Suite Level Baltic Place West Baltic Place South Sho - PDF document

Insurance BulletinIssue 19 - October 2012 Welcome once again to the Seacurus Monthly Bulletin – a round-up and review of the news and views which aect our sector and industry. There has been a pattern emerging across the latest piracy news, there is nger pointing in the Indian Ocean, while over in West Africa the darkening clouds of violent crime are spreading ever wider. O Somalia, there are concerns that no-one truly knows the scale of the piracy problem anymore. As pirate activity appears to have dropped, there are concerns that owners and security guards are no longer tallying the attacks. While debates over oating armouries and rules for the use of force This is having an eect on both the security companies, as they struggle to maintain their Captain Thomas BrownManaging Director – Seacurus LimitedTackling the Floating Armouries Issue – Sri Lankan authorities force guns out to sea - a look at what this will mean for PMSC’s Suite 3, Level 3, Baltic Place West, Baltic Place, South Shore Road, Gateshead, NE8 3BATel: + 44 (0) 191 4690859Fax: + 44 (0) 191 4697940Email: enquiries@seacurus.comwww.seacurus.com Tackling the Floating Armouries IssueThe Sri Lankan (SL) Ministry of Defence nally closed the heavily padlocked doors to its shore based naval armoury for the last time in October. The move has forced all private maritime security companies (PMSCs) to either stop using the island as a base completely, or use a government sanctioned oating armoury o the coast of Galle.With the closure of the land-based naval armoury there have been many dierent issues – ranging from costs, through to legality, and for UK PMSCs in particular, the licensing requirements which they would need to have in place to operate. Plans for the oating armoury were rst revealed back in August and a deadline of October 15 was set for weapons to be removed from SL completely or to be shifted to the oating armoury. The use of oating armouries has been a contentious issue for the maritime security industry. In order to provide access to the weapons and equipment necessary to maintain an eective armed presence on the merchant eet passing through the Somali piracy High Risk Area (HRA), it has been necessary to use armouries on an increasingly large scale. Having signicant volumes of private weaponry in countries which have experienced civil war has become an increasingly sensitive issue, and in light of this Sri Lanka made the decision to move all weapons oshore. Use was to be made of oating armouries, vessels which are equipped to safely and securely store the weapons needed by private maritime security companies. This shift has not been without its problems, and some nations – such as the United Kingdom have not granted permission through their weapons licensing provisions for their PMSCs to use these facilities. The moves have been a cause for real concern, as there are fears that the oating armouries could drive weapons usage underground, and could undermine eorts to control and manage the provision of armed guards on ships. Also there have been ngers pointed at the way in which the SL government handed the contract to commercial rm Avant Garde Maritime Private Limited (AGMS), in a move which many have seen as creating a monopoly. SL is largely considered as an essential hub in the high risk area of the Indian Ocean, especially for Asian trade routes. As India has strict laws surrounding commercial weapon export, using any viable alternative in this area could involve costly detours. Now the use of oating armouries has further complicated the picture. The UK Government has clearly told all aected UK PMSCs that they should not use the armouries as their OGTL Maritime – Anti Piracy (Open General Trade License) and other UK licensees will not be able to legally store their weapons in this way. It has been a message that some have, at best, decided to misconstrue or at worst ignore. It is perhaps easy to appreciate the stance of the UK government – as the oating armouries do indeed appear to be on the “fringes of legality”. However, the drop in piracy is well documented and much of the credit has gone to the PMSCs and their armed guards. To hamper this capability, would be to hand the initiative back to the pirates – just when they are on the ropes. So many pivotal battles in history have been lost when an advantage hasn’t been pressed home, and it seems we could be at such a tipping point with Somali based piracy. Using SL as a base for weapons was something which was working well, perhaps too well. The sheer scale of the weaponry being stored was making the authorities twitchy – and ngers have been pointed at some companies for “taking advantage”, by storing ever more weapons despite requests to scale back. So eventually the patience of the SL government cracked, and they ordered the weapons o the island. So far, so fair enough. The use of oating armouries was actually a rather pragmatic and simple solution – however the major weakness appears to be the fact that it has seemingly been poorly delivered thus far. Governments such as the UK have reservations about the oating