CONTROL RISK GROUP (CRG) HAS RELEASED RISK MAP ON BUSINESS WORLDWIDE

Of increasing concern to business is likely to be the enhanced risk of kidnap faced by employees in a growing number of regions. “Allowing for differences of motivation and method, kidnap has become much more of a global issue and new hotspots are likely to emerge in 2009,” says Jonathan Wood, a Control Risks analyst. “It has never been more important for business to understand the dynamics underlying security issues in each country of operation.”Kidnapping for ransom has become a global phenomenon and increasingly groups with a political agenda will use kidnapping as a fund-raising tool.Although the main driver in the growth of kidnap will remain its adoption by militant groups, the number of piracy incidents involving kidnap is surging – and will continue to do so in 2009.CRG speaks of a 'formidable backdrop of unpredictability', warning that security flashpoints will intensify, and business will face a challenging landscape of political risk and complex investment opportunities. Also predicted - Global economic contagion as hope is abandoned that growth in emerging markets would decouplefrom mature industrialised countries.2009 will be a post-surplus world in which scarcity of key resources increasingly drives political decision-making and poses significant challenges for business.While 2009 is unlikely to witness ‘resource wars’, scarcity will have a profound impact on security, operating and regulatory conditions. US foreign policy interests are not expected to change dramatically under President Obama, although he is more likely to work through international bodies than his predecessor, and his major priorities will remain preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. The emphasis in the ‘war on terror’ will shift further towards Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas.If the US economy does not improve by the second half of the year Obama will have to resist pressure for protectionism and financial over-regulation.Terrorist groups may test the new president’s resolve.“In 2009, risk will become still more significant as business is forced to negotiate an increasingly difficult and uncertain landscape”, says Control Risks Research Director, Adam Strangfeld. “It is clear from our analysis that the financial crisis is worldwide – the emerging markets as well as more mature economies are not immune.“But not all countries will have the same degree of exposure; and differentiating clearly between markets will become a critical factor in making successful investments; opportunities will remain to those who put a premium on careful pre-investmentplanning.“In many parts of the world, scarcity of resources is a mounting problem that cannot be confined by national boundaries or even regions. In 2009, scarcity will represent a strategic challenge for business that only firstclass intelligence can meet.”RatingsCountries with areas at EXTREME security risk [* indicates entire country rated at extreme]:Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo (DRC), Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka (north and north east), Sudan (Dafur).Countries with areas at HIGH security risk (by region) [* indicates entire country rated at high]:AFRICA: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad*, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Niger,Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe*AMERICAS: Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti*, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, VenezuelaASIA: Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), East Timor*, India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea*, Philippines,ThailandEUROPE: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, UzbekistanMIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA: Algeria, Palestinian Territories*, Saudi Arabia*, Turkey, Yemen*Countries with areas at MEDIUM security risk (by region) [* indicates entire country rated at medium]:AFRICA: Angola, Benin; Burkina Faso*, Comoros*, Congo, Djibouti*, Ghana, Guinea (Conakry)*, Guinea-Bissau*, Lesotho*, Madagascar*, Mozambique*, São Tomé & Príncipe*, Sierra Leone*, Senegal, South Africa,Swaziland*, Tanzania, Togo*, ZambiaAMERICAS: Argentina, Bolivia*, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador*, Guyana*, Honduras*, Jamaica*,Mexico*, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago, United StatesASIA: Cambodia*, China, Fiji*, Laos*, Mongolia*, Nepal*, Solomon Islands*, Tonga*EUROPE: Albania; France; Greece; Italy; Kazakhstan*; Macedonia*; Moldova, Serbia, Spain, Turkmenistan*MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA: Egypt*, Iran*, Israel*, Jordan, Lebanon*, Morocco, Syria.UK ratingThe UK is rated at low for political and security risk, on a scale rising from insignificant to low to medium to high and extreme. Low political risk is defined as - Business can operate with few problems. Political institutions are stable but there is some possibility of negative policy change. Legal guarantees are strong but business may face some regulatory or judicial insecurity. Non-state actors may occasionally hamper operations.And low security risk is defined as - Assets are generally secure and the authorities provide adequate security. Companies and personnel face only infrequent exposure to violence from terrorists or criminals; companies are unlikely to be systematically targeted for asset theft.Extreme is defined as risks being so bad that conditions are hostile, even untenable for businesses.
Source: http://www.crg.com

LONDON 2012: SECURITY BOOM OR BUST?

