Authorized Economic Operator - Cross-border Research Association

Posts

Three new Senior Experts

November 19, 2016/0 Comments/in All partners, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, Blog, Compliance management, Customs risks, Global, Investigations, Manufacturer, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Supply chain, Supply chain security, TAPA, Theft, WP1 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

We have the pleasure to announce that the following three top experts in illicit trade and maritime security have recently joined the CBRA’s Consulting Team, as Senior Consultants: Ms. Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Mr. Michael Ellis and Mr. Lars W Lorenzen. We work closely with them in monitoring new calls and preparing project proposals – and, once new projects are funded, they play a key role in executing the actual research, consulting and training work. In the meanwhile, each one of them carries out other “non-CBRA professional activities”. In today’s CBRA Blog we introduce all the three of them, by sharing their short bios below. Please do not hesitate to contact us in case you see interesting joint project opportunities in the future! Have a great weekend everyone, Juha.

Ms. Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Senior Consultant, Illicit Trade and Human Trafficking, Italy

Ms. Luda di Cortemiglia is a senior researcher and consultant with extensive experience on various criminal justice and supply chain security issues at international level. Experience specifically includes applied research and analysis as well as project management and training for professionals, in the field of illicit trafficking and supply chain security, including trafficking in persons, trafficking in counterfeit products, illicit trade in precious metals, illegal waste trade and eco-crimes, cybercrime and misuse of technologies. After graduating in Law at the University of Turin, Italy, 1999, Ms. Luda di Cortemiglia obtained a Master degree in International Relationships and Diplomacy at St. John’s University, New York, USA, in 2001, joining the United Nations in October 2001. Until September 2016 she has coordinated the programs and activities of the Emerging Crimes Unit at the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI). She has acted as UNICRI Focal Point for the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network (PNI), and from 2009 until 2016 she represented UNICRI within the United Nations Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Human Trafficking (UN-ICAT).

Mr. Michael Ellis, Senior Consultant, Illicit Trade in Global Supply Chains, United Kingdom

Mr. Ellis has nearly 40 years of experience in law enforcement, coming from an operational policing background. He served with the London Metropolitan Police fighting against serious international and organised crime for 20 years, He was then engaged in the corporate security function in multinational firms, dealing with anti-counterfeit and illicit trade issues on a global basis for a further 16 years. Michael was with Universal Music, with IFPI, the music industry’s trade association, and with Beiersdorf. Most recently he was the Assistant Director of Police Services at INTERPOL and the Head of the INTERPOL Program on Traffic in Illicit Goods and Counterfeit. Michael was responsible for managing and coordinating INTERPOL’s global strategy to fight against this criminal activity, and he lead the police organisations international efforts in this area. Michael has a Master’s degree in Social Science, where he specifically researched the extensive links between organised crime and illicit trade and counterfeiting. Michael joined CBRAs consulting team on 1 October, 2016, as a Senior Consultant. He will be involved in various projects related to illicit trade and counterfeit goods in global supply chains.

Mr. Lars W Lorenzen, Senior Consultant, Maritime and Port Security, Denmark

Mr. Lorenzen has had a career with the Maersk Group spanning 37 years within a number of business units, notably within container transportation in the broadest sense. His particular knowledge and expertise covers the operational, equipment management, security, safety, standardization and regulatory sphere. He has been leading the Maersk Group work in obtaining and maintaining US C-TPAT and EU AEO-F supply chain security certifications and validations since the inception of both initiatives, while engaging with customers in shaping their profiles. As part of his security tasks, Lars has built and maintained a security response programme for the Maersk Line organisation, being also the focal point and first responder to security breaches. For a period, he was a member of the WCO PSCG (World Customs Organization Private Sector Consultative Group). During the past 20+ years he has been an appointed national expert in standardization work, mainly within ISO TC104 and TC204, including leadership of working groups – while heading the Danish delegation. Lars has served as a civil expert to NATO and other military initiatives by appointment of the Danish Government for the past 12 years, providing commercial views and factual information relating to logistics, and in the course of this participated in developing and conducting table top and other exercises.

First results from the WCO Cancun AEO benefit survey

June 8, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Customs, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, Importer, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Regulated Agent, Risk-cluster, Shipper, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, Uncategorized, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WCO, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

In today’s CBRA Blog we provide a sneak preview of the outcomes of the AEO Benefit survey carried out by CBRA research team at the 3^rd Global WCO AEO Conference, in Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016.

We keep today’s Blog very simple. First, we would like to introduce a new test-categorization of Customs granted AEO benefits, with the following five groups:

More streamlined / simplified Customs (and related) procedures
Less frequent interventions by the Customs administration
Increased priority over non-AEO companies (“getting to the front of the queue”)
Increased (positive) attention by the Customs administration
Increased number of other privileges granted by the customs administration

And second, we list the AEO benefits from our survey (only question 2 in the survey form, which focuses explicitly on Customs granted benefits to the supply chain companies, and not benefits for Customs themselves, or any kind of “side benefits” for the companies) under each of the five categories. The order of the benefits per category is based on the survey outcomes, i.e. the first bullet point benefit was the most common one in the survey, followed by the second bullet and so forth. Please note that there are no ranking indications between the five groups, neither when it comes to the groups per se, nor to the individual benefits – these will be included in our academic publications, bit later this year…

Group 1. More streamlined / simplified Customs (and related) procedures

Enjoying increased paperless processing of import/export shipments
Enjoying an access to / pre-qualification with various simplified customs procedures
Enjoying having a reduced number of data elements in the (final) declaration
Enjoying having entry/exit summary declarations with reduced data sets
Enjoying easier access to other governmental certification in the supply chain (e.g. in aviation security)

Group 2. Less frequent interventions by the Customs administration

Enjoying minimum number of cargo security inspections
Enjoying the option of audit-based / account-based controls (versus only transaction-based controls)
Enjoying access to self-audit or reduced audit programs

Group 3. Increased priority over non-AEO companies (“getting to the front of the queue”)

Enjoying priority use of non-intrusive inspection techniques when examination is required
Enjoying a priority status in Customs processing during a period of elevated threat conditions
Enjoying priority response to requests for ruling from Customs
Enjoying expedited processes to resolve post-entry or post-clearance inquiries
Enjoying priority treatment of consignments if selected for control
Enjoying preferential treatment at border crossings in post-disaster/post-attack situations
Enjoying a priority status in exporting to affected countries after a security incident

Group 4. Increased (positive) attention by the Customs administration

Privilege to deal with designated Customs contact points / assistance by Customs supply chain security experts
Privilege to receive training provided by Customs experts
Privilege to be notified of the intention to release goods prior to their arrival (“pre-clearance”)
Enjoying special treatment in some non-criminal legal cases
Privilege to exploit “extended Customs office opening hours”, during high peak / congestion times

Group 5. Increased number of other privileges granted by the Customs administration

Enjoying from tax privileges, such as speedier tax refunds and compensation
Enjoying the option to manage clearance formalities, inspections etc. at the business site
Enjoying from financial guarantee waivers, reductions or rebates
Privilege to self-manage the bonded warehouses
Enjoying tangible benefits due to mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs) with 3rd countries
Privilege to choose the place of controls (if selected for control)
Enjoying reductions on some Customs fees or charges
Privilege to conduct self-assessments when Customs automated systems are not functioning

And that’s about it! Please be reminded again that this CBRA Blog is just a first scratch on the surface to start publishing results from the WCO Cancun 2016 AEO conference… And by the way, we are also working to publish the results from the WCO Madrid 2014 AEO conference, as we have been waiting to publish the full results of the both conferences in a parallel manner / in a same paper. In the meanwhile, please email us any feedback, ideas and/or criticism regarding this Blog!

In Lausanne, 8 June 2016, CBRA Blog Dr. Juha Hintsa

PS. Our earlier Blog with all the WCO Cancun 2016 AEO survey questions can be read at: https://www.cross-border.org/2016/05/08/aeo-benefits-or-no-benefits-thats-the/

PPS. Related literature by the Cross-border Research Association team and key partners:

Most of these papers are available for download at ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juha_Hintsa/publications . And all of them can be naturally requested by email ( cbra@cross-border.org )

Hintsa, J., Mohanty, S., Rudzitis, N., Fossen, C. and Heijmann, F. (2014), “The role and value of customs administrations in minimization of socio-economic negative impacts related to illicit import flows in freight logistics systems- three preliminary cases in Europe – FP7-CORE”, Proceedings of the 9th WCO PICARD Conference, September 17-19, 2014, Puebla.

Hintsa, J. (2013), AEO – MRA Study for RTC- Thailand Europe Cooperation TEC-II, PDSC: Implementation of international standards on Supply Chain Security leading to a secure Trade Environment and to increased Trade Facilitation (Activity Code : TRA 4), Final Report, Bangkok.

Urciuoli, L. and Ekwall, D. (2012), “Possible impacts of supply chain security certifications on efficiency – a survey study about the possible impacts of AEO security certifications on supply chain efficiency”, Proceedings of Nofoma Conference, June 6-8, 2012, Naantali.

Hintsa, J., Männistö, T., Hameri, A.P., Thibedeau, C., Sahlstedt, J., Tsikolenko, V., Finger, M. and Granqvist, M. (2011), Customs Risk Management (CRiM): A Survey of 24 WCO Member Administrations, Study for World Customs Organization (WCO), February 28, 2011, Lausanne

Hintsa, J., Hameri, A.P., Männistö, T., Lazarescu, M., Ahokas, J. and Holmström, J. (2010), ”Conceptual model for measuring benefits of security in global supply chains”, Proceedings of the the 3rd International Conference on Transportation and Logistics (T-LOG), September 6-8, 2010, Fukuoka City.

Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, January 15, 2010

Gutiérrez, X., Hintsa, J., Wieser, P. and Hameri, A.P. (2007), “Voluntary supply chain security program impacts: an empirical study with BASC member companies”, World Customs Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.31-48.

Gutierrez, X. and Hintsa, J. (2006), “Voluntary supply chain security programs: a systematic comparison”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain (ILS), May 15-17, 2006, Lyon.

EU logistics security – an interesting decade

May 21, 2016/0 Comments/in Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, CEN, CLECAT, CPT, EC, ESC, EU, Freight forwarder, Government, Inland waterway, IRU, Other-cluster, Policy, Rail, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Road, Standardization, Supply chain security, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Transport carrier, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

I had a great pleasure to work intensively on the European surface transport security standardization efforts, some years ago – this CBRA Blog aims to summarize the main work done, and the key objectives achieved.

Couple of years after the US 9/11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the European Commission Directorate General of Transport and Energy, EC DG TREN, started to prepare a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing cargo surface transport security. In the meanwhile, 9/11 was already triggering an avalanche of new customs, aviation and maritime supply chain security regulations, programs and standards, in the US, Europe and across the globe. But when it came specifically to surface transport security for road and rail cargo (and inland waterways, to that matter) in Europe, nothing was cooking before the DG TREN initiative “Secure Operator”, first announced in 2004. By 2006, the main goal of the EC proposal for a regulation on enhancing supply chain security (SCS) in the EU was shaped as to achieve greater protection of the European freight transport system against possible terrorist attacks. The specific objectives of the draft regulation were defined as: (i) to increase the level of security along the supply chain without impeding the free flow of trade; (ii) to establish a common framework for a systematic European approach without jeopardizing the common transport market and existing security measures; and (iii) to avoid unnecessary administrative procedures and burdens at European and national levels. In addition, the draft regulation related to the need to prevent a patchwork of various supply chain security standards and solutions across EU.

However, it quickly became clear that there was no common sense of urgency in supply chain security regulations across EU Member States, particularly in the context of threat of terrorism to surface (cargo) transport. One was lacking a commitment towards an integrated approach, which would urge everybody to look at the holistic supply chain picture. The countries and especially stakeholder (or, lobby) organizations clearly focused on their specific interests on a part of the supply chain, thus appearing uncomfortable when trying to identify the “big picture”. Ultimately, the draft regulation was blocked in the European legislative process and finally officially withdrawn by the Commission, in 2010.

