trucks placed out of service. With roughly 2,000 man-hours and 636 containers inspected, this proved to be a large, successful operation that left road, rail, and waterways safer, while bolstering the communication and cooperation among agencies enforcing shipping safety and regulation.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Save the Date - 3rd Annual GMISS, Baltimore, Sept. 14-16, 2010

SAVE THE DATE - September 14th-16th 2010!

The National MDA Coordination Office (Formerly OGMSA) is pleased to announce the third annual Global Maritime Information Sharing Symposium (GMISS), to be held at the Baltimore Hilton on September 14-16th, 2010.

With this year's theme, "Charting the Course for MDA," NMCO is expecting over 250 participants from the maritime community of interest to participate in helping the U.S. federal government hone their message to ensure safety, security, commerce, and environmental protection in the maritime domain.

The overwhelmingly positive response received from last year's GMISS offers the opportunity to align all interested parties on improving MDA.

Your attendance would ensure that diverse viewpoints and opinions are heard and acted upon. Our Director, Mr. Gary Seffel, extends this invitation to all who are interested in maritime commerce and safety and looks forward to seeing you all in September.

For more information:

LT Patrick Dowling

National MDA Coordination Office Outreach and Coordination

Patrick.J.Dowling@uscg.mil

Tel:(202)372-3074

Fax:(202)372-3905

Please visit our website for updates:

www.gmsa.gov/gmiss

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/GMISS2010

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/GMISS2010

LinkedIn:
http://events.linkedin.com/Global-Maritime-Information-Sharing/pub/359137

Providing Information to Mariners—the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA team up

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Brian J. Tetreault, Chief, Vessel Traffic Services Division, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Shore Forces; Mr. Michael Winkler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center; and Mr. Darren Wright, Program Manager, NOAA PORTS®.


The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) all have leading roles in promoting marine safety and providing mariners critical navigational safety information.

For example, the Coast Guard’s Automatic Identification System (AIS) infrastructure is currently used to more effectively provide the USACE and NOAA’s large amounts of data to mariners via electronic transfer. This effort is focused on vessel traffic service areas where the Coast Guard has existing AIS capability, but as the Coast Guard expands this capability, it is anticipated that these applications will expand to other areas.

AIS has primarily been used as a sensor to aid in vessel tracking, complementing the information available through vessel voice reports, radar, and visual means. AIS has generally improved the monitoring of vessels, allowing more accurate and frequent tracking in areas where there were limited sensors and the confirmation of vessels’ identities were only observed on radar or through remote television cameras.

Expanded Use of AIS Capability
There is great potential to further improve vessel traffic service operations using Automatic Identification System transmit capability. AIS may be used as another way to provide information to mariners silently and on existing navigation systems. Mariners who have seen the benefits of AIS aboard have been asking for additional information.

For example, pilot organizations in several large port areas have asked for AIS-transmitted weather information, and inland towboat operators have asked for weather and hydrological data to assist them with difficult lock approaches. Two of the primary information providers are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for navigation safety and services on more than 11,000 miles of inland and inland coastal waterways, nearly 200 lock sites, and other critical navigation infrastructure. USACE continually works to improve navigation safety and efficiency and has established an overarching program—the Coastal and River Information Service. Its purpose is to facilitate transfer of electronic information regarding navigation activity on our nation’s rivers and along coastal areas. The ultimate goal is to provide the framework by which the USACE can utilize and obtain electronic data that relates to commercial transportation on the U.S. coastal and inland waterways systems.

Cooperation Through an Interagency Research Project
An overarching project has been established with the USCG Research and Development Center to investigate the implementation of Automatic Identification System transmit capability. There are three main efforts associated with this project, all with a high level of interagency cooperation. First, a requirements study gathered information from various stakeholders involved with AIS transmit capability. The Coast Guard, USACE, NOAA, and others worked together to determine which agencies collected data that could be disseminated via the Automatic Identification System; what capabilities they already had for collecting, managing, and disseminating this information; and what capabilities would be needed to improve such dissemination.

This requirements study is being used to guide the second main effort of the project—establishing a test bed and individual demonstration projects of the capability. The information gathered from the test bed and demonstration projects will be used to refine requirements to be used as a basis for establishing the capability in operational systems nationwide.