The success of the Olympic Games in China has set a high benchmark. With the London 2012 Games next in line, we must swiftly ask ourselves: ‘Is Britain ready for the greatest show on earth’?

By Wilson Chowdhry

When I pose that particular question, I’m at the same time suggesting that the emphasis needs to focus on the arrangements for security guarding.
London is one of the most high profile cities of the modern world, and one of the most visited. The influx of visitors the Olympic games will entice to our cramped Capital is in excess of £10,000,000 worth of ‘ticketed’ spectators, 16,000 athletes for the full Olympics, 4,500 athletes for the Paralympic Games and 3,000 officials. This will place significant burdens on our Capital’s resources – already, a budget of £692 million has been earmarked for Games-related transportation.
Crammed trains and buses – with or without air conditioning – are hot spots for antisocial behaviour. Many visitors to London at this time will be expecting to partake in all night revelry. It’s essential that the transport network tackles this concern. Besides, tightly-packed networks are a ‘honey pot’ for opportunist pickpockets.
The proposed development of 5,400 parking spaces at the Stratford City development, and an additional 2,500 at the main Olympic site, will require significant ‘policing’. Security patrols will be required, no doubt, mirroring recent evidence that vehicle crime has increased across the whole of London.
Parking management organisations will no doubt be inundated with work. During the Games themselves, event stewarding and event security teams will be working in tandem to ensure maximum safety within the arenas. In addition, a large number of door supervision teams will be securing the evening and daytime entertainment venues such as cinemas, museums, restaurants and licensing venues, clubs, pubs and hotels that will cater for the thrill-craving masses visiting from abroad and across Britain.
Specific crime prevention policies
Have these organisations specifically been advised on the need for a crime prevention or reduction policy? Naivety is the biggest threat, frankly, and with limited information cascading to these organisations – many of whom cannot cope with the existing binge drinking and drug-taking culture – are we setting ourselves up for a pretty big fall?
England has battled hard to remove the stain of hooliganism, and although it’s traditionally associated with football and primarily with local club support and rivalry (in particular when teams play abroad), the fact remains that it blights many sports. The Olympics brings together people from 150 participating countries with differing cultures, beliefs and customs. That being the case, security simply has to be high on the agenda.
The sheer size and scale of this security ‘need’ is going to be like nothing ever seen before in England, let alone London. In 1966, when England (thanks largely to West Ham United’s Bobby Moore, Martin Peters and hat-trick hero Geoff Hurst) challenged for (and won) the World Cup, matches were spread over a much wider area than a relatively small enclave like East London.
With ‘the world’s eyes’ spectating on the event via media or actual physical presence, and the constant threat of global terrorism in the background, the demand for security will be even more significant. You may find unconventional increases in security at tube and rail stations, within trains themselves and a potential doubling of protection efforts at airports, ferry ports and large commercial and retail outlets in the Capital.
I say unconventional not because it’s unusual to have security at these locations, but rather to stress my perception that unprecedented levels of manpower will be deployed to foster the perception of a safer London. Only recently, the debacle at the Taj Mahal Hotel and Trident Hotel in India demonstrated that sporting events attract lots of attention. Not all of it is positive, and the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in India are highlighting the need for effective security at London 2012.
The threat is very real... and persistent
Of course, Britain has had its fair share of terrorist incidents (involving British-born militants) in recent times, with 7/7, the attempted bombings in its aftermath and the Glasgow Airport attack still engraved in the minds of the public.
The Greek authorities had spent 900,000 Euros – the equivalent of £780 million – on security for the 2004 Games, and we remember the incidents in Istanbul and Madrid. Worse still, in 1972 the Munich massacre occurred when militant Palestinians associated with the rebel group Black September slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes. Even to a morbid thinker, an incident at the 2012 Games would cause global shockwaves. It should be apparent to all that, probably this very minute, there are heinous minds conspiring towards devastation vis-à-vis 2012.
I fear that lack of adequate resource planning and early risk assessment will lead to supply shortages of security personnel and an increased threat. Any security shortcomings are likely to beget an increased incident, as most petty crime is opportunistic and even well-planned crimes require lapses in security.
Already, the London International Olympic Committee has increased the proposed security budget by £238 million on top of the £600 million or so already earmarked. This is, of course, designed to cover physical, electronic and manpower provision. However, there’s still no obvious dialogue occurring between industry bodies such as the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the British Security Industry Association and the International Olympic Committee for London. ‘Guesstimates’ without consultation on a wider spectrum will lead to frailty in the planning process, culminating in miscalculation and adversity.
