Anyone remembers what airports looked like before 9/11?
     At FT we do: we have seen so many changes in the last twenty years it takes a storyteller to give you an idea, but changes in the last fifty years are such that it is impossible to combine it all without losing balance. And keeping a balance has not been entirely easy for many, including Air Cargo News.
     Suffice it to say that we started our publication in 1975, i.e. just after “In 1974, a bomb caused the crash of a TWA flight from Tel Aviv to New York, killing all 88 on board.” This quote is taken from “The Terrorist Threat to Transportation Targets and Preventive Measures” by Brian Michael Jenkins, which is probably the ultimate read for those who wish to understand what happened in the last few decades with regard to threats and manmade horrors in the air. Reading the book, you understand that 9/11 was not an abrupt explosion of violence, but came after a long series of other attacks. But the magnitude, abruptness and consequence of 9/11 was such that the whole world came to a complete halt for many hours. It was entirely different from anything else: catastrophic yet manmade, warlike but occurring in peace time . . . for whatever that means.
     Unlike Geoffrey and Sabiha I do not live in New York, but the 9/11 attack is certainly one of the scenes that remain in my brain as though I was there, albeit thousands of miles away. I was then working in Trieste and we had a TV in the office. Few minutes after the first plane crashed into the WTC we heard the news, we understood what was going on and we spent the rest of the day (and the evening, and night . . . ) watching, wailing and shivering at what was going to happen to us all. We did not know if that was actually the end of the world, but out thoughts touched that depth. For once now I may say the consequences, which were hard for everyone in the world, were nonetheless less dramatic than we had feared in those few initial moments watching the skyscrapers tumble to the ground, after some of their occupants had resolved to jump from their windows up there to find sure death on the hard ground of Manhattan. It was a veritable disaster, but there and then, we were thinking it could become worse than that. I was weeping so hard, thinking the world had betrayed me and everything around me was about to crumble.
     Everything stopped for a couple of days, but then little by little things went back to a new normal. People were working again, meeting, travelling and life was coming back relatively fast, but differently, in particular if you wanted to travel by air, as we all know.
     For international trade the absorption has been slightly more laborious, but in the end the frightening idea of “trade coming to a halt” as you would hear in those days, in fact never happened, and fortunately so. This does not mean that all the layers of security requirements imposed by the legislator in the years have always been absorbed without trouble. I started working in Brussels in 2003, the U.S. was asking for security measures to be adopted in Europe, but the concept had not yet filtered down into the society on this side of the waters. Then Madrid came in 2004 and the EU suddenly realized that it was no safe heaven as opposed to the U.S. and security came into our lives as a powerful tidal wave.
     As for many other trade associations, that was the moment when we started working on security legislation every day. I was then the DG of CLECAT and all of a sudden the security agenda had become so thick that there was a need to deal with these issues in an organised manner. The CLECAT Security Institute was created and delegates were sent from all over Europe to discuss the proposals that were pouring on us from all institutions.
     Twenty years have now gone and we have absorbed waves of security measures, as triggered by novel threats and risks that we have in the meantime detected. My view is this is not going to end, as it is in the human nature to spend much time troubling its own genus with imaginings that invariably create problems and sorrow. And reaction becomes inescapable.
     Since 2004 I have spent several years trying to deal with various legislators, explaining the frail balance that needs to be found between ensuring effective security measures and maintaining transport and trade to remain efficient and in good condition. This was a process that lasted many years and many layers of measures were contrived and consequently absorbed by traders. Freight forwarders have been on the front line all along the way, because of the very nature of their business: aviation, navigation and road and rail related measures were all affecting forwarders. On the other hand, one could argue that freight forwarders are natural “trouble-shooters”, if we could use this term to describe their role in resolving the issues and obstacles of international trade. So finding themselves in the middle of this legislative storm was just a fact of life for us, uncalled for, but in a way inevitable.
     Now I am no longer on that battlefield; somebody took the DG baton and that is none other than our friend Nicolette van der Jagt. She reacted to the recent new provisions adopted by the U.S. and Canada with regard to EU transport and trade with their respective countries. This is what Nicolette had to say about the recent measures: “CLECAT, the European association representing freight forwarders and logistics service providers, expresses its concerns over the recent imposition of stricter air cargo security requirements by both the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Transport Canada. These new regulations, affecting Europe- and CIS-based air cargo shippers, were implemented suddenly creating operational challenges and disruptions across the air freight supply chain.