The third main effort of the project is the establishment of a working group to review current VTS AIS capability within U.S. waters, review the potential uses of AIS-transmitted messages as part of an expanded VTS AIS capability, identify both the challenges and opportunities associated with this capability, recommend new or revised AIS transmit/broadcast messages suitable for regional and international implementation, and identify changes needed for Automatic Identification System equipment to support new/expanded capabilities.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil

The Cabinet-level Committee on the Marine Transportation System

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. John K. Bobb, J.D., and CDR Paul M. “Bo” Stocklin, Jr., M.M.A., M.P.A., U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine Transportation Systems.


The U.S. marine transportation system (MTS) is arguably the least known and understood of our nation’s transportation modes, but it carries a large volume of our domestic and international cargo and passengers. It consists of waterways, ports, intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, and system users, extending from the outer boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, through its bays and sounds, ports, and waterways, to the first intermodal connection from the port. In the picture to the left, two ships are forced to pass close to each other in the narrow Houston Ship Channel. This maneuver, known as the “Texas Chicken,” highlights one of the challenges to the MTS.

Our MTS contributes to our economy and national security, but it faces many challenges. Its infrastructure is aging. Dredging to maintain and deepen channels is needed at many of our critical ports. Existing land in and adjacent to our ports is being sold off for housing and recreational uses, preventing its use for port and terminal expansion. Larger ships are straining our ports’ capacity. Vessel air emissions and overboard discharges harm our air and water.

The CMTS
In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy made several recommendations regarding strengthening the marine transportation system, including that a cabinet-level committee be formed. In response, the president directed formation of the Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS), which is comprised of the heads of 18 federal departments and independent agencies, and chaired by the secretary of the Department of Transportation.

Achievements
In its first year, the CMTS directed the coordinating board to develop a strategy and conduct an assessment of the MTS. In a collaborative effort led by the Coast Guard, representatives of 18 departments and agencies crafted the National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System: A Framework for Action, which identified five distinct challenges facing the MTS: inadequate system capacity, safety and security threats, environmental impacts, disruptions, and infrastructure financing. The strategy recommended 34 actions to overcome these challenges.

There have been several other CMTS achievements over the past two years, again highlighting the role interagency partnerships can play in moving the nation’s interests forward. For example, MARAD has established a single maritime data portal, which provides “one-stop shopping” for those seeking federal data on any aspect of the marine transportation system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is conducting an in-depth assessment of the entire system to better understand infrastructure issues and solutions. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration leads the interdepartmental effort to integrate real-time weather and tidal information with the Coast Guard’s automatic identification system to distribute this information to the mariner. Other MTS efforts underway include looking at infrastructure investment policy and Arctic navigational requirements.

Interact with the CMTS
The CMTS relies on the expertise and participation of a broad range of stakeholders. For federal agency personnel seeking greater interaction with the CMTS, please contact the CMTS executive secretariat either via your agency contact, or directly via the CMTS website, http://www.cmts.gov/. For those outside federal service, please contact the federal agency you work with most frequently on MTS issues, and encourage them to be your conduit to the CMTS.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Maritime Security—protecting the maritime transportation sector through regional partnerships

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Michael Long, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle; Mr. Pablo Martinez, the Organization of American States; Mr. Stephen Larkin, Transport Canada; and Mr. Marc Mes, Transport Canada.

Transportation security is a major and continuing challenge in today’s global environment. In the maritime transportation environment, where overlapping jurisdictions, competitive pressures, and international pressures are the norm, cooperation through partnerships is especially important.

The United States Coast Guard and Transport Canada (TC)/Marine Security recognize that maritime security requires not only a collaborative approach, but also an international approach. As a result, the USCG and TC/Marine Security have broadened their extremely close maritime security working relationship to include partnerships with regional organizations.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the Organization of American States (OAS) are two such organizations where the USCG (through its International Ports Security Program) and TC/Marine Security have worked to broaden international consensus to implement international maritime security standards, share best practices, and increase capacity.

ISPS Code Implementation Assistance
One of the first major projects of the APEC’s Inter-American Committee Against Counter-Terrorism (MEG-SEC) was forming the ISPS Code Implementation Assistance Program (ICIAP). The ICIAP was a joint proposal of Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the U.S. to provide training and other forms of port security capacity-building assistance to the developing member economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The first phase training focused on ISPS Code awareness workshops and developing organizational frameworks to implement ISPS Code requirements, while the second phase concentrated on ISPS Code-related drills and exercises and security assessments. The third phase will include the Port Security Visit Program (PSVP), as detailed below.

