Tag / shippers

by Mike Poverello

ZIM Successfully Pilots First Paperless Blockchain Bill of Lading

ZIM lines

ZIM, an Israeli container shipping company, has successfully completed a blockchain document exchange pilot for paperless bills of lading using blockchain-based software from Wave to send a document that acknowledged receipt of cargo for shipment.

Wave connects all members of the supply chain to a decentralized network and allows them a direct exchange of files.

During the trial, all participants issued, transferred and received original electronic documents using Wave’s application, which manages ownership of documents on the blockchain to eliminate disputes, forgeries and unnecessary risks.

The containers, shipped by Sparx Logistics from China to Canada, were delivered to the consignees “without a hitch”, reported ZIM in an announcement about its breakthrough.

ZIM said that it is “convinced” that the blockchain technology and the Wave application is “the solution that will drive the trade to the digital era”.

The new blockchain-based system developed by Wave uses distributed ledger technology to ensure that all parties can issue, transfer, endorse and manage shipping and trade related documents through a secure decentralized network.

Wave’s application is free for shippers, Importers and Traders and requires no IT or operational changes.

Source: Port Technology (20 Nov, 2017 )

Advertisement
by Mike Poverello

Maersk and IBM in joint “blockchain” venture – future of the shipping industry?

International trading involves many participants all around the globe. These participants may not necessarily have the needed trust of all parties, especially at the initial stages, when newcomers join the trade. Blockchain can provide the needed trust to capture key transaction activities as immutable records, as well as storing and sharing encrypted legal and financial documents.

Visibility of transaction records and documents are tightly controlled by blockchain, permitting sharing only among entrusted and allowed parties. In this demo, IBM demonstrates how blockchain may support such an application.

The blockchain solution being built by the two companies is expected to be made available to the ocean shipping industry later this year, according to a joint statement from International Business Machines Corp and the container unit of A.P. Moller-Maersk. It would help manage and track the paper trail of tens of millions of shipping containers globally by digitizing the supply chain process from end to end.

This will enhance transparency and make the sharing of information among trading partners more secure.

When adopted at scale, the solution based on the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger platform has the potential to save the industry billions of dollars, the companies said.

“Working closely with Maersk for years, we’ve long understood the challenges facing the supply chain and logistics industry and quickly recognized the opportunity for blockchain to provide massive savings when used broadly across the ocean shipping industry ecosystem,” said Bridget van Kralingen, senior vice president, industry platforms, at IBM.

IBM and Maersk intend to work with a network of shippers, freight forwarders, ocean carriers, ports and customs authorities to build the new global trade digitization product, the companies said.

The product is also designed to help reduce or eliminate fraud and errors and minimize the time products spend in the transit and shipping process.

For instance, Maersk found that in 2014, just a simple shipment of refrigerated goods from East Africa to Europe can go through nearly 30 people and organizations, including more than 200 different communications among them.

The new blockchain solution would enable the real-time exchange of original supply chain transactions and documents through a digital infrastructure that connects the participants within the network, according to IBM and Maersk. Source: Reuters

by Mike Poverello

US Retailers Question “Unfair” Container Fees

containeryard

The U.S. National Retail Federation (NRF) and a coalition representing retailers, manufacturers, truckers, transportation intermediaries and other business groups has asked the Federal Maritime Commission to set new policy preventing terminal operators and ocean carriers from charging unfair fees when uncontrollable incidents such as storms and strikes keep cargo from being picked up from ports on time.

“Recent events involving port congestion, labor strife, an ocean carrier bankruptcy, inclement weather and other disruption events have had crippling effects on U.S. ports and the stakeholders who rely on the efficient movement of goods,” the 25-member Coalition for Fair Port Practices said in a petition filed with the commission. During the incidents, storage and use charges have continued “even though shippers, consignees and drayage providers had no control over the events that caused the ports to be inaccessible and prevented them from retrieving their cargo or returning equipment.”

Cargo owners and trucking companies are normally given a certain number of free days to pick up containers of imported goods from ports after they have been unloaded from ships. After that, they can be charged demurrage, a fee intended to ensure that containers are removed quickly and efficiently. In addition, detention and per diem fees can be charged if the cargo containers and chassis used to haul them are not returned within a specified time.

