Become very, very pleased that we succeeded in Europe.
Peter Cook here to Oxford to speak to our on the topic.
At first glance it looks rather simple, but the closer you look at it, the more complex and interesting it actually becomes.
Everyone seems to know about Somali pirates and what the issue is,
and most people in the field agree that private security companies are at least part of the solution.
The most famous one liner is No Ship Secure Fire.
Private security has never been hijacked. It's still valid at this point, I think.
Well, not all as well in the field of private maritime security.
An industry like this unregulated, brand new attracts cowboys.
The clients often have no means of finding out who is this private security company I'm dealing with in my hiring.
Yet to get on board my ship with a couple of guns and they don't know how these companies have acquired their own public transport them.
What precisely the rules of engagement are, especially regarding the use of force on international waters in various territorial waters.
Working under various criminal law jurisdictions. Some of you will have heard of the incident off the Indian coast May, February of last year,
where Italian security guards shot allegedly shot Indian fishermen off the of the Indian coast.
And the Indians were quite enraged about this.
And it turned into a state affair almost immediately because in this case, the Marines were were part of the Italian army.
So now the dispute is at the point where Italy is pondering whether to sue India in front of the International Court of Justice.
Now, we can imagine that a private security company would be in a much weaker position if engaged in a similar dispute.
So it is more and more recognised that there is a real need for regulation.
And and the Security Association for the Maritime Industry found that in May 2011
he is leading the case for regulation to be developed from within the industry.
That of course is no easy undertaking because of the IMO and a large number of nation states are drafting regulations.
At the same time, sometimes jointly, sometimes completely independently of each other.
So we're not really listening to a man who is living a political science regulation case study every day of his life.
So who is Peter Cook? Peter Cook was the student at the nautical school before joining the Royal Marines in 1981.
Spent 24 years as a Royal Marine rising to the rank of major.
Peter was involved in all aspects of maritime security, from maritime counter-terrorism to formulating counter-piracy policy and procedures.
Left the coast in 2005, briefly worked for a hedge fund and then formed his own consultancy and worked in maritime security.
One interesting fact is that Lloyd's recently published the list of the 100 most influential people in the shipping industry,
and Peter Cook ranked 19th. So are we are we happy tonight?
We're having someone who knows what he's talking about and knows the industry from the inside and who is at the very cutting
edge of the current developments regarding regulation of private maritime security companies and looking forward to be useful.
Thank you very much. Well, thanks very much for that introduction, ladies and gentlemen.
And it's actually a great pleasure for me to come here and talk this afternoon, and I've been looking forward to it.
Now, what I'm going to aim to do is talk really for about half an hour, because I think in a situation like this, we have a lot more questions.
Maritime security, on the face of it is very simple.
But actually, once you begin to scrape away what is happening, it becomes amazingly complex.
And I'm going to try and make sure that I bring that out.
And when I was looking at the website and I noticed that the purpose of these talks is to elucidate,
explicate, explicate and educate about a new subject.
I'm going to endeavour to do that as I go through the presentation today and for the bits that I missed.
We can leave that for questions. Okay. So what am I going to talk about?
I'm going to give you a quick background about the maritime security industry and then talk about the maritime industry,
because it is absolutely key that once you start talking about maritime security, you understand the client and their drivers, what makes them work?
Why do they do what they do and then talk about the differences between land security and maritime security,
the evolution of the process, and where we stand in the evolutionary process right now.
How will international compliance be achieved?
And another hot topic, and there are lots around at the moment, rules of engagement versus rules, the use of force.
Right. So without further ado, three key facts here that people tend to forget.
Now, when I was in the Royal Marines, we got told this all the time. And it's something you can't have.
Sea blindness, 70% that's over two thirds of the surface of the globe is covered in sea.
Most of that is the high seas.
That means it is in many ways ungoverned state, ungoverned space.
80% of the population of the world live within 60 miles of 100 kilometres a day of the sea.
Bearing in mind that the population has passed 7 billion on its way to 90 and 90 plus percent of all trade moves by sea.
So the sea is absolutely key to everything that we do.
Oops. She just got back. Right.
The permanent maritime security industry. Is it the new industry?
Well, I think it must be, because when I was doing a bit of research, I thought, well, let's see what Wikipedia says about it.
They don't they haven't actually identified the maritime security industry as existing, even though,
interestingly enough, it brings approximately £50 million into this country every month.
