Meanwhile, a global survey from the London-based Federation of National Associations of Ship Brokers and Agents finds many countries have failed to take action at national level to ensure the IMO container weight requirement can be met.
Southern California marine terminals say they are unable to help shippers obtain the container weights they need to comply with the new requirement to do so under the International Maritime Organization’s Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention when it goes into effect this summer.
The West Coast Marine Terminal Operators Agreement (WCMTOA) announced Friday night that all 13 of its members “are incapable of providing verified gross mass (VGM) weighing services that adhere to the SOLAS guidelines scheduled to go into effect on July 1.”
The SOLAS “verified gross mass” (VGM) rule will require shippers to notify ocean carriers of the weight of containers before they are loaded onto a ship.
WCMTOA said it made the announcement because of “the lack of terminal infrastructure necessary to obtain VGMs using the methods specified within the guideline amendments.” The group added that individual member terminals will establish and communicate their own policies for handling VGM procedures at their respective terminals.
The World Shipping Council, the primary trade association that represents container carriers, declined to comment on the WCMTOA announcement.
Peter Friedmann, the executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said the U.S. Coast Guard “has clearly and repeatedly stated that VGM can be legally provided to the terminals in various ways, probably including having the terminals weigh the loaded container.”
The National Waterfront Employers Association (NAWE) has taken the position that the best practice is for containers not to be received inside the gate of container terminals without the VGM being transmitted in advance, but that members were free to do so if they thought it made sense, according to John E. Crowley, Jr., executive director of the national trade association of stevedoring companies and terminal operators.
“I’m not aware of any of our members that have explored and decided to pursue a business opportunity to the contrary,” he said, adding that he did know of any terminal operator whose weighing practice today would satisfy the SOLAS requirements.
Every terminal has a different layout, space constraints, business processes, and gate issues, but if an operator wanted to offer such as service at its facility, it would likely require more time and space to accomplish, said Crowley.
While the IMO guidelines for the SOLAS rule discuss how the VGM could be obtained by weighing a container while on a road vehicle and then subtracting the tare mass of a trailer or chassis (and where applicable the tractor), Crowley said, “I picture it like every export box going through the trouble desk.”
“Terminal operators have not been able to see that that makes sense to take on as a business opportunity, particularly today when congestion is such a great concern through the ports,” he said.
With congestion already a problem at many ports, Crowley said people should be asking whether they want terminals to take on yet another function.
NAWE explains on its website that the SOLAS rule means “from the marine terminal operator’s (MTO) position in the supply chain this means that the carrier (the MTO’s customer) will continue to provide Electronic Data Information (EDI) for all cargo to be handled by the MTO, but to now include the shipper’s verified weight.”
The South Carolina Ports Authority said Monday it would “continue our current practice of weighing all export containers coming into our gates. If individual shippers would like this data, we will consider providing it.”
Friedmann complained “best practices” for compliance with the SOLAS regulation put forth by the 18 container carriers that are members Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) last month amounted to an “Alice in Wonderland” approach.
“Only in Alice in Wonderland, would the carrier insist that the shipper ask the carrier, by going on the carrier’s website, for the tare weight of the container, and then certify to the carrier what the tare weight of the container is,” said Friedmann.
“And only in Alice in Wonderland would carriers who say this is all required due to ‘safety’ concerns, tell the shippers that the weight that they certify does not have to be accurate. And only in Wonderland, would the carrier executives who actually know how cargo moves turn over the determination of acceptable VGM practices to their lawyers who do not actually know how the cargo moves.
“We believe that unless carriers let their operations folks who really know how cargo moves, meet directly with their shipper/customers to find a method that works (without letting OCEMA talk for them), we are going to see exactly the costly and disruptive calamity predicted by the investment bank.”
A recent report by investment firm Cowen and Co. said the SOLAS regulation could lead to “confusion and slow world trade during implementation in July,” as well as increase the cost to ship a container by $50 to $150.
Meanwhile, the London-based Federation of National Associations of Ship Brokers and Agents (FONASBA) said a survey of it members about readiness for implementation of the container weight requirement found “that with just three months to go before the 1st July deadline, the situation varies widely across more than 50 countries represented in FONASBA membership.”
“Of particular concern at this late stage is that eighteen associations have advised that no guidance has been issued on the practical application of the measures in the country concerned,” FONASBA said in a summary of the survey results. “This situation has been exacerbated by the failure, until very recently in some cases, of governments to nominate the designated authority.
“In terms of actually weighing the containers, many countries state that whilst Method 1 (using a weighbridge) is expected to account for a significant proportion of all declarations, they also frequently report that the weighbridges necessary to achieve this are few in number and often in poor condition,” the group added.
“Whilst a small number of respondents have indicated that some alternative weighing facilities are being introduced at ports – for example using calibrated equipment fitted to cranes, straddle carriers or similar – the majority report that traditional weighbridges are the only means currently available. Where these exist, however, many are reported as being out of service or in need of overhaul Another common comment is that there are not enough weighbridges available to meet the anticipated demand after implementation.”
FONASBA further found, “Only in a very small number of countries are all containers regularly weighed. Elsewhere, occasional weighing does take place but usually as a result of other factors, such as for customs purposes, to ensure road or rail vehicles are not overloaded and similar. There is no clear correlation between commodity type and the obligation to weigh.
“The cost of weighing the container also varies widely, with figures from free of charge to €200 being quoted. Similarly, for Method 2 (calculating the weight by the sum of the parts), there is evidence that in many cases no provision has been made to ensure the process is regulated or undertaken in accordance with agreed principles,” it said.
“It is staggering that with such little time left before implementation, a significant number of countries had so far failed to take action at national level to ensure that the required measures will be in place on time,” said John Foord, the designated president of FONASBA.
“It is worrying that at this late stage ship agents, forwarders and shippers in many countries still lack appropriate guidance as to how they should comply.
“As supporters of the accurate verification of container weights since its initial proposal, FONASBA’s members have been proactive in working with their national authorities and the container transport chain to ensure the measures are in place in good time and so it is frustrating that little or no progress has been made in some countries,” he added.
Foord called the rule “one of the most important developments in maritime transport since the introduction of the container itself,” adding that “the potential for significant disruption on July 1 (or even earlier in the case of some transhipment containers) is considerable.”
“The shipping lines are adamant that from that date containers presented for loading without a certificate of verified gross mass will not be carried onboard their vessels and no amount of posturing by shippers or, in some cases national authorities, will change that,” he said.
Many large U.S. trading partners – China, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, and India, for example – were not included in the survey including. Jonathan C. Williams, the general manager of FONASBA explained that the China association declined to respond and the other countries do not have FONASBA members.
L.A./Long Beach port terminals ‘incapable’ of weighing boxes for SOLAS compliance