That system was thrown into disarray this fall when the bankruptcy of South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping left cargo owners unable to pick up containers on time and later prevented them from returning containers and chassis, says the NRF.

Delays have also occurred during other port disruptions cited in the petition, including the 2014-2015 labor slowdown at West Coast ports and Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast in 2012.

The coalition said millions of dollars in fees have been charged during such incidents:

  • A retailer was charged $80,000 because it took up to nine days to retrieve containers when only four free days were allowed.
  • A trucking company was charged $1.2 million after long lines at New York and New Jersey ports kept it from returning containers on time.
  • A transportation company was charged $1.25 million after containers it tried to return were turned away at West Coast ports. The amount was eventually reduced to $250,000 but only a year after the company was forced to pay the fees upfront.

“Shippers, consignees and drayage providers do not create and cannot avoid these events,” the group said. “They cannot control the weather. They do not choose the terminals that carriers use. They are not parties to port labor collective bargaining agreements.”

The federal Shipping Act requires that the fees and related practices be “just and reasonable.” The petition asks the FMC to adopt a policy that would require free days to be extended during times of port congestion, weather-related events, port disruptions or delays caused by government actions or requirements beyond the control of the parties picking up or returning containers. Demurrage and similar fees charged during such incidents would be declared “unreasonable.” In some cases, “compensatory” fees could be charged provided that they did not exceed actual storage or equipment use costs. The proposed policy would apply to ocean carriers and marine terminal operators. Source: Maritime Executive

by Mike Poverello

US goes its own way on container weighing

World Cargo News reports  – While the Coast Guard maintains the US will be compliant with the SOLAS amendment on container weighing, US Shippers are interpreting guidance from US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Paul Thomas as confirmation they can continue with existing practice to declare the weight of their goods rather than weigh containers.

Following to the fallout over his comments at the Trans Pacific Maritime conference in Long Beach this month, Rear Admiral’s Thomas issued further guidance on the SOLAS amendment that requires containers to have a Verified Gross Mass before they are loaded on a vessel from 1 July.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) has since confirmed that SOLAS is binding on US shippers, but stated that how shippers work with carriers to obtain and report a VGM is a commercial matter for those parties to determine.

Some US shippers, including the US Agriculture Transport Coalition (ATC), have made it known it is not practical for them to supply, and be responsible for anything other than the weight of the cargo, as they do today. The Coast Guard appears to be facilitating this approach, and the ATC last month told its members it “received confirmation” from USCG that shippers can continue to verify the weight of the goods they own, while lines remain responsible for the weight of the container.

On March 14 some 49 groups and associations representing US primary producers, manufacturers, importers and shipper groups wrote to Coast Guard Commandant Paul Zukunft saying they support its “interpretation” of the SOLAS amendment, as presented by Rear Admiral Tomas in his blog.

“Specifically, we support the Admiral’s view that if the shipper provides the cargo mass weight, to which the carrier adds the weight of the container, then the intent of SOLAS is achieved. In fact, several ocean carrier executives have advised that such a process would be practical.”

Some carriers, however, have rightly pointed out that this does not meet the SOLAS requirement, as the letter then notes: “The reason for our concern, and appreciation of Admiral Thomas’ guidance, is that some ocean carriers, citing this SOLAS amendment, are demanding that the shipper certify both the cargo and the carrier’s container. This is contrary to the practical realities of our US export maritime commerce and fundamentally flawed conceptually. (It would be similar to demanding that a soybean shipper certify to the railroad the weight of the railcar itself.)”

The groups maintain that they “fully understand our responsibility to accurately disclose the weights of cargo tendered to the ocean carriers. In fact, advance submission of accurate gross cargo weight is a well-established practice mandated by US Customs and Border Protection, by numerous intermodal (trucking and rail) weight requirements, and presently found in Shipper’s Instructions to carriers to meet so-called “no doc, no load” cargo cutoffs for entry into marine terminals. In addition, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rule, in place since 1983, assures that the accurate weight of combined cargo and container be known to the carrier prior to loading.”