In the meanwhile, already in 2005, an expert group in supply chain security was formed under the umbrella of European Committee for Standardization (CEN) – and that’s when Cross-border Research Association started to play a role in the “EU land transport security regulations and standards play”, first as the rapporteur for the expert group, and later as the research party for the technical committee in supply chain security. The expert group was formed technically under the CEN working group “Protection and Security of the Citizen” (CEN/BT/WG161), and the (pre)standardization work was partly based on the Logistics Action Plan of the EC that indicated the need for standardization in the transport security domain for the whole logistic chain.

Following the conclusions and recommendations by the expert group, the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security (CEN/TC 379) was established in 2008, producing ultimately three tangible outputs: Supply Chain Security Feasibility Study (in 2010); CEN Technical Report “Supply Chain Security — Good Practice Guide for Small and Medium Sized Operators” (in 2012, CEN/TR 16412:2012); and, a European Standard: Logistics – Specifications for reporting crime incidents (in 2013, EN 16352:2013-06). The first of the outcomes is available for free (ask by email: cbra@cross-border.org ), and the latter two you can purchase e.g. from your national standardization institute web shop. All in all, great project experience behind us, couple of good publications, and many new contacts and even few friends for lifetime – thus, no regrets, and if asked, would become rapporteur and lead researcher on these important topics, again and again!

And finally, when it comes to the future of SCS regulation and standardization work in Europe – in particular in the land transport security sector (e.g. the LANDSEC expert group, Commission Decision 2012/286/EU): do not be shy in exploiting the tangible outcomes of a decade of our joint work, in particular the Euronorm EN 16352:2013-06, “Logistics: specifications for reporting crime incidents” – no reason to reinvent the wheel!

CBRA Blog by Dr. Juha Hintsa on 21.5.2016

Summarizing the main milestones of the surface transport security 2004-2014 regulatory and standardization process tracks:

A) Regulatory process -track was largely driven by the European Commission Directorate General for Transport and Energy (EC DG TREN), comprising of the following five sequential steps:
A1. Preparation of the Secure Operator legislation at EC DG TREN (2004-2006)
A2. Publication of the legislative proposal (EC, 2006a)
A3. Publication of an impact assessment study (EC, 2006b)
A4. Announcements and debates at European Parliament and Council (2006-2009)
A5. Withdrawal of the proposal by the Commission, (18.9.2010)

B) Standardization process -track – for which the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) was responsible – consisting of the following seven, chronologically ordered steps:
B1. Establishment of an Expert group in supply chain security, under CEN/BT/WG161, “Protection and Security of the Citizen” (2005)
B2. Publication of the final report of the Expert group, approved by CEN/BT/WG161 (14.11.2006)
B3. Establishment of the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security, CEN/TC 379 (2008)
B4. Publication of Supply Chain Security Feasibility Study (15.1.2010)
B5. Publication of the CEN Technical Report, CEN/TR 16412:2012 “Supply Chain Security — Good Practice Guide for Small and Medium Sized Operators” (2012)
B6. Publication of a European Standard: Logistics – Specifications for reporting crime incidents, EN 16352:2013-06 (2013)
B7. Closure of the CEN Technical Committee in Supply Chain Security, CEN/TC 379 (2014).

Main references / bibliography:

CEN (2013), “Logistics: specifications for reporting crime incidents”, EN 16352:2013-06
CEN (2012), “Supply chain security (SCS): Good practice guide for small and medium sized operators”, CEN/TR 16412:2012
CEN (2006), “Expert group: Supply chain security”, approved by CEN/BT/WG161, 14.1.2006
EC (2012), “Commission Staff Working Document on Transport Security”, SWD(2012), 143 final.
EC (2006a), COM(2006)79 final, 2006/0025(COD), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhancing supply chain security Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on enhancing supply chain security, (SEC(2006)251)
EC (2006b), SEC(2006)251 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Annex to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhancing supply chain security and Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on enhancing supply chain security – IMPACT ASSESSMENT – {COM(2006)79 final}
Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, 15.12010

AEO benefits, or, no benefits, that’s the?

May 8, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Customs, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, Importer, ISO28000, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Regulated Agent, Retailer, Risk-cluster, Scientific, Shipper, Supply chain security, TAPA, Tax evasion, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Trusted Trader, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WCO, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

“To be, or not be – that is the question”, was Prince Hamlet wondering already some 412 years ago. 400 years later, the CBRA research team started to raise the question of “AEO benefits, or no AEO benefits – that is the ?”…

Around year 2004, we first started to study the emerging AEO-types of programs in Europe and globally, working intensively with multinational companies (clothing, cigarettes, machinery etc.), and with multiple governments. Initially, we reviewed any data available from C-TPAT, StairSec, BASC and TAPA programs, and later we concentrated on EU AEO and all other AEO programs across the globe. After 12 years of research our intention is to publish an academic journal paper summarizing all the knowledge from the literature as well as from our own research on AEO benefits for Customs administrations and for supply chain companies – focusing on the tangible, realized benefits, instead of “paper tiger / lip service” types of benefit checklists.

As the last step of data collection, we are now launching the study: “Customs Supply Chain Security Programs (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) – Survey on Supply Chain and Government Benefits – WCO 3rd Global AEO Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016 – Research project by CBRA, ZLC, UCR, HEC UNIL and FP7-CORE”. This survey is a direct follow-up with the one CBRA did in the 2^nd Global AEO Conference in Madrid two years ago. Ms. Susana Wong Chan from the University of Costa Rica and Cross-border Research Association is presenting the survey in Cancun next week, and collecting as many replies as possible, in person during the conference (and by email after).

We have three main questions in the Cancun AEO survey, each one with multiple sub-questions (all questions are presented with a five-point Likert scale, plus one option for “cannot say”):

Question for Customs administrations, supply chain companies, and all other experts in cross-border supply chains and Customs supply chain security programs: How often are the supply chain security program certified companies in your country benefiting from the following Customs granted incentives?
Question for Customs administrations only: What are the benefits for the Customs administration in your country arising from the supply chain security program?
Question for supply chain companies only: What are the additional benefits for the supply chain companies in your country, arising from the supply chain security program participations / certifications?

The full list of questions and sub-questions is shared at the end of this blog. In addition, you can download the questionnaire in word-format, in English and in Spanish, at: https://www.cross-border.org/downloads/

Why don’t (near) perfect AEO benefit -papers exist yet in the literature? One would think that the topic attracts lots of academics to carry out such research, and to publish their exciting findings, rather sooner than later… Well, it is quite challenging topic to study: where is the objective, non-biased data located, and how do you get access to it? How to deal with all the politics linked to the topic, as maybe many countries would like to be perceived as “leading edge AEO program holders, with a set of fantastic, innovative benefits delivered to the trade and logistics…”? How to differentiate between all the AEO marketing materials and incentive promises from what is actually implemented on the ground, for the real benefit of supply chain companies; and so forth..? To expand on these thoughts, one could revisit our article on the WCO News No 74 of June 2014. The table on page 45 includes a row on challenges and peculiarities with different categories of possible AEO benefits, sharing following observations and notes:

As some of the Customs granted benefits existed in many countries before the AEO era, companies which have enjoyed “such pre-AEO benefits” may fear a potential reduction in existing trade facilitation measures – instead of the introduction of truly new benefits.
Due to the dynamics in the cross-border flow of goods, outcomes might vary considerably over time – ‘seeing is believing’; in particular, the benefits linked to ‘elevated threat’ and ‘post-incident recovery’, may appear quite theoretical until such situations actually emerge (and the benefits materialize – or, not).
Some could also consider that the AEO system may become a technical trade barrier – the ´become an AEO or die´ scenario.
Some might think that an AEO program deters crime, as criminals would rather choose an easy target (i.e. a non-AEO target), for example in the case of warehouse theft; and, alternatively, other might think that an AEO program attracts criminals, as they know there are likely to be fewer Customs interventions – the smuggling of narcotics, for example.

Dear CBRA Blog reader: although this is very challenging research topic, and one should not dream of reaching “one ultimate truth out there” – we kindly ask that if you are in Cancun 11-13 May for the 3^rd Global AEO Conference, please take 10 minutes to reply the questionnaire..! Next to the good vibrations gained from participation in this highly important study, you will join a lucky drawing of a nice Costa Rican souvenir! In Lausanne, 9 May 2016, Juha Hintsa.

PS. List of benefit survey questions, for the CBRA Blog readers:

Customs Supply Chain Security Programs (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) – Survey on Supply Chain and Government Benefits – WCO 3rd Global AEO Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 11-13 May 2016 – Research project by CBRA, ZLC, UCR, HEC UNIL and FP7-CORE

Question for Customs administrations, supply chain companies, and all other experts in cross-border supply chains and Customs supply chain security programs: How often are the supply chain security program (AEO, C-TPAT etc.) certified companies in your country benefiting from the following Customs granted incentives?

Use the following scale: Very frequently – Frequently – Occasionally – Rarely – Never / Not applicable in our country (or, this is nothing specific for certified companies) – Cannot say

Are companies submitting entry/exit summary declarations with reduced data sets?
Are companies benefiting from reduced number of data elements in their final declaration?
Are companies benefiting from increased paperless processing of import/export shipments?
Are companies offered the option of audit-based / account-based controls (versus only transaction-based controls)?
Are companies having access to / pre-qualification with various simplified customs procedures?
Are companies self-managing their bonded warehouses?
Are companies benefiting from tax privileges, such as speedier tax refunds and compensation?
Are companies benefiting from financial guarantee waivers, reductions or rebates?
Are companies benefiting from reduction of any Customs fees or charges?
Are companies benefiting from access to self-audit or reduced audit programs?
Are companies allowed to conduct self-assessments when Customs automated systems are not functioning?
Are companies benefiting from designated Customs contact points / assistance by Customs supply chain security experts?
Are companies benefiting from training provided by Customs experts?
Are companies enjoying easier access to other governmental certification in the supply chain, e.g. in aviation security?
Are companies benefiting from the option to manage clearance formalities, inspections etc. at the business site?
Are companies benefiting from a minimum number of cargo security inspections?
Are companies being notified of the intention to release goods prior to their arrival? (“pre-clearance”)
Are companies benefiting from “extended Customs office opening hours”, during high peak / congestion times?
Are companies benefiting from choice of place of controls, if selected for control?
Are companies benefiting from priority treatment of consignments if selected for control?
Are companies benefiting from priority use of non-intrusive inspection techniques when examination is required?
Are companies guaranteed a priority Customs processing during a period of elevated threat conditions?
Are companies guaranteed preferential treatment at border crossings in post-disaster/post-attack situations?
Are companies guaranteed a priority in exporting to affected countries after a security incident?
Are companies benefiting from expedited processes to resolve post-entry or post-clearance inquiries?
Are companies benefiting from priority response to requests for ruling from Customs?
Are companies benefiting from privileges in any kind of non-criminal legal cases?
Are companies enjoying tangible benefits due to mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs) with 3rd countries?

Question for Customs administrations only: What are the benefits for the Customs administration in your country arising from the supply chain security program (AEO, C-TPAT etc.)?

Use the following scale: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree – Cannot say

Better overall allocation of governmental resources
Improved indirect tax revenue collection
Improved prevention of trafficking and illicit trade
Improved detection and/or seizures in trafficking and illicit trade
Improved prosecution to judgements -ratio (= higher percentage of successful prosecutions)
Increased confiscations of criminal assets and/or proceeds of crime
Improved collaboration with supply chain companies
Improved collaboration with other national government agencies
Improved international collaboration with Customs administrations in other countries

Question for supply chain companies only: What are the additional benefits for the supply chain companies in your country, arising from the supply chain security program participations / certifications (AEO, C-TPAT etc.)?