That's half a billion pounds a year more than. So it is is there.
It's happening, but it is.
And, you know, the first real private maritime security companies did exist and started up in the 1970s.
One of the oldest one starts then, but they really worked in kind of Nigeria's.
Rather than them having a big chunk of the market, there wasn't really that much of a requirement for them.
And the kind of things that they did was providing security or security guidance for cruise liners, providing people that went on board there.
Because once you put 2000 people into a very small enclosed space, keep them there for three weeks and feed them lots of alcohol.
You get the inevitable problems,
but also the clearance of unexploded ordnance under water and little things like that that really required in this area.
However, as a result of the terrorist attacks in 911,
the International Maritime Organisation decided that they needed to draft a new set of regulations
so that a similar kind of thing couldn't happen with a large oceangoing ship going into a port.
And so they drew up very swiftly the international ships and port security code, the ISP's, which came into action in 2004.
And this was really the first explosion of maritime security companies where we saw
them establish so they could train people in what to do in this particular area.
And then really the most recent explosion of companies that we have seen is all to do with the increase in piracy,
particularly off the east coast of Africa. Now, in summary, we estimate that there are in excess of 200 companies out there.
At the moment we have 178 companies from 37 countries on our books.
But it is a bit difficult to tell because companies appear and disappear like contacts on a radar screen.
There is no consistency about it,
and people will start one company out and then it will disappear because they can't get trade or for whatever reason.
Is that too many? Yes, it is. My prediction is that this is a very conservative one, but that 200 companies will be around about 50 within 18 months.
So I think we are going to see a significant reduction and that I'll be able to
link that line with another problem that we'll have later on that I'll touch on.
So we do see a maturation of the industry.
Everything has been happening very quickly in the maritime security industry and so therefore I see that shrink happening quite quickly as well.
But maritime security is a growth industry.
The International Chamber of Shipping, which is an organisation that represents most of the main nation chambers of shipping, including the UK,
U.S. and lots of others predict that over the next 20 years the volume of
trade moving by sea is going to increase by 50% over the same period of time,
the Western Navy is going to shrink by 30%. You don't need to be a mathematician to work out why the capability gap.
Is there a cruise line? A fleet between 2620 ten increase their capacity to carry passengers by 50%.
Today, there are more than 520,000 people on cruise liners at sea.
Okay. Some of them are ashore in various locations, but you get what I'm saying, that's growing the cruise liner industry.
And I've recently been talking to a whole bunch of company security officers for Carnival and Royal Caribbean,
and they are more or less overwhelmed with business right now.
Very, very popular. You don't just have cruise liners for the Silver Generation, shall we say.
But you have to do the honours that cater for all kinds of things, families.
Many of them are casinos out in the Far East, floating casinos.
There's all kinds of things that they have around the world. There are also more than four and a half thousand superyachts.
200 of those are helicopter capable and the largest ones are bigger than Type 45 destroyer.
And the top jobs for building superyachts right now are at capacity.
And the second hand market is, if you will excuse the pun, buoyant.
So that's there, the money is there, it's moving. And each of those particular customers, whether you're talking about a commercial ship,
a cruise liner or ferry or a superyacht, requires very different kinds of security from the offshore oil and gas business.
Well, the global first oil and gas is unquenchable.
And as the price of oil goes up, inevitably the of some of the offshore reserves are going to be tapped.
When you look at the 52 nations that are currently undeveloped, 67% of which have a coastline and where they lie.
And you then put that template over the next one, which is where the reserves are.
And there's a lot of overlap. And last, by no means least port facilities.
There are over 8000 ports around the world. Population is growing, as we all know, scarcity of resources.
The easiest place to get hold of the cargoes in the port before goes on the ship after it's just come off.
On the other interesting statistics about the way the population is growing right now with a population of 7 million,
the middle class around about 1 billion.
By the time we get to 9 billion, the middle class will be 3 billion.
In order for middle class to grow at that speed, they need two things to be move around in significant quantities, both by sea.
One is steel, iron ore, and the other one is coal and gas to make steel and electricity.
All of that has to be moved by sea. But it is global.
These are the acts of piracy and robbery at sea for 2012.
Of the 278 that are identified there, only 71 of them were actually in the Indian Ocean or the Northwest Indian Ocean.
Should I say the high risk area, which is this area here?