armoury concept, but they also are uncomfortable about the way in which it has been rolled out. Old ships, Open registers and some sharp practices have made what could be a solution into yet another problem. There has been a dearth of objective information, and this too has hampered the international community in looking toward a united approach to the use of oating armouries. Additionally there are concerns relating to insurance issues – lawyers have pointed out that PMSCs are concerned for their own policies, as they have an implied warranty of legality and there are those who believe that companies using oating armouries could potentially run the risk of prejudicing their insurance. It seems, also, there are some shipowners who also worry that picking up PMSCs who use oating armouries may — at least in theory — impact on their insurance. If the oating armouries solution is delivered as is planned, then it will provide support to PMSCs and will ultimately underpin the security needs of vessels transiting the HRA. Indeed according to some experts the Sri Lankan model can act as a template for other oating armouries in the region – but (and it is a very big BUT) it has to be that the vessels are controlled, monitored, managed and ultimately legitimised, through the proper channels. If done properly, the oating armoury solution can reduce the illegal and illicit movement of weapons and ammunition through the region. It can potentially produce savings for all involved (if the model is not choked by a monopolistic grab), and it could result in a maintained, perhaps even enhanced private security capacity. A new industry report on oating armouries raises a number of key concerns and recommendations, which if addressed could potentially provide a system which both ensures the safe control or weapons, and provides reassurance for the international community. The key recommendations state that:Any vessels used should be subject to a rigorous specialised inspection and certication regime.Floating armouries should be registered with ag States which are deemed appropriate. The use of Open Registries or of dual registration has been a cause of concern.Floating armoury vessels should be classed by a member of the International Association of Classication Societies (IACS), and that third party liabilities are covered by an appropriate Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Association, with appropriate levels of insurance cover in place.The size, construction and design of the oating armouries should be appropriate to the area of operation and also the payload to be carried – both equipment and personnel.Specic and detailed management systems should be developed for the management of the armouries aspect of the vessels operations. If such systems and checks are imposed, then it could be that governments could look to the oating armouries with a degree of certainty and this could then positively aect the dialogue on the legality of their use. RUF JusticeA denitive set of seven rules for the use of force (RUF) is currently being drafted by industry stakeholders, including shipping organisations, ag states, maritime insurers and the private maritime security industry.The rules aim to provide some clarity and certainty as to when and what force can be used by armed guards when pirates attack. There have long been concerns, uncertainty and serious questions of liability over the most problematic issues of arming vessels.The “100 Series Rules” have been drawn up, but it appears there are delays owing to the sheer complexities surrounding the use of lethal force. It has been consistently stressed that no maritime security action is justied in exceeding the use of minimum force – but the concept was not fully formed or codied. Most PMSCs indeed have their own set of RUF, and have rather predictably jealously guarded them. There is clearly no place in the maritime domain for an excessive response and so PMSCs are required a detailed, graduated response plan to a pirate attack as part of its team’s operational procedures. It is understood that at present, each PMSC sends its RUF to the specic ag State and more often than not there is no formal indication of approval just an understanding that force must be used in accordance with national law.Owing to this informal system of “understanding”, it appears there may be resistance to a prescribed agreement. Also some observers have suggested that the formalised rules may be seen by some as a tacit acceptance that lethal force is permitted if the rules are followed.Sadly it seems that in trying to do the right thing in setting down clearly prescribed rules, there are stakeholders who prefer things to be ad hoc, so they can absolve themselves of responsibility. In seemingly placing barriers to the codication of these vitally needed rules it seems the ag States (if it is they which are holding things up), are helping no-one.One issue which has never really been fully explored is the very context of self-defence, and of how the pirate tactics actually t into this reality. Self-defence appears obvious when a life is immediate threat, but does this translate to stopping pirates from