Use the following scale: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree – Cannot say

Improved customer service
Improved customs loyalty
Increased market share/ gaining more new customers
Improved security commitment of employees
Improved company image and credibility
Reduced overall vulnerability of the supply chain
Improved supply chain resiliency
Reduced cargo theft incidents
Reduced tax fraud incidents
Reduced illicit trade / trafficking incidents
Reduced insurance fees
Improved inventory management
Fewer delayed cross-border shipments
Reduced lead time variability in the cross-border supply chain

PPS. Related literature by the Cross-border Research Association team and key partners:

Hintsa, J., Ahokas, J., Männistö, T. and Sahlstedt, J. (2010), “CEN supply chain security (SCS) feasibility study”, CEN/TC 379 Supply Chain Security, Final report, January 15, 2010

Three calls for journal and conference papers

April 21, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Coordinated border management, Customs, Cybersecurity, Environmental agency, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, Importer, ISO28000, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Phytosanitary agency, Police, Regulated Agent, Retailer, Risk-cluster, Scientific, Shipper, Supply chain security, TAPA, Trade facilitation, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WCO, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

This CBRA Blog advertises three important calls for papers in 2016: Special Issue for Journal of Transportation Security (to be published in 2017); the 11^th WCO Customs-Academia PICARD Conference (Sep.2016); and the 7^th European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (Aug.2016).

1. Journal of Transportation Security, Special Issue: Enhancing supply chain security through government-to-government and government-to-business partnerships and collaboration

Journal of Transportation Security (JTRS): The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent events have compelled stakeholders to understand transport security as more than a single element of the global networks that move people and goods. Once a routine component of modern transportation, security now represents a vital necessity and an urgent national priority. The Journal of Transportation Security probes the relevant aspects of many critical areas of study, including supply chain and logistics; information technology; public policy; international business; political science; engineering; transportation; economics; and counterterrorism, among others. This journal is the first to take a global, apolitical, and in-depth multidisciplinary look at the field. The mission of the journal is to disseminate new research, thought, and analysis for teachers, researchers, policy makers and practitioners around the world who view transportation security as a critical element in the post 9/11 world.

Partnerships and collaboration play a crucial role in the fight against crime in the global supply chains. Investments in traditional security areas such as physical security, personnel security, and IT security no longer suffice. Both government and business actors should extend their security efforts beyond their organizational boundaries, by fostering relationships with each other. Further government-to-government and government-to-business collaboration has a great potential to improve security of the supply chain and regulatory compliance of the trading community, while facilitating trade and logistics for the legitimate, security aware companies. The scope of collaboration covers a broad range of activities, including sharing of information and data; investing in common resource pools and sharing resources; and agreeing on optimum protocols for conducting inspections and audits in the supply chains. Enhancing the information exchange, for example, would help governments and companies to prevent and detect security breaches in supply chains and to recover faster once the breaches happen. In principle, both government and business actors share a common goal of mitigating crime in the global supply chains. Priorities and procedures, however, differ markedly between various business actors (e.g., shippers, carriers, freight forwarders) and government agencies (e.g., customs, police and transport security authorities).

Call for abstracts for the JTRS Special issue is open until 30 September 2016, please visit: www.springer.com …

(CBRA / Dr. Juha Hintsa is the lead guest editor for this special issue; and abstract review panel consists of multiple experts in FP7-CORE project).

2. The 11th Annual WCO Picard Conference – Manila, Philippines – 27-29 September 2016

The World Customs Organization and the Philippine Bureau of Customs are pleased to announce the 11th annual WCO Picard Conference. You are invited to submit your research for presentation at the conference. Papers should focus on Customs or, more globally, the regulation, dynamics, and practices of international trade. Although not required, writers could consider submitting research on the following topics: Digital Customs; security; taxation and other revenue matters; and illicit trade.

Call for papers is open until 15 June 2016, please visit: www.wcoomd.org…

(CBRA / Dr. Juha Hintsa is part of the Scientific Board for the conference; and he also belongs to the PICARD Advisory Group).

3. The 7^th European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC) – Uppsala, Sweden – 17-19 August 2016

Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI) research is an interdisciplinary field of research that focuses on the development, use, and evaluation of advanced information technologies, including methodologies, models and algorithms, systems, and tools, for local, national and international security related applications. Over the past decade, the ISI research community has matured and delivered an impressive array of research results that are both technically innovative and practically relevant. The 2016 European ISI Conference is the seventh ISI conference to be organized by the European ISI community. The conference was first held in 2008 and has been organized annually since 2011.

Call for papers is open until 18 May 2016, please visit: http://www.eisic.eu/call.aspx

(CBRA / Dr. Toni Männistö delivers a keynote presentation on FP7-CORE, focusing on Supply chain security education and training (CORE WP19.1) ).

Revisiting the Yemen bomb plot of 2010

March 7, 2016/0 Comments/in Air, Airport, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, Capacity building, CBRA, Compliance management, Counter-terrorism, Customs, Data quality, Data sharing, Demo-cluster, DG MOVE, EC, EU, Exporter, Express courier, Freight forwarder, Global, ICAO, Importer, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Regulated Agent, Retailer, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Scanning, Screening, Shipper, Supply chain security, Terrorism/destruction, Trade facilitation, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, USA, WCO, WP12, WP17, WP18, WP19, WP2, WP6 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

This CBRA blog revisits the Yemen bomb plot from 2010, the most decisive turning point in modern air cargo security. More than five years after the events, this blog discusses the plot’s implications to the contemporary air cargo security and outlines CBRA’s recommendations for future security work. Parts of this blog text have already been published in the doctoral thesis of CBRA researcher Toni Männistö.

Two explosive devices aboard passenger planes: The series of events, that we call the Yemen bomb plot, took place on 29 October in 2010. On that day, al-Qaeda terrorists almost destroyed two passenger airplanes with a pair of express courier parcels, each enclosing plastic explosives hidden inside a printer toner cartridge. The explosive parcels where sent to Chicago from the capital of Yemen, Sana’a, via two different express courier operators.

Both parcel bombs were eventually intercepted and defused, without fatalities or injuries. But before the interception, the bombs had already travelled onboard multiple air freighters and passenger planes. Many people flew that day with a fully functional explosive device under their seat! Though the parcels were addressed to Chicago, officials think that terrorists wanted to detonate the bombs mid-air, just before landing using cell phone timer alarms.

A Lockerbie-style mayhem was slightly avoided, largely thanks to a timely piece of intelligence. The bomb plot started to uncover when a suspected double agent tipped Saudi-Arabian intelligence that al-Qaeda terrorists had shipped two parcel bombs from Yemen to the US via the express courier service. The Saudi intelligence forwarded the tracking numbers of the suspected explosive devices to their US and German colleagues and told them to look for printer toner cartridges.

The first parcel was intercepted in Dubai, and the second one at the East Midlands airport, nearly 200 km to the northwest from London. In the UK, a bomb squad did not first recognize anything suspicious when they screened the suspected parcel. “It looked like a printer cartridge – there were no wires or anything,” one of CBRA’s contacts at World Customs Organization (WCO) recounts. “But of course, what the cartridge did contain was explosive that current technologies couldn’t detect.” Later laboratory tests revealed that each parcel contained 300 to 400 grams of PETN, military grade plastic explosive, wirings, and a detonator hidden inside a printer’s toner cartridge. The bombs were so meticulously concealed that they had not only passed the standard air cargo and safety screening but also the special screening of the bomb squad.

Aftermaths: The Yemen incident was rude reminder of the vulnerability of the air cargo logistics to terrorism. Sure, the day was saved by old-school, field intelligence work and prompt government response. But before interception, the first parcel travelled aboard three different flights: Sana’a – Dubai, Dubai – Cologne, and Cologne – East Midlands Airport. The second explosive parcel flew first from Sana’a to Doha and then to Dubai where it was intercepted.

In the immediate aftermaths of the events, aviation security authorities in the US and many European countries stopped accepting freight shipments from Yemen. Germany also cancelled all passenger flights from Yemen for more than two weeks. “As often happens in these situations,” the WCO’s air cargo specialist remarks, “the first reaction was stopping anything coming from this part of the world – any plane for any reason.” The new security rules changed the air cargo operations virtually overnight, seriously disrupting the air cargo and mail service. Delays were widespread and lengthy, but the worst aspect of the disruption was that no one knew when the new apparently transient security regime was to be revoked.

Eventually, once the precautionary stoppage was ended, new unprecedentedly stringent security requirements entered into force, disrupting the air cargo and mail service further. The US Transportation Security Administration, TSA, introduced the most stringent rules: any mail originating or transiting through Somalia or Yemen was banned, as well as printers or printer toner cartridges from high-risk locations. Moreover, parcels originating from any business partners had to be screened up to high-risk screening standards, piece by piece, if such shipment did not accompany a tendering statement, a document assuring that cargo comes from a known and trusted shipper. The new regime disrupted seriously international air cargo logistics, causing air cargo shippers worldwide to accumulate huge backlogs of US-bound shipments. Annoyed and surprised about the turn of events, the air cargo industry reacted to the US rules with a barrage of criticism, calling the measures superfluous and impractical. Over the following weeks, the reactive security rules were gradually relaxed to enable clearing of the backlog of US-bound air cargo.

In the long term, the Yemen events put air cargo security into a spotlight, securing political commitment and spurring further reforms for years to come. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, for example, included advanced security, concepts such as the “secure supply chain” principle, the concept of high-risk cargo and mail, and the consignment security declaration, CSD, into the new edition of the Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention. Also the European Union expanded the EU air cargo regime to cover airlines operating into the EU aviation security area – EU-28 plus Switzerland, Norway and Iceland – from third country airports. The amendment also specified criteria for identifying and screening high-risk cargo and mail, known as HRCM.

CBRA considerations for future air cargo security: The modern air cargo security has taken major leaps since the Yemen incident, but the work towards higher air cargo security still continues. The CBRA research team considers that, like in any other area of supply chains, it is crucial both to facilitate cross-border logistics and to ensure adequate security. This classic dilemma of striking the balance between trade facilitation and supply chain security is not easy to solve, but we believe that there are some promising ways to promote logistics-friendly air cargo security.

Governments should normally consult the air cargo industry before introducing new security rules. New security rules should avoid reducing speed, on-time reliability, or cost-efficiency of the air cargo service. There are often ways to integrate new security requirements seamlessly into the sequence of day-to-day logistics activities, but this requires close government-business coordination.

One promising way forward is to improve capabilities of pre-loading risk assessment, so that the riskiest air cargo shipments can be identified early on and subjected to a more stringent screening. Many projects on this matter are under way, most notably the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) in the US and Pre-loading Consignment Information for Secure Entry  (PRECISE) in the European Union. The CBRA team applauds these efforts of advancing risk assessment and reminds of the importance of proactive updating of risk-scoring algorithms.

EU’s decision of forcing flights from third countries into EU to comply with EU’s air cargo security regime makes also good sense. It is reasonable to secure air cargo up to an adequate standard sooner rather than later, preferably before the first flight. More global capacity building – especially training and funds for modern screening equipment – are needed in developing countries. Also, auditing activities in third countries would benefit from further resources.

Harmonization and mutual recognition is another key theme for years to come. In the EU, civil aviation and customs authorities might find some synergies if they harmonized their respective Known Consignor (KC) and Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) programs. Air cargo companies would also benefit if types and performance requirements of screening methods would be uniform across the members of the European Union.

Bibliography:

BBC, Q&A: Air freight bomb plot, 2 November 2010

European Commission, Regulation 173/2012, amending 185/2010

International Civil Aviation Organization, Chicago convention, Annex 17, 9^th edition

Koolloos M.F.J., Männistö T., van der Jagt O.C., Jezierska M.M., Hintsa J., Kähäri P. and Tsikolenko V. (2015), Security Screening for the Air Express Cargo Industry, Final Report, Brussels, Belgium.

Männistö, T., 2015. Mitigating Crime and Security Risks in the International Logistics Network: the Case of Swiss Post. Doctoral thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL).