Despite SOLAS, the shipper groups do not see a need to weigh individual containers and suggest other solutions can be found: “for instance, shippers are willing to provide to their carriers an annual written confirmation in the service contract (or other mutually-agreed document) that our cargo weights are accurate”.

One of the major concerns is liability, in particular the requirement that someone now sign a VGM document. Shippers say carrier demands for this are being rejected. Many US Corporations will not allow their employee to certify the weight of and assume liability for equipment that the corporation does not own, manage, control and in fact may not even see.”

The Coast Guard, for its part, does not appear to be pushing the issue of current practice not meeting the new SOLAS requirements.

In his testimony at the US House Committee on Transport and Infrastructure’s hearing for the Coast Guard’s 2017 Budget request Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, USG made the following statement: “Foreign carriers are pretty much all in compliance today. When I was at the container terminal in Long Beach a month and half ago all the containers that come on to that yard are already weighed before they go in. So I am not seeing a sky is falling panacea playing out around us, but we need to make sure that there aren’t unintended consequences. That is why we are continuing to reach out with the many exporters…that container shows up on a manifest before it is loaded on a ship. What is needed is that final weight, but by and large most of these manifests already have that weight filled in in that column.”

The US, it appears, intends to continue to follow current practice where the shipper provides a declared weight of the cargo, leaving it to the carrier to determine the final weight of the container. Source: World Cargo News

by Mike Poverello

Freight Forwarders and 3PL’s to bear the burden of IMO Box Weighing Rules

Container weighingThe responsibility for verifying the gross weight of loaded containers under next year’s new box-weighing rules will in many cases rest with freight forwarders, logistics operators or NVOCCs, according to freight transport insurance specialist TT Club.

Welcoming the initiative of the World Shipping Council (WSC) in its recent publication of guidelines to the industry in relation to implementing the SOLAS requirements that become mandatory on 1 July 2016, TT Club noted that unlike the CTU Code, which forensically seeks to identify the chain of responsibility for everyone involved in the movement of freight, the amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) mandating the verification of gross mass of container overtly only names the ‘shipper’, the ‘master’ and the ‘terminal representative’, and – by implication – the competent authorities.

TT Club said the complex nature of logistics means that the term ‘shipper’ may encompass a range of people involved in the contracting, packing and transporting of cargo. However, as stated in the WSC guidance, it said the key commercial relationship in question is with the person whose name is placed on the ocean carrier’s bill of lading.

“Thus, in many cases, the responsibility for actual ‘verified’ declaration will rest with a freight forwarder, logistics operator or NVOC. This means that often reliance will have to be placed on others to have adequate certified methods to provide verified gross mass – particularly for consolidation business,” TT Club said.

It noted that of course many suppliers of homogenous shipments will already have advanced systems, which merely require some form of national certification, adding: “Apart from having a sustainable method by which the gross mass is verified, the shipper also needs to communicate it (‘signed’ meaning that there is an accountable person) in advance of the vessel’s stow plan being prepared.

“The information will be sent by the shipper to the carrier, but with joint service arrangements there may be a number of carriers involved, with one taking responsibility to consolidate the manifest information, in addition to communication with the terminal.”
It said the ‘master’ comprises a number of functions within the carrier’s organisation.

“Implicit in the SOLAS amendment is that the carrier sets in place processes that ensure that verified gross mass is available and used in planning the ship stow,” TT Club said. “Arguably, each carrier will need to amend systems and processes to capture ‘verified’ information.

“However, the simplest might be to amend the booking process, so that the gross mass information is left blank in the system until ‘verified’ data are available. This will be effective if it is clearly understood by all partner lines and terminals with whom the line communicates.”

TT Club said the explicit obligation of the master was simply that he shall not load a container for which a verified gross mass is not available. “This does not mean that one with a verified gross mass is guaranteed to be loaded, since that would derogate from the traditional rights of a master,” the insurance specialist added.

Recognising the pivotal nature of the port interface, it noted that the ‘terminal representative’ has been drawn into the new regulation as a key recipient of information for ship stow planning “and, critically, in a joint and several responsibility not to load on board a ship if a verified gross mass is not available”.