hijacking a ship?For instance, as lawyers, will likely raise – is the use of lethal force on a high-sided fast moving vessel dierent from that which can be acceptably used on a low-sided and slow vessel.Though this does ignore the fact that private security guards are well versed in the responses which they should invoke, and it is made clear that lethal force would not be used unless all other avenues to deter pirate groups have been exhausted.Where there have been concerns about the use of force, it has been seen that Flag States have appeared to turn a blind eye – stating that there is “insucient context for any legal action”…though as one ag representative said in a less guarded moment, “dead pirates don’t complain”. Not Adding Up Much has been made in the past month of the decline in attacks on shipping by Somali pirates. Figures may not tally wholly, but some have reported a drop of up to 54% on previous years, while some reports even claim the drop o to be as high as 65%. Pretty dramatic stu in either case.However, there are increasing concerns that some of the fall in the data could owe to a hesitancy by ship-owners and PMSCs to report. According to ICC International Maritime Bureau chief executive Pottengal Mukundan, this “underreporting” of incidents of piracy is being held up as a sad indictment of the shipping industry and it is absolutely vital a way is found to overcome this.Speaking at the Combating Piracy Week, Mr Mukundan said the gaps in reporting are cause for real concern. He said, “It is a pity, as it makes it dicult for [political] pressure to be applied.”He said there had also been an increase in private maritime security companies choosing not to report incidents and said this might be for liability reasons. Indeed owners are seemingly hesitant to report attempted attacks in areas they travel in frequently for fear of more attacks. But the message from the IMB is clear, “We must shout loudly, though, as that is the time when changes take place.”The issue of PMSCs not reporting is an interesting one – especially as it is understood that many owners have clauses in their contract which prevent them from reporting. It seems that owing to the lack of international regulation on the use of armed guards, many see it as a debate they would rather sidestep – and so a case of “what the ag State don’t know, won’t hurt them”. It would seem that the potential, and currently unknown, liabilities facing owners who use armed guards has created a culture of fear and suspicion. Whether direct or implied, it would appear that ship masters and security teams are under pressure not to report an incident — or, if an incident is reported, to downplay it.The IMB is keen to nd a way to make reports available and to circulate them quickly. For many, however, the problems of underreporting are not new, and have long been the aw in the data. There is a real problem with underreporting and it is aecting all parts of the piracy debate.The lack of proper and complete information means that ship-owners cannot properly estimate the need for armed guards or additional insurance as the piracy statistics may well be misleadingly low. Also, navies cannot properly allocate and redeploy resources to repress piracy if merchant ships don’t help them with reports about where pirates may be active.While from an insurance perspective, it has been suggested that Underwriters cannot price cover correctly if information goes beyond a certain level of incompleteness.The old adage that you cannot manage what cannot be measured applies doubly when the gures are massaged, data is deleted or when pirate attacks are airbrushed from the records. Corner CuttingWhile ngers are being pointed at PMSCs for suppressing reports, there is also a concern that as the market for armed guards becomes ever more competitive then some may look to cut corners. Some 18 months ago, it seemed there was a gold rush in the maritime security sector – and literally hundreds of companies popped up seemingly overnight. There was a perception that vast sums of money could be made. However, as with most bubbles they are based on naivety and are always destined to go pop. For the many PMSCs which entered the market on this wave of optimism, the increasing need to ensure services meet international guidelines and conform to insurance industry and legal guidelines are beginning to take their toll. Add to that the fact that business is ercely competitive and there is a real recipe for problems. According to Lloyd’s List, PMSCs are coming under increasing pressure to cut costs to match lower fees oered by less scrupulous competitors. To such an extent that the temptations to cut corners could actually invalidate their insurance. As the number of successful attacks appears to be dropping it seems that there is a worrying trend developing, as ship-owners are seemingly looking to scale back on the presence of armed guards. With increasing reports concerning pressure applied by owners on PMSCs to reduce team sizes from the optimal 4 down to 3 and even 2 to cut costs.There are also concerns that as the “cross-subsidising” eect of insurance rebates are removed as premiums come