Okay. The Somali pirates in the two hot spots right now where more is going on than anywhere else which is being reported.
And that is a key phrase here.
South China Sea, from West Africa to areas of very different kinds of legislation and challenges that have to be overcome.
One thing I would mention, though, here in this particular area is there is a concern, a significant concern that there is a lack of reporting.
I think there's always been a lack of reporting, but I think that's increasing.
Among the reasons why that is increasing is because of the and really looks.
She was taken alongside her alongside seven waves, but only did not get any money back for that costing more than $3 million.
Okay. When I was talking to a bunch of shipowners a few weeks ago about the concern about underreporting after a couple of glass of wine,
and they've been saying, oh, yes, you know, this happened but haven't ever happened, have a glass of wine.
Why would you report? We've got nothing to gain out of report and put the insurance on it.
It means that we'll have to pay more for security.
And if we report an incident, we may have to go into a port and they will be held that an investigation to be carried out.
We lose a cargo, we lose all kind of things. It just costs us money.
And right now, the maritime industry is under significant financial stress and the container market is just one example.
And this is meant to be one of the best barometers. The container market is one third over by burdened with capacity.
All right. Many of those companies are fighting for their lives.
And so whenever you begin to fight for your life, you make decisions that will mean you'll be able to continue being at sea.
So therefore, that's why they have this attitude of want to report.
You'll never get completely accurate reporting anywhere. There is no way that I think you can force them to do that.
So what are the drivers for the commercial shipping industry?
And let's just look at the commercial shipping industry at the moment, because these are the guys that are hit really by piracy.
There are three stakeholder groups at the head.
You have the shipping companies, so the ship owner, the operator and manager on the charterers.
So the guy that owns the box runs the box and fills the box.
Okay. Then you have the flag states, the vast majority of which are open registries.
They are commercial entities and not necessarily nation states. I'll give you a couple of examples here.
The third largest flag state is the Marshall Islands have $85 million on their books, which is just over two and a half thousand homes.
Marshall Islands itself geographically is 5000 square miles in the Pacific Ocean to the northeast of Australia.
Like 80% of their GDP. From the registry.
The registry is run from an office in a place called Reston, which is just outside the beltway in Washington.
It is a commercial company.
While the example, there was a Danish company that was hit by power ups in 2008, end of 20 1944, then they were only held for six weeks.
But at the end of that, that particular company, quite a large company, said, Right, okay, we're not going to have that happen again.
How security officer, do we ensure that none of our ships get taken ever again?
Because the catastrophic effect on the company is so great.
We just cannot afford and we don't want that to happen again. We don't want our CFO or staff to go through that again.
And the security officer said, Well,
the only way that we know that we can guarantee or disclose guarantee as possible is to have armed guards on board.
And they said, fine. Now, unusually for this particular company, every single one of those ships was flagged on the same flag.
And so the company went along to the flag and said, right, okay,
as a result of what happened, we're going on the flight said, you can't we don't allow it.
Somebody said, we're changing flight, which the other thing you can do,
just like changing from the air to the icing and the flying chat room, it was 24 hours.
They changed the laws and commercial entities.
And the third area down here is marine insurance. Everybody is trying to cut costs.
And this one, the areas that they can cut costs by doing things right.
Now, the interesting thing about all of these, those three main points, not one is a government.
This is all about making money. All right.
And that is one of the big differences that people find quite difficult to to
understand and be very interested to hear what Richard has to say about this.
I'm trying to be slightly controversial here, but really just trying to push something.
And the thing is, when I talk to shipowners and these guys about this, they agree on right now,
the glue that holds this thing together is the International Maritime Organisation.
That's an agency of the United Nations. I'll talk about them more later on.
There are other factors that are important coastal states. They obviously have an influence on what happens.
The master crew and the biggest union in the world called the International Transport Workers Federation.
And yet as a membership by 100,000 people, they do influence things as well.
But these are the main three, by the way.
So let's enclose CDW, a nice piece of talk that was later on.
There are a set of regulations. But maritime security is not the same as land security.
Interestingly enough, this is a direct quote from one of the main land security companies in the United Kingdom.
They made lots of money out of being in Iraq. I'm not going to tell you which one it was.
You might be able to guess. One of the main directors said this to me.
They don't even appear in maritime security because they do not understand the maritime industry.
I'm going to return to that quite a few times. But land security, single jurisdiction, maritime security, multi jurisdiction.
