World Trade - November 2008 - (Page 44)

SECURITY How Target Handles Security Like other Tier-3 CTPAT comcompanies—such as Nike, panies, Target Corporation APL, Maersk, and Lowe’s— incorporates strict security that Target connects with on a standards into all of its vendor regular basis. “They are doing agreements, says William similar initiatives and many of Tenney, Hong Kong-based group us are employing similar techmanager of Assets Protection niques—not exact, because International. “We view secueveryone’s supply chain is rity as part of a holistic vendor different. Many of us share process.” the same factories and we are Target vendors must adhere examining whether to estabto exacting standards in safety, lish a common audit standard security, manufacturing capafor our common vendors. Right bilities, quality assurance, now, we all audit to C-TPAT criand ethical assurance, notes teria, but our audits may not Security personnel monitoring truckers entering and leaving APL’s Global Gateway Tenney. “Our goal for security look the same. We think we North marine terminal at the Port of Seattle. has been not to have it be a can better secure our collective supply chains by being more efﬁcient ‘bolt-on,’ but to be an integral part of the mom-and-pop vendors,” explains Tenney. “By in this process and, where necessary, bring vendor process.” consolidating that process, we have greater more collective power to bear is someone is Target achieves greater visibility and concontrol over the standards those inland not meeting security standards.” trol, especially over the notoriously risky trucking companies are using.” The retailers Tenney collaborates with are inland drayage leg of the supply chain, Tenney adds that Target’s consolidators are companies that have had high-level secuthrough a process called FCA—or Free Car- a critical piece to international supply chain rity standards in place for years. “They have rier At—meaning Target takes possession security. “We require them to be C-TPATcompany strategies and brands to protect. of goods at foreign factories. “We bring our certiﬁed, and they help add another layer But I would not pretend to say that every economies of scale to bear and secure inland of eyes and ears on the ground, helping us company who imports thinks the same way trucking contracts instead of having our manage those risks in inland drayage.” that this group of companies does.” vendors individually going out and ﬁnding Tenney emphasizes that there are many APL include the expensive equipment and IT infrastructure required to transmit data back to the U.S. “There are also political challenges,” Owen says. “There has been signiﬁcant pushback from the international community,” notes Owen, “because it runs counter to the risk-management approach with its multiple layers that we have employed since 9/11.” Of about 700 seaports that ship to the U.S., ﬁfty-eight locations currently operate under CSI. Owen says these 58 locations account for 86 percent of maritime cargo to the U.S., so there are some very small ports around the world where 100 percent scanning will be required by 2012. Nevertheless, CBP must respond to the legislation, and it is focusing on high-risk trade corridors for initial deployments. “We think this makes the most sense because it supplements the existing security layers we already have in place like C-TPAT and CSI,” Owen says. The port industry is still awaiting clariﬁcation from the government informing where responsibility will fall in implementing 100 percent scanning. “We need to know the costs and the operational impacts,” says Cummings. “We have to ensure these resource commitments are proportional to the risks because resources are not unlimited.” Nagle at AAPA reports provisions in the 100 percent scanning mandate allow the Department of Homeland Security to grant waivers for up to two-year renewable increments if it can certify that the technology is not 44 WORLD TRADE NOVEMBER 2008 available and/or would signiﬁcantly impact the movement of trade. “They also need to determine if a program like this can be accomplished through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with our trading partners. With all of these caveats, we think it is imperative that programs like C-TPAT, CSI, and various pilot programs established under the SAFE (Security and Accountability For Every) Port Act of 2006, be continued while determining the next level of effective security.” 10+2 rule The 10+2 rule (part of CBP’s Secure Freight Initiative) raises concerns about a unilateral approach that could impede on the sovereignty of other countries. It requires 12 additional pieces of information on cargo entering the U.S. on such things as the manufacturer, seller, consolidator, buyer and ship to names and addresses, container stufﬁng location, and country of origin of goods. “But it’s not really good, clean data until it is ﬁnalized because the data changes before the actual shipments occur,” Woodard argues. He points to the 24-Hour Advance Manifest Rule that is working successfully using clean data. Donnelly reports that NAM is playing a major role in objecting to the 10+2 rule. “This has the potential of adding a few extra days of sitting in a foreign port. And, cargo at rest is cargo at risk. This also could very quickly cost companies billions of dollars on a cumulative annual basis,” he warns.

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of World Trade - November 2008

World Trade - November 2008 Contents Unexpected Responses to Unanticipated Change Reading the States of Risk in Today’s Global Economy Supply Chain Watch Tradewinds Failed Promise: Mexico and NAFTA, 15 Years Later The Short Tale Marrying Trade Finance and Transportation into a Single Transaction Trucking Gets a Double Whammy Are We Safe Yet? Logistics Resurrects the Rust Belt Keep on Compressing

World Trade - November 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.