down, then ship-owners will balk at paying for armed guards. The temptations will be every greater to cut back. Many PMSCs will be tempted, perhaps even forced to downsize their teams.The competitive pressure is seemingly leading to some rash decisions, and this is beginning to cause increasing alarm across the maritime security market. Indeed there have been many warnings on the consequences of complacency and the problems which reduced size security teams can bring. Having armed guards onboard has made the pirates think twice about attacking countless times, and where they have decided to attack then it has provided the means to actively ght them o. Seafarers and ships have been protected, and the deterrent clearly works. Reducing the team sizes, reduces the deterrent and protective eect. Indeed, there is an accepted industry agreement that 4-man teams should be the minimum, and indeed this is enshrined within the standard industry contract. BIMCO’s GUARDCON recommends four guards; this allows the team leader (TL) to stay at the Master’s side to provide advice and oversight of the armed response. If reduced numbers are used and a vessel comes under attack, then the team leader invariably must leave the master’s side to actively defend the vessel. A team of four also provides some redundancy for the unexpected that could prove crucial to the successful defence of the ship.A key element of GUARDCON is that the Master should have the ability to order the team to cease re; this is made easier if a TL is next to the Master — but a smaller team can mean delays in the response and mistakes are more likely. As the Master bears responsibility for actions upon the vessel they should be very concerned about these new developments, yet still the pressure to downsize is applied. The burden of criminal and civil legal responsibility if something goes wrong can be heavy, and in taking decisions on purely commercial grounds may weaken any subsequent defence or move to limit liability.For a growing number of PMSCs market conditions are dicult and seemingly getting worse. Increased market saturation is resulting in intense competition, and it is unfortunate that there are some PMSCs who are willing to take the gamble on smaller teams in order to win business. Also there is a knock on eect for insurers, where insurances are written for one-, two- and three-man teams when four men are required then this will lead to potential problems, and of the heightened risks.Many PMSC insurance policies stipulate that rms should follow IMO guidelines or comply with BIMCO Guardcon. In the notes and advice given by BIMCO to the use of Guardcon it clearly says that reducing the size of the security team cannot be based on price alone.Also if the minimum standards stipulated in a PMSC insurance contract are not followed, the cover might also not be valid if there was an accident or incident during the transit and this would place the vessel, its crew and owner at risk.It has been stated that as (reported) piracy attack gures decrease then complacency may become the greatest enemy to be battled out in the HRA. Cutting corners to save costs in order to win business will not provide the protection which has hitherto been so successful. Indeed if a blind eye is turned to the dangers still posed o Somalia then the progress of 2012 may count for nought. As such industry organisations have urged all parties to take steps to ensure that a new culture of corner cutting is not allowed to gain traction. The seeming reduction in Somali piracy has sparked fears that there could be a signicant drop in military forces in the HRA. Speaking at Combating Piracy Week in London, NATO Lt Cmdr Loevik said that the “remarkably low activity” was a cause for concern for national contributions. He stated that if it continues at this level, then “some nations will decide their money is better spent elsewhere and won’t contribute resources.”He said that while EUNAVFOR, the Combined Maritime Forces and NATO all operated in the High Risk Area, NATO was the only organisation whose role was purely anti-piracy. At any one time, NATO could have between two and eight ships, while CMF had between two and six; EUNAVFOR’s contribution could uctuate between two and nine.EUNAVFOR has had its mandate for Operation Atalanta extended to 2014, but it is possible that individual countries may decide to reduce their support. Lt Cmdr Loevik said NATO was “paying attention” to West Africa, but there were no planned tasks. “I don’t see there being [planned tasks] for some time, as it would take 28 countries to agree and that is not going to happen very fast,” he said.Navy Fears Lt Cmdr Loevik explained that piracy had moved from using commercial vessels to shing dhows and this had prompted NATO’s dhow project, something which has been regrettable for NATO. They expressed that it was a shame that pirates had stopped using commercial vessels, as these were far easier to track. They were also more expensive operationally, but the pirates have adjusted their policy based on lack of success.NATO’s project aims to prevent dhows from being pirated. Lt Cmdr Loevik is trying to increase situational