Page 55: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Jan/Feb 2019)

Cruise Ports Annual

Read this page in Pdf, Flash or Html5 edition of Jan/Feb 2019 Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine

AAPA recommendations AAPA Survey: Sustainable funding for PSgP Needed • Fund the PSGP at a minimum of AAPA members identifed $4 billion in port security fund- $400 million annually. ing needs for U.S. port authorities alone over the next 10 • Keep the administration of the Port Security Grant years, which comes to $400 million annually. But the $4 bil- Program in FEMA. lion in port authority needs is just a small slice of the total • Designate within the Notice of Funding Opportunity potential funding need. AAPA represents 79 U.S ports, and that a minimum of 50 percent of the PSGP allocation while these port areas are the major freight and passenger ac- be awarded to projects submitted by public port cess points for the country, there are 281 other ports of varying authorities and law enforcement and emergency sizes throughout the country that are also eligible to utilize the response agencies directly responsible for the PSGP. Within those 361 ports, there are over 3,500 MTSA day-to-day safety and security of the port complex. regulated facilities that continue to have security challenges, • Focus funding on the latest and emerging threats such as cybersecurity and other evolving threats, and need to our ports, to include cybersecurity, active shooter funding assistance to properly mitigate the risks.

and drones. Furthermore, according to FEMA, over the past 10 years • Conduct in coordination with each COTP an only approximately 25 percent of annual PSGP funding went updated port wide risk assessment. directly to port authorities. Public sector frst responders such • Mandate that the local Grant Field Review as police, fre and emergency management services account Teams (GFRT) have equal representation of all for 60 percent of the annual program funding. This means that stakeholder groups including local port authorities more is being spent on response capabilities than on aware- and representatives of the container, petrochemical, ness, prevention and protection measures. This survey makes ferry, cruise or other impacted sectors as appropriate. the case that after more than a decade, the focus and resources • Protocols should be established so that a member of need to revert to public port authorities.

the GFRT cannot vote or comment on their own The $4 billion identifed by AAPA members is an important grant application. starting point for the PSGP, but it does not represent the total need for the program.

The Importance of the Port Security grant Program

According to AAPA, ports are essential economic engines how the PSgP Works whose cargo activity support over 23 million American For several years, PSGP funding has been utilized to ad- jobs and accounts for over a quarter of the U.S. economy. dress security needs outlined in a port’s Strategic Risk Man-

In 2014, U.S. seaports generated nearly $4.6 trillion in total agement Plan (SRMP). Initially, these plans were blueprints economic activity. for ports to follow, but they have not been updated in more

A port authority’s operating model varies from port to port. than a decade. Meanwhile, the threats have evolved. Further-

Some ports own and operate cargo terminals, while others more, port security project funding goes through a rigorous lease their equipment and pier space to private operators. local review and national risk evaluation process. Ultimately,

Others engage in a combination or hybrid of both activities. each local Captain of the Port (COTP) and their staff provide

Additionally, the types of cargo that move through ports vary the fnal recommendation for their maritime region’s project widely. Containers, automobiles, energy commodities, break priorities before they are submitted to FEMA. FEMA relies bulk and passengers are a few examples. All port business on COTPs to verify PSGP maritime security needs and to rank models have varying security needs; however, the one con- their region’s projects. Primarily, FEMA follows the guidance stant at every port is the commitment to security to ensure the of the COTP, but as resources have dwindled, FEMA has been safe movement of all types of cargo and people. unable to fund all COTP-recommended projects.

From a security perspective, ports are a place of commerce, The framework for a collaborative process is in place. The business centers within the global supply chain. Ports have peer review process has been a keystone in FEMA’s adminis- multiple access points that make security challenging – be it tering of the PSGP, which coordinates ports, their partners and ship, truck, rail, visitor/employee entrances and increasingly the localized input of the 43 Area Maritime Security Commit- the business networks that are vulnerable to cyberattacks – tees that feed into the 41 COTP zones. However, the State of these access points must be secured. Because of the central Freight IV Port Security Grant Program Report and follow-up role ports play within the supply chain, any disruption or se- conversations with port security grant applicants found that curity vulnerability is magnifed and has the potential to put while the level of collaboration, information sharing, and proj- in motion a cascading economic disruption that impacts the ect management is signifcant and continues throughout the supply chain and the national economy. year, ports are not receiving suffcient port security funding. 55


Maritime Logistics Professional

Maritime Logistics Professional magazine is published six times annually.