     “The sudden nature of these changes has placed unnecessary strain on the industry. The introduction of new requirements without adequate communication or guidance has left freight forwarders in a difficult position. CLECAT calls for greater engagement with economic operators in the development and implementation of security directives, as this would ensure that necessary adjustments are made without causing undue disruption to international trade.
     “Furthermore, CLECAT stresses the need for harmonization of data requirements and filing processes of the PLACI programmes at global level to streamline operations for cargo operators dealing with multiple regimes. Any necessary changes should be thoroughly analysed in consultation with EOs to avoid the operational problems currently being experienced. The inconsistent approaches being taken by U.S. and Canadian authorities complicate compliance for companies operating in multiple markets. While security is paramount, any measures introduced should be both practical and proportional to the risk involved, avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens that hinder global trade. CLECAT urges the European Commission to take a proactive role in addressing these concerns with its U.S. counterparts at the upcoming EU-U.S. Transportation Security Cooperation Group meeting.”
     In my Brussels years, and even more so in Zurich, I have learnt the lesson that one should not listen to one voice only, in particular if we are talking of neighbouring (and at times differing) interests, as those represented by the EU and the US. Both speak the same language, but there is a lot to learn on the differences if you wish to read the fine print. This is one of those moments in my view.
     I reached out to a good friend of ours, Michael White. Do I need to introduce Michael to any of you readers? Mike is good friend of the FT and, among many other top level concerns, he has been the main engine of CNS in the USA for many years. This is what Mike told us about the new measures: “The recent developments in Europe and North America, requiring companies to provide more comprehensive data on shipments, were a necessary step toward strengthening air cargo security. While the initial ACAS data was limited, the introduction of additional data elements significantly enhances safety measures for air transport. To further elevate security, the implementation of the electronic consignment security declaration (eCSD) is critical, allowing more detailed information to move seamlessly through the supply chain.
     “The technology is now available to achieve what should have been done years ago. Leveraging tools like APIs, unified records, block-chain, and other data sources is key to ensuring efficiency and security. Moreover, the recent scrutiny on goods descriptions, coupled with the U.S. reassessing de minimis values for e-commerce shipments, highlights the growing pressure on governments to adapt. This ensures global trade can continue with minimal delays, despite the evolving challenges of e-commerce.”
     You could say it is just a question of balance, which is what CLECAT expects. Should we just stop here? Maybe we can offer our readers a few more lines, just contemplating the power of these evocative words.
     A question of balance, other than being the title of a prog LP published by the Moody Blues in 1970 is a pretty common cliché, but in the end it is a fact of life and we must live with it. If you cannot keep balance you often fall to extremes that meet hazards echoing one another. In other words, it is nobody’s interest to put measures in place that could just create obstacles, hence doing a favour to those who would like to thwart progress and peaceful trade.
     Getting back to music, if you listen to “The Dream”, published one year earlier and watch the video, which today looks historical, yet evocative, you realize we live on a small fragment of the universe and we are floating in the vacuum just for the power which is balancing opposing forces. It is an awesome concept, if you think of it and you feel so small, so weak and defenceless. This should motivate humankind to work together, cooperate to preserve this fail balance that keeps us all alive. Yet we are industrious at creating a lot of trouble, whilst we are busy finding solutions to the trouble we are inflicting on ourselves.
     Maybe it is indeed just a question of balance: not a balance that we have lost, but the balance we have never achieved. Coming back to the main subject of this tale, which ignited this meandering stream of conscience, we all need to think how many more layers of security do we wish to add in our trade. We should decide how much of these security measures traders can absorb without trouble, making sure security is appropriate to secure trade flows without distorting them.
     We all face risks and these become more evident as modern society brings unexpected immediateness. On another tone, what has been achieved by waging threats and terror? Not much it seems to me.
     I am not sure that I have answered the question of balance, but in security somebody did and we could listen to her: “Any measures introduced should be both practical and proportional to the risk involved,” as CLECAT advocates. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Thank you, Nicolette.
Marco Sorgetti

Editor's Note: We welcome comments from our readers and logistics professionals.