awareness, attract support from the regional states and also raise awareness in the dhow community.On top of this, it is hoped that a platform for future coastal trac regulation can be created. Lt Cdr Loevik said gathering information on dhows had been extremely dicult, due to the fact the trac is unregulated, so there is no central store of information. However, the NATO is sharing information with Puntland, India, Oman and Djibouti . Progress has been slow, due to the need to get formal approval, but Lt Cmdr Loevik said it was moving steadily.NATO is also working on a dhow registry and database, as well as guidance to dhows. NATO also records shing activity and how it is aecting trac and seasonal density. Lt Cmdr Loevik said this information could be used by ship-owners to plan routes and avoid areas where shing was dense.“Pirates are merging in with legal shing vessels and this is a concern to take into account,” he warned.Lt Cmdr Loevik said challenges and risks for NATO were identifying pirate activity and how it diers from legal shing and trade, and measuring counter-piracy’s impact on the pirate business model.He said skis and shing dhows did not look that dierent and it demanded a certain amount of knowledge to distinguish one from the other. NATO has a dhow and ski recognition chart on its website.NATO’s aims for the future are to continue patrols, disrupt pirate action groups and destroy their capability, monitor the threat of piracy and provide guidance. Go WestAs the threat of piracy spreads in West Africa and seemingly shrinks in the Gulf of Aden, there are calls for the insurance market to adjust the boundaries of its Listed Areas.According to Stephen Askins of Ince and Co. the are ups in West Africa highlight growing concern. Last month saw the tanker “Orfeas” taken for the oil cargo, and the re-ghting tug “Bourbon Liberty 249” snatched and her crew held. Analysts have described the latest incidents in the Gulf of Guinea as evidence of the expanding threat of extended-duration robbery. It said the incident marked a signicant change in the behaviour patterns of groups carrying out pirate attacks to steal cargo.As quoted in Lloyd’s List, experts see that the range of criminal groups is expansive and that the threat will follow maritime trac west. The recent attacks indicate a high degree of forward planning in both targeting and the logistics of the attack.The rise in the west has coincided with decreased capability in terms of range for Somali pirate action groups, and some ship-owners and charterers are pressing to reduce the boundaries outlining the Horn of Africa’s high-risk area.The HRA covers a vast area and, as the threat has dissipated, some parts of it are at a much lower risk of piracy than others. In these areas of lower risk, analysts have voiced concern that vessels are still required to proceed at full sea speed in order to comply with BMP 4 and, their insurance policies.Critics of the current HRA boundaries claim that the areas should be better dened in line with the prevailing threat, environmental conditions, vessel type and the footprint of international and regional naval forces. There are some who predict that the Listed Area will indeed be made much smaller in the rst six months of 2013, but that taking such rash decisions could be counterproductive. It is still far from clear that the pirates have gone away, and if there is a piracy resurgence then it could be that any moves to downsize the Listed Area, to dispense with armed guards and to ignore best management practices could be extremely foolhardy and premature.Lloyd’s Market Association senior executive underwriting Neil Roberts said underwriters were aware of the decline in activity in the Indian Ocean, but were also “mindful that previous iterations resulted in a de facto sea lane just outside the designated area which made it easier for pirates to pick targets”.He noted that UK Marine Trade Operations “has not signalled any intent to narrow their area which actually extends further east, and that clearly implies it is too early to drop the levels of awareness at this stage”. Nigeria ArrestsMembers of a deadly sea pirate gang, the “COJA”, have been arrested after the gang hijacked an oil vessel on the Lome waterways in Togo. The pirates were arrested by the Special Task Force set up by the Nigerian Maritime and Safety Administration Agency (NIMASA). The task force is also on the trail of the leader of the gang and other members who escaped during a swoop on a vessel the gang had earlier hijacked o Togo.http://goo.gl/JWNy5Falling FurtherEarlier this month the gure quoted was of a 54% drop in Somali pirate attacks - now that number has fallen further, and the UK Foreign Oce minister Alistair Burt has quoted that attacks have dropped by more than 65 per cent over the last 12 months. Burt’s announcement in Parliament was supported by the latest data from the EU Naval Force (EUNAVFOR), which shows that the number of attacks was down from 176 in 2011 to just 35 so far in http://goo.gl/th1FEBoat ChaosAn incident in the Gulf of Oman has once again focused attention on the diculties under which ships with armed guards embarked can