It added: “There has been considerable debate as to whether terminals need to position themselves to be able to weigh containers, not least because of the cost of creating appropriate infrastructure, and amending systems and procedures, with uncertain return on investment. In addition there are commonly incidences of containers packed at the port, in which case the terminal activities could include assisting the shipper in producing the verified gross mass.

“The SOLAS amendment places responsibility on national administrations to implement appropriate standards for calibration and ways of certifying. The overtly named parties rely on this to work smoothly and, preferably, consistently on a global basis.”
TT Club said clarity of such processes needed to be matched by consistency in enforcement. “Talk of ‘tolerances’ is disingenuous,” it said. “SOLAS calls for accuracy. Everyone appreciates that some cargo and packing material may be hygroscopic, thereby potentially increasing mass during the journey, but that need not mask fraudulent activity, nor entice over-zealous enforcement.”

It said the UK Marine Guidance Note may be instructive here, stating that enforcement action will only be volunteered where the difference between documented and actual weight exceeds a threshold. TT Club concluded: “It is suggested that key measures of success of the revised SOLAS regulation will include not only safety of containerised movements, but also free movement of boxes through all modes of surface transport, and a shift in behaviour and culture throughout the unit load industry.”

by Mike Poverello

Smart Containers – making headway

loginno3Technology once again demonstrates that it not only ‘enables’ but can also provide companies a ‘differentiator’ to get ahead of the competition – at least for a while. This is the second such innovation in recent weeks which addresses the needs of international shippers and logistics operators in meeting stringent security requirements while at the same time offering a compelling solution for supply chain auditability and the management of their assets. Furthermore, with more and more countries offering authorised economic operator (AEO) programs these same shippers and logistics operators will in the longer term enjoy a certain comfort from such technology investments through swifter customs clearance or green-lane treatment.

Two leading intra-Asia box lines are switching their entire container fleet to smart containers as they attempt to differentiate themselves from competitors. Hong Kong-based SITC Shipping Group and SIPG container shipping arm Hai Hua have both announced they will upgrade their entire container fleet to smart containers using products from Loginno. SITC, which has a fleet of 66 vessels with a total capacity approaching 2m teu, said it had decided to use smart containers to try to offer customers a different service to other carriers.

SITC Shipping Group Xue MingYuan said: “In a market with more and more homogeneous services, we have to think about why our customers would choose us over others.

“Being among the first to offer, as a standard service on all of our containers, full insight into their cargo movements and security, for a very low additional cost, we differentiate ourselves instantly, and hopefully save our customers a lot of logistic costs in their supply chain.”

This view was echoed by Hai Hua general manager JP Wang: “We have been looking for an affordable means to convert our fleet to smart containers. Shippers and Cargo owners have been long waiting for this service.”

Smart container technology has been around for a few years, but the cost of the technology and fears of damage and theft of the equipment has been enough to discourage its widespread take up. There have also been concerns from shipping lines about how to monetize the technology.

But the industry is gradually increasing its use of the technology. CMA CGM just recently announced a major initiative to introduce smart container technology to its fleet. Loginno chief technology officer Amit Aflalo said its device, which is slightly larger than a mobile phone, was inexpensive and easy to install. The device offers GPS, temperature monitoring, intrusion detection and a movement detector and can provide updates to mobile phones. Source: Lloyds Loading / Loginno

by Mike Poverello

FIATA urges Forwarders to challenge ‘unjustified’ shipping line surcharges

international%20shipping%20surcharges-resized-600The international trade association that represents the world’s freight forwarders and logistics service providers, FIATA, has called on container shipping lines to provide greater clarity on the ever increasing variety of surcharges that they apply.

Robert Keen, chairman of FIATA’s Multimodal Transport Institute, said in a statement that forwarders were accustomed to currency and fuel surcharges, but needed more transparency for many of the other surcharges, “often with questionable names and purposes”, that are levied on freight forwarders.

“In the past, we have seen administration fees, peak season surcharges, or ISPS-add on surcharges,” Keen said. “Of late, we have had examples of container cleaning fees and container sealing fees, without any evidence of the expense actually being incurred.”

It is a recurring complaint among forwarders and shippers that have long accused the carriers of using surcharges as revenue streams rather than the cost recovery mechanisms for which they are purportedly imposed.

