An issue of basic honesty

The issue of weight misdeclaration in containerised trade reared its head again in IFW’s sister publication Lloyd’s List on three occasions in three days in January. 

The TT Club welcomes this focus on a subject that has not been resolved and has exercised many over the years. The Club last wrote on this in TT Talk Edition 121 (item 2) of 29 July 2009: http://www.ttclub.com/ttclub/public.nsf/html/MGRY-6VLLXA?OpenDocument

There is a small number of high-profile cases that have been investigated by maritime administrations – notably the UK’s MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch). The MSC Napoli provided a unique opportunity to validate the weight declaration of the deckload and, on this issue, the MAIB reported that 20% of the deck stow (alone) differed by more than 3 tonnes from the declared weight, and that the deadload was about 1,250 tonnes – the equivalent of say 60 laden 20ft containers – on departure from the load port, concluding that this element “erodes or eliminates the safety margins” concerning the stability of the ship.

The two other MAIB investigations of note concern the Annabella and Husky Trader, both of which have observed slightly different issues concerning the flow of information – particularly when it is amended – in relation, respectively, to container strength and cargo weight. And it is the response to the initial findings on Husky Trader that has generated the latest media interest, reporting that Maersk Line is developing software to enable it to compare declared weight for a particular shipment against the average for the declared commodity. A mismatch will prompt the line to check the box in question and not load it if there is significant difference.

The article in Lloyd’s List on 13 January profiled another smart innovation, which the Club has been monitoring for four years as it has progressed from “bench trials” to full service use in a small number of marine terminal operations around the world. The load-sensing technology, developed by Lemantec International, appears in one sweep to have the capability to answer a number of issues that have troubled risk managers. The patented twistlock system, which can be installed in any terminal handling equipment, precisely measures the total weight as well as the weight on each twistlock, including for twinlift and tandem handling operations.

It has the capability to assist in identifying misdeclared containers and show load eccentricity – that may also indicate improper cargo stowage. It confirms whether all twistlocks are engaged, and will detect if the container is snagged in the cell guides or still secured on a road or rail chassis, among other things. All in all, this could be analogous to the seat belt safety advance in road vehicles and may become standard within the next decade.

It has proved easy to confuse misdeclaration with the application of health and safety rules in the port area. An overweight box, that is, one that is loaded beyond its safe working load (SWL), is a separate and serious issue. While even twinlift operations are unlikely to compromise the capability of port equipment, the freight container itself is vulnerable to such overloads. However, the misdeclarations previously referred to involved weights that were well below the SWL of the container (for example,10 tonnes declared, actual weight 12 tonnes).

In both instances, however, correct declaration is what is needed and required. Evidence of actual weight could be required, where such facilities exist, or the terminal, in collaboration with its shipping company customers, could arrange to check weight. However, the Club’s continuing concern is that the essential responsibility of the shipper to declare cargo is being blurred by suggesting that nodal points in the supply chain, such as terminals, assume this responsibility, whereas they can only provide a check on the truth of what is declared.

It is perplexing that carriers – which, after all, earn their crust essentially on weight and cube – seem reluctant to enforce their rights under carriage contracts when the shipper fails to comply with one of his core international convention obligations. It is, at heart, an issue of basic honesty as to what is in the box.

Apart from major incidents such as those mentioned, it only takes one misdeclared, poorly stowed or badly secured container to kill some hapless pedestrian as a road rig unexpectedly rolls over on a corner, or where the floor falls out during rail carriage and causes a derailment. In major maritime accidents, the 20% discrepancy could easily cause instability or grounding.

Is the dream of 100% accuracy too much to ask? The shipper knows what he loads in the container – he should expect to take the consequences where there is a discrepancy. This is the contractual responsibility, and liner operators should take concerted action to enforce their rights. And then the lines can expect terminal operators to step-up to help enforce.

This article also appears in TT Talk Edition 125. TT Talk is published by the TT Club http://www.ttclub.com