CBRA Blog by Dr. Toni Männistö

Border Agency Cooperation, Part 2 of 3

January 29, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Compliance management, Coordinated border management, Customs, Customs risks, Data sharing, EC, EU, Exporter, Global, Importer, Investigations, Latin America, Maritime, Other-cluster, Perishable goods, Phytosanitary agency, Police, Risk-cluster, Scanning, Sea port, Single window, Supply chain security, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport security agency, WCO, WP10, WP11, WP13, WP14, WP15, WP16, WP17, WP19, WP6, WP7, WP8, WP9 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Our second blog on Border Agency Cooperation (BAC) focuses on a conceptual model developed by CBRA. We have crafted this “CBRA-BAC15” diagram to visualize a set of key BAC actions and primary beneficiaries, with contributions by Dr. Toni Männistö (supply chain security post-doc researcher at CBRA), Mr. Gerwin Zomer (TNO, technical manager for the FP7-CORE project) and by Ms. Susana Wong Chan (education and training materials developer at CBRA).

The diagram is cut to three sectors: on left side, the supply chain companies are the primary beneficiaries of BAC actions; on the right side, the government agencies form the primary beneficiary group; and on the bottom area, both supply chain companies as well as government agencies benefit from BAC actions. Each of these three sectors contains five examples of concrete border agency cooperation actions – 15 in total – explained in a moment by using real examples, whenever available in the literature or by expert suggestions. In the center of the diagram lies a circle with the more generic “smart cross-border improvement actions”, applicable to virtually any work in global trade facilitation.

The diagram should not be considered exhaustive, when it comes to all optional actions to improve BAC in a given country or region or globally. Some of the 15 key actions may be strongly interconnected, or, partially overlapping. Some of them may apply mainly on national multi-agency environment, and some of them mainly on international e.g. customs-to-customs environment. Also, the division of the key actions into the three beneficiary groups can and should be challenged, by the interested audiences. But, let´s start now by listing and illustrating the key 15 BAC actions:

Supply chain companies as the primary beneficiary (left sector in the diagram). The following five BAC actions can bring immediate benefits to the companies operating in supply chains, in terms of saving administrative costs and speeding up the supply chain – less work dealing with various certifications and audit visits, less variation and IT costs with import/export data filing and less waiting times at the borders.

Harmonized ´trusted trader´ & other certification programs: In the European Union, the European Commission´s implementing regulation (No. 889/2014) updates the references to the aviation security legislation in force, including recognition of the Known Consignor (KC) status and its relevance to Authorized Economic Operator (AEO), and framing the scope of recognition of the common requirements between the respective programs.
Coordinated company visits & audits: Closely linked to the previous BAC-action, in the Netherlands, the Dutch Customs executes joint audits on AEO security (customs) and known consignor/regulated agent (air cargo) with the Dutch Immigration and air-police agency – during the application phase, as well as during periodical audits.
Harmonized data filing requirements: Despite a global, harmonized data model, harmonized tariff codes and standards on clearance procedures, there are many differences in operational import, export and transit procedures and information requirements between countries. This results in additional complexity of IT systems for globally operating traders and logistic service providers. An example is the pre-arrival security declarations, where harmonization would be most useful e.g. between the Importer Security Filing, “10+2” in the US and the Entry Summary Declaration in Europe – Multiple Filing, supported by Standard Trader Interface, under development within the Union Customs Code, UCC.
Synchronized border interventions & inspections: The Article 4 of the Greater Mekong Sub-region Cross Border Transport Agreement on Facilitation of Border Crossing Formalities calls upon the contracting parties to progressively adopt measures to simplify and expedite border formalities by carrying out joint and simultaneous inspection of goods and people by respective competent authorities of agencies such as customs, immigration, trade, agriculture, and health. It further provides for single-stop inspection and urges the national authorities of adjacent countries to carry out joint and simultaneous inspections.
Harmonized operating hours: This applies particularly in the context of two neighboring country customs offices – having same opening hours across the border helps to maximize the daily throughput volumes. As the Article 8 of the World Trade Organization´s Trade Facilitation Agreement puts it, “Each Member shall, to the extent possible and practicable, cooperate on mutually agreed terms with other Members with whom it shares a common border with a view to coordinating procedures at border crossings to facilitate cross-border trade. Such cooperation and coordination may include: … alignment of working days and hours … “. In the ASEAN region, the Article 7 of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit urges the contracting parties to “coordinate working hours of the adjacent border posts”.

Government agencies themselves as the primary beneficiary (right sector in the diagram). The following five BAC actions can provide instant benefits for the cooperating government agencies, in terms of cost savings and improved efficiency – in other words, identifying more violations and catching more bad guys with less total spending.

Sharing of agency intelligence, information & data: Customs Mutual Assistance Agreements (CMAAS), signed bilaterally by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and eight counterparties during years 1979-2010 (European Community, France, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa, South Korea and the United States) provide Canada with a legal basis to share customs information to prevent, investigate and combat customs offences, particularly customs fraud, and to provide reciprocal mutual assistance to ensure the proper application of customs laws. Under CMAAs Canada may share customs information pertaining to: persons, goods and means of transport; activities planned, on-going, or completed, that constitute or appear to constitute a customs offence in the territory of the country requesting the data; proven law enforcement techniques; new and emerging trends, means or methods of committing customs offences; and facilitation of risk assessment activities, within the mandate and authority of the CBSA.
Joint investments in common resource pools (equipment, facilities etc.): In Finland the Customs Administration and the Border Guard share common premises and equipment. Each authority has a designated role in the servicing and maintenance of the equipment. X-ray machines are largely the responsibility of Customs. Road-testing equipment, such as lorry brake-testing pads, is also maintained by Customs. All equipment can be shared and operated by each agency upon request. Thus, although the equipment belongs to one agency, it can be easily relocated to the other agency, enabling smoother processing of the workflow without unnecessary and lengthy administrative procedures, thereby reducing costs.
Joint teams: In the Netherlands, “HARC” – Hit and Run Cargo Rotterdam team, is a joint operation of Dutch Maritime Police, Dutch Customs, the Fiscal and Economic Crime Agency and the Ministry of Justice collaborating operationally in narcotics enforcement. Joint teams differ from Joint operations below by being a long-term / permanent set-up; while Joint operations “come and go”.
Joint operations: A joint operation Meerkat, (23-27 July 2012) involving the World Customs Organization and INTERPOL against the illicit trafficking of cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol in East and Southern Africa, resulted in the seizure of tons of illicitly traded products in seven countries. Operation Meerkat saw Customs and police authorities carry out some 40 raids at seaports, inland border crossing points, markets and shops in Angola, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. More than 32 million cigarettes – equivalent to 1.6 million packets, 134 tons of raw tobacco and almost 3,000 liters of alcohol were seized, resulting in national authorities initiating a number of administrative investigations into tax evasion and other potential criminal offences.
Collaborative criminal investigations & prosecutions: In the United States the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) units gather officers from more than 100 different law enforcement agencies under one roof. The objective is to identify, investigate, disrupt and dismantle transnational organizations posing the greatest threat to border security, public safety and national security, by employing the full range of federal, state, local, tribal and international law enforcement resources. Over the years, the BEST has become a successful interagency law enforcement collaboration model that’s keeping the US safer.

Both supply chain companies as well as government agencies as beneficiaries (bottom sector). The five BAC actions can bring instant benefits to all parties in cross-border supply chains, in terms of lowering costs and improving performance, from supply chain company and from governmental agency perspectives.

‘Single window’ -type import/ export/ transit data submissions: In the Netherlands, the authorities have designed Digipoort, the government’s ‘electronic post office’ for businesses. It provides the communication infrastructure for the exchange of digital information between companies and government authorities. Digipoort enables companies to submit import and export information at a single entry point aimed at multiple government authorities.
Common risk indicators, risk profiles & targeting systems: In Finland, common databases are linked to the different agencies’ operational and risk management databases, leading to a common approach when a ‘signal’ is recorded. Some control and enforcement officers have access to each other’s systems on a need-to-know basis, with levels of restricted access determined by rank and functional responsibility.
Mutual recognition of supply chain inspection procedures & outcomes: As part of the European Union funded research and development project FP7-CORE ( http://www.coreproject.eu/ ), the phytosanitary and customs administrations in Kenya and the Netherlands are working towards mutual recognition of controls carried out by Kenyan authorities, as well as the exploitation of digital phytosanitary certificates and other trade documents, between the two countries. Outside of the research world, mutual recognitions (MR) of customs inspections are being explored in the context of EU MR Agreements, for example with Japan.
Cross-training and empowering manpower: In Finland, Customs officers have been trained by the Border Guard to inspect identification documents and visas, among other procedures. Border guards have, in turn, received basic Customs training, which includes the search of vehicles and the recognition of prohibited and restricted goods, such as drugs, alcohol, and counterfeit items.
Joint public-private partnership arrangements, training sessions etc.: In 2011 in Hong Kong, the Customs and Excise Department established a Joint Liaison Group with the representatives of shippers, freight forwarders and truck drivers for exchanging operational views and comments on the Road Cargo System “ROCARS”. Moreover, Customs also launched an extensive publicity program and established outreach teams to assist the industry stakeholders to get used to the ROCARS. Following other government departments are listed on the ROCARS web-site http://www.rocars.gov.hk/ : Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Census and Statistics Department, and Transport Department.

Finally, the center circle of the CBRA-BAC15 diagram highlights the basic, classical principles of trade facilitation – naturally in the context of multiple agencies dealing with cross-border regulations, procedures, IT-systems and data requirements:

Simplification & Harmonization: agencies work together with the first aim to streamline certification requirements and procedures, to minimize the number of data elements required from traders etc.; and the second aim to unify the rules and requirements facing supply chain companies.
Interoperability & Synchronization: agencies invest in improving interoperability between their inspection technologies, IT-systems etc.; they also work together to better synchronize their supervision and control processes, particularly for the benefit of supply chain companies.
Transparency & Predictability: agencies keep each other well informed of their current regulations, procedures, operations etc., as well as planned future changes – such proactive approach helps to minimize surprises and related hassles.

This concludes the second of three parts of our Border Agency Cooperation (BAC) blog. In Part 3 – to be published sometime in February – we focus on the overarching institutional arrangements on Border Agency Cooperation, including establishment of single border agencies (e.g. in the US and Australia); creation of one-stop border posts, OSBPs (multiple examples across the world); carrying work permanently on behalf of other agencies etc. We also plan to discuss bit more on the benefits and costs of BAC, as well as the main challenges and obstacles in BAC-projects across the globe. Talk to you again in February, Juha Hintsa.

Bibliography / sources for the examples and cases attached to the 15 BAC key actions:

Harmonized ´trusted trader´ & other certification programs: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 889/2014 of 14 August 2014 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as regards recognition of the common security requirements under the regulated agent and known consignor programme and the Authorised Economic Operator programme.
Coordinated company visits & audits: Email exchange with a Dutch Customs expert
Harmonized data filing arrangements: Interview with a Dutch supply chain and trade facilitation expert (29 January 2016); and AnNa Master Plan Extended Collaboration Project Book, December 2015. Available for download at: http://www.annamsw.eu/
Synchronized border interventions & inspections: Jain, S.R. (2012), “Coordinated Border Management: The Experience of Asia and the Pacific Region”, World Customs Journal, Vol. 6 No.1. (CBM25).
Harmonized operating hours: Article 8 (Border Agency Cooperation) of the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation of 15 July 2014; and Jain, S.R. (2012), “Coordinated Border Management: The Experience of Asia and the Pacific Region”, World Customs Journal, Vol. 6 No.1.
Sharing of agency intelligence, information & data: “Customs Cooperation Case Study for Canada”, paper submitted by Canada (Canada Border Services Agency – CBSA) for the July 2012 WTO Symposium on Trade Facilitation.
Joint investments in common resource pools (equipment, facilities etc.): “Coordinated Border Management”, WCO News, February 2015, No. 76.
Joint teams: “Customs find cocaine buried in cocoa bean shipment”, NL Times 25.5.2015, Available online at: http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/05/25/customs-finds-cocaine-buried-in-cocoa-bean-shipment/ (accessed 28 January 2016).
Joint operations: “WCO and INTERPOL joint operation against illicit trafficking in Africa leads to tobacco and alcohol seizures”, WCO Press Release, 27 August 2012. Available online at: http://www.wcoomd.org/en/media/newsroom/2012/august/operation-meerkat.aspx (accessed 28 January 2016).
Collaborative criminal investigations & prosecutions: “Coordinated Border Management”, WCO News, February 2015, No. 76
‘Single window’ –type import/ export/ transit data submissions: “Coordinated Border Management”, WCO News, February 2015, No. 76.
Common risk indicators, risk profiles & targeting systems: “Coordinated Border Management”, WCO News, February 2015, No. 76.
Mutual recognition of supply chain inspection procedures & outcomes: The Consistently Optimised REsilient ecosystem, CORE FP7 project, EU. See online at: http://www.coreproject.eu/ (accessed 28 January 2016).
Cross-training and empowering manpower: “Coordinated Border Management”, WCO News, February 2015, No. 76.
Joint public-private partnership arrangements, training sessions etc.: “Road Cargo System (ROCARS) (Hong Kong China)”. Available online at: http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/wco-implementing-the-wto-atf/atf/border-agency-cooperation.aspx (accessed 28 January 2016).