“It is time for freight forwarders to stop accepting at face value opaque and unjustified surcharges,” said Keen, who is also director general of the British International Freight Association (BIFA).

Keen highlighted the congestion that is currently plaguing many ports around the world.

“There have also been recent examples of port congestion surcharges caused by labour unrest; and haulage surcharges resulting from HGV driver shortages, which is difficult to understand as there is no explanation and little justification for an additional charge for a service that the container line is finding difficult to provide,” he said.

The Hong Kong Shippers’ Council has also taken a dim view of the surcharges being levied on shippers using the Kwai Chung container terminals. Willy Lin, chairman of the council, said the port congestion surcharge introduced by shipping lines in the intra-Asia trade on October 19 was “unacceptable and unjustifiable.” Sources: Lloyds and JOC

by Mike Poverello

US Bank launches freight payment ‘first’

e-invoicingUS Bank, part of the fifth-largest commercial bank in the United States, is launching a payment solution in Europe aimed at the freight industry that it said will allow shippers to hold on to cash longer while accelerating payments to carriers.

The bank’s subsidiary, Elavon Freight Payment, claimed it was the first solution of its kind for the freight industry in Europe. In addition to allowing shippers to hold onto their money longer while accelerating payment to their carriers, it claimed the solution “offers carriers a cost-effective alternative to factoring and other financing options commonly used in Europe today”.

It said the new trade finance capability joined a suite of recent enhancements to Elavon Freight Payment that reflect Europe’s diverse business, legal and regulatory environments. “The offering provides an automated solution for some of Europe’s most labour-intensive freight-payment processing needs, including VAT support and consolidated invoice processing”, the company said. Customers can choose German, French, or English-language platforms.

“As a financial institution, Elavon Freight Payment is uniquely positioned to offer this efficient method of improving cash flow for both shippers and carriers,” said Rick Erickson, global director of Freight Payment Solutions for US Bank. “We’re excited to expand our industry-leading capabilities to a wider range of customers.”

A division of US Bank’s Corporate Payments business, Elavon Freight Payment claims to give users greater visibility into their global transport spend “and more complete, timely data with which to make business decisions”. In addition to improving processing efficiencies for European shipping operations, it said the expanded system reduces costs by automating manual processing and optimizing cash flow. Source: Lloydsloadinglist.com

Also view the following article – US bank launches e-invoice base freight payment trade finance service (www.eeiplatform.com)

by Mike Poverello

Outlook and reliability of African ports in question

Port of Mombasa

Port of Mombasa

The reliability of African ports for import and export traffic is likely to deteriorate before getting better, according to Portoverview.com which advises importers, exporters and traders in planning their supply chain to and from the continent.

Speaking earlier this week at the Cool Logistics Conference in Cape Town, Africa. Portoverview.com’s Victor Shieh said almost 2,000 incidents were recorded on its portal over the last 16 months, with an average of one weather-related incident per day for South Africa alone.

Current congestion issues will remain a problem whilst port infrastructure is renewed over the next years. However, we see African hinterland connections beyond the terminal gates as the biggest challenge facing shippers,” Shieh emphasised.

In a study presented at the conference, road and rail construction as well as investment in port infrastructure were identified as the main positive developments recorded on the portal.

Greenfield sites along the African coast are cited as having the greatest potential to improve cargo efficiency. Projects such as the 2.5 million teu site at Lekki in Nigeria and the 5 million teu expansion at Tangier-Med, in Morocco, will require similar investments on the intermodal leg to succeed.

Recent research by SeaIntel Maritime Analysis, which is co-owner of the portal, revealed that African exporters have no more than an average 60% chance that their containers will arrive on time in Asia with the percentage falling to 55% for Europe.

“For shippers – especially ones who produce and distribute perishable products – that’s a real challenge” commented Morten Berg Thomsen, a shipping analyst at SeaIntel.