You get onto a ship in Singapore, you go to Rotterdam, you go through 16 different jurisdictions, including the flag that you're saving on.
That makes things very complex on land, limited stakeholders on a container ship.
And you've got to if you want a container ship that holds 15,025 to use with over 14,000 different
business interests makes it quite complex if you think about things in a different way.
And with land is a political drive to get a desired end state, whether it be Afghanistan or whatever.
In shipping, they just want a commercial continue. They don't want anything to stop, they just need to keep it going.
That's how globalisation will keep going. We, we don't have a warehouse culture anymore.
We need stuff to be continually moving into the country by sea.
There are significant number of government contracts after we are in the 10th anniversary year of the second Gulf War and
the number of government contracts that were handed out to main security companies as a result of that war was significant.
There are no government contracts and I'm saying that all private or commercial contracts.
These are the differences.
And it does actually paint a very, very different picture if you're walking into it, which is why none of the big companies G4's Control Risks Aegis.
Those kind of companies are really in the area of maritime security because they find it very challenging.
It's a very different area. Many of them have offices where they deal with governments all the time, certainly for us, and control risks to.
And they have they find it very difficult to comprehend exactly how this whole thing works and they will not get a place at the table at the IMO.
They will not be listened to because they're a commercial company. Now the evolution of maritime security regulation structure.
Ashley Whilst the maritime industry is one of the most litigious, if you look at everything in a comparison, it didn't start until things sank.
15th April 1912, the Titanic sank.
They then decided, Right, okay, we're going to have some regulations for what we do on ships.
Like we better have enough lifeboats for everybody on the ship.
We better have a 24 hour watch going on with the wireless new bit of care.
But that's what we're going to need. That was the first time that regulation was really introduced at sea.
And so it has gone on. And every single time that we've had a major event at sea has introduced a new piece of legislation.
So actually legislation is quite new in the maritime industry in comparison to what happens on land anyway.
But because it is all commercially driven, then that is why it's all about money.
And so that's why it got so litigious, so quick. But I've talked about 911.
We know what happened there as a result of which the ISP's code was introduced.
And that was really when maritime security was recognised.
It's actually coming on to then coming onto onto the radar screen.
But concurrent with that and as a result of the introduction of all the private military companies and private security companies,
there were a number of initiatives. And the first one was really the Montreal document issued on the 17th of September 2008.
That was right around about the time that we had the Blackwater incident in in Iraq.
However, and people say, well, why don't you use the Montreal document for this because of that.
Only to be used at times of armed conflict. Now the ethos works pretty well.
But but that's that's one of the main problems that piracy an instance at sea.
See, it is not armed conflict. Okay.
So many of the things that don't work.
The next document that came along in 2010 was the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service providers.
Rather unfortunately nicknamed iconic. And the problem with Ikoko was that it doesn't cover maritime security.
Initially, they were going trying to encompass everything commercial air, land, maritime security and the training of personnel and everything.
But from the end of paragraph seven, there you can see it will do that later on.
And whilst people were invited to go and sign it from the 9th of November 2010, you that actually they have no teeth at the moment.
One of the problems that they have it I have no criticism of the ethos of the document itself.
It's spot on. And indeed, when we were forming something, you had to be a signatory.
So we fully support it. However, in order for you to lay down something, you've got to be able to enforce it.
They have no way of enforcing this at the moment, and they have said,
we're going to set up a body to do this and the security companies are going to pay for it and we require a budget.
It was significant. I think it was 12 million CHF a year or something like that.
And the exchange rate is not not that different, which was, again, you know, they were expecting the security companies to pay for it.
So I don't know exactly where that stands at the moment, but it is unlikely that that will be moving forward particularly quickly.
So that seems to be, to be honest with you, pretty much dead in the water, certainly as far as maritime security is concerned.
So this is the place that actually makes the big difference as far as the maritime industry is concerned.
The IMO. One of the things,
because I've been to the United Nations and one of the big differences between the ILO and the United Nations
is that you get the normal kind of semi-circular area where all the flags like to sit was 167 of them,
and they will sit on the top table. But then you get a box at the back, about five rows of seats.
Each row is about 40 seats long, and that is what is filled up by industry.
