- Maritime security guidelines and best practices have evolved in response to incidents or issues that have resulted in a clear gap in the provision of the procedural core function, security.
- The strength of the ISPS Code lies in the clarity and uniformity it has brought to maritime security.
- With a reformed, reflexive, and up-to-date ISPS Code, all actors can play their part in ensuring that global maritime shipping is a safer place for all those involved.
Historically, maritime security guidelines and best practices have evolved in response to incidents or issues that have resulted in a clear gap in the provision of the procedural core function, security, says an article published on dryad global website.
5 core objectives of the ISPS Code
Post 9/11, the US raised concerns about the maritime domain potentially becoming a target for international terrorism. The ISPS Code provides a framework for the assessment and detection of possible security threats to ships or port facilities.
It applies to vessels engaged in international voyages including passenger vessels, cargo vessels of 500 gross tonnage and above, mobile offshore drilling units, and port facilities.
The 5 core objectives of the ISPS Code are:
- To facilitate cooperation between all parties involved in assessing and detecting security threats and implementing preventative security measures.
- To determine the roles and responsibilities of all parties concerned with safeguarding maritime security.
- To ensure collation and exchange of maritime security- related information
- To provide methodology for ship and port security assessments
- To ensure adequate and proportionate maritime security measures are in place on board ships and in ports.
There are 3 MARSEC levels in the ISPS Code, reflecting increasing levels of security measures and varying operational roles and responsibilities between parties and operational procedure at each level.
Putting the Code to Use
The ISPS Code has given effect to several legal responsibilities for SOLAS contracting governments, as well as vessels operating under their flags and within ports of their jurisdictions.
These include but are not limited to:
- The mandatory appointment of a PFSO (port facility security officer)
- The mandatory appointment of a CSO (company security officer)
- The mandatory appointment of an SSO (ship security officer)
- The development of a SSP (ship security plan)
- A PFSP (port facility security plan)
- The setting of ISPS security levels for ports by relevant authorised persons.
According to the ISPS Code, those in the key security positions outlined above should “have knowledge and have received training”. However, the code does not specify what knowledge and training nor how individuals in these positions are certified.
Instead, there is a set of additional non- mandatory guidelines that provide more detail:
- Guidance on training and certification for key security personnel outlining required competencies
- Required knowledge, understanding and proficiency
- Methods for demonstrating competence
- Criteria for evaluating competence
Where to Adapt?
The strength of the ISPS Code lies in the clarity and uniformity it has brought to maritime security. A common understanding of security levels, roles and responsibilities of different security officers, and security procedures has brought together contracting governments, government agencies, local administrations, shipping and port industries, and other stakeholders in identifying and tackling security threats.
This common language facilitates powerful cooperation that is guided by a common methodology for ship and port security assessments for each security level. However, this methodology is where the core challenge of the code lies.
The ISPS Code is currently limited in its capacity to pre-emptively identify emerging threats because the code is focused on mitigation measures and post-event response.
A further opportunity for the ISPS Code to adapt is to account for greater reactivity when faced with certain traditional threats, such as interactions with hostile foreign militaries and/or state backed hostile groups.
A limitation of the ISPS Code connects to how the code treats the security impacts of goods in ports. The ISPS Code mandates that the port security assessment accounts for the identification of potential targets and weaknesses relating to the transport of goods, including explosive and dangerous material, which may be located and/or stored in a port at some point.
Another limitation is that the three levels of ISPS do not adequately account for the nuance of the multidimensional and varying nature of risk that ports and vessels face.
For example, there have been several tit-for-tat incidents involving explosions with UAVs and WBIEDs in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman between Iran and Israel, and whilst this may prompt a higher ISPS level, vessels that are not affiliated with Israel and Iran have no reason to operate at a higher risk posture.
The final limitation of the ISPS Code relates to its core objective of supporting the “early and efficient collation and exchange of maritime security-related information at national, regional and international levels”.
Without centralised and accessible information regarding the current ISPS levels in ports, the ability for all parties to adequately prepare and implement the appropriate security measures onboard visiting vessels is limited, with ISPS only being advised on approach to the port.
Security in Practice
The ISPS Code has made a significant, positive difference to maritime security, bringing about formalised and standardised maritime security for ships and ports with clear enforcement systems and extensive guidelines for implementation, regulation, and designation of responsibility.
However, in its current form, the code does not adequately account for the nuance of the multidimensional, varying, and evolving nature of risk in the maritime industry. This is less the result of inadequate planning, but reflective of the ever-evolving nature of risk.
Centralised and accessible documentation of the current ISPS level at ports internationally could, for example, assist the IMO in including all parties involved in maritime security concerns, including vessel owners and companies to ensure the safety of planned operations and transits.
Given the significance of the ISPS Code in being the central tenet around which much of today’s maritime security framework is based, it remains vital for the document to continue to reflect the contemporary security environment that it seeks to mitigate against.
It has been nearly 20 years since the ISPS Code was adopted, and in that time significant changes have occurred in the maritime industry, particularly with respect to cybersecurity concerns giving rise to legitimate questions as to the contemporary relevance of this framework.
With a reformed, reflexive, and up-to-date ISPS Code, all actors can play their part in ensuring that global maritime shipping is a safer place for all those involved.
Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: dryadglobal.com