Border Agency Cooperation, Part 1 of 3

January 21, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, Authorized Economic Operator, Blog, CBRA, Compliance management, Coordinated border management, Customs, Customs risks, Data sharing, EC, EU, Exporter, Global, Importer, Investigations, Latin America, Maritime, Other-cluster, Perishable goods, Police, Risk-cluster, Scanning, Sea port, Single window, Supply chain security, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport security agency, WCO, WP10, WP11, WP13, WP14, WP15, WP16, WP17, WP19, WP6, WP7, WP8, WP9 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

“A beloved child has many names”, goes an old Finnish proverb. This saying applies quite well in the context of ´smart cooperation between multiple agencies when dealing with cross-border supply chains, goods movements and transports´. The World Customs Organization talks about Coordinated Border Management (CBM); the European Union about Integrated Border Management (IBM); the World Bank about Collaborative Border Management (CBM); and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe about Comprehensive Border Management (CBM). Cross-border Research Association is aligning with a fifth term: Border Agency Cooperation (BAC), a term used in the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization. Despite minor differences in scope, priorities, underlying principles and philosophies among these five terms (and possibly even more), one can easily agree that the work carried out under any and all of them aims to coordinate activities across and within various border control agencies, for the benefit of both governmental agencies themselves as well as supply chain companies.

Our first blog on Border Agency Cooperation, BAC, provides an illustrative worst case example on how complex, slow and expensive a cross-border supply chain execution comes when no cooperation takes place between relevant government agencies, neither nationally nor internationally. The illustration is about meat export from Latin America (Country X) to the European Union (Country Y), with maritime transport in reefer containers.

A well-known beef producer in country X– also the first Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) beef producing company in the region – has just signed an annual contract with a beef importer and distributor in country Y. As this is the producer ‘s first export deal to the EU, the producer needs to ensure that all licenses and certificates are up to the EU standard. Organizing health certificates, certificates of origin, sanitary certificates, export licenses – and what have we – takes weeks and weeks of time. There is no communication or procedures in place between the various agencies and officials to facilitate the process, no coordinated company visits or audits, no sharing of information, and no mutual recognition of inspections.

When all documents are finally in place, and regular exports can start, the beef producer and it´s forwarding agent face the burden of filing export data to customs, to sanitary agencies, and to national security agencies – with somewhat similar datasets, but with no single-window filing opportunity. And when export controls and inspections take place – which happens often – there is no synchronization of inspection times between the different agencies. One agency might come to inspect the reefer container on Monday noon, second one on Wednesday morning, and third on Friday afternoon – another week lost in the beef supply chain lead-time.

Once the consignment is happily on board towards the EU, one continues to experience lost BAC opportunities: no data is passed from country X customs or sanitary agencies to their counterparties in country Y, to enable pre-arrival compliance control and risk assessment. In case of criminal suspicions – e.g. when supply chain insiders exploit beef shipments for cocaine smuggling – no intelligence is shared between police and customs, from country X to country Y. The option of joint law enforcement operations between country X and Y police and customs agencies has never been even considered. Even on national level, both in country X and Y, the agencies are not co-operating neither on risk profiling and targeting systems, nor during criminal investigations and prosecutions – what a waste of resources when it comes to catching and convicting the bad guys…

In the meanwhile, some ten days later, the ship arrives at a major sea port in country Y. For the importer, there is no option for single-window data filing; instead, import data must be transferred separately to all different agencies in country Y. As the customs administration in country Y has no Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in place with country X customs – neither when it comes to AEO certificates nor when it comes to recognizing inspections carried out at export – it treats the import as a “medium to high risk” one, calling for physical inspections. And as the sanitary agency does not share any common resources with the customs administration – particularly no joint inspection facilities and equipment, including x-ray machines – and even the daily opening hours are different from the customs hours, the sanitary agency carries out their own inspections only two days after the customs intervention. And finally, improving the situation does not seem likely, as there are no joint public-private partnerships, and no export/import compliance training sessions or similar in place, neither in country Y nor in country X.

This concludes the first of three parts of our Border Agency Cooperation (BAC) blog. In Part 2 – to be published next week – we will present CBRA´s conceptual model (Hintsa J., Dec.2015) on BAC key actions and beneficiaries: which key actions to take in order to speed up the logistics chain, to save costs with all actors, to increase overall predictability, and to improve government agency performance e.g. in terms of number of seizures and convictions. In the BAC Blog Part 2, we plan to present some preliminary experiences and real-life results from FP7-project CORE. Please stay tuned!

Thai AEO & MRA (2/2)

February 20, 2015/0 Comments/in Blog, CBRA, Supply chain security, WCO /by Juha Hintsa

CBRA carried out an AEO&MRA study for the Royal Thai Customs during 2012-13. It becomes public this week. Here is part 2/2 of the key results.

Thai AEO & MRA (1/2)

February 16, 2015/0 Comments/in Blog, CBRA, Supply chain security, WCO /by Juha Hintsa

CBRA carried out an AEO&MRA study for the Royal Thai Customs during 2012-13, it becomes public this week. Here is a sneak preview of the key results.

Towards Trusted Trade-lanes (CORE1207)

December 6, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All products, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, BMT, CBRA, CLECAT, Compliance management, CORE-Observatory, CPT, Customs, Customs risks, Data sharing, DCA, Demo-cluster, ESC, Exporter, Freight forwarder, Global, ILS, Importer, IRU, ISL, Manufacturer, Resilience, Risk management, Scientific, Shipper, Supply chain, Supply chain security, Systems based control, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Trade facilitation, Transport carrier, Trusted Trader, TUD, Warehouse keeper, WCO, WP1, WP10, WP11, WP12, WP13, WP14, WP15, WP16, WP17, WP9 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: The paper explores the concept of trusted trade-lane. In trusted trade-lanes operators implement an internal control system that makes possible to detect, handle and report dubious events in a way that meet requirements of customs agencies. Writers identify three essential characteristics of trusted trade-lanes: single partners are considered reliable and trustworthy, collaboration is based on long-term partnerships powered by viable business opportunities and managed by a clear decision-making mechanism, and control systems ensures integrity of traded goods and transferred data. In addition, the paper presents three alternative scenarios how the trusted partnerships can be designed in cross-border trade. The paper can be viewed here: https://pure.uvt.nl.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: The paper present recent developments in designing forms of partnerships that make possible to manage, predict and reconstruct supply chain operations and events. Customs agencies can use the control system to complete law enforcement and administrative tasks in a way they can reduce or even refrain from physical inspections and checks. The trading partners that have adopted the common control system and expanded it to the needs of regulatory bodies form trusted trade-lanes. Writers identify three essential characteristics of a trusted trade-lane. First, all partners operate transparently, reliable and trustworthy in their business relationships. Second, partners are committed in long-term collaboration that gives all partners opportunities to succeed. The government structure has clear decision making mechanisms and selected legal representative. Third, partners must implement and manage a control system that ensures integrity of transported goods and transformed data within the partners and to the authorities.

The writers design three alternatives how partnerships can evolve into trusted trade-lanes. First, a focal company can act as a supply chain orchestrator and provider technical infrastructure for use of trading partners and logistics operators. The focal company lodges customs declarations and risk information to customs administrations on behalf of the trusted trade-lane partners. In the second alternative, a service provider manages a peer-to-peer information platform that supply chain operators use to communicate between each other and with customs agencies. Data on the platform is reused for both commercial and regulatory purposes (piggy packing). Partners can join and leave the platform as they see appropriate. The platform uses open standards and database management systems. Third, a service provider offers additional ‘assurance’ services for legally independent companies of a specific industrial area. The service provider acts as a trusted trader and defines common rules and requirements for the membership.

The paper demonstrates preliminary results in the CORE project. The project partners adapt trusted trade-lane concept in their own concrete business and logistics processes as well as in their information systems. The models and scenarios are further amended and developed during the project.

Reference: Hulstijn, J., Hofman, W., Zomer, G., & Tan, Y-H. (2016). Towards trusted trade-lanes. In H. J. Scholl, O. Glassey, M. Janssen, & E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th IFIP E-Government conference (EGOV 2016): Electronic Government. (pp. 299-311). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 9820). Guimaraes, Portugal: Springer International Publishing.

CORE1207

[/s2If]

Conflict resolution in supply chain security, 2009 (CORE1202)

November 2, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All actors, All partners, All products, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Compliance management, Consulting, CORE-Observatory, Customs risks, Demo-cluster, Global, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Scientific, Supply chain, Supply chain security, Trade facilitation, Trusted Trader /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: The paper presents a mathematical tool for conflict resolution based on conflict modeling theories. Decision and policy making on supply chain security is sensitive to technical, political, environmental, ethical and economical aspects. What aspects are emphasized depends on whom we ask. Consequently, broadly endorsed decisions and policies require balancing between these dimensions. The presented conflict resolution approach identifies involved decision makers, their individual and collective goals and gives options how to agree on security interventions. A case study on trade facilitation and security enforcement illuminates the approach. The article can be purchased at: http://www.inderscienceonline.com.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: Conflicts are preprogrammed in supply chain security management, because different operators such as customs, port authorities, manufacturing companies, logistics providers and financial institutes collaborate with conflicting goals. For example, a purchasing manager can be interested in ordering products manufactured in high-risk country due to lower cost while security manager might assess risks related to the seller exceeding the potential benefits. Port operation manager aims at loading and unloading cargo swiftly and safely to and from vessels under time pressure, while port security dislikes the idea of expediting shipments at the cost of inspections. Supply chain security is a multidisciplinary issue that can be addressed efficiently only through agreeing about decision-making and policy-making mechanisms.

The paper focuses on resolution of strategic conflicts that result from the interaction of different stakeholders that collaborate with different emphases in global supply chains. The approach enables conflicting parties to focus on critical aspects of the conflict resolution process. It identifies the roles of involved decision makers, individual preferences and collective goals, underlying causes of conflict and options to achieve conflict resolution. In other words, it provides bases for cooperation and collaboration between involved parties. In addition, the paper introduces a mathematical tool for conflict resolution based on conflict modeling theories.

Decision supporting tools and port security management systems are developed in the CORE project, but they do not take into consideration possible conflicting goals in the decision-making. The CORE technologies and tools assist to mitigate identified negative threats and their consequences. However, negative effects have a threshold that must be exceeded to make different actors convinced about necessity of mitigation actions and controls. For example, estimated 0.2% annual profit loss due to possible security breach may give or not a reason to risk-profile suppliers or invest in container tracking systems. Especially when the questions are more strategic than operational the related decisions are prone to have conflicting interests. The CORE project does not try to address this problematic.

Reference: Lara Gracia, M. A., & Nof, S. Y. (2009). Conflict resolution in supply chain security. International Journal of Value Chain Management, 3(2), 168–186.