ISPS Code Standardization, Best Security Practices, Needs Assessments
Recognizing that the performance-based nature of the ISPS Code resulted in many APEC economies embracing differing methodologies and levels of ISPS Code compliance, MEG-SEC developed a port security visit program aimed at promoting an increased level of consistent code implementation across the Asia-Pacific region.

The port security visit program entails member economies hosting a delegation of maritime security experts from other APEC economies to review the host economy’s ISPS Code implementation conventions and results to recognize best security practices and identify ISPS Code implementation needs.

Within the OAS, following a sub-regional pattern, the Inter-American Committee Against Counter-Terrorism Secretariat conducted workshops on best practices in implementing international maritime security standards for each targeted sub-region—Southern Cone, the Andes, Central America, and the Caribbean. The aim was to promote cooperation and exchange of best practices on port security threats and methods to counter them.

The CICTE Secretariat also conducts assessments and training activities within the region. Based on the assessments, and building on the experience gained from the USCG’s International Port Security Program visits, CICTE tailors security training to mitigate the risks confronting each member state. Additionally, the training needs assessments also evaluate significant security precautions, such as access control to restricted areas; handling of cargo, ship stores, and unaccompanied baggage; and facility security monitoring procedures. The subsequent training specifically addresses basic aspects of port facilities’ security, access control, and customs and law enforcement procedures.

Looking Ahead
Through this continued close collaboration, the U.S., Canada, the other APEC economies, and OAS member states will continue to enhance the security of the maritime transportation sector.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

The South Asia Region Port Security Cooperative

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR Scott Stoermer, International Port Security Liaison Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Activities Far East.


Among many other things, the analyses of September 11 identified limited communication, organizational stovepipes, and inter-organizational power struggles as critical road blocks to information sharing. While the 9/11 Commission final report refers mainly to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, its applicability is far more ubiquitous. The maritime sector is one of the areas where communication and cross-organizational information sharing was lacking. Moreover, the global nature of the maritime transportation sector and the interconnected web of world markets are excellent examples of where collaboration is critical.

Cooperative Effort: A Key to Success
In the case of maritime and port security, a number of organizations throughout the world assist member states and provide regional forums to share port security information and build mutual capacity.

As an example, in the Americas, the Organization of American States has a Secretariat of the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism that maintains a port security program. The European Union has a robust communications and rulemaking infrastructure for port security. The African Union, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community assist their member states with port security capacity building and provide a collaborative forum to share information and develop regional solutions to mutual issues.

In the case of South Asia and the Central Indian Ocean, no such port security-oriented organization had previously existed. Consequently, there was no practical way to affect cross-border cooperation and communication regarding regional maritime and port security issues.

South Asia Region Port Security Cooperative: The Idea
The South Asia Region Port Security Cooperative (SARPSCO) was born of necessity. In 2006, the Sri Lanka Navy thwarted an attack on the Port of Galle in southern Sri Lanka. The port facility security officer (PFSO) expressed his desire to share lessons learned from the attack with PFSOs throughout the region. Moreover, he shared his frustration at the lack of a regional mechanism through which this information could be promulgated.

From this kernel, LCDR Richard Kavanaugh, the IPSLO for Sri Lanka and other countries in South Asia, began to engage the Coast Guard and other nations regarding the idea and a regional organization was developed in cooperation with U.S. embassies and regional governments. Through the formalization of the partnership, the government of the Republic of Maldives took the lead in developing the cooperative and offered to host an initial conference.

An Idea Becomes Reality
Entitled “Partnering for a Safer Sea,” the conference was held in May 2008 in the Republic of Maldives. Conference delegates represented nine nations and myriad security partners including Interpol, the International Maritime Organization, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Conference flow provided for a mix of presentations, panel discussions, networking opportunities, and discussion sessions.

Successes and Outcomes
By all accounts, the conference was a resounding success and ended with a unanimously approved conference agreement citing the importance of such a forum and the desire to bring the delegates/stakeholders together for a future event.

What’s Next?
It is vitally important that we work with the nations of the region to collaboratively deal with problems of mutual concern. The Coast Guard’s foray into the world of international engagement and security-related capacity building efforts, such as this conference, provide awesome opportunities to showcase the Coast Guard, its missions, and its expertise.

Activities Far East looks forward to working with the other nations of the region to further support their efforts to improve port security in the central Indian Ocean region.


For more information:
Full article and “Interagency Success Stories” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.