How uneven cargo inspection and enforcement is putting cargo safety at risk

This week, the World Transport Council re -published and published a consolidated report on the results of the container inspection programs based on Finland, Canada, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Chile, Germany, the Republic of Korea and the United States.

As the report passed, I noticed some significant inequalities in the safety of containers across countries.

The results are not just their number, they expose a fundamental question to them: Can global load safety be harmonious if the results depend strongly to geography?

Show the results of the issue of the issue:

Inequality

If we look at this simple table we can see it

• The Netherlands, which was run under 15 million TEU in 2023, inspected 0.008 % of its total volume and Found approximately 55 % deficient
• US with more than three times the power, 0.085 % of its total volume, but Found only 10 % deficiencyVat
• Korea with double volume of Dutch, 0.023 % of its total volume and Found only 3 % deficient

Does this mean that the Dutch inspection regime is much harder and complete than others, or whether customers carrying inside and outside the United States follow protocols, or is some governments use inspections as extensive checks while others adopt risk -based targeting.

This inequality emphasizes a systemic issue: Freight safety is measured, mandatory or guaranteed in the same way around the world.

The container that passes the inspection in one country may be banned or vice versa .. This incompatibility is the weakest bond in the chain.

Variance in the report

By saying this, it is also important to verify data set constraints. Less than 5 % of national governments regularly report inspection results to IMOWhich weakens the ability to draw the intercept of the country.

The difference in methodology, sampling and reporting methods may reduce benchmark efforts.

Remember this exercise was already done by IMO and is now obtained by WSC.

According to the report, the defect shape of 2024 is from 11.39 % a little of the final shape of 2023 imo out of 11 %.

These include hazardous and unlawful goods, inaccurate documentation and incorrect packaging-all of which can lead to serious safety accidents, including ship fire.

“The safety of the load begins with the correct notice and the safe packaging of the goods,“Joe Karimak, President and CEO of the World Transport Council, on their website ..

“The gap in freight safety is very common. Loading deficiencies of crew, ship, cargo and environment at risk“Karimak added

Disputes do not mean that some countries are “very hard” and others are “too slow”.

“With only the seven ports of the port currently reporting, there is a chance for more governments to help their data, enhance the global image, and help make it safer for everyone.“Kramek added ..

Possible solutions

Based on the deficiencies specified by the report, three of the most prominent solutions are:

1. Coordination of inspections
   • Inspection criteria, methods and reporting must be standardized globally. Defects must mean what is recorded in Rotterdam, Busan or Los Angeles.
2. Digitalization to eliminate common errors
   • Approximately half of all defects worldwide are included in the documentation (913 cases) and placard/brand (4,373 cases).
   • These can be prevented by declarations of electronic hazardous goods, automatic labeling and electronic business documents.
3. Clarity and common learning
   • Currently, inspection data is fragmented by the country. A global reporting platform allows the ports and regulators to identify and learn the weaknesses of the systemic and learn from each other’s findings.

The period of action

WSC inspection data is more than one compliance report, a roadmap for corrective measures.

• For regulators:
  • Align inspection standards under IMO frameworks
  • Agree on the format of the joint report
  • Share inspection data in real -time to identify trends
• For carriers and transport:
  • Invest in digital adaptation tools to cut paperwork and label
  • Build internal audit systems that simulate inspection checks before arriving
  • Train employees in particular about the segregation and documentation of dangerous goods
• For industry institutions:
  • Pressure on a global freight safety index that combines inspection results across the jurisdiction
  • Promoting coordination as a priority of the collective industry, not just a national responsibility

Call for action

Disputes in Inspection Results – 55 % in the Netherlands, 10 % in the United States, 3 % in Korea – are not abnormal ..

They are a warning sign.

For logistics and transport leaders, its consequences are obvious:

• Don’t be comfortable in the “good” percentage, they may reflect more than the safety of the method
• Press to coordinate and digitize the gap between the jurisdictions
• Not only focus on high -frequency paper errors, but also on low frequency failures such as separation and structural integration.

Freight safety cannot remain a local issue in a globalized system. Unless the weakest links are reinforced, the industry continues to rely on rough implementation and hopes that the next big event will not be precisely exposed to the fact that this system is really fragile.

Related