CORE1202

[/s2If]

The effect of supply chain security management on security performance in container shipping operations, 2012 (CORE1201)

October 31, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All actors, All partners, All products, All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, Capacity building, Compliance management, Consulting, Coordinated border management, CORE-Observatory, Customs risks, Demo-cluster, Global, Maritime, Resilience, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Safety, Scientific, Supply chain, Supply chain security, Systems based control, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Trade facilitation, Trusted Trader, WP1 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: The study creates a supply chain security framework that can be adapted on assessing how security management measures affect on safety and customs clearance performance in container shipping firms. Security management interventions are clustered in four categories: facility and cargo management, accident prevention and processing, information management, and partner relationship management. Findings indicated that container shipping firms that mainly focus on facility and cargo management and less on partner relationship management are generally more dissatisfied with their company’s customs clearance performance than companies that prioritize partnerships with governmental and commercial companies. The governmental agencies and commercial actors can employ supply chain security management framework, its attributes and dimensions in order to assess the supply chain security performance of container shipping firms. The reviewed document is available at: http://dx.doi.org.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: Several authors have clustered supply chain security measures into different categories, but only few authors have provided statistical models to test how well these categories can be used to assess benefits of security measures. The study establishes four security categories/dimensions: facility and cargo management, accident prevention and processing, information management, and partner relationship management. The results imply that partner relationship management is positively related to customs clearance performance. Further, information management and partner relationship management are positively related to safety performance. However, facility and cargo management and accident prevention and processing were not found to have substantial positive impacts on security performance what is controversial to many safety studies. Improved access control, material handling, information processing and reporting of anomalies are clearly factors that are positively related to safety performance based on several work place safety studies. The difference is probably due to questions that defined safety performance: the study addressed accidents and property damages while safety studies measure often near misses and their reporting.

The FP7 CORE project utilizes key performance Indicators (KPIs) to assess and monitor organization’s performance at the operational level. Two CORE KPI’s measure address safety and customs clearance performance, consequently the supply chain security framework can well be adapted on the CORE context. Improved access control, cargo handling, shipping information processing and reporting of anomalies can be measured by using the construct for ‘facility and cargo management’. CORE Training and education can be embedded into the factor ‘accident prevention and processing’ that captures documenting and disseminating of security information. ‘Partner relationship management’ can be tested as a mediating factor that controls how strongly implemented CORE interventions influence on organizational performance indicators in specific demonstrations. Customs agencies can consider using four dimensions of supply chain security as criteria for assessing security performance in container shipping firms. Finally the dimensions and attributes of the framework provide a tool to analyse qualitative data in the project where getting reliable quantitative data is challenging.

Reference: Ching‐Chiao Yang, Hsiao‐Hsuan Wei, “The effect of supply chain security management on security performance in container shipping operations”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss: 1, pp.74 – 85

CORE1201

[/s2If]

CASSANDRA compendium. Private sector perspectives on risk management (Ch. 5) and crime prevention and security management in supply chains (Ch. 6)

June 8, 2016/0 Comments/in All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, CORE-Observatory, Corruption, Counter-terrorism, Counterfeiting, Customs, Customs risks, Cybercrime, Deliverable, Document forgery, Environmental crime, Exporter, FP7, Fraud, Freight forwarder, Global, Hijacking, Human trafficking, Identity theft, Importer, Manufacturer, Money laundry, Other-cluster, Police, Retailer, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Shipper, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, Violence, Warehouse keeper, WP18, WP19, WP2, WP3, WP4 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: Chapters 5 & 6 of the CASSANDRA compendium provide a general overview on supply chain security risk management from the private sector perspective. Explaining the essentials of supply chain risk management, Chapter 5 introduces commonly used risk management models and tools (e.g., risk matrices and risk registers), discusses various classifications of supply chain risks, and elaborates current trends of risks and risk management in the supply chain context. Chapter 6 focuses on specific challenges of supply chain security risks – the risks that arise from intentional, man-made criminal activities such as terrorism, theft, trafficking, and sabotage. The chapter explains a few early classifications of supply chain security risks (e.g., motive-based typology and taxonomies based on private sector perspectives). Following the classifications of security risks, the chapter puts forth a few models for managing security risks in the supply chain context (e.g., the 8-layer model for supply chain security management). The chapter concludes with a detailed case study on security management of an international security company and a comparison of supply chain security management and the total quality management (TQM) management philosophy. The CASSANDRA compendium is available for download: www.cassandra-project.eu. Review by Toni Männistö (CBRA)

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: Previous observatory entries have already shown the relevance of the CASSANDRA compendium to the community of supply chain management professionals. The compendium’s chapters 5 & 6 give a brief summary of risk management and security risk management in the context of international supply chains. The contents of the chapters are relevant and useful for people involved in FP7 CORE project, especially for those involved in work packages 3 (Multi-method Threat and Vulnerability Analysis Suite) and 4 (SC Situational Awareness Tools & Maps).

Chapter 5 elaborates a set of common supply chain risk management tools. The model of Waters (2007) summarises rather obvious three steps of the risk management process: identifying risks, analysing risks and responding to risks. The model proposes, for example, that managers can identify supply chain risks through analysis of past events, collection of opinions, and through operational analysis. The model also calls for managerial attention to prerequisites of successful risk management – mutual trust, cooperation and information exchange among relevant stakeholders involved in supply chain management – and highlights importance of continuous monitoring and controlling the risk management process. The chapter concludes with the four classic approaches to risk management: risk avoidance, risk reduction, risk transfer (e.g., insurance and contractual agreements), and acceptance. The classifications of supply chain risks include typologies focusing on risk sources (natural hazards operational failure and terrorism), risk consequences (e.g., risk to operations, risk to reputation and risk to profits), and objects of vulnerability (e.g., information, materials, personnel and financial flows).

The chapter on crime prevention and security management (Ch. 6) in supply chains provides a concise summary on supply chain security management from the private sector perspective. The chapter starts by describing some early classifications of supply chain security risks. A motive-based taxonomy classifies such risks into the three categories: economic crime (profit as motive), other crime types (ideological, emotional and other reasons as motive) and facilitating crime that covers activities that do not bring direct crime benefits but help committing other rewarding crime crimes later on. (e.g., document fraud, bribery and use of intimidation). The chapter’s next section elaborates ways to mitigate security risks in the global supply chains, highlighting the key ideas of the so-called 8-layer model for supply chain security management (the model incorporates multiple aspects of risk assessment, hands-on design and planning, implementation of a variety of technologies, procedures, and incentives as well as preparation for dealing with the consequences of supply chain crime). The chapter provides also a case study with an international tobacco company that runs high security risk supply chain operations. The section also contrasts, rather interestingly, principles of security management against the fundaments of the total quality management (TQM) management philosophy. The chapter continues with a brief review of regulations (e.g., EU customs security and aviation security regulations) and standards on supply chain security management (World Customs Organization’s SAFE framework of standards, and industry standards of the Transported Asset Protection Association).

Reference

Hintsa, J. and Uronen, K. (Eds.) (2012), “Common assessment and analysis of risk in global supply chains “, Compendium of FP7-project CASSANDRA, Chapters 5 & 6

CORE2007

[/s2If]

Better Management of EU Borders through Cooperation, 2011 (CORE1114)

April 22, 2016/0 Comments/in All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, Compliance management, Consulting, Coordinated border management, CORE-Observatory, Counter-terrorism, Customs, Customs risks, Demo-cluster, EC, EU, Fraud, Investigations, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Scanning, Screening, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Trusted Trader, WP1, WP10, WP11, WP12, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: This report by the Center for the Study of Democracy investigates existing forms of cooperation between Border Guards and customs administrations in the European Union. The study highlights obstacles to cooperation and proposes solutions and best practices for overcoming them. The study finds that despite the common policy interest on border agency cooperation and the associated pan-European standardisation efforts, the individual Member states decide the extent and forms of customs-border guard co-operation on their own. As a result, the current state of border agency collaboration and potential for improvements differ substantially between the member states. The main differences arise from the institutional set-up (e.g., number and roles of border control agencies), powers and competencies of the border control agencies, and the legislative basis (especially legal differences in terms of privacy, data protection and confidentiality of trade information). Download the report here: http://ec.europa.eu. Review by Toni Männistö (CBRA)

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: The study concludes with a large number of recommendations for the European Union, the member states, and for the customs and border guards. The European Union should generate political will to act upon remaining challenges of border agency cooperation by creating awareness through public debates, communications and impact assessments. The EU bodies should act mediators to reconcile institutional interests of different border control agencies. The EU could also commission pilot projects on border agency cooperation, encourage joint training and increase funding of related research and development activities. Also the mandate of Frontex could be expanded to cover customs cooperation.

The individual member states should, according to the report, also mediate negotiations between border control agencies to overcome possible conflicts of interest. The member states should also evaluate impacts of various forms of customs-border guard cooperation.

The border guards and customs administrations themselves should identify and exchange best practices for strengthening their mutual collaboration. The agencies, the report recommends, should take responsibility for the pilot projects and for evaluating outcomes of the different forms of cooperation. To further improve the cooperation across the entire EU customs union, the customs and border control agencies should use Frontex more as their platform to conduct joint operations at the EU’s external border.

Reference: Center for the Study of Democracy, (2011), “Better Management of EU Borders through Cooperation”, Study to Identify Best Practices on the Cooperation Between Border Guards and Customs Administrations Working at the External Borders of the EU

CORE1114

[/s2If]

A Decade of GAO’s Supply Chain Security Oversight, 2015 (CORE1113)

April 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, CORE-Observatory, Corruption, Counter-terrorism, Customs, Customs risks, Data quality, Data sharing, Document forgery, Dual-use goods, EU, GAO, ISO28000, IT, Known Consignor, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Optimization, Police, Prohibited goods, Regulated Agent, Restricted goods, Risk management, Scanning, Scientific, Screening, Strategic goods, Supply chain security, TAPA, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Tracking, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, USA, Violence, WP1, WP17, WP19, WP2 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent government watchdog organization that has been publishing many reports on the US government’s supply chain security initiatives over the past ten years. This article reviews 25 most relevant GAO’s reports that discuss strengths, weaknesses and future challenges of the US policies and regulations on supply chain security. The review findings reveal interesting facts about similarities and differences of the US and the EU approaches to supply chain security. This comparison opens new venues for further Transatlantic benchmarking as well as harmonisation and mutual recognition of supply chain security programs. This review was conducted as part of European FP7-Project CORE. The reviewed document is available for download here: https://hicl.org. Review by Toni Männistö (CBRA)

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: The GAO reports suggest that the US administration has been struggling with effective performance monitoring and auditing of its supply chain security initiatives. The reports indicate that there is some confusion about costs of security initiatives for the government and for the business community. There is also a lack of common understanding about the actual benefits of many of these programs. The GAO reports also urge US government officials to adopt risk-based approach to supply chain security, for example to use information and intelligence to assess risk levels of specific shipments, people, trading companies, and other entities, and then employ security solutions that are commensurate to the risk level. The GAO reports also emphasize the importance of involving the industry in the process of defining new policies and regulations.

Altogether, the review team found that the GAO documents are not only highly relevant for SCS management and governance but also of high quality. The study concludes that it might be useful for the EU to establish a quality-assurance organization similar to the US GAO. This new EU body would oversee spending of the EU and its member states on supply chain security programs and projects and this way improve efficiency of such investments.