Helen Palmer, director, Sutcliffe’s Maritime, a UK-based shipping agent told Lloyd’s Loading List.com that as far as ro-ro traffic was concerned she was not aware of any serious congestion and delays into African ports

“I can’t speak for box traffic but in the case of ro-ro into ports such as Mombasa, in East Africa, transit is extremely smooth with trucks waiting on the quayside as soon as the ship’s ramp comes down. Dar es Salaam, is perhaps a little less straightforward but certainly nothing major,” she said. Source: Lloydsloaddinglist.com

by Mike Poverello

Why 2013 Is the Time to Adopt e-Invoicing

e-Invoicing INTTRA

Rod Agona, Managing Director, Electronic Invoicing, INTTRA explains three reasons why it is time for ocean carriers and shippers to say goodbye to paper. This follows the recent announcement by IATA on the introduction of its eAWB initiative.

In a digital age where a delay of seconds or one human error can be the cause of lost revenue, wasted resources or unhappy customers, good technology becomes critical to run a business.

Twelve years after the ocean shipping industry adopted e-commerce tools that resulted in an average savings of $100,000 per year and hundreds of thousands of labor hours per week, the final step in the shipping process – invoicing and payment – are still catching up. Surprisingly, invoices are still largely processed by hand in the ocean shipping sector. Considered the most tedious and costly step in the shipping process, manual invoicing can take days to complete and is often riddled with disputes and errors. And the amount of time it takes to manage disputes is more than anyone is comfortable admitting – knowing each delayed payment impacts carrier cash flow and creates dissatisfied shipping customers.

With electronic invoicing (e-Invoicing), there is a potential 50-80 percent cost savings according to the E-Invoicing/E-Billing 2012 Report from the international e-billing firm, Billentis, and the payment process is significantly shortened with DSO (days sales outstanding) typically decreasing by up to 10 days. Error rates are also greatly reduced, and customer satisfaction increased.

Although e-Invoicing as a trend has picked up rapidly in government and commercial sectors in the past three years (growing at a rate of 20 percent last year, according to the Billentis report), many in the ocean shipping sector are just catching wind of the benefits. Popularity among players is expected to grow this year – both on the biller and payer sides. Three reasons for the industry’s recent e-Invoicing surge are:

1. Demand Is at a Record High

At least 81 percent of the world’s largest shippers are requesting electronic invoices from their carriers in 2013, says a 2012 global shipping study conducted by INTTRA, the world’s largest ocean shipping network. The demand to move away from paper invoicing has never been greater, with shippers claiming to be “ready now and actively seeking e-Invoicing from their business partners.”

2. Proven to Lower Costs and Speed Internal Operations

Shippers’ biggest complaints with paper invoicing are 1) managing disputes, 2) the time and costs required to process invoices, and 3) correcting invoice inaccuracies. e-Invoicing is proven to alleviate these concerns by streamlining the entire settlement process, improving accuracy, and reducing the costs and labor required to process manual invoices. Payers end up happier as a result, receiving faster and improved communications and lowering the true total cost of doing business. For carriers, e-Invoicing is proven to cut costs and improve cash flow and working capital – and investments are often gained back within six months.

Both shippers and carriers want a solution to better manage high-volume transactions. Imagine spending millions of dollars on a global SAP (or equivalent) rollout and still manually keying in a half-million invoices per year. There is a better way.

3. It May Soon Be Mandatory (if it isn’t already)

Shipping companies are trying to keep up with rapidly changing local and international trade regulations, and e-commerce shipping is the smart way to stay compliant. Countries like Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have already made electronic invoicing mandatory for all business-to-government transactions. Most others in Europe, North America and Australia are increasingly adopting electronic invoicing due to its cost-saving benefits.

Companies that act today put themselves at a competitive advantage as they are able to put their savings back to work and redirect employees engaged in manual processing to higher value tasks.

Looking Forward – 2013 and Beyond

The tipping point for when a technology ‘best practice’ becomes a ‘must have’ is never clear-cut – until an industry struggles as much as ours has. Change is hard, but for an industry with few proven solutions to remove costs, e-Invoicing is a viable, must-have solution.

2013 is a critical year for the ocean shipping industry. It is expected to be a year of major change in the way carriers and shippers do business. Competition is growing fiercer, and the industry continues to consolidate. e-Invoicing is one way to cut costs and reallocate dollars to where they are needed most in today’s challenging environment. Source: Maritime-Executive.com

For information, visit http://www.inttra.com/e-invoicing.