nd themselves in these pirate-infested waters. Pirates, for obvious reasons, are moving further and further from their bases on the coast of Somalia and are tending to blend in to the shing activities that are encountered in these seas. Very large numbers of these small craft sh these waters. http://goo.gl/tHqcZShadowy WorldBritish oil companies have been slammed for promoting a ‘ght against piracy’ in order to receive a vast hidden military subsidy. In the process they have got an unprecedented amount of inuence over UK military policies. According to a new report, oil companies have talked up the risk from piracy to justify the use of Navy frigates, drones and helicopters to protect corporate oil assets in the seas. Demanding increased spending on military hardware.http://goo.gl/PaiXS Monthly Seacurus News Round-up Gangster StyleThe US has proposed an ‘Al Capone’ strategy of targeting 12 kingpins who control Somali piracy, in a new drive to crush the threat within two years. Thomas Kelly, the US State Department ocial in charge of counter-piracy policy, said a small group of wealthy men were instrumental in Somali piracy. Mr Kelly’s campaign to prosecute them under corruption and money-laundering laws could be the coup de grace against pirates.http://goo.gl/Hs30IRansom FightIntense ghting between Somali pirate gangs over a ransom dispute for the release of foreign hostages has killed at least three and injured 5 people, mostly pirates, reports said. The all casualties are said to be pirates and civilians in a result of the latest bout of ghting that erupted in the town of Gawan, just 60 Km north of the coastal city of Hobyo. There is no movement so far, the pirates are exchanging heavy machine gun re inside the town.http://goo.gl/242V8 Security SquabbleA rather unfortunate and unedifying battle has been sparked between private maritime security companies (PMSCs) and the military. In one corner, NATO claim PMSCs are deliberately withholding reports of attacks, while the PMSCs claim the military do not share enough information with them or ignore reports when they are issued. The exchange emerged from the Combating Piracy Week, held in London.http://goo.gl/lyXYv Flying the FlagFerrari will race with the ag of the Italian navy on its cars at the 2012 Indian F1 GP in a gesture of support for two Italian sailors charged with killing Indian shermen. The Italian team said on its website, that it would pay tribute to the navy as “one of the outstanding entities of our country”. The gesture was “also in the hope the Indian and Italian authorities will soon nd a solution to the situation involving two sailors from the Italian navy”.http://goo.gl/QbhMmOpen FireSomali pirates opened re on the agship of the NATO naval group o the coast of Somalia. The pirates attacked the Dutch frigate “Rotterdam” according to a report from the Commander of the NATO naval operation to combat piracy “Ocean Shield”, Rear Admiral Ben Bekkereng. The crew spotted a dhow close to the Somali shoreline and a boarding team was routinely dispatched. However, AK-47s are no match for the power of a NATO warship. http://goo.gl/h61d9 Russians ArrestedA ship with a 15-member Russian crew has been seized by Nigerian naval authorities. The arrest is due to weapons being carried on the vessel, however the security company which operates the vessel (the Moran Security Group) claims that all necessary papers were in order. The “Myre Seadiver” ying a Dutch ag was detained at Lagos sea port for suspected arms smuggling 14 Kalashnikov assault ries, 22 smoothbore guns, and ammunition. http://goo.gl/njZKjOrna FreedSomali pirates have freed a cargo ship after holding it captive for nearly two years. A pirate commander said Saturday that a $600,000 ransom was paid for the “MV Orna” on Friday. Pirates shot and killed one of the ship’s crew members in August over delayed ransom payments. Abdi said that other ships towed the vessel away because it had run out of fuel. The vessel was hijacked 400 nautical miles northeast of the Seychelles in December 2010.http://goo.gl/r9PW5Hostages ShiftedSadly only 13 of the 19 crew held aboard the Panama-agged vessel “MV Orna” are on their way home after negotiators secured the ship’s release. Five Syrian men and one Sri Lankan remain as hostages of two rival Somali pirate groups who have had a falling out over ransom demands, according to the ship owner’s legal adviser in Ajman. The ship-owner also states that the ransom was higher than media reports have stated.http://goo.gl/uWnX3Ransom ExpectedExperts are optimistic about the fate of sailors from the Bourbon “Liberty 249”, abducted by unidentied attackers in Nigeria on Wednesday. It is expected that they might soon be freed for ransom or otherwise. Hostages are most often taken by militants from the “Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta,” who presumably pursue solely political motives. However, such vessels are occasionally taken in order for a ransom to be demanded.http://goo.gl/tC3m1Good HealthThe 21 Filipino seamen released by Somali pirates earlier this month after eight months in captivity are in good condition and may be repatriated soon, the Department