Reference: Männistö, T., and Hintsa J., (2015), “A Decade of GAO’s Supply Chain Security Oversight,” Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference in Logistics (HICL), September 24-25, 2015, Hamburg

CORE1113

[/s2If]

CEN Supply Chain Security — Good Practice Guide for Small and Medium Sized Operators, 2012 (CORE1030)

March 5, 2016/0 Comments/in Air, Airport, All transport modes, All-clusters, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, CORE-Observatory, Corruption, Counterfeiting, Cybercrime, Demo-cluster, DG MOVE, DG TAXUD, Document forgery, EC, Environmental crime, EU, Exporter, Express courier, Fraud, Freight forwarder, Hijacking, Human trafficking, Identity theft, Importer, Inland waterway, ISO28000, IT-cluster, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Maritime, Money laundry, Multi-modal, Other-cluster, Rail, Regulated Agent, Retailer, Risk-cluster, Road, Sea port, Shipper, Standard, Standardization, Supply chain security, TAPA, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Theft, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Violence, Warehouse keeper, WP1, WP10, WP11, WP12, WP13, WP14, WP15, WP16, WP17, WP18, WP19, WP2, WP20, WP21, WP22, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7, WP8, WP9 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: This is a guidance document for small and medium sized enterprises, SMEs. on how to apply a supply chain security approach to their operations in order to mitigate the risk of criminal activities. It gives an overview of the main crime types occurring in the supply chain along with some countermeasures, as well as the supply chain security initiatives, and the compliance requirements thereof. The document is available for purchase e.g. at: http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030258778 (link tested on 3 March 2016)

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: The recommended supply chain strategy rests on a six-step approach. The first step is to define a context for the supply chain, crime prevention and security management activities taking into consideration the security sensitiveness, the geography and transport modes, and the main stakeholders involved in the supply chain operation. The second step is to make a threat and vulnerability analysis with regard to terrorist and other criminal threats in the supply chain. The main criteria included are the gaps existing in enhanced security, the high-risk crime types, and the potential consequences of crime occurrences. The third step covers the regulatory framework, the major aspects being the regulations and programs required for successful business operations, expectations of customers and suppliers, requirements laid down by insurance providers, and relevant government authorities. The fourth step refers to an overall security plan, taking into account the physical security, data security, human resources security (including selection, training, and exit procedures), business partner security (including selection, and auditing), and process control and monitoring of deviations. The fifth step involves implementing into practice concrete security measures, investment in technologies, procurement of services, in-house solutions and so forth. The final step is to monitor and measure the security performance and take appropriate corrective actions.

Five supply chain crime types have been elucidated in this guide. These include: Property theft (cargo theft, intellectual property breaches); targeted damage (terrorism, sabotage); cross-border duty and tax fraud; illegitimate transporting, exporting and/or importing (smuggling of prohibited and restricted goods, people smuggling); and crime facilitation (document forgery, bogus companies, cybercrime). For each crime type, the main focus should be on the issue (main features and typical sectors/products involved), scope of the problem and actions to mitigate risks.

This guidebook has chosen eight security initiatives for illustration purposes. It explains the context of each initiative, whom it is meant for, and some basic requirements and the implications. These are as follows:

Import Control System (ICS) in the EU (a systems tool meant for the lodging and processing of Entry Summary Declarations, and for the exchange of messages across national customs agencies, economic operators and the European Commission).
Export Control System (ECS) in the EU (introduces EU procedures to computerize and control indirect exports and to implement the EU safety and security regulations);
Maritime Security Legislation, International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code in the EU (International regulations to ensure the security of maritime transportation are being issued by the International Maritime Organization, IMO, in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code);
Aviation Security Legislation, Air Cargo Supply Chains in the EU (three categories of aviation security legislation exist in the EU- Framework regulation, supplementing regulations, and implementing regulations-all targeted towards civil aviation security).
European Union Authorized Economic Operator, EU AEO (operators involved in international trade of goods certified as complying with WCO or equivalent supply chain security standards);
Regulated agent, Known consignor and Account consignor in the EU (Specific “trusted trader” status existing in the European air cargo supply chains);
ISO 28000 Series of Standards on Supply Chain Security Management Systems (address potential security issues at all stages of the supply process, e.g. terrorism, fraud and piracy);
Transported Asset Protection Association (TAPA) in Europe (fighting cargo crime using real-time intelligence and the latest preventative measures).

CORE1030

[/s2If]

SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY – CBP Works with International Entities to Promote Global Customs Security Standards and Initiatives, but Challenges Remain, GAO, August 2008 (CORE1009)

February 23, 2016/0 Comments/in All transport modes, Analytic, Authorized Economic Operator, CORE-Observatory, Corruption, Counter-terrorism, Customs, Customs risks, Demo-cluster, Document forgery, Fraud, GAO, Global, Government, Mutual Recognition Agreement, Other-cluster, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Scanning, Screening, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Trusted Trader, USA, WP10, WP11, WP12, WP13, WP14, WP15, WP16, WP17, WP19, WP2, WP3, WP9 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: This report discusses how the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has (1) contributed to international supply chain security standards and (2) promoted mutual recognition in the customs security area and (3) how the agency expects to implement the 100% scanning requirement of the containerized US-bound maritime cargo. The report provides a detailed outlook on the US customs supply chain security scheme, and it highlights challenges and problems that the US government faces in promoting its supply chain security strategy internationally. The development and the implementation of the World Customs Organization’s (WCO) SAFE Framework of Standards, a suite of best practices on customs security, is a central theme throughout this GAO report. Because of its broad scope, the customs-related supply chain security, this document contains information that is likely to be useful for all CORE work packages, and especially for those that involve customs administrations. The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/280/279730.pdf.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: This document provides a detailed outlook on customs-centric supply chain security from the US government’s perspective. This unique view on the customs security is going to be useful for the CORE’s early work packages that seek to describe the state-of-the-art of the global supply chain security. The information is also useful for the CORE demonstrations, in which customs administrations are involved. In particular, the demonstrations (WP9 and WP14) that are about US-bound trade and logistics benefit from the detailed description of the customs security initiatives that the US government has introduced since the 9/11 tragedy.

Cross-references:

Supply Chain Security: Challenges to Scanning 100 Percent of U.S.-Bound Cargo Containers. GAO-08-533T. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2008.
Supply Chain Security: Examinations of High-Risk Cargo at Foreign Seaports Have Increased, but Improved Data Collection and Performance Measures Are Needed. GAO-08-187. Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2008.
Maritime Security: The SAFE Port Act: Status and Implementation One Year Later. GAO-08-126T. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2007.
Maritime Security: One Year Later: A Progress Report on the SAFE Port Act. GAO-08-171T. Washington, D.C.: October 16, 2007.
Maritime Security: The SAFE Port Act and Efforts to Secure Our Nation’s Seaports. GAO-08-86T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2007.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Additional Actions Needed to Ensure Adequate Testing of Next Generation Radiation Detection Equipment. GAO-07-1247T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2007.
Maritime Security: Observations on Selected Aspects of the SAFE Port Act. GAO-07-754T. April 26, 2007.
Customs Revenue: Customs and Border Protection Needs to Improve Workforce Planning and Accountability. GAO-07-529. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2007.
Cargo Container Inspections: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Efforts to Improve the Automated Targeting System. GAO-06-591T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2006.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Efforts to Deploy Radiation Detection Equipment in the United States and in Other Countries. GAO-05-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005.
Container Security: A Flexible Staffing Model and Minimum Equipment Requirements Would Improve Overseas Targeting and Inspection Efforts. GAO-05-557. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2005.

Additional keywords: Mutual recognition, regulatory harmonization, 100% scanning legislation, SAFE framework of standards, World Customs Organizations, Authorized Economic Operators (AEO) programs, Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism

CORE1009

[/s2If]

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 889/2014 of 14 August 2014 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as regards recognition of the common security requirements under the regulated agent and known consignor programme and the Authorised Economic Operator programme, 2014 (CORE1069)

January 26, 2016/0 Comments/in Air, Airport, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, Compliance management, Coordinated border management, CORE-Observatory, Counter-terrorism, Customs, Demo-cluster, EC, EU, Exporter, Express courier, Government, Importer, Known Consignor, Mail operator, Manufacturer, Regulation, Risk-cluster, Shipper, Supply chain security, Tax evasion, Terrorism/destruction, Trade facilitation, Trafficking, Transport carrier, Transport security agency, Trusted Trader, Warehouse keeper, WP12, WP17, WP19, WP2, WP6 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: Existing customs Regulation ((EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code) and aviation legislation (Regulation (EC) No 300/2008) provides for certain recognition of the certifications under the respective programmes, in particular with regard to the security examinations done for each of them. Regulation (EU) No 889/2014 is necessary for the recognition of the known consignor status with its relevance for the AEO as well, frame the scope of recognition of the common requirements between the respective programmes and allow for the necessary exchange of information between customs and aviation authorities. The 889/2014 is available for download at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0889&from=EN.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 now provides that if the applicant for Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status is already a regulated agent or a known consignor, the criterion on ‘appropriate security and safety standards’ shall be deemed to be met in relation to the premises for which the economic operator obtained the status of regulated agent or known consignor. Points 6.3.1.2 and 6.4.1.2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (4) provide that the appropriate authority, or independent validator acting on its behalf, should take into account whether or not the applicant for regulated agent or known consignor is a holder of an AEO certificate.

The practical implementation of both the customs legislation governing the AEO status and the aviation legislation governing the regulated agent and known consignor has shown that the existing recognition between the programmes is not sufficient to ensure the highest possible synergies between the respective security programmes. The security requirements for both the aviation security regulated agent and known consignor programme and for the customs AEO programme are equivalent to such an extent that both programmes may be aligned further.

Further alignment of both programmes in terms of equal level of recognition, including required exchange of information is necessary in order to decrease the administrative burden for the economic sector concerned and government authorities (both customs and civil aviation) while strengthening further the current level of security.

Regulation (EU) No 889/2014 is necessary for the recognition of the known consignor status with its relevance for the AEO as well, frame the scope of recognition of the common requirements between the respective programmes and allow for the necessary exchange of information between customs and aviation authorities.

The issuing customs authority shall immediately make available to the appropriate national authority responsible for civil aviation security the following minimum information related to the status of authorised economic operator which it has at its disposal:

the AEO certificate – security and safety (AEOS) and AEO certificate – customs simplifications/security and safety (AEOF) including the name of the holder of the certificate and, where applicable, their amendment or revocation or the suspension of the status of authorised economic operator and the reasons therefore;
information about whether the specific site concerned has been visited by customs authorities, the date of the last visit and the purpose for the visit (authorisation process, reassessment, monitoring); and
any reassessments of AEOS and AEOF certificates and the results thereof.

Relevance for CORE: The CORE implementation objectives, which specify what will be done and how to reach the vision, are all subject to the Policies, Regulations, and Standards that exist within the Security Domain of the Global Supply Chain. The following Work Packages are directly impacted by the implementing regulation (EU) No 889/2014:

Research and Analysis: Undertake requirements analysis and impact assessment. The project will undertake requirements analysis from different perspectives. In WP1 we will consolidate reviews of SCS regulations policies and standards from Reference Projects and specify implementation support requirements.
The Demonstrators: The CORE demonstrators will validate the applicability and benefits of the CORE approach in representative operating scenarios characteristic of the global supply chain. They will specifically show the way towards a Global Secure Supply Chain. The overriding goal is to demonstrate substantial gains in security and facilitation covering every major facet of the supply chain security sector.

The CORE demonstrators affected by the implementing regulation (EU) No 889/2014 are:

WP12: Demonstrator Schiphol – apply global data pipeline concept to air cargo supply chains, managing air freight specific trade compliance requirements, and offering supply chain visibility in dashboards. Trade lanes with e.g. Africa, involving multiple inspection authorities.
WP17: DHL Demonstrator – managing airfreight trade compliance requirements EU-US in the context of fast supplying of parts.

Also, WP19 is affected here: Stakeholder Engagement – Knowledge Diffusion and Sustainable Development. Specify and apply an inclusive Stakeholder Engagement Strategy emphasizing international co-operation to promote harmonization of regulations, and to support further development and implementation of international standards.

Cross-references and citations:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/security/
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. EU Regulation establishing the Community Customs Code.
Regulation (EC) No 300/2008. EU Regulation on common rules in the field of civil aviation security allows that entities complying with certain conditions and requirements may be certified to ensure and contribute to a secure supply chain.
Barosso, J. (2014), “COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 889/2014 of 14 August 2014 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as regards recognition of the common security requirements under the regulated agent and known consignor programme and the Authorised Economic Operator programme”, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0889&from=EN.