So all the main shipping associations and the Shipping Association for Entertainer go in Chicago cruise liner, international association,
the parcel tankers the guys who look after Dutch tankers and the terminals, the oil company,
International Maritime Forum, Nautical Institute, each of the unions is there.
It's a big chunk. And most only observers, they do have a significant influence.
So it's quite a different dynamic that plays in the way that decisions are made.
But it is absolutely key. And so in May of 2011 Sum, he was very fortunate in so much as we were actually there whilst these were being written,
two circulars were written as a way of countering piracy 1405 and 1406.
Now this is the way that the IMO works and you can get hold of all these particular documents if you need them from that website.
But this was entering guidance for 1405 of ship operators,
ship managers and masters on the way that they should employ privately contracted armed security personnel.
1406 was to give guidance for the flagstones. So they came out with that first document or first set of documents that gave them,
as far as the IMO is concerned, significant amount of guidance to everybody.
And then last year they came out with a further two documents,
1443 1444 and these were designed to tell maritime security companies or private
maritime security companies how to behave and what to do and how to do it.
They also decided at that particular NSC Maritime Safety Committee that they were they were not going to accept any form of self regulation,
and it had to be done centrally. And so because they have a long history of utilising the international organisation standards,
they asked ISO to create a standard that they could then take forward.
So between and there were several documents that were also going to go along with 1443.
And so there was a core drafting team established that had two members of industry to two of the main shipping associations,
PIMCO and the International Chamber of Shipping.
And also Sammy was involved and a UK focussed organisation called Skegg, which stands for Security in Complex Environment Group.
So the four main players there that were inputting into this that was finalised
in September of last year and was then pushed forward to the next NSC in 91.
I just got back on, I think that was in second and was welcomed by the IMO, which is their way of endorsing it and taking it forward.
But there's more to that story which I got to talk about in a minute.
But concurrently with that, there have been a whole load of other publications, this first one half specimens from practices to explore federation.
What this does is it actually gives guidance to the ship owners on how to make their ship look harder.
It's a bit like if you've got a house, the first thing you do is have good luck on your door.
Then you put a line that comes on when people come down the path, etc., etc. Well,
it's so that you can put protective measures on your ships, whether it be barbed wire,
fire hoses using evasive manoeuvres whilst you have sea full speed ahead,
all those kind of things that will make your ship a more difficult target to hit.
BENKO And I'll keep on talking about Bimco because the Baltic International Maritime Council,
it represents approximately 65% of the world's tonnage and is one of the biggest and most influential shipping associations around today.
And they have made all of their money by putting in contracts that are accepted by the industry and used from then on,
which they did a lot of work and they came up with a particular document called Guardian,
which was an evolutionary document that was introduced at the beginning of last year.
Whilst not perfect, nothing ever is. But it is.
It was a it was a landmark document and a piece of foundation for maritime security.
And then we have been working very hard on making sure that the private maritime
security companies understand what they have to do to get Garcon right.
But also insurance for those companies is absolutely key.
And we can talk more later on about getting insurance for private maritime security companies.
Basic and bearing in mind that you are employing private individuals to possibly shoot and kill other private individuals is illegal.
Is illegal, and it's illegal. You know, your insurance is null and void and you therefore won't be taking onboard ships.
There's a whole load of legal and insurance complexities there, but we are working with the largest marches.
Is the largest ship broker or marine insurance broker.
So we work with them on that. So here we are.
We've got ISO what's called ISO 28,007.
I've talked about how it was how it came about.
ISO 28,000 covers supply chain security, which is why it's the natural fit to go in there and parse what that means.
There are two kind of ISOs that I'm going to talk about. I'm going to become a bit of a spotter now with regards to accreditation and regulation.
When you introduce a an ISO, whether it be 9001, which is what most people are familiar with, it can come in two versions.
It can either just pop out as an ISO. And what has to happen is that in order to be able to do that,
you have to go to the technical committee and lock them away, as it were, for three years.
At the end of that three years, an ISO would pop out. If you need something much faster than that,
a short cut or swept through to do it is that you formulate a standard between interested players, which is exactly what we did.
And you then called a publicly available specification that then has a life of three years from when it's issued,
which was 26th of November last year. During that period of time, it can be amended, adjusted, improved or whatever.
End of that three years, you can either get rid of it. If it hasn't been used, you can extend it for another three years or it can become an ISA.
Okay, so what we're hoping is that it will improve, it will evolve over the three years and then it will be adopted.