of Foreign Aairs (DFA). The 21 will undergo medical checkups rst before they are brought home, according to DFA spokesman Raul Hernandez. The “Free Goddess” is owned by NASDAQ-listed FreeSeas, Inc. of Athens, Greece and is Liberian-agged.http://goo.gl/2QtrU Worrying TrendThe Gulf of Guinea is experiencing worrying levels of piracy, and a recent attack in the region illustrates a worrying and new development for the industry. In the early hours of Saturday 6 October, a Panamax tanker was boarded by suspected Nigerian pirates, in what is the rst such recorded vessel hijacking o the Ivory Coast. The vessel was anchored and midway through a ship to ship (STS) operation o Abidjan when the incident occurred. http://goo.gl/s2us6 Investment FailureThe progress on reducing piracy has been striking. Experts believe that while the eect of the military and armed guards have played a part, another key element is that pirates have been greedy, preferring to spend their take on booze, hookers and Land Cruisers than on equipping attack boats and investing in better equipment. While everyone else was investing in ghting them, the pirates have seemingly forgotten where the cash comes from.http://goo.gl/NDDZmHigh EstimateLast week it was reported that Somali pirates released the Greek-owned bulk carrier “MV Free Goddess” and its 21 Filipino crew members after holding the vessel for more than eight months. According to reports in Reuters, pirates claimed to have taken US$5.7 million ransom. Though the reporter admitted that the amount of the ransom could not immediately be veried independently.http://goo.gl/VOato Low EstimateOver in the local press, however, the Somali pirate gang claimed to have collected a rather lower ransom payment for the Liberian-agged vessel “MV Free Goddess”. Informed sources told Garowe Online that US$2.3 million was received for the Greek-owned vessel. It is understood that the initial ransom demand was US$9 million, but the pirates settled for a far lower gure. http://goo.gl/LIoTw Sanctions BustersLloyd’s List has raised the spectre of private maritime security companies violating the UN arms embargo against Somalia if they stray into territorial waters. The 1992 embargo applies to weapons being carried for commercial purposes. However, the simple answer to the fuss appears to be that PMSCs don’t tend to go into Somali Territorial waters as it simply invites trouble and a heightened chance of pirate attack.http://goo.gl/Sek3gSecurity Catch22The private maritime security industry is being pushed into something of a Catch 22 with regards to standards and certication. Now even the much anticipated ISO-led regulation for private maritime security companies is coming in for criticism. Speakers at the Shipping and the Law conference in Naples voiced misgivings about the forthcoming ISO standard. Stating that auditors in dierent parts of the world may be of dierent standards. http://goo.gl/gkT4B No ExperienceThe reason why the rules and laws surrounding piracy prevention aren’t t for purpose, or swiftly enacted is that too few decision makers have been attacked by pirates! That was the view expressed recently by Contarma president Paolo d’Amico who believes that decision-makers have not experienced the atrocity of a hijacking for themselves, and so there is a problem and disconnect.http://goo.gl/4sbhZViolent and BoldIn Togo, pirates are bold, heavily armed, and don’t seem to worry about getting caught. You know things are bad when “get-away cars” are barges that can barely get out of their own way, but apparently it’s not a problem for pirates operating o the West African country of Togo. In the latest attack, mustered the crew on the bridge to await the arrival of a barge to come alongside and steal the ship’s cargo. The crew then had to assist at gun point.http://goo.gl/458OvNATO WarningThe NATO Shipping Centre has warned that pirate activity may increase in the coming months. It has urged those potentially aected not to relax their vigilance, even though the pirates have been less successful in the recent months. With the upcoming period of low sea states, pirate activity can increase. NATO statistics show that they are weakened, but still capable of operating in excess of 1200nm from the Somali Coast.http://goo.gl/xR8QG Armoury SeizedThe name Sinbad has long been synonymous with sailing - however, of late it has also been associated with oating armouries. The vessel “Sinbad” has become a haven to store private maritime security company (PMSCs) weapons. However, the vessel which has been forced upon PMSCs by the Sri Lankan government has reportedly been held in Fujairah after automatic and semi-automatic weapons were found on board.http://goo.gl/3a8wW Panama DelayUnconrmed reports have emerged that Panama has been forced to delay its private maritime security accreditation scheme. The Panama ag was set to impose a deadline of the 03 October by which time any company which had not passed through a vetting process with the administration would not be able to provide armed security onboard. It seems the take up was far lower than expected, and an extension has been granted until 03/01/2013.http://goo.gl/wsJlF