In a recent article published in the print version of Security Management Today, I read an article by Tom James (entitled ‘Up for the Cup’) about the joint agency approach and research fieldwork undertaken at the 2008 Ryder Cup in America by the security organisers for the 2010 event being held in Wales. They have highlighted the need for improved communication and better use of CCTV as major areas. With the expected large-scale security deployment and the need for good visual and audio communication and awareness, I do hope that both these aspects are thoroughly examined in respect of the 2012 Olympics.
ACS: the preferential service
At this juncture, while the potential security threat is high on the agenda, a great opportunity exists for the SIA as Regulator to promote the elitist and preferential service provided by its Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)-registered companies. A positive move would be to engage in dialogue with the 2012 Committee and broach the subject, detailing to all relevant parties that security – whether physical, electronic or human in nature – can be of an exceptional standard and is obtainable.
We need to inform potential security purchasers that they could benefit substantially by procuring services via the ACS list of companies. Why not go further still and recommend that ACS status become a prerequisite for the tendering process for any security contract associated with the Olympic Programme, and that such a stipulation should crossover all aspects of the project whether concerning construction, event or exit stage?
My reasons for suggesting this are due to the dire economic climate in which we find ourselves, and the long-lasting and, sadly, still growing tendency for security consumers to opt for competitive prices over best value service. This is creating a rise in the rogue firms providing unlicensed officers. I’ve also heard of very shady training practices involving a local training academy that is completing exam papers for students. Worse still, an allegedly SIA licensed applicant arrived at my offices recently in response to a recruitment advertisement that he clearly could not have read, evidenced by his inability to speak more than four words - Hello, Bye, Yes and No – of the Queen’s English.
I’m not suggesting that all ACS-registered companies are impeccable, but that benchmark does represent the highest standard of service in our industry and offers a flexible enough framework for a wide enough number of organisations to attain the standard. Unlicensed officers at the Olympics would pose an extremely dangerous threat. I do hope the SIA addresses this matter with the impetus it genuinely deserves.
Increased LDN provision from the Regulator?
I’m both concerned and flabbergasted that, thus far, no-one in the industry – most notably the Regulator – has broached the subject of a temporary license, or indeed increased Licence Dispensation Notice (LDN) provision, for the period of the Olympic Games themselves, not to say the build-up and deconstruction phases.
When the security contracts for the Olympics begin to disseminate, many companies will need to recruit quickly and for the short term. For the event period, how might companies be expected to pay the full three-year licence fee for a large-scale, short term resource that may only be required for that three-week period of the event?
Furthermore, with the nature of those external to our industry to de-prioritise security until the last moment possible, is it not prudent for the SIA to roster temporary increases to the administration staff responsible for authorising licenses? In tandem with that, a concerted effort to highlight the need for early security planning among the 2012 management team and their associates and suppliers would seem to be the way forward.
Currently, the SIA offers a 15% LDN provision with a potential increase option for special circumstance. I put it to the Regulator that it may wish to consider increasing the potential for LDN to at least a 30% ratio during the six months prior period and for one month after the Olympic events have ended.
Licence applications aplenty
Finally, the Regulator began the process of licensing static and patrol officers in 2006, and door supervisors in 2005. It will surely find that it’s overwhelmed with new license applications in the run-up to the Olympics. Perhaps now is a good time to consider potential increases in the licence application approval staffing numbers and resources such that it can cope with a potential logistical nightmare.
Like most Londoners, I’m tremendously excited by the prospect of the Olympic Games coming to town, and believe that the event might trigger an economic upturn. I would love to hear post-event comments that match those emanating from the recent Beijing Games thanks to its evidently supreme performance and management.
A safe Olympic Games for all
However, I foresee disaster for our country’s image and reputation if we do not take the issue of security seriously enough.
If our athletes perform half as well as they did in Beijing we would have had a great result, but matters are gearing up for an even better climax given home advantage.
Here’s to a safe and secure Olympic Games, then, in which athletes from all over the world can safely display the depth of their sporting talents, and spectators can watch them in absolute safety and security.

Wilson Chowdhry is managing director of AA Security