No maritime agency on top of port security?

CEBU CITY — Maritime security in the country in the face of existing terror threats is a virtual exposed belly, with maritime-related agencies in a quandary over how to deal with the problem.

This was the alarming reality that emerged from last week’s maritime security symposium held here that drew nearly 50 shipmasters and maritime educators from the Visayas and Mindanao.

Commander Luis Tuason Jr., Coast Guard intelligence officer, said the Coast Guard does not know which agency takes the lead in maritime security.

Tuason had just delivered a 40-minute treatise on whether maritime security is a burden or not when panel reactor Michael Sarthou Jr., Trans-Asia vice president for ships and terminal management, said there is a reason to be insecure about maritime safety in the absence of any agency taking the lead in addressing the concern.

Sarthou said the Coast Guard, the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) and various port authorities have each been telling shipping companies to submit ship and port security plans but no one among the agencies has a clear idea of what maritime security is.

"Because of these diverse concepts, it has only created more confusion than focus, more confusion that has led to divisiveness that has weakened our position to confront terrorism," Sarthou said.

Tuason admitted he did not know how long the Coast Guard was going to stay in a "state of quandary" but suggested that the Marina should be the lead agency.

Glenn Cabanez, Marina regional director, said his office should be the lead agency but admitted he has no idea if the office has a maritime security masterplan in place.

He did say the Marina has initiated efforts to draft guidelines to implement the International Ship and Port Facility Code (ISPF). Still, he said, what are being drafted are guidelines for ocean-going vessels and not for the domestic merchant fleet.

Guidelines

The ISPF Code provides guidelines to ensure that full-scale risk and security assessment are carried out on ships and port facilities. It calls for close liaison among all parties in the security chain, including shipping companies and their vessels and port and terminal facilities.

Mariano Martinez, general manager of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), said his office is just as confused about the security situation, especially after politicians meddled in security concerns by lobbying for the holding back of the enforcement of port security plans launched in January.

The CPA’s 2003 port plan includes the fencing of the four-kilometer port quay, building and reconstruction of four passenger terminals, construction of a cargo terminal and the drafting and submission of port security assessments.

To enforce the plan, the CPA tried to ban from the port illegal users like squatters, vendors and tricycle drivers, but Martinez was dismayed when this was stopped by President Arroyo through the intercession of Rep. Raul del Mar until after all the affected parties have found or are given jobs.

"Let us put things in perspective. Political leniency and accommodation have no place in making the port competitive. Complacency has no place in a world where security-sensitive trading is the rule," Martinez said.

Countries like the United States, through its Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, require the submission of security assessments and plans from foreign ports where their ships call.

Martinez said the Port of Cebu could lose calls from US ships if it fails to submit the security assessment plans before December and for these plans to be implemented less than 10 months from now.

The Philippines has roughly 6,000 ocean-going and domestic ships in active operation. — Freeman News Service