Meanwhile, inevitably and this is one of the things that Dan touched on, there are other people doing other things,
and the Americans really don't want to be left out in the cold on this one.
And so the American National Standards Institute and the American Society for Industrial Security Issues,
which whilst being international and does have a significant international representation,
still has quite an American slant on it and are working on producing what's
called PSC as private security companies particularly document that come out.
PSC one came out at the beginning of last year and the idea behind this is that the there will be a standard
set for the way in which private security companies and private military companies go about their business.
Now they come more of the pedigree of the Montoro document and the Ikot, because again,
a lot of it was based on what companies do in times of armed conflict on land.
So that's the kind of pedigree line that they have taken.
They're also drawing up PSC for and I'm not sure exactly what the drafting status of that is, but that's going to cover maritime security.
My question is to what end? Because we've already got everything working by the IMO and it is unlikely
that the this will be adopted by the IRA because they've already got the arms.
So that works exactly for them. So not quite sure what is happening there.
And to be honest with you, I don't think anybody is. Next stages with the ISO because, okay, we've got this standard.
You can go and buy it. 116 CHF and you have it in your little palm.
34 pages worth of information. And that lays out very clearly what private maritime security companies should do.
It was welcomed by the IMO MSI 91 last year,
but now it is up to the International Accreditation Council and the various national accreditation bodies
to decide upon how this standard is going to be turned into something against which you can audit.
Now there's a problem here because the way that that has happened previously, if we're talking purely land,
is that you would get the standard and then you would give it to your accreditation bodies that are nationally accepted.
So for instance, in the United Kingdom, you can say, okay, you know, Abbey Jones can do it, black and white Smith can do that.
And this and the other key difference is here, that the flag states will only accept certain authorities to do their certification for them.
And what they normally do is they go to the classification societies, because if you can imagine what classification societies are,
the guys that give ships their ammo to use to their seaworthiness certificate.
So the last the default setting, that is where they go. And many of the companies that are claiming that they will be able to do accreditation of
maritime security companies have got no track record as far as the flag states themselves.
But the next problem is you you remember I was talking about this shrinking market, got down to about 50 companies.
There are 90 and I'm sorry, 13 classification societies that are in the market at the moment that are regarded to be top ten and.
If there's only 50 companies out there. That's not many.
Lloyd's Register, for instance, which is one of the biggest, has 19% of the market.
As far as shopping is concerned, 19% of 50 companies is ten.
Are they going to have a whole department doing that for ten companies? I don't think so.
The likelihood is,
although there's a strong possibility that none of the classification societies will see the business case or the merit or the worth in doing it,
and nobody can tell them to do so. That is a problem that has to be overcome.
And indeed, I was speaking to Lloyds. Sorry, I was speaking to Newcastle about this particular problem yesterday and I'm seeing
Lloyds register in a few weeks just to see if there is any traction there.
And also the other one is lack of experience of auditors because most of them are actually working and doing the job.
We haven't had long enough for people to come out and say, Right, okay, now I want to go and audit people.
Now, I don't see that as a significant problem because I think if they can see consistency of work and experience, I think that will work.
But there are challenges ahead, and having the document in your hand is not the answer to this whole thing.
It may well be that it will take another year before we've actually got the next set of challenges resolved.
And then the last topic I'll touch on and I'm then going to stop and we can go
through questions is rules for the use of force versus rules of engagement?
Clear difference here are Europeans defensive are of a is offensive.
But in order for because nation states will use ROV whereas what the guys are doing at the moment
on the on the high seas they use IVF but there is no one single IRF each company has its own.
And so one of the things that we're working very hard on is actually formulating a standardised set of are you a benchmark?
iRF that can be used using utilising many of the best legal brains we can find, understand this kind of thing again.
So in summary, prime maritime security is a growth industry.
It's not just a short term opportunity because people moving things might stay.
As long as people move things by sea, there is going to be a security concern.
And with the Navy's disappearing, it's that the dynamics between commercial and commercial shipping stakeholders are extremely complex.
When you talk about maritime security, you have to understand that it's to be able to do that better.
So if you don't if you don't understand the supermarket and if you don't talk to them on a regular basis, it won't work.
The comment that was sent by that big security company, the difference between land security and maritime security is the land blue.
So wrong. Evolution of maritime security has moved swiftly, but it isn't there.
And I up, I believe, will be the next step.