CORE1069
[/s2If]

IT-enabled Resilient, Seamless and Secure Global Supply Chains: Introduction, Overview and Research Topics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, by Klievink, B., Zomer, G., 2015 (CORE2003)

December 22, 2015/0 Comments/in Academic, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, CORE-Observatory, Customs, Data quality, Data sharing, Global, IT, IT-cluster, Manufacturer, Resilience, Risk management, Scanning, Scientific, Screening, Shipper, Trade facilitation, Transport carrier, TUD, Warehouse keeper /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

Summary: How does IT innovation contribute towards development of secure, resilient and integrated international supply chains? This is the question that Bram and Zomer seek to address by examining research agendas of a set of past and present European supply chain projects. In their research paper, these authors identify three main areas of innovation – technology, supply chain risk concepts and collaboration and supervision concepts – that lead the way towards higher uptake of new IT technologies and services in the global supply chains. The authors argue that developers of modern IT-enabled supply chains should pay more regard on non-technical challenges that often hinder adoption of modern IT solutions. The study also introduces and discusses five research papers that will be presented at the fourth Workshop on IT-enabled Resilient, Seamless and Secure Global Supply Chains, WITNESS 2015. The full paper will be available in public domain by fall 2016.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

Full review: The paper provides a comprehensive outlook on innovation agendas that present EU 7^th framework supply chain projects follow. The study summarises CORE’s innovation goals and clarifies definitions and purposes of CORE key concepts such as the system-based supervision, supply chain resiliency and advanced data capture and sharing mechanisms. Therefore, the paper strengthens the conceptual basis of the CORE’s IT and risk management clusters. The CORE demonstrations will benefit from the paper indirectly if the IT and risk clusters refine the paper’s ideas and findings into applicable concepts that could be implemented in the demonstrations. The paper highlights three main areas of innovation that will likely improve security, resiliency and efficiency of the global supply in the future:

Technological innovation – The technological innovation focuses largely on IT-enabled capture and sharing of data among operators who are involved in end-to-end supply chains. Timely sharing of relevant and quality data is believed to support secure and efficient supply chain management because such data helps supply chain actors to detect faster logistics contingencies and disruptions and react to them. The higher data availability also supports use of modern sensor, track & trace and cargo screening technologies. For example, better information about cargo flows allow customs administrations to focus their screening activities on high-risk cargo.

Risk concepts – The data availability leads to higher visibility over the supply chain and empowers supply chain actors to regain control over cargo. The increased control helps the supply chain actors to detect faster to operational contingencies and disruptions.

Collaboration and supervision models – Risk-based approach to customs inspections is a departure from the 100% screening philosophy, under which every single shipment faces inspection. The modern risk-based approach disrupts less cross-border trade and commerce than the 100% screening because customs (and other border control agencies) select only a percentage of shipments, those that represent the highest risk, to inspection. Another new concept is system-based supervision, an approach that seeks to assess traders’ internal controls of customs compliance rather than conducting transaction-driven

Reference: Klievink, B., Zomer, G., 2015. IT-enabled Resilient, Seamless and Secure Global Supply Chains: Introduction, Overview and Research Topics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 443-453)

CORE2003

[/s2If]

Interviews

Interview with Mr. Boley, SC Johnson, Switzerland

November 17, 2016/0 Comments/in All partners, All transport modes, Authorized Economic Operator, Compliance management, Customs risks, Global, Interview, Interviews, Investigations, Manufacturer, Risk management, Risk-cluster, Supply chain, Supply chain security, TAPA, Theft, WP1 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

17.11.2016: Today’s CBRA Interview with Mr. Bill Boley focuses on supply chain security management at SC Johnson

Hi Bill, and thanks for joining CBRA Interview, here at the TAPA EMEA Conference in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

Good afternoon Juha, first I want to thank you and the CBRA team for all the great work you have done for the Supply Chain Security Community over the years. It seems that every time I attend an event CBRA is there…

We first met in 2008, and worked together on the World Bank Supply chain security guidebook, good ol’ times…. In your current job, which supply chain security standards and guidebooks your company follows?

Here at SC Johnson we actually first strive to meet the guidelines laid out in the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards. This is important for us as a global player, global citizen and manufacturer with many supply chains, to do our part in assisting Customs and Law Enforcement Agencies making the Global Supply Chain more safe and secure. At the same time, safe and secure supply chains support the overall optimisation and predictability, helping us to meet the customer and consumer demands. This is why we pursue the various AEO schemes already in place around the world, be it C-TPAT, EU AEO, or Kenyan AEO – in other words, we strive to certify so Customs can focus on the unknowns… At the warehouse level we have adapted the TAPA FSR standard as the “SCJ standard”. As a global company with many different nationalities, languages and moving parts both upstream and downstream a universal standard written for the practitioners is a key for us. It is also a requirement for our service providers and the transporters moving our product. Soon we will start to give preferential consideration to those service providers who have the TAPA TSR certification, as part of the contract award process.

What about information on actual threats and risks with your global supply chain – which sources you use for that?

As you are well aware, we are facing many threats around the world: stowaways, weapons and drug smuggling, hijackings, cyber threats particularly with the Internet of Things, and counterfeiting, just to name a few… At SC Johnson we are fortunate to have a buy-in from our C-Suite on the importance of Supply Chain Security programmes and tools we have been implementing. We have established a Global Security Operations Centre at our World Headquarters and, our Product Supply, Logistics, and Procurement Leaders around the world are very proactive on the topic of supply chain security. SCJ has actually built an own network of information providers such as BSI, IJet, OSAC, and of course Law Enforcement Agencies, as well as select Customs regimes. The TAPA IIS system, FreightWatch International, and yes, even CBRA, also feed into our information portal. Getting involved at every level to develop a community of interest on supply chain security is a key. As they say, it takes a network to defeat a network.

Can you share any stories on how these supply chain security standards and risk information have helped you to do your job as a SC Johnson supply chain security manager better?

Yes absolutely, most recently we fell victim to two separate events. One was facility related while the other was on transport. We conducted an analysis on how our mitigation measures failed, and it became evident that we lacked timely, accurate and relevant information to change our measure to adapt to the latest Modus Operandi of the criminal networks. Delivery times to our facilities, pick-ups, chain of custody, liaison with local Law Enforcement and audits of our service providers have been instrumental. In fact, just last week local Law Enforcement in Nigeria was able to interdict and recover a high value shipment, thanks to our close communication and cooperation with the Government of Nigeria.

Yesterday I briefed you about our on-going TAPA study titled “Total Cost of Cargo Theft (TCCT)”… Would your company be interested to join the study?

SC Johnson would be very receptive to taking part of this study. First, as we have suffered Supply chain losses there is a misunderstanding on what is covered by insurance or not. And, second, if we can then place a more precise value or declaration on what those stolen finished goods will cost outside of the retail value, that would be great. Loss of customers or at least their confidence in a non-delivery, recovering our full costs of production, investigative costs, etc. are just some of the cascading effects and costs we encounter.

Great news, thanks a lot Bill, for both the interview and for agreeing to join the TCCT-study! Juha.

Interview with Mr. Warwick on global security profession

May 20, 2016/0 Comments/in All transport modes, ASIS, Authorized Economic Operator, CBRA, EU, Global, Interviews, Risk management, Supply chain security, WP19 /by Vladlen Tsikolenko

20.5.2016: CBRA had the pleasure to interview Mr. Roger Warwick, who has over 40 years of hands on experience in the European and global security industry.

Hi Roger, and thanks for joining a CBRA interview. Can you first tell a bit about yourself, and your professional background?

I have been active in corporate security for over forty years with a background in both fraud investigations and security consulting. I studied economic crime investigative techniques at Jesus College, Cambridge annual workshops from 1990 to 1995 and certified CPP – protecting people, property and information – in 1999. I am British but for most of my career I have been based in Italy providing services to international corporations with business interests in Italy and Italian organisations operating in other countries. I am a frequent speaker at international security conferences on security and investigations topics.

We first met around 2005 in a CEN, European Committee for Standardization, supply chain security expert group – under CEN/BT/WG161, Protection and Security of the Citizen. I think you joined as the representative of UNI, the Italian Organization for Standardization – do you recall the good old days?

I certainly do. We were discussing a European response to the US C-TPAT and similar supply chain security programs in an attempt to find a unifying, user friendly system, for the secure international flow of goods – beyond the Customs driven EU AEO program. Following that I did more work regarding standards and qualified with RabQsa, now trading as Exemplar Global, as a Lead Auditor for security management systems, including ISO28000 and then as a certified Skill Examiner. By the way I audited, for ISO 28000, the DP World port in Peru. In 2013, on behalf of the Italian Government I developed a Critical Infrastructure Organisational Resilience standard that was later published by UNI.

You are also active in international security organizations and associations, including ASIS International. Can you tell bit more about them?

ASIS is a worldwide association of security professionals, first launched in the US in 1955. It has today over 38,000 members around the globe of which 3,000 in Europe. I put in a lot of work with the ASIS to get the association on the quality management standards track. I am a member of the Standards and Guidelines Commission which has already developed a number of security and organisational resilience standards, which are ISO compliant, including PSC1, Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations, which has been adopted by ICoCA, the International Code of Conduct Association for private security operations. We will soon begin to work on a Security Awareness -standard. My role in ASIS in Europe, is to the Chair of the EC Liaison Sub Committee, our aim being the promotion and consolidation of the voice of the security profession and security professionals within the EU.

Your main day job is with Pyramid International and with the TEMI Group, is that correct? Can you tell more about these companies, and the services you offer to your clients?

I am the CEO of Pyramid International ( www.pyramid.it ) which has been based in Italy for over 30 years. It is a corporate security and investigations organisation, which caters mainly for multinational corporations. We have grown to become the security point of reference for corporations trading in southern Europe. In 2008 I formed, together with long term colleagues and friends, each operating in their own jurisdiction around the world, Temi Group ( www.temigroup.com ), which has grown to be what we call the World’s furthest reaching security partnership. Recently we set up TGI, the Temi Group International Verein in Geneva, of which I am proud to be the Chairman. Our individual companies are each members of TGI and each is specialised in various security sectors and geographical areas. Pyramid International, together with Temi Group partners, is the coordinator of our Travel Risk Management services which are now active across the world, in particular Africa and Asia. We provide both management assistance and protective services. Our motto is “Safety for staff abroad means peace of mind for management at home.” We are founder members of ICoCA and have rapidly become a market leader for European companies; our customers are amongst Europe’s largest engineering corporations. They are well aware of the importance of duty of care and operating with organisations, such as ours, that not only are experienced and competent but are also certified and appropriately insured.

Well, good catching up with you Roger, and thanks a lot for the interview. Maybe we could start looking for opportunities regarding joint projects in the future, what do you think?

Thank you Juha very much for the opportunity. That would be great. Although we have moved on from protecting goods in the supply chain to the protection of people travelling and working abroad there are many affinities and I am sure that there are many projects we could work on together, in our usual productive manner!

Web resources:

CPP: https://www.asisonline.org

Exemplar Global: www.exemplarglobal.org

UNI Critical Infrastructure Organisational Resilience standard: http://catalogo.uni.com

ICoCA, the International Code of Conduct Association for private security operations: http://icoca.ch/

Pyramid International: www.pyramid.it

Temi Group: www.temigroup.com

Posts

Three new Senior Experts

First results from the WCO Cancun AEO benefit survey

EU logistics security – an interesting decade

AEO benefits, or, no benefits, that’s the?

Three calls for journal and conference papers

Thai AEO & MRA (2/2)

Thai AEO & MRA (1/2)

CORE-Observatory

Conflict resolution in supply chain security, 2009 (CORE1202)

The effect of supply chain security management on security performance in container shipping operations, 2012 (CORE1201)

CASSANDRA compendium. Private sector perspectives on risk management (Ch. 5) and crime prevention and security management in supply chains (Ch. 6)

Better Management of EU Borders through Cooperation, 2011 (CORE1114)

SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY – CBP Works with International Entities to Promote Global Customs Security Standards and Initiatives, but Challenges Remain, GAO, August 2008 (CORE1009)

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 889/2014 of 14 August 2014 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as regards recognition of the common security requirements under the regulated agent and known consignor programme and the Authorised Economic Operator programme, 2014 (CORE1069)

Interviews

Interview with Mr. Boley, SC Johnson, Switzerland

Interview with Mr. Warwick on global security profession

CONTACT US

